Value of Engine Efficiency??

[SBBlue]

Here's a somewhat general question I would like to toss out to the group.

What is the value of engine efficiency? Now I'm not talking about vague concepts here, but something a little more concrete.

If there was something that could be bolted on an existing engine that would increase fuel efficiency by, say, 30% -- how much would that be worth?

For convenience sake, let's restrict the discussion to new engines, but allow them to be either gas or diesel engines. Would consumers pay 30% more for an engine that was 30% more efficient? How about 30% more for an engine that was 10% more efficient? Or 50% more for an engine that was 50% more efficient?

And just for argument sake, let's say the engine modification doesn't effect the engine in any way other than the efficiency -- i.e., it doesn't affect the engine's power output, power density, durability, ease of operation, service requirements, volume or weight characteristics. To keep a little bit of realism, let's say the cost of manufacturing the modification also increases 30%. In other words, every thing is the same, except the engine is now 30% more efficient. How much is that worth?

For extra credit -- let's suppose that a manufacturer was going to have to drop a certain vehicle due to fuel efficiency requirements. How much would they pay (in percentage of current cost) to have a modification that increased efficiency 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%?

My feeling, based upon absolutely no evidence whatsoever, is that the increase in value of the engine would about be equal to the increase in efficiency. However. . . .I also suspect that people would be willing to pay 100% more for an engine that was 50% more efficiency.

I'm anxious to hear the collective wisdom here!!!

 

[GregLocock]

Now we've established (for a very small sample) what extra price people will pay for reduced running costs.

rpmag will pay 1500 for a 30% reduction in fuel costs, Pat will pay 3000 for a 49% reduction.

Wow. That is a tough market, but pretty much in line with the $50 per 1% improvement we came up with before.

It still staggers me that by that logic neither Pat nor rpmag would pay $7000 extra for a car that uses no fuel!

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[rpmag]

I would pay a great deal more (than say $7000) for a car that used no fuel, given this also represents the proportion of reduction in the actual running costs!
If the equation was no 'fuel' but say much greater servicing costs etc...well then the total overall package is what I would consider.

 

[patprimmer]

Greg

My opinion is based on time to repay investment rather than actual %age decrease in operating costs.

I would pay nothing if I only did 1000 ks per year, but I would pay a lot if I did 100,000 ks per year.

I never considered the no fuel deal, as I once raced a sailing boat, and I know just how much it costs to catch the "free" wind and convert it into motion, or at least how much it costs when you try to convert it into more motion than anyone else in the fleet. Just ask the guys who race for the America's Cup.

Regards
pat pprimmer@acay.com.au
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[GraviMan]

Interesting thread...

"...is that the increase in value of the engine would about be equal to the increase in efficiency."

That sounds like a pretty good estimate. The powertrain represents (along with the body) the most expensive component in the car. Once I've decided what sort of car I'm after, the first thing I look at is MPG. I expect it to handle well, be quiet and well packaged.

In fairness, I have actually been running the same Metro diesel for 11 years. I have had second (company) cars in that time, but always ended going back to the cheapest (total) way to get from A to B. You expect depreciation, and I run cars into the ground anyway.

For this market, you are better aiming the product at someone who only grudgingly replaces there favourite old hack. At 60mpg, I know my old (but modified/upgraded) machine doesn't compete against the latest generation of tier4 compliant compact cars (eg VW lupo). When my old machine does finally die (and at only 160'000 miles or ~4000 hours that won't be soon), I will do what I always do - look at MPG then go for a test drive...

Mart

 

[rpmag]

I obviously have a different perspective to Pat, the investment will be made regardless (cannot do without a vehicle and for various reasons one needs to be purchased) and the total operating costs are seen as part of the ongoing investment (in addition to the initial purchse price and potential for retained value within the market place) in the vehicle and function of vehicle.

 

[ivymike]

check this page - they seem to take a pretty good crack at the question just below table 2.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/Enviro...chnology/study2/Final_report/final_report.htm

 

[Warpspeed]

Another factor nobody has mentioned is depreciation.

A new vehicle that is more fuel efficient might actually cost more over the first few years, than an older car that is less fuel efficient. That is if total running costs are the only criteria. A new car would need to be pretty good to end up in front.

In the end it probably depends on how you see your car and yourself. SUVs and sporty cars are bought by younger drivers for reasons other than fuel economy. On the other hand, a more mature driver that buys a small econo box might be vitally interested in fuel mileage.

 

[GregLocock]

According to Oak Ridge National Lab report ORNL/TM-2004/181

Future Potential of Hybrid and Diesel
Powertrains in the U.S. Light-Duty
Vehicle Market
August 2004
David L. Greene
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
K. G. Duleep
Energy & Environmental Analysis, Inc.
Walter McManus
J. D. Power and Associates

(Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) Information Bridge:
Web site:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge)

... the average customer would switch to a higher efficiency engine with no performance penalty based on a 3 year payback. The range among Californian consumers fell between 2 and 10 years, I'm not too sure how they worked back to 3 years.

It also includes a price elasticity model for hybrid and diesel vehicles.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[rpmag]

Do you feel that designs such as the territory (SUV?) are well placed (as far as design) to switch to Diesel/hybrid?

 

[GregLocock]

Frankly, if I was going to try to get to there (an efficient car) I wouldn't start from here (an SUV).

The reality of the situation is that in Australia and the USA fuel is cheap, even now. People who buy hybrids are not really expecting to save money, they are mostly making a statement.

So yeah, bring on the hydrogen powered Hummer2, the hybrid Escape, and the diesel Landcruiser. The bigger the car the bigger the statement.

A couple of handy rules of thumb I've just worked out - urban fuel consumption is pretty much proportional to vehicle weight, for a given engine/transmission technology, and a car with a 0-60 mph time of 9 seconds will spend 90% of its life at 25% of full power or less.





Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[GraviMan]

Just for reference sake in the UK we pay approx $1 US per litre, and it's still rising. Our country is entirely dependant on the Gulf stream for it's warm climate (ie will be first affected by global warming). The average commute to work (in the south) is 50 miles or more, and house prices are pushing the need to commute up more and more.

Frankly, i get quite irritated when i see folks driving SUVs (hybrid or otherwise) just to make a statement. To me the statement is "I don't care about anyone but myself, and CO2 emissions are their problem". I am not the only person in Europe who has this view...

Mart

 

[rpmag]

Greg it may be of interest to note that an federally based economist I spoke to suggested that the large car market is where they would like to have the greatest impact in eff'cy given the SUV segment is the fastest expanding segment and that most of the cars are used for domestic purposes.
GraviMan I would agree that for the UK raod conditions that I experienced SUV's would be contraindicated simply for parking/road width/fuel useage issues.

 

[GregLocock]

Well, if the Feds want to get SUVs more efficient they'd better pull their thumbs out of their resting places and do something about it. If they introduce new regs today it would take domestic vehicles 3 or 4 years to meet them, and so no effect on the overall fleet fuel consumption for about 8 years. What it would do if they introduce it before then is allow the importers to import their existing overseas vehicles and kill the domestic manufacturers.

Not that I'm biased but at the very least they should start taxing imported SUVs and 4WDs at the same rate as imported cars .



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[SMOKEY44211]

It has been my observation that a high percentage of the motoring public (greater then 50%) are willing to pay a premium price for vehicles that actually get worse milage and are more costly to maintain. 4WD. SUV as oppossed to a 2WD. passenger car. larger engine option are a couple of examples. A common belief is that the manufacturers could offer greater fuel economy but are economically linked to the oil companies not to do so. This same group expects the government to address the issue of petroleum based energy and air quality, knowing very little if anything about existing and pending legislation that would have an effect. That having been said the figures that I have been able get suggest that only 1/3 of the new vehicle puchases in this country ( United States) are made by individuals. I will withold my opinion as to a possible solution rather then risk this disscussion degenerating into a political aurgument.---------Phil

 

[GraviMan]

"...I would agree that for the UK road conditions that I experienced SUV's would be contraindicated simply for parking/road width/fuel useage issues."

Well, RPMag, my concern is really with the CO2 emissions. My point is that someone driving an SUV in the US of A, is having a direct affect on global warming, hence the gulf stream, hence the future of my country's climate. If the icebergs continue their trend southwards (according to Canadian Coast Guards) my country is in real trouble. It's very easy to drive around in a superpower, and not worry about climate change somewhere remote like Europe.

I've got nothing against large vehicles with one occupant, i just would like to see MUCH better mpg. Ideally hybrid negates the mass problem, but these vehicles have GOT to become more streamlined. 20 mpg is just a very bad joke.

Mart

 

[rpmag]

Smokey just for information the Ford Territory is available in 2wd using the basic 6 cyl driveline from a large local family car. It is still considerably heavier than said family car, but for a tall person such as I the added height has great attraction.
Greg I agree with you.
Graviman, my own country is in a similar position re climate change, but we are perhaps straying too far from the topic?

 

[GraviMan]

"Graviman, my own country is in a similar position re climate change, but we are perhaps straying too far from the topic?"

We were doing a cost/benefit analysis of more economical engine development...

Mart

 

[DesignOutsourcing]

Interesting topic and responses. I get a sense that we are reaching the limits of the old Otto cycle engine's efficiency with current fuels. With variable valve timing, variable induction systems, finely tuned EFI etc. there is not a lot left do do except perhaps use new materials to lighten the reciprocating mass and reduce friction. Maybe throttleless systems and cylinder decoupling will reduce pumping losses. So maybe a new engine type or new fuels are the best bet?

I see that the Honda hybrid keeps the valves closed in the cylinders that are not in use-- would have thought this would be a huge drag. I once lost a cam lobe on 6-cyl Triumph and removed the pushrods from that cylinder-- power seemed to drop by half. Can part of the crank be decoupled instead?

I think the hybrids should be able to use an engine designed for a very narrow rev range and so be better optimised (and more efficient.) The electric motors can do the accelerating. Maybe combine CVT with the motors to keep a smaller engine turning at a near constant efficient speed.

As vehicles become bigger (eg SUVs) the accident damage to smaller cars increases. I drive an SUV so that I am higher (better visibility), more metal around me (safer in a crash), and bigger wheels/tyres/suspension for those off-road excursions to avoid accidents (very bad drivers in crowded Asian country.) My SUV pollutes far less than the 2-stroke bikes and 3-wheelers here plus I am contributing to the national coffers more!

What would most governments do without the tax from fuel? I read a report from one EU country which was very worried about electric vehicles as a threat to their tax revenues.

cheers, derek

 

[patprimmer]

Derek Derek Derek. Hold onto your hat.

You use this thread, with contributions by the guys here who do some serious work on vehicle safety, and on real gains in reducing environmental impact, and you claim you drive an SUV because of it's safety and because it's environmentally friendly.

I will let those more qualified answer this one.

Be gentle guys. Remember this site has a code of conduct that does not condone treating people with disrespect, even if they show extreme ignorance. A detailed answer that meets that code is beyond me at this instant.

Regards
pat pprimmer@acay.com.au
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[rpmag]

Derek the first bit had me interested the latter part, well I am mindful of Pats comments. However I hope that in one of your off-road events you do not roll the SUV and find out how helpful the 'more-metal' is.