Think you can out-design Detroit? $100 gas card to the winner
The 2008 Ford Focus gets 35 mpg on the highway. Back in 1997, the Ford Escort (the Focus' predecessor) wagon got 34 miles (37 under the old EPA system). That's not much of an improvement in the last decade. Ecomodder thinks people can do better. That's why the website is offering up a $100 gas card to the best redesign of a 1997 Escort wagon that was purchased specifically for this project, so if you think you can beat the pants off Detroit in increasing the MPG rating of this basic ride, here's your chance. Hypermiling tricks are fine, because the goal here is to try and double the MPG number.
There is a sample redesign over on Ecomodder, and you can see that you don't need any great Photoshop skills or anything (although pictures will be accepted). Simply describing the improvements you'd like to include is all that it will take to win. According to Ecomodder, "Submission[s] will be judged on numerous factors including how comprehensive/complete the design/plan is thought out (engine, trans, rolling resistance, aero, paint etc.). [...] The longer and more complete the list of modifications the better. 'Best' submission will be judged by Xfi and any moderators of EcoModder.com that have not officially submitted a design."
The contest runs through the end of February.
[Source: Ecomodder, h/t to B. Jones]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dad 3:23PM (12/09/2007)
"That's not much of an improvement in the last decade. "
Not true!!! 10 years, with more equipment, it does better with mileage, reduced pollution and safety. To be fair (and why would we want to be fair?) let us adjust the rules to reflect the changes in all the items noted above.
Take a ride in a 1997 Escort and then take a ride in a 2008 Focus. No comparison. I jusy get so annoyed by these mindless and simplistic comparisons done by the "experts".
Reply
rgseidl 4:26PM (12/09/2007)
1. They don't specify which EPA test procedures the modified car would be subject to: those for 1997 or those for 2008?
2. They don't specify which safety standards the modified car would have to meet.
3. They don't specify what creature comforts (range, performance, HVAC, soundproofing, all-weather capability etc.) must be retained to keep the resulting vehicle sufficiently attractive for a mainstream customer.
4. They don't specify a budget for the modifications.
5. They insist that all proposals be published on their discussion thread, so anyone submitting early would give others a chance to steal his ideas in an effort to claim the prize for themselves.
6. They don't state how the contest will be judged.
7. They don't say if the winning proposal will actually be implemented, in what timeframe or by whom.
8. They are offering just $100 for a comprehensive program of modifications designed to double fuel economy. If you know how to accomplish that, why would you give the knowledge away virtually for free?
9. The registration on their web site appears to be broken. It doesn't send the email you need to activate your account.
10. But most of all, they completely fail to articulate why the massive effort required to DOUBLE the fuel economy of a legacy vehicle is - in their view - even worthwhile. Yes, it's interesting to discover what's technically possible. If you tune a car for maximum power, sound or some other parameter that benefits mostly the owner, you only need to worry about that one car.
However, to effectively tune for fuel economy, you need to consider the unit volume in which the target model could be sold at various potential mod levels and associated price points. It's the aggregate fuels savings from all units sold that determine the aggregate benefit. With fuel prices in the US still only half those in Europe, a hard-headed calculation will tell you the budget for enhancements is quite limited if you assume e.g. a five-year ROI horizon. Consumers will only be prepared (a little) more than that if they are confident that they are not the only ones doing their part for the common good. Ergo, affordability is absolutely central to fuel economy mods if they are to be anything but a weird science project in someone's garage.
Conclusion: it would make a whole lot more sense to shoot for an extra 15% fuel economy on a tight budget, rather than insist on 100% gain on an essentially unlimited one.
Reply
Mort 5:13PM (12/09/2007)
A hundred dollars is worth about two seconds of my time. They need to go bk, that's my idea, let someone else build the car of the future. Choke on it Ford.
Reply
PositiveGreen 6:53PM (12/09/2007)
I think it is great that they are trying to DOUBLE the MPG of a vehicle. You are correct in the fact that it does not state pollution/safety/comfort requirements. It definitely is easier to increase the fuel economy of a vehicle when you don't have to worry about these items and loads/aero/weight. But to effectively DOUBLE the MPG would still be a feat.
Seems to me that the site this contest is from (EcoModder.com), is more of a 'sounding board' for fuel saving ideas that are meant to be shared. I don't believe that they are offering the $100 to try to buy a 'secret MPG potion' that you may possess. $100 is obviously not a lot of money. Seems to be more of a bonus or incentive to visit their site and not a devious plot to steal your ideas.
Why all the negative comments? I don't see people claiming to be 'experts' or trying to design a new mass marketed vehicle with this contest. I see people trying to share fuel saving ideas and implement as many as they can on that one vehicle in a contest form. The name of the site is ecoMODDING.com. That would imply that they are interested in Modification that they can implement on their vehicles.
If you have a fuel saving modification, why wouldn't you want others benefiting from it too? Too many paranoid and pessimistic nay sayers that are afraid of people $tealing your precious ideas. If you want to patent something for monetary purposes, so be it. I don't think that these people are after that. They are after the usually simple but overlooked ideas that can benefit everyone’s Pur$e and Planet.
This has been just my humble opinion…now I think I will stop over to EcoModder.com and see what it is about, as not to be so harsh in passing judgment before having all the facts. Even if I only pick up one or two suggestions, it will be worth my few minutes. Good Day.
Reply
Dad 7:05PM (12/09/2007)
"Why all the negative comments?"
Easy answer, because the "negative" comments are based upon simple facts and observations. If calling baloney sausage "BS", then why is that "negative"? Sorry if some of us cannot be "Fan boys" for seemingly poorly executed and poorly reasoned ideas. If being "critical" of bad ideas is a "bad idea" then count me among that group.
Reply
Phil L. 8:06PM (12/09/2007)
To expand on the above...
I must admit, I harbored some less than cheery thoughts after checking out the contest thread, though I didn't feel the need to share them.
I suspect many readers on the site are looking for the future of broad-based solutions that can meet out future transportation needs in a world with limited resources. So yes, modifying 10 year old cars might be viewed something of a distraction from the real issues at hand.
That said, I appreciate efforts made to make the most of what you've got right now. Personally, I have great hopes for the future of EVs - but my reality is that there's little hope I'll be able to buy an EV anytime soon.
So wish the EcoModders well, but know that what many of us are looking for will come from other sources.
Reply
Benjamin Jones 8:44PM (12/09/2007)
As the suggestor of this story, I will throw my own bit in.
First of all, thank you to Phil L. for your positive comment. I agree with you. This is not a solution that everyone could do. It's just one guy striking out on his own. But here's how I look at it:
Oftentimes there is talk about WVO and other veggie oils, and as cool as that is, it's not scalable. I think we should reuse as much veggie oil as possible, but it's not the world's solution.
That said, I don't think this contest is about asking being to emulate the results to solve the world's problems. I believe, judging by what I have observed personally, that there needs to be a paradigm shift before we can find a solution.
Sure, faithful ABG readers like ourselves know we could all drive smart cars and EVS and be perfectly safe and comfortable, but MANY people still think that cars get the best mileage they can and there's no reason to even think about it. This contest is to show people that there are options out there. You can drive a station wagon and still get great mileage, but it's up to the manufacturers to make those changes.
I have been telling people that cars could be designed much more FE friendly for years, but people tend to assume your nuts for saying that. I hope this design competition shows the average person who looks at it that EVERY car could get better fuel economy.
When reading the news on ABG I know it's easy to sit back and think we can just wait for the future to come and save us, but I think we all need to work to pave the way for theat future to make it into the mainstream.
Thanks for your time, remember, negativity is counter-productive.
Reply
rob 10:56PM (12/09/2007)
Put a gallon of acetone in the tank. There's a 10%-15% improvement right there.
It's not exactly a "green" (or cheap) way to get there, however...
Reply
Mort 1:23PM (12/10/2007)
This is just a PR move. Ford is going to do what Ford is going to do. They have fought fuel efficiency standards for decades. They are a part of the problem, not part of the solution. They already sell much more fuel efficient cars in Europe, but not here. Now they want a cynical answer for how to make a three ton truck twice as efficient? Give me a break!
Reply
Mort 1:25PM (12/10/2007)
Even if I had the idea, they would buy it up and hide it. The automakers are monsters.
Reply
Benjamin Jones 2:48PM (12/10/2007)
Mort - This is not a competition run by Ford, so don't worry, everything will be public, from the entry ideas to the process to the product.
Reply
Mort 3:45PM (12/10/2007)
Screw Detroit, let them rot. I wouldn't give them the sweat off of my nether regions.
Reply