Ford plans to increase efficiency by dramatically reducing weight
Ford Fiesta in NYC – Click above for high-res image gallery
While we often seem to focus our eco-friendly microscope on the advancement of alternative powertrains and biofuels, it's important to remember that there are lots of ways to improve the overall efficiency of an automobile. One relatively low hanging fruit just waiting to be plucked off the magic efficiency tree would seem to be a major reduction in vehicle weight. In all actuality, though, it's not as easy as it sounds to put a modern automobile on a diet. Why?
Today's vehicles are packed with all kinds of safety equipment, power accessories, sound deadening material and more, all in the name of improving the driving experience. As much as we'd like to see a few hundred pounds lopped off in the name of fuel efficiency, car buyers have (for the most part) proven that they won't purchase vehicles that lack such conveniences. Plus, the federal government wouldn't allow a sacrifice in safety for obvious reasons.
Still, there are ways of attacking the overweight automobile problem, and Ford's reportedly on the case. In fact, Ford plans to cut 500 to 750 pounds of flab from each automobile that it redesigns. A reduction of weight on this magnitude should allow Ford to reduce the size of the engine powering the vehicle, further increasing fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean selling more diesels in the U.S., according to Nancy Gioia, Ford's director of sustainable mobility technology and hybrid vehicles. Can't win 'em all.
Gallery: Ford Fiesta in NYC
[Source: Consumer Reports]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
paulwesterberg 11:34AM (4/09/2009)
Carbon fiber is lighter than aluminum and stronger than steel. We need industrial processes to create high quality components quickly and cheaply.
They already use carbon fiber in race car chassis now which are very strong and safe. The light weight allows for very quick acceleration, deceleration and better handling at high speed.
Reply
Noz 12:37PM (4/09/2009)
The biggest problem with composites is that they are extremely inelastic. The failure point for composites is extremely rapid, sudden, and catastrophic.
Beester 12:47PM (4/09/2009)
I thought carbon was evil and the certain cause of the destruction of the planet. We should stay away from carbon at all costs.
Randy C. 11:46AM (4/09/2009)
We are going to see a lot more of this. As a power source the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) has hit its limit. The engineers are scrimping and scratching to get every little bit of gain in efficiency.
The only other ways the auto makers are going to meet the new fuel economy standards is outside of the ICE.
The first way is to reduce drag. A car has to push a lot of air out of the way so an aerodynamic shape is a must. An example of this is the Aptera with its .15 CD. So much for individual style.
Second is reduce weight mostly by reducing the car's size. Weight is the enemy of all cars. It takes more energy to accelerate a heavier car to a given speed. Gone are the behemoth land yachts we've come to love. We will also see more and more use of plastics and composites.
Third is more use of hybrid and start-stop technologies where the engine is shut down when it's not needed. Engine not running means no fuel is being burned. Also electric cars will be even more important for example many go over 100 miles on the same amount of energy that is in a gallon of gasoline.
So unless somebody comes up with a new way of burning fuel to produce mechanical power the cars are going to get smaller, made of plastic and start to look alike.
Reply
Carney 12:06PM (4/09/2009)
"Unfortunately, that doesn't mean selling more diesels in the U.S., according to Nancy Gioia, Ford's director of sustainable mobility technology and hybrid vehicles. Can't win 'em all."
Petro-diesel is a filthy fuel, as anyone who has ever seen the clouds of gray-black smoke spewed out from a semi's pipes (more like chimneys) can tell you. It actually emits MORE smoke, soot, and particulate matter than gasoline.
Reply
ronEbear 12:30PM (4/09/2009)
Modern clean diesels can run as clean or cleaner than the typical gasoline engine.You are obviously stuck in the 70`s in terms of diesel knowledge.
Ignatius 12:43PM (4/09/2009)
Every vehicle you've probably seen belching that smoke was probably 20+ years old. Diesels are a hell of a lot cleaner nowadays.
oollyoumn 12:51PM (4/09/2009)
"Modern clean diesels can run as clean or cleaner than the typical gasoline engine."
If this is true, why do I not see any diesels with high (good) air pollution scores from the EPA? I see many gas engines with scores of 8 or 9 and I don't consider them clean. Diesels get a 6 and they are called clean. I think the term "Clean Diesel" is another marketing lie like "Pork... The other white meat."
Dave 1:30PM (4/09/2009)
@carney
Have a look here: http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/NewFiesta/FueleconomyandCO2emissions
The new Fiesta's range of Diesel engines are all rated 'A' by the EU for pollution levels (grams per kilometer) compared to 'B' and 'C' for the Petrol equivalents.
meme 2:03PM (4/09/2009)
Why did you just link a chart of CO2 emissions in a discussion of soot and smog? Nobody is denying that they emit less CO2. But they emit tons more NOx, SOx, PM, etc. And pointing out that there are diesels that are cleaner than some gasoline cars is like pointing out that there are paranoid schizophrenic gunowners who think the government is out to kill them that don't kill anyone and non-paranoid-schizophrenic non-gun-owners who don't think the government is out to kill them who do. That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that if you're a paranoid schizophrenic gunowner who things the government is out to kill you, you're a lot more likely to kill someone.
Show me a single SULEV diesel on the market today. Just one. I mean, come on, why do you think the EU standard for NOx emissions on diesels is 3 times more lax than for gasoline, or that they have to have particulate emissions caps on them? Almost none would met the gasoline NOx standards, and without a PM cap, diesels would pour out the particulate matter even more than they already do.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:49PM (4/10/2009)
renEBear:
There is not a single Diesel, modern as it may be, that runs cleaner than the equivalent gas engine.
They have cleaned up their act a ton, they are now as clean as the dirtiest gas engines allowed. But the cleanest gas engines are far cleaner. Just check fueleconomy.gov.
Clean Diesel is a marketing term, it doesn't mean they are actually clean.
Noz 12:34PM (4/09/2009)
Wow Ford...what a genius move.
Considering the piles of overweight garbage they've been making for the last 50 years (at least in this country), I'm actually surprised they had the ability to reason this conclusion out.
Reply
watergapnomad 1:57PM (4/09/2009)
A company by the name of Metallicum, a subsidiary of Manhattan Scientifics, has a process for producing nano structured metals (titanium, aluminum, steel and others) that can help to dramatically cut weight from cars and even aircraft.
http://www.mhtx.com/
---Manhattan Scientific’s nanostructured metal technology is based on over 16 years of highly focused research and development.
Nanostructured metals and alloys possess significantly enhanced mechanical properties that include, for example, increased strength without concurrent losses in ductility, and significantly increased resistance to fatigue fracture. Nanostructured commercially pure grades of titanium have proven to also possess excellent machinability as well as high toughness and strength.
Manhattan Scientifics has developed unique processing methodology for producing nanostructures in a wide range of ductile metals and alloys and is now commercializing this new and revolutionary technology.---
Reply
meme 2:09PM (4/09/2009)
It's not an issue of sacrificing features. It's an issue of purchase price, and that's all it is. There are countless lighter-weight materials out there that can be used -- maraging steels, aluminum alloys, nickel superalloys, fiber composites, and on and on down the line. But they cost more.
There are also some things that don't cost more per-car, but require upfront changes. For example, shifting body-on-frame vehicles to unibody construction, making lighter wiring harnesses through networking, selling the market on more streamlined and lighter shapes, etc. Things of that nature.
Reply
jharlan 2:20PM (4/09/2009)
You anti diesel folks are just not very well informed. The predominance of evidence apparently doesn't sway you from what you already believe. Modern diesels are at least 30% better than petrol vehicles in economy and 12% better in total emissions The Europeans are greener than we are and have embraced the modern turbo diesel. Do you think you are smarter than the Europeans? We can make diesel out of agricultural by products and waste, as well as algae. Your anti diesel prejudice is going to force us into German made cars. Is that what you want? All the knowledgable people driving VWs, Beemers and Mercedes. Here in the states we are getting way behind in modern diesel tech and we are going to get our asses kicked again because of you!.
Reply
PabloKoh 3:03PM (4/09/2009)
The Europeans are greener because their fuel is taxed at over 200%.
PeterG 3:04PM (4/09/2009)
That 12% make only makes sense,if you consider CO2 as the main pollutant,
I am for efficiency, conservation and producing less C02, but I don't think C02 should be lumped in the same class as pollutants that will actually contribute to shortening my lifespan. PM and NOx are proven to contribute to human mortality.
When weighing the factor of killing people today (PM, NOx) and raising sea levels a century from now, I tend to favor raising sea levels.
Or you could by a hybrid that is both low CO2 and SULEV.
Chris M 3:54PM (4/09/2009)
The cleanest of clean diesels, with particulate filters and NOx reducing catalytic converters installed, are indeed cleaner than the dirtiest gasoline engines. However, the cleanest of the internal combustion engines are still the SULV gasoline engines equipped with the latest anti-emission technologies.
It's rather amusing how some Europeans pretend to be "so very green" and look down on Americans, considering that the environmental movement started here in the US, and the California clean air standards are the highest in the world. Until recently, diesels couldn't meet the California clean air standards, and even the new "clean" diesels barely meet minumum clean air standards.
Meanwhile, Diesels were belching soot and NOx all over the supposedly "green" Europe, and will continue until all those older diesels get replaced. If it wasn't for the huge auto market in California and the high environmental standards of California, Europe would never have gotten "clean" diesels.
s10 5:14PM (4/09/2009)
Europeans are not greener than Americans. Diesels became more popular long before anybody was talking about pollution simply because it was a cheaper fuel. Then diesels became faster through Turbo, direct injection and other tech... and became even more popular since the difference in power with gas engines was very small... Only in recent years they are pressing on getting diesel cleaner, since the problems related to small particles have become huge.
Noz 5:38PM (4/09/2009)
CHRIS M:
It's even more amusing when you consider that:
A) The US has some of the lowest MPG requirements of its fleets anywhere in the world
B) Most US states don't like the California standards and won't abide by it.
C) US diesels are among the worst in the world as far as emissions go.
D) California ISN'T the rest of the US.
E) Coming from someone who lives in a country that is responsible for more pollution and waste than Europe combined, that's amusing...that's pathetic.