What is the Future of fuel saving technology.

[Matt]

I think that not having the extra moving parts and weight of the camshaft(s) and associated chains/belts improves efficiency. The solenoids can be driven through either the battery or through a (probably) upgraded alternator.

exactly the point. One less shaft the belt has to turn can save quite of gas I think. It should also increase performance as well by not having that unnessary rotating momentum.

 

[Snake Vargas]

Well, there's maybe up to four camshafts in modern V-configuration engines. You can save having to add camshafts, save the belts/chains that drive them, and save the casting at the tops of the engines where the camshafts used to reside. The energy lost having to turn all that stuff is also important.

Overall, still an incremental improvement, but probably better than direct injection, even.

 

[donau]

I think that not having the extra moving parts and weight of the camshaft(s) and associated chains/belts improves efficiency. The solenoids can be driven through either the battery or through a (probably) upgraded alternator.

Makes sense, thanks

 

[donau]

I have heard that hybrids have got a looming problem, the disposal of the highly environmentally-detrimental batteries.

Yes, I hope this issue will be resolved without delay.

 

[SDNR]

In relation to the issue SV raised about overall energy consumption including the production methods, I was reading this today.

New study: Full-size SUVs consume less energy over lifetime than hybridshttp://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/01/new-study-full-size-suvs-consume-less-energy-over-lifetime-than/

The results of a new study conducted by CNW Marketing Research Inc. is sure to generate some arched eyebrows. The firm's report stems from their two-year effort to collect and analyze data on the "energy neessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage." CNW then assigned their findings a new comparative metric - "dollars per lifetime mile" - or, said another way, total energy cost per mile driven.
The findings? America's most expensive vehicle in calendar 2005 was the Maybach (presumably a 62), tallying up at a staggering $11.58/mile. The thriftiest? Scion's boxy xB, just $.48 cents/mile.
But here's where it gets interesting: CNW's findings indicate that a hybrid consumes more energy overall than a comparable conventionally powered model. It judged showed that the Honda Accord Hybrid rang up an Energy Costs Per Mile of $3.29, while a gas-powered Accord was significantly cheaper at $2.18/mile. The study concludes that the average of all 2005 U.S. market vehicles was $2.28/mile.
The reasoning goes that hybrids use up more energy to manufacture, as well as consume more resources in terms of the assembly (and eventual disposal) of things like batteries and motors. By CNW's reckoning, the intrinsically lower complexity of, say, a Hummer H3 ($1.949/mile) actually results in lower total energy usage than any hybrid currently on the market, and even a standard Honda Civic ($2.42).
While the study's findings don't take issue with what vehicles are more financially economical to own (read: those with better mileage), it does pose some interesting questions about total energy usage in hybrids.
Obviously, in order to best judge the merit of CNW's findings, a clearer explanation of the study's criteria and processes is in order.
[Sources: CNW via Yahoo Business, QCNetwork.com]

 

[Snake Vargas]

I don't dispute their findings, though neither do I confirm them.

However, if you take this into account, it's a whole new ball game. What about the forms of energy - electricity, which IMO is more what they use in manufacturing, is somewhat easier to come by than hydrocarbons. That is, you can get electricity by renewable sources if you like, though mostly it is still using fossil fuels right now, whereas fossil fuel powered cars can only run on that. It's not just the cost of energy (which I believe they're using as an analogue for the amount used), per se, that's the issue, but also the form that it takes.

Their findings are probably accurate, since, as I mentionted, IIRC a large proportion of electricity comes from fossil fuels at the moment; but neither are their findings going to remain constant. Perhaps it will even change when the amount of hybrids produced increase.

Not to mention the ever-present possibility that they've overlooked something in their calculations (just try to imagine the difficulty of assessing whole-of-production energy use, from component manufacture to assembly..)