Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

An Alternative to Alternative Fuels and Vehicles 322

markmcb writes "While the world is working to solve energy and environmental issues with today's petroleum fuels, some vehicles simply don't have good alternatives, namely off-road platforms. For those not willing to give up their gas-guzzling habits, Matt Vea offers an innovative alternative. Using the OBDII interface in his Jeep, a laptop, and the infinite power of Excel, Matt conducts some performance tests and uses the results to tweak both his vehicle's engine and his personal driving habits for optimal fuel consumption both on and off road." Rigorous testing and good use of available technology; nice work.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Alternative to Alternative Fuels and Vehicles

Comments Filter:
  • by johnlcallaway ( 165670 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @07:52PM (#15729821)
    Or....if one finds that only a low-milage SUV is needed for one's recreational pasttimes, maybe finding another recreation would work best.

    Nice piece though, I must commend the author for at least trying to provide a non-biased look at what impacts fuel economy.
  • by 7of7 ( 956694 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @08:02PM (#15729845) Journal
    As far as I can tell any means of electric vehicle would be an absolutely kickass offroad vehicle. The extreme torque and smootheness of electric motors are ideal for rock crawlers and other similar 4wd vehicles. It doesn't really matter where you get the electricity from. Heck, imagine one truck carries a giant fuel cell and tows the rock crawlers to the hills while powering them up too. Hybrid would be cool too, but you'd still have the gas/diesel engine to deal with.
  • Re:not a bargain (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday July 16, 2006 @08:27PM (#15729909) Journal
    For the price of the laptop, Excel, and his time, he could have bought enough extra fuel to last years.

    And for the cost of raising him, his parents could have not had kids and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars... enough to buy all the fuel that his non-existent self will never need!
     
  • by plasmacutter ( 901737 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @08:33PM (#15729928)
    How many drive them on snowy roads? Everyone who owns one and lives where it snows, I bet.
    How many people need to tow something? Not a huge percentage, but they won't be doing it in a honda civic.
    How many people have a couple of kids and have to fit a car seat? A lot. Sure they could drive a minivan, but the mileage isn't too much different in a lot of cases.


    did you read my post at all?
    all wheel drive and adjustable suspensions handle snow, when we moved from detroit to atlanta we towed trailers beind *surprise* a mazda 626 and an oldsmobile cultass sierra. cars have gotten peppier since the 80's.. a honda civic has decent torque now compared to its puny 1992 counterpart. as for kids.. my mother used to take my brother, my cousins, and myself (4-5kids, her, and my grandmother), trick or treating through multiple neighborhoods in a station wagon which had fold down seats in the trunk. You don't need a minivan.

    Um, so what? You're using energy to post on Slashdot. No vanity there?
    yes.. energy which would be produced for the powergrid weather I used it or not, and energy produced from more plentiful resources than gasoline, which now costs upwards of $3.15 a gallon, and arguably would be cheaper if suv's were only drivin by people with actual demonstrating use of their offroad capacity (read park rangers, the army, construction workers, loggers, and people who actually participate in offroading as a sport)
  • by kklein ( 900361 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @08:51PM (#15729995)
    It's kind of unfair to say (hyperbolically, even) that these cars get 3mpg. Due to a lot of innovation in engines, the efficiency of some of these SUVs is comparable to older, much smaller cars. A couple years ago, my brother decided to buy a Toyota Harrier (sorry, I can't remember the US name for that--Lexus letters-and-numbers--it's the Lexus SUV with the clear taillights). I gave him the standard liberal anti-SUV lecture. He pulled the mpg stats on the Harrier and on my older Camry and emailed them to me. That SUV was a more economical car than my little sedan. I had to admit that it was ME, with my liberal/Buddhist "who needs newer stuff?" attitude that was actually doing more damage to the environment and to the geopolitical landscape. Oops.
  • by Foerstner ( 931398 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @09:02PM (#15730025)
    Sure, you may walk to the grocery store, but those groceries didn't grow in that store, they were shipped in. Your energy consuption is now being done by the supply chain that feeds the city, so the energy is being consumed by proxy on your behalf.

    Firstly, very few people actually live anywhere near food-growing land. Most people in industrialized countries live either in the suburbs, or in cities. Given those options, city life (including at least moderate use of public transportation and non-detatched housing) is clearly the less-energy-intensive option.

    Second, people in the country get almost all of their food from supermarkets, too. Local farmers markets can't supply food out of season, much less things that can't be grown locally. And even country bumpkins drink Coca-Cola and eat frozen pizza, Oreos, and other mass-produced foods.

    Only, in their case, the nearest supermarket might be 10-20 miles away. And of course, it uses the same distribution network that the major cities use, except the trucks have to travel even farther.

    In the grand scheme of things, you may believe that reducing a commute to work makes a big difference in the energy consumption equation, but, it's not your major source of energy consumption.

    In the United States, "Transportation is the greatest single use of petroleum, accounting for an estimated 67 percent of all U.S. petroleum consumed in 2004". (source: DOE) Yes, there's more to transportation than the daily commute, but that's hardly insignificant.

    When you turn the heat off, living indoors at ambient outdoor temperature (same for the air conditioning), and stop eating, then you'll make a BIG difference.

    I'll stop eating if you will.
  • by e2d2 ( 115622 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @09:10PM (#15730057)
    Yes but also don't forget the variable PAS or people are stupid.

    On a side rant, everyone bitches about the SUVs, like somehow the SUV has caused gas prices to rise dramatically, while ignoring the obvious growing population, ignoring social aspects of the middle east and south america, and ignoring the cartels that control said oil and the companies unwilling to allow prices to drop. And it's always the guy in the humvee the guy in the humvee! Where the F is this guy? I hear about him all the time but I never actually see him! Apparently he is the one causing all of the problems. It's not those GOOD PEOPLE(tm) in their more eco-conscious cars burning the same gas. It's those other people, yeah that's it!

    Want to cut gas consumption in half? Start by clearing up the traffic people sit in every day. There, billions saved. It's a start.

  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @09:48PM (#15730176) Homepage Journal
    But I'm expecting gas to hit $8 to $10 a gallon shortly when Israel really gets serious about blowing up the middle east (They're just getting warmed up on Lebanon.) The minute they really get pissed off and nuke someone you may as well just park your car and fill it up with mothballs.
  • by belg4mit ( 152620 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @10:02PM (#15730205) Homepage
    Biodiesel (typically a 30% blend) and vegetable both burn well in diesel engines.
    though neither is the solution for the whole fleet of ICE transit, they'd be great
    for bulldozers etc.
  • by DuckDodgers ( 541817 ) <.keeper_of_the_wolf. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Sunday July 16, 2006 @10:33PM (#15730313)
    Well, if you only use its off-roading or tow capacity on rare occasions, then you probably don't need a high quality vehicle. Get a beater. (I'm using Chevy as an example, but this applies for any brand.) Instead of a $45,000 2006 Chevy Suburban, get a $20,000 2006 Chevy Impala and a $2,000 1985 Suburban. The old Suburban won't be as nice as a brand new model, but there are $23,000 reasons to prefer it. Just use it when you need it.
  • by Zaphod2016 ( 971897 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @10:38PM (#15730326) Homepage

    At this point can we just admit we are all screwed?!

    What a cowardly thing to say. I for one am not about to give up.

    Ethanol - Not going to happen. Best case EROEI of just 34% compared to 3000% for light sweet crude???!! Ethanol is not going to happen

    Wrong. In fact, I am currently trying to open a E85 station in Florida to coincide with the multiple new ethanol producers scheduled to open up shop in 2008. Yes, ethanol does not offer a cheaper price than gasoline in all areas right now, but if you live in WI or MN you could be using E85 and saving 10-25% of your car's fuel costs right now.

    Florida is one of the USA's major sources of sugar cane, a crop that can produce nearly TWICE as much ethanol per acre than corn, which is currently our main source. In fact, most economists attribute the recent surge in ethanol prices to a jump in demand. Once our capacity has caught up with current demand, the price of ethanol will drop again. Mark my words: within the next 5 years American biofuels will be significantly cheaper than foreign petrol, and once this paradigm has shifted, the mass exodus to E85 is only a matter of time. Add hybrid technology to an E85 vehicle, and suddenly you can double the output of ethanol, and reduce petrol use even further.

    It is not *we* who are screwed, it is *you* who is screwed. You have allowed frusteration to lapse into cynicism. The change *is* coming, believe me. These things always take longer than we would like them to, but the economic reality is obvious to all: oil's days are numbered.

  • by Dantu ( 840928 ) on Sunday July 16, 2006 @10:47PM (#15730358)
    At this point can we just admit we are all screwed?! Cheap abundant oil is vanishing and there is no plan B.

    I'm already driving plan B: a Hyundai Accent.

    Cars don't get any cheeper, it's got pleny of room unless you have kids (& more headroom than a lot of cars costing twice as much) and gets 7-8L/100km (I think thats around 40mpg for Americans). When gas gets up around $4/L ($14/Gallon) it will start to cost more than my insurance. I'm pretty sure that for that price we can find some sort of fuel for many years to come.

    I realize not everyone WANTS to drive an Accent (or other small car) but really, the world won't come crashing down if gas gets more expensive. People who need a big vehicle will either have to decide they don't really 'need' it, or get a runabout for day-to-day driving and leave the F-350 in the garage when it isn't hauling anything.
  • I don't have a car (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, 2006 @09:09AM (#15730763)
    It's amazing to me to see the lengths that people will go to to continue to drive their crappy box cars. You look at the math he put up and it's plain as day that the lame aerodynamics are the driving force behind his poor fuel economy. Rather than shift to another, more efficient body style Mr. Vanity persists in tweaking that which will give him a 1% miles per gallon benefit. Let's all have a parade in his honor! Here's a man attempting to ignore the big picture (oil is finite, kiddies, and we're running out), why is this laudable?

    For the record, I haul refridgerators, 13' sections of carpet, etc from stores in my area to my house on a bike trailer I built. I am in better shape than most of the people that I know and have more money in my account than most of them. There are options.
  • an alternative (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) on Monday July 17, 2006 @11:12AM (#15731511)
    you're kidding, right?

    An alternative to off road vehicles? How about a horse?
  • by Bob Uhl ( 30977 ) on Monday July 17, 2006 @11:51AM (#15731811)
    "Everyone live like you're outdoors" addresses energy conservation in the same way that "Everyone stop having sex" addresses the AIDS crisis.

    I agree with what you wrote but not what you meant; both are excellent solutions. You complain that the outside temperatures where you live regularly exceed 100F, and that this can be deadly. Yes, it can--and yet somehow man has been living there for quite a long time. In fact, man has lived in a low-tech fashion just about everywhere from the Arctic to the equator. Now, one can't dress like a New Yorker in Arizona without modifying one's environment, true. But where is it written that one must follow Yankee fashions in the desert? Why not try dressing like a Berber or one of the Masai?

    Yes, a Colonial-style home is very poor in Arizona (or here in Denver). What about a thick-walled adobe? What about a yurt? We carry assumptions on housing from a country with lots of cold, wet winds--those assumptions don't hold when living where it's hot, dry and still. Rather than trying to live like Englishmen, Europeans or Yankees, why not try living like natives of our area?

    I'm not actually arguing for a duplication of aboriginal or primitive clothing and living arrangements; I'm arguing that we should study them and learn therefrom. For example, I really can't see many modern Americans living in cloth-walled dwellings, simply because solid homes are too deeply ingrained in our culture. But I can imagine more intelligently-designed homes becoming fashionable; I can even imagine more locally-appropriate clothing becoming the thing. Even now clothing styles vary between LA and Minnesota; why could they not vary still more?

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Working...