The Elio Engine

[pj rogers]

We always have to look at the big picture don't we (mines is 96") .
The elio is a motorcycle not a car. emissions are far less difficult to pass than a car.
For example, The Suzuki alto is about the same weight as the elio, it has side by side seating, not quite as long and has a 4 star rating. The engine is the same size, and the tranny is a amt in the new replacement car. Widen the elio by 12" stagger the seating like the tuvie.com SEV and you have the 2016 elio by next summer. Maybe lose on star but gain 100's of thousands more sales!
The alto now, gets 70mpg on the highway. If EM just bought the engine and tranny, from Suzuki, dropped it into the elio and like magic, maybe over 90mpg. Cost, surely not millions of dollars like the IAV.
Today, there are several companies that make FEV, and SEV that EM could buy and install and get the Elio on the road quickly without a lot of testing. It would really be off he shelf, just not off an America shelf.....think delorean.
After 6 years of this delay crap, the goals of 5 star, 84mpg, $6800 and need to go away and EM needs to re-examine them.
Better goals are out there now, the engineers just have to look around a bit. In 14 months there may be 2-3 competitors out there advertising on a infomercial...on cable.

 

[Lil4X]

There's a lot of talk about Ford's EcoBoost, mostly generated by advertising. The truth seems to be, based on a number of friends and contacts who bought pickups with the EcoBoost system something less impressive. First it takes power to move a load, and a LOT more power to move that load quickly. There's nothing magic about turbos - if you pack more air (oxygen) into the cylinders, in order to remain stoichiometric at 14.1:1 air-fuel ratio, higher revs require more air, requiring substantially more fuel. There's no escaping it. You have to burn fuel to make horsepower, and if you run lean, you can quickly destroy the engine.

Displacement or cylinders doesn't enter into the equation; to get power at the crank, fuel and air has to go into the cylinders. Now, where you can achieve some economy is when simply maintaining speed on the highway - and that's where the EcoBoost's numbers shine. As you feather off the gas, the turbos spool down at lower rpm, you are using less of the critical air-fuel mix, consequently less gasoline. The problem is that most people who purchase a twin-turbo V6 aren't necessarily driving for economy. That lead foot will drop your numbers back into the low teens - occasionally into single digits very quickly.

My old college roomate, a PhD candidate and now head of a local colleges economics department used to explain to me the two great truths of economics - that apply well to physics as well:

1. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
2. There ain't no free lunches.

 

[Ekh]

We always have to look at the big picture don't we (mines is 96") .

The alto now, gets 70mpg on the highway. If EM just bought the engine and tranny, from Suzuki, dropped it into the elio and like magic, maybe over 90mpg. Cost, surely not millions of dollars like the IAV.

Actually, the Suzuki Alto is over 2,000 pounds …. much heavier than the Elio (which is one reason the Elio would get better performance AND better mileage than the Alto does/ did).

Also, in real-world testing, the Alto actually got 49.8 mpg, but that might have been Imperial gallons. Click Here's a link to a fairly detailed review: http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/suzuki/alto

These numbers certainly dim the lustre of the Alto engine … even though it would perform better in the Elio than in the Alto.

 

[Ekh]

There's a lot of talk about Ford's EcoBoost, mostly generated by advertising. The truth seems to be, based on a number of friends and contacts who bought pickups with the EcoBoost system something less impressive. First it takes power to move a load, and a LOT more power to move that load quickly. There's nothing magic about turbos - if you pack more air (oxygen) into the cylinders, in order to remain stoichiometric at 14.1:1 air-fuel ratio, higher revs require more air, requiring substantially more fuel. There's no escaping it. You have to burn fuel to make horsepower, and if you run lean, you can quickly destroy the engine.

Displacement or cylinders doesn't enter into the equation; to get power at the crank, fuel and air has to go into the cylinders. Now, where you can achieve some economy is when simply maintaining speed on the highway - and that's where the EcoBoost's numbers shine. As you feather off the gas, the turbos spool down at lower rpm, you are using less of the critical air-fuel mix, consequently less gasoline. The problem is that most people who purchase a twin-turbo V6 aren't necessarily driving for economy. That lead foot will drop your numbers back into the low teens - occasionally into single digits very quickly.

My old college roomate, a PhD candidate and now head of a local colleges economics department used to explain to me the two great truths of economics - that apply well to physics as well:

1. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
2. There ain't no free lunches.

The L-3 ecoboost comes in a turbocharged and a non-turbocharged version.

 

[Ekh]

It's fun to speculate, but I do wish folks would be a bit more accurate in the numbers they're tossing around.

 

[Ekh]

Maybe if Ford owned Elio, but they don't so there's no way Ford would let Elio use their motor in a non-Ford vehicle.

Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. I suspect if Elio wanted to order fifteen or twenty thousand engines, especially the low-end ones (non turbocharged), Ford might consider it …. money is money.

For example, Ford's DLD-414 diesel engine is used in these applications (among many others, including Suzuki, Peugeot, Mazda, Mini-Cooper, and Volvo). Here are a handful of applications. Ditto for non-diesel engines.



2007–2008 Suzuki SX4 1.6 DDiS, 90 PS (89 hp/66 kW) and 159 lb·ft (215 N·m)

• 2007–2009 MINI Cooper D 1.6 110 PS (108 hp/80 kW) and 177 lb·ft (240 N·m)
• 2007–present Citroën C4 Picasso 1.6 HDi, 110 PS (108 hp/80 kW) and 177 lb·ft (240 N·m)
• 2010–present Citroën C3 Picasso 1.6 HDi, 110 PS (108 hp/80 kW) and 177 lb·ft (240 N·m)
• 2006–present Citroën Berlingo 1.6 HDi, 75–90 PS (74–89 hp/55–66 kW) and 127–159 lb·ft (172–215 N·m)
• 2005–present Citroën C3 1.6 HDi, 90 PS (89 hp/66 kW) and 159 lb·ft (215 N·m)
• 2009–present Citroën DS3 1.6 HDi, 90 PS (89 hp/66 kW) and 170 lb·ft (230 N·m)
• 2009–present Citroën DS3 1.6 HDi, 110 PS (109 hp/80 kW) and 198 lb·ft (269 N·m)
• 2011–present Citroën DS4 1.6 HDi, 110 PS (109 hp/80 kW) and 198 lb·ft (269 N·m)
• 2004–present Citroën C4 1.6 HDi, 90–109 PS (89–108 hp/66–80 kW) and 159–177 lb·ft (215–240 N·m)
• 2004–present Citroën C5 1.6 HDi, 109 PS (108 hp/80 kW) and 177 lb·ft (240 N·m)
• 2004–2009 Citroën Xsara Picasso 1.6 HDi, 109 PS (108 hp/80 kW) and 177 lb·ft (240 N·m)

 

[Craig]

Great post! But I swear I'll find a way to haul plywood on it!

(and it's 84 mpg)

No problem, haul on the side like they do glass. Just watch the cross winds.

 

[msmith5150]

No problem, haul on the side like they do glass. Just watch the cross winds.

lol, tip over like the Flintstones car at the Brontoburger

 

[Greycat]

Great post! But I swear I'll find a way to haul plywood on it!

(and it's 84 mpg)

Strap 2 sheets to the top, cross ways, get it up to speed and you can glide. LOL

 

[Frosty]

Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. I suspect if Elio wanted to order fifteen or twenty thousand engines, especially the low-end ones (non turbocharged), Ford might consider it …. money is money.


Consider that if Elio bought fifteen to twenty thousand engines from Ford or another manufacturer, that would be fifteen to twenty thousand engines they could not put into THEIR cars, resulting in a loss of profit due from a sales slowdown due to the resultant low supply . No auto manufacturer is going to cut or slow down their production and subsequent sales to supply an upstart unless they would be making an obscene profit on the engines. We and Elio cannot afford that. "All things come to he (or she) who waits."