Fuelling Protection System as standard for all BMW diesel models

0

BMW is the first car manufacturer to equip all new diesel-powered
models with a system against incorrect fuelling (Fuelling Protection System) as
standard. The innovative system puts a stop to cases of mis-fuelling at the
petrol pump and its far-reaching consequences. A special mechanism fitted to
the filler neck prevents drivers from accidentally inserting the fuel filler
nozzle of a petrol pump into the filler neck of a diesel-powered car. This
technology has been tried-and-tested in a variety of BMW models with diesel
engines and will now be fitted to all diesel-powered BMW models ex work without
surcharge.

Every year, the German AA has to provide technical support in more than 5,000
cases of mis-fuelling. Rectifying the consequences of incorrect fuelling is not
just time-consuming, it may also incur major costs. Even if the drivers
realizes their mistake before starting the engine, emptying and cleaning the
fuel tank, pipes and the pump as well as changing the filter will be
unavoidable.
The high number of cases of mis-fuelling shows that just a short moment of
inattention suffices to select the wrong fuel filler nozzle at the petrol
station. Particularly drivers who frequently use different cars from rental
companies or company fleets often have to pay extra attention – more so, since
the performance profile and acoustic insulation measures of modern diesel
engines reduce the differences between diesel and petrol-powered engines to a
hardly discernible minimum. The difference in fuel filler nozzle diameter often
prevents accidentally filling petrol engines with their narrower filler neck
with diesel fuel, but during hasty filling manoeuvres, the filler nozzle for
petrol can easily and mistakenly be inserted into the filler neck of standard
diesel models.
However BMW will help drivers to avoid making this mistake. The Incorrect
Fuelling Protection System fitted to all BMW diesel-powered models is designed
to allow only filler nozzles for diesel fuel to enter the filler neck. The
filler neck of these models is fitted with a locking system that can only be

released by a standardized diesel filler nozzle. A petrol nozzle with its

smaller diameter cannot make the same connection and this access is blocked.
The Incorrect Fuelling Protection System is also designed for fuelling under
exceptional circumstances, when the diesel-powered model may have to be fuelled
from a spare can. Narrow recesses on the outer walls of the filler neck allow
the introduction of smaller amounts of fuel. Using a container for re-fuelling
requires extra care, which serves to remind the driver of ensuring that they
use the right type of fuel.

»»  READMORE...

The Six-cylinder SURVIVOR

THE LAST PLACE ONE would expect to find devotion to a two-decade-old,iron-block six-cylinder engine is Volkswagen. The company has developed a line of powerful turbocharged,direct injected four-cylinders, but VW remains committed to an aging engine that defies easy categorization: the VR6.
We—like VW itself—have occasionally described the VR6 as a V-6, but that’s not strictly correct. Whereas most V-6s use two separate cylinder heads, the VR6 uses a single head. It’s not an in-line six, though,because the cylinders are staggered and separated into two narrowly angled banks of three cylinders (15 degrees when the engine was first introduced).In German, as in English, the V indicates an angle between two cylinder banks. Whereas we’d call a straight six an I-6,the Germans call it a R-6,with R standing for Reihenmotor. VW simply combined the two terms, resulting in the name VR6,which, loosely translated,means in-line V-6.The benefi ts of this staggered, narrow-angle layout are clear:the VR6 is only marginally longer andwider than a four-cylinder engine,meaning that it can be mounted transversely in small front-wheel-drive cars without the need for a long, spacewasting hood. Volkswagen began work on a prototype 2.0-liter VR6 in 1978, but by the time it entered production in 1991, the VR6 had grown to 2.8 liters, largely to meet the needs of power-hungry
Americans. The VR6 made its debut in the Passat and shortly thereafter found a home in the Corrado sport coupe. From there, it proliferated into other VWs, including the GTI and the Jetta. With two valves per cylinder, the original VR6 developed between 172 and 178 hp, depending on the application. But it wasn’t this engine’s output that characterized it—it was the VR6’s sound and smoothness. Indeed, the VR6’s refinement matched the best in-line sixes’.Even though the engine’s plastic cover said DOHC, the original VR6 was functionally an SOHC design, with each cylinder’s valves actuated by the same camshaft. In 1999, a 24-valve variant was born, also with two camshafts in total,but now one operated all the intake valves while the other opened all the exhaust valves. Variable valve timing was now possible, helping broaden the VR6’s torque curve. All these advantages bring up the obvious question: why have no other makers followed VW with VR engines? Mainly, the tightly packed cylinder head imposes severe compromises in combustion-chamber and port designs. Even within VW, the VR6 is gradually giving ground to the turbocharged 2.0T four-cylinder, which produces more power and uses less fuel.But Volkswagen insists that the VR6,having now been increased in size to 3.6 liters and with a smaller included cylinder angle of 10.6 degrees, will continue to power the CC as well as the forthcoming new Passat, Touareg, and Porsche Cayenne. By  JASON CAMMISA

»»  READMORE...

Biofuels as Alternative Sources of Energy

Biofuels are produced by converting organic matter into fuel for powering our society. These biofuels are an alternative energy source to the fossil fuels that we currently depend upon. The biofuels umbrella includes under its aegis ethanol and derivatives of plants such as sugar cane, as well aS vegetable and corn oils. However, not all ethanol products are designed to be used as a kind of gasoline. The International Energy Agency (IEA) tells us that ethanol could comprise up to 10 percent of the world’s usable gasoline by 2025, and up to 30 percent by 2050. Today, the percentage figure is two percent.

However, we have a long way to go to refine and make economic and practical these biofuels that we are researching. A study by Oregon State University proves this. We have yet to develop biofuels that are as energy efficient as gasoline made from petroleum. Energy efficiency is the measure of how much usable energy for our needed purposes is derived from a certain amount of input energy. (Nothing that mankind has ever used has derived more energy from output than from what the needed input was. What has always been important is the conversion—the end-product energy is what is useful for our needs, while the input energy is just the effort it takes to produce the end-product.) The OSU study found corn-derived ethanol to be only 20% energy efficient (gasoline made from petroleum is 75% energy efficient). Biodiesel fuel was recorded at 69% energy efficiency. However, the study did turn up one positive: cellulose-derived ethanol was charted at 85% efficiency, which is even higher than that of the fantastically efficient nuclear energy.

Recently, oil futures have been down on the New York Stock Exchange, as analysts from several different countries are predicting a surge in biofuel availability which would offset the value of oil, dropping crude oil prices on the international market to $40 per barrel or thereabouts.  The Chicago Stock Exchange has a grain futures market which is starting to “steal” investment activity away from the oil futures in NY, as investors are definitely expecting better profitability to start coming from biofuels. Indeed, it is predicted by a consensus of analysts that biofuels shall be supplying seven percent of the entire world’s transportation fuels by the year 2030. One certain energy markets analyst has said, growth in demand for diesel and gasoline may slow down dramatically, if the government subsidizes firms distributing biofuels and further pushes to promote the use of eco-friendly fuel.

There are several nations which are seriously involved in the development of biofuels.

There is Brazil, which happens to be the world’s biggest producer of ethanols derived from sugars. It produces approximately three and a half billion gallons of ethanol per year.

The United States, while being the world’s greatest oil-guzzler, is already the second largest producer of biofuels behind Brazil.

The European Union’s biodiesel production capacity is now in excess of four million (British) tonnes. 80 percent of the EU’s biodiesel fuels are derived from rapeseed oil; soybean oil and a marginal quantity of palm oil comprise the other 20 percent.

»»  READMORE...

Renewable Fuels for Alternative Energy

The Germans have really taken off when it comes to renewable fuel sources, and have become one of the major players in the alternative energy game. Under the aegis of the nation’s electricity feed laws, the German people set a world record in 2006 by investing over $10 billion (US) in research, development, and implementation of wind turbines, biogas power plants, and solar collection cells. Germany’s “feed laws” permit the German homeowners to connect to an electrical grid through some source of renewable energy and then sell back to the power company any excess energy produced at retail prices. This economic incentive has catapulted Germany into the number-one position among all nations with regards to the number of operational solar arrays, biogas plants, and wind turbines. The 50-terawatt hours of electricity produced by these renewable energy sources account for 10% of all of Germany’s energy production per year. In 2006 alone, Germany installed 100,000 solar energy collection systems.

Over in the US, the BP corporation has established an Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to spearhead extensive new research and development efforts into clean burning renewable energy sources, most prominently biofuels for ground vehicles. BP’s investment comes to $50 million (US) per year over the course of the next decade. This EBI will be physically located at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The University is in partnership with BP, and it will be responsible for research and development of new biofuel crops, biofuel-delivering agricultural systems, and machines to produce renewable fuels in liquid form for automobile consumption. The University will especially spearhead efforts in the field of genetic engineering with regard to creating the more advanced biofuel crops. The EBI will additionally have as a major focal point technological innovations for converting heavy hydrocarbons into pollution-free and highly efficient fuels.

Also in the US, the battle rages on between Congress and the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA). The GEA’s Executive Director Karl Gawell has recently written to the Congress and the Department of Energy, the only way to ensure that DOE and OMB do not simply revert to their irrational insistence on terminating the geothermal research program is to schedule a congressional hearing specifically on geothermal energy, its potential, and the role of federal research. Furthermore, Gawell goes on to say that recent studies by the National Research Council, the Western Governors’ Association Clean Energy Task Force and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology all support expanding geothermal research funding to develop the technology necessary to utilize this vast, untapped domestic renewable energy resource. Supporters of geothermal energy, such as this writer, are amazed at the minuscule amount of awareness that the public has about the huge benefits that research and development of the renewable alternative energy source would provide the US, both practically and economically. Geothermal energy is already less expensive to produce in terms of kilowatt-hours than the coal that the US keeps mining. Geothermal energy is readily available, sitting just a few miles below our feet and easily accessible through drilling. One company, Ormat, which is the third largest geothermal energy producer in the US and has plants in several different nations, is already a billion-dollar-per-year business—geothermal energy is certainly economically viable.

»»  READMORE...

Advanced Vehicles

When we think of advanced vehicles it reminds us of speed that a vehicle has and all the newer vehicles that are coming out with all the modern gadgets and gizmos.  Every time we turn the ignition on our vehicle we are sending a bad sign out into the world and the atmosphere.  Scientist have worked rather hard at coming up with a way that our cars can be safe for our planet.  So how is that done?

Advanced fuel systems include energy storage which is the batteries that help power it instead of the fuels, power electronics, thermal comfort and systems analysis.  These fuel systems are constantly being studied and have made outstanding research and development topics.  The main focus on the fuel systems in advanced vehicles is to find an alternative fuel in order to cut down on pollution and to restore our economy.  We cannot continue buying fuels forever.  We need an alternative to fuel.  Sometime in the future, fuel will no longer be available for us to use.  Advanced vehicles are designed to make it more efficient to run at top speeds. Convenience is another advantage to the advanced vehicles.

They plug in and charge instead of running out of fuel and refilling the tank. Running these cars may not break any records but it can help tremendously knowing that they are running clean.  Ultracapacitors are designed to provide additional power to accelerate for climbing hills.  Vehicle power electronics controls the amount of electricity through the devices.  This may be the ignition, DC to DC converters, inverters, and motor controllers.

Vehicle Thermal comfort is how you control your temperature inside the car. You may have to roll the windows down or put them up.  Turn the heat on or the air conditioning on.  No matter what you have to do this is thermal comfort. The main goal for such an invention is to come up with a vehicle that can get us where we need to go in the amount of time that we allow ourselves.  In the fast paced world that we live in today, it is hard to find someone who has the time to spend waiting on their vehicles to get repaired or refueled.  That is because we need that vehicle to be up and running when we need it the most.  Scientist are studying the car factor and what it will do for us in the future and what it has done for us in the past.  As they strive to gather more information they can better the way the advanced vehicles have made it through.

Advanced vehicles are on the go and will one day be the car that we decide to buy because that may be our only choice in the future.  When the fuels run dry we will no longer be able to drive what we currently have now. Though these vehicles do allow some restriction, that will no longer be as we progress into the future and all the bugs will be worked out.

»»  READMORE...

Hybrid Electric Car: Technology for the Future Environment

A hybrid-electric vehicle, or HEV, combines an electrical energy storage system with an occupied means of generating electrical energy, usually through the consumption of some type of fuel. Each type of HEV has its own operating quality and chosen design practices, as well as advantages and disadvantages.

The development of interior ignition engine vehicles, especially in automobiles, is one of the supreme achievements of modern technology as a new rising energy saving and environment -friendly vehicle, that’s why the hybrid-electric vehicles were created to give convenience to every human.

In the process of creating the hybrid electric car, the most important is the energy saving and the environmental protection. Wherein nowadays this are the common problems faced by the society.

Having the hybrid-electric car evolved from the electric car. However, the main disadvantage of the electric car is that it is mainly dependent on the batteries. Therefore, has limited range.

First of all, the hybrid electric car was supposed to be an electric vehicle with batteries for power storage and is also equipped with an on-board heat engine-powered generator. This means that this type of hybrid has an extended range.

The heat engine power and the battery power are specifically intended as an important scheme that constantly modulates the excess between the heat engine and the battery power systems. This will also depend on the driving schedule.

Since the beginning of the use of automobiles, electric cars have been already recognized and conceptualized. Even though the electric power train is better in various aspects, as an energy source, the battery was unequal to the superior-energy content, easiness in terms of the handling, and inexpensive and profuse supplies of motor fuel.

Now, it has almost been a century since the electric car has been popularly discussed, but recent developments in the HEV technology and the growing concerns for the environment has revived the drive for an HEV and this has become a realization today.

We can consider the personal means of transportation as a very important bond in the economic chain of today’s modern societies and that a private vehicle appears to be the popular choice.

Electric vehicles are more energy efficient than the contemporary vehicles wherein the electric vehicles operates at approximately 46 percent of effectiveness, while a contemporary vehicle operates at about 18 percent only.

There are studies that generally concludes that electric cars with batteries are approximately 10 to 30 percent more efficient with energy than the usual gasoline cars, depending on the exact assumptions of the vehicles energy usage and energy chain efficiency.

Certainly, the comparisons of the electric vehicles and the conventional vehicles are comparisons between an extremely developed power system that is nearly in the end of its research and development, and the innovative power system in the beginning stages of the development wherein important development can be expected as the new technology evolves.

Furthermore, the advantages of electric powered modes of transportation extends beyond the true outlook of economizing energy. Electric generation plants can use substitute fuels that are not adaptable to portable power systems.

Electric vehicles are the definitive alternative fuel vehicles because their power is taken from the source fuels utilized to produce electricity. Aside from that, the flexibility of the fuel alone can offer important useful and economic advantages especially in relation to a variety of energy resources.

The electric car is truly a promising technology that could transform one’s means of transportation into a far more environmentally type of commodity. Through this innovation emission controls become more important, effective and economically beneficial.

»»  READMORE...

The History of the Hybrid Car: An Evolution for the Future

Due to the demand of having a car wherein everyone can consume less fuel and will not contribute to the air pollution, the hybrid car was finally created to meet this end. And due to the rapid advancements in the gasoline engine, the hybrid car has become extremely popular.

A hybrid car is a means of transportation using two power sources; it uses a rechargeable energy storage system found on board and a fuelled power source as the vehicle’s driving force. The hybrid car pollutes less and uses less fuel.

Back in 1899, Ferdinand Porsche have developed and led the way to the very first working hybrid-electric vehicle. Other people followed suit in Ferdinand Porsche’s invention. Many people who became interested in the hybrid-vehicle concept have been continually making hybrid cars.  However, there was no major car manufacturer who invested in the hybrid concept and mass produced hybrid cars until the late twentieth century. The hybrid technology was mainly utilized in developing diesel-electric submarines during that interim period.

The diesel-electric submarines mainly operate very much the same as a hybrid car. However, the submarines main goal was to conserve oxygen rather than spend less fuel. During the later years, submarines have evolved and have begun using the nuclear power as a substitute for diesel.

During the 1990′s, the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight were the first successful hybrid cars available in the market. It was two of the pioneers in the hybrid car concept which virtually changed the way the world thinks about cars.

An idealistic inventor, Victor Wouk, manufactured a hybrid electric and gas motor vehicle that siphoned fuel at half the amount as practically all the other cars being built then. He built the hybrid car thirty years before the Toyota Prius got the attention of the U.S. as an energy-anxious nation.

The account about the hybrid car and its inventor, who died in May, 2005, at age 86, is unfamiliar among even the most avid fans of the growing hybrid car association. In terms of hybrid car knowledge, it is in fact America that should have led all other countries. Wouk said that the government program that he developed about hybrids was unknown to everyone.

Victor Wouk founded and sold two successful electric industrialized companies in the late 1940s and 50s and in 1962 he was approach by Russell Feldman, one of the founders of Motorola, who recognized the pollution from the automobile as one of the biggest problem of the environment and he wanted to discover the possible solutions with regards to this problem. But his experiment did not work much for the possible solution.

Having an idea, Wouk pondered the problem throughout the 60s and ultimately reached a clever solution. He combined the low-emission benefits of an electric car with the power of a gasoline engine to produce a hybrid vehicle. But Wouk did not get any response to his ideas for creating a hybrid car; in fact he was heavily criticized for not believing in a full-electric system.

With the help of his colleague, Charlie Rosen, who shared his belief about hybrid cars, gave him the chance to prove his ideas of creating the hybrid car as one of the solution to the rapid health cost of auto-pollution. And now the impressive capabilities of the invention of Wouk, the hybrid cars, can now be a very great help in terms of less fuel consumption and less air pollution.

Wouk and Rosen put up a new company particularly to developed their hybrid car idea and make it possible to be in the market and be used as an everyday car that belched far less harmful vapors than contemporary vehicles.

The Prius

Ever since the Toyota Prius was released in the market, it has been able to remain as the premier choice of hybrid cars available. It is true that old hybrid cars looks more like an alien car and cost far more than the conventional car. However, because of the latest technology installed in newer versions of hybrid cars, it looks more like a conventional car and is far cheaper than its predecessors. It is a fact that hybrid cars today looks very much like conventional cars. However, it will enable you to cut fuel consumption in half.

For example, the Honda Civic Hybrid car looks very much like its conventional version. However, when you look at it closely, the hybrid version of the Civic is able to conserve fuel much better than its gasoline counterpart. The Civic Hybrid can get you 50 miles in just one gallon of gasoline.

During the year 2004, Ford has developed and introduced the very first hybrid SUV, which is the Ford Escape Hybrid. A year later, Toyota also introduced their line of hybrid SUV called the Highlander Hybrid.

Because of the growing demand for hybrid cars, other car manufacturers are now following the footsteps of the other companies who already released a version of their hybrid car in the market. For example, Nissan is now planning to develop and introduce a hybrid version of the Nissan Altima.

Nowadays, over 300,000 hybrid cars are running on American roads wherein 95 percent of them are Japanese made. The hybrid vehicles are truly very different technology that can both save money and our environment.

»»  READMORE...

The Physics of: Engine Cylinder-Bank Angles

The inside of an internal-combustion engine is a just about the most violent place on Earth. Thousands of explosions happen every minute, resulting in great masses of metal being thrown up, down, and around. It’s almost miraculous that engines can produce civilized, usable thrust at all. Because what an engine would really like to do is blow itself apart.

For an engine to survive all the rocking and rolling it produces, those forces need to be counterbalanced with equal—or at least nearly equal—forces. Today, most production-car engines with more than four cylinders are arranged in “V” configurations that separate the cylinders into banks. Determining the angle between the banks, i.e., the angle of the V, is crucial to the subtle yet brutal art of engine balancing.

The received wisdom on this subject is clear: Any V-8 engine is well balanced when its two cylinder banks form a 90-degree V. And V-6s tend to be best off when that V is set at 60 degrees. But the explanation of why all this is (at least conditionally) true, well, that’s a bit convoluted.

“The forces that impact engine balance come from three sources,” explains Kevin Hoag, the associate director of the Engine Research Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, “the rotation of mass that is offset from the main bearing centerline (the mass at each crank throw and counterweight); reciprocating (up and down) forces due to the continual acceleration and deceleration of each piston assembly; and the firing forces in each cylinder.”

The first two of these forces—rotational and reciprocating—can often be balanced through engine configuration, as in, for example, a 90-degree V-2 [see “Two-Timer”].

A flat (“180-degree V”) engine, such as a Subaru four-cylinder, also can be perfectly balanced. To counter the rotational and reciprocating forces, the cylinders in one bank move in exact opposition to those of the other, thereby completely canceling the forces created by each.

The angle of the V is critical to the third force Hoag cites, the firing force. And there’s an equation to help determine which configurations will work best. In a four-stroke engine, an individual piston fires every 720 degrees (two crankshaft rotations). If you divide that by the number of cylinders, you get a figure that represents the optimal degrees of crankshaft rotation between cylinder firings.

For example, a four-cylinder would like to fire at every 180 degrees of crankshaft rotation (720/4=180). Having firing events that occur in equal increments, as in this instance, is best for balance. The flat-four fires at 180-degree intervals, and its V angle is 180 degrees, which leads to a balance of firing forces. The flat-four, in fact, balances all three of the different types of forces.

A cross-plane, 90-degree V-8 has balanced rotational and reciprocating forces because it is a lot like four of the balanced 90-degree V-2s shown in the aforementioned illustration. To balance the firing force, a cylinder has to fire every time the crankshaft rotates 90 degrees. Since the bank angle is 90 degrees and the firing forces occur in 90-degree intervals, the cross-plane V-8 also manages to balance all three of the forces.

A 60-degree V-6 engine isn’t quite as successful. The rotational and reciprocating forces can’t be completely balanced because this type of V-6 is essentially two three-cylinder engines stuck together. Inline-three engines, because of their odd number of cylinders, are inherently imbalanced and will tend to rock from end to end. A flat-six engine ­manages to ­cancel the rocking because the opposing banks exactly cancel out each other’s motions. Putting two inline-threes together, end to end, to form an inline-six also works because each three-cylinder end of the engine exactly cancels the forces of the other. And since it’s basically two straight sixes joined at a common crank, the V-12 is naturally balanced regardless of its V angle.

But the 60-degree V-6 inherently shakes; the rocking motion of the inline-three can’t be canceled if the bank angle is smaller than 180 degrees. For that reason, many V-6s use balancing shafts, which are essentially additional crankshafts that use specifically weighted lobes to cancel out imbalance.

The firing forces, however, are balanced in modern V-6s. A V-6 fires a cylinder every time the crankshaft turns 120 degrees (720/6=120). That would imply a 120-degree angle between the banks, but that configuration is impractical for packaging reasons. The 60-degree bank angle is a good compromise for packaging, and because the firing events occur in degrees (120) that are evenly divisible by the angle of the V (60), the firing forces remain balanced.

So how do GM and Mercedes-Benz get away with 90-degree V-6s? These engines would seem to have unbalanced firing pulses because 120 isn’t evenly divisible by 90. When GM reintroduced its V-6 engines back in the mid-Seventies, it revived an early-Sixties design, which was essentially a Buick 90-degree V-8 with the two end cylinders sliced off. Because of the firing imbalance, the engine ran rough, sort of like a V-8 with two cylinders missing. To counteract this, the company developed a special crankshaft called a “split-pin” or “split-journal” unit that mounted the big ends of the paired connecting rods to crank journals that had been split and slightly offset so that the engine could achieve 120-degree firing despite its V angle.

In the early Nineties when Chrysler developed the V-10 engine for the Viper (basically a 90-degree V-8 with two additional cylinders), it didn’t use a split-journal crankshaft, and the V-10 subsequently fires unevenly, which produces the Viper’s unusual sound. Ideally, a V-10 would use a 72-degree V angle that would produce even firing without the use of a split-journal crankshaft. The Lexus LFA V-10 uses a 72-degree bank angle for that exact reason.

The bottom line is this: At a fundamental level, every engine must be designed with ­balance in mind lest it risk shaking apart. Next up, we’ll explain the creation of the universe.

Written BY JOHN PEARLEY HUFFMAN AND TONY QUIROGA

»»  READMORE...

Effects of Upsized Wheels and Tires Tested

The aesthetic appeal of larger wheels and tires is undeniable, but what about the alleged performance benefits? In general, larger wheels are heavier, and additional weight hinders performance. To examine the effects of installing larger wheels and tires, also known as “plus-sizing,” we tested five wheel-and-tire combinations—ranging from 15 to 19 inches—on a 2010 Volkswagen Golf and got a good sense of what is gained and lost in the process.

The plus-size concept basically works like this: As the wheel gets larger in diameter, the size of the tire’s sidewall must shrink to maintain the tire’s overall diameter. Keeping the overall tire diameter roughly the same is crucial to keeping the gearing the same and the speedometer accurate, as well as for making sure the wheels and tires fit within the fenders. But larger-diameter wheels and tires are often available only in enlarged widths as well. For more information on plus-sizing and details on what will and won’t fit your car, call the folks at Tire Rack (800-981-3782) or visit tirerack.com.

Our test employed nearly identical Goodyear Eagle GT ultra-high-performance all-season tires in all five sizes, inflated to manufacturer-recommended pressures. We say that the tires were nearly the same because the 15-, 16-, and 17-inchers have a lower speed rating (V, or a top speed up to 149 mph) than the 18- and 19-inch tires’ W-rating (up to 168 mph). This, however, was as close as we could get to testing the same tire in every size. We used the stock steel wheels for the 15-inch test and went to the aftermarket for the larger wheels, as most owners would do. The aftermarket wheel we chose was a cast-aluminum ASA GT1, which is available in 16- to 19-inch sizes on the Golf. It’s obvious from the test that as wheels and tires grow in size, they also grow in weight. Here’s how the test shook out:

What’s immediately apparent from the results is that as the wheel-and-tire packages get larger and heavier, acceleration and fuel economy suffer. Neither is a huge surprise, but we measured a 10-percent drop in fuel economy and a four-percent degradation in 0-to-60-mph acceleration from the 15s to the 19s, which is worth considering should you be thinking about “going big.” Increasing wheel diameter and width, in turn, requires wider tires with shorter and stiffer sidewalls, which we found will increase skidpad grip, but as our test shows, there is a limit to this assertion. The 19-inch package came with the widest tires (235/35R-19) mounted to the widest wheels (8.5 inches), but this setup had less grip around the skidpad than the narrower 225/40R-18s on 8.0-inch-wide wheels. We asked the folks at Goodyear why that might be, and they postulated that the added width may have given the outside tire more grip, which would increase body roll and could therefore decrease the load on the inside tire enough to lose 0.01 g on the skidpad.

Surprisingly, the 225/40R-18s showed a big skidpad advantage compared with the 225/45R-17s (0.89 g versus 0.85 g). We ­suspect the difference is due to the grippier compound (lower wear rating) of the W-rated 18s. Goodyear does offer a W-rated GT in the 225/45R-17 size, which is what we intended to use, but Goodyear sent us the V-rated version for our test.

Subjectively, both the 17-inch and 18-inch wheels and tires were in the sweet spot of grip, braking performance, ride comfort, and steering feel. Moving from 17-inchers to 18s barely degrades ride quality, and the additional grip is welcome. We’d guess that a W-rated Eagle GT in the 17-inch size would come close to matching the grip of the W-rated 18, but we can’t say for certain without testing. Even with V-rated rubber, the per-form­ance of the 17s felt ­similar to that of the 18s. But since the 18-inch setup costs only $112 more than the 17-inch package, we’d probably opt for the 18s if we lived in a region with smooth roads and looks were a priority.

We do know that the heavy, 19-inch setup suffered from the most impact harshness and seemed to tax the suspension the most. In contrast, the two smallest wheel-and-tire combos showed a propensity for more understeer on the skidpad but provided a more controlled and supple ride. And although it didn’t register on the dBA-meter, the 15- and 16-inch arrangements had a more pleasant sound quality than the larger tires.

The 19-inch wheels definitely look the coolest. But the 17- and 18-inch setups offer a better compromise of grip, acceleration, price, and ride harshness, so we’re not surprised VW uses 17- and 18-inch sizes on its hot Golf, the GTI. If it’s acceleration you’re after, stick with the smaller, lighter wheels and tires. And remember, unless you believe it is better to look good than to feel good, take our advice and stay away from extremely low-profile sidewalls and massively heavy wheels. BY TONY QUIROGA

»»  READMORE...

High-Tech Fuel Tanks

We wouldn’t be surprised if the average driver thinks of a vehicle’s fuel tank as roughly the technological equivalent of a bucket. In today’s world of ever-stricter emissions regulations—which also have ramifications for the fuel tank—that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Prior to 1971, when the EPA mandated sealed fuel systems, vapors emanating from the tank made up a significant portion of a car’s overall hydrocarbon emissions. The corking of the tank was—and still is today—accomplished by temporarily storing excess vapor in a charcoal canister. From there, it is periodically purged to the engine, where it is burned along with fuel from the injectors.
But even in closed-off systems, there’s a tiny amount of fuel that escapes through the tank and its associated plumbing, and this—called “permeation”—is regulated. The EPA’s current Tier II Bin 5 passenger-car standard allows for a maximum leakage of 95 milligrams per day. To achieve CARB’s squeaky-clean Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (PZEV) rating, a tank must emit just 20 milligrams a day, a 79-percent reduction.

For this reason, starting in the early 2000s, most PZEV-capable vehicles have employed steel rather than plastic fuel tanks for their superior permeation resistance. But TI Automotive, which supplies fluid systems and delivery hardware (everything from fuel tanks and lines to HVAC components and brake lines) to nearly every automaker around the globe, came up with the first weight-saving plastic tank to earn PZEV status.

The key to the reduced emissions is that TI’s tank—launched on the 2005 Ford GT—relocates all the fuel-delivery components, which were the source of the most significant leaks, from the exterior of the tank to the interior. In addition, the plastic, which is blow-molded around the other components in a process that TI calls “ship in a bottle,” is a six-layer design developed to greatly reduce leakage.

TI says that roughly 98 percent of today’s European vehicles have plastic tanks versus about 75 percent in the U.S. Compared with an equivalent steel tank, TI claims its plastic ship-in-a-bottle tank is about 20 percent, or five pounds, lighter. And the use of plastic tanks should continue to increase in the face of rising fuel-economy standards where every last ounce of ?weight savings counts.

But the problems are far from over. Right now, the most common complaint that TI hears regards unwanted fuel-slosh noise, made noticeable because hybrids are running farther and farther in electric-only mode, in which there’s no obscuring engine sound. To solve this, TI adds carefully designed, splash-reducing interior walls.

Another hybrid problem is that when the engine is not running, the vapor stored in the charcoal canister can’t be purged. So to keep vapor from filling the canister, the pressure inside the tank is increased. Although this technology is not yet in production, TI has working prototypes that add reinforcing structure to the tank described above (main image) as well as one with two six-layer walls (inset) with lattice work in between that can tolerate as much as 7 psi of internal pressure. And the weight savings for one of these pressurized tanks can be as high as 50 percent compared with a pressurized steel tank.

But despite all the engineering activity, the new-tech tanks operate just as seamlessly as before. So most people will probably just keep pumping gas mindlessly without a second thought. BY DAVE VANDERWERP

Source: www.caranddriver.com

»»  READMORE...

Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super – 2011

The insane in Spain feels mainly like a plane.

Sun-sopped Andalusia, home to Picasso and the flamenco, is a solitary landscape of rolling cordovan-hued hills stitched by vineyards and olive orchards and best explored on the back of a donkey. At 204 mph, Andalusia sprays at you in a brown and green smear.

At 204 mph, even freshly rolled pavement, paid for with lavish European Union loans, feels perilously lumpy as the subtle mounds and sags that are invisible at sane speeds become terrifying whoop-de-dos. At 204 mph, if you look down to check your speedometer for just one second, you’ll miss the next 299 feet. Our cerebral cortexes flirt with signal overload at 204, but a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport is just getting its wind up and will accelerate another 54 mph before tripping its electronic speed limiter. Drop-down oxygen masks and lighted placards over the emergency exits just might make this thing FAA certifiable.

Apparently, it’s because the regular Veyron is such a pansy jellyfish of a car that Bugatti brings forth the Super Sport. The model will be the last word in Veyrons, representing the final 40 cars in a total production run of 300. Price: one hundred thousand trillion billion dollars, or it might as well be.

For the $2,426,904 a Super Sport costs (at the time of this printing), you could also buy 10 Ferrari 458 Italias and have $127,654 left over for lunch. In its quest to build the ultimate stroke job for the super-rich, the Molsheim operatives don’t seem very concerned with pragmatic constraints such as fiscal prudence or, indeed, the laws of physics.

For example, the Super Sport needed more than just another 20 horsepower to separate itself from the $1.7 million rental-fleet Veyron with its piddly 1001 ponies. Why not another thou? Bugatti probably considered it. But it was decreed that a 20 percent bump in output, to 1200 horsepower and 1106 pound-feet of torque is genug. Enough. So say the Germans who run Volkswagen’s crazy-bus subsidiary, and they don’t say that very often.

Consider these facts: Bugatti prices the Super Sport at 1.65 million euros and will charge the 10 to 12 expected American buyers based on the spot exchange rate. Thus, if the dollar softens by a mere cent against the euro, the car’s window sticker jumps more than $16,000.

Every U.S. Super Sport buyer also pays a 2.71 percent import duty, or about $62,000, plus a $51,000 delivery charge and $6400 in federal gas-guzzler tax. Adding an extra year to a regular Veyron’s two-year factory warranty costs about $70,000, though Super Sport buyers get it free.

A set of the Super Sport’s special Michelin tires costs $42,000 and may last 10,000 miles if you’re careful, though they last only 15 minutes at the car’s top speed (at that pace, however, the 26.4-gallon tank is sucked dry in just 10 minutes, and there’s no place on Earth to safely go that fast that long anyway, so no worries). At the third tire replacement, Michelin requires that you also swap out the $69,000 wheels—coincidentally, the only wheels that fit those tires—to ensure a proper bead seal.

Personal touches are available, such as your own initials instead of Ettore Bugatti’s etched into the gas cap. One customer paid for illuminated doorsills with “words that can’t be repeated,” said a Bugatti staffer. If you want the Super Sport’s body finished in clear-coated carbon fiber instead of paint, add $428,180—just a bit more than the price of a new Rolls-Royce Phantom Coupé.

Let’s be blunt: This car is completely mental. At the Super Sport drive in the dusty hills near Jerez de la Frontera, even its chief engineer, Wolfgang Schreiber, admitted that it’s easier to find an honest hedge fund-manager than places to use 1001 horsepower, let alone 1200.

“Most of our customers drive very normal. Actually, slow,” said Schreiber. “So we needed changes you could see and feel at any speed.”

Since 2005, Bugatti has put 243 Veyrons into customer hands, enough to constitute a focus group of sorts. According to Schreiber, the buyers say they would like a skosh more edge to the car’s handling. We feel their pain. Every Veyron we’ve encountered has accelerated like a line drive off the cricket bat of Shiva but has steered no better than your average Lexus. Perhaps that’s why that guy in Texas made Youtube history by driving his into a lagoon. Either that or he is just an idiot.

Whatever. Bugatti says the Super Sport embodies everything it has learned about the Veyron and its customers over five years. No, it doesn’t come with an inflatable dinghy, but the revised shock tuning and stiffer sway bars do help to elevate the driver’s connection and involvement. The nose dives for turns with far more enthusiasm, and body motion is better controlled, giving the pilot a clearer sense of where the threshold lies between acing a fast corner and flying off into low orbit.

That’s rather vital in a hypercar that can easily triple its speed between mailboxes. So are brakes, and the Super Sport’s carbon-composite discs (15.7 inches in front) are literally breathtaking. Should a truck suddenly turn into your lane, you can drag down the Bug from 140 mph to, say, 53.7 with astonishing alacrity and enough foot control to leave a gap twice the width of your front license plate should you desire to cause cardiac dysrhythmia in your passenger.

To get the Super Sport to its 268-mph production-car land speed world record (real production Super Sports are limited to a tire-saving 258 mph), Bugatti did a little smoothing of the Veyron’s Humpty Dumpty shape. Most noticeably, the polished aluminum bazookas on the regular Veyron’s back that sluice air to the engine are gone. In their place is a sort of carbon-fiber turtle shell that forms a tunnel through which the driver sees what he just left far behind and which is cut with flush-fitting twin NACA ducts.

If you want to show off the engine, it takes two trained technicians about 30 minutes to remove the couple-dozen fasteners holding down the shell. Nevertheless, Schreiber says the ducts increase power by creating a greater ram-air effect than the bazookas while also offering reduced drag.

Further, Bugatti opened up the front radiator nostrils, added a pair of slots under the headlights that feed wind directly to the front brakes, and reshaped the front splitter and rear diffuser for increased downforce. With the reprogrammed rear wing deployed, the body generates 882 pounds of downforce at its top speed. At 204 mph, we can report that it feels slot-car stable.

The extra output—199 horsepower and 184 pound-feet of torque—comes via four turbos that are 10 percent larger and bolted to the otherwise unchanged 16-cylinder warp drive in back. A less restrictive exhaust contributes as well. Fuel pressure is turned up, and an extra pair of in-tank fuel pumps—there are two in the base car, four in the Super Sport—do the juicing. The seven-speed, dual-clutch automated manual drives beefier prop shafts through a reinforced second and third gear and a taller seventh gear, which makes for a claimed 10 percent highway-mileage bump.

With its carbon-fiber outer panels, the Super Sport is 110 pounds lighter than the base, aluminum-bodied Veyron. A new, stiffer carbon-fiber weave is employed in the tub and saves 55 pounds alone. Bugatti also relocates the rear-differential cooler from the passenger-side gill to the rear diffuser, which reduces plumbing hardware, and unique wheels shave a net 25 pounds.

The Super Sport is still much too big and way too heavy to feel like a second skin. With its high sills and dash, it feels more like a really fast Jacuzzi. It’s loud inside—and not the delicious kind of loud you get in a Ferrari. The tires moan oppressively at any speed, and the engine’s voice is mostly a white noise of whirring and whooshing.

It exists mainly as an objet d’art for its owner and a one-car circus parade for the fawning public. It is perhaps the apogee of internal-combustion performance, the final word before the dawning dictatorship of electric pods. It is a Bugatti.

Specifications:

VEHICLE TYPE: mid-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe

BASE PRICE: $2,426,904

ENGINE TYPE: quad-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 64-valve W-16, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

Displacement: 488 cu in, 7998 cc
Power (SAE net): 1200 bhp @ 6400 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 1106 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 7-speed dual-clutch automated manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 106.7 in Length: 175.7 in
Width: 78.7 in Height: 45.1–46.9 in
Curb weight: 4400 lb

PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 2.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 9.7 sec
Top speed (governor limited): 258 mph

PROJECTED FUEL ECONOMY (C/D EST):
EPA city/highway driving: 7/15 mpg.

Source: www.caranddriver.com

»»  READMORE...