This Little Alpina BMW Makes Hybrids Look Stupid

If I wanted to plow snow, this would be the car for me!

 

I would like to see it's mpg in daily rush hour traffic.

 

I would argue that BMW makes the driver, not hybrids, look stupid

 

How ugly would the PiP Prius look like with a front end like the "Alpina"?

 

FUGLY!

 

I'd love to see how that does in crash tests

 

I think a key point would be the purchase price. Anybody?

 

Batman would drive it. I wouldn't be caught dead in that dorkmobile.

DBCassidy

 

I wonder why Jalopnik thought that was a good mileage? When I googled the race, I found the modern version and winner
Shell Eco-marathon - Shell Global
A thai team got 2901 km/l. It puts our cars to shame. They didn't even use that high powered diesel fuel to get there, it was on ethanol. Yep if it was street legal it could have gone from KL Malaysia all the way to Chang Mai, Thailand on a liter of everclear.

Its a pretty good concept for future tech though, this year's contest for the Americas is in Houston in April. I may go. Yes in 1981 you needed displacement. Not today. Higher rpm, direct injection, and turbo charging actually do let small engines do the work of the big v8s from that era. Unfortunately safety requirements don't let us drive nearly the efficient cars in the eco marathon.

 

Yeah, that BMW would neatly slide under what every it crash into.

 

If you look at the thai winning entry, it had a bullet nose, which would do fine in frontal crashes but likely would not rate a 5 mph US test. The narrow tail wouldn't make it though.

 

Wrt to Turbo engines...

Turbo injected engines use more fuel than a regular fuel injected engine to achieve the greater horsepower. Because of Turbo lag, Turbo injected engines will be slower for the first few seconds of acceleration than
a regular fuel injected engine until the turbo's fuel compressor/turbine starts adding more fuel into the engine. A turbo's advantage is in the longer acceleration times like the 1/4 mile where there's more time for the turbo to add more power. Every time the turbo is used - the fuel efficiency drops like a rock. The advantage of using a turbo is that it allows for a marginally lower displacement engine which means a lower curb weight and idling which takes less fuel/energy - however, a better solution is just to turn off the gas engine via stop-start idle tech. The long term trade off with Turbo engines is that the higher RPMs that a small displacement turbo injected engine would have to run inorder to achieve the same horsepower causes more stress and wear on the engine when it is pushed hard - because it has more complex pumping when a turbo breaks it is harder and more expensive to repair . A bigger non turbo engine would see less mechanical stress under the same driving conditions and would likely be more reliable and last longer.

The causal driver can forget duplicating the fuel efficiency achievements of any Shell Kilometer Marathon - these routes are especially designed to get good MPG and the cars are driven by expert hypermiling drivers.
Hypermiling skill is both something learned and somewhat of a talent.

The 1981 BMW Alpine tech is obsolete. Today's hybrids can match its performance and still past emissions and safety standards - which I doubt the 1981 BMW Alpine could do. Given special conditions after extensive effort in learning I have been able to achieve up to 85 mpg (US gallons or 102 mpg in imperial gallons) on my commute with a 2010 Prius; other Prius drivers on this forum have top that and gotten +99.9 mpg (US gallon or +120 mpg in imperial gallons) on specially designed routes but most causal drivers won't see this on a day to day commutes. Tech is constantly moving forward and obsolete designs like the Alpine belong in a museum as ideas that were tried and were abandoned for smarter and better designs.

Currently many Shell Marathon vehicles are especially design for low front aerodynamics drag and look more like flying saucers or bicycles than cars but when driven by an expert driver these vehicles can get over 1000 mpg. I agree too that most if not all these Marathon *eco* vehicles are not street legal - add the extra weight for the safety equipment and that high MPG is *busted.*

 

From the original article that lacks hybrid content, we're getting:

• 52 MPG - 2003 Prius
• 52 MPG - 2010 Prius about 5 mph than the 2003 Prius and in coder weather

From the first article, these are pathetic:

Source: original article

As for the second article about the 1981 Alpina's, over at Ecomodder.com they love to add aero body mods to improve mileage. The only hybrid content is the title and the content is useless. There are several 'low hanging fruit' that Toyota has yet to adopt but others have.

Bob Wilson

 

I think you are confusing a number of concepts, as Consumer Reports did in regards to this really stupid piece. The new small turbo designs like twin scrolling one in bmw 2L spool extremely fast and provide torque at low rpm. This allows them to down size a 3L 6 to a turbo 4. It also heats up faster because of smaller displacement, and can work into a miller cycle when on highway cruise control. Where these things suck gas is at high RPMs.

Now there are problems when the cylinders get too small, that loses thermal efficiency. There are also problems when technologies don't match. Here we have the case of say the ford 1.6L ecoboost versus the mazda skyactiv 2L. The displacement is not very different, so the start up costs are not going to change. The eco-boost has 25 extra hp, but if you use them the fuel economy will quickly drop, and in an application like a ford fusion or escape it is likely consumer reports or the customer will call on this extra hp. The skyactiv also has a couple of technological advances the ford engine doesn't - electronically controlled input valves and engineered piston cavities for higher compression. Ford and mazda trade technology, and that skyactiv likely would have been a better choice and even less expensive. When you get to the 2L ecoboost you get the head room but close to the power of a V6. An eco button could cut off the inefficient range of the engine when extra power was not needed. I expect in SUVs and Trucks where towing power is occasionally needed, but an eco-button could be used when it is not, turbo charging will be dominant in the future.

Ford has start stop with its small ecoboost. That helps even more in the real world but not on tests like Consumers reports..

BMW's 28i 2L turbo loafs at lower rpm on the highway not higher. My last turbo, which was older technology was doing fine at 125K miles when I sold it. Reliability is not a problem.

The cars in one category are allowed to go at 19 mph in the other 16 mph. This allows a very small engine. They are high school and college students driving these things. Wayne over at ecomoder could probably do better, but its an easy test.

Absolutely. Hybrids shine in the city, but this test was about not needing to stop, killing the advantage. The extra hybrid weight would likely hurt it in this contest by a little.

The winning one this year looked like a rain drop, which is nearly perfect for aero and holding its driver. We can't safely do the collapsed tail, but in a two seater we can make it small. Looking at how well the BEVs did, its likely for the real world you want an alcohol burning 2 seater phev.

 

Bob, you need to compare those numbers for CR, not your own. They say 44 for you new prius, not the 52 you are getting. Don't get worked up over CR test numbers for turbos and hybrids, they test funny.

The gen IV is supposed to be more aerodynic, by dropping the hood and lowering the car a little. I hope they add grill shutters. What other aero improvements do you see.

 

My short list, briefly:

• Underbody air inlet, eliminates all front openings and with active valve, allows intake of just the air needed ducted where required.
• Eliminate 'corners' of the bumper air inlet making it more flat. My tests with recessed and surface blocks indicates air spills out of the corners and causes a small but measured drag increase.
• Wheel-well still leaks too much air as seen in a recent Nashville highway trip in drizzle/rain. More enclosed makes a lot of sense however, this might be offered as an optional body kit as not everyone likes a sow-bug style that hides the tires.
• I've not done the experiment, yet, but possibly exhaust the engine compartment air out the wheel well or 'gills' behind the wheel wells.
• Speed activated, front and side, under body air dams. Inflatables makes a lot of sense, light weight and damage resistant.
• Move outside mirrors inside car looking through driver and passenger windows. A segmented, door-to-door mirror could accomplish the same effect.
• Adjustable suspension that lowers at speeds over 45 mph. Make it softer so we can run +60 psi tires.
• Either recess wipers or rest them following the airflow on each side of the front window.
• Vacuum draw air in at door and top of hatch joint for improved boundary layer control.
• More rear taper.

Bob Wilson

 

Is that considering the required air compressor?

An opening between the wheel well and engine compartment means more dirt going into the compartment. Couldn't ducting that air out the back help with turbulence there?

 

(Austingreen)
ISTM that you are saying that a smaller displacement turbo turbine can startup faster (less startup force required) and because it produces-adds less power a smaller turbo starts earlier at lower RPMs - so a smaller turbo design is more advantageous for fuel efficiency than a larger turbo displacement design.

I agree that things like individual fuel injection,electronically controlled input valves, and specially engineered piston head cavity can provided better compression and hence better Fuel efficiency (yet if designed another way it can also produce more horsepower with no improvement to fuel efficiency).

When a turbo breaks its more expensive to fix - so regardless of how reliable a turbo can be - I would not want test my luck by using a turbo to tow. It is that kind of thinking gives me the chilly willys.

Given that most of my miles are in the city and stop and go traffic suburbs where I can't go over 40 mph without having to stop every few minutes I consider aerodynamics less of a factor in fuel efficiency and the transmission system more of a factor in fuel efficiency.

I believe that stop and go idle tech does improve fuel efficiency in Consumer Report MPG driving tests - but I believe the Prius braking regeneration system and hybrid electric motors are helping out more - CR test include alot of hard/brisk accelerations from what I understand so alot of energy is lost via momentum/energy not recaptured. The only sure way to reduce this loss from hard braking in CR fuel efficiency testing cycle is to lower the curb weight of the vehicle - but then CR tester would be complaining about how "spartan" the vehicle is (e.g. Prius c / Yaris) and the vehicle would get an "unacceptable" rating which would be worst than getting a lower MPG rating.

Those high schooler and college kids in the Shell Marathon train on their vehicles for many hours - and they do have the advantage of the agility, indurance, and strength of youth . While Wayne Gerdes ofCleanmpg.com could likely beat them hands down - he's an elite Hypermiler who has many more hours of Hypermiling Marathons than they do and amateurs hypermilers like me.

 

Yes, so in the state of the art right now bmw has a small twin scroll turbo on their 2L di engine. There are only 2 cylinders on each scroll, and it has very low inertia. The 2 cylinders per scroll makes it so the turbo scavenges extra gas from the cylinder allowing for higher compression. The small turbo can't provide as much boost as a large turbo, so peak hp will be lower, but efficiency at lower rpms is increased and turbo lag reduced. You get a boost down at 1800 rpm which allows the ice to have higher thermal efficiency and lower frictional losses in normal driving. Like skyactiv the ice has variable lift on the imput valves, allowing it to go into a miller cycle when the boost is not needed, instead of dumping the energy out the waste gate as ecoboost does. All this tech does cost more money, and you only get 240 hp out of it instead of say the 274 with the Hyundai bigger turbo.

These things should always produce more efficiency with similar powered engines or even similar sized engines run at the same hp.

Turbos add to initial and repair cost, but so does any efficiency technology. HSD will cost more to repair since you need to go to a Toyota dealer Again where these turbo charged ices make sense is 200+ hp. If you only demand 150 or so the tech in skyactiv makes more sense.

Probably and regen braking Those kinds of drives are happily done with a hsd if you are willing to pay the costs.

I find CR and Edmunds do a poor job testing for MPG then make some outrages claims. CR got what 44 in the prius and 43 in the prius c. It got 33 which is the epa in the mazda 3 IIRC. That makes me think they were not braking in such a way to actually take advantage of the regen system.

Absolutely. I may to see this in Houston. It looks like a cool event. They don't have to drive my hills or go highway speed. Still It would be really cool if a winning team put the tech in a 3 wheeled street legal vehicle. I might buy one.