Custom Wheels Boost Highway MPG

[darrelld]

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/12/evolve-20121203.html

Lacks Wheel Trim Systems LLC, a business unit of Lacks Enterprises, Inc., a global supplier of trim systems to the automotive industry, introduced its new patented eVOLVE hybrid composite wheel technology, based on Lacks’ Chromtec wheel technology, at the Los Angeles Auto Show.

 

Hybrid-composite eVOLVE wheels developed for the Ford Focus as an initial proof of design showed a fuel economy improvement of 1.1 miles per gallon highway by balancing weight reduction and optimizing aerodynamics. As a comparison, the Focus production wheel BM5J-1007-DB (17x7x50) weighs 23.7 lbs (10.75 kg); the eVOLVE wheel (17x7x50) weighs 19.2 lbs (8.7 kg). Use of the eVOLVE wheels showed a 0.4 mpg improvement on the city cycle.

 

Fuel economy testing was per EPA’s “Vehicle Specific 5-cycle Fuel Economy and Carbon-Related Exhaust Emissions Calculations” (CFR 600.114-12). Lacks engineers believe there is further room for optimization of fuel economy through design and materials.

[jmckinley]

Bulls--t.

[CNCGeek]

Sounds reasonable, the factory wheels are designed for both cost and fuel economy.  An aftermarket wheel can be optimized for FE if somebody is willing to pay for it.  Thats how engineering works.

[Chinto]

Sounds good on paper.  The promised 1.1 mpg improvement would require the wheels be really cheap to have any return of investment.   So do they at least look cool?

[Generalbeluga]

I have only one comment, "Ford said we'd get 47MPG" with the C Max and that has turned out to be mostly bull s--t as well!  Besides who would be dumb enough to pay $800 (guessing here) for new wheels to gain a measly 1.1 MPG?  The pay back would be a thousand years!   :)

[11StiLimited]

I have only one comment, "Ford said we'd get 47MPG" with the C Max and that has turned out to be mostly bull s--t as well!  Besides who would be dumb enough to pay $800 (guessing here) for new wheels to gain a measly 1.1 MPG?  The pay back would be a thousand years!   :)

Unless you already extremely dislike the Ford wheels to begin with, that is.

[wab]

I have only one comment, "Ford said we'd get 47MPG" with the C Max and that has turned out to be mostly bull s--t as well!  Besides who would be dumb enough to pay $800 (guessing here) for new wheels to gain a measly 1.1 MPG?  The pay back would be a thousand years!   :)

 

Ford may want $800+ PER   wheel on our C-Max, they do for the Edge/MKX wheels.

[F8L]

I'm highly skeptical of their claims.

 

In my experience, a lighter wheel does not significantly affect fuel economy in a measurable way unless you go to extremes and shave off 20lbs per wheel. I've tried 24lbs wheels and 15lb wheels (17x7") on two of my Prii and the difference was not noticeable. I used the same tires to reduce errors.

 

We all know that lighter is better BUT how many years will it take you to recover the cost of those expensive wheels with a 1mpg gain? How about a 3mpg? Honestly you would be looking at 15+years to recover your costs. LOL

[Jus-A-CMax]

...but having a stealthy, black, drooling new wheels. Priceless.

 

:superhero:

[mtb9153]

I have only one comment, "Ford said we'd get 47MPG" with the C Max and that has turned out to be mostly bull s--t as well!  Besides who would be dumb enough to pay $800 (guessing here) for new wheels to gain a measly 1.1 MPG?  The pay back would be a thousand years!   :)

I somewhat disagree with this statement.  First of all it wasn't Ford who made this claim, it was the EPA who posted the estimates of 47/47.  As I see it, Ford just went along with it and started advertising the numbers.  Granted I haven't achieved 47mpg with every tank but I have seen 47+ mpg grace my trip summary screen.

[Hatchman]

I somewhat disagree with this statement.  First of all it wasn't Ford who made this claim, it was the EPA who posted the estimates of 47/47.  As I see it, Ford just went along with it and started advertising the numbers.  

 

So you are claiming the EPA tested a 2013 Ford C-Max and posted a 47/47/47 result.  Please reference where you found this information.

 

Everything I have read states that Ford came up with the numbers based on EPA guidelines. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/02/28/epa-gas-mileage-ford-cmax-fusion/1954967/

" Mileage testing is typically done by automakers, following rules set by the EPA, which then retests about 15% to be sure its procedures are being followed."

 

 

http://www.dailytech.com/EPA+Ready+to+Investigate+Ford+CMax+Fusion+Hybrid+Fuel+Economy+Claims/article29656.htm

"The Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it will test the fuel efficiency claims that Ford has put forward with its C-Max Hybrid and the Fusion Hybrid."

[Tdefny]

Let's see what Consumer Reports says about these wheels. They always have unbiased information!

[JAZ]

This topic reminds me of others on bicycle forums:  some riders will spend hundreds of dollars for gear that shaves a few ounces or grams from their rides.  Others scoff.

[zhackwyatt]

So you are claiming the EPA tested a 2013 Ford C-Max and posted a 47/47/47 result.  Please reference where you found this information.

 

Everything I have read states that Ford came up with the numbers based on EPA guidelines. 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/02/28/epa-gas-mileage-ford-cmax-fusion/1954967/

" Mileage testing is typically done by automakers, following rules set by the EPA, which then retests about 15% to be sure its procedures are being followed."

 

 

http://www.dailytech.com/EPA+Ready+to+Investigate+Ford+CMax+Fusion+Hybrid+Fuel+Economy+Claims/article29656.htm

"The Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it will test the fuel efficiency claims that Ford has put forward with its C-Max Hybrid and the Fusion Hybrid."

Ford runs the test.  They do it on a Dynamometer to EPA guidelines.  They don't come up with the number, it's still done in a controlled environment.

 

They could have lied, I doubt it though.  They could have "accidentally" misconfigured something, which I also doubt.

 

The reason I doubt it is because I've seen the EPA test speeds, and their high-speed test is complete garbage.  There are just too many assumptions and factors that are in MPG testing.  In my experience with my car, I could get 47 mpg without problem by following the test speeds that the EPA puts forth.

 

Discussions about the 47 mpg claim have been beaten to death 3 times over on this forum.

[grggwlkr]

yet it remains irresistable