Eco FIT wishlist
#1
06-11-2008, 01:16 AM
Eco FIT wishlist
So, of course I have had nothing but praise for my Fit since purchasing it nearly three months ago, but I got to thinking of things that would really bring the car to the next level economy wise. Below is my wish list of items that could be added to the Fit to increase economy in order of ease of implementation.
1. Load-based, or TPS-based cruise. This is almost a freebie cost-wise for Honda since all it would take would be some R&D work to get the programming into the ECU to make it work. The computer already computes load based on a number of sensors, one of which is the throttle position sensor (TPS). A load-based, or TPS-based, cruise would help immensely with fuel economy of any vehicle, but especially those with smaller engines as it would keep the engine from working harder on uphill sections of roads, thus improving fuel efficiency. Overall, shouldn’t raise the price of the vehicle much, if any, to add this feature.
2. Taller gears in the transmission. Again, pretty much a freebie with regards to cost to Honda since they already cut gears to go into the transmission. All that would be needed would be some more R&D work to determine if taller gears would help the fuel efficiency of the Fit and implementation if they do. Again, shouldn’t raise the price at all to implement.
3. Better aerodynamics. The Fit is basically a shoebox. OK, so it’s a rounded shoebox with some good styling, but it’s still no Corvette. That’s great and one of the reasons why I love it. The Fit has great utility and cabin space for its small size. Still, I can’t help to think that the a little more aero work, particularly over the top of the car with a slightly reduce overall height above the beltline with a more raked windshield and some undercarriage work to smooth the under side of the car would go along way to helping the fuel economy of the car, especially on the highway. Maybe the next generation Fit coming in 2009 addresses some of this. This shouldn’t add too much to the overall cost of the vehicle. Again, some R&D work by Honda in the wind tunnel and maybe a few under carriage panels to smooth air flow. Figure about a $200 increase in overall price of the car.
4. Addition of variable valve lift (i-VTEC). Honda already has this on many of its cars, so why not the Fit? One reason I can think of is that is would add more cost and more complexity to what is currently a pretty basic car and drivetrain package. The addition of variable lift on the Fit (which I think some euro-spec versions of the Fit already have) would again help significantly with the fuel economy aspects of the car. This one would add a lot, relatively speaking, to the final price of the car. I’m guessing around $500. Although, it may not be that much since I think they already have it on some other versions of the Fit around the world.
5. Addition of a six gear to the transmission. By helping to bring the RPMs down during highway speed cruising, fuel efficiency is sure to go up. I almost couldn’t believe the amount of RPMs the engine was turning at only 65mph the first time I drove my Fit. I kept thinking I was in fourth gear and not fifth. I have since gotten use to it, but feel strongly that a six gear would help tremendously with highway mileage. So, figure about another $500 increase in the price of the car to get this much needed option.
6. Direct injection. Many new engines are turning to gasoline direct injection to help with not only fuel efficiency, but also emissions. Why not the Fit? Again, I have to think this has more to do with where the Fit is positioned in the market with its reputation as an “economy” car more than anything else, but I could be wrong. I don’t believe Honda has any US-spec vehicles right now with DI, but they have to be working on it. So, it would only seem logical that it could be adapted to the Fit. I’ve seen fuel consumption reductions ranging from 10 to 35% depending on engine size with DI, so figure 10% for the Fit. That’s an increase of at least 3mpg with this option alone, so I think it makes sense to do it. I’d say it would add about $700 to the price of the vehicle.
7. Turbocharged, “high feature” engine. Now this is, of course, my ultimate dream for the Fit, but one that doesn’t seem to far fetch when you read much of the literature about where gasoline, and diesel, technology is going. This engine would be a four-cam, 16 or 20 valve, i-VTEC, direct-injected, turbocharged wonder sporting only 1300cc, 1250cc, or even 1200cc worth of displacement. A small multi-vane turbocharger would easily fit in the area currently occupied by the exhaust manifold right now and with some extra tubing and a small, front-mount intercooler your only looking at about a 100 pounds of extra weight, at the most, that would be added to the vehicle. That includes the i-VTEC system because some of the added weight would be offset by a smaller block as a result of downsizing the engine. The turbo motor would make only about 15 more horsepower than the current engine (so 125hp), but make much more torque (around 160). Thus, providing improved acceleration with and less fuel consumption at cruising speed due to the decreased displacement of the engine versus the current 1.5L. This option I figure would add about $2,000, maybe less, to the price of a Fit. Maybe not the most economical idea, but I think well worth the try. It could be a new, top-of-the-line version of the Fit that not only has better performance, but also has better fuel efficiency as well. It could be called “Type S” or something.
So, with those seven ideas out there, what do you think would make a good option to add to the Fit to make it more fuel-efficient?
1. Load-based, or TPS-based cruise. This is almost a freebie cost-wise for Honda since all it would take would be some R&D work to get the programming into the ECU to make it work. The computer already computes load based on a number of sensors, one of which is the throttle position sensor (TPS). A load-based, or TPS-based, cruise would help immensely with fuel economy of any vehicle, but especially those with smaller engines as it would keep the engine from working harder on uphill sections of roads, thus improving fuel efficiency. Overall, shouldn’t raise the price of the vehicle much, if any, to add this feature.
2. Taller gears in the transmission. Again, pretty much a freebie with regards to cost to Honda since they already cut gears to go into the transmission. All that would be needed would be some more R&D work to determine if taller gears would help the fuel efficiency of the Fit and implementation if they do. Again, shouldn’t raise the price at all to implement.
3. Better aerodynamics. The Fit is basically a shoebox. OK, so it’s a rounded shoebox with some good styling, but it’s still no Corvette. That’s great and one of the reasons why I love it. The Fit has great utility and cabin space for its small size. Still, I can’t help to think that the a little more aero work, particularly over the top of the car with a slightly reduce overall height above the beltline with a more raked windshield and some undercarriage work to smooth the under side of the car would go along way to helping the fuel economy of the car, especially on the highway. Maybe the next generation Fit coming in 2009 addresses some of this. This shouldn’t add too much to the overall cost of the vehicle. Again, some R&D work by Honda in the wind tunnel and maybe a few under carriage panels to smooth air flow. Figure about a $200 increase in overall price of the car.
4. Addition of variable valve lift (i-VTEC). Honda already has this on many of its cars, so why not the Fit? One reason I can think of is that is would add more cost and more complexity to what is currently a pretty basic car and drivetrain package. The addition of variable lift on the Fit (which I think some euro-spec versions of the Fit already have) would again help significantly with the fuel economy aspects of the car. This one would add a lot, relatively speaking, to the final price of the car. I’m guessing around $500. Although, it may not be that much since I think they already have it on some other versions of the Fit around the world.
5. Addition of a six gear to the transmission. By helping to bring the RPMs down during highway speed cruising, fuel efficiency is sure to go up. I almost couldn’t believe the amount of RPMs the engine was turning at only 65mph the first time I drove my Fit. I kept thinking I was in fourth gear and not fifth. I have since gotten use to it, but feel strongly that a six gear would help tremendously with highway mileage. So, figure about another $500 increase in the price of the car to get this much needed option.
6. Direct injection. Many new engines are turning to gasoline direct injection to help with not only fuel efficiency, but also emissions. Why not the Fit? Again, I have to think this has more to do with where the Fit is positioned in the market with its reputation as an “economy” car more than anything else, but I could be wrong. I don’t believe Honda has any US-spec vehicles right now with DI, but they have to be working on it. So, it would only seem logical that it could be adapted to the Fit. I’ve seen fuel consumption reductions ranging from 10 to 35% depending on engine size with DI, so figure 10% for the Fit. That’s an increase of at least 3mpg with this option alone, so I think it makes sense to do it. I’d say it would add about $700 to the price of the vehicle.
7. Turbocharged, “high feature” engine. Now this is, of course, my ultimate dream for the Fit, but one that doesn’t seem to far fetch when you read much of the literature about where gasoline, and diesel, technology is going. This engine would be a four-cam, 16 or 20 valve, i-VTEC, direct-injected, turbocharged wonder sporting only 1300cc, 1250cc, or even 1200cc worth of displacement. A small multi-vane turbocharger would easily fit in the area currently occupied by the exhaust manifold right now and with some extra tubing and a small, front-mount intercooler your only looking at about a 100 pounds of extra weight, at the most, that would be added to the vehicle. That includes the i-VTEC system because some of the added weight would be offset by a smaller block as a result of downsizing the engine. The turbo motor would make only about 15 more horsepower than the current engine (so 125hp), but make much more torque (around 160). Thus, providing improved acceleration with and less fuel consumption at cruising speed due to the decreased displacement of the engine versus the current 1.5L. This option I figure would add about $2,000, maybe less, to the price of a Fit. Maybe not the most economical idea, but I think well worth the try. It could be a new, top-of-the-line version of the Fit that not only has better performance, but also has better fuel efficiency as well. It could be called “Type S” or something.
So, with those seven ideas out there, what do you think would make a good option to add to the Fit to make it more fuel-efficient?
#3
06-11-2008, 01:43 AM
Hey nice writeup. I agree with most of your points. Enjoy your new green rep dot 
1) Great idea, I think cruise should be a standard feature on all cars
2) & 5) A 6th gear would give you the taller gears you are looking for
3) Rear diffuser would do wonders IMO
4) The current layout is pretty slick 12/16v configuration, I wouldn't change
6) Totally agree with high pressure direct injection, much higher efficiency
7) Also agree, however I would build on it a bit. VW has been working with a Turbo & Supercharger philosophy which is yielding very promising efficiency. With focus on efficiency rather than power I think the Fit could benefit from a higher compression setup. Although then it would not be able to take regular fuel. I cherish my regular gasoline
I think the Fit was built as a reliable economy car, no hybrid technology or complicated parts, just a simple gas engine. I think they have hit the mark. I don't really believe in hybrid cars as battery technology isn't where I think it should be yet.
1) Great idea, I think cruise should be a standard feature on all cars
2) & 5) A 6th gear would give you the taller gears you are looking for
3) Rear diffuser would do wonders IMO
4) The current layout is pretty slick 12/16v configuration, I wouldn't change
6) Totally agree with high pressure direct injection, much higher efficiency
7) Also agree, however I would build on it a bit. VW has been working with a Turbo & Supercharger philosophy which is yielding very promising efficiency. With focus on efficiency rather than power I think the Fit could benefit from a higher compression setup. Although then it would not be able to take regular fuel. I cherish my regular gasoline
I think the Fit was built as a reliable economy car, no hybrid technology or complicated parts, just a simple gas engine. I think they have hit the mark. I don't really believe in hybrid cars as battery technology isn't where I think it should be yet.
#4
06-11-2008, 11:59 AM
Like all the engineers at Honda have not put these ideas forth already? I spent nearly a decade with automotive engineers in Japan, they are car nuts and would do all this in a heartbeat. There are limits imposed by the marketplace, the vast majority are thrilled with the car as sales figures and reviews would show. Most of what you are seeking is available aftermarket anyway. Frankly, I would like to see what Acura would produce given a Fit like car to work with.
Fire the ideas off to Honda and see if it makes a difference.
Fire the ideas off to Honda and see if it makes a difference.
#5
06-11-2008, 12:26 PM
So, of course I have had nothing but praise for my Fit since purchasing it nearly three months ago, but I got to thinking of things that would really bring the car to the next level economy wise. Below is my wish list of items that could be added to the Fit to increase economy in order of ease of implementation.
1. Load-based, or TPS-based cruise. This is almost a freebie cost-wise for Honda since all it would take would be some R&D work to get the programming into the ECU to make it work. The computer already computes load based on a number of sensors, one of which is the throttle position sensor (TPS). A load-based, or TPS-based, cruise would help immensely with fuel economy of any vehicle, but especially those with smaller engines as it would keep the engine from working harder on uphill sections of roads, thus improving fuel efficiency. Overall, shouldn’t raise the price of the vehicle much, if any, to add this feature.
2. Taller gears in the transmission. Again, pretty much a freebie with regards to cost to Honda since they already cut gears to go into the transmission. All that would be needed would be some more R&D work to determine if taller gears would help the fuel efficiency of the Fit and implementation if they do. Again, shouldn’t raise the price at all to implement.
3. Better aerodynamics. The Fit is basically a shoebox. OK, so it’s a rounded shoebox with some good styling, but it’s still no Corvette. That’s great and one of the reasons why I love it. The Fit has great utility and cabin space for its small size. Still, I can’t help to think that the a little more aero work, particularly over the top of the car with a slightly reduce overall height above the beltline with a more raked windshield and some undercarriage work to smooth the under side of the car would go along way to helping the fuel economy of the car, especially on the highway. Maybe the next generation Fit coming in 2009 addresses some of this. This shouldn’t add too much to the overall cost of the vehicle. Again, some R&D work by Honda in the wind tunnel and maybe a few under carriage panels to smooth air flow. Figure about a $200 increase in overall price of the car.
4. Addition of variable valve lift (i-VTEC). Honda already has this on many of its cars, so why not the Fit? One reason I can think of is that is would add more cost and more complexity to what is currently a pretty basic car and drivetrain package. The addition of variable lift on the Fit (which I think some euro-spec versions of the Fit already have) would again help significantly with the fuel economy aspects of the car. This one would add a lot, relatively speaking, to the final price of the car. I’m guessing around $500. Although, it may not be that much since I think they already have it on some other versions of the Fit around the world.
5. Addition of a six gear to the transmission. By helping to bring the RPMs down during highway speed cruising, fuel efficiency is sure to go up. I almost couldn’t believe the amount of RPMs the engine was turning at only 65mph the first time I drove my Fit. I kept thinking I was in fourth gear and not fifth. I have since gotten use to it, but feel strongly that a six gear would help tremendously with highway mileage. So, figure about another $500 increase in the price of the car to get this much needed option.
6. Direct injection. Many new engines are turning to gasoline direct injection to help with not only fuel efficiency, but also emissions. Why not the Fit? Again, I have to think this has more to do with where the Fit is positioned in the market with its reputation as an “economy” car more than anything else, but I could be wrong. I don’t believe Honda has any US-spec vehicles right now with DI, but they have to be working on it. So, it would only seem logical that it could be adapted to the Fit. I’ve seen fuel consumption reductions ranging from 10 to 35% depending on engine size with DI, so figure 10% for the Fit. That’s an increase of at least 3mpg with this option alone, so I think it makes sense to do it. I’d say it would add about $700 to the price of the vehicle.
7. Turbocharged, “high feature” engine. Now this is, of course, my ultimate dream for the Fit, but one that doesn’t seem to far fetch when you read much of the literature about where gasoline, and diesel, technology is going. This engine would be a four-cam, 16 or 20 valve, i-VTEC, direct-injected, turbocharged wonder sporting only 1300cc, 1250cc, or even 1200cc worth of displacement. A small multi-vane turbocharger would easily fit in the area currently occupied by the exhaust manifold right now and with some extra tubing and a small, front-mount intercooler your only looking at about a 100 pounds of extra weight, at the most, that would be added to the vehicle. That includes the i-VTEC system because some of the added weight would be offset by a smaller block as a result of downsizing the engine. The turbo motor would make only about 15 more horsepower than the current engine (so 125hp), but make much more torque (around 160). Thus, providing improved acceleration with and less fuel consumption at cruising speed due to the decreased displacement of the engine versus the current 1.5L. This option I figure would add about $2,000, maybe less, to the price of a Fit. Maybe not the most economical idea, but I think well worth the try. It could be a new, top-of-the-line version of the Fit that not only has better performance, but also has better fuel efficiency as well. It could be called “Type S” or something.
So, with those seven ideas out there, what do you think would make a good option to add to the Fit to make it more fuel-efficient?
1. Load-based, or TPS-based cruise. This is almost a freebie cost-wise for Honda since all it would take would be some R&D work to get the programming into the ECU to make it work. The computer already computes load based on a number of sensors, one of which is the throttle position sensor (TPS). A load-based, or TPS-based, cruise would help immensely with fuel economy of any vehicle, but especially those with smaller engines as it would keep the engine from working harder on uphill sections of roads, thus improving fuel efficiency. Overall, shouldn’t raise the price of the vehicle much, if any, to add this feature.
2. Taller gears in the transmission. Again, pretty much a freebie with regards to cost to Honda since they already cut gears to go into the transmission. All that would be needed would be some more R&D work to determine if taller gears would help the fuel efficiency of the Fit and implementation if they do. Again, shouldn’t raise the price at all to implement.
3. Better aerodynamics. The Fit is basically a shoebox. OK, so it’s a rounded shoebox with some good styling, but it’s still no Corvette. That’s great and one of the reasons why I love it. The Fit has great utility and cabin space for its small size. Still, I can’t help to think that the a little more aero work, particularly over the top of the car with a slightly reduce overall height above the beltline with a more raked windshield and some undercarriage work to smooth the under side of the car would go along way to helping the fuel economy of the car, especially on the highway. Maybe the next generation Fit coming in 2009 addresses some of this. This shouldn’t add too much to the overall cost of the vehicle. Again, some R&D work by Honda in the wind tunnel and maybe a few under carriage panels to smooth air flow. Figure about a $200 increase in overall price of the car.
4. Addition of variable valve lift (i-VTEC). Honda already has this on many of its cars, so why not the Fit? One reason I can think of is that is would add more cost and more complexity to what is currently a pretty basic car and drivetrain package. The addition of variable lift on the Fit (which I think some euro-spec versions of the Fit already have) would again help significantly with the fuel economy aspects of the car. This one would add a lot, relatively speaking, to the final price of the car. I’m guessing around $500. Although, it may not be that much since I think they already have it on some other versions of the Fit around the world.
5. Addition of a six gear to the transmission. By helping to bring the RPMs down during highway speed cruising, fuel efficiency is sure to go up. I almost couldn’t believe the amount of RPMs the engine was turning at only 65mph the first time I drove my Fit. I kept thinking I was in fourth gear and not fifth. I have since gotten use to it, but feel strongly that a six gear would help tremendously with highway mileage. So, figure about another $500 increase in the price of the car to get this much needed option.
6. Direct injection. Many new engines are turning to gasoline direct injection to help with not only fuel efficiency, but also emissions. Why not the Fit? Again, I have to think this has more to do with where the Fit is positioned in the market with its reputation as an “economy” car more than anything else, but I could be wrong. I don’t believe Honda has any US-spec vehicles right now with DI, but they have to be working on it. So, it would only seem logical that it could be adapted to the Fit. I’ve seen fuel consumption reductions ranging from 10 to 35% depending on engine size with DI, so figure 10% for the Fit. That’s an increase of at least 3mpg with this option alone, so I think it makes sense to do it. I’d say it would add about $700 to the price of the vehicle.
7. Turbocharged, “high feature” engine. Now this is, of course, my ultimate dream for the Fit, but one that doesn’t seem to far fetch when you read much of the literature about where gasoline, and diesel, technology is going. This engine would be a four-cam, 16 or 20 valve, i-VTEC, direct-injected, turbocharged wonder sporting only 1300cc, 1250cc, or even 1200cc worth of displacement. A small multi-vane turbocharger would easily fit in the area currently occupied by the exhaust manifold right now and with some extra tubing and a small, front-mount intercooler your only looking at about a 100 pounds of extra weight, at the most, that would be added to the vehicle. That includes the i-VTEC system because some of the added weight would be offset by a smaller block as a result of downsizing the engine. The turbo motor would make only about 15 more horsepower than the current engine (so 125hp), but make much more torque (around 160). Thus, providing improved acceleration with and less fuel consumption at cruising speed due to the decreased displacement of the engine versus the current 1.5L. This option I figure would add about $2,000, maybe less, to the price of a Fit. Maybe not the most economical idea, but I think well worth the try. It could be a new, top-of-the-line version of the Fit that not only has better performance, but also has better fuel efficiency as well. It could be called “Type S” or something.
So, with those seven ideas out there, what do you think would make a good option to add to the Fit to make it more fuel-efficient?
#7
06-11-2008, 10:17 PM
By the way, the Yaris has variable lift (VVT-i) and still gets great gas mileage and achieves a ULEV-II rating.
#9
06-11-2008, 11:53 PM
I believe the all new, redesigned 2009 Honda Fit addresses some of your concerns. The all new 1.5 liter engine that will come in the all new '09 Fit has i-VTEC. Also the new Fit is definitely more aerodynamic as compared to the current Fit. Hopefully fuel economy will improve on the '09 Fit as well. With gas prices going up, up, up I wonder if Honda will reconsider and give us the new 1.3 liter i-VTEC engine for the base Fit.
#11
06-15-2008, 10:41 PM
Any examples beyond the obvious Prius? Just wondering, sometimes I need to break out a fact or two in a bet type conversation.
#12
06-15-2008, 10:44 PM
Ought to be standard in all vehicles, might be if the government gets going in a proper govt.
#13
06-16-2008, 12:26 AM
These are all ideas to improve the current (USDM) car.
I'd like to find some underbody panels in the aftermarket that fit my Fit and not just the JDM models. Specifically a rear diffuser, maybe a larger front undertray. Smoothing out the airflow under the car will help the shoebox I own to be more aerodynamic.
I'm also thinking about lowering springs for the same reason, but I don't want anything too radical. Just a wee drop to improve the aero.
A taller final drive would be nice too. 1st gear is over in a microsecond and 5th is too short; a taller final drive would move them all up.
I'd like to find some underbody panels in the aftermarket that fit my Fit and not just the JDM models. Specifically a rear diffuser, maybe a larger front undertray. Smoothing out the airflow under the car will help the shoebox I own to be more aerodynamic.
I'm also thinking about lowering springs for the same reason, but I don't want anything too radical. Just a wee drop to improve the aero.
A taller final drive would be nice too. 1st gear is over in a microsecond and 5th is too short; a taller final drive would move them all up.
#15
06-16-2008, 03:17 AM
Does that mean you know where I can get the stuff I'm looking for? Or does it mean you're just shooting off an answer without really adding anything to the thread.
#16
06-16-2008, 07:24 PM
These are all ideas to improve the current (USDM) car.
I'd like to find some underbody panels in the aftermarket that fit my Fit and not just the JDM models. Specifically a rear diffuser, maybe a larger front undertray. Smoothing out the airflow under the car will help the shoebox I own to be more aerodynamic.
I'm also thinking about lowering springs for the same reason, but I don't want anything too radical. Just a wee drop to improve the aero.
A taller final drive would be nice too. 1st gear is over in a microsecond and 5th is too short; a taller final drive would move them all up.
I'd like to find some underbody panels in the aftermarket that fit my Fit and not just the JDM models. Specifically a rear diffuser, maybe a larger front undertray. Smoothing out the airflow under the car will help the shoebox I own to be more aerodynamic.
I'm also thinking about lowering springs for the same reason, but I don't want anything too radical. Just a wee drop to improve the aero.
A taller final drive would be nice too. 1st gear is over in a microsecond and 5th is too short; a taller final drive would move them all up.
lowering springs: buy some. progress has a subtle drop.
taller final drive: it'd have to be custom and most likely be $1k+. think how long you'd have to drive and save gas to re-coop the cost.
#17
06-16-2008, 07:41 PM
But if all of this were options in the FIT when we bought it then we wouldnt have these concerns...i know that if they were an option then i would have gotten them as well as most FIT owners.
#18
06-16-2008, 07:46 PM
#19
06-16-2008, 10:35 PM
Or use the search function:
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/fit-...nderpanel.html
One down, one to go.
Still using the search function on this. I don't want to sacrifice very much at all in terms of ride, and I want handling to be at least as good as stock. For example, I run Prodrive springs on my STi; least drop of any of the aftermarket springs, improved ride quality, improved handling. I want to find the equivalent spring for the Fit.
True, but the benefits would not only be fuel economy; I expect it might add some longevity too. Eh, it's a pipe dream in any case. I'll keep working on the others.
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/fit-...nderpanel.html
One down, one to go.
lowering springs: buy some. progress has a subtle drop.
taller final drive: it'd have to be custom and most likely be $1k+. think how long you'd have to drive and save gas to re-coop the cost.
#20
06-16-2008, 10:39 PM
Or use the search function:
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/fit-...nderpanel.html
One down, one to go.
Still using the search function on this. I don't want to sacrifice very much at all in terms of ride, and I want handling to be at least as good as stock. For example, I run Prodrive springs on my STi; least drop of any of the aftermarket springs, improved ride quality, improved handling. I want to find the equivalent spring for the Fit.
True, but the benefits would not only be fuel economy; I expect it might add some longevity too. Eh, it's a pipe dream in any case. I'll keep working on the others.
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/fit-...nderpanel.html
One down, one to go.
Still using the search function on this. I don't want to sacrifice very much at all in terms of ride, and I want handling to be at least as good as stock. For example, I run Prodrive springs on my STi; least drop of any of the aftermarket springs, improved ride quality, improved handling. I want to find the equivalent spring for the Fit.
True, but the benefits would not only be fuel economy; I expect it might add some longevity too. Eh, it's a pipe dream in any case. I'll keep working on the others.