Washington, D.C. –Mississippi State University was crowned the winner of the Challenge X 2008, a competition that challenges students to modify a SUV to achieve greater fuel economy, while maintaining drivability and customer friendliness. The winning SUV improved its mileage rating by 38%, the organizers of the event report.

Now in its fourth year, students from Mississippi State have won the Challenge X for the second time in a row. The competition was held among 17 universities, all of which were given a 2006 Chevrolet Equinox compact SUV and the task to modify the car to achieve improved fuel economy. The vehicle is one of those SUVs many of us drive – it isn’t particularly fuel efficient with its standard 185 hp, 3.4 liter V6 engine and a mileage rating at 17/24 mpg (city/hwy), but it isn’t one of those gas-guzzling monsters that have trouble hitting the 15 mpg mark either.

Each university was given a car in 2005, which has been reused and modified for each competition round over the past three years. While no reasons were provided to us why Mississippi State came out on top this year, it appears that the students found the best compromise between the disciplines of drive quality, consumer acceptability, technical presentation, technical progress, on-road safety, acceleration, auto-cross, on-road-emissions and well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions. The Mississippi State vehicle claims to achieve a 38% improvement in fuel economy, which would mean that the modified vehicle is rated at about 23/33 mpg (city/hwy). In a previous round, the team from the University of Wisconsin claimed that its Equinox was running at 35/38 mpg.

The three winning teams came up with similar concepts to improve their vehicle. As all teams, the stock 3.4 liter V6 was thrown out and replaced with a 1.9 liter turbo diesel, which delivers about 150 hp. In all three cases, the drive train was supported through a electric engine, delivering 88 hp in the case of the Mississippi State and University of Wisconsin vehicles and 91 hp in the Ohio State version. All three cars are running on B20 bio-diesel fuel.

A total of twelve teams used bio-diesel fuel, while the minority put their bets on Ethanol E85 and hydrogen. Pennsylvania State University, Texas Tech University and the University of Tulsa used hydrogen as a supplementary or secondary propulsion source. Penn State injected hydrogen into its vehicle’s diesel engine as an emissions abatement strategy. The University of California at Davis is the only team to use plug-in hybrid technology for the energy source for its Challenge X vehicle.

Too little too late.

May 22, 2008 12:41     

Too little too late, Europe has been doing this for ages...
Phil report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -3

Moving deckchairs on the Titanic

May 23, 2008 03:00     

So why, exactly, do you need 2 tons of vehicle to transport 1 person? Any nbew private vehicle that does less than 50mpg is OBSOLETE - what's so difficult to understand about that? The era of cheap fuel is over - adapt or perish.
John E report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -3

Re: Moving deckchairs on the Titanic

May 23, 2008 12:57     

It really depends on where you live. There are good reasons for testing this technology on SUV's, the biggest being that any advancements or technology capable of making SUV's more fuel efficient can also be applied to smaller vehicles with the potential for even greater fuel savings benefits. Often times working on a worst-case scenario and improving is an excellent way of making the best-case scenarios even better. The majority of Europe (and much of the US for that matter) has no need for an SUV, nor are they really all that feasible with many cities in Europe being many centuries old and having narrower streets. Europe is also far ahead of the US in terms of public transportation as well. Winters are also milder in much of Western Europe due to the warmer coastal waters from the gulf stream current. I live in the Rocky Mountains, and we've been known to get a couple feet of snow on the roads during winters and plows hitting residential streets isn't always a major concern in some areas. Getting to/from work at times requires 4-wheel or all-wheel drive and plenty of ground clearance. This being the case, it's far more practical for me to own and drive an SUV than it does for me to drive a smaller, more fuel-efficient car (even one with awd). That said, fuel economy is still a concern for me, even though I can afford the $4/gallon price for fuel. I appreciate companies manufacturing fuel efficient SUVs and doing research on improving fuel economy for this class of vehicles. Just because a certain vehicle type doesn't make sense in many places around the world doesn't mean there aren't places where they do. Companies should continue to manufacture a variety of vehicles for those people who need the benefits a particular vehicle offers and are willing/able to accept the costs associated with it. In the end, companies are going to make what people buy; it doesn't hurt to try and improve all vehicles and not just the ones that make sense to certain people.

Dan G report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +3

you americans

May 26, 2008 04:16     

need to stop complaining, your only paying $1.00 a letre for fuel/ that isn't what i'd call a bad thing. we in australia are paying from $1.40 - 1.60 /letre and could be $2/L by years end, thats $7.50/gallon, england pay near $8/Gallon already, you really dont have that much to complain about. atleast a bit of world price parity is starting to occur.
well report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0