Eco-Marathon Team Hits 2,843 mpg

At this year's Shell Eco-marathon Americas event the team from Mater Dei High School shattered last year's record by traveling 2,843.4 miles on a single gallon of gasoline. "How did the Evansville, Ind., team come up with its winning airfoil-meets-teardrop design and beat out its largely collegiate competitors? "It comes from trial and error, seeing what works and what doesn't," an unidentified student and team member told a local newscaster Friday. Those top three vehicles, like most in the competition (25 out of 33 total), used internal combustion engines. The goal for all entrants was to travel as far as possible using as little fuel as possible. Vehicles--sans driver--couldn't weigh more than 160 kilograms (352 pounds), while drivers had to weigh at least 50 kilograms."

then the oil companies showed up

[techpawn (969834)]

And adjusted their carburetor. Now it only gets 30 Miles per gallon.

What It could happen [snopes.com]...

Re:

[kabocox (199019)]

And adjusted their carburetor. Now it only gets 30 Miles per gallon.

Don't you mean the EPA showed up and made them meet air quality controls?

Hmph.

[captnjameskirk (599714)]

Let us briefly pause whilst my 1988 Mercury Grand Marquis sputters loudly with contempt.

Solar Equivalent to MPG?

[by Anonymous Coward]

What's the conversion so that solar cars can get "MPG" of gasoline?

Wonder if they are afraid to start their own cars?

[jocknerd (29758)]

Just imagine walking out to your car in the morning, getting in, turning the key, and kaboom!

Better Than People

[gbulmash (688770)]

According to this video [rough-equivalents.com] that's almost 10 times farther than a person could walk on a gallon of gasoline... if a person could metabolize gasoline, of course.

- Greg

Re:Better Than People

[gbulmash (688770)]

Sorry... This Video [youtube.com]. I was changing my .sig and didn't realize that URL was on the clipboard. I'm a dumbass.

Re:

[madsenj37 (612413)]

You bring up a good point though, how fast were the teams going? MPG is useless if one can walk to the destination as fast as one of these cars or faster.

RTFA. It didn't go that far on a gallon of gas.

[Darth Muffin (781947)]

If you read the article, the top competitor using gasline got 163.5 MPG. It does say they used Internal Combustion Engines, and it doesn't say what they did use but it's not gasoline. It doesn't say whether that 2843 MPG is miles per gallon of some other fuel of if they gave them the engergy equivalent of 1 gas of gasoline in that "some other fuel" and measured how far they went on that. Or maybe it's something else completely. The article is poor on details.

Calm Down

[Hubec (28321)]

The reporter got it wrong (as usual). The single entry was actually running Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) not as he reports "liquid petroleum gasoline". I believe the "combustion" class of which the winner was a part is plain old gasoline, just as the headline states.

Re:Calm Down

[shiftless (410350)]

The single entry was actually running Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) not as he reports "liquid petroleum gasoline".

For those who are unaware, in the United States LPG is basically propane. It is liquefied and stored in a pressure vessel under relatively low pressures, 150 psi or so. The most common (and preferred) variety of LPG in the US is HD-5 which is minimum 95% propane and a maximum 5% "other" gases, such as isobutane. The RON+MON/2 octane rating of HD-5 is 104.

While the energy content is a bit lower per-gallon compared to gasoline, the fuel does have a number of advantages which this team may have found helpful. First, the 104 octane would allow them to run a higher compression ratio than if they were using pump gasoline, which results in a big jump in fuel efficiency. Due to its gaseous nature, it's easier to meter and maintain the proper air:fuel ratio. The fuel delivery components are much simpler (and possibly lighter, depending on how they designed the vehicle) than a gasoline fuel system. Propane also burns more efficiently (mainly thanks to its gaseous nature), which could likely result in a improvement in a small engine. Another advantage is the fact that propane is a refrigerant, and thus absorbs a large amount of heat when it vaporizes from liquid to gas. This could be/could have been used to cool the incoming fuel/air mixture, resulting in a much denser mixture and measurably higher power output.

Amazing but worthless

[llZENll (545605)]

How about a contest where the results can actually benefit a normal car?

http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/ [progressiv...xprize.org]

totally impractical

[EricBoyd (532608)]

you've probably noticed already, but these are not practical vehicles. We're talking about single-person, prone-position, ground-hugging, 10-20 MPH vehicles. Of course you can get 2000+ MPG with those conditions! The Progressive Automotive X Prize [progressiv...xprize.org] is about practical vehicles getting 100 MPG (or equivalent). Now that's a race whose outcome is interesting! Check out some of the X Prize Cars [xprizecars.com] which have already been designed.

My old university got 5691 mpg in 1986

[Chirs (87576)]

Not sure if the rule have changed or what, but my university (University of Saskatchewan) got 5691 mpg in the Shell Fuelathon back in 1986, and 3086 mpg at the SAE Michigan Super Mileage Competition the same year.

The vehicle weighed 84 lbs and used a 70cc engine.

http://engrwww.usask.ca/affiliation/societies/sae/history.html [usask.ca]

2,843 MPG is shabby compared to...

[GPS Pilot (3683)]

...12,665 MPG, achived by a Swiss Eco-marathon competitor in 2005. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-Marathon [wikipedia.org] )

Gotta love this quote...

Shell points out that "it would be possible for the winning Shell Eco-Marathon UK car to travel three times around the equator on the same amount of fuel that Concorde needed to reach the end of the runway.

Do you know what this article is missing?

[WarJolt (990309)]

I want some technical details. Instructions on how to build my own. Hell it didn't even say how fast they were going. Where the juicy information?

Re:OH WOW

[wealthychef (584778)]

Car prolly doesn't even have an AM/FM radio.

It's not supposed to be for production, numb-nuts. Forumla 1 racers don't have AM radios, either, nor power windows. They must suck, eh?
Anyhow, I was wondering why there is an upper limit on weight in this contest? It seems like it's harder to get good mileage in a heavier car, so what gives with that?

Re:OH WOW

[chimpo13 (471212)]

My 1963 car gets 40mpg. Sure it's an 2-cylinder NSU Sport Prinz but even the 1960s Darts I've had got 25-30mpg with a slant six.

I don't understand why modern cars get such lousy mileage.

Re:

[Qzukk (229616)]

I don't understand why modern cars get such lousy mileage.

Air conditioning, for one thing.

Re:OH WOW

[Kozar_The_Malignant (738483)]

I don't understand why modern cars get such lousy mileage. Air conditioning, for one thing.

Modern cars get better mileage with the windows rolled up and the AC on than with the with the AC off and the windows rolled down. Of course the best mileage is with the AC off and the windows up, but the passengers might be done to medium-well at the end of the trip.

Re:OH WOW

[smooth wombat (796938)]

Modern cars get better mileage with the windows rolled up and the AC on than with the with the AC off and the windows rolled down.

That depends on your speed. Yes, I'm pulling out MythBusters because not only did they do this experiment, they went back and repeated it because they inadvertently screwed it up the first time.

The cut off point for when to use A/C or not is 50 mph. Below that, it is more efficient to leave the windows down than it is to use the A/C. Above that speed, the reverse is true.

How did they screw this up? They went 50 mph and tried things both ways. D'oh!

Re:OH WOW

[radl33t (900691)]

It depends on a lot more then vehicle speed. Inaccurate blanket statements are an issue with mythbusters. Their conclusion is obviously constrained by several parameters including, but not limited to, wind spd, wind dir, vehicle geometry, AC size, AC COPR, AC control, temp, humidity, etc. Many of these may very well change the conclusion by less than 10%, while others have a serious influence. In any event, five 5 percents add up. That's my problem with mythbusters, they take the most laborious(boring) yet critical component out of experimentation: defining the problem & methodology. This is a good example because the conclusion is essentially worthless. Rather then celebrate science, they completely miss the point.

Re:OH WOW

[Phanatic1a (413374)]

Weight.

Crash test standards add weight. Power windows, power-adjustable seating, 6-disc in-dash CD changers, power moonroof, they all add weight.

Colin Chapman, the founder of Lotus, pointed out that "Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere." He was going for speed, but the same thing applies to fuel economy.

Consider a car that's a lot newer than those you mention: the 1985 Honda CRX. It had a 76-horsepower engine, and it had a 9.1-second 0-60, and 32 miles to the gallon. It was able to do that because it only weighed 1860 pounds.

1860's unthinkably light by current standards. I drive a Mustang GT that has a curb weight of something like 3860 pounds, so that's more than two tons with a driver and a tank of gas. You want a performance car that's even close to that 1860lbs, you end up with...a Lotus Exige, which is about 2000 lbs. And costs a hell of a lot more than an '85 CRX.

Re:OH WOW

[homer_ca (144738)]

It's just like software bloat. Car models get bigger over time. A new Honda Fit is a closer match to your 92 Civic. It's probably a little smaller outside, but it matches the old Civic for power, comfort and interior room.

BTW, the EPA adjusted the mileage test for 2008. MPG is down across the board because the old mileage test was unrealistic and didn't match up with real world (read lead-footed) driving.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]

Honda Fit got 38 mpg highway under the old test, 34 mpg highway under the new test. If you drive it like a granny, you'd still get 38 mpg.

Burn and Coast

[michaelepley (239861)]

Also, an essential strategy for achieving high mileage is to burn the engine at optimum efficiency RPMs to quickly get to speed, and then use your mass combined with low aerodynamic and rolling losses to coast as long as possible (frequently almost to the point of stopping). This is why there are required average lap speeds and maximum speeds. Of course, this strategy could hardly be used in production vehicles or in public roads.

Power, add ons, cat, fuel

[Kupfernigk (1190345)]

First, the cat wastes power because fuel has to be burned to heat it to operating temperature. My 2007 Diesel is less efficient than my 2001 Diesel for this reason (I monitor the computers and it is clear that the 2007 model has to heat the cat before the fuel consumption goes to its lowest.After about 40 miles the newer model starts to use less fuel than the older one.)

Second, modern cars have bigger engines. Even a tiny town car in Europe often now has a 100BHP engine when 20 years ago it would have been 60. More acceleration, more wasted power, plus the bigger engine just takes more power to turn over. Third, modern fuel has a lower octane rating than older fuel, and so must use a lower compression ratio - which means lower efficiency, as you find out in basic thermodynamics. Finally, air con,power steering, all need power to operate. Even the most basic model of possibly the most basic car in Europe - the Hyundia i10- has air con, power steering, and a 60HP plus engine.

Despite this, the best modern engines are remarkably good because of advances in fuel injection (both Diesel and gas), and because the timing cycles and better valve gear result in less port wastage. The real fuel consumption of that 2007 Diesel is about 80% of my 1990 non-turbo mechanically injected model of the same weight and size, which is pretty good.

Re:OH WOW

[ewhac (5844)]

Anti-pollution devices.

I've heard this accusation before, but I don't grok it at all. My limited understanding was that anti-pollution devices were supposed to squelch unburned hydrocarbons emitted by inefficient engines. However, if your engine is more efficient -- if it more completely burns hydrocarbons -- then the emissions controls should be superfluous.

Could you explain this to me? In concrete terms, how are contemporary emissions controls impeding the development and release of more efficient vehicles?

Schwab

Re:OH WOW

[confused one (671304)]

I've heard this accusation before, but I don't grok it at all. My limited understanding was that anti-pollution devices were supposed to squelch unburned hydrocarbons emitted by inefficient engines. However, if your engine is more efficient -- if it more completely burns hydrocarbons -- then the emissions controls should be superfluous.

Well, to start with, the anti-pollution devices don't make the engine more efficient. They eliminate unburned hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides. Sometimes these anti-pollution systems actually use available horsepower to do their jobs. In some cases they reduce the efficiency of the engine, in order to reduce emissions.

One good example is the catalytic converter. It is in the exhaust stream, post combustion (usually mounted under the floor of the car). It works by catalytically combining oxygen, often pumped in, with any unburned hydrocarbon (CO, for example). Having the catalytic converter in the exhaust system acts as a restriction. So, it requires power to pump the oxygen it needs to do it's job, and it reduces the engines efficiency by increasing back-pressure.

I think you get the idea. I've read that the pollution control hardware costs the typical vehicle a couple of miles-per-gallon in efficiency

As to no longer needing them, once you improve the efficiency... Well, now that the laws are in place requiring the emission control systems to be included, it's always harder to undo a law, so there will be very little effort in that reguard. No politician wants to be known as the one who submitted the bill to remove the emission control devices. Particularly in today's political climate. In fact, the trend is to go the other way: If the engine becomes more efficient then the emission control system should be able to remove even more unburned hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides; and, the requirements therefore become stricter.

Re:

[0100010001010011 (652467)]

In the diesel world fuel is required to burn off trapped hydrocarbons.

On all new 2007+ truck engines a Diesel Particulate Filter is required to trap diesel 'soot'. What happens when this filter gets full is fuel is injected to heat up the the element and burn off the soot.

Also if you run your engine TOO efficiently you create NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen), which is also regulated as an emission. So if you're at a low load condition (say idle) you could get away with burning 0.1 gal/hr. But you'd be spewing NOx,

Re:OH WOW

[RingDev (879105)]

Not really. The EPA tightened the restrictions on diesel emissions last year (2007). The Diesel technology to meet those requirements already existed, but the excessive amount of sulfer in US Diesel prevented those systems from being introduced here.

Also taking place in 2007 was the change over from Low Sulfur Diesel (LSD) to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD). Because of the time line of the USLD conversion you could still buy LSD up until October/November of 2007, and In theory, the tanks could have a LSD/ULSD mix there after if there was still some amount of LSD in the storage tanks when the first ULSD delivery came in.

So basically, due to really crappy timing on the EPA's part (that ironically enough helped the US manufacturers who had no light duty diesel options), there was only 1 light duty diesel that could be sold in the US through 2007.

But now it's 2008. ULSD is the only Diesel now. VW, Mercedes, Jeep, hell even Honda all have new light duty diesels either already out, or coming out in the US this year.

-Rick

Re:OH WOW

[Phanatic1a (413374)]

Yeah, your guess sucks. Advances in engine technology have been utterly remarkable over the past several decades, to the point where Honda can squeeze well over 200 horsepower out of a naturally-aspirated 2-liter 4-cylinder engine. Specific power has increased by incredible amounts since the cars the poster was referring to.

Cars have gained ridiculous amounts of weight since the 1960s, but that's not because of the engines.

Re:OH WOW

[Tuidjy (321055)]

I have a 460hp (modded) car that got 38mpg on a LA-San Diego round trip. At the same time, it gets about 2mpg at full throttle and top speed. There is nothing wrong with modern engines, but if you have a ton of power and habitually use it, you will pay in fuel.

And do not forget, modern cars are heavier because of safety requirements, noise reduction materials, power everything, air conditioners, etc...

Re:OH WOW

[Fozzyuw (950608)]

and that passenger has to be 110 lbs or less.

while drivers had to weigh at least 50 kilograms.

From the article, drivers had to weight 110lbs or more, not less.

Re:

[Cecil (37810)]

You're right, the weight that cars have gained has not been because of the engines, but the other poster never said that it was. He said that engine sizes have increased, and he's right. The additional weight has resulted in a significant increase in the sizes of the engines to compensate for the added weight while maintaining or increasing performance. So yes, the increased fuel consumption is because of bigger engines. The bigger engines, in turn, are because of the increased weight.

So I wouldn't say his

Re:OH WOW

[CrazedWalrus (901897)]

Yeah -- we're all taller than you.

Re:

[wizardforce (1005805)]

it's easier to claim thousands of miles per gallon on such small vehicles than it is for a typical car. "we got 3,000 miles per gallon!" sounds far more impressive than "we got 100 miles per gallon" even though 100 mpg is amazing in of its self they are looking for overkill.

OH WOW - not for consumers

[Jack9 (11421)]

It's not supposed to be for production, numb-nuts. Forumla 1 racers don't have AM radios, either, nor power windows. They must suck, eh?

The implication is that the achievement is not a matter of fuel/applied power efficiency alone. If the primary reason (most of these) contests exist is relegated to an afterthought, the arbitrary rules that allow for such a minimal design seem silly. Why isn't the car tested in a lab if you're going to remove it from the realm of real application anyways? What's the point i

Re:Not Eligible

[by Anonymous Coward]

How do you measure miles per gallon on a non-gasoline-powered vehicle?

Re:Not Eligible

[Panaflex (13191)]

Because both vehicles' power can be measure in watts, e.g. a gallon of gas contains around 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy.

Re:Not Eligible

[Rei (128717)]

It's fundamentally not a fair comparison. For example, per kilogram, hydrogen has a lot more energy than gasoline. And fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Of course, to make that hydrogen, a lot more energy was wasted than when making gasoline. And that hydrogen is bulky, hitting range. But that wouldn't hurt it here; by your rules, hydrogen vehicles would win easily.

Anyways: to those who think these vehicles are whimsical and whose tech can't readily be applied to streetlegal cars: As I posted over on Autobloggreen.com [autobloggreen.com], compare This [shell.com] eco-marathon winner with this [fuel-effic...hicles.org] car due out this fall.

Of course, you see the problems with commercializing these eco-racers as-is. They're not stable enough for high speeds (hence Aptera's need to broaden the front wheelbase, increasing the drag coeff, as well as wider tires for better handling), there's too much ground turbulence at high speeds (hence the higher body), they're not comfortable for passengers (hence the larger cross section), and they're not streetlegal (hence things like the truncated, not-completely-tapered tail). Also, there's the fact that by their very nature, things like "normal driving cycles" and "highway speeds" greatly increase drag. And all of this adds weight, too. Hence, "thousands of miles per gallon" turns into "130 miles per gallon" (in the Typ-1h). Still impressive, mind you.

Re:Not Eligible

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Well, you could measure how far it could travel before the 1 gallon of gas eventually escaped from the walls of the gas tank.

Re:

[Firehed (942385)]

That may be true, but it's still a pretty meaningless number if you're not actually consuming gasoline. I could measure the power consumption based off the number of candles it takes to power a steam-based generator, but that would be equally stupid. Like the ongoing "Libraries of Congress" thing.

If you're going to use an indirect unit of measure to determine the vehicle's efficiency, surely you'd be better off with pounds of CO2 as a waste-product of the energy production to power the vehicle for an hour

Re:Not Eligible

[atommota (1024887)]

Maybe if you'd RTFA you'd see that only solar cars were excluded from the grand prize (all other fuels were ok including LP, H2, fuel cells, etc) and for a good reason. From the contest rules...

Shell Eco-marathon Americas Grand Prize - $10,000 Awarded to the educational institution or University in honor of the team who completes the farthest distance with the least amount of fuel. Because solar cars do not use "fuel" and the solar energy that is used is limitless and cannot be converted into an equivalent measure to compare to other engine types, solar cars are not eligible for the Grand Prize award.

Enough with the Slashdot corporate whining already.

Re:Not Eligible

[Rei (128717)]

Its Shell sponsoring it, of course non-gasoline vehicles weren't eligible for the grand prize...

Damn corporate scams for cheap publicity and easy recruitment.

Hey, now, let's put this conspiracy theory through it's paces. So, Shell is hosting this competition for cheap publicity and easy recruitment, right? Then why would they rig the race -- the ultimate example of trying to earn bad publicity and discouraging recruitment? Or, if the rigging was hoping to promote gasoline while they still get cheap publicity and easy recruitment, by trying to imply that gasoline always wins or something (I'm trying to help your theory out here), then why did they allow other fuels compete at all? To make gasoline look bad so that they can then refuse to award them the prize?

It just doesn't make sense.

Look, oil companies have done a lot of bad things in the world -- some intentional, most unintentional, but still bad. But pretending that *everything* they do must have some sort of evil hidden motive to keep the world addicted to gasoline is just ridiculous. The other day, I sat down on a park bench that had a small plaque on the side that it had been donated by Shell. Clearly, that bench was an insidious attempt to get Americans to stop walking so that they become fat and lazy and need big SUVs to support their exercise-averse lifestyle, right?

Things like this serve many purposes. Some of them can get tax deductions. Some of them are an attempt to earn good PR or recruit. Some of them are, to be quite honest, a way to allow execs to feel all warm and fuzzy that they're doing good things in the world while they keep the oil flowing. But the concept that everything they do must be a plot to keep us hooked on gasoline is just dumb.

Re:

[calebt3 (1098475)]

while drivers had to weigh at least 50 kilograms.

You still qualify. You just can't drive two cars at once.

Re:Right Answer to the Wrong Question Re:Not Eligi

[Rei (128717)]

Probably the two most advanced "affordable" EV/PHEV projects right now are the Aptera (both the $27k Typ-1e and $30k Typ-1h) and the $25k Mitsubishi MiEV. You could probably get either by late next year, although you'll need to be tricky about it if you want it that soon (I'm getting my Aptera through a California intermediary). The Subaru R1e, also coming out in the same timeframe, doesn't cut it on range. The GM Volt will be $30-40k, with a late 2010/early 2011 timeframe. Another one to keep an eye on is the $25k VentureOne. If you don't mind tandem seating, it looks like a very fun ride. You may also want to watch Nissan-Renault and Think's offerings, and watch to see if Subaru decides to commercialize the G4e. All of these vehicles should be expected to be using long-life LiP batteries (10+ years with minimal degradation typical), with the exception of the G4e, which uses next generation, double energy density lithium vanadium oxide batteries (don't have info on their reliability yet)

More detailed info on four of the less expensive models:

  * Aptera: Space-age styling, lots of neat interior and safety features, 2 1/2 seater, extreme energy efficiency (~80Wh/mi; ~200 is typical for EVs). Efficient use of electricity means a smaller (and thus cheaper to replace) battery pack and faster charging on less power. Typ-1e gets 120 miles electric range while the Typ-1h goes 40 miles electric then gets 130mpg. 0-60 in 10 seconds.

  * MiEV: More conventional styling, mainstream manufacturer, 4 seater, 120 mile range, lots of charging options. 0-60 in ~10 seconds (heard some conflicting info, but that should be approximately right).

  * Volt: "Chopped" styling, mainstream manufacturer, 4 seater, 40 mile electric range PHEV, 50mpg after that. 0-60 in 8.5 seconds.

  * VentureOne: Thin tandem two seater, 120 mile range (noticing a trend? :) ) for the electric-only version (not sure about the PHEV), energy efficient due to low cross-sectional area, and drives like a motorcycle -- the car automatically tilts into turns ("flying the road"). 0-60 in 7 seconds.

Re:

[Capt'n Hector (650760)]

A heavier car is less susceptible to wind gusts. And drag isn't effected by weight, so the only downside to adding more weight is the initial cost of getting the thing moving.

More like scam troll

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Here's a photo of the winning car [typepad.com] (the one on the right, #22), where are these 200 sq ft of solar panels you're talking about? There's also a better angle on the team's homepage here [materdeisupermileage.com], no solar panels to be seen. Heck, that car doesn't even have 200 sq feet of surface area even if you counted the belly.

Did you know that while solar cars did compete, they were not allowed to win the grand prize?

Yeah, you're full of it. But at least you tricked a mod or two.

Re:More like scam troll

[Chris Burke (6130)]

I did RTFA, so you need to do better than search for the first instance of "solar" to try to defend the OP. I know there were solar cars present, but it wasn't the grand prize victor, nor was it the car/mileage stated in the headline. Here's the sentence after the one you quoted:

(Solar vehicles weren't eligible for the grand prize.)

And here's the quotes about the car from the headline, the actual grand prize winner:

The team from Mater Dei High School might be only months (or less) removed from driver's ed, but it pulled off a nifty feat of driving over the weekend. One of its entries in the Shell Eco-marathon Americas won the grand prize for motoring to a record 2,843.4 miles per gallon.

Those top three vehicles, like most in the competition (25 out of 33 total), used internal combustion engines.

So: Winning car had solar panels? WRONG. Best non-solar car was 300 MPG Diesel? WRONG! Article headline is misleading in any way whatsoever? WRONG AGAIN!

Troll is full of shit? CORRECT.

Re:Extraordinary, But Over-Engineered for The Mark

[Rei (128717)]

Where I live, more than half the cost of electric is in the delivery/line charge.

It doesn't matter how much is in the "delivery line charge"; cost does not equal efficiency. In the US, the average transmission efficiency is 92.8% [climatetechnology.gov].

you lose 15% in the charger

AC Propulsion's 20kW charger is 93% efficient, while their 150kW charger is 90% efficient. That's pretty typical for non-inductive chargers.

and another 30% to the lead acid battery.

Lead-acid battery? Lol, what do you think we're talking about here, golf carts? NEVs? Even Firefly lead acid batteries are simply unsuitable for these sort of tasks. Way too short lifespan, way to inefficient, way too low energy density. We're talking about lithium ion variants. Lithium ion batteries are over 99% efficient (that's why they charge and discharge cool).

So while at the power plant rock in efficiency, it doubles in cost getting to my house

Please learn to separate the concepts of "cost" and "efficiency".

My understanding is Gas engine are 70-80% efficient

Try about 20% [washington.edu], give or take.

It's okay to be unfamiliar with this topic. Just educate yourself so you're more informed for future debates and we can talk some more. :)