Slashdot Mirror
World's Only Diesel-Electric Honda Insight
Jake Staub writes "Just replaced the gasoline engine in a Honda Insight with a Diesel engine. On a 3,000 mile cross-country shakedown journey the car averaged 92mpg over 1,800 miles. Around a very hilly town in Northwest Washington, the car is averaging 78mpg. These mileage averages are without the electric side of the vehicle fully functional. With a bit more tinkering on the electric side and through a slight gearing change through tire size, it is anticipated that the car will likely average 100mpg. The build for the car has been documented on the web site and is as close to open source as my time allows. The car was built by two guys in a garage in Southern Maryland. If we can do it I don't see any reason why major auto manufacturers can't do it since we used their parts."
For various reasons the industry in the US has shunned diesel for private vehicles. That has to change before any headway can be made.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
This is bullshit, hybrid cars should use a different metric. In theory, a hybrid could get infinite MPG.
If we can do it I don't see any reason why major auto manufacturers can't do it since we used their parts
profit margin
fixed that for you.
Diesel engines have always been where hybrid cars should go, its just that in North America, most people avoid diesel and gas stations often don't have it.
Diesel engines afaik have always been more tunable to run very efficiently at specific speeds and are therefore a much better choice for generators in general (and are often used in that capacity). Using a fixed-speed diesel engine to generate electricity for a hybrid vehicle seems obvious, and its been done for both city buses and the military HMMV with great success.
I believe a consumer focus on gasoline has lead to car companies' focus on gasoline-electric hybrids instead of diesel-electric.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
If the unions have contracts that stipulate what cars the manufacturers can produce, that's news to me. Link please.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Diesels have a ton of torque--they have the low end grunt needed to jam you into your seat, you just have to get used to not shifting at 6k rpm
Bottles.
Whoosh!
And in general, I reject the premise that people are morally obligated to voluntarily donate as great a portion to their income as is feasible to the government (like some of those people who say "you shouldn't take a tax break you don't need") - particularly not giving all sorts of money to the Department of Transportation. There are better ways to serve humanity, people.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
"By using less fuel you are shifting the tax burden onto those who cannot afford a high tech vehicle."
How do you figure? If the sticker price is higher, then so is the amount of taxes I'm paying to roll it off the showroom floor.
Also, your argument is only valid at the leading edge of the paradigm shift to high tech vehicle adoption. Eventually, those brand new 'high tech vehicles' will fall into the secondary markets (e.g., used car lots), becoming more affordable with each resale. It's only a matter of time until we reach the tipping point where gas guzzlers are in the minority. When we're all driving cars that get 100 mpg, then we're all sharing the burden equally.
Fighting progress because it changes the status quo is a losing proposition.
- Despite popular opinion, I am not perfect.
Diesels still don't put down a ton of horsepower...
What's a ton? My daily driver is cranking out about 400 HP. It came from the factory at around 325.
Diesel has a higher capacity for torque and horsepower than a gasoline engine, given forced induction.
why do you think semi trucks use them?
Which is of course why we see gasoline electric locomotives all over the place ...
All diesels in the 70s where gutless. Heck simple truth was all cars in the US in the 70s where pretty gutless. The 70s was when we where trying to get emission controls to work and computers for controlling fuel injection and spark where primitive or just not available.
This is true. The basic scientific research on how to control automobile exhaust emissions was incomplete at the time, and the engine controls available were too primitive. This isn't anyone's fault - technology just hadn't caught up to the needs of the time. The only way to do it was to lower compression ratios, and reduce the camshaft profiles. The pellet-bed catalytic converters of the time were horribly restrictive also. About the only good thing that happened to car engines in the 1970s was the advent of good electronic ignition systems. Turbochargers were not in wide use (or production) for cars, so there were very few turbodiesel cars (mostly MB) due to the cost of the turbo itself. Normally aspirated diesels aren't exactly exciting to drive. (Trivia - when the Porsche 911 Turbo came out, parts of the turbo system were made by Lycoming, the aircraft engine company, because there weren't any suitable automotive turbo parts available.)
GM got such a bad rap on the diesel and for the most part it was unfair.
That's not totally true. There were some basic design mistakes, and a cost cutting decision you mentioned that were the downfall of the Oldsmobile diesel.
The GM diesel where sold to people that didn't know how to maintain them and by dealers that really didn't know how to maintain them. People that bought a 300D where used to paying Hans the big bucks. Olds buyers where not.
Actually, a Mercedes diesel of the time required very little maintenance (on the engine at least). Oil, coolant and filter (air/fuel/oil) changes, and that's about it. You could do it all in your driveway.
Also GM didn't put in a water separator. That was shouldn't have been an issue but right then quality of diesel went to crap and you had a lot of failed injector pumps. Again MB was used to crap fuel and put in the extra filtering needed.
This was a big problem. All diesel fuel accumulates water eventually. Diesel fuel has a lubricity requirement - because it must also lubricate the high pressure injection pump. Water is not a good lubricant. Leaving out the water separator was a cost cutting decision GM would not repeat. The later Chevrolet (designed in collaboration with Detroit Diesel) 6.2/6.5 V8 came with one, and even a warning light on the dash to indicate that there was a buildup of water in the fuel (you would then have to open a valve and drain the water out of the separator.
The problems weren't all maintenance-related. The GM 350 diesel (and the lesser-known 4.3V6 diesel used in the front-wheel-drive A-body cars, unrelated to the later Chevrolet 4.3 gas V6) was designed by reusing parts from the Oldsmobile gas V8. The blocks were made using a high-nickel iron alloy and are very strong - they're often bought from the junkyards by drag racers who want to use them as the basis to build very high powered gas engines. The cylinder heads and crankshafts were pretty much stretching the design limits of the materials they were made of, since they were designed under budget constraints. Cracked heads and broken crankshafts were not uncommon. There are tolerances in the alloy compositions (this is just a fact of life, not a GM problem) - because of this some engines got stronger crankshafts and cylinder heads (basically by chance), and there are quite a few 5.7 diesels still running around. I have a friend who was driving a 1980 Oldsmobile 98 Diesel until a few years ago when the body started to rust out.
The later 6.2/6.5 engines were very durable, because they were designed from the ground up to be diesels.
It is unfortunate that GMs design errors stained the diesel in the US
Putting moderation advice in your
Modern diesels are great. In Europe we have been able to get cars like the VW Polo Bluemotion, which can get 80mpg from a 1.4 diesel engine if you drive carefully. Admittedly, it is a bit gutless, but then you wouldn't be expecting it to be the epitome of performance. As to whether diesels have a narrow powerband, no, they don't. They create power at lower revs and keep power throughout the rev range, but generally are not designed to rev their nuts off. To get the most from a diesel you have to adapt your driving style to the low rev torque available.
On a more technical note, I believe the reason diesels aremore efficient than petrol (gasoline) engines is because under low load, the petrol engine cannot lower the fuel/air mixture much below the stoichiometric level, and it is also throttled. Diesel engines on the other hand are not throttled, and direct injection diesels can go far below the stoichiometric limits and use far less fuel under low load, at the expense of creating much more nitrous oxides.
Myself, I prefer a high revving petrol engine, but diesels also can be exciting, because they have this thing called torque. However, I imagine that the reengineered Honda insight will get its mpg figure mainly through aerodynamic efficiency (blocking off front grill slots) and low rolling resistance special tyres). Once the electric parts are working, it may be able to get much higher mpg figures, assuming the folks can tune it right.
It's just a shame that due to the prejudice of the North American market diesel hybrids aren't widely available. I think they provide the best interim solution until we can sort out fuel cells and get zero local emission transport. Another reason that manufacturers shun diesel in favour of petrol hybrids is that diesel engines produce more nitrous oxide. However, this is directly related to fuel usage. If you use less fuel overall, you can reduce nitrous oxide emissions, and diesel hybrids are much better than petrol hybrids.
By using less fuel you are shifting the tax burden onto those who cannot afford a high tech vehicle. We should expect owners of hybrids, electric cars and high efficiency vehicles to pay their fair share if they can't manage to pay their road tax through fuel purchases. Perhaps you people should be required to keep a log of your travel distances and cut a check when you renew your state registration based on your mileage.
Some people apparently though this was a joke, and modded it funny or posted "whoosh" comments. But this is exactly what is being proposed by several states as well as on the federal level.
Personally, I don't think road tax should be tied to fuel at all. It should be based on the size and weight of the vehicle and taxed at a standard rate, regardless of how fast or what type of fuel the car/truck uses. The largest taxes should be levied against the heaviest, and largest, vehicles, and the least tax levied on small, lightweight ones. It should be a standard rate that is paid at the time of registration. Simple, easy, and fair, as it taxes the vehicles that put the most demand on the roadways (wear & tear, etc.)
I've also got a 2003 VW Golf TDI, thing's a blast. It's not a barn burner in a straight line but that doesn't mean you can't do that. Down in Holt raceway we had a guy that'd bring out his F-250 diesel and burn straight kerosene. It was a 1/8mi. track and he smoked *everything*. Funniest thing I'd seen.
But yeah, modern diesels are fantastic. Fuel efficient, plenty of punch, stupid amounts of torque, and best of all diesel's extremely durable and simple which makes it ideal for consumer vehicles. My wife's a diesel mechanic (buses mostly) and trust me you can beat the tar out of a diesel and it'll probably still outlive you.
"Just a fox, a whisper."
If we can do it I don't see any reason why major auto manufacturers can't do it since we used their parts.
Oh you poor, silly, person. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that auto manufacturers hire people to think about new practical functionality. Alas, no. Their main focus is advertising. More woodgrain leather seats and movie-tie-in badgework. Actual value can only move so many cars, but elevating irrational demand? -- that is an idea with legs.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
And you're TDI Jetta still averaged 50% better mileage than a Gasoline Jetta (45mpg vs 30mpg), so until diesel is more than 2x the cost of gasoline, you're still ahead of the game.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
But Diesel should have been the initial plan, railway locomotives have been using that setup for decades.
Many American drivers still distrust diesel after the terrible vehicles (mostly large sedans) with big diesels that the big three produced back in the 70s and 80s. For better or for worse, the big three are aware of this and haven't bothered even trying to sell consumer diesels in the US. Unfortunately they also can't find marketing droids that are capable of pulling their own heads out of their own asses, so they will never try to correct the misconceptions.
Hence while indeed a diesel setup would have been a better idea for the Volt, it would have been likely a complete failure for GM.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Diesels are not "gutless". They have very high torque numbers which allows the driver to accelerate rapidly on the highway without needing to downshift like a gasoline car needs to do. Put another way - if you take a 110hp Diesel Jetta and put it against a 110hp gasoline Jetta, the diesel will accelerate faster since it has almost triple the torque (rotational force).
>>>I've never driven one, but I am genuinely curious....
Then go to your local VW dealer and drive one. You'll be surprised.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall