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."

Comments

Re:two words to explain why not ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 is so obviously better for hybrids

[MikeBabcock]

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.

Really?

[Radical Moderate]

If the unions have contracts that stipulate what cars the manufacturers can produce, that's news to me. Link please.

Re:Really?

[Twanfox]

That's an interesting slippery slope argument.

Frankly, it has been my experience that if you truly know what you're doing, you can generally carry a bigger price tag for your work. You spend less time doing it, and can do more, or at least more complex. Someone that is cheaper generally doesn't know quite as much, so spends longer to do it, and doesn't have the experience already built up not to screw it up in the process. That experience is a big benefit. There are of course exceptions for those that know what they're doing selling themselves cheaply, but I don't think that's typical.

Having worked at a manufacturing facility once already, supporting their IT Ops, I fail to see why a 'highly paid employee in training' is a negative. IT is often sent to training, and I would hazard a guess that they're often paid more than the assembler on the floor. In my particular case, assemblers were also sent to training in order to assert the value of Standard Work. This would enhance effectiveness of the assemblers by simplifying and streamlining the process and empowering them to make suggestions as to how the process could be done more efficiently. Considering this plant was always falling behind on their quota due to inefficiencies, having workers that know how to speed up the process is of significant value, and that means more money for the company.

Also, a manufacturing method that requires fewer workers doesn't mean that jobs will always be cut. Perhaps a second production line will be opened instead, allowing the factory to produce more with their highly paid, highly trained workforce? Other factors, such as penny pinching and trying to get employees to do more with less often set up the scenario where strikes would happen, or employees feel disgruntled and leave for other opportunities.

Re:Because ..

[east coast]

For various reasons the industry in the US has shunned diesel for private vehicles.

Maybe because the public has shunned it?

Let's be honest here, the industry will do what the public wants when the public votes with their dollars. Diesel could be the answer to the problem but it's also perceived as a problem in and of itself with the public. For the industry it will take less for them to build a technology than to dispel the FUD around an old technology.

And even above the FUD it's hard. At least in my case. I was looking into diesel over a decade ago and good information was hard to get. It was a scary beast when I heard the stories of the fuel gelling, the cost of diesel and engine block heaters. Even with all of this what ended up killing it off for me was that I could only find one service station within 5 miles of my house that had diesel. It made me wonder just how hard it would be to fuel my car in a pinch.

Today I would be less apprehensive but given that I have a newish vehicle and in expect to see a swing in the market before I need a new one I guess it's a moot point.

The real story

[name_already_taken]

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

Re:Gutless?

[FrozenFOXX]

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.