World's Only Diesel-Electric Honda Insight 687
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."
Because .. (Score:3, Insightful)
MPG no longer relevant (Score:1, Insightful)
This is bullshit, hybrid cars should use a different metric. In theory, a hybrid could get infinite MPG.
Re:two words to explain why not ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gutless? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Because .. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Please pay your taxes in full (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Please pay your taxes in full (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I already do (Score:2, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Gutless? (Score:3, Insightful)
Diesels still don't put down a ton of horsepower...
What's a ton? My daily driver [fordvehicles.com] is cranking out about 400 HP. It came from the factory at around 325.
Re:Gutless? (Score:1, Insightful)
Diesel has a higher capacity for torque and horsepower than a gasoline engine, given forced induction.
why do you think semi trucks use them?
Re:Really? (Score:1, Insightful)
If the unions have contracts that stipulate what cars the manufacturers can produce, that's news to me. Link please.
It's not in there as words as you'd like it to be, but you don't need to be a lawyer to figure out the intent of the contract. New manufacturing methods require new equipment and therefore training. The contracts require that the current workers must be trained by at the expense of the car companies rather than hiring new (and potentially cheaper) workers. So right out of the gate, it's a negative for two reasons. 1) I'm paying a highly-paid employee to sit in training and not be productive, and 2) He'll quit in a few years meaning I'll have to train him, and train his replacement rather than just training a replacement now. The union contract protects against being able to hire potentially better cheaper labor. Secondly, If a new manufacturing method requires less workers, that will be picketed as "jobs will be cut". So yes, in so many words, the "unions have contracts that stipulate what cars the manufacturers can produce".
Re:Can't capture the same benefit twice (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is of course why we see gasoline electric locomotives all over the place ...
The real story (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Modern Diesels are great! (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Please pay your taxes in full (Score:1, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Gutless? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Poor, Silly, Person (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org]. Actual value can only move so many cars, but elevating irrational demand? -- that is an idea with legs.
Re:Because .. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm in Maine, I own a Jetta Diesel and I'm thrilled with it, but there are a LOT of stations around here that do not have Diesel available.
Once you get off the highway where the trucks are, I'd guess that about 30% of Maine fuel stations actually sell Diesel. There are entire towns (like Freeport) where Diesel is unavailable anywhere in town.
Fortunately, using it around home I just know where the stations are.
And when I travel, the well over 600 mile range between fillups means that I can always find a station in the 150+ miles between 1/4 tank and empty.
Re:The real story (Score:2, Insightful)
Almost all of the problems I saw with GM diesel seemed to stem from a failure of the injector pump. The rod and crank failure and even blown head gaskets seemed to be caused by the injector pump failing and causing a hydraulic lock in the engine.
The lack of a proper filter and water separator where a case of the engineers reading a spec sheet and not living in the real world IMHO. I have also seen more than a few VW diesels of that time that tended to spend a lot of time in the shop.
Now my dads 300D ran like a top but when they did break Hans wanted a new boat.
What most people don't know is that the US really was the leader in pollution controls on cars and that is one reason why they sucked so bad in the 70s and early 80s. Heck last time I checked you can still get leaded fuel in the UK!
Re:Frankly I Recommend Such Things (Score:3, Insightful)
Good luck on that (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The real story (Score:1, Insightful)
For what it's worth, Aptera couldn't find a *single* diesel engine in their target power range that could meet modern US emissions reqs.
Read their FAQ. That's because the regulations stupidly specify requirements in emissions per gallon of fuel burned instead of something more useful, like per mile driven. Apparently small diesels simply can't meet that dumb requirement. <speculation>In terms of emissions per mile driven, a diesel Aptera would probably smoke (haha) just about anything else on the road.</speculation> <truth>Damn bureaucrats.</truth>
Re:Because .. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The public in general (worldwide) will buy what they are told to by the marketers.
Diesel used to have a noisy/dirty/slow reputation in Europe too (20 odd years ago) and it persisted after the technology improved - but the car mfrs here marketed the hell out of new diesels and economy, economy, economy. They had to - it was the only way they could get their fleet average emissions to meet the EU laws.
The US left a truck-sized loophole in its laws for CAFE targets, with the result that if the mfrs could sell the public a 70's technology truck instead of a car they could avoid having to improve fuel economy at all. What's more, because the truck is bigger (but simpler and cheaper) they can charge the dumb public _more_ for something that costs them _less_ to make.
So what did the US mfrs do? They told the public they needed a truck not a car. And you bought it. Then, having got used to big fat profit margins and not having invested in new tech in US factories, they maintained that the US public "wouldn't buy cars for economy".
Then along came the Japs and blew that argument out of the water with clever marketing for hybrids - and clever targeting of the market (ie. the US). They almost didn't bother marketing the Prius etc. over this side of the pond, and you see very few of them, probably because we already have conventional cars that get better real world mpg without all the extra expensive electrics.
So now, with the US public appearing to want economy cars, and higher fuel prices, recession etc., the US car mfrs are stuck with out of date US factories that make stuff no one wants. They can make the right stuff, they have the technology, right now, because they already do make it. Just not in the US. Ford sells 60+ mpg (yes, US mpg) family hatchbacks... but not in the US. Yes, it's the same Ford.
So, what do they do - pitch for some government money to fix their previous bad choice of direction and lack of investment of course. Now, which pitch do you think they are using:
"we need federal money to upgrade our factories to make the efficient cars we already make in Europe, because we never bothered to update our US factories"
Or
"we need federal money to develop brand new American technology for more efficient cars, and tool up our plants to build them, because the American public won't buy the diesels we sell in Europe"
Yep - they are telling you that you won't buy diesels (which of course you won't, because they won't sell them to you...). If Ford put its latest diesels on US forecourts and set its marketing to tell you to buy them, you would - but Ford won't do that, because they won't get as much money (your tax $) that way.
Re:Gutless? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.