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."
Re:Because .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Today on mutual of slashomaha... (Score:3, Interesting)
Diesel Hybrid? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not all that impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
I for one would rather start with a diesel and tune it to get 70mpg without a trunk full of batteries.
Re:Gutless? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I get to the point that I can afford a 2nd car payment or pay off my new car another VW TDI will be at the top of my list.
Can't capture the same benefit twice (Score:5, Interesting)
The main reason gasoline hybrids get better mileage than direct-coupled engines is that the gasoline engine is not forced to operate at inefficient points on its' BSFC map (near closed throttle). The engine only runs when needed, and then it runs near its' BEP (Best efficiency point), or occasionally at maximum power which also has decent efficiency. It is not forced to idle and off-idle conditions where the pumping losses are horrible and efficiency s#x (5x fuel for same marginal power).
Diesel engines have entirely different BSFC maps, and do not suffer the same pumping losses (vacuum across throttle plate). Their drop off at idle is _much_ lower than for gasoline engines, so they're great in city-wide European traffic jams. Diesel fuel also is ~15% denser (more heat per gallon) and the higher compression ratio is about 5% more theoretically efficient.
But a diesel hybrid does not have much to gain by hybridization. The BSFC map is much flatter, and the engine restarting power & wear is considerably higher.
Re:Gutless? (Score:3, Interesting)
Diesel IS more efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_cycle [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_engine#The_Otto_cycle [wikipedia.org]
Comparing the two formulae it can be seen that for a given compression ratio (r), the ideal Otto cycle will be more efficient. However, a diesel engine will be more efficient overall since it will have the ability to operate at higher compression ratios. If a petrol engine were to have the same compression ratio, then knocking (self-ignition) would occur and this would severely reduce the efficiency, whereas in a diesel engine, the self ignition is the desired behavior. Additionally, both of these cycles are only idealizations, and the actual behavior does not divide as clearly or sharply. And the ideal Otto cycle formula stated above does not include throttling losses, which do not apply to diesel engines.
Using the diesel cycle with other fuels has gotten >50% thermal efficiency in the lab, which is DAMN good IMHO.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/uow-ga073109.php [eurekalert.org]
Re:Diesel is so obviously better for hybrids (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm quite certain the Volt is in fact in production [engadget.com] at this point, and yes I'm speaking of series hybrid drives but that doesn't invalidate my point at all.
My point was simply about using hybrid drives at all, and the choice to use parallel hybrid drives for gasoline engines stems precisely from inefficiencies.
As another person replied, a series hybrid will never be more efficient than a straight engine, but that's ignoring the charging of the batteries through third party options like regenerative braking, solar collection and wall sockets.
Re:Please pay your taxes in full (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in a state with one of the highest gasoline taxes in the union, and our gas tax doesn't put a dent in our road maintenance budget, which is already not enough to properly maintain the roads.
Using less gas isn't 'shifting the burden' to those who can't afford a more efficient car, especially since there -are- efficient cheap cars. I bought my small 34 MPG car (on the efficient side for the USA) because I couldn't -afford- anything else.
Your argument tries to use economics as a way to discourage a more efficient system, and also expects consumers to act irrationally in their own worst interests, which goes against some of economics' own principles. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I heard similar arguments against Cash for Clunkers (which I think is lame, but better than cash bailouts for car manufacturers). People were simultaneously castigating the program for 'destroying the cars that could be given to people who need them' and for 'creating a glut of used car parts that will hurt the market'. You can't simultaneously bitch that the program is reducing and increasing prices.
Also, how much did that cheap gas -really- cost us in tax dollars? I'm guessing that the -real fair market- price of gas is around $5 or $6/gallon, but the fact that we live in a country that has 5% of the world's population and spends almost 50% of the world's military dollars keeps the price of gas pretty low. Using less energy is a -good thing- for the economy, and will ultimately -reduce- tax burdens across the board.
Re:Because .. (Score:4, Interesting)
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 disagree. Diesel is a BYPRODUCT of gasoline refining. A barrel of oil (42 US gallons), when refined, yields about 19.5 gallons of gasoline and about 9 gallons of diesel. Part of the reason diesel prices got so expensive last summer is because there was no supply. Nobody was buying the expensive gasoline that accounts for more than half of all refined goods, but the big trucks and ships needed the diesel that nobody wanted to make because they couldn't sell the gasoline. Starting to see the vicious cycle? Therefore, if a bunch of people started driving diesel cars, you'd see last summer's diesel prices becoming a bit more permanent. Leave diesel to work vehicles. Cars should run on gasoline. The headway needs to be made in technologies like gasoline direct injection.
EPA (Score:3, Interesting)
> If we can do it I don't see any reason why major auto manufacturers can't do
> it...
Have your car's emissions tested.
Re:Diesel is so obviously better for hybrids (Score:5, Interesting)
The irony is that hybrid diesels would be perfect, but nobody takes the concept to it's true potential.
Diesel electric all the way, like in train engines. A Diesel likes to have a constant RPM at it's peak performance value. Imagine connecting an alternator directly to the engine and giving up the inefficient gear system. Imagine a Diesel engine that is always at it's peak performance RPM, even when there's barely any electrical load on it. That car would be a rocket that goes for free (or almost free). It's also pretty easy to build if you have 2 things:
1) 1x 150kW alternator (it's the right amount) that also fits under the hood along with the engine.
2) 4x 40kW electric engines that you connect directly to the drive shaft (and should also fit in there somewhere).
As far as I know a 150kW alternator is very big (about as big as the engine itself) and the 40kW engines are also huge, but at least in theory this would be by far the best way to bring the top possible performance of an engine to the tarmac. Electricity is the best way to transfer energy between two points and a constant RPM diesel is the most efficient and performant diesel out there.
Re:Please pay your taxes in full (Score:3, Interesting)
Most states had budget shortfalls this year. Road projects are being deferred or outright canceled. If you don't mind driving over potholes, then keep driving your hybrid/electric/whatever. The pollution a car makes has zero impact on the use of the road. If people should get a break, it's people who drive motorcycles which use far less space on the road. Or compact cars which are lighter and damage the road less.
I'm surprised you didn't point out that I didn't attack bicyclists for not paying any tax at all.
Re:Please pay your taxes in full (Score:1, Interesting)
Unfortunately, there is some truth to the statement above. I know an engineer here that was proud of converting a diesel Mercedes to run on used fast food oil (think french fries and onion rings) that he acquired for free from fast food places in the area of his home. His exhaust smelled like french fries. When he tried to get one of the new "Green" tags for the car from the state, he was informed that since there were no road taxes paid on the fuel he used to power his car, it was illegal to drive it on roads in the state. It seems that the most important issue to the state was the taxes they should get for upkeep of the roads.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Diesel is so obviously better for hybrids (Score:4, Interesting)
As another person replied, a series hybrid will never be more efficient than a straight engine, but that's ignoring the charging of the batteries through third party options like regenerative braking, solar collection and wall sockets.
It's also ignoring that the losses through conversion are only in the 5% to 10% range. If the gain from running the engine at a constant speed is enough to offset this loss, the hybrid *will* be more efficient.
Re:Gutless? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
My dad's 300D from 1982 has never required any sort of engine work. It's driven 300k miles on diesel and now 100k on vegetable oil. It's got the original transmission, the original suspension, the original brakes (this seems crazy to me, but they're in fine shape), etc. It doesn't have the original battery, filters have been replaced, and the vacuum system that controls the locks is leaky so if you shut down the car and lock/unlock cycle the doors a few times the other 3 doors will stop following the driver's door lock.
His 1994 Ford Explorer gets a new transmission every ~4 years, new brakes every 1.5 years, and required him to work on the engine for a week a few years ago. The brakes and transmission are no longer Ford parts - those failed even more often and the new brand has a lifetime warranty that gets a lot of use. The front suspension needed to be replaced, and when the brakes fail ahead of schedule (they do so by falling off while you're driving if you don't watch them closely enough to catch them a month in advance) there's a good chance you'll cause some damage requiring replacement of the axle if you have to tap the brake pedal as you get off the road.
Anecdotes, but along with similar experiences on 2 other Mercedes and 3 other American cars in this period, they're enough to make him look to the Germans when he wants a new car.
Re:MPG no longer relevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Bingo. Fuel efficiency is a red herring. Especially as fuel efficiency and emissions are sometimes at odds with each other. I.e., adding more exhaust controls to reduce emissions can lower MPGs.(1)
If they just kept reducing the emissions allowed, cars would almost automatically become more energy efficient, as the easiest way to make them emit 10% less is to have them use 10% less gas.
Of course, you have to figure out what emissions, or have some sort of 'unit' system, where, for example, X amount of CO2 equals Y amount of sulfer equals Z amount of unburned gas, and add them all up, and the total has to be under a certain amount.
1) Although a lot of this can be counteracted in other ways. For example, how come no one's ever come up with an exhaust system with electric pressurization help, or at least fans? Using all that spare electricity gasoline cars have flowing around in them from the alternator, instead of having the gasoline engine have to force the exhaust through the exhaust cleaning system? Because car companies never needed to, they can reduce MPGs just as easily by cutting back on those emission controls instead.
Re:Gutless? (Score:2, Interesting)
Diesel's come a long way.
My car still made the clickity-clackity noises until it was properly broken in at about 40,000 miles, and it still makes a distinctive sound, but is about as loud as an average gasoline engine.
If I put my foot down, I can make a small cloud of smoke, and of course there's a little smoke at startup when it gets chilly, but for average driving you'd never know you were behind a Diesel except for the TDI badge.
I live in Maine, where overnight temps can easily hit zero and 20 below is not that uncommon - we get a night or two down in that range about every year. If it gets truly cold I might have to wait 30 seconds for the glow plugs to finish their dastardly deed, but I've never had the slightest problem starting it up.
Admittedly, when it's below zero the engine has the power of an asthmatic hamster for the first minute or two. But it gets up to full power pretty quickly.
But, yeah, the taxes have really chewed into my fuel savings. I'm still happy with it, and at 100,000 miles I'm thinking about celebrating with a VeggieVan conversion kit if I can find a reliable source of used veggie oil. A 20-gallon veggie system + 15 gallon Diesel tank would give me a range of well over 1000 miles between fill-ups. :)
Re:Diesel is so obviously better for hybrids (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Gutless? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just this past weekend I spent with my brother-in-law timing a 98 Passat TDI with VCDS. [ross-tech.com] It definitely made a huge difference.
Going there it was definitely "gutless" and coming away it was like a new engine. (To be fair, the injector timing was off a fair bit.)
Re:Gutless? (Score:3, Interesting)
Something about them being actually petrol engines modified for compression ignition, without realising that the compression ratios would typically be double, which was out of specification for the block.
No, the block was heavily reinforced.
ALL of the Olds diesel problems can be traced back to one idiotic design decision--the lack of a fuel/water separator. That, combined with the horribly contaminated diesel fuel in the late 70s/early 80s, is what led to the Olds diesel's demise.
Re:Gutless? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know where you are buying your horses, but where I come from a 400 pound horse is still a yearling colt & likely has never had a bridle on his head. The horses I'm used to looking at the rear end of were in the ton & plus range, each. Percherons of course, King weighed 1950, and Colonal weighed 2200. And there wasn't anything on that Iowa farm including some Case tractors that were considered to be pretty good in their day, but could also be buried to the pto if the young driver, me in this case, screwed up, I buried an LA and 4 16" plows in the bottom of the west 80.
Daddy made a new double tree out of a native cut piece of Oak, 2+" thick and a foot wide. Those two horses with about 80 feet of 1/2" log chain between the double tree and that tractors rear axle, got down on their bellies and picked the middle of that chain a full foot off the ground, and that 9,000 pounds of tractor came back onto solid ground.
Now folks, that was torque. Then we went back and got the plow but it was a piece of cake for that team.
Those Clydesdale's in the Bud commercials? A 1 tonner even won't make the team, most of those are closer to 2400 than 2000 lbs. We used to know the folks who sold Bud a few of those. And Bud was both picky and inadvertantly abusive. That spot showing one galloping in the surf was very dangerous, with their size they don't 'gallup' at all well even on solid land, and a broken ankle from stepping on the hidden bottom wrong were very real dangers to a fine specimen of the breed. I shuddered every time I saw that spot on tv.
Next time you start measuring horses, bring some real horses, not some skittish 400 lb pets/toys.
--
Cheers, Gene