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."
Gutless? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not saying this one isn't gutless. But current diesel technology allows for some serious horsepower and the acceleration of some vehicles I have been in are on par with other vehicles of their size.
Unfortunately Diesel has a bad name. Partly because many gutless vehicles were made with it. I'd like to know this vehicles specs so I'm off to RTFA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was working on a project comparing a Prius to a 2009 Jetta TDI. We drove both from Portland, ME to Portland, OR and you would never know the Jetta was a diesel. AND... on highway driving it destroyed the Prius on gas mileage.
Newer diesel technology is amazingly clean, efficient and powerful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not an issue of "past" versus "present". Yes, modern diesels are far cleaner and more powerful per unit mass than they were in the 1970s. But you know what? So are gasoline engines. Modern diesels still lag well behind gasoline engines in both respects. Show me a single SULEV diesel, for example. The modern "clean diesels" generally barely meet modern US emissions reqs. The only reason they're so widespread in Europe is because they have more lax emissions reqs.
Secondly, this entire thread is ba
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>Here's the most recent one that fueleconomy.gov has
You are such a fucking liar. You've done it twice now, first by claiming a modern diesel only gets a "1" and using old old data. And now again by claiming 2006 was the most-recent available year. False. 2009 Jetta Diesel == 6 on the EPA pollution scale. LINK - http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car2tablef.jsp?column=2&id=25262 [fueleconomy.gov] - That's equivalent to what the gasoline version gets.
And the Diesel has a smaller "carbon footpr
Re:Gutless? (Score:5, Informative)
No, modern diesels are nothing like the anemic POS that GM released in the 70s. Mainly because of the addition of the turbo charger (which diesels benefit greatly from), but common rail, higher injection pressures, advances in metallurgy.
My TDI is quite peppy, mainly because the shape of the torque curve. BMW has a 335d and X5 which they are selling here now. VW and Benz have been selling diesels here almost non-stop since the 70s.
That's why I always laugh when Chevy's ads come on trying to sell me this AMAZING 29 MPG car.
I got 48 MPG in a '86 IDI Diesel (that was a bit weak, but who needs more than 50 HP?)
I get 45 MPG in a '98 TDI diesel that is quite peppy. I have upgraded injectors and a special chip tune. I bet I'm just barely over 110 HP, if that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
GM got such a bad rap on the diesel and for the most part it was unfair.
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 us
Re:Gutless? (Score:5, Funny)
Heck simple truth was all cars in the US in the 70s where pretty gutless.
Okay, this is more about aerodynamics than being gutless but whatever...
I had a 76 Ford Pinto when I was a teenager. My friend and I were on our way up to White Pass to go skiing when some guy in a Dodge Charger goes flying around us at ~ 90mph on a blind curve. Fortunately no one was coming the other way, but a cop was sitting right there. He pulls the guy over, then (as I drove by) flagged me down as well. The cop walks up to me and says "I have the two of you doing 90+ on this mountain road", to which I replied with the truth - I'd been passed on a curve, and may have been right behind the Charger but was not going that fast (probably 55-60, which was within the limit). He give me one of those "I've heard THAT before" looks, so I followed up with "Have you ever been in a Ford Pinto going over 65mph? The thing shakes so hard it'd probably start to fall apart pretty fast".
He laughed and let me go.
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If we ever get a shift towards series hybrids (think train engines), then diesel is a perfect match.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
I had only ran into the dreaded injector pump death. That often caused a cylinder to fill with fuel followed by a bent the rod and or broken crank.
Re: (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: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: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Um. Maybe you should google that. Carnot is 0<=n<=1 (theoretically). Last I checked .51http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine [wikipedia.org]
For example, a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% efficiency, and a large coal-fueled electrical generating plant peaks at about 46%. The largest diesel engine in the world peaks at 51.7%. In a combined cycle plant, thermal efficiencies are approaching 60%.
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel has higher compression ratios, and is therefore more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
So try driving one. Then you will know. Modern diesels can be very fast indeed.
My van (a Mitsubishi L300 Delica) has a 2.5 litre turbocharged diesel engine. By North American standards it's severely underpowered, with straight line performance like an old air-cooled VW Beetle. It does what it needs to do: it cruises nicely on the highway, and has all the acceleration it needs for freeway on-ramps and city traffic.
...laura
I'd buy this car. (Score:2)
I drive a VW Golf TDI ("turbo diesel...") for both the gas mileage and the torque. (That's good for acceleration.) To broaden your mind, stop at a VW dealership and try one out.
I love my car, but I'd replace it with a commercially available diesel electric hybrid in a heartbeat. Beyond the incredible mileage, there would be something cool about driving a diesel+electric arrangement similar to that in train locomotives.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TDI = Turbo Direct Injection (Fuel is injected straight into the cylinders)
SDI = Stratified Diesel Injection. (Same as above, no turbo).
IDI = Indirect Injector. (Fuel is injected into prechamber.) Came with and without a turbo.
Re: (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: (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: (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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gutless? (Score:5, Informative)
Arco Gas Station down the street from my house - Regular 87 Octane - 3.05/g diesel 2.85/g
this is in Southern California.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I remember right RON tends to be 8 to 10 points higher than MON or Motor octane number. The RON MON average used in the U.S. would be 4-5 points lower than the RON for the same gasoline.
87 in the U.S. would be around 91 in Europe
91 or 92 premium in the U.S. would be 95-97 in Europe.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
When we went to Germany last year, the rental company stuck us with an Opel Vectra station wagon. (It's a GM product if you're not familiar.) The electronics sucked, the interior was cheap and breaking, but I have [b]no complaints[/b] about the quality of the diesel engine or the manual transmission. The car was suitably powerful to play on the Autobahn, yet still got over 35 MPG during the course of a two-week driving tour of Germany and Austria.
(The rental company wouldn't let us take it over ~130MPH.
Re:Gutless? (Score:4, Funny)
> So no, they're not gutless. If you can get an S70 made before '98 you're in for a happy surprise too.
Like being in a car that's wrapped around a tree?
Re: (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.
Because .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
In Europe, the majority of new cars sold now are diesels, and petrol stations sell more diesel than petrol. *Every* petrol station sells diesel, so that is not a problem.
Re: (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
Re:Because .. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the big issue was diesel was much dirtier in North America (high sulfur content) than in Europe, and a lot of the technologies that make diesel cars behave like gas cars tend to require the clean diesel. These days though, I believe the legislation has made low-sulfur diesel mandatory, which is why we see VW and Mercedes starting to import more diesel cars.
Quite a change, really - drive a heavy SUV that gets 5L/100km or better (probably spewing less CO2 than the little car next to you...). Or the fact that the engine lacks the traditional diesel clatter normally associated with trucks, or hell, doesn't Mercedes have a thing that mixes ammonia or something with exhaust that makes the exhaust even cleaner still?
Re:Because .. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The main reason is the EPA.
US emissions restrictions are different from Europe. Not necessarily stricter, but different.
As I understand it, US emissions regulations are very strict about particulates and NOx emissions (both drawbacks for diesel. Particulates is easy to solve and has been solved, NOx is much harder.)
Euro emissions regulations are very strict about unburned hydrocarbons IIRC, which is good for diesel but bad for gasoline. They are far less strict about NOx.
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.
Something's wrong with this idea (Score:5, Funny)
The black helicopters need to be sent in here. Gas Mileage like that is un-American. Before you know it, the schematics for the water-car will get out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your steam-based engine is actually coal-based.
Re: (Score:2)
Your coal-based steam-based water-based engine is actually solar-based. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on what you're looking at. Sort of like "electric cars" are not "just electric." Something produces the electricity. Like coal. (or hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, of course..)
Re: (Score:2)
"...water based car's..."
Like this [seattlepi.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
The black helicopters need to be sent in here. Gas Mileage like that is un-American. Before you know it, the schematics for the water-car will get out.
It almost did. That's why they killed Billy Mays! [reddit.com] Yes, he had cocaine in his system but that was because he loved eating copious amounts of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank God. If we all had to drive the crap GM made, we'd have more pollution, and the higher costs of scrapping "bio-degradable" American cars.
GM and Chrysler shouldn't have been bailed out - the poor suckers who bought their crap are more deserving.
Today on mutual of slashomaha... (Score:5, Funny)
(whisper)When it comes to cars, the slashdotter species generally has absolutely NO idea what it is talking about. Shhhh. Here comes the posters now. Let's watch quietly as they trot out the same old ignorant meme's about hybrids, electrics and diesels.(/whisper)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Please pay your taxes in full (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But by using less fuel they are also producing less pollution which means fewer tax dollars total will have to go towards solving that problem. They're helping more than they're hurting. I certainly don't see the need to remove an incentive to drive a more efficient vehicle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 sh
Re: (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 al
Re: (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
particles (Score:2)
Also a particle filter can be used.
I saw an ad for an american petrol car that needed a hybrid version to average 1L in 16 KM which is relleay poor for a 'high tech' car.
I do like the diesel-electric idea, too bad the site is slashdotted?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I've NEVER had a problem finding diesel. If the place you're going has *anything*. It was likely brought there by truck. Trucks run diesels, so the place you're going likely has diesel.
And you will NEVER get more efficient cruising than an engine mechanically connected to the wheels. Buses have a completely different duty cycles to most vehicles and series hybrid won't make sense to install in them. Trains use them as a transmission because a normal geared transmission would be near impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the fact that in buses you're wasting all that frequent braking power which could be reclaimed, as well as the large flat roof for solar collection.
Also, as someone who drives an awful lot, there are a whole lot of gas stations out there without diesel although the situation has gotten better.
Re:Diesel is so obviously better for hybrids (Score:5, Informative)
Except that you're talking about a series hybrid drive, and only the Chevy Volt works that way at the moment.
The Insight and the Prius are both parallel drive hybrids, which means the gas engine turns the wheels as well as powers up the batteries. The electric turns the wheels sometimes. The Volt's big thing is that it's a series hybrid, the drive is always electric and the gas engine runs at its high-efficiency speed to charge the batteries, then shuts off again.
Meaning that your comment would be correct if all hybrids were series hybrids, but as of now your comment would only apply to the Volt which isn't in production yet.
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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
When I don't use my brakes to slow down, I can maintain speed in lower gears on idle. For example, when coming to a stop, I cruise in relatively fast on minimal gas, and plan for a longer braking cycle; Some people keep full accelerator pressure to stay at full speed, and then brake sharply, holding the engine at higher RPMs.
More pertinently, most people tap their brakes to go around curves, or use their brakes and accelerator to control speed. Rather than a brake-gas-brakes-gas cycle, I relax the accele
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. They knew it would be practically impossible to build a mechanical transmission to handle the unbelievable loads required of a locomotive... If they wanted added efficiency, they sure screwed the pooch when they designed dynamic braking to use giant resistors, and throw away all that braking power as waste heat.
Locomotive engines certainly don't run at constant RPMs. There's no battery where the e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does "parallel" not imply being able to operate independently?
The series/parallel difference is how the engine is used.
Parallel means that the engine provides the power to move the vehicle and the electric motor assists in parallel when needed. "full" hybrids can also run on just the electric for a time at low speeds, whereas "mild" hybrids (which use smaller, cheaper electric motors) cannot.
Series hybrids just use the engine as a generator and the electric motor(s) provide all the power to the wheels. The engine has no mechanical connection to the wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel is good, but I'd like to see Mazda make a Wankel based Hybrid. It's low weight and excellent fixed speed performance is ideal for hybrid vehicles.
Re:Diesel is so obviously better for hybrids (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's just the opposite - due to the fact that they throttle simply by adjusting fuel supply to the cylinders and typically do not have a throttle plate, diesel engines are FAR more efficient at reduced power levels than gasoline engines are.
As a result, one of the two main hybrid advantages (running the engine at peak efficiency) is negated. On the other hand, due to the high compression ratio, diesels are simply more efficient.
The other big hybrid advantage (regenerative braking) is still quite applicable to diesel, and in fact may be far easier to apply to diesels than to gasoline, since "ghetto hybrid" approaches like belt alternator-starter and flywheel alternator-starter can still provide great benefit. (Downshift to rev the engine and get the electric to spin - in a gas engine this will result in engine braking. Diesels don't, and in fact can't without special tricks, engine brake, so having an electric generator tied directly to the engine would still be quite effective.)
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:Diesel is so obviously better for hybrids (Score:4, 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.
Serial Hybrid? (Score:2)
I wonder how well a diesel motor would do in a serial Hybrid like the Volt...
Isn't it a feature of diesels that... (Score:2)
A genuine 100mpg car -- not this phoney 230mpg G(overnment) M(otors) Chevy Volt figure -- with acceptable performance would truly excite the automobile market much more than a 99mpg car can.
Re:Isn't it a feature of diesels that... (Score:4, Informative)
That's a characteristic of ALL internal combustion engines, not just diesels. The reason it has been associated with diesels is that the common applications of diesels are those that lend themselves to narrow-range or constant rpm applications like trucks and diesel-electric trains. You could easily optimize a gasoline or methanol engine for a particular RPM range wtih similar results - a restrictor plate NASCAR motor being a hallmark example. It jusy runs around at an almost constant RPM the entire race, and it highly optimized for both power and mileage.
Brett
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't it a feature of diesels that they run best in a narrow RPM range?
That's a characteristic of ALL internal combustion engines, not just diesels. The reason it has been associated with diesels is that the common applications of diesels are those that lend themselves to narrow-range or constant rpm applications ...
Wait a minute. That's misleading.
All engines have some RPM where they have an efficiency peak and for a narrow range around that they are essentially at their peak efficiency (because the slop
Which Honda Insight Are We Talking About? (Score:2)
two words: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is of course why we see gasoline electric locomotives all over the place ...
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.
Diesel + Hybrid = Expensive (Score:5, Informative)
Diesels are more expensive than gas engines. Hybrids are more expensive than non-hybrids. Diesel hybrids are the most expensive of the bunch. The market just isn't willing to pay an extra 8-10k for more efficiency. As it is, hybrid buyers have to wait many years to make up the difference versus similar but non-hybrid cars.
Compare the Honda Fit to the Insight.
Insight Base MSRP 19,800
Fit Base Auto MSRP 15,550
Insight MPG 41
Fit MPG 31
Assume fuel is $4.00 (higher than now) and 15,000 miles driven per year.
So basically, assuming you keep the car, you break even when you've saved 4250 on fuel. That will take 9 years.
So say you take the 50MPG diesel and turn it into a 66MPG diesel. The amount spent on fuel each year will be much smaller in the first place, so it will take even longer to pay off the investment.
Re:Frankly I Recommend Such Things (Score:4, Informative)
significantly cheaper at the pump
I don't think that's correct. [doe.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I do. Diesel is cheaper than 87-octane at all gas stations around me here in Southern California.
Averages fail.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Frankly I Recommend Such Things (Score:5, Informative)
If you follow that link and look at the gas-pump shaped chart on the right you will see that Diesel has far higher taxes imposed on it than Gasoline, or put another way Gasoline is subsidized through lower taxes than Diesel. And still Diesel averages only a couple of pennies per gallon more expensive.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, you should have told everyone diesel was significantly cheaper than gas last November/December. You might have got a black eye from one of the guys who actually needs to drive his diesel truck/van to make a living.
Diesel was touching $5.00 a gallon, and gas was hovering around $3.00. It would cost me nearly $60 to fill up my Jetta TDI. By the way, the first fill up in 2002 cost me $16.53.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:MPG no longer relevant (Score:5, Funny)
That's right. MP4 took over.
Re: (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
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