Sept 7, 2010: 119.1 Miles Per Gallon.

Most of the records I see set, that claim a bazillion miles per gallon, are carefully controlled closed course attempts. Craig Henderson drove a car he designed 25 years ago, from Washington state 1,478 miles to the Mexican border... you know, real world.

He burned 12.4 gallons for a record-breaking 119.1 mpg in a car he originally designed in 1984.

Of course he was driving from WA down to Mexico, he probably wouldn't do as well driving from Mexico up to WA. ;)

link

Looks like he's got the right idea though - always driving downhill like that. :cool:

Seriously, you see why the small, new, very clean diesel, is becoming more popular.

I drive one of the quiet newer diesels, and they're great. American car makers have done stupid things with diesels in the past (like trying to make a 327 block Chevy engine, into a diesel block (GM), using cheap sensors(Ford and Dodge)), but their latest offering are much better. They're finally accepting help from diesel engine specialists, which was long overdue.

Stop and go driving, diesel mileage will drop a lot, but once at a steady cruising speed - diesel's really know how to sip on fuel.

Congratulations to our builder!

Adak;680975 wrote:

Stop and go driving, diesel mileage will drop a lot

Yes but a diesel will idle on waaaaaaay less fuel than a gasoline engine so they still beat out gas motors in stop and go.

I <3 small diesels. Used to have a VW Passat with the 1.9 TDI engine back when I was driving 25k miles per year as a consultant. 4 doors, tons of leg room, huge trunk, and 45+ miles per gallon.

That was in 1996, almost 15 years ago. The technology is there. The Big-3 are fools for not offering something like this in their line up. The F-150 with a diesel V6 would be very excellent indeed, as would the Focus with a 4-cyl diesel.

lupin..the..3rd;680983 wrote:

The Big-3 are fools.

You coulda just stopped there - agreed though.

Adak;680975 wrote:

They're finally accepting help from diesel engine specialists, which was long overdue.

They didn't need any help, the problem was the sulfur (sulpher) in diesel fuel prevented them from meeting emission regulations for cars.

ULSF (ultra low sulfur fuel) wasn't available in the US until 2007, and not completely fazed in until 2010. There was something like a 2 or 3 year gap between when the emission standards went into effect, and the availability of ULSF.

One time I had to make a delivery across California and my 18 -wheeler got 54 mpg on that trip. My cargo was a whole bunch of helium balloons in the trailer.

Those gull wings and a tail wind must have helped a lot, but I don't think I'd like riding all that way with the doors open like that... too noisy !

He could race against this dude - http://www.aerocivic.com/

xoxoxoBruce;680995 wrote:

They didn't need any help, the problem was the sulfur (sulpher) in diesel fuel prevented them from meeting emission regulations for cars.

ULSF (ultra low sulfur fuel) wasn't available in the US until 2007, and not completely fazed in until 2010. There was something like a 2 or 3 year gap between when the emission standards went into effect, and the availability of ULSF.

Right about the low sulphur fuel, and wrong about not needing help to make a good small diesel engine.

GM first tried to make one using a 327 (gas) engine block - pressures are much higher in a diesel and they broke the blocks, and were a total failure. Then they made a replacement that actually worked, but it had inadequate power. Another failure.

Ford took an engine from Navistar, (International) cheapened it with unreliable sensors and manufacturing specs, and the trucks were a dismal failure.

this from Wikipedia re:Ford Powerstroke diesel, 2003-2006

Many 6.0 L Power Stroke engines were proven to be unreliable, and may have cost Ford hundreds of millions of dollars in warranty repairs and leading to a recall and repurchase of at least 500 trucks. There were initial quality challenges which Ford and Navistar have mostly rectified. The reliability of the later 6.0 L engines, after the dealership technicians were fully trained on the product, has been very good. Many early problems were disastrous, requiring total engine replacement. There were also minor problems resulting from the unreliable variable-vane turbocharger solenoid, EGR valve carbon deposit clogging or sticking, defective Exhaust Back Pressure (EBP) sensor/connector, numerous PCM (Powetrain Control Module) recalibrations, fuel injector harness chafing/crushing and other minor driveability and QC issues.

Chrysler took a fine Cummins diesel, cheapened it with poor sensors, and had their own commercial failure. Previously, they had been acknowledged as the best small diesel for the 1/2, 3/4, and 1 ton truck market. Thankfully, it didn't last long, but it was enough - due to the overall slump in the auto industry and Chrysler's ineptitude, they went under, and up on the block.

GM finally went to Isuzu (who practically own the commercial small diesel market for delivery trucks), and they put together a very fine small diesel. With the Allison tranny (yes, the Allison that makes the Abrams Tank tranny), it's a solid tower. This is what I have.

All the newer diesels are much quieter than they ever used to be.

Although this looks like a great alternative to gasoline engines, the latest well with flammable tap "water" out in West Virginia, may be MUCH cheaper than either gasoline or diesel. ;)

Such a deal! ;)

It's not that they didn't know how, they did. It was the dreaded MBA (theme from Jaws) beancounters that fucked it up.

Adak;681122 wrote:

GM first tried to make one using a 327 (gas) engine block - pressures are much higher in a diesel and they broke the blocks, and were a total failure.

Tell me about it..

Had a 350 diesel Olds.

One day, with six people dressed in our Sunday bests, we were in it pulling the grade of the local blood alley hill when the engine let go.

1) A rod broke.

2) It flailed around and cut the oil pan in half.

3) Instantly all the oil blew out on the freeway.

4) The rod cut an inch wide slot thru the block.

5) This caused all the pressurized coolant to spew onto the freeway also.

6) The rod stove in the starter body ruining it.

7) The rod finally hit the block just right which instantly stopped the rotating crankshaft.

8) This caused the camshaft to shear in half.

9) The the front half of the camshaft came out the front of the block.

10) It passed half way thru the water pump utterly destroying it while,

11) Destroying the timing gear and chain.

12) The sudden stopping of the crank completely gutted the automatic transmission causing it to lock up solid.

13) This caused the rear wheels to lock up and the car skidded, laying down about 70 feet of skid marks.

14) This also tore 3 teeth of the third member ring gear.

The CHP showed up with a push bumper and tried to push the beast out of the fast lane. No dice - it couldn't move.

Essentially the only thing that survived was the radiator, the alternator, and the battery.

The only bright side was we dropped in a pumped up 350 gas motor and avoided the smog hassles since the car was registered as a diesel. :D

xoxoxoBruce;680995 wrote:

They didn't need any help, the problem was the sulfur (sulpher) in diesel fuel prevented them from meeting emission regulations for cars.

ULSF (ultra low sulfur fuel) wasn't available in the US until 2007, and not completely fazed in until 2010. There was something like a 2 or 3 year gap between when the emission standards went into effect, and the availability of ULSF.

So how is that Mercedes and VW have been able to sell diesel passenger cars here in the US, throughout the 80's, 90's, and today, that meet the US emissions standards just fine?

And even Ford has some great 4-cyl turbo diesel engines that they sell in europe, in several different models of cars and delivery trucks. They've been selling diesels in that market for many years as well.

It has nothing to do with them not being capable of producing a good diesel engine, and it has nothing to do with emissions standards. It's good old fashioned corporate marketing BS - they chose not to sell those engines here in the US, because they didn't feel that it would appeal to American consumers tastes. A poor marketing decision, just like the many poor Big3 marketing decisions before and since.

Unfortunately, the Big3 all believe that American consumers want a bland mundane sedan that is not exceptional in any way, has a very soft mushy suspension, and has a gasoline V6 with automatic transmission.

Because they were so few in numbers, they were exempt from emission regulations.
Did you miss the part about the regulations passed around 2006?
Europe had ULSD earlier, Sweden in 1990, and other followed. Even the eastern bloc finally got on board before the US, because they had so many diesel cars.

Americans weren't clamoring for an engine that was noisy, stunk, was slow to get going in cold weather, and used more expensive/harder to find, fuel.