FORD Diesel Fiesta 65MPG

[Greg Bell]

I'm wondering if we shouldn't be putting effort into biodiesel instead of ethanol.It just seems like a simpler,more efficiant process to me.I mean just grow it,squeeze it,filter it,then burn it.I'm not sure how the land to yield ratio would work out though.

Using our food (corn) as a source of fuel is a horrible idea. IMO

Corn sucks there are better options, and hopefully algae in the future.

http://www.progressivefuelslimited.com/PDF...ops%20Chart.pdf

[Matt Cheely]

I hear that Chevy is going to put the 1.4 engine used in the Volt, in a Cobalt with a turbo and get 50ish mpg...

[kgunz11]

I hear that Chevy is going to put the 1.4 engine used in the Volt, in a Cobalt with a turbo and get 50ish mpg...

Turbo's and Superchargers potentially cause more fuel consumption. We didn't add the turbo to the diesel to make it more efficient, we did it to create more power in some needed places in the HP curve. Disable the turbo and watch the fuel consumption go down significantly, but the available HP does as well. Horsepower produces speed, torque produces towing power, the turbo adds HP to an engine that was lacking.

I've owned turbo and pre-turbo Ford engines. The pre-turbo engines got way better fuel economy and lasted way longer. I've also had the turbo go out on a Power Stroke diesel engine, I saw the fuel economy swing and the loss of available speed, but the power remained.

[Matt Cheely]

We put a turbo on the engine to increase the amount of oxygen going into the engine so we can inject more fuel and keep the optimum stoichiometric ratio. In a small engine there is less parasitic losses, we run at full power more often where efficiency is at it's maximum, and we get a lighter weight. Lighter weight is easier to move which gives even more economy, smaller vehicle is better with aerodymanics so there's some more economy. We can go further...

[mpolans]

Unfortunately biodiesel uses up MORE diesel than they produce. The tractors need to run on something.

The reason we don't see European diesel cars in the US is all do to politics. Idiot politicians that don't have engineering degrees think they know what is more effecient and environmentally friendly.

Moller says the flying car is right around the corner. http://www.moller.com/ You should put in your deposit for one.

Moller has probably lost more money for more investors in pursuit of a single flawed idea than anyone else in history. He goes to great effort to overcome the technical hurdles, but turns a blind eye to the practical and legal issues. Basically, if it flies, it's regulated by the FAA, and the FAA is the most power-hungry, convoluted bureaucracy in America. There's a reason why virtually all certified general aviation aircraft are based on designs that originated in the 1940s.

[J-Ho]

I'm wondering if we shouldn't be putting effort into biodiesel instead of ethanol.It just seems like a simpler,more efficiant process to me.I mean just grow it,squeeze it,filter it,then burn it.I'm not sure how the land to yield ratio would work out though.

Using our food (corn) as a source of fuel is a horrible idea. IMO

My biggest problem with ethanol is that after distillation they add a small amount of gasoline. This is to supposedly stabilize the fuel for transport. All that does is render it undrinkable.

[kgunz11]

I don't see where you can take an underpowered engine and add a component to it known to increase consumption and expect it to get more fuel efficient. If the 1.4 liter was capable of running the car before the turbo it's one thing. It's still an underpowered energy source for the car its going in even if it is a lighter and smaller car than others out there. I say put the corvette engine in it and see how good it does, with and without a turbo, and we'll have something.

Wankel made an 88 cubic inch engine that produced 200+ HP. The draw back is they aren't all that efficient. Add twin sequential turbos and the HP goes about 400. That's from a 1 liter engine.

[Matt Cheely]

I don't see where you can take an underpowered engine and add a component to it known to increase consumption and expect it to get more fuel efficient. If the 1.4 liter was capable of running the car before the turbo it's one thing. It's still an underpowered energy source for the car its going in even if it is a lighter and smaller car than others out there. I say put the corvette engine in it and see how good it does, with and without a turbo, and we'll have something.

Wankel made an 88 cubic inch engine that produced 200+ HP. The draw back is they aren't all that efficient. Add twin sequential turbos and the HP goes about 400. That's from a 1 liter engine.

Fuel = Torque

Torque * Time (rpm) = Power

You have to put fuel in to get torque, you also have to have air to complete combustion. That stoichiometric ratio I was speaking of is the optimum ratio of air to fuel for combustion. That's why that small engine is underpowered, no fuel. A turbo means more air, so we can put in the fuel and now it's not underpowered.

Engine efficiency is at it's maximum in a full throttle situation where we get the highest compression (and engine works at a lower compression at part throttle), where we are making the most use of the heat generated from the combustion event. (The internal combustion engine is all about heat energy.)

The corvette gets bad mileage because it's always going to be running at part throttle. If you upped the weight of the car so that it had to run at wide open throttle (WOT), then it would be it's most efficent. If you calculated the amount of fuel used to move each pound, it would be remarkably close to the tiny engine pulling a tiny bit of weight.

[kgunz11]

Compression is a direct relationship of torque, thus why diesel engines and inline (vs v type) gas engines typically generate more torque. A diesel engine can create tremendous amounts of torque with very little fuel consumption due to its combustion cycle and compression.

[Dave Gundry]

V vs inline doesn't have anything to do with compression though. It is just a different firing order due to balancing and offset of the crankshaft and counterweights to deal with the differing input angles of the power stroke.

Biodiesel and ethanol are both giant crocks of $hit. Both use more energy to make than they produce. It's just something to make hippies happy. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing...

On the subject of small engines - anybody else ever read up on BMW's 1.5L turbo F1 engine? How about 1000hp/liter FI is a wonderful thing.

To get our mileage up, the first priority should be reducing weight. We need to get out of the bigger is better, I need a SUV to be safe pissing contest - we've obviously seen were that leads us. And if people are too stubborn to let go of that because they refuse to learn how to drive and take responsibility for their actions, then we'll need to $hit or get off the pot when it comes to REAL alternative fuels - those containing nothing but either electrons or an electron and a proton - NOTHING MORE.

[revchuck]

...wide open throttle (WOT)...

Matt - Where I come from, the correct acronym is "WFO".

[Thomas Moore]

I was inquiring about a Whipple super charger for my 2005 Mustang GT and the tech told me with proper tuning it will get better gas mileage than the stock engine.

Matt went to college for this stuff and he's using his education for a living at Detroit Diesel. I think he may know a thing or two about diesel engines.

[kgunz11]

I was inquiring about a Whipple super charger for my 2005 Mustang GT and the tech told me with proper tuning it will get better gas mileage than the stock engine.

Matt went to college for this stuff and he's using his education for a living at Detroit Diesel. I think he may know a thing or two about diesel engines.

And is does the Tech profit anything from you buying a Supercharger?

"Although roots superchargers have significant parasitic load and do dramatically decrease fuel economy, centrifugal superchargers will yield approximately the same fuel economy as normally aspirated engines, under normal throttle conditions. When racing, however, fuel enconomy will decrease given the supercharged engine's ability to consume additional fuel and produce additional horsepower."

"Fuel economy depends entirely on your driving habits and in some cases you may experience an increase in gas mileage. Under normal freeway driving, for example, the supercharger is not under boost but is increasing the efficiency of the engine by forcing air through restrictions like the air filter. But let's face it, you are not interested in a supercharger to enjoy "normal driving conditions." When you are demanding additional performance from your vehicle it will require additional fuel."

[kgunz11]

Biodiesel and ethanol are both giant crocks of $hit. Both use more energy to make than they produce. It's just something to make hippies happy. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing...

Being that I live in a community directed affected by the Ethanol thing, I hope its not as bad as everyone thinks it is. We have the F.U.E.L. plant that just opened here a few months back and it's been a real promising thing for the community and local economy, and I live in a really small town.

Personally, I don't like the ethanol and what it brings to the table because of what all goes into making it. Seems just as much gas is burned creating it so how are we helping ourselves?

Now the biodiesel is another story, and you obviously know nothing about that. The only energy used can be accomplished by plugging a little heating element into the wall and heat just speeds up the process, but it not required. Agitation burns a little electricity also if you use that step in your process. Other than, a few ounces of Red Devil Lye and a gallon or so of Methanol and you can turn 40 gallons of french fry grease into 40 gallons of nice diesel power and a dozen bars of soap. The biodiesel is no better or no worse in regaurds to fuel economy or power.

Did you know the first diesel ran on peanut oil?

[JFlowers]

Swinging off topic a bit,

Any alternative fuel policy wil take time to implement. Even if Ford could put a wonder car on the road (diesel/gas/hybrid/electric/pedal) it would take time for the effect to filter through the buying process and fuel distribution processes.

But, one simple thing that could be done today to reduce fuel burn - Telecommuting. How many people in the US have jobs that could be telecommuted? And what would be the impact of removing 8 20 miles commutes (avg 20 miles each way for 4 days, 1 day in the office) on the fuel consumption in the US? Earlier this early, US TODAY did a survey and showed that 80% of the people in the us who work jobs that could be telecommuted are not allowed to, and 12% choose not to.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program....... and remember a high MPG is great if you don't live in the South where you can't get gas anyway!

[TMC]

Biodiesel and ethanol are both giant crocks of $hit. Both use more energy to make than they produce. It's just something to make hippies happy. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing...

And now Pickens and his friends want us to convert out cars to CNG, are they kidding! I guess they hope that we're dumb enough to think that spending several thousand dollas to convert a car to propane so we can save a few dollars when we fill up will sound like a good idea. Never mind the fact that it doesn't have as much energy as gasoline and we'll use twice as much.

[BritinUSA]

I've read that british fuel estimates are sometimes wrong due to the fact that a british gallon is bigger than a U.S. gallon. Ran into that watching top gear when they were getting much higher mileage on the volkswagen than we do here in the states. Anyone found that to be true?

Mule

Correct:

1 gal(UK) = 1.20094 gal(US)

So MPG in UK is MPG / 1.2 in USA

48 mpg in UK is 40 mpg in USA

Edited October 2, 2008 by BritinUSA

[Chills1994]

It's been interesting reading this thread so far.

My own personal experience was that back in May of '93 I bought my first car: an '88 Saab 900 with a turbo'ed inline 4 cylinder engine, 5 speed stick. 2.1 liter engine, I think that would put out, according to the owner's manual 165 HP and 195 FTLB's . Granted, getting onto the interstate and shifting through the gears would get my fellow passengers' eyes fixated on the tach because the noise was so loud through the firewall.

Anywhooo... that car would get 33 + MPG out on the highway.

My point is: why isn't every car (and truck) getting 33 or more MPG, it's been 20 years since my Saab came off the assembly line?

And as far as the door supports go that have to be inside cars meant for America..... there really "ain't" that much to 'em. Just some sheet metal bent into a shallow channel and that's it.

I'd like to see a comparison of side impact collisions between the same model cars with sheet metal "reinforcement" vs. and then without. Does it really make that big of a difference? Or a difference at all?

Edited October 2, 2008 by ima45dv8
Political content removed - Cool it, Chills.

[Matt Cheely]

One reason is emissions levels. An EPA 2007 14.7L Diesel will make 455hp and get around 5 miles per gallon. Take away those emissions restrictions, and you can get 800hp with similar mileage...

Reason is we change around the BOI, inject EGR, change valve timing, inject fuel into the exhaust system, so that we can get the cleanest burn possible. This does not necessarily mean the best efficiency.

[HSMITH]

I would love to see more diesels on the market in the US. My 99 Dodge is averaging over 21 mpg on the highway, this is a 7100 pound 4x4 pickup on 33" all terrain tires and I do not poke along. If I am covering 21 miles on a single gallon with my old 'dirty' diesel and the new one dodge is offering is only covering 14 or 15 miles per gallon burned how much pollution is actually saved by the new 'clean' diesel? I don't know what the numbers are in reality but I can't see how burning 25%+ more fuel to cover the same distance helps. Anyone know what the real numbers are?

[Matt Cheely]

Going from 2004 levels to 2007, the level of particulates (soot) dropped by a factor of 10. 2007 to 2010 took the NOx down by a factor of 10. I don't know off the top of my head about before 2004.

So your brand spanking new truck will have a 10th of the nasty stuff of a pre 2004 truck.

The speak had been of the EPA going after CO emissions, but with the current fuel costs the new word is that in 2014 the new standards for diesel trucks will be based on making a certain fuel economy standard.

[mpolans]

V vs inline doesn't have anything to do with compression though. It is just a different firing order due to balancing and offset of the crankshaft and counterweights to deal with the differing input angles of the power stroke.

Biodiesel and ethanol are both giant crocks of $hit. Both use more energy to make than they produce. It's just something to make hippies happy. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing...

On the subject of small engines - anybody else ever read up on BMW's 1.5L turbo F1 engine? How about 1000hp/liter FI is a wonderful thing.

To get our mileage up, the first priority should be reducing weight. We need to get out of the bigger is better, I need a SUV to be safe pissing contest - we've obviously seen were that leads us. And if people are too stubborn to let go of that because they refuse to learn how to drive and take responsibility for their actions, then we'll need to $hit or get off the pot when it comes to REAL alternative fuels - those containing nothing but either electrons or an electron and a proton - NOTHING MORE.

A fun way to get out of the "bigger is better, I need a SUV to be safe pissing contest" would be to assess auto registration fees and taxes by weight. I think it would promote lighter vehicles which should reduce fuel consumption, reduce wear and tear on the roads, and reduce the force encountered in accidents (since F=Ma). I'd be for it.

[Dave Gundry]

Now the biodiesel is another story, and you obviously know nothing about that. The only energy used can be accomplished by plugging a little heating element into the wall and heat just speeds up the process, but it not required. Agitation burns a little electricity also if you use that step in your process. Other than, a few ounces of Red Devil Lye and a gallon or so of Methanol and you can turn 40 gallons of french fry grease into 40 gallons of nice diesel power and a dozen bars of soap. The biodiesel is no better or no worse in regaurds to fuel economy or power.

Bottom line is there is not enough sustainability in biodiesel, just like ethanol. There is not enough bio fuel in the world to keep up with our current consuption long term, while being able to grow food - the earth just doesn't have enough land. Hell, in a few years, there will not be enough land to only feed us, let alone grow fuel for vehicles. Making fuel from waste products is a great idea, but it just won't, and can't work for all. But then again, I guess I know nothing about it.

[kgunz11]

I'm trying to read the instruction manual on installing my flux capacitor in the new Chevy I bought yesterday. It's unfortunate that I don't eat enough bananas to fuel the darned thing!

[TMC]

I'd like to see diesel priced like it should be, cheaper than gas. Isn't it easier to refine?

My TDI Jetta get 45-49 mpg and if diesel were cheaper I'd feel like I was really be getting away with something.