Honda Car Forum

Why doesn't anybody make a hybrid with a diesel engine? Wouldn't that
get even better mileage?

Jim85CJ <jim_85cj@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> Why doesn't anybody make a hybrid with a diesel engine? Wouldn't that
> get even better mileage?

One of the features of the gas-electric hybrid is that it runs very clean.
California testing indicates that some of the measured emissions are
nearing the error range of the monitoring equipment.
You can't do that with the diesel fuel currently available in the US.
Some portion of the manufacturers' enthusiasm for hybrids may be the clean
burning.


--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

The electric motor has good torque at low rpms. The diesel also has good
torque at low rpm. The two characteristic tend to negate each other since both
engine types do not required additional torque at lower rpm.

However, the Smart only has a .8L diesel engine and can use all the help it
can get. I wonder if a hybrid engine in that car will get it to go faster..hmm

Pars

dold@Hybrid.usenet.us.com wrote:

> Jim85CJ <jim_85cj@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why doesn't anybody make a hybrid with a diesel engine? Wouldn't that
> > get even better mileage?
>
> One of the features of the gas-electric hybrid is that it runs very clean.
> California testing indicates that some of the measured emissions are
> nearing the error range of the monitoring equipment.
> You can't do that with the diesel fuel currently available in the US.
> Some portion of the manufacturers' enthusiasm for hybrids may be the clean
> burning.
>
> --
> ---
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

I have been told, and would like confirmation, that there is a turf war
between environmental researchers in the US and Europe.

Other things being equal, gas engines emit more of some pollutants and less
of others than a diesel engine. It is somewhat subjective to assert which
is worse. Diesels are still worse for smog; gas is still worse for the
whole earth, or something.

OTOH, if you can see diesel pollutants (like soot) people of a certain type
(like dirty hippy activists at the Sierra club)will get more frightened and
confused than if the pollutants were colorless and odorless.

On top of everything else, oil companies can get a bit more 'value added' $
from refining gas than diesel. Americans have a bad taste in their mouth
from GM's trajicomic attempts at diesel cars 25 yrs ago. Diesel is stinky.

regards,
Keith Loyd

"Jim85CJ" <jim_85cj@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CSuqc.20607$KE6.591@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> Why doesn't anybody make a hybrid with a diesel engine? Wouldn't that
> get even better mileage?
>

Keith E. Loyd <nospam@dagnamit.com> wrote:
> OTOH, if you can see diesel pollutants (like soot) people of a certain type
> (like dirty hippy activists at the Sierra club)will get more frightened and
> confused than if the pollutants were colorless and odorless.

The latest studies are that the diesel particulates, which were allowed for
years in the US because they don't contribute to photo-chemical smog, are
found to be in the same class as other fine particles that can lodge deep
in the lungs and cause long term respiratory problems.

> On top of everything else, oil companies can get a bit more 'value added' $
> from refining gas than diesel. Americans have a bad taste in their mouth
> from GM's trajicomic attempts at diesel cars 25 yrs ago. Diesel is stinky.

The current refinery structure is geared toward producing a certain
percentage of different products from a barrel of crude. That is adjusted
to the historic needs of the consumers. When diesel cars peaked in
poularity, it upset that balance by a few percent, which was at the limits
of the adjustability in the current process. A larger adjustment would be
expensive, but the oil companies never lose money... they just charge more.
Diesel is selling for a higher price than regular unleaded now.

GM's attempts at running gas-designed cars on diesel caused grief for
them, but did not lead to the European manufacturers dropping their diesel
products. Most diesels are stinky. The VW TDI doesn't seem to be.

Diesel in medium duty working trucks is popular in the US.
Some use it because it is higher mileage. Some because of the low speed
work they do, some because they cheat and use "off-road" diesel, and don't
pay road taxes on the fuel.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

"Jim85CJ" <jim_85cj@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:CSuqc.20607
> Why doesn't anybody make a hybrid with a diesel engine? Wouldn't that
> get even better mileage?

If MPG was the only factor, I think diesel would be better, since its energy
density is higher than gasoline's. I know that at my university when they
were working on hybrid projects with MPG being the primary goal, they used a
diesel engine. However, like other posts mentioned, there's other factors
such as popularity of diesel and emissions.


--
Disclaimer: This post is solely an individual opinion and does not speak on
behalf of any organization.

> If MPG was the only factor, I think diesel would be better, since its energy
> density is higher than gasoline's. I know that at my university when they

That is not the only factor towards higher mpg:

1. Gasoline is octane derived (C8H18) whereas Diesel is cetane
derived (C10H22). There is more energy in cetane for not
much more volume than octane (denser - you are correct !).

2. Diesel engines are much higher compression than gasoline engines,
typically 17 to 22 to one versus 7 to 10 to one. Energy efficiency
is a function of the power of the compression ratio.

Typically, gasoline engines are 25% efficient, diesel engines are 35%
efficient (there are many exceptions to this rule of thumb !).

Lynn

In article <pKLqc.77600$Fl5.10731@okepread04>, "Keith E. Loyd" <nospam@dagnamit.com> wrote:
>I have been told, and would like confirmation, that there is a turf war
>between environmental researchers in the US and Europe.

Don't know if there is a "turf war", but yes, traditionally the
environmental advocates in the US have stressed pollutants (NOx,
SOx, CO, particulates, non-methane hydrocarbons) whereas Europe
has stressed greenhouse gases (CO2). Diesel, being more
efficient, releases considerably less CO2 per mile driven. But it
has higher NOx and particulate emissions. Some of these can be
addressed with more expensive aftertreatment (something akin to
cat converters used in gasoline engines), but some of that
requires cleaner diesel. Even with that, they might not meet the
upcoming emission req'ts.

California regulators had been very anti-diesel since they were
more concerned with local emissions such as causing LA basin smog.
But lately they seem to be opening the door to considering
diesels. The auto companies are also, to varying degree,
considering diesels. Probably in part due to their huge
popularity (~40% market share?) in Europe.

Honda was late to the diesel game. In fact, they bought GM/Isuzu
diesels as a stop gap. They now have their first home-grown
(AFAIK) diesel in the euro Accord.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:59:19 GMT, dm@nospam.com (Dave) wrote:

>In article <pKLqc.77600$Fl5.10731@okepread04>, "Keith E. Loyd" <nospam@dagnamit.com> wrote:
>>I have been told, and would like confirmation, that there is a turf war
>>between environmental researchers in the US and Europe.
>
>Don't know if there is a "turf war", but yes, traditionally the
>environmental advocates in the US have stressed pollutants (NOx,
>SOx, CO, particulates, non-methane hydrocarbons) whereas Europe
>has stressed greenhouse gases (CO2). Diesel, being more
>efficient, releases considerably less CO2 per mile driven. But it
>has higher NOx and particulate emissions. Some of these can be
>addressed with more expensive aftertreatment (something akin to
>cat converters used in gasoline engines), but some of that
>requires cleaner diesel. Even with that, they might not meet the
>upcoming emission req'ts.

Ironic that the Europeans were so late in adopting catalytic converters and
HC, CO, NOx emissions standards and now they are all gung-ho on CO2 which
is not a real pollutant at all. In fact the Euros are relatively new at
the auto-pollution "problem" but geez are they umm, enthusiastic. They are
currently cooking up some new reg on tires which eliminatees some compound
which contributes greatly to grip but is a suspected carcinogen. Frankly
the CE is a bureaucracy gone mad with self-importance.

>California regulators had been very anti-diesel since they were
>more concerned with local emissions such as causing LA basin smog.
> But lately they seem to be opening the door to considering
>diesels. The auto companies are also, to varying degree,
>considering diesels. Probably in part due to their huge
>popularity (~40% market share?) in Europe.

I did 2500kms in a rented Seat Toledo diesel through France last October
and was glad I had it: gasoline was ~.95€/L and diesel was ~.78€/L. Mind
you most of the difference is tax and that's is err, adjustable... which
I'm sure is going to happen.

Note also that because of Cali regs we now have to buy low emissions
lawnmowers and flatheads don't cut it - last I looked, a Toro lawnmower had
a Honda OHV engine For me, using 6gals/year in my lawnmower and
snowblower, it all seems rather ludicrous.

>Honda was late to the diesel game. In fact, they bought GM/Isuzu
>diesels as a stop gap. They now have their first home-grown
>(AFAIK) diesel in the euro Accord.

I guess this is the DI diesel they announced back in 2K:
http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs_03-00/06.htm ?

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:08:11 -0500, "Lynn McGuire"
<NOSPAM.winsim@NOSPAM.winsim.com> wrote:

>> If MPG was the only factor, I think diesel would be better, since its energy
>> density is higher than gasoline's. I know that at my university when they
>
>That is not the only factor towards higher mpg:
>
>1. Gasoline is octane derived (C8H18) whereas Diesel is cetane
> derived (C10H22). There is more energy in cetane for not
> much more volume than octane (denser - you are correct !).

There is no "octane" in gasoline nor cetane in diesel - they are just
convenient arbitrary mixtures, along with n-heptane in the case of octane
number measurement for evaluating antiknock/knock characteristics. There
is, in fact, no single compound which is called iso-octane - it's a
misnomer for what is, in this case, 2-2-4 tri-methyl pentane.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??