Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Would you drive a diesel solstice, curve, nomad, lightning? If it had 220hp, 300 lb/ft of torque and got 40+ mpg?? And smelled like rotten eggs and smoked like cheech and chong??? Seriously, though. Maybe displacement has become complacent and this is the replacement.

1.9 cdti Kappa links
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,153 Posts
When I start getting my ass handed to me by diesel-powered rockets at the dragstrip, or from light to light, then I'll think about buying in. Until then, I'm sticking to gasoline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
2KWK4U said:
When I start getting my ass handed to me by diesel-powered rockets at the dragstrip, or from light to light, then I'll think about buying in. Until then, I'm sticking to gasoline.
you still on the island? here on the mainland there are a lot of diesel powered trucks with an active aftermarket. ever see a 5500lb truck run 12s? :jester
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,153 Posts
I'm not denying that diesel has potential. It just doesn't appeal to me. When gasoline is twice as much as diesel, as it is in Europe, and when diesel is at EVERY gas station as it is in Europe, it'll start to make sense. But even with "clean-burning" bio-diesel fuels and modern exhaust-filtering technologies, diesels still pour pounds of suit into the atmosphere at wide-open throttle. And you have to admit that you'll never get a diesel engine to sound as sexy as a gasoline engine. Especially a good ol' American V-8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
2KWK4U said:
When I start getting my ass handed to me by diesel-powered rockets at the dragstrip, or from light to light, then I'll think about buying in. Until then, I'm sticking to gasoline.
Deisel is what we burn in the Jet. It goes fast so why can't a deisel car? Deisel is heavier than gas and has more potential power per volume. So with new technology I'm sure you will see it in the future.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Diesels only seem like truck engines because they are primarily used in trucks, and are designed for truck like work. Those that are in cars are generally set up for good economy. I bet if a manufacturer wanted to set up a diesel engine for performance, using direct injection and all the latest diesel goodies, they would have one heck of an engine.

Didn't someone use diesels in their Indy cars for a while (I know, this is going back, but I could have sworn I read somewhere that there have been Indy cars with Diesel engines in them).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,153 Posts
Fformula88 said:
Didn't someone use diesels in their Indy cars for a while (I know, this is going back, but I could have sworn I read somewhere that there have been Indy cars with Diesel engines in them).
Another good point. I rest my case.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Now thats diesel sportscar I could see myself driving! :cheers

PS, I have confirmed that some diesels did run at the Indy 500. One of them is in the Indy museum, itDave Evans #8 Cummins Diesel Special. The notation I found said it was the first car to complete the 500 without a pittsop! Thats unfathomable in this day and age of auto racing (this was in 1931). Diesels have run there since too, I think this car was just the first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
dav8or said:
Deisel is what we burn in the Jet. It goes fast so why can't a deisel car? Deisel is heavier than gas and has more potential power per volume. So with new technology I'm sure you will see it in the future.
Huge difference between jet turbines and Diesel (compression) engines. Diesel fuel is slightly different than Jet A, it's closer to kerosene than diesel, but similar. Diesel fuel only has greater potential due to it's low flash point. This makes it perfect for a compression engine. The low flash point allows a denser fuel air package to be used and the high compression needed to detonate the package results in a more complete burn of the fuel air charge.

The problem with compression engines is they are by nessity heavy, usually long stroked, and have very high internal friction. Gasoline engines are usually a better power to weight ratio, and more suited for higher performance applications due to the high rev capability that compression engines have a hard time with.

Using turbines in cars has been tried too. For decades Chrysler experimented with turbine powered cars, but just as they got it close to perfeced in the late 70's they gave up. As a jet pilot you know that your fuel burn is pretty high at sea level and the efficiency of the engines don't get very good until you reach high flight levels. Turbines actually work better in thinner air, and I think that's why Chrysler gave up.

Compression engines will get better as gasoline prices go up. They are more efficient, and the American market will open up to them in the future. When they are more practical here, ie. more fueling stations, no doubt people will start making more aftermarket and racing mods for them. Diesel powered roadsters will happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
753 Posts
i think turbine engines do not give you engine braking either- they spin down in the same rotation as when they are under power- great for airplanes, not so great for sports cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
cdb said:
i think turbine engines do not give you engine braking either- they spin down in the same rotation as when they are under power- great for airplanes, not so great for sports cars.
Not to mention acceleration lag, much like turbo lag, when you step on the gas. The best I think Chrysler could get to was about 1.5 second lag time.

Lots of good reasons for an automotive turbine engine, but some very good reasons not to use them too. I just brought them up because someone mentioned jet engines in the discussion about diesels. I'm not trying to change the topic of this thread really. A twin turbo diesel could be kind of cool in a sportscar application, but it would have a hard time meeting or beating a gasoline twin turbo of the same size and weight in terms of horse power and throttle response. In the future though, who knows?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,266 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
I think I recall some of my engine classes, a decade plus ago:

Turbine engines (true recovering turbines, not single-stage) are actually quite efficient. The caveat is their efficiency point is very small, and varies based on the intake operating pressure (for non-augmented intakes, in other words, fuel that is not mixed with oxidizer). In general, there is a point, dependent on the amount of oxygen (around 21% for the atmosphere) where a turbine operates with peak efficiency - and this means a generalization that a turbine jet will operate most efficiently where the intake pressure is at a certain level AND your vehicle velocity is very high. This produces the best "miles per gallon", but doesn't mean the engine is operating truly more "efficiently" in thermodynamics terms. Low down in the atmosphere, jets are not usually running at peak efficiency because the aircraft velocity is low, the intake pressure is probably much higher than is needed, and the jet power output required to keep forward thrust is higher than you would set it for cruising.

Simple look:

Jet turbine has a very peaky efficiency operating point.
Diesel engine has a slightly more forgiving efficiency operating range, but not great - however, within this range a diesel is more efficient than a gasoline engine
Gasoline engine: most versatile, but also limited on peak efficiency.

Wasn't one of the big three looking at gas turbine engines powering a hybrid? I would think this might be ideal - a multi stage gas turbine operating at a steady state output charging a battery or electrical storage for powering an electric drive...

Of course, GM has been doing a version of hybrids for ages (GM Electromotive, A huge diesel, operating at a constant efficient point, but driving for the locomotive is done through electric motors). Locomotion is still among the best for fuel efficiency, considering the amount of cargo they carry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,266 Posts
A long time ago, in Popular Mechanics, sometime in the seventies, there was a story featuring this car a guy had built with big electric motors, a lot of batteries, and a small turbine running a generator to charge the batteries when they discharged past a certain point.

I was fascinated with the idea, but have only seen it pop up once since. In the nineties Chrysler put out that they were building a 24-hour racer that was to have a turbine powering an alternator delivering power to an electric drivetrain. The story of it's problems is here.


http://www.allpar.com/model/patriot.html
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top