The CRX will one day be EV. Mine has .30, the difference between the hf and mine is the rear wiper, there's nothing else worth seeing. Mehbe nixing my antenna will gimme some help.
But anyway, I would still be a rabbit diesel L if one popper up for 100 bucks, but I'm not searching like mad anymore. |
O.k. since I f'ed up the calcs, going from Cr=.012, CdA=.485 to Cr=.006, CdA=.276... If I get ~50mpg@55ph I'd get ~90mpg@55mph. Of course, I'm pretty sure I can do even better with synthetic oils, and turbocharging for better engine efficiency (~5% on TDI's). I've seen an intercooled VNT turbo from a newer VW and a turbodiesel fuel pump (has this little gizmo on top that increases fueling as boost pressure rises) dropped on a NA 1.6l, with the result being about the same efficiency, and a doubling of torque through the entire rpm band. There's an old diesel head from Canada who claims that he's getting ~70-80mpg (Imperial) by venting the boost pressure so he gets a *super-lean mixture. The really neat thing about this is that he can push a little knob in to regain boost pressure to the fuel pump for an instant ~30hp. I figure the boost pressure can be bled gradually somehow, so that power/efficiency can be set to whatever level you'd like. All told I think ~50hp/120mpg@55mph or ~80hp/80mpg@55mph is possible, but not unless I get off my ***, get a job, and stop messing with my bikes/internet message boards. ;)
https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...4ecc17445c.jpg https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...28b99e715a.jpg *I'm pretty sure this is why those gigantic diesel trucks can pull ~20-25mpg even though they're four times the size/reference area. Because they're in a different EPA class they can run leaner and produce more NOx. This is also why those chips can produce more power, but still get better FE. They lean out the engine even more (actually should create a little bit more torque) for the majority of throttle positions and then richen it on WOT for more power (compared to *factory), which is why you'll see the occasional big diesel with tons of black smoke coming out the exhaust. Of course leaner creates more cancer causing NOx, and richer creates more hybrocarbon pollution, but it's all part of the game I guess... **Even though these are never tested like gas cars are for smog, they do have to conform to emissions regulations when built. |
Quote:
|
Spitfires make excellent race cars with a few upgrades. About $3,000 of components(mainly GT6 and TR6 stuff, the TR6 engine and tranny/differential are a must as the stock units suck) could make one into a car that does 0-60 mph < 6 seconds, 130+ mph top speed, and ~30 mpg. Compare to the stock Spitfire doing 0-60 around 14 seconds. Rotary engines are also a common modification for these cars. I've read of a 250 HP rotary-powered Spitfire... that would be a sick canyon carver, and still get great gas mileage.
Would I not be concerned about oil use and its political, economic, and environmental implications, I'd be lowering a 350 Chevy into my GT6, instead of an electric motor. These cars are such an excellent base for a hypercar, but Triumph sadly never had the chance to do much with them. For being made with WWI-era technology, they are quite an accomplishment. 0-60 mph in 9-10 seconds AND 28-30 mpg in the same car is something that didn't start showing up until the late 1990s to early 2000s. The Triumph GT6 achieved that in the 1960s using technology that was very antiquated by the standards of its time. |
Quote:
The stock Spitfire components are a cheap joke. Quote:
Mine? Lowering my ride height to 3" with a racing suspension! :D Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
A dyno test with my TDI and boost bleed valve showed a significant increase in torque (and therefore hp) at lower engine speeds. However the increase in boost pressure also caused an increase in exhaust back pressure due to more exhaust through the restrictions in the turbo, rather than freer flowing through the waste gate. The increased back pressure and reduced high rpm 'breathing' capacity cut the peak or maximum hp at the higher rev range. I had more boost pressure, but less power. The trade off of more power down low (with bleed) versus more power up high (without bleed) was a no brainer when I saw how much higher the EGT was with the bleed and the added back pressure. I pulled the bleed valve and never looked back. 70~80 mpg imperial is dead easy, unless that is a daily or a lifetime average. If that is the best or attainable when 'trying' for fuel economy that's only 58~67 mpg US. Been there, Done that, Got the T-shirt, too. All diesels run "super-lean" because they regulate the fuel only, not a fuel and air mixture. The ratio of fuel injected to the nearly constant air volume per piston stroke may range from 200:1 at idle to about 30:1 at full load. |
This is with an IDI engine, just kill the pressure going to the LDA and he gets NA fuel delivery on a TD engine, pretty much an ecodiesel w/o the absurdly high gearing/extra weight. He's claiming he could hit 100+mpIg with his tires at 80psi. The point of this being that the A/F ratio never drops below, say 60-100:1 (or whatever it is), and FE doesn't take a hit with more power, like in a NA.
|
I miss my Golf Diesel
I had a '86 Golf diesel that would get mid-40's every tank without trying. It was the NA 1.6. I sure wish I did not sell it now. :(
I am pretty sure the MkII Golf Cd was 0.34 and the Jetta 0.36. I will have to check my sources. |
Quote:
What I should have done is popped in the engine from #1. |
Quote:
I still would like to have the old NA 1.6, the only electrical load would be the solenoid on the injector pump and the brakes lights, if you use them. :> The perfect alternatorless car I think. A 5 watt solar panel could keep up with this car!!! :thumbup: They were pretty slow, but it was fun keeping up with traffic!! |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.