I have a request for everyone's input: what techniques, technology, anything would you do to build t

[greymouser7]

-That could be driven on the street? Not something as a small as a smart car, at least something a hair larger than a chevette maybe?

What motor would you use? what transmission do you think is the most efficient and why?

So obviously light weight, lots of gears, probably stick-shift, skinny tires, aerodynamic, etc., but what nitty gritty details would you add to it?...

.035" quench on what level of compression? aluminum heads? turbo? methanol-water injection? ceramic coated valves, ceramic coated exhaust runners, vtec gas engines or diesel??

What is the most common production motor/transmission/axle(or not) would you use?

I was intrigued about stories of Tom Ogle-was talking to some car guys a few weeks ago and they brought that up. Every where I go there are second-hand stories from car guys about mysterious things that happened to such and so.

I know allot of this is National Inquirer material, but some of the stuff they put on the web really puzzles me like this list from japlonik:

http://jalopnik.com/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars-ever-made-1599060073

I really question one vehicle's efficiency numbers from the next one.

 

[kkritsilas]

You can take any of the currnet "small cars", Volkswagen Polo, Honda Fit, use a lightweight 3 or 4 cylinder turbo diesel, and probably a multiple gear (as in 8 or 9 speed automatic) and be pretty close to what you are looking for. Volkswagen has been putting out small car diesels for a long, long time, so they would be able to get that done reliably. How easy it would be to put a multi-speed automatic (8-9 gears) into a trans axle that would fit is an open question. You take as many gears as you can get, I guess. Tires cannot get overly skinny (no taller than an 80 section), and large diameter, as I beleive that larger diameter tires have lower rolling resistance, maybe go with airless tires. Aerodynamically, nothing too radical, but get rid of antennas (most cars don't have any, any more) exterior mirrors by replacing them with video cameras and screens, and tons of detail work in the wind tunnel. Remember, car still has to function in the real world.

Kostas

 

[alf44]

i dont know much about modern stuff but there was a model of the duster- feather duster that was a lite weight compared to other cars of its time. i know a few things ma mopar did to increase gas milage. lightest body weight -aluminum bumper brackets, slant 6 1 bbl with either auto or 3 speed stick. very little insulation -thin carpet. am 1 speaker radio,. it was made as light as posible and still be safe. i have read that with good driving skills it could get 30-35 mpg hiway. now for a mid 70s car that was really awesome. there are a lot of new cars that cant get that milage even with all the computers and fancy port fuel injection-direct injection turbo yahoo stuff ... now if someone could take all the aero cues of today and transfer that to a f body think of the milage one could get.. low rolling resistance tires. maybe fuel inject a /6. modern 4-5 speed trans.clean up body aero wise. all the modern tricks. i think that could get a f body into the mid 30s

 

[kkritsilas]

The Feather Duster of the 1970s was a first attempt at this, but cannot be made to work in today's environment. No 5 MPH bumpers, no airbags, ABS, traction control, wouldn't meet current crash standards, etc. All of this adds a lot of weight, and if the car is not engineered with this from the ground up, it would be impossible to retrofit to a car.

I know that aluminum is the bodies/chassis is the darling of the automotive industry, but there are a whole bunch of problems that go with it, from body repair and painting (techniques and materials both, god knows how many modern cars have paint issues, and that is with regular steel sheet metal)m and yes, I am aware of the new Ford F150. The Feather Duster was not particularly light, either, at 3200-3300 lbs., or 180 lbs. lighter than the regular Duster (with the same engine, as per allpar.com). The Volkswagen Polo that I was writing about above is below 2500 lbs, and would probably still be around that with a 3 cylinder turbo diesel (3 cylinder engine would be lighter than the current 4 cylinder, but being a diesel would make it heavier than the gasoline engine, so break even, or maybe a 50 lbs increase). Also, the hatchback shape has both aerodynamic advantages as does the modern shape details, and packaging advantages (front wheel drive eliminates the heavy drive shaft, transmission case would be lighter, etc.) allowing for 4-5 people in a relatively small lightweight car. Now, people will want to shovel in the "features" (touch screen navigation/entertainment systems, air conditioning, all sorts of power this, that, and everything else), but still, the car should easily be below 2700 lbs. It will always be more fuel efficient to move 2700 lbs around vs. 3200-3300 lbs., even with the exact same engine. And a 3 cylinder turbo diesel will be more efficient than the /6. Not to dis the /6, but you are comparing an engine designed in the late 1950s with something designed today. As dim as some engineers are, there are some good ones around, and I think VW can scare up enough engineers to come up with a good engine that will do all that is required.

Also remember, the Feather Duster was RATED at 36 mpg. with a 3 speed, by the EPA. The EPA ratings were very optimistic at that time for highway mileage. While very dependent on the actual engine design and how it would be driven, the car that I described should be able to get >40 mpg, probably closer to 50 mpg in the real world, in the low to mid 30 mpg city. I doubt that the Feather Duster could get more than 32 mpg highway, in the real wold.

Kostas

 

[ramenth]

I doubt that the Feather Duster could get more than 32 mpg highway, in the real wold.

Kostas

Driven for mileage I could see it. My sister's ex had a '76 Volare, slant, 833OD. At 55 he could get 34 highway. In today's traffic, 55 might get you ran over, but on the longer stretches between city exists you just might be able to get away with it.

 

[slant6billy]

I always wanted a grease car conversion kit for a Diesel car or truck. A few folks I know have run used fryer vat oil in their diesels. Some diesel don't like grease and will give up the ghost. My one budy goes a step further with his 7.3 F250. He runs used oil, trans fluid, and anything that will burn in the front tank and conventional diesel in the back tank. He adds fuel cleaner every month and anti gel stuff too. He's a very ignorant fellow, but the truck has several hundred thousand miles on it

 

[greymouser7]

I was considering a long term project of Not-hot rod after both of the civics play out as an economic daily driver that I could use to drive to work, and maybe haul parts long distances. -Say for instance instead of hauling a slant 6 in the passenger seat spot of the 91 civic for blackbirdsrt78 with a couple of straps for safety.[/I]

The Most Fuel Efficient Cars Ever Made

http://jalopnik.com/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars-ever-made-1599060073

11. Self promotion, me. I get 40mpg in my 4 speed blue 1991 civic (1.5liter) driving up to Buford, Georgia & back home to buy an axle, going under the speed limit, but thru Atlanta. My white 91 civic is a 5 speed, has a Japanese 1.5 liter (different cam, more mpg& way more hp) The white civic gets 43 mpg on the highway. Both cars get 29-36 mpg (in town) driving thru stop lights on the way to work, round trip 30 miles.

10.) Geo Metro - US mpg: 47 The Geo Metro didn't offer much in terms of the driving experience, but its paper thin steel body let that mighty three cylinder gas engine be as economical as possible.


9.) Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel - US mpg: 48 -"Zero power, maximum economy from VW since 1976! In terms of real-world cars you can actually buy, diesel VWs have to be at the top of the list. The Prius is for smug liberals who want everyone for a quarter mile in every direction to know they care about the environment. A diesel Rabbit is for someone who wants to get the most amount of travel out of the least amount of money."

8.) Citroën AX - US mpg: 49 The AX wasn't Citroen's most exciting car, but while the diesel version was officially rated at 49 mpg, it set a new world record by going from Dover to Barcelona averaging 87 mpg

7.) Toyota Prius - US mpg: 50

6.) Honda Insight - {hell no! 7 & I drive a civic} US mpg: 53

5.) Porsche 918 Spyder - {a large coupe} US mpg: 67 Top speed? 214 mph

4.) Smart Cdi - (a smart car/tiny) US mpg: 71

3.) Alpina C1 - US mpg: 87

2.) Volkswagen XL1 - US mpg: 261

1.) Microjoule - US mpg: 8,590 - No, that's not a typo. This French team really knows how to harvest everything out of a drop of petrol.????????????????????????????????8590???????????????????

There is such a huge gap from the last two to the third vehicle.

http://jalopnik.com/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars-ever-made-1599060073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
greymouser7- The wife tried to buy a VW Jetta TDI 2010. This car had a 6 speed manual, and dividing the odometer mileage by the difference of two full tanks netted 47 miles per gallon. This car was most certainly heavier than a Feather-Duster, and just about as big.

& yet some other web review, "I drive a 2006 Jetta TDI 5-speed for my job, adding about 1500 miles a month to it. Doesn't matter if I drive it 65mph or 85mph, it gets a consistent 46-47mpg."

Peugeot's new 3 cylinder claims at 99.1 MPG : http://www.peugeot.com/en/news/fuel...e-puretech-three-cylinder-turbo-petrol-engine

 

[greymouser7]

Driven for mileage I could see it. My sister's ex had a '76 Volare, slant, 833OD. At 55 he could get 34 highway. In today's traffic, 55 might get you ran over, but on the longer stretches between city exists you just might be able to get away with it.

In my 1973 4.070 bore 340, 833 four speed, maybe 3.55 geared 4000 pound, Plymouth road runner I can get 17.5mpg driving 55mph in the back roads for 3 hours to Valdosta, Georgia's SOuthEast MOpar nationals.

 

[greymouser7]

I always wanted a grease car conversion kit for a Diesel car or truck.

There is allot of wealth from the military base and the young men that work there ALL buy large, jacked up, four-door, full-size, trucks -biodiesel was popular for a while, smelt like French fries when they drove by, BUT THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT NOW????

 

[greymouser7]

yes, I am aware of the new Ford F150., Kostas

Presuming that you allude to the eco-boost line, Turbo's by themselves do not make fuel economy, but they provide such a boost that a smaller engine can be utilized to begin with.

 

[greymouser7]

The Feather Duster of the 1970s was a first attempt at this, but cannot be made to work in today's environment. No 5 MPH bumpers, no airbags, ABS, traction control, wouldn't meet current crash standards, etc. All of this adds a lot of weight, and if the car is not engineered with this from the ground up, it would be impossible to retrofit to a car. Kostas

I think if you build a 'kit' car or a custom, Notrod, I would not be held to those standards if I could build something based-on/off a chassis that was older than those standards. They cannot make the legal standards post-facto or require them on previous made vehicles.

 

[greymouser7]

Also remember, the Feather Duster was RATED at 36 mpg. with a 3 speed, by the EPA. The EPA ratings were very optimistic at that time for highway mileage. While very dependent on the actual engine design and how it would be driven, the car that I described should be able to get >40 mpg, probably closer to 50 mpg in the real world, in the low to mid 30 mpg city. I doubt that the Feather Duster could get more than 32 mpg highway, in the real world. Kostas

I wanna say that the great economy was because of the FOURTH, overdrive gear of their A833 aluminum transmission.

The T-56 has a version with DOUBLE OVERDRIVE, ends with a .5 final gear...

Some of the new Chargers/Challengers have our infamous 2.25 gear in their rear axles with a 4.72 first gear in their multi-geared automatics!

Using either of these transmissions would require cutting up the tunnel of a rear-wheeled drive chassis, and a rear axle which my Civic does not have (nor IRS)-just separate, body-mounted pillars for the rear tires-Rob, what are those called?

 

[greymouser7]

I am not sure what would be better, a small, LIGHTWEIGHT, gas engine or a heavy, efficient diesel.

The early VW diesel's are probably lighter, but as labeled, underpowered, pushing 2500-3500 pound vehicles.

My 1.5 liter, non-V-tec civic motor in the blue car has maybe 60-70hp, & is the bare minimum sufficient to move a 2000 pound vehicle with a 200 pound driver + 100 pounds of stuff.

The same motor with a different cam & compression has seat-of-the-pants 115++hp, is faster than my road runner off of the line, and moves the vehicle like a low level hotrod in performance.

Some of the guys at work talk about a 4 cylinder version of the cummins diesel engine and a conversion from a Frito-Lay delivery truck that encompasses the manual stick shift transmission..?

There are performance mods for the diesel motors, with a large American following (aftermarket support)
But this arena is mostly out of my realm of depth.

 

[kkritsilas]

Presuming that you allude to the eco-boost line, Turbo's by themselves do not make fuel economy, but they provide such a boost that a smaller engine can be utilized to begin with.

No. I am talking about the 2015:F150 having an aluminum body and chassis. Supposedly a 700 lb. Weight reduction from the steel body.

Kostas

 

[kkritsilas]

I was approaching it from the perspective of a volume built car, for sale to the general public.

Kostas

P.s. the Ram 1500 V6 gas gets better mileage than the Eco-Boost F150. However, the For F150 can tow 10000 lb, and the Ram 1500 can tow 6000. Itcwull also be interesting to see what the Ram 1500 with the 3.0L V6 diesel will do in terms of mileage and towing ability.

 

[greymouser7]

If I wanted to work towards a volume built car, you would either have to follow someone else's orders or start your own company, I think that the big three-ish would decimate you faster than they did Tucker. But it would be an interesting battle sense they don't produce the very best that they could. ('Who killed the electric car')

If there was an upstart car business, say North American Motors, it should be manufacturing in Canada.

My guess is, that Ford exec's have been considering the cost-analysis of aluminum alloys and the tools to shape it. How much lighter does that make their truck vice their steel truck?

 

[kkritsilas]

It is supposed to be 700 lbs. They may have considered the tooling to build it, but maybe didn't pay as much attention to what would need to be done as the truck aged. As many people have said, they don't build them to last 100 years, but on the other hand, what will the truck body be like in 10-25 years from now. With steel bodied vehicles, we have all the techniques in body shops (for better or worse). Remember what happened to car paint lifespan when the car makers were forced to go away from enamels? How many cars/trucks are out there with large chunks/strips of paint missing? I'm sure that the exec's were just as concerned about the longevity of the paint jobs lasting back then, as they are right now about the longevity of the aluminum truck bodies on the F150. I think their mind set is more along the lines of: As long as there are no problems until the loan runs out, we're fine. If it lasts longer, great, if it doesn't, they'll be back to buy another one.

Kostas