Am I the Only One Here Who Thinks Hybrids are <Diesels?

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

I have been thinking about fuel economy recently and to me, hybrids are not such a bright idea. I mean, they are not as good on gas in the real world as the EPA says they should be, are expensive and very complicated. Especially when compared to a Diesel engine in a similarly sized car or truck. A VW Golf with the TDI engine, for example, gets better real world fuel economy than a Prius, yet costs less, is less complicated and will likely have significantly lower operating costs over the long haul. Replacing all of those batteries in the Prius can't be cheap and you know it will eventually have to be done. After all, a vehicle's live cycle rarely begins and ends during the warranty period. When they are in the hands of their second or third owners, what will be their Achillies heel? I am willing to bet it will be one or more of their powertrain parts. I will be very surprised if they see the kind of reliability and longevity many of the better diesel vehicles get.

Yes, I am on a diesel kick right now, but it seems to make sense. For my diesel dollar I would probably get an old Turbo Diesel Mercedes 300TD because I like it's million mile reputation for durability and simplicity. Plus, I have a thing for wagons and just love the W123 chassis Benz's style. They are also available for $1500 or less around here with little to no rust. Plus, I have a neighbor who's a Diesel Benz guy and the one his wife wrecked with 380k on it was still mint and original. These things are perversely durable and I drive 2-3x more miles than the average American and these fuel costs are killing me!

 

[megaladon6]

i'm kinda biased, seeing as i have a 97 jetta tdi, but i've been against hybrids from the start. hybrids have no power, no handling, constant problems and they're a rolling time bomb. people have already been hurt because the car can randomly turn off. then the tow driver comes out, starts hooking up, and the damn car starts up and runs him over! the battery packs go bad after 5 years and are NOT recyclable, and just imagine the poor fireman if one goes up in flames, not to mention if one splits and leaks in an accident. if you don't use the perfect oil you lose up to 10% mpg, the wrong type of tire, 15%. so if you put in 5w-30 instead of 0-w30 and snow tires you get less mpg than a corolla S.
plus as a mechanic i'm a little unconfortable sitting on a 600V battery to change batteries or have a 600v line running over EVERYTING in the engine compartment.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Yeah, I tend to think they will go down in automotive history as one of those bad ideas that seemed good at the time-like the Vega's aluminum cylinders with iron plated pistons or the lovely GM diesel cars of the early 80's. ( hmmm... we want to compete with Mercedes, but don't really want to design a new engine to do so. I Know! Let's take the Olds 350 up the compression and thicken the block and call it a Diesel!) I think it's funny that you really do not see any of the earliest Hybrids on the roads today like the first Toyota Prius or Honda Insight. If they were so good, why are they not still on the road 8-10 years later? Then again, my favorite Benz is still seen on the roads more regularly 23-32 years after they were made. I have nothing against the VW TDI cars, they are just not cheap enough for me to buy one. Being German, they will probably still be on the road in a few decades if they are maintained and have no rust issues. I also do not get why they have not made hybrids with diesel engines as they have better fuel efficiency than gas engines, so it stands to reason they would be more fuel efficient that way.

 

[megaladon6]

i think the biggest reasons why they haven't made hybrid-diesels is that most companies can't make a good, small, diesel. it's also harder to start a diesel. the only companies i can think of that make a good car diesel is mercedes, vw/audi, and now peugot.
however there are hybrid/efi diesels coming out soon. more companies are producing diesels, like gm (using a european designed 5cyl-so it might actually work well), jeep, chrysler (canada gets a 300m diesel soon), and i've heard rumors of a japanese diesel coming to the US.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

If there were some good low cost models available with a diesel, I would probably consider buying one if I could bring myself to buy a new car. I don't get why we can't get a compact pickup with a diesel anymore-or any compact pickup for that matter. I kind of find it funny that manufacturers are touting 30+mpg on the highway as good fuel economy. Most of the cars sold in the 80's could do that with no problem! Hell, I got 32mpg city in a 1998 Sentra. It was rated to do 30 city. Why are there no well-built cheap little cars like that being sold anymore? Why does a Civic weigh as much as a V8 87-93 Mustang? Give me a Japanese Kei class car with a 600cc engine and small as can be. They are stupid good on gas. Give me the original Austin Mini City with the 850cc 4 in it. Not too reliable, but swap in a more modern drivetrain and you have a cool small car with great handling and awesome fuel efficiency.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Another amazing thing I came across on the old Mercedes is this crash test video on You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqMEGA76HsE&feature=related
Watch it closely. These tests were done in 1976 as noted on the back seat of one of the cars. Yet, they are amazingly modern in their design. They have driver's air bags, front and rear crumple zones and the rigid safety cage around the passengers. The gas tank is also in front of the axle instead of under the trunk to reduce the risk of fire in a rear end colission. These were the first cars to incorporate all of these ideas into one car and make them standard equipment. If you watch closely, you can see the seatbelt pre-tensioners fire on impact-something that did not become standard on most other cars until at least the mid 1990's. ABS was also available, but I am unsure if it was standard or not. For a 32 year old design it is an incredible car! Even by today's standards it would probably do well in a modern test. So, the next time someone says old cars are unsafe in a crash, point them to this video. I survived a 30-40 mph impact in an offset frontal crash in my 95 Sentra and do not think I would have fared any worse in one of these.

 

[megaladon6]

i still have my '89 vw golf with the 1.8 8v gas engine and an automatic. it got a steady 25mph to and from work and 35mph on the highway. (of course i need to get rid of it--i've got enough cars)
chevy will be bringing a diesel into the colorado soon. it's a euro-built 5cyl.
they have done a few tests of old cars (no airbag, abs, or crumple zones etc.) vs. the new cars. guess what? you're safer in an old car in most accidents. in a severe accident, yes airbags and everything else helps keep you alive and unharmed. anything less than 60mph/60mph head on collision and you're fine in an old car.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

:Edit: I have been doing some more reading after making the statements regarding the presence of airbags. It seems they did not see introduction into production models until 1981, when they were first optional in the W126 chassis ( 300SD, etc) S class cars. They were used in some of the W123's in the later years of production.

As for the safety of older cars, it all depends on the car and who made it. An old Hyundai Excel would likely be far worse than a VW Golf of the same vintage. The Benz would probably be much better than a G body in the typical IIHS 35mph offset-frontal crash test ( comparing like size and weight cars) as it was designed for it and most other manufacturers were not thinking as much about safety at that time ( mid to late 70's). Low speed collisions are survivable in just about anything on the road except for a motorcycle. What always worries me are the higher speed crashes. I have had 2 accidents in 90's cars that were at 20mph or higher and am unsure I would have walked away from the more serious of the two that I had in my Sentra were I in my Cutlass. What was amazing about the Sentra crash to me is that I had bought it after an offset frontal on that corner for $350 ( It was cheap for a low mileage 8 yr old car at the time). I cut it apart and welded it back together as an experiment- I had never done structural repairs to a car before. All of my welds held and the structure seemed to have acted properly in the collision. The airbags deployed and the cage was left intact. The door even still opened-if not well. I unfortunately hit wrong as I was reaching for the radio at the time and it contributed to my injuries some of which I still deal with 2 years later.

 

[rlsllc]

I love the diesel thing. I put about 300K on a Power Stroke F350 4x4 before it was stolen. With the barn-like aerodynamics, it got a consistent 17mpg at 9500 lbs, as long as you kept it under 65.

There are a lot of guys on the Astro board considering diesels. One has been test fitting a 6.2 on a sub frame this week. I think a 3.9 Cummins 4 cyl would be a great repower for a small van or truck. The Power Stroke was cool, but too big and heavy even for the stout F350 front axle.

How about a Duramax G-body???

 

[megaladon6]

as much as i like the duramax/g-body idea it's not too practical. the handling with all that weight up front will SUCK. but for a drag car, definately. hell, one of those stupid mtv shows dropped a duramax in an old impala. damn did that thing move!
what could be cool is a bmw or vw v6 twin turbo tdi. stock they produce almost 400ft/lbs and 250hp. with some basic mods you could easily see 600tq and 400hp with less weight than a sbc v8.