An Australian couple has attained two Guinness Book of World Records titles during their 9000 mile, 25-day journey along the Australian coastline in a diesel-powered Peugeot 308.
John and Helen Taylor attained the independently verified records for the farthest distance traveled on a single tank of fuel with 1192 miles on only 60 liters (15.8 gallons).
Additionally, the two managed a record for the highest average fuel economy during their 9062-mile journey, averaging 90.75 miles per gallon in their hatchback (roughly 75.5 mpg in the U.S. cycle).
Interestingly, no significant changes were made to the manner in which they drive their little Peugeot everyday and they even packed full suitcases for their excursion.
The Peugeot 308 wasn't prepared too differently either, but the couple did add a set of lower rolling resistance Michelin tires.
In standard form, the 308 features an HDi 110 diesel engine mated to a six-speed manual ECG gearbox. The powerplant utilizes a variable geometry turbocharger with overboost for "swift acceleration."
According to the French automaker, the engine propels the car to sixty two from a standstill in just under 12 seconds and has a maximum speed of 119 mph.
The Guinness Book of World Records' previous distance travelled on a tank of gas was held by the also economical Peugeot 307.
Source: Peugeot
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Makes me love my diesel even more
.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Yet another car we'll mysteriously never get.
yeah um why arent american automakers getting the clue and using their diesel technology here?
i mean seriously, even if diesel is more expensive, if you get twice the MPGs, you still spend a lot less in total
5 bucks a gallon at 60 mpg vs. 4 bucks a gallon at 30 mpg? seriously, i dont get it
nice , car isnt to bad looking
HELLOOOOOOOOO BIG 3 ARE YOU LISTENING ?????????????
lol , of course not
Wow, I never knew diesels were that fuel efficient.
We had GAS engined cars getting 45-50 mpg in the LATE 80's/EARLY 90's.... where are the cars that can get that from the factory now? Everyone's touting 30 mpg in cars like the Cobalt, WTF? My 93' Buick daily beater with 100K still gets 30mpg and its a Series 1 3.8L!! This just goes to show how the auto industry has, time and again, willingly ignored the inevitable fuel crisis, only serving to make the problem worse. The worst part is how they're talking about how horrible CAFE standards are going to be for car companies to live up to, which is a load of crap, they've had the capability to have a corporate average fuel economy of at least 40 mpg for YEARS now.
As for diesel, yeah, they get great mileage, but spend a few minutes parked downwind of one in traffic and then tell me if you'd really want to have everyone in a diesel vehicle
But if you're really that interested in a diesel small car, VW TDI engines can get upwards of 50mpg with just a reflash and bigger injectors (and believe it or not, they make MORE power to go along with the greater economy, not less).
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
One of the land speed record holders for
fastest diesel truck had a cummings turbodiesel, made something like 600hp, was streetable AND did about 23mpg city/highway to boot. So I don't think the new CAFE standards are impossible with current diesel technology. The new diesel's also don't smell (almost) and rev quite high in the 5000-6000 rpm range.
JERSEY: One of the reasons that earlier cars made better mpg was that they were lighter and had less power. Today's car manufacterers's are obsessed with giving us fully loaded 150hp+ cars no matter how badly it affects economy. What don't seem to understand is that the public either wants great power or great economy and are willing to trade one for the other. Don't give us a car that tries to do everything half assed, like 200hp and a 22mpg average. That's retarded. Instead give us a 420hp car that does 15mpg or a 100hp car that does 45mpg and we'll be cool with it. One or the other.
Hell, an Opel Kadett from 1963 got better fuel economy than a 2008 Cobalt. That is ridiculous.
Personally, I think we should all suck it up and the government should remove the extra cost on diesels they put in order to offset gasoline price, and sell gas at it's "true" price (AKA, what it would be without higher diese costl taking up the slack) We're gonna have to do it anyway, so might as well do it now. I think we'd end up with 3$ a gallon diesel and 6$ a gallon gas BUT, since a diesel car does twice the fuel economy of a gasoline powered one it'd be like paying 1.50 a gallon. So it'd be like the good old days again.
Trust me, if they re-adjusted the fuel prices to what gas/diesel should cost at the moment they won't have any problems selling diesel cars in the future. We'll do like Europe and go 80% diesel.
Yeah, us car guys are gonna take one for the team BUT at least we'll be able to afford going to work again in our diesel daily driver. Better than paying it up the ass with
every damn car we drive. Gas will be high but we'll still be able to afford it for weekends and such.
Better than nothing.
New generation diesels don't have the same problem that older ones do... esp if you switch to a bio-diesel peanut oil base.
Which, if you think of it:
- Bio-diesel is cheaper now more than ever (free used peanut oil from restaraunts, they also don't have to pay the recycling fee)
- Makes more power on average,
- Is easier on your piston rings and valves.
If it were available here, I'd buy one of those bitches...
TDI , its badass
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Those diesel race cars don't run on regulal fuel. It's rediculously exspensive and really, false advertising.
Diesels are crazy expensive engines that cost too much to maintain. When they are not running perfect, they puke out all sorts of "bad stuff". I have purchased cars cheaper than a set of injectors. The people in really cold climates leave their diesels running all night on cold nights. Cause they know it aint gonna start in the morn. Been there, done that. No fun at -30C.
The way I see it, we are being sold deisel as a way for the manufacturers to justify bigger margins. The car manufacturer gets to charge you a ton for the machinery. The oil companies get to sell you fuel that is cheaper to refine yet they can justify the margin. The shop gets tyo rape you for maintenance.
It's the safety idiots that have caused our current non fuel efficient cars. If so many didn't drive around in huge SUV's, we wouldn't need such "safe" cars. We all know, it's survival of the richest out on our highways. Were just widening the gap.
The diesel race cars use a more refined diesel fuel, but it still uses straight compression and heat plugs to start up and run: the technology is the same.
The other thing: I've driven in a diesel in the middle of -45 conditions at startup, and as long as you give it time to warm up the glow plugs, the intake charge heater, the fuel line heater, and the fuel filter heater, it ran just fine, the only places I've seen people run a diesel overnight is north of 60 or in areas that they couldn't heat up the area (or at least the batteries, oil and fuel). Unless you have water in the fuel, then... then you'll have problems... just like a gas engine
At this point too, you're also getting pretty clean emissions out of a stock diesel... there's a soot filter, and multiple catalytic converters. If you want better emissions, use biodiesel or other fuels.
Plus, the Smart fortwo is one of the safest cars on the road... 5 stars on all frontal/front offset tests. (side impact tests were only 4 stars)
LINK
Whether the technologie is the same or not, it's not repeatable with normal fuel. I'm not sure anyone has figured out how to make big diesel power without the smoke.
When I used diesel, water in the tanks was normal in the winter. And a big problem. And in Ottawa. When I lived in Edmonton, people left their gas engines running all night on the coldest ones.
I don't believe the smart car could be made as efficient and safe if it were built for 4 or 5 people. At this point, it's a glorified golf cart. If that's the future of cars, I feel bad for the future gens. The roadster in Europe is pretty neat.
You'll have to forgive my position on this matter. I have been left stranded in the middle of knowhere, with my wife, in minus 36 by diesel. Had my budget drained by its cost on all fronts. My eyes have poured tears from the vapours. Now, diesel fuel isn't cheap like it used to be. I just can't see the real benefit. Economy at what cost is what I see.
I would like to add a point on the Smart cars safety results. It's my understanding that crash results are based on the integrity of the passenger cabin in a crash. While the egg you are in is rugged, the crumple zone is very small. The forces of the hard stop with simply be tranfered right to the occupant. I expect maniy broken yolks.
What i do like about micro car is that they give you a sense of vulnerability. The less safe you feel, the more safely you will drive. If only we could get he incompetent and careless driver in these things.
The Smart could easily be bigger and just as fuel efficient. In fact, moreso since it's compactness probably makes it heavier than a slightly bigger car. A Ford Ka is just as fuel efficient and a hell of a lot bigger. The Smart is for people who live in the ubercrowded cities of Europe and are sick and tired of not being able to find a parking space. It's basically a 4 wheeled scooter.
Here's a picture of the Ka, this is a perfect car to go to work in.
As for accident protection, call me weird but I like a smaller more maneuverable car that can avoid accidents as opposed to a huge tank of a SUV. Yes, the SUV is safer if you hit something, but you're almost GUARANTEED to hit something if that's what you're driving. I drove a Geo Metro and it's amazing how easy it is to get out of trouble with that thing if you have quick reflexes. Just my .02$
If we are forced to deal with tiny cars, I would much rather the original Cooper S over the current offerings. Even many of the concept prototypes of supposed eco cars leave little room for fun. It's as is you can't smile and love the environment at the same time.
I believe the manufacturers build tiny cars so that they are undesireable. There is so little margin in them, that it just doesn't make sense to make them. Throwing a few bucks in marketing giant pig vehicles is far easier and profitable in the end.
My biggest objection for the small car is the unibody. Being from a cold climate, I have witnessed too many cars rust away. Unibody construction, even with all it's benefits, ensures that the car is disposable. Sadly, the quest to have the latest thing may be the biggest eco faux pas of all.
I wonder how tha KA stands up against the Smart in safety?
I plug in my block heater.. and she fires up JUST fine in the morning.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Short Hand wrote:I plug in my block heater.. and she fires up JUST fine in the morning.
Living in the GTA, you likely won't. It just doesn't get cold enough around here. The issue is not that the coolant or engine is cold.
With the slightly heated fuel from the return fuel system and room for vapour in the tank, the water present in air and in contaminated fuel can condense on the colder walls of the tank.
Of course, keeping your tank full all the time, replacing the filters and making sure your fuel isn't in the tank for long makes my complaint less of an issue.
I totally understand where you're coming from Craig. I live in Quebec and if anything it's even WORSE here, but you know... switching to diesel would make gas cost 3 times less and that's a lot of money. For me and a lot of people it'd be worth the hassles of extra maintenance. Just look at me, I drive a 2002 Sunfire and it's costing me 50+ dollars a fill up and I need to fill up once ever 2 weeks. But if I got 3 times the mileage it'd cost me what? 33$? That's a saving of 67$, that's almost 700$ a year. For someone who drives twice as much as me, which is everyone, the saving are even more insane.
But you're right, Diesel's not for everyone. It's not as hassle free as gas.
At 700 a year in savings, regardless of maintenance, it's gonna take at least a couple years to make up for a diesel's additional cost of complexity and strength.
I expect a GM diesel pickup to yield 30% better fuel economy over it's gas counterpart in real world conditions. Towing anything heavy would throw the lead to a diesel in a big way.
Have you noticed the new fuel efficient cobalt? You could vey well apply the same methods to improve your economy. Taller tires with less roll resistance, HT tuners to tune and to accomodate for the new resultant gear ratio and your set. An intake and a manifold off an SS with a downpipe/cat will, all together improve economy in a big way.
I wonder how much a diesel cobalt would cost when compared to the fuel efficient cobalt. When you think about it, you are essentially buying what amounts to a fully built ecotec with a power adder.
^You sound like Bob Lutz, telling people that "Diesel ain't good."
A gasoline Cobalt will never EVER achieve what this Diesel Peugeot is doing in MPGs. For god sakes, you are putting on a pedestal and comparing a 37mpg car (modded already for efficiency) and think that with a little fuel efficient mods on gasoline engines, you're gonna that get close to 76mpgs like the Peugeot?
Look, hate diesels as much as you want. But diesels are robust and can go passed 200K miles. In the past, their common problem was the fuel pump, now with DI, problems are none existent.
Merecedes' engines are one of the most lousiest engines today, but the few that are running, the majority (90
of the 20+ year old Benzs are diesels. That will tell you something.
Modern diesels has no problem in the cold either, atleast that's what some manufacturers say.
Until a production car with a gasoline engine (with out hybrid) that will do 1192 miles on only 60 liters (15.8 gallons) while achieving a maximum speed of 119 mph in a 5 pass car with comfort, you have no platform to down play the capabilities of a diesel engine.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
I have not downplayed the potential of diesel.
I have tried to bring to light that the overal costs might actually be the same in the end.
It didn't achieve that milleage at 119mph. In fact, the record is relatively meaningless without comparing it to a similarily equiped gas vehicle on the same trip at the same time. In fact, the blurb you posted is more a marketing ploy than a scientific result. And that's my point. We are being sold the idea in an effort to bring profits up across the board. If we all switch to diesel, with increased demand for the dirty fuel, the futures of diesel will go up in our open market norrowing the benefits of diesel even further.
So, would you buy a Cobalt with a huge fuel tank, multiple cats, an advanced and likely costly turbo and a forged engine. Sounds like this hypothetical car is gonna cost ton.
Here's the specifications for the French Opel Astra (which is very very close to a Cobalt here and exactly the same thing as the 5 door Saturn Astra) with the 1.7 CDTi Diesel compared to the Cobalt XFE and Honda Civic Hybrid:
Cobalt XFE:
Cost over base model: 0$ (Base model 14,885$)
City: 25mpg/9.4L per 100km Highway: 36mpg/6.5L per 100km Combined: 29mpg/8.1L per 100km
Power/Torque: 148hp @ 5600rpm/ 152@ 4200rpm
Astra Diesel:
Cost over base model: 4,088$ (Base model in North America: 15,875$)
City: 36mpg/6.5L per 100km Highway:57mpg/4.1L per 100km Combined: 46mpg/5.1L per 100km
Power/Torque: 100hp @ 4400rpm / 177lbs/ft @ 2300rpm
Civic Hybrid:
Cost over base model: 7,590$ (Base model: 15,010$)
City: 40mpg/5.9L per 100km Highway: 45mpg/5.6L per 100km Combined: 42mpg/5.2L per 100km
Power/Torque: 110hp @ 6000rpm/ 123lbs/ft @ 2500rpm (+ Electric engine: hp not rated/ 123 @ 0-2300rpm)
Personally, I'm rooting for the Diesel, the future 1.4 low pressure turbo engine may favor the future Cobalt but I don't think the gains will be THAT spectacular.
Here's the specs for a naturally aspirated 1.4 Twinport Astra:
Power/Torque: 90hp @ 5600rpm 98lbs/ft @ 4000rpm
City: 29mpg/8.0 liters per 100km
Highway: 47mpg/5.0 liters per 100km
Combined: 39mpg/6.1 liters per 100km
At the very best GM might improve the figures by maybe 1mpg but odds are that the cars will give slightly less with a Turbo. Compare that to the fact that the Diesel engine will last twice as long and gets better fuel efficiency right off the bat with a fairly low purchase price. Sorry... but Diesel's the answer.
I mean, don't get me wrong, they're HORRIBLE engines to drive around. They just feel blehhh... but to go to work and back? Better than driving a Geo Metro or that Hideously expensive Hybrid that gives marginally better performance in the city and is hobbled by the worst transmission ever invented. For some people gas will be better, but for me? Diesel all the way.
$4000. That's a lot of fuel. Too bad those initial fuel "savings" are more than consumed by the additional price of the car and as the car ages, the additional cost of maintenance. At the very least, you'll be buying a turbo rebuild in the future. In my experience, even the oil changes cost double.
My mention of the Cobalt fuel miser was meant to be an example of how easy it it to get better millage in a J. In a run similar to the example above, I would expect a better increase in milleage on the Cobalt XFE.
