My Honda Insight's 1.0 liter engine has a 2.4 quart pan. Just wondering if any other car had a smaller pan?
Troy
quote:My lawnmower has a 1 quart sump
Originally posted by troy_heagy: My Honda Insight's 1.0 liter engine has a 2.4 quart pan. Just wondering if any other car had a smaller pan? Troy
quote:Not quite. It is a hybrid, but works like this: It's a highly efficient 1 liter gasoline powered inline 3. (VTEC-E) In place of the flywheel is an electric motor that kicks in when the car needs a little more power. The electric motor runs off a stack of NiMH batteries in the trunk. The engine can keep the batteries charged. While the car is braking, the electric motor uses "regenerative braking" to keep the batteries charged. And the electric motor acts as the starter motor. When the car is stopped at a red light (tranny in neutral, foot off clutch), the gasoline engine cuts off, and then comes back on when you press the clutch. Those are the main highlights of how it works. They did some major weight saving tricks on that car, it's 1800-1900 lbs. The oil pan is Magnesium, and considering it is only a 1 liter engine, 2.4qts sounds like plenty.
Originally posted by Gary Allan: Isn't the Insight the hybrid?? You actually run off of electric and have the engine provide the generation power (or recharge power if you're in a coast situation) ....but not directly???
quote:I just called my son's friend (who has one) between my editing and your post ...hence I got a short lesson. Sounds like a great vehicle ...but @ 295 lb. I don't think it's the vehicle for me
Not quite. It is a hybrid, but works like this:
quote:100% correct. Oil drain is 7500 miles maximum. Troy
Originally posted by Gary Allan: Isn't the Insight the hybrid?? I think it uses the engine as the primary powerplant using the electric as a booster for accelleration and then syphons off power to recharge the batteries. So ...I guess it would be basically a really small engine with electric boost.
quote:I'm glad they didn't. Burning gasoline, converting it to electric, storing it chemically (battery), and then converting it back to electric is very inefficient. Better to burn the gasoline and use it directly to the wheels. Troy
Originally posted by Dominic: I wish they...turned it into 100% electric drive with an internal combustion engine to *charge* the batteries or capacitors.
quote:The old air-cooled VW's had 2.5, and yes, no filter. Those cars were well under 2000lbs, but not very efficient by today's standards, 27mpg. Why do they need to make and expensive and complex hybrid at all? If that 1L engine has at least 60hp on its own, then that is all you need for a car that light and aerodynamic. You would get the same mpg or better and the car would not cost so much.
Originally posted by Hankster: I think my old '72 Volkswagen bettle had a 2 Quart oil sump. No oil filter. Hank
quote:However a steady state diesel engine is FAR more efficient than trying to run a gasoline engine in multiple RPMs to propel the car! The loss of conversion to electric energy and back is nothing like the loss of an internal combustion engine running multiple RPMs. Also, with this, they could run a very tiny steadystate diesel... 200cc or so, and have plenty of power capability with 100+mpg. I had to design a fuel efficient go-kart a few semesters ago, many people took the insight approach and I took my approach. I used a 150cc diesel engine, a bank of capacitors (lighter weight), one electric motor, and a simple drivetrain. My go-kart had nearly double the fuel economy of most others
Originally posted by troy_heagy: Huh? I can not parse your sentence. Well anyway, don't overfill your pan. It will cause hydrolock which will (1) decrease MPGs or (2) destroy your engine.quote:I'm glad they didn't. Burning gasoline, converting it to electric, storing it chemically (battery), and then converting it back to electric is very inefficient. Better to burn the gasoline and use it directly to the wheels. Troy
Originally posted by Dominic: I wish they...turned it into 100% electric drive with an internal combustion engine to *charge* the batteries or capacitors.
quote:I don't know. Your paragraph doesn't make much sense. Removing the electric motor/installing a larger engine would cause lower MPGs for the Insight. So you're paragraphic does not make much sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it?
Originally posted by rpn453:If they ditched the electric part of it and put in a slightly bigger gas engine to compensate they'd have a lighter car that gets the same highway mileage and almost the same city mileage, and it would be very affordable instead of ridiculously expensive. So what's the point?
quote:Diesel eh? The I revise my statement: "I'm glad they didn't. Burning [diesel], converting it to electric, storing it chemically (battery), and then converting it back to electric is very inefficient. Better to burn the [diesel] and use it directly to the wheels." Eliminating conversion losses will produce better results. I base that opinion on my Insight which gets its highest MPGs when I do *not* use the electric portion. Troy
Originally posted by Dominic: However a steady state diesel engine is FAR more efficient than trying to run a gasoline engine in multiple RPMs to propel the car! The loss of conversion to electric energy and back is nothing like the loss of an internal combustion engine running multiple RPMs.