LocostUSA.com

I think that another issue that you may have with the gear selection is, if I remember correctly, all the syncro trans were 02A's.
I know that the Golf Rallye and the Limited were both 02A trans.

Also the injector pump is not really the limiting factor on Diesel Engine Speed. It is more about the burn speed inside the combustion chamber. Diesel fuel burns very slowly. The combustion flame speed inside the chamber cannot be started early enough (advanced timing) to allow the burn to be close to critical before TDC. If you start the burn too early, the engine will just turn backwards.

If it was injector pump limiting the engine speed, the electronic injected (Direct Injection, no pump) engines would not run to a rpm limit. The Audi ALMS engines are a great example of that. Those engines are torque monsters, but are not RPM demons.
And beleive me, if Audi could have gotten more rpm's out of those engines, they would have.

But a Turbo Diesel would be awesome. Call it a Locost R10.

In his defense, Audi found that by driving all four tires equally (quattro) that they gained efficency, over 100 MPH. They actually found that the quattro Coupe (The UR quartto) managed better fuel economy then the regular Coupe, at speeds over 100 mph.

I'll tell you one thing, if he builds it, that thing will be a rocket 0-60. It might be a issue of him not being able to shift fast enough.

Perhaps a R32 Dual Clutch trans? But the only engine that will bolt to is the VR and only the 4 valve head version.

I know KB58 is thinking it, but he's not saying it, so I will... you've got the drivetrain already. Unless there's a very compelling reason you're doing AWD (which you haven't mentioned thus far), why take the mileage hit from it, and simply build a diesel middy? Don't get me wrong, a diesel AWD locost would be cool, but your stated goals (an AWD locost with good mileage) seems a bit self-contradictory. If AWD is what you're after, you're on the right track. If it's mileage you want, I'd say consider a middy build.

_________________
Andrew

Exploring every single option, permutation, and possibility, to figure out what flavour of awesome I want.

Which is more important to you, AWD or fuel mileage? Why are you so intent to go through all the trouble of having AWD if you are after high fuel mileage?

All those gears etc you are proposing are going to eat up hp that you could be using to move the car. Not to even mention the extra weight you will add to the car.

When you're all done the poor aerodynamic Cd of the Locost body might end up giving less mileage than the VW that the stock engine/drive train came out of.

_________________
"My junk is organized. At least is was when I put it wherever it is." -olrowdy
Completed building GSXR1000 CMC7, "Locouki"
Website: http://projekt.com/locouki/

You guys keep in mind that a Certain Member of this site won a Berkely to Vegas economy run using a small diesel and a locost vehicle.

The VW powerplant is a far better unit then the one that Jack used. And more tunable.

However concerning the AWD system, there is something that we are missing.

Firestorm, please don't think that I am picking on you, because I'm not.
But it is FAR better to solve the engineering problems before you put welder to metal.

I am going to have to do a little research and try to come up with the questions that HAVE to be answered. And perhaps a few answers as well.

Note: the reason that Rhino uses the Honda powerplant is because they are reverse rotation. When they got the vehicles together the rotation direction of the output shafts from the transaxle were turning the correct direction to drive the vehicle forward. I would hate to see you build something and end up with 5 reverse gears and 1 forward.

I can get 50+ mpg on the highway with my -stock- 1988 Honda CRX HF. (43 to 50 mpg around town.)

_________________
"My junk is organized. At least is was when I put it wherever it is." -olrowdy
Completed building GSXR1000 CMC7, "Locouki"
Website: http://projekt.com/locouki/

The main reason I've never gotten the warm and fuzzy's with this design of AWD system is that to put the driver on the left side and the engine on the right requires you to run both differentials upside down and one of them constantly in reverse. You not only have to worry about longevity due to the reversed gear loading but also gear lubrication. Conversely to put the driver on the right and engine on the left allows you to have both diffs right side up, but will still be running one diff constantly in reverse...Unless you choose a diff that is used on the front of 4wd vehicles and has reverse cut gears available. Unfortunately until somebody has proven it out first hand, I don't think anybody will be able to tell you exactly how long a given production differential under a given car powered by a given engine will survive being run upside down and upside down in reverse. It's a lot of risk, for minimal (IMHO) reward.

Then again, there is a first time for everything.

_________________
-Justin

"Orville Wright did not have a pilots license." - Gordon MacKenzie

I realize that the extra drive train drag would reduce mileage, however the car as a whole will be lighter than the Golf the engine will be coming from and it got over 40mpg with major engine wear (230,000 miles and a broken ring). It's very common for a diesel Rabbit to get 50+ mpg so I think a locost should get about the same, though the aerodynamics of a brick don't help. The gearing is also better in that configuration than stock for the transaxle so that will reduce engine speed and increase mileage.

However all of this kinda doesn't matter since the primary point of the car isn't fuel mileage, it's performance. I'm combining some parts I already have with some parts that work to make a (hopefully) quick, agile, fun care that is also fuel efficient. Sure I could probably do this with a VR6 and a different transmission, but I don't have them and I don't want to. The diesel is something I already have, is currently getting rebuilt, and provide excellent mileage. I'll be happy with mid 40s city and 50 hwy mpg from this car (driving like a sane person) and mid 30s to 40 on a track. I got just under 40mpg with the 1.6D in naturally asperated form in the 2500lb Golf it has been in (and will go back in when rebuilt), and that was with flogging the thing for 2+ hours till the radiator hose blew. The Golf can get 450 mile with about an 11 gallon tank, and I'm thinking of putting a fuel cell about that size in the locost (probably more like 15 gallons).

On another topic, here's a pic of the wrapped engine wiring:


The big black wire is the glowplugs, there's a ground, 2 oil pressure switches for the stock warning system, 1 oil pressure sender for aftermarket gauge, boost line for aftermarket gauge, 2 coolant sensors (1 is for the glow plug timer), 2 throttle switches, fuel pump shutoff solenoid switch, W terminal lead for upshift light, and alternator wiring.

You can also see at the top the accelerator cable and on the right the cold start timing advance cable.

Now there's a good argument for a diesel no matter the goal.

_________________
mobilito ergo sum
I drive therefore I am

I can explain it to you,
but I can't understand it for you.

This is only for the mechanically injected 1.6 ME, MF, 1V and (I think) 1.9 AAZ diesels. A TDI would require a whole lot of wiring, computer, and instrument cluster because of the Immobilizer on them.

If they weren't so heavy, you could've used an 80's Benz diesel since they were DI. My old 84 diesel wagon got 35mpg highway in a 5,000lb car.

It's ok, I guess I wasn't too clear about my primary goals earlier (explained in post above that I was typing when you posted). I'm at least a couple of years away from putting welder to metal since right now I'm spending all my money rebuilding the engine in question for daily use in the Golf. I'll also be going back to school soon and then I've got the get the funds to build this car either to be powered when completed, after a TDI swap into the Golf first, or after getting another vehicle maybe a Ninja 250. Right now I'm just in the planning/preplanning stages where the ideas flow and parts are looked at and selected. As I said earlier I just turned 20 three weeks ago so I'm not really in a hurry.

I'll also have to learn solidworks or something to design the frame to fit the engine, transaxle and diffs as well as 2 seats, battery, fuel cell, and other accessories.


The 80s Benz Diesels were IDI, not DI. The injectors are almost the same as mine, I think they just have a different nozzle.

In fact, when tuning the diesels (larger engines, turbo, etc) we will mix and match parts from various diesels into the vW engines.
What they have is a different flow quanity.

Even the later TDi's use a injector pump, however I haven't had a chance to work on the newest engines (the direct injected engines) that VAG produces, however I have a ton of experiance on the Ford engines (7.3, 6.0 and the newest p.o.s. 6.4) all of which are DI.

I believe they may also have a different spray pattern but I'm not certain. I've heard of problems in VWs from using Mercedes injectors.

Also, we're kinda getting off topic, I made this thread to present an idea for an AWD locost for discussion, not to discuss various diesels and fuel economy etc.

Sorry, but that's simply not true, both the original Quattro & the AMC Eagle went through detialed development phases where active "rolling" friction of 2WD modes and 4wd modes were compared.
It is actually more energy efficient to drive the wheels than have them driven up "backwards" by the road surface. I believe it's the accumulated effects of many aspects- tire tread to road contact, bearing effects of being centrally powered vs angularly passively driven, etc.
The engineering crew for the AMC Eagle was particularly bitter about the change after 18 months of production to allow 2wd mode.

Now, my choice- albiet in car with a half dozen times the power, would be to have both modes- 2wd for when you feel like fooling around and steering with the throttle, and AWD-viscous for slalom and everyday street driving, where power oversteer could catch you by surprise in an accident avoidance situation or when accelerating hard and hitting gravel, wet or even ice on the road (up here in Canada).