200 MPG KUBOTA CAR - REALLY!

[CrazyJerry]

Hi Folks!
Thought you'd all get a real kick out of this! A Kubota powered Urba Centurion (Kubota diesel powered sports car). It recently competed in the 10th Annual Toyota Green Grand Prix at Watkins Glen International Raceway on April 11th, 2014. So how did Kubota stack up against over 40 cars, seven universities, Hybrids, Pure Electrics, Compressed Natural Gas, Diesel and anything else? Enjoy the story and please share as appropriate!
Thanks,
~CrazyJerry
SUNY Canton Online Staff Member Hits 200 mpg in Toyota Green Grand Prix

 

[2458n]

Interesting article. Recall the mag story well. I am surprized only three are known to exist. My guess is that there are a bunch of these sitting around in garages across America just waiting to be finished. Back in the day I owned a TR-7. No doubt about where the style came from. I enjoy my Kubota engine right where it is at. In my tractor.

 

[stingray1]

Interesting story.

 

[SPIKER]

There is a guy in Washington State who build a JINMA tractor eng into his Datsun Pickup, it is in the CHINA TRACTOR forum, it has been done for 8 or so years. RPM was too high for the little 3 cyl China made eng & it kept popping head gaskets, a custom copper one and custom flywheel/trans adapter plate to a Masda? transmission was used. same rear end etc. the thread gets revived every year or two for updates. He reported 60+MPG out of the stock truck aerodynamics so not bad...

Mark

 

[94BULLITT]

That is cool I always thought it would be cool to have a Kubota powered car.

 

[SPIKER]

did a quick search for the Jinma powered thread it was a Mazda pickup here
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/...d-mazda-pickup-13.html?highlight=pickup+jinma

mark

 

[buickanddeere]

17HP and "can" achieve 65mph . A teenager on a bicycle will have faster 0-30mph acceleration. 65mph requires a downhill run.
The car is so low the driver is leaning sideways to obtain head room.
The car had decent aerodynamics, then he hung two fog lights and a license plate in full drag mode.
Of note the near 200mpg run is made on aired up tires and by acceleration to speed, engine shutdown, coasting, re-starting, acceleration to speed, etc.

 

[CrazyJerry]

17HP and "can" achieve 65mph . A teenager on a bicycle will have faster 0-30mph acceleration. 65mph requires a downhill run.
The car is so low the driver is leaning sideways to obtain head room.
The car had decent aerodynamics, then he hung two fog lights and a license plate in full drag mode.
Of note the near 200mpg run is made on aired up tires and by acceleration to speed, engine shutdown, coasting, re-starting, acceleration to speed, etc.

It easily achieves 65 mph - it is limited by gearing and the low rpm of the engine. Some cars can achieve 140+ mph but I doubt they do it daily on the streets in posted speed zones right?

I ride a bike too and it accelerates just fine right along with other traffic. 65 mph does not require a downhill. The sideways look is from the lens used for the interior shot. The license plate actually acts as a front scoop for radiator intake. The OVER 200 mpg run was on Watkins Glen track (try looking at the elevation maps) there was NO restarting, etc. Maybe you've already seen the youtube videos posted of the run.

Thank you for your posting so these points could be clarified..
~CrazyJerry

 

[LD1]

MY guess is the 0-60 time is takes forever. I certainly wouldnt want to drive it down the freeway.

Not sure what the car weighs, as i didnt see it listed, but 17hp even it the thing was 500#, it would be a turd.

The thing that really irritates me is the lack of where we are going with fuel economy. Look at your average small car today. I am not talking about "smart" cars, or hybrids, or other tiny cars that really arent comfortable. I am talking about the likes of the civics, carollas, focus, etc. That size. What are they getting? ~35-40MPG. Big deal. They were doing that 15-20 years ago.

I drive a saturn sl. 100hp, 5spd, and a light plastic body. Great economy car IMO. Excellent mileage. No worrys about corrosion. 44-45 MPG with average driving. Then they went to the ion, added 600lbs, and gave it bigger motor with more power. gess what happened to the mpg? And for 100hp, it has respectable acceleration. runs a 17.13ET 1/4-mile. About par with other small cars w/4cylinders.

If they could do that 15-20 years ago, why does it seem the nly way to do better (in a gas car) is to either go hybrid, or build a ridiculously unpractical car like in the article.

Look at p/u trucks too. Dad had a 1985 chevy 3/4 ton 4x4. 4spd w/granny and 350 carb motor. got 14-15mpg. Heck, 3/4-ton gassers do worse than that today. The 6.0 chevy and hemi are lucky to muster 13-14 on a good day.

 

[JJZ 109]

Nice story. Canton College is only about 65 miles from where I live. In fact, I spent a semester there in 1981, but that's another story! :drink:

Dad had a 1985 chevy 3/4 ton 4x4. 4spd w/granny and 350 carb motor. got 14-15mpg. Heck, 3/4-ton gassers do worse than that today. The 6.0 chevy and hemi are lucky to muster 13-14 on a good day.

Can't speak about the 1985 mileage, but I had a '77 3/4 ton Chevy with that same 4 speed and a 305 that I rebuilt. I'm guessing it was nowhere near that 14-15 range. My '79 GMC K15 with 350/auto and the old NP 203 full time four wheel definitely did not approach that.
Today, my 2014 F250 with 6.2 gasser is getting a consistent 13.5 according to the truck's computer. I'm thinking it will improve with break in, probably around the 10k mile mark, but not substantially. But then again I didn't buy it to be a mileage machine.

 

[LD1]

I had a 1985 dodge W350 that had an auto, double transfer case, oversized 35x16r16.5 boggers, and a wore out 360. Not corrected for mileage, it got 8. Correct for mileage, likely around 10. Ditch the boggers for some street tires, and ditch the double t-case, and a fresh 360, it would likely neared 15. I'd say it would at least get the 13.5 that your 6.2 gets.

 

[Gary Fowler]

MY guess is the 0-60 time is takes forever. I certainly wouldnt want to drive it down the freeway.

Not sure what the car weighs, as i didnt see it listed, but 17hp even it the thing was 500#, it would be a turd.

The thing that really irritates me is the lack of where we are going with fuel economy. Look at your average small car today. I am not talking about "smart" cars, or hybrids, or other tiny cars that really arent comfortable. I am talking about the likes of the civics, carollas, focus, etc. That size. What are they getting? ~35-40MPG. Big deal. They were doing that 15-20 years ago.

I drive a saturn sl. 100hp, 5spd, and a light plastic body. Great economy car IMO. Excellent mileage. No worrys about corrosion. 44-45 MPG with average driving. Then they went to the ion, added 600lbs, and gave it bigger motor with more power. gess what happened to the mpg? And for 100hp, it has respectable acceleration. runs a 17.13ET 1/4-mile. About par with other small cars w/4cylinders.

If they could do that 15-20 years ago, why does it seem the nly way to do better (in a gas car) is to either go hybrid, or build a ridiculously unpractical car like in the article.

Look at p/u trucks too. Dad had a 1985 chevy 3/4 ton 4x4. 4spd w/granny and 350 carb motor. got 14-15mpg. Heck, 3/4-ton gassers do worse than that today. The 6.0 chevy and hemi are lucky to muster 13-14 on a good day.

I had a 1970 Ford Torino with a 351 Cleveland engine and 3 speed automatic. I always drove it like I stole it and cops were after me and I consistently got 19 MPG. I think if I would have kept it at 55 mph it may have gotten 25 MPG but I liked to hear the 4 barrel carb roar.

 

[94BULLITT]

MY guess is the 0-60 time is takes forever. I certainly wouldnt want to drive it down the freeway.

Not sure what the car weighs, as i didnt see it listed, but 17hp even it the thing was 500#, it would be a turd.

The thing that really irritates me is the lack of where we are going with fuel economy. Look at your average small car today. I am not talking about "smart" cars, or hybrids, or other tiny cars that really arent comfortable. I am talking about the likes of the civics, carollas, focus, etc. That size. What are they getting? ~35-40MPG. Big deal. They were doing that 15-20 years ago.

I drive a saturn sl. 100hp, 5spd, and a light plastic body. Great economy car IMO. Excellent mileage. No worrys about corrosion. 44-45 MPG with average driving. Then they went to the ion, added 600lbs, and gave it bigger motor with more power. gess what happened to the mpg? And for 100hp, it has respectable acceleration. runs a 17.13ET 1/4-mile. About par with other small cars w/4cylinders.

If they could do that 15-20 years ago, why does it seem the nly way to do better (in a gas car) is to either go hybrid, or build a ridiculously unpractical car like in the article.

Look at p/u trucks too. Dad had a 1985 chevy 3/4 ton 4x4. 4spd w/granny and 350 carb motor. got 14-15mpg. Heck, 3/4-ton gassers do worse than that today. The 6.0 chevy and hemi are lucky to muster 13-14 on a good day.

I have complained about the same thing. It seems like we have not made any progress since the 60's on fuel mileage until maybe the past 5 years on certain vehicles. I got 18.8 MPG saturday running 75-80 mph in a 2013 F-150 supercrew 4WD with a 5.0 and 3.73 gears.

Look up a 1981 Ford Thunderbird. I think with a 302 it would 25mpg and with a 3.8 it was around 30mpg.

What about the little diesel VW's, haven't they got around 45-50 mpg for the past 30 years.

 

[buickanddeere]

I have complained about the same thing. It seems like we have not made any progress since the 60's on fuel mileage until maybe the past 5 years on certain vehicles. I got 18.8 MPG saturday running 75-80 mph in a 2013 F-150 supercrew 4WD with a 5.0 and 3.73 gears.

Look up a 1981 Ford Thunderbird. I think with a 302 it would 25mpg and with a 3.8 it was around 30mpg.

What about the little diesel VW's, haven't they got around 45-50 mpg for the past 30 years.

Can't see where the fuel economy gains are going to come from. Gasoline still has 114,000 btu and internal combustion engines have approx 30% thermal efficiency.
Fuel economy gains are from less driveline drag, less weight to improve city mpg , less aerodynamic drag and less rolling friction. About the only gain left is regenerative braking and energy storage for city mpg improvements.

 

[bcp]

Thirty years ago the 4 cyl engine getting 40 mpg had about 70 hp. Now it has 160 hp and gets the same mileage.

Bruce

 

[pwright]

Look at p/u trucks too. Dad had a 1985 chevy 3/4 ton 4x4. 4spd w/granny and 350 carb motor. got 14-15mpg. Heck, 3/4-ton gassers do worse than that today. The 6.0 chevy and hemi are lucky to muster 13-14 on a good day.

I get your overall point but my 2012 Ram 1500 4x4 Quad Cab w/Hemi gets 16-17 on my daily commute to work of 60 miles combined city/highway driving. On longer highway runs it gets 18 but I'm usually running quite a bit faster.

 

[buickanddeere]

I recall the bad old days with a 1977 Chev 2500 4X4 , 400 four barrel with the three speed auto and full time 4x4. 6mpg on a trip was outstanding.

 

[buickanddeere]

There is only so much energy in one gallon of fuel. If a diesel engine was 100% efficient. iirc one gallon of diesel would make almost 45HP for a one hour duration. A typical small diesel might make 30%.

 

[SPIKER]

Actually the MPG was BETTER in the 80's and early 90's because the way they were controlled for MPG & durability. The EPA mandated that the NOX levels were off too far by running the engines at near perfect ration or even a bit lean above the 15:1 (modern engines run 14.1:1 or even lower) AND feed late pulses of fuel into eng to help burn off cats and lower the NOX levels out the tail pipe. New modern diesels even inject fuel just up stream of the DPF and ignite it using spark plugs if too cool to burn off the cats. My 87 Ford EXP ran easy 45MPG highway back then now my 01 Escort ZX2 smaller and lighter with larger displacement engine only gets 28MPG. The EPA says the modern burn uses more fuel but produces less NOX so using more gas is better for environment.!?!?!? Not sure if I by it as now I get about 1/3 less MPG so dumping extra 300 gallons of fuel, this is what EVERYONE is doing vs their mid to late 80's cars/trucks.

My 91 F150 with 300 6 cyl and 5 speed, gets about 22 MPG which is better than most NEW trucks... I dont drive it much so having it run in top shape is no big deal, spend 300 bucks for NEW EGR system or just not worry if mpg drops to 18 as I have not put 1000 miles on it in last 2 years... I been looking at NEW stuff but just hate looking at sticker that says 28 mpg, when old stuff is cheap to fix and runs at 35 or 40 MPG for something like my old EXP Escort vs the NEW ones...

Mark

 

[CrazyJerry]

At the Green Grand Prix I met a couple of guys in a newer (2012) mustang - 300 hp and it looked like it was mildly pimped out. Seems as though they did their homework and pulled an outstanding 48.7 mpg! So it can be done and this is a car that can pretty much pass-at-will. More on that car at aerostang dot com.-- Good job guys!

Driving the Centurion down I-81 to the event and back on I-90 home was no problem. I got a nice view of the undersides of tractor's trailers and thought of a dozen ways they could clean it up aerodynamically.

Centurion's acceleration around town is a non-issue. Although it wouldn't qualify as a 1/4 mile screamer by any metric, it's perfectly suited for everyday driving around here and around Ithaca, Cortland all the way to Watkins Glen. In fact, most of the congestion is other people taking shots of the Centurion with their cell phones.

I'm guessing all those folks who pull wheelies off the green light in their quest for supreme acceleration, ultimately use up those precious few seconds with extra trips to the gas station. Centurion by contrast won't see one for well over 1,500 - 2,000 miles on a single 10 gallon tank - and that is PRICELESS!

Pretty much straight across the board, awards for the highest mpg went to homebuilts, then for individual categories went to those who "ecomodded". There were a few of pickups there too.
~CrazyJerry