Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    Maybe 10 sec. 0-60 based on the 150hp, but also something that will feel quicker than it is (because of the torque).

    I don't know about that. I'd wager more like mid to high 8s for that run. That's a lot of torque for a FWD car so I hope they do something else to reduce the torque steer that is inevitable.

    It kinda surprises me in that Honda didn't diesel a V6 and get something like MB does with their 3.2 6 cylinder, 200+hp and 400 lb. ft., a car that really does pretty well both in the drag races and at the fuel pump

    They are, but it wasn't in that article. This article suggests that they will use their new diesel tech on an SUV like the Pilot. That is why I eluded to the Honda SUV/CUVs getting diesel in '09 as well. I would expect those to be V6 versions probably similar to the 200 HP and 400 ft-lbs the Benz makes. Give me 25+ mpg in the city in a Pilot, or dare I say even a Ridgeline, and I'll certainly visit the Honda dealer when shopping in '09.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    If that's the same photo that has been floating around the net, the DIN-sized electronics device lower in the center stack that looks out of place is a taxi meter. This is a shot of a Korean taxi version.

    Well let's hope it is just that!

    Although, that looks like a pretty darn fancy taxi meter to me. Cabbies must have it real good over in Korea. :shades:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    Since the Accord hybrid would get better mileage than the regular Accord,why would they discontinue the hybrid?

    Because nobody bought them. Remember the Accord was a V6 hybrid - it wasn't a fuel miser.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The interior obviously created picking the mind belonging to Lexus' RX330. The center of the dash is almost a carbon copy, add to that the half wooded steering wheel, and wood trim.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    It started with Veracruz, while looking at Lexus RX.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Accord will get 155 HP/260 lb-ft version of 2.2-liter i-DTEC engine. That should enable it to run 0-60 in 8s, far from being slow. There will be another higher output version of the engine, with 180 HP/320 lb-ft, but likely reserved for higher performance trim in Europe.

    V6 diesel is also supposed to happen, but will likely be limited to light trucks (Odyssey, Pilot and Ridgeline).
  • mz3smz3s Posts: 17
    That front clip looks like a 90s Toyota Crown. I was never a fan of this car, but... yeah, I'm still not a fan of this car.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    The Accord hybrid was (as Hondas aren't) not a true hybrid - in the Accord's case a V6 with cylinder deactivation (a system now used in all the V6s) and a supplementary electric motor that really served only to make the car even quicker that the regular V6. FE was not significantly better, in that the car was not a true hybrid in the same way as the Camry/Altima hybrids. And sure, at 4 or $5/gallon acceleration may become a secondary consideration, although I would suggest to you that gas prices in Europe exceed even $5 and there is still a market for something other than 'appliances'. Diesel technology is such that a diesel Accord wouldn't necessarily have to be dull. My comment was only some disppointment that Honda chose the 'appliance' path with a 150hp 4 banger, the FE better be good to put up it.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    That should enable it to run 0-60 in 8s, far from being slow
    at the risk of starting an interminable debate about hp and torque - I would suggest to you that this car will only 'feel' like its running in the 8s, and actually be slower than its 2.4 liter gas engined cousins pulling a car that should be heavier than the already bloated Accord- much like the E320CDI is slower (and heavier) than the E350 although it feels 'peppier' and delivers much better FE of course. I guess we'll have to wait to see how the car tests but it is HP (torque applied over time) that is still the primary influence on any car's ability to accelerate. The Accord diesel, IMO, would be an easier 'sacrifice' for most folks to make if, as I said earlier, they could offer it at 200hp+/400 lb.ft (probably requiring a v6) and somewhere around 30 mpg overall because then at least the car would be fun to drive. I believe that Honda with a 150hp Accord diesel will have the same sort of acceptance issues that the VW Rabbit/Golf/Passat have had for years.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    You are focusing on peak numbers. Performance is determined by average power that is delivered to the wheels during any run. Torque curve from a diesel engine tends to be much higher than comparable gasoline engine, but it is also narrower. The upside to this downside is that the peak power is very close to average power during any run (a fact).

    In case of Accord’s 2.2-liter i-DTEC, 100 HP would be available at just 2000 rpm, which climbs to 155 HP over a span of next 2000 rpm (from 2000 rpm to 4000 rpm). This indicates a relatively flat power curve. With a few assumptions that the diesel will use V6-like gearing, you’re looking at 100 HP at just 13 mph in first gear. OTOH, 100 HP in gasoline powered Accord corresponds to about 23 mph in first gear. Interestingly enough, 13 mph in gasoline powered Accord would also correspond to 2000 rpm, but it would have only 55-60 HP at its disposal. You could work the math upwards for other speeds, like I have, to understand it better.

    Now, I do expect diesel to weigh (realistically) 125-150 lb more than comparable gasoline powered version. And I had that covered in my estimate for 0-60. BTW, you can expect to see it do 0-60 in about 8s with MT. Add almost a second for AT. That would still make it quicker than most four cylinder family sedans and on par with 190 HP Accord. Its got the potential to generate almost 1.7 times as much thrust (100 HP at 13 mph in diesel/~58 HP at 13 mph in gasoline) without weighing 1.7 times.

    Besides, it is not just the feel of being peppier, it would be a fact. Most magazines bog themselves down with measuring 0-60 runs, which I think is one of the most useless measures around. Rolling acceleration matters more but few seem to care about it. Given that diesel might cruise at 2000 rpm at 60 mph in top gear, minor hills that may require a downshift in gasoline version, would be unnecessary in this one, since all it would take is opening the throttle as up to 100 HP would be on tap. With gasoline, the engine will need to be revved up to about 3500 rpm to get 100 HP.

    See... it didn’t need to be about power and torque, just power. :)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I’m always amused at the sound of someone suggesting IMA not being a true hybrid. A hybrid is a hybrid, when it is capable of being propelled by hybrid power train system. Honda took a simpler approach than most. Instead of an overhauled design, the concept itself is brilliant: Replace the flywheel of an engine with a thin electric motor and voila! The problem is around storage capacity. For packaging, cost and weight reasons, smaller battery pack make more sense, and that was Honda’s approach. Otherwise, they could have used the big motor and battery pack (which is now an ultra-capacitor pack) from EV-Plus currently available around as the FCX.

    With Accord, Honda chose performance model, to address folks like you who keep complaining about less power (you’re doing that against diesel, wanting a V6). I always doubted Honda’s choice for going with hybrid on the top trim, for sale reasons. They should have started with a lesser trim with a lower base price. But I think, diesel would be a better option in bigger vehicles, Accord and above. It will be really interesting to watch Accord Diesel go against Camry/Altima/Aura/Malibu hybrids in the near future.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    I’m always amused at the sound of someone suggesting IMA not being a true hybrid.

    It probably would have been stated better if he had said a "full hybrid" which is probably what he meant. Vehicles like the Prius and Escape Hybrid are considered to be full hybrids while vehicles like the Civic Hybrid are considered to be partial hybrids.

    I don't know who defined what a full or partial hybrid is so please don't shoot the messenger if you don't agree. :shades:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    "Full" hybrids can run on electric power alone while "mild" hybrids simply shut off the combustion engine when the vehicle stops.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Can these hybrids keep the air conditioner going in the heat of summer, or the heat going in the middle of the winter?
  • It appears from Hyundai's domestic site info that the Sonata's 2.4 4-cylinder will put out 179 hp.

    The pics in this forum IMO aren't as good as those from Hyundai's site. This is a much improved car. I am interested to drive the new suspension, engines and to see this interior up close.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The Accord diesel, IMO, would be an easier 'sacrifice' for most folks to make if, as I said earlier, they could offer it at 200hp+/400 lb.ft (probably requiring a v6) and somewhere around 30 mpg overall because then at least the car would be fun to drive.

    I think Honda made the mistake of going with a "performance" hybrid, when they used a V6 engine. It obviously didn't work. With the diesel, I think Honda is going in the opposite direction. Fuel economy will be the main attraction for this car, and that IMO will make it a big hit. Honda is NOT going for the "performance" crowd with this one. If you want performance, the V6 (gasoline) version will be for you.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I am not sure whether Civic Hybrid does, but Accord Hybrid did. It didn't require engine to run when climate control had to be on.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    It is an irony that the ability to run solely on electric power has to define a “hybrid”, much less a “full” hybrid. That should make an electric-only vehicle fullest hybrid. :P

    I find terms like parallel and series hybrid far more logical. Some of them can be dual mode (work in either/or mode) while some others might use them both at some point.

    The “full”, “mild”, “true”, “false” or whatever term seem to have come from marketing PR material, propagated by sales folks and magazines. A series hybrid is just as much a “true” hybrid with batteries as without (in which case, it cannot run solely in electric mode), as would be a parallel hybrid or any combination of. “Mild” might be acceptable term however, since the car may rely more on gasoline/diesel engine for a significant portion of operation but even some of them (Civic Hybrid) are capable of running in electric mode under some circumstances, blurring the line.

    But, we might be going well out of the realms of the subject.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    "Full" hybrids can run on electric power alone while "mild" hybrids simply shut off the combustion engine when the vehicle stops.

    That is partially correct if I'm not mistaken. Full hybrids are full hybrids and there isn't much difference between any of them. Mild, or partial, hybrids come in many flavors. You have those which only shut off the engine when stopped. Then there are some which power two wheels with a small electric motor like the GM pickups (totally useless IMO). Then there's those like the Civic which, and corrrect me if I'm wrong, use an electric motor somewhere between the gas engine and wheels to assist the gas motor.

    There are more variations of the mild hybrids IIRC but I think I made my point. ;)
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    this is very simple - diesel powered cars don't accelerate well because the engine is slower to pick up rpm and are in fact rev limited to much lower rpms, so in effect it doesn't put all that torque to good use - which BTW is the mathematical definition of HP - (torque*rpm)/5252. There is a direct correlation between car acceleration times and HP and vehice weight (hp per lb.) and not necessarily with torque. What I am saying is that the 260 lb. ft. lb. will improve the drivability of the new Accord diesel as well as provide the a nice sort of 'kick' on initial throttle application only. It will still be the 150hp (and the extra weight) though that makes it a slow car. Relative to something like a diesel the gas engine puts out more of that usable horsepower simply because it can (and does) rev more freely and quickly. Anybody that has spent anytime with the VW diesels knows what I mean - a car that 'feels' faster than it is.
    Whether it'll beat 10 seconds to 60 I don't know but I also think that the auto buyer is not ready to return to those underpowered 'wundercars' of the 80s and early 90s (or FTM manual trannies) all in the interest of saving 10-15 gallons of fuel a month.
Sign In or Register to comment.