No doubt electric is cleaner. once they get the storage problem resolved it will be the system of choice. NiMH has reached a point of diminishing returns. Maybe Lion will be an improvement. Ultra capacitors or fuel cells are the only thing on the horizon that shows promise.
And that's the old diesel engine. The new one is quieter, more powerful and more efficient. 415lb-ft @ 2000RPM. Really clever sequential turbo design supposedly eliminates lag: exhaust drives small turbo then a big one; small turbo can spool up almost instantly, providing boost on demand. Small turbo is after the big one on intake.
Getting 40+ MPG at 85 in a heavy luxury car at 85+MPH is awesome. If they bring a 335d here, i'll get it. That'd be the perfect car for me.
Purves (bmw north america CEO) says they are "looking" ar bringing a diesel car or two here, but there are no solid plans. I'd almost expect it to be in the "x" cars first, as they get the worse mileage (x5 4.4L: 13/17), and are not meant to be quite as "sporty."
But if they don't bring a sporty diesel here for me, someone else will.
I repeat, the diesel will do poorly on a routine metro commute.
A good case has been made for the Prius in stop & go driving. It may be the best solution for that type of driving. It is still going to be compared to the diesel cars for overall mileage & handling. I have not owned either so am not an authority, but from what I read in magazines and here on the forum the German cars out handle the Japanese cars. So if you can get German handling with superior mileage I would think that an ideal car. And of course reliability is important and the Japanese have the edge there.
Face it, that's a clear weakness of the engine-only design.
An Accord that does 0-62 in 9.4 & top speed of 131 mph with a combined mileage of 52.3 mpg is the kind of weak engine only car I want to buy. If Honda can build them fast enough to satisfy even the European market I'll be surprised. If they bring them to the states they will move back ahead of the Camry.
An Accord that does 0-62 in 9.4 & top speed of 131 mph with a combined mileage of 52.3 mpg is the kind of weak engine only car I want to buy.
I agree with some of your points here, but you know full well (or you should know full well) that 52.3 Impg in the UK is not the same as 52.3 mpg here. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but it probably works out to be somewhere in the high 30s.
quote- I agree with some of your points here, but you know full well (or you should know full well) that 52.3 Impg in the UK is not the same as 52.3 mpg here. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but it probably works out to be somewhere in the high 30s. ---
43.54 mpg is the US mpg converted from 52.3 mpg Imperial. Not 30's:(
Honda’s new Accord 2.2 i-CTDi Sport has this week set no fewer than 19 world speed records and achieved 3.07 litres / 100 km (92 imperial mpg, ~76.6 US mpg) fuel economy to boot. British racing driver Robin Liddell and freelance journalist Iain Robertson were part of the European record-setting team.
I thought everyone was familiar with this test so I did not post the link. I think 50 mpg US is easily attainable with this car, considering the race drivers 76.6 mpg US. That 52 mpg was the combined city/hwy mileage in the advertisement. Also the car is rated to tow 3300 lbs avoirdupois. Try that with a Prius
I believe many folks are getting over 50 MPG with their Prii. I achieved 51MPG in mixed driving when I rented one. You seem to have a great deal of envy for the Prius. I pity you.
I have said before if I was so unfortunate as to be forced into commuting to work on a daily basis, the Prius would be on my list of cars. To say I envy the Prius is a bit much. It is still an unproven technology for the long haul. The 2004 is entirely different than the previous Prius as stated by many on this forum. So it has not been on the market for a year yet. Hardly a proven winner. I would rent one if available just out of curiosity. Are you on a waiting list to buy one? If you cannot tell my envy is of those in Europe that have great diesel cars and trucks.
> It is still an unproven technology for the long haul.
That is horribly VAGUE.
Many of the components, like the Engine & Invertor & Planetary-CVT & Motors, have been in the hands of owners since late 1997. Not a whole lot more is needed to prove they are well built. Plenty of data is already available.
What else is there?
Just the battery-pack, though NiMH is already extraordinarily well proven for reliability & durability. That technology gets used everywhere, it's no big deal.
The only outstanding question is expected life. That's it. But even that is has limited meaning, since blue-book values are quite low by 180,000 miles anyway.
I just hope Honda brings that 2.2 diesel over this way - especially since in looks like the hybrid Accord will be pushing twice the cost of their base model.
Lets take this to the next level. What if Honda built that Accord diesel with the attention to weight savings and aerodynmics that was given the Insight. Acceleration and mpg would both be improved dramatically. Who needs foreign oil.
"Just the battery-pack, though NiMH is already extraordinarily well proven for reliability & durability. That technology gets used everywhere, it's no big deal."
That's quite a statement to those of us who have older laptops and cell phones.
The difference with these devices is we expect to discard them after 3-5 years due to their becoming obsolete.
___As for the envy stuff, that trick has been played out quite a few times by a fellow that has since been banned from this site for similar derogatory spew
What does reliability & durability have to do with shortened life caused by deep-discharging?
Laptops & Cell Phones are brainless appliances that do *NOT* prevent discharge and do *NOT* have the ability to recharge themselves whenever they want.
Lots of people typically only dip into the top 25% of their laptop batteries and yet have ~3 year lifespans. Lots of laptops are plugged in the vast majority of the time.
Furhermore, laptops are typically not operated in the extremes of hot and cold.
I appreciate that the prius tries to preserve the batteries by limiting deep-cycling, but even during a shirt commute, there's going to be numerous small cycles. Such is the point of the hybrid.
Maybe there will be advances in battery technology ( ultracapacitors? ) but it's hard to speculate.
I don't think that means that hybrids won't work, but i also think it's illogical to discount any assessment of them(batteries) as a factor when compared to diesel, with regards to both environmental impact and economy.
Gary... not on any list yet. I will be patient and wait for supply to catch up. I still am not 100% sure what I am going to do. If Honda brought their diesels stateside I'd be very very interested. Honda reliability with the reliability and gas mileage of a diesel. As long as it's clean, I would love to have a look see.
I think you are more like me (Except for the Suburban) than you want to admit. I would love to get great mileage. I just won't get screwed doing it. It makes no economical sense. I mostly drive our old 1990 Mazda 626 shopping etc... It runs fine and doesn't cost anything except gas and oil changes. The Suburban is for antique shopping trips and Home Depot. That's why it is over 6 years old and 46k miles.
Actually the Suburban has less than 2k miles so far this year. Made a trip up to Hearst Castle in January. Nothing more than 3 or 4 miles since then. I know I don't pollute near what someone in a Prius that drives 20 miles each way to work. I just don't drive unless I need something for the house or orchard. Not sure how much I will pollute tomorrow when we fly to Hawaii. Kind of hard to calculate.
Gary... nothing wrong with being like you. I think you make a lot of good points. Besides.. I have to respect my elders . The Prius has a great many strong points and stellar reliability. The diesel choices we have now are few. I actually am interested in having a look at the new Libery CRD when it comes out. I hear that the engine is Mercedes sourced but I need to confirm that. Someone else (not sure) mentioned that Honda diesel I was referring to a few posts back but I am not sure if that we'll ever be able to get our hands on it. Anyone know why? Is Honda afraid to bring diesels here?
Interesting article except for the last paragraph. I doubt the diesels will cost thousands more just to achieve cleaner emissions. Who knows? Only time will tell.
"Even if diesels are embraced in US there are too few offered. Only VW and one Mercedes model offered in US as a car. "
The biggest markets (California, New York, other CARB states) won't allow diesels to be sold, so automakers don't offer them. Low sulfur diesel is mandated by 2007, and more cars will probably be available, since the major car manufacturors have lots of diesel technology and experience from Europe.
Ultra capacitors or fuel cells are the only thing on the horizon that shows promise.
Ultra Capacitors and Fuel Cells are mutually exclusive. In fact, Honda FCX uses Fuel Cell Stack to keep the ultra capacitor pack charged. Although Honda doesn’t call its FCX powertrain technology a hybrid, its operation seems to resemble closely to that of a series hybrid... FC stack uses hydrogen to store charge in the UC pack, which is used by the electric motor to drive the vehicle.
Ultra Capacitor pack may eventually replace battery packs and may be a viable option today in premium cars since their initial cost is higher (but they don’t need to be replaced).
I just hope Honda brings that 2.2 diesel over this way - especially since in looks like the hybrid Accord will be pushing twice the cost of their base model.
So, are you suggesting that Honda 3.0/V6 adds $10K to the price of the car since Accord EXV6 has an MSRP of about $27K compared to Accord DX at $17K? Would Honda be able to price the diesel with EXV6 feature content for $17K? Between Accord DX and Accord Diesel, you could end up getting very similar mileage, although I wouldn’t expect the diesel to outperform the DX (manual to manual comparison). Looks like DX would be a better choice.
Between Accord DX and Accord Diesel, you could end up getting very similar mileage, although I wouldn’t expect the diesel to outperform the DX (manual to manual comparison).
Looks like the 2.2 diesel is rated for Euro 42 urban, 61 extra-urban. Converted to US gallons that equals about 35/51 city/hwy. 0-62 is 9.4 seconds on the 2.2 Accord, maybe a second or so slower than the 2.4? Probably performs a lot better though once moving, unless you don't mind keeping the 2.4 singing in its powerband (chugging fuel).
Any car (diesel or gasoline) will show its thirst for fuel when you push it. For that purpose, check out the numbers in the C&D comparison that includes Civic Hybrid, Prius, Echo and Jetta TDI.
Diesel engine produce tons of torque, but with limited range of engine speeds, you have to have taller gearing to accelerate within the same range of engine speeds.
Now to compare mileage, you couldn’t simply translate UK measurements into US measurements without acknowledging the differences, not just in imperial versus standard gallons, but also in the methodology. It might be better to compare two comparable vehicles in the same market for that regard. How about Civic Hybrid (47.1 mpg/65.7 mpg) to Civic Diesel (44.8 mpg/64.2 mpg)?
In the USA, I could only compare Passat Diesel (27/38 mpg w/manual) to Accord DX/LX/EX (26/34 mpg w/manual). Not enough difference especially for me in Texas where diesel is more expensive than regular grade gasoline.
quote-VW built a test hybrid [gasoline-electric; thanks Jamais!] Touran and compared it to the same model with a production diesel powerplant. The results: the diesel delivered better fuel economy: 5.0 liters of fuel/100km to the hybrid’s 6.1 liters/100km.-end
Diesel wins on fuel economy and cost and loses on emissions.
Actually the Passat diesel is not available with the manual in the US. the 27/38 mpg is for automatic. The Golf and Jetta loose 8 mpg in the city and 4 on the highway with the automatic. Be conservative and add 5 city and 3 highway to the automatic Passat and you get a very respectable 32/41 quite a bit better than the gas Accord. Also the Passat has about 90 ft-lbs more torque.
Excerpts here... Mileage on the Highway All four cars got more than 40 mpg, and the Prius hit 50. Amazingly, the One-Calorie Toyota Echo squeaked above its EPA highway number (39) to 41 mpg. The diesel, at 42 mpg, fell 2 mpg behind its EPA rating
Mileage in Town The Prius again scored at the top with 52 mpg. Dr. Diesel, in last place at 33, was a bit of a surprise.
Mileage in Suburbia This is a cycle lacking the predictable mileage killers of high speeds and frequent stops and starts (we obeyed all stop signs, of course). The two hybrids tied for top mileage at 54 mpg.
Fast Forward at the Racetrack All four entries achieved nearly the same result at the track, between 16 and 18 mpg, signifying very little, we think, except for the limits of regen.
Now to compare mileage, you couldn’t simply translate UK measurements into US measurements without acknowledging the differences, not just in imperial versus standard gallons, but also in the methodology. It might be better to compare two comparable vehicles in the same market for that regard. How about Civic Hybrid (47.1 mpg/65.7 mpg) to Civic Diesel (44.8 mpg/64.2 mpg)?
___You cannot compare the Civic Diesel to the Civic Hybrid either as the Civic’s Diesel is made by Isuzu vs. the new world record breaking in house Honda designed 2.2 L iCDTi in the Accord Saloon. When Honda designs and builds the Civic’s next iCDTi, you will see much higher fuel economy with it as well Lastly; I believe the fuel economy achieved for the record breaking mileage run of this Accord was in the 70’s in US gallons and miles after conversion. I know of some 65 mpg runs from a Civic Hybrid but have never read of 70 + from one.
Is it better/logical to work on translations from UK standards to US standards, but comparing diesel to hybrid within a lineup in a market is flawed simply because diesel engine is manufactured by Isuzu instead of Honda?
Is it better/logical to work on translations from UK standards to US standards, but comparing diesel to hybrid within a lineup in a market is flawed simply because diesel engine is manufactured by Isuzu instead of Honda?
___I will look up the record breaking Honda designed iCDTi numbers of the Accord Saloon tomorrow and do the conversion directly. This is not a Euro Urban/Extra Urban to EPA City/Hwy guesstimate but actual US miles traveled/US gallons of fuel and IIRC, the conversion ended up in the low 70’s US miles/gallon range vs. the 94 mpg (I will have to look it up to be sure) using British Imperial gallons? The HCH has never seen 70 + numbers from a fuel economy run or not that I know of?
___As for the Isuzu vs. Honda diesel, the Isuzu diesel in the Honda Civic is not in the same league whatsoever. This in-house Honda designed 2.2 L iCDTi diesel uses an all aluminum block (new process) and some of Honda’s legendary variable geometry turbo and injection engineering to achieve all the records that it did a few weeks before or after its release to the general European public.
___On the downside, I know Honda stated their 2.2 L iCDTi was Euro IV complaint in the past but an article I read just the other day with quotes by one of the designers or managers stated NOx emissions of .28 g/mile which is higher then the .25 g/mi limit per Euro IV specs that I have seen on the net.
Now to compare mileage, you couldn’t simply translate UK measurements into US measurements without acknowledging the differences, not just in imperial versus standard gallons, but also in the methodology.
I have compared the methodology used between the EPA and UK systems, and while they're different, they aren't that different which is why I didn't try to make an adjustment for such. It may be a few mpg different on either city/hwy, but you're still talking about a 8-10mpg spread for the most part. Either way, it's a far cry from the "very similar" mileage you claimed.
I can list quite a few things to take exception with why I would expect the diesel to under perform in this test.
First of all, unless the TDI had 5,000-10,000 miles it was no where near broken in. These motors take a substantial number of miles before both performance and mpg increase. Very unlikely this vehicle had more that 500 miles on it when they started the test. C&D normally gives a gas engine some credit if it's what they consider "green" or "new", but that's when they receive a vehicle with zero-50 miles on it. Most TDI owners report a jump in mpg and performance by 10k miles. This would likely add 2-3mpg over time based on the records from my car. I was averaging about 46mpg when new and by 10k miles I was averaging about 48mpg. I'm now averaging about 47mpg but I've added substantial go-fast options (i turn 0-60 in 8.5 seconds, compare that to the C&D test) and have about 90k miles on it.
Secondly, the TDI is NOT new technology. This engine is not only detuned for our poor fuel quality, it's no where near the newest design of diesels. It dates back nearly 10 years in similar form with minimal updates. These same motors are the reliable low-end old-tech diesels in europe, although they have substantially more power when offered on other continents. The newest 2.0 TDI, 3.0 TDI, etc. plus any BMW or Mercedes diesel is leaps and bounds ahead of this old motor.
Thirdly, beyond the motor there are no features on the Jetta that would make it conserve more fuel than any other Jetta. It's basically a normal car with a fuel conserving motor. The automatic tranny is nothing special, used in other gas Jettas. The tires are normal H-rated all-seasons. No special aerodynamics, no accessories using power from anything but the engine, useful gear ratios, and on and on. It's also a much more substantial vehicle than the Echo which was a poor choice for this test IMHO. Beyond the bargain basement price, it's a turd. I would think a corolla would have been a more comparable vehicle.
If VW were to spend the time/effort that Toyota has spent on the Prius with all the ancillary parts (outside the hybrid system) the diesel would be able to compete on a much greater scale. The manual tranny diesel does substantially better in both performance and economy, and a CVT such as the Prius uses would likely have a similar effect. Just tossing in an updated diesel such as Hondas 2.2 would likely change things drastically. Look at what Mercedes has done with the 3.2 V6 diesel. Better performance, quieter running, and substantially better mpg than their gasser. Nevermind it's a big heavy luxury vehicle capable of 30-40mpg with no side effects. Even with our crappy fuel! My Audi A6 barely averages 20mpg on premium!
IMHO, the diesel held it's own quite well considering all of the above. I'll bet C&D would have been singing a different tune if they were driving my TDI, which is essentially set-up the way it would be in Europe, i.e. ungagged and using decent diesel! They were quite impressed several months back when they tested various euro diesels.
Looks like Toyota isn't throwing all their eggs into one hybrid basket.
From Greencarcongress:
The Toyota D-4D 180 Clean Power concept car highlights ongoining advances in Toyota’s diesel engine technology. The engine will move into a production unit to be launched next year.
The engine uses Toyota’s D-CAT (Diesel Clean Advanced Technology) systems to deliver nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions respectively 50 and 80 per cent below Euro IV standards.
The new D-4D engine produces in the region of 183 hp and 400 Nm of torque, performance generally so far matched only by higher displacement V6 diesel engines. No word yet on the fuel efficiency.
___This is why you cannot compare the Civic’s Isuzu based Diesel to a Honda in-house designed one
___Although this fuel economy isn’t in Insight territory in my own experience, it is better then what you or I could probably achieve in a much smaller and less powerful HCH during a pure fuel economy run.
"So, when how long would it take to recoupe the $6-10K premium you pay to get Passat diesel? ;-) "
Considering that I see a LOT of 20 year old diesel cars driving around, it is likely that the diesel powered car will be chugging along for enough time to recoup the difference.
"Thats what I fear and that's the vision lots of people have of a diesel, old and chugging along. "
Well, I didn't mean they appear to chug, that was just my wording. They seem to move out pretty smartly. Of course, there is that black smoke...
I think that once more modern diesel vehicles are avaialible (2007) and people see the benefits, it will be a viable alternative as a better MPG source. People will test drive it when they see the MPG numbers on the window. Then it's up to the auto designers to give the customer what they want.
My point is that the diesel engine is known for it's reliability during long term use.
Comments
368 lb/ft torque and 7.1 seconds 0-60 mph. Nice!
Getting 40+ MPG at 85 in a heavy luxury car at 85+MPH is awesome. If they bring a 335d here, i'll get it. That'd be the perfect car for me.
dave
http://www.carpages.co.uk/saab/saab_latest_diesel_technology_for_- 93_sport_saloon_part_1_26_05_04.asp?switched=on&echo=56645812- 8
I'll bet on that versus an entire hybrid system.
But if they don't bring a sporty diesel here for me, someone else will.
So... how long would it be after that when owners complain about their automatic diesel getting absolutely awful MPG on their routine metro commute?
That's a typical situation where diesel do quite poorly and a full hybrid does fantastic.
Admit that diesels only do well in certain circumstances, like long cruises with a manual transmission.
JOHN
I repeat, the diesel will do poorly on a routine metro commute.
Face it, that's a clear weakness of the engine-only design.
JOHN
A good case has been made for the Prius in stop & go driving. It may be the best solution for that type of driving. It is still going to be compared to the diesel cars for overall mileage & handling. I have not owned either so am not an authority, but from what I read in magazines and here on the forum the German cars out handle the Japanese cars. So if you can get German handling with superior mileage I would think that an ideal car. And of course reliability is important and the Japanese have the edge there.
An Accord that does 0-62 in 9.4 & top speed of 131 mph with a combined mileage of 52.3 mpg is the kind of weak engine only car I want to buy. If Honda can build them fast enough to satisfy even the European market I'll be surprised. If they bring them to the states they will move back ahead of the Camry.
http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/honda/honda-accord-2.2i-ctdi-spor- t-4dr.asp
I agree with some of your points here, but you know full well (or you should know full well) that 52.3 Impg in the UK is not the same as 52.3 mpg here. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but it probably works out to be somewhere in the high 30s.
43.54 mpg is the US mpg converted from 52.3 mpg Imperial. Not 30's:(
I thought everyone was familiar with this test so I did not post the link. I think 50 mpg US is easily attainable with this car, considering the race drivers 76.6 mpg US. That 52 mpg was the combined city/hwy mileage in the advertisement. Also the car is rated to tow 3300 lbs avoirdupois. Try that with a Prius
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=234399
That is horribly VAGUE.
Many of the components, like the Engine & Invertor & Planetary-CVT & Motors, have been in the hands of owners since late 1997. Not a whole lot more is needed to prove they are well built. Plenty of data is already available.
What else is there?
Just the battery-pack, though NiMH is already extraordinarily well proven for reliability & durability. That technology gets used everywhere, it's no big deal.
The only outstanding question is expected life. That's it. But even that is has limited meaning, since blue-book values are quite low by 180,000 miles anyway.
JOHN
Lets take this to the next level. What if Honda built that Accord diesel with the attention to weight savings and aerodynmics that was given the Insight. Acceleration and mpg would both be improved dramatically. Who needs foreign oil.
That's quite a statement to those of us who have older laptops and cell phones.
The difference with these devices is we expect to discard them after 3-5 years due to their becoming obsolete.
___Close but not everyone
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/priushsd.php
___As for the envy stuff, that trick has been played out quite a few times by a fellow that has since been banned from this site for similar derogatory spew
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
Laptops & Cell Phones are brainless appliances that do *NOT* prevent discharge and do *NOT* have the ability to recharge themselves whenever they want.
Hybrids can, and do.
JOHN
Furhermore, laptops are typically not operated in the extremes of hot and cold.
I appreciate that the prius tries to preserve the batteries by limiting deep-cycling, but even during a shirt commute, there's going to be numerous small cycles. Such is the point of the hybrid.
Maybe there will be advances in battery technology ( ultracapacitors? ) but it's hard to speculate.
I don't think that means that hybrids won't work, but i also think it's illogical to discount any assessment of them(batteries) as a factor when compared to diesel, with regards to both environmental impact and economy.
I mostly drive our old 1990 Mazda 626 shopping etc... It runs fine and doesn't cost anything except gas and oil changes. The Suburban is for antique shopping trips and Home Depot. That's why it is over 6 years old and 46k miles.
Even if diesels are embraced in US there are too few offered. Only VW and one Mercedes model offered in US as a car.
The biggest markets (California, New York, other CARB states) won't allow diesels to be sold, so automakers don't offer them. Low sulfur diesel is mandated by 2007, and more cars will probably be available, since the major car manufacturors have lots of diesel technology and experience from Europe.
Ultra Capacitors and Fuel Cells are mutually exclusive. In fact, Honda FCX uses Fuel Cell Stack to keep the ultra capacitor pack charged. Although Honda doesn’t call its FCX powertrain technology a hybrid, its operation seems to resemble closely to that of a series hybrid... FC stack uses hydrogen to store charge in the UC pack, which is used by the electric motor to drive the vehicle.
Ultra Capacitor pack may eventually replace battery packs and may be a viable option today in premium cars since their initial cost is higher (but they don’t need to be replaced).
So, are you suggesting that Honda 3.0/V6 adds $10K to the price of the car since Accord EXV6 has an MSRP of about $27K compared to Accord DX at $17K? Would Honda be able to price the diesel with EXV6 feature content for $17K? Between Accord DX and Accord Diesel, you could end up getting very similar mileage, although I wouldn’t expect the diesel to outperform the DX (manual to manual comparison). Looks like DX would be a better choice.
Looks like the 2.2 diesel is rated for Euro 42 urban, 61 extra-urban. Converted to US gallons that equals about 35/51 city/hwy. 0-62 is 9.4 seconds on the 2.2 Accord, maybe a second or so slower than the 2.4? Probably performs a lot better though once moving, unless you don't mind keeping the 2.4 singing in its powerband (chugging fuel).
Diesel engine produce tons of torque, but with limited range of engine speeds, you have to have taller gearing to accelerate within the same range of engine speeds.
Now to compare mileage, you couldn’t simply translate UK measurements into US measurements without acknowledging the differences, not just in imperial versus standard gallons, but also in the methodology. It might be better to compare two comparable vehicles in the same market for that regard. How about Civic Hybrid (47.1 mpg/65.7 mpg) to Civic Diesel (44.8 mpg/64.2 mpg)?
In the USA, I could only compare Passat Diesel (27/38 mpg w/manual) to Accord DX/LX/EX (26/34 mpg w/manual). Not enough difference especially for me in Texas where diesel is more expensive than regular grade gasoline.
quote-VW built a test hybrid [gasoline-electric; thanks Jamais!] Touran and compared it to the same model with a production diesel powerplant. The results: the diesel delivered better fuel economy: 5.0 liters of fuel/100km to the hybrid’s 6.1 liters/100km.-end
Diesel wins on fuel economy and cost and loses on emissions.
So, when how long would it take to recoupe the $6-10K premium you pay to get Passat diesel? ;-)
Mileage on the Highway
All four cars got more than 40 mpg, and the Prius hit 50. Amazingly, the One-Calorie Toyota Echo squeaked above its EPA highway number (39) to 41 mpg. The diesel, at 42 mpg, fell 2 mpg behind its EPA rating
Mileage in Town
The Prius again scored at the top with 52 mpg. Dr. Diesel, in last place at 33, was a bit of a surprise.
Mileage in Suburbia
This is a cycle lacking the predictable mileage killers of high speeds and frequent stops and starts (we obeyed all stop signs, of course). The two hybrids tied for top mileage at 54 mpg.
Fast Forward at the Racetrack
All four entries achieved nearly the same result at the track, between 16 and 18 mpg, signifying very little, we think, except for the limits of regen.
Link to the comparison here.
What happened to the diesel there?
Now to compare mileage, you couldn’t simply translate UK measurements into US measurements without acknowledging the differences, not just in imperial versus standard gallons, but also in the methodology. It might be better to compare two comparable vehicles in the same market for that regard. How about Civic Hybrid (47.1 mpg/65.7 mpg) to Civic Diesel (44.8 mpg/64.2 mpg)?
___You cannot compare the Civic Diesel to the Civic Hybrid either as the Civic’s Diesel is made by Isuzu vs. the new world record breaking in house Honda designed 2.2 L iCDTi in the Accord Saloon. When Honda designs and builds the Civic’s next iCDTi, you will see much higher fuel economy with it as well Lastly; I believe the fuel economy achieved for the record breaking mileage run of this Accord was in the 70’s in US gallons and miles after conversion. I know of some 65 mpg runs from a Civic Hybrid but have never read of 70 + from one.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
Is it better/logical to work on translations from UK standards to US standards, but comparing diesel to hybrid within a lineup in a market is flawed simply because diesel engine is manufactured by Isuzu instead of Honda?
___I will look up the record breaking Honda designed iCDTi numbers of the Accord Saloon tomorrow and do the conversion directly. This is not a Euro Urban/Extra Urban to EPA City/Hwy guesstimate but actual US miles traveled/US gallons of fuel and IIRC, the conversion ended up in the low 70’s US miles/gallon range vs. the 94 mpg (I will have to look it up to be sure) using British Imperial gallons? The HCH has never seen 70 + numbers from a fuel economy run or not that I know of?
___As for the Isuzu vs. Honda diesel, the Isuzu diesel in the Honda Civic is not in the same league whatsoever. This in-house Honda designed 2.2 L iCDTi diesel uses an all aluminum block (new process) and some of Honda’s legendary variable geometry turbo and injection engineering to achieve all the records that it did a few weeks before or after its release to the general European public.
___On the downside, I know Honda stated their 2.2 L iCDTi was Euro IV complaint in the past but an article I read just the other day with quotes by one of the designers or managers stated NOx emissions of .28 g/mile which is higher then the .25 g/mi limit per Euro IV specs that I have seen on the net.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
I have compared the methodology used between the EPA and UK systems, and while they're different, they aren't that different which is why I didn't try to make an adjustment for such. It may be a few mpg different on either city/hwy, but you're still talking about a 8-10mpg spread for the most part. Either way, it's a far cry from the "very similar" mileage you claimed.
I can list quite a few things to take exception with why I would expect the diesel to under perform in this test.
First of all, unless the TDI had 5,000-10,000 miles it was no where near broken in. These motors take a substantial number of miles before both performance and mpg increase. Very unlikely this vehicle had more that 500 miles on it when they started the test. C&D normally gives a gas engine some credit if it's what they consider "green" or "new", but that's when they receive a vehicle with zero-50 miles on it. Most TDI owners report a jump in mpg and performance by 10k miles. This would likely add 2-3mpg over time based on the records from my car. I was averaging about 46mpg when new and by 10k miles I was averaging about 48mpg. I'm now averaging about 47mpg but I've added substantial go-fast options (i turn 0-60 in 8.5 seconds, compare that to the C&D test) and have about 90k miles on it.
Secondly, the TDI is NOT new technology. This engine is not only detuned for our poor fuel quality, it's no where near the newest design of diesels. It dates back nearly 10 years in similar form with minimal updates. These same motors are the reliable low-end old-tech diesels in europe, although they have substantially more power when offered on other continents. The newest 2.0 TDI, 3.0 TDI, etc. plus any BMW or Mercedes diesel is leaps and bounds ahead of this old motor.
Thirdly, beyond the motor there are no features on the Jetta that would make it conserve more fuel than any other Jetta. It's basically a normal car with a fuel conserving motor. The automatic tranny is nothing special, used in other gas Jettas. The tires are normal H-rated all-seasons. No special aerodynamics, no accessories using power from anything but the engine, useful gear ratios, and on and on. It's also a much more substantial vehicle than the Echo which was a poor choice for this test IMHO. Beyond the bargain basement price, it's a turd. I would think a corolla would have been a more comparable vehicle.
If VW were to spend the time/effort that Toyota has spent on the Prius with all the ancillary parts (outside the hybrid system) the diesel would be able to compete on a much greater scale. The manual tranny diesel does substantially better in both performance and economy, and a CVT such as the Prius uses would likely have a similar effect. Just tossing in an updated diesel such as Hondas 2.2 would likely change things drastically. Look at what Mercedes has done with the 3.2 V6 diesel. Better performance, quieter running, and substantially better mpg than their gasser. Nevermind it's a big heavy luxury vehicle capable of 30-40mpg with no side effects. Even with our crappy fuel! My Audi A6 barely averages 20mpg on premium!
IMHO, the diesel held it's own quite well considering all of the above. I'll bet C&D would have been singing a different tune if they were driving my TDI, which is essentially set-up the way it would be in Europe, i.e. ungagged and using decent diesel! They were quite impressed several months back when they tested various euro diesels.
From Greencarcongress:
The Toyota D-4D 180 Clean Power concept car highlights ongoining advances in Toyota’s diesel engine technology. The engine will move into a production unit to be launched next year.
The engine uses Toyota’s D-CAT (Diesel Clean Advanced Technology) systems to deliver nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions respectively 50 and 80 per cent below Euro IV standards.
The new D-4D engine produces in the region of 183 hp and 400 Nm of torque, performance generally so far matched only by higher displacement V6 diesel engines. No word yet on the fuel efficiency.
___Here is the info:
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=234399
76.67 mpg in US gallons.
___This is why you cannot compare the Civic’s Isuzu based Diesel to a Honda in-house designed one
___Although this fuel economy isn’t in Insight territory in my own experience, it is better then what you or I could probably achieve in a much smaller and less powerful HCH during a pure fuel economy run.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
Considering that I see a LOT of 20 year old diesel cars driving around, it is likely that the diesel powered car will be chugging along for enough time to recoup the difference.
Well, I didn't mean they appear to chug, that was just my wording. They seem to move out pretty smartly. Of course, there is that black smoke...
I think that once more modern diesel vehicles are avaialible (2007) and people see the benefits, it will be a viable alternative as a better MPG source. People will test drive it when they see the MPG numbers on the window. Then it's up to the auto designers to give the customer what they want.
My point is that the diesel engine is known for it's reliability during long term use.