Honda Accord Diesel????

nanorapture

The premium selling price for a diesel car using the VW as an example, the diesel was only about $1200 more than the gasser. So we could guess $1000 to probably $2000 maximum more than the gasser.

But I think in reality you will pay closer to $2000 to $3000 more for the diesel because you will be paying MSRP for the diesels the first year. They will be the hot new item that a lot of people will be willing to pay a premium for. (i.e. HIGH DEMAND & LOW SUPPLY = HIGH PRICE = MSRP)

The gasser accords will be at invoice, and the new diesels will be at MSRP. MSRP is about $2k more than invoice, plus the premium of $1k for the diesel engine gives us about $3000 more for the diesel if you are paying MSRP. That is enough of a differential that will make the decision of which to buy very hard. $3,000 is about 20,000 miles worth of gasoline! 2 years of "free" gasoline when you buy the gasser instead of the diesel!

The best news relative to price is that the VW and Honda diesels will be competing directly with each other, and are both being introduced next fall. (according to best available info at this time)

And the point about the difference in trim levels that will be available is possibly another way you could pay more for the diesel if the diesel is only offered in the higher trim levels. I think the diesel will be offered at least in the EX cloth trim level, which is probably the most popular trim level.

We'll just have to wait another 9 months and see what happens!

-nano

ruking1

Good point as to the MSRP vs invoice. Special situations/offers can sweeten the deal. (A real secret:) Below invoice is also in there. Is it likely during the first years model? Not likely. Competition between VW and Honda might also be another good thing.

blufz1

So......The best buying plan is to defer purchase till you can get a deal and until they start putting the diesel into all Accord models maybe 2-3 years. This is going to be very interesting if fuel prices stay at current levels at diesel introduction time.

ruking1

Actually for my money, you make a VERY good observation! :shades:

Kudo's should probably also go to web sites like Edmunds.com who have done the research and leg work in the information department which has enabled US all to have the option/s to think about such things: in that way. I have certainly benefited from it and I would SWAG so have you.

In so far as the focus of this thread, I think when more US market folks drive Honda diesels (I for one have not) it will literally revolutionize the Honda brand and we will wonder how we went so long without diesel passenger vehicles. Turbo diesels are uniquely adaptable to our highway system/s. I also admire Honda for doing stuff like: nat gas, hybrid, hydrogen fuel cells. They also continue to constantly improve things like the app 15 year old VTEC concept.

elemoncelli

I drive a 2002 Camry -its big and floaty, if the steering/drive was a firmer Id be happy with the way it drives. I've been contemplating trading the Camry for something smaller and more fuel efficient and hopefully a little bit more engaging to drive. I drove a new Accord; it’s big but as far as I can tell doesn't float. I was quite happy driving the 190hp gasser. I really, really, really, want a diesel. Given the choice b/w a VW and a Honda I’ll take the Honda, even if it costs more than a VW.

I’m currently considering the Toyota Corolla/Matrix, Honda Fit gassers. My brain says wait until next year and get a diesel, my heart says I want a smaller fun car NOW. Maybe I should lease a Fit for 1-2 years. Get a small car now, and bide my time till the 2010s come out. Any advice?

BTW I bought stock in Honda about 2 months ago hoping the diesels make their stock go off with a bang. The new energy bill looks promising.

blane

If you are considering the Corolla, Matrix, or Fit you probably want a vehicle smaller than the Camry or Accord. You would be quite happy driving the Civic, especially the Si, until a Diesel of your choosing is available.

tgkoenigsegg

I think that they'll use the 2.2 L I-4 with 140 hp that is already used in Europe. It gets an average of 50 Mpg.

blane

"I think that they'll use the 2.2 L I-4 with 140 hp that is already used in Europe. It gets an average of 50 Mpg."

The mpg rating for that engine in the UK is actually around 52 mpg. HOWEVER, that's while using Imperial Gallons which are 20% larger than the gallon size here in the USA. That would scale down to about 42 mpg here.

jaxs1

It is supposed to get around 62 mpg with the imperial gallons, so that still comes back to around 50 mpg in the US.

blufz1

Agree,they reworked the engine. I am hoping the U.S. version is slightly larger at 2.4. Guess we'll see.

gagrice

I think the 2.2 L should be plenty. My 2005 Passat Wagon TDI was over 3500 lbs and the 2.0 L diesel was plenty of power for it. The new bigger Accord is only 3300 lbs.

ruking1

..."So......The best buying plan is to defer purchase till you can get a deal and until they start putting the diesel into all Accord models maybe 2-3 years. This is going to be very interesting if fuel prices stay at current levels at diesel introduction time"...

The other thing that occurred to me. A used Honda turbo diesel buying opportunity. Given the fact that some folks that might find a so called a diesel "turbo lag" novel and enough of an irritant vs a gasser (whose response they are used to) that it might MOTIVATE some to sell perfectly operating and almost new turbo diesels. :lemon: :shades:

There will be other reasons as well, since even with Honda Civic's (what I consider a great economy car) there are app 12-24% of folks (who take surveys) that seem to be disappointed with at least the MPG of Honda's. (Civic's for the survey)

blufz1

I'm sure some can get deals on used cars but I prefer to buy new and just drive it 10 years or so. The reception of the diesels should be interesting if fuel prices stay at $3. Who knows, they may not be well received and could be a relative buy from the get go. FYI, I tried the mobil 1 hi endurance oil and really haven't noticed any increase in mileage.

ruking1

Cant' say I blame you. Looking back, I seem to have taken the same course. :shades:

Oil is a very interesting topic. I have been real happy with the Mobil One 0w20,5w20 for the (gasser) Civic. I use the Delvac One 5w40 aka Mobil One Truck and SUV 5w40. It does not meet the VW 505.00, but it meets the higher standard C xx-4. 0w40 does meet certain VW standards. I have not researched nor gotten any information as to the oil recommendation/s for the Honda diesels.

I would think it will be close to the VW TDI specifications. However, that can be a tad to wholely confusing, judging by VW dealers frequently using the wrong specification/s oil for the various years of TDI's. The latest and greatest specification is the VW 507.00, 5w30. Mobil One does make an oil to this specification, but it is not widely available nor known (as of yet), and is more expensive (10.50 qt). AV LUBE carries it.

http://www.avlube.com/

blane

jaxs1,

In response to my post #567, you wrote "It is supposed to get around 62 mpg with the imperial gallons, so that still comes back to around 50 mpg in the US." That is not correct.

To see what Honda UK says about their current Accord Diesels go here: http://www.honda.co.uk/car/

Choose a car
Accord Saloon
Build your Accord Saloon
Manual (Diesels are not available with automatic in the UK)
2.2 i-CTDi Diesel (Se or Ex models)
Fuel consumption 51.4 mpg (the Sport GT is rated at 50.4 mpg)

That's with Imperial gallons, and converts to 41.1 US miles per gallon with our 20% smaller gallon.

jaxs1

No. The version planned for the US has been getting higher mileage.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9712548-7.html

blane

jaxs1,

Please carefully re-read posts #566 and #567.

tiff_c

The Forum is stuck. It shows Post #576 of 577 but not Post #577 and it always repeats showing me the thread even tho there are no new messages because of this. can one of the hosts fix it or report it please?
Thanks.

pat

Post 577 isn't here, meaning it was either removed administratively or by the person who posted it. There are some software issues that are causing some people to see some messages over again. That is being looked at. But the missing post is not the problem.

tiff_c

Post 577 isn't here, meaning it was either removed administratively or by the person who posted it. There are some software issues that are causing some people to see some messages over again. That is being looked at. But the missing post is not the problem.

Ok, as long as someone is aware that it's going on and fixing it . Time to get back on topic.
Really wanted teh diesel THIS year, sadly no dice.

blane

Page 30 of the February 2008 Car and Driver magazine has a story about their test, here in the USA, of a European (UK) Honda Civic i-CTDi, 2.2-liter, 138 HP, turbocharged, intercooled, dual OHC, Diesel coupe with 251 lb. ft. of torque and a 6-speed MTX.

With all of the predictions in this forum, about spectacular mileage once the anticipated 2009 Accord Diesel arrives, it is interesting to see that Car and Driver's observed fuel economy of this particlar Civic was only 33 mpg. That's exactly the same result that they got in their testing of a US spec gasser Civic LX. They achieved 40 mpg when they tested the Civic Hybid.

They stated that their best tank of Diesel returned 36 mpg, and it ran 7.6 seconds in their 0-60 test.

tiff_c

With all of the predictions in this forum, about spectacular mileage once the anticipated 2009 Accord Diesel arrives, it is interesting to see that Car and Driver's observed fuel economy of this particular Civic was only 33 mpg. That's exactly the same result that they got in their testing of a US spec gasser Civic LX. They achieved 40 mpg when they tested the Civic Hybrid.

My friend got better than that in his Toyota Hi-Lux diesel on the highway. That was a Crew cab pickup truck with a 5 foot bed! I think something must have been wrong with the Civic because diesels really do run much more efficiently. I don't think Honda wants to sell small cars with diesels. This seems to make their point very well as to why people should buy a hybrid over a diesel.
Seems fishy to me

ruking1

It would seem that seemingly veteran auto industry writers either never understood diesels or there is a general lack of knowledge about passenger car diesel and the turbo combinations.

blufz1

Something seems wrong with this low mpg. Does the U.S. diesel not burn as efficiently as the european diesel? Maybe this was just a "bad" unit?

gagrice

Maybe their entire testing was 0-60 MPH. I would think that a 1.8L diesel would be good in a Civic. What was the 0-60 MPH time for the LX Civic that got the same MPG? It is just further proof that the establishment does not want US to have diesel cars. If the same engine in an Accord has gotten from 42 - 62 MPG maybe someone needs to check on C&D testing methods.

ruking1

Yeah I think it is commonly know that writers that test new car models routinely trash, thrash and flog them. It is really one of the car driving "fantasy's" as they get to do "everyone's" dream and WRITE about it.

blane

"Maybe their entire testing was 0-60 MPH. I would think that a 1.8L diesel would be good in a Civic. What was the 0-60 MPH time for the LX Civic that got the same MPG? It is just further proof that the establishment does not want US to have diesel cars."

The article praised the vehicle's torque and said "At the track the diesel Civic ran from 0 to 60 mph in 7.6 seconds, a scant 0.1 second quicker than the last gas Civic LX we tested (December 2006) but half a second quicker than the Civic hybrid (January 2006). We also found that the diesel Civic weighed 368 more pounds than the Civic LX and 171 more pounds than the Civic hybrid. Without doubt, some of that weight must be blamed on the more complex (turbocharger, intercooler, high-pressure injection system) diesel engine."

They stated that they drove the vehicle for "a few days" so it wasn't all 0 to 60 acceleration testing.

ruking1

From the quoted desciption, it makes no mention of driving any/ALL of the vehicles for MAXIMUM/REAL TIME fuel mileage. I think that silence speaks volumes.

What does stand out: thrash em, trash em and flog em and report the fuel mileage. That is easy to put into context, if YOU are not the kind of thrash em, trash em and flog em type of driver. So in that sense the report is NOT dishonest at all.

ruking1

While there is an apparent disconnect here, it is only so in the understanding or lack there off of the weight differential. Combined with the lack of diesel perspective, parts will get lost in the translation.

Long story short. I live side by side with a Civic gasser 2514#'s /Jetta TDI 2950#'s or a app 436# difference. In the SAME daily commute, the Civic gets 38-42 mpg, the Jetta gets 48-52 mpg, DESPITE the 24/7 436# weight difference.

What has become VERY clear to me the CIVIC is uniquely adapted for or designed for these conditions (THAT daily commute), despite my description of the commute being an absolute PITA and with defacto average speed limits of 14-41 mph. On the other hand, the TDI does tolerate it, with the reported BETTER FUEL MILEAGE but these conditions are not the sweet spot for the TDI vehicle.

So there are a number of ways we can compensate for the weight. The most graphic, given say 150#s per person is to operate the Civic with 436#'s MORE in the vehicle or 3 more persons.

So I might ask, what do you think would happen to the handling, performance, wear to components, etc. and most importantly, the fuel mileage on the weight compensated Honda Civic gasser? For my .02 cents, at first look, me thinks Honda has not dealt as well with the weight issue for the DIESEL Civic as well as VW has with the Jetta TDI.

The other way to look at it is to ask, what do you think would happen with a 436# LIGHTER VW Jetta TDI ?

jaxs1

100% meaningless. They were not driven on a test loop with the same amount of miles and acceleration runs and doesn't indicate mileage under identical driving conditions.
The DOHC turbo 6-speed (possibly with short "sporty" gearing) coupe doesn't really sound like it was intended for the best possible fuel economy either.

blane

Actually, they drove a 5-door hatchback, not a coupe. This was not a side-by-side comparison. According to the article, they just got their hands on this particular vehicle and were allowed to use it for a few days.

The UK Honda website lists this model at around 54 mpg (Imperial gallons). That equates to about 43 mpg here. YMMV.

Here's a UK Civic spec sheet:

http://media.honda.co.uk/brochures/car/HondaCivicSpecs.pdf

nippononly

"The DOHC turbo 6-speed (possibly with short "sporty" gearing) coupe doesn't really sound like it was intended for the best possible fuel economy either."

You said it before I could! You can bet dollars to donuts the Civic Hybrid doesn't do 0-60 in 7.6 seconds. What the heck do I want that kind of performance in my commute car for anyway? I am trying to save gas here!

Put in a nice little 1.8L diesel pulling around 100 hp, 175 lb-ft, and it will be VERY peppy in town and probably pull 45 mpg (maybe 50?) no sweat. AND keep up with the Corollas and Focuses of the world.

Now if there is no 1.8L diesel available in Honda's little world, then I say stick this engine in the Accord instead (where a magazine's 33 mpg will be real world figures of 40+), and work on improving the mileage of the Civic Hybrid and NatGas.

ruking1

From a consumer's point of view, the solutions seem pretty obvious, but drawing on the VW Jetta TDI experiences, there is a WHOLE LOT of engineering going on!! Most is NOT sound bite able.

Even this 2003 VW TDI 1.9 L 90 hp/155# ft of torque (epa 42/49) out performs the newest (gasser) 2008 Corolla/Civic 1.8 L 126 hp/122# ft of torque (epa 26/35).

YUP the Toyota/Honda has 36 hp MORE. But you just need to ask any gasser enthusiast what it would take to GAIN 33# ft of torque ( to match the 5 year old TDI torque of 155# ft of torque and I think folks would be surprised.

On the TDI, just one size up (slightly larger) injectors ($300 or less) will add up to 25 hp and 40# ft of torque. (the swap is about as difficult as R/R 4 ea gasser spark plugs)

The real problems becomes:

1. you really need another gear (6th speeds vs 5 speeds) or in the USA, modification to the 5th gear (150.) AND

2. the clutch meant for the V6 gasser as a min.

Then if you are going to do that:

3. you may as well spend 300 more to add another 25 hp and 40 MORE # ft of torque with a chip mod (300)

(This of course CAN continue ad infinitum, but I think the first three illustrate the point)

The real beauty of this diesel modification is the fuel mileage will actually INCREASE (in all three torque configurations), IFone does not re educate the right foot. What do you think will happen to the Corolla/Civic's fuel mileage with modifications to add 33, 73, 113# ft of torque?

So in truth, I will do the above when my clutch is due to give out at between 300,000 to 500,000 miles.

ruking1

So if you look at a 250# ft of torque (in a 4 cylinder diesel) you are talking V6 3.5 L territory (258# ft of torque) EPA seems to be 19/28 mpg!!???

ruking1

In 2003, VW was there in V6 Camry/Accord territory with:...

" The B5 Passat with it's 2.0l TDI pumped out 134 hp and 247 ft.lbs of torque. "...

http://www.tdiclub.com/

redvw

Does anyone have a comparison of the annual maintenance of a diesel accord versus a gas accord? Does the cost of maintaining a diesel engine out weigh the savings gained by the higher fuel mileage of the diesel? :confuse:

ruking1

I would guess no, as there are NO diesel accords in the USA markets. I have a Civic and Jetta TDI side by side and can address those issues if you are interested.

redvw

I also have a Civic. I would be interested in your comparison of your Civic and Jetta TDI.

ruking1

"I also have a Civic. I would be interested in your comparison of your Civic and Jetta TDI. "

Civic epa 29/38, TDI 42/49 (Jetta gasser 2.0/1.8T 24/31)

In a 54 miles daily R/T commute 38-42, 48-52 mpg

(nearest I can figure avg for VW gasser 2.0/1.8T, 27-30 mpg)

oem recommended oil and filter change 10,000/20,000 Civic, 10,000 miles TDI.

The so called first tune is at 105,000/100,000 respectively. Cost for TB/WP change is app par. However $25 per spark plug change and timing tune is due at 105,000 miles for the Civic.

Notes:

1. Consumable parts: tires, brake pads, probably rotors, alignments, etc seem to wear app 2x faster on the Civic than the VW.

2. The VW is almost head and shoulders better as a longer distance (touring) road car than the Civic.

3. VW quality is head and shoulders better than the Civic.

4. I have come to confirm (I knew this when I bought it) the Civic is uniquely adapted for (our particular) the 54 R/T commute. Looking at surveys, the mileage we get in the commute is gotten by a very low % and volume of Civic owners. Due to the fact that it is a very grueling commute, we employ no real fuel savings techniques other than to anticipate to AVOID both accidents and prays, when smoking the pads and tires to avoid a rear ender.

5. My sense is while the Jetta easily takes the same commute in stride 48-52 mpg) , it excels on the open road. Going 80 mph and less, I have gotten easily 59 mpg. I have gotten up to 62 mpg.(watching paint dry is blood sport in comparison)

5b. The caveat here of course is it is EXTREMELY hard (if not impossible) to go faster than the average speed of 55 mph (usually less), point a to point b. I have verified this on portable GPS's and also on an on-board Corvette Z06 computer.

So figuring 40-90 min for the 27 miles one way commute, door to door the AVERAGE MPG can range from 41 to 18 mph. Sure speeds can go from 0 to 80 mpg!? This is of course on highways with 65 mph speed limits.

redvw

Thank you for your very interesting and detailed comparison of your Civic Vs. Jetta. If you could only keep one of the vehicles which one would it be?

ruking1

Being as how this is a diesel vs gasser thread, DIESEL!

Kirstie_H

Um... but it's NOT at all. It's a discussion about the upcoming Honda Accord diesel, specifically.

ruking1

The stretch here (being as how there is NO US Accord diesel) is, given most folks own gasser Accords, etc., would one make the jump to diesel based on... WHAT....? I just gave the (comparison) whats and did the stretch. So if I was not clear, yes Accord diesel vs Accord gasser.

But you are correct, for a closer comparison would be a VW Passat TDI owner (closer in hp/torque to the anticipated Accord diesel motor. The problem however is there are even less of those owners.

Kirstie_H

Merci, monsieur

redvw

Your post has given me the information that I needed. I will wait for the Accord Diesel to come to the U. S. market before shopping for a new Honda.

oldoarsman

I've owned a 1997 Passat TDI 5 speed since purchasing it from Carmax in April 1998 with 12,000 miles on it. I check my mileage each time I fill up (about 800 miles into a tank) and I am averaging upper 40's...typically 47-49 mpg.

I have test driven both the EX-L-4 and an EX-L-6, I look forward to the introduction of the Accord diesel. I am 6'5" and find that I am probably just at the maximum size to fit in the Passat, where I fit very comfortably in both of the new Accords.

Also, we have owned a 2000 Odyssey, and currently own a 2003 Pilot, and I have been very impressed with the reliability of both vehicles. While the Passat has been the best VW I've owned (including a 1985 Golf diesel (similar mileage but less reliable), and a 1993 Golf gasser), it has it's challenges...specifically, the electrical system.

I have also heard that Honda may introduce a diesel Pilot...if that vehicle can achieve mid-30's in miles per gallon, Honda would have a runaway winner.

I took a look at the Accord Hybrid years ago and after determining that its primary purpose was to enhance performance rather than it's overall mileage, I walked away.

If Honda is able to provide reliable, quality vehicles with diesels that provide mileage similar to my VW experience, I'll never walk into another VW showroom.

ruking1

"I have also heard that Honda may introduce a diesel Pilot...if that vehicle can achieve mid-30's in miles per gallon, Honda would have a runaway winner"

Welcome to the thread!

Since we are in a Honda thread, a diesel Pilot would be WOW!! The only thing I would REALLY want is a MANUAL option, 5/6 speed!!!! We would be at the 2020 35 mpg fuel standard 11/12 years EARLY !!!!

If you do not mind, how many miles since 1998 ? (12,000 miles)

nedzel

Sorry, but there is no way a Pilot will get 35 mpg, even with a diesel. It is way too heavy, with the aerodynamics of a brick. The current Pilot is rated at 18 mpg combined. Diesels typically give 30% increase in mpg over equivalent gas. That would be an improvement to 18 + (18 * .33) = 18 + 6 = 24 mpg.

For a Pilot to get 35 mpg, that would require over a 100% improvement in mileage. No chance a diesel would give you that. None, nadda, zippo.

blufz1

O. K. It'll get 30-31 highway,pull 6500 pounds, last 500k, and can be parked in your garage. What's so bad about that?

ruking1

Perhaps you should read my take on the 2020 35 mph standard with similar deviation characteristics from the current 27 mpg standards. So for example using your quote of 18 mpg, that is -9/27=33.3%*35=-11.655=23.35. So assuming the same relative deviance anything over 23.35 is PURE gravy (from the 2020 35 mpg standards view) . A run away hit (which was the declaration/ hope is still of course 35 mpg. So between 25-40 mpg why would anyone get a for example get an inappropriate car ? (size 4 shoe when a 10 fits?)

Also given my own experiences with diesels, it is both do able and in range. My take is those targets will expand the segment not sink it.

Is it on the market right now? Obviously NOT !??