Honda Accord Diesel????

biker4

Of course they won't call it a wagon - they'll come up with clever names, such as Avant/Touring, a la Audi.

The Energy bill being debated has some pretty lofty goals - like 30+ MPG for all passenger vehicles. I don't care how great GM engineers are there's no way a Suburban (or even a smaller SUV) will get that kind of millage - unless you put the Honda iCDTi diesel in it and are satisfied with a 0-60 time of 20+s.

gagrice

I think 25-27 MPG highway is realistic for a Suburban with a V6 diesel or the new smaller V8 diesel from GM. The Honda CRV with the 4 cylinder diesel should get an easy 35-40 MPG highway or even more.

blufz1

I think the CRV and the Pilot are Honda's wagons for now. I could see a real accord wagon if fuel prices continue to rise. The cuvs/suvs pay weight and aerodynamic penalties vs. a real wagon. Just my .02.

biker4

The point of the Energy bill is to have that Suburban get 30MPG combined - never mind hwy. And GM would have a tough time selling a Suburban with just a V6 in it - even a diesel with tons of tq.

ruking1

I4, I6, V6, V8, I5, V10, etc, etc, all, really no matter. Given what is REALLY happening, the legislation is both unnecessary and passage is almost a guarantee that it will NOT happen. If you look at the Honda Civic real world mpg there is a size able contingent of folks who don't even get that with a Honda Civic. My take is very simple, they just need to make them in diesel options (like the VW Jetta, TDI) not choke off the flow and then don't make them virtually illegal to sell (NEW) in 5 states, i.e., rescind or cut back the legislation. My further take is the market will sell almost all the diesels optioned models they care to build (or can). The US oem's have been selling almost its whole production of diesel trucks while simultaneously having slower sales on the gasser side (250/2500 and up model diesels)

gagrice

The sad part is they already are rated at 30+MPG combined using E85. A loophole inserted to protect the sale of large SUVs and PU trucks.

ruking1

Being "anti diesel" is probably becoming less "chic". But being "anti suv" has been in style for a very long time. So there is truly an attitude (regulatory)that if an suv exists, that it should get lesser fuel mileage. I think one real fear is that the suv segement in the passenger vehicle fleet will grow upwards of the 12 % that it is now is.

blane

http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/06/japan_a_change_.html

Also:
http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/06/toyota_makes_di.html#more

ruking1

I think what goes unsaid is the almost absolute drubbing Honda & Toyota has taken over the years in the Euro markets where fully 50% of the passenger vehicle fleet are diesels. While Honda & Toyota (Civic/Corolla) have made their names in the US as so called "economy" cars, that is NOT the European market perspective. While Europe does not have the US EPA ratings, (for reasons that should be obvious)the EPA ratings should tell the story, Honda Civic 2004 epa 29/38, VW Jetta 2003 TDI epa 42/49. The VW Jetta TDI is made to cruise literally all day at 100-125 mph (dont try this at home) and get app 40-45 mpg. In the states, there is at most two that get anywhere near this mpg (44-48 mpg real rated at 60 mpg)and it is at speeds of 55-65 mph (Civic/Prius hybrids). At those speeds the diesel mpg is more like 52-62 mpg.

Hybrids do well under stop and go operations (but not anywhere near the epa ratings). This of course brings up the marketing and operations questions of why it took 10 years to come to the realization that (Prius) hybrids (among others) might be a logical replacement for the ubiquitous and probably iconic NYC taxicab/s (15,000 population?) ? For a supposedly environmentally aware population, they sure have passed a lot of unnecessary gas idling in NYC traffic??? and for a long 24/7/365 .

blufz1

Being anti diesel is not chic......It's just ignorant....but that's Hollywood. I think the larger SUVs are toast and that's good. That's why the CRV is the SUV sales leader... It only weighs 3700 and is, in effect, the new station wagon for the U.S.

ruking1

That is one of the reasons why diesel SUV's make so much sense. Indeed the greatest fear/nightmare (of the regulators) would be an suv (Tahoe for example) that gets 30-35 mpg. This puts an extra amount of utility IN the U of SUV. So from a weight point of view, 40 mpg is already a reality.

As a comparison to the CRV (which you quote @ 3700#s), the 2005/6 MB E320 weighs 3,860#'s and gets (real world) 40 mpg at a steady 80 mph. (208 hp/388#ft torque) As you probably would agree, MB is not known for its fuel sipping qualities, as is Honda/Toyota. For example, I would be absolutely thrilled if my 3700#s Toyota Landcruiser's got 40 mpg !!! Of course a lot of re-engineering would probably have to happen, such as: 5/6/7 speed automatics, etc, etc. So just on the "weight" factor alone, the mpg would be 2.67 x BETTER (15 mpg at 80 mph)

Keep in mind also the VW Jetta TDI is relatively porky at 2950 #s, but will get a no brainer 50 mpg at 80 mph. In comparison, I often wonder what my 2004, 2550# Honda Civic with a diesel option) would get!!! With the same motor as the VW TDI and probably slightly different transmission set up, it would probably be a lot more fun and fuel efficient to drive.

bristol2

Don't forget that the energy bill does not require every vehicle to get 35mpg. It is a fleet average so Chevy still does not have to produce a 35mpg Tahoe.

dudleyr

Also don't forget that the fleet average still uses the EPA test method from the 80's, not the now twice revised version. By those standards the current Accord I4 stick would be EPA 29/43

ruking1

I would dare say your statement is what is both good and bad about the current system. It is also why I think the further legislation along the lines of increased mpg will keep the very thing that is wanted off the market!! Case in point is a Honda (diesel) Civic/Accord, ergo see any currently on the market???!!!! VW Jetta TDI (and variants such as: New Beetle,Golf,) Sales new car sales are banned in 5 states! In 2003 the TDI population was 4 % of VW's; i.e., kept OUT.

bristol2

I think it is a good thing to do fleet average.

Not all drivers have the same needs and there are some expectations that probably cannot be met.

I still think that clean diesel is so clearly in the interest of the truck/SUV centric manufacturers that it boggles the mind that they are not moving forward.

ruking1

The fleet average (among other things) is the concept that is actually keeping those of which you are highlighting from being built!!! ???? Indeed given the OVERWHELMING majority of the passenger vehicle fleet being gasser (upwards of 97%) is more than proof positive. It is "hidden in plain sight" code to continue using unleaded regular gasoline!!!! As an example, it would have caused ethanol to have never been attempted, in that ethanol gets app 25% less fuel economy than unleaded regular (same model)

dhanley

"The VW Jetta TDI is made to cruise literally all day at 100-125 mph (dont try this at home) and get app 40-45 mpg. In the states, there is at most two that get anywhere near this mpg (44-48 mpg real rated at 60 mpg)and it is at speeds of 55-65 mph (Civic/Prius hybrids). At those speeds the diesel mpg is more like 52-62 mpg. "

Frankly, i don't believe these numbers for diesel. The jetta is rated for 49 highway, this number _is_ based on normal highway speeds. MPG drops quite precipitously as speed increases, because air drag is a bigger and bigger factor, and air drag increases as a cubic function.

dudleyr

That 49 mpg highway number has been dumbed down by the EPA. The actual number is 63 mpg for the EPA highway test. They multiply their test results by .78 to get the number on the sticker.

Typically you can get the actual tested number by driving 55 to 60 mph on level ground.

60 mpg with the diesel is quite easily obtainable.

ruking1

I am ok with you not believing these numbers for diesel. My VW TDI operates with no special air drag dispensation than say yours does.

ruking1

..."Typically you can get the actual tested number by driving 55 to 60 mph on level ground.

60 mpg with the diesel is quite easily obtainable."...

Yes my RANGE has been between 44-62 mpg. At 55-60 mpg I would swag the mpg to be easily in the high 50's- 60 mpg!

elias

I can confirm that VW TDI mpg drops as expected at speeds near/over 100 mph. To the very low 30s or into the 20s.
Those VW engineers are good, but indeed they have not violated the laws of physics.

ruking1

Not sure what to tell you. 6.25 hours, 584 miles 12.1 gals 48 mpg! (48.264462 mpg if you really want to know) I still claim no special exemption from any of the physical laws you cite.

elias

I got 48 mpg tank after tank with my 2003 VW TDI, at about 80 mph. If you are claiming such mpg at speeds near/over 100mph, you do apparently have an exemption from Newtonian physics. Your quoted numbers put that trip at 93 mph average and I doubt that mpg result is repeatable, but no need to argue, let's just agree to disagree. I'll continue to believe that maybe due to inadvertent-venting or slower-pump, you had an extra gallon or two in there before you left, that did not get replaced when you refueled, and maybe you can continue to believe that you can get above 40 mpg at 100 mph in your vehicle.
fwiw, the mpg champion at 100 mph is the CHEVY CORVETTE according to Car&Driver. But maybe a TDI would beat the Vette - I don't think C&D tested a TDI @ extended 100mph.

ruking1

Mine is also a 2003. At below 85 mpg I get app 50. With a steady 85 with obviously less traffic, 52 mpg. So that is only a deviation of 2 mpg from your results. Not for me to say which has a lead der foot.

I do fuel at the first click off all the time. Yes 40 mpg is a no brainer. I think the only time I ever got below 44 mpg was doing 300 miles of stop and go driving on the Las Vegas STRIP (taxi cab style), when I wanted to show Las Vegas to my daughter when she turned 21.

With a Z06, 2 folks and packed trunk (if one can call it a trunk), A/C going, 100-104 ambient temps, I get a normal 26 mpg.

twain

Keep in mind also the VW Jetta TDI is relatively porky at 2950 #s, but will get a no brainer 50 mpg at 80 mph. In comparison, I often wonder what my 2004, 2550# Honda Civic with a diesel option) would get!!!
----------------------------------

Diesels should be available in every category. SUVs could get 30mpg, midsize sedans could get 40mpg and subcompacts could exceed 50mpg. We need diesels and we need them NOW.

michael2003

Anyone heard more info on approximately when we can expect the US Accord Diesel?

ruking1

2009 is bandied about.

mike91326

I was looking at the CR-V the other day and asked about the diesel option. The dealer told me that the diesel Accord and CR-V will be out in the fall of 2008 as a 2009 model. Now the bad news... The dealer told me that they plan to start taking names after the first of the year because there has been so much interest in the diesel option.

robertsmx

Let me predict another bad news. Given Honda's propensity to offer more features and add more models to the top than in the middle, I won't be surprised to see diesels being offered "fully featured". And that I think needs to stop from Honda. That was one of the reasons Accord Hybrid didn't work well.

ruking1

Well for sure there is a certain "guilt by association" here. I think one of the things that will limit them is the competitve markets and past history. I have gotten a VP Civic and I am sure there is a HUGE difference from low price to high priced Civics.

So for example I have seen "identical" VW Jetta TDI's one being the GLS and the other being a GL version with a price tag difference of 6,000 dollars. You can certainly buy a lot of commute fuel for 6,000 dollars!

gijeff11

Diesel engine options should be across all trim levels. I couldn't agree more on the accord hybrid... putting it on the V6 was a waste! I had one of the first civic hybrids and and an accord I4, bought a new accord I4 as the vtec power has always been great! that matched with a hybrid would have been a home run. Go one further... a diesel hybrid?

ruking1

I have said all along that diesel engine options should be across model lines, that oems are willing to risk their capital. I think this might be a tad more macro than your take. Of course I say this in view of going to 23% of the diesel passenger vehicle fleet. As a comparison, the SUV passenger vehicle fleet population is at 12%. Some would say the growth of SUV was like the growth of germs in a nutrient rich environment with NO population regulatory factors. The growth of SUVs took easily 25/30 years and started from app 1%. So as you can see a population of 23% will take a long time. Suv's did not experience near the vilification during growth periods as does diesel does, especially now. As you know diesel passenger vehicle fleet is at less than 3%.

Using the Civic hybrid as an example, there was a 7,5000 difference between my Civic VP. @ 2.75 per gal and 41 mpg that buys me 111,818 MILES of commuting. So far that would work out to 6.6 years of commuting. This is not even to count the interest saved over a typical loan period and the TREMENDOUS depreciation hit.

blufz1

23% diesel fleet will take only 7-8 years. It's not just a want as suv's were. It's financial self defense.

ruking1

Well you might want to run the numbers with a yearly 16/17M new car addition and @ various percentages (of diesel models) before you bet the farm on 7/8 years. The passenger vehicle fleet is 235.4 M. The diesel passenger vehicle fleet is currently at less than 3% or less than 7M vehicles and that has taken historically 30 years, or wild growth at .001% per year!

Europe is @ 50% passenger diesel fleet and growing and that historically has taken them 30 years or yearly growth rate of .017%. The governments have also encouraged its growth vs government blockage at almost every turn.

robertsmx

I don't think it was a waste to put hybrid on V6. What was wrong was to add on top of already loaded EXV6 model. As it is now, Accord EX-L is listed at $25,860. Let us assume Honda picks this trim and adds diesel on top of it, for a $1.2K premium. We would now be looking at $27K Accord diesel, or a $6K premium over base Accord. Instead it would be better if Accord LX were the building block, $23K Accord diesel won't sound as bad.

For the same reason, Accord Hybrid should have been based off Accord LXV6, if not go even lower with I-4 engine.

ruking1

As good as the Honda iCTDI is, which will presumably be put on the so called Accord platform, for my two cents let me buy the (for US markets obviously, or let in the European diesels) the CIVIC diesel option, ALREADY selling in Europe for a few years!

$27,000 in light of the 12,500 I paid for the 2004 Honda Civic (gasser) will give me 2 Civic's, or one Civic and $14,500 for commute fuel. Even with a 1.2k premium for diesel; that puts it at $13,300 for fuel. At @ $2.75/3 per gal, either will give me 216,181/221,667 miles of commuting. For me this would represent app 13 years of commuting.

robertsmx

In Europe, Civic (and CR-V) also uses the same diesel engine as Accord, with a little compromise to NVH (to make it fit in a smaller space).

Whatever car Honda chooses to put diesel (or hybrid), I wish they would go for lesser trims as well, not just the top end trim. If they decided to put diesel in Civic on top of the new EX-L trim, it would cost almost as much as the hybrid.

ruking1

All the more value for the bucks! However, I would agree the option to get a diesel in more than the kicked up trim makes the most amount of sense. (from a consumers point of view) The kicked up trim does not add much at all if you have a purposeful everyday commute.

gagrice

When I looked at the first Accord hybrid at Tipton Honda in San Diego it was listed at $35,000. $32k MSRP with a $3000 add=on just because. They were not allowing any test drives. It sat for at least 2 weeks unsold. If they do the same with the diesel models they may flop like their hybrids. I would expect about a $2k premium for diesel. That should give plenty room for profit.

blufz1

Just keepin' the conversation lively. I do think the reason we don't have more diesels is that they have simply not been offered in the U.S. by the best selling automakers.

ruking1

Absolutely to both. I think there is a lot of pent up demand! Killer applications, since we are on the Honda Accord diesel thread would be Civic, Pilot, Oydessy, CRV, even the Element. Come to think of it, a diesel on every Honda model would work. I also think beating Toyota to a upcoming trend would probably be priceless for Honda.

blufz1

It seems you could lose twice by not buying a diesel as a replacement vehicle when they become widely available. Extra cost of fuel as prices inevitably rise over time and on resale value as consumers figure it out.

gagrice

I think it is easy to see the demand. When VW dealers are paying over new price for used VW diesels that should be an indicator. I personally would like the Honda Pilot with a diesel engine. I would also like to see Honda cut into Toyota's bottom line with a great line of diesel vehicles.

maddog11

Interesting question about which Honda Accord will get the diesel. Maybe it will be a special model equiped similarly to the LX-P/LX-S and not an EX nor a LX. Who knows; I am sure Honda has done market studies, maybe they will offer the diesel in both LX and EX trims.

robertsmx

We should ask isellhondas if he knows already that LX/diesel will be a tough sell.

Excuse a carryover from another thread.

ruking1

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=707723

HONDA PRESENTS ACCORD TOURER CONCEPT AND i-DTEC, THE NEXT-GEN CLEAN DIESEL ENGINE TECHNOLOGY

Date: September 11, 2007 07:17
Submitted by: Jeff
Source: Honda EU Press Release

Might be a US market precurser.....

robertsmx

You should have said...

"I-detect a US market precurser"

ruking1

You could have beat me to it and said it YOUR way!?

robertsmx

I will wait for "i-Detect I" engine.

dudleyr

Ideally the diesel would be EX trim but without the sunroof (kinda like the hybrid was at first).

That would be the only way to have plenty of head room and still have the lumbar support.

Any other combination, while still appealing, would be a compromise for my needs.

Of course a wagon (avant, club, crosover, estate, squareback, combi etc. etc.) would make the most sense. Why not combine the most efficient Accord mechanically with the most efficient with space.

They could even make the diesel only a wagon so it sticks out like the Prius. Many people buy the Prius for the statement - if it looked the same there could not make the statement as well.

They won't have a wagon of course, but it is nice to think about.