We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.
Honda Accord Diesel????
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
diesel fuel has 11% more energy per gallon than regular gasoline. Wikipedia says 15%. It depends on the quality of the fuel.
But more importantly, the diesel engine is 15% more efficient due to its design than a regular gas engine (Otto cycle). Time to review your thermodynamic cycles.
Together these factor to a 32% better fuel mileage, theoretically speaking. (1.15 x 1.15 = 1.32) And of course the engine design itself has a lot to do with overall efficiency. I think Honda knows something about engine efficiency.
-Nano
The diesel is certainly better, and will get my attention if it comes with a stick.
Honda gassers are lower powered (2004 Civic 115 hp), where the (weaker) torque (110 #ft) comes on at higher (4,500) rpms. They can be fun to "flog" so to speak.
Contrast this with a (close, since the USA market does not have a Civic tdi) 90 hp which on the surface is 25 hp LESS, which can belie the torque (155# ft) This torque is fully available at 1,800 rpms and much revving beyond 3,500 rpms is not practically useful.
Sure in any 0-60 metric, the TDI is slower. (my take is the 0-60 metric is not real world useful, (even as I own a 4 sec 0-60 machine) But I can not tell you the number of times going up long grades at altitude to higher altitude, Honda Civic/Accord (both with greater hp) owners look at the VW Jetta with a puzzled look in their eyes as it easily gains speed and passes!! :shades:
On the other hand a Honda iCTDI (TURBO DIESEL) rocketship with 180 hp and 320 #ft will vie for one of the slots for most roadable machines built.
The diesel gets more usable power (torque) at low rpms. Diesels also do not rev as high as the honda v-tec engine (that's an understatement!), so how much usable power is there w.r.t. a v-tec engine?
I also hear a lot of people prefer the manual tranny because it allows you to better control the engine. My first Honda Accord was a manual. I hear a lot of people say they would only consider the diesel if it had a manual tranny.
But what about an auto tranny in a diesel? It seems to me that with all that torque at low rpm's an auto tranny would work great in a diesel. Obviously since the diesel has more power at lower rpm's and does not rev as high, the tranny gearing would be significantly different than a gasser. The tranny gearing would be higher on the diesel.
How would an auto tranny work in a diesel, and are there reasons why it would work better/worse than in a gasser?
Are there good diesel cars that work well with a auto tranny in existence driving around in europe today?? what are the positives/negatives?
Thanks for any knowledge that you guys may have.
-Nano
A good snapshot or a example of an elegant solution, might be the MB320 common rail turbo diesel, 7 speed automatic (more importantly) TAILORED to the diesel power plant. To my knowledge, it only comes in automatic. It also gets 40 mpg @ 80 mph. Most folks who drive this, describe it as silky smooth with gobs of usable power! AW AW AW. The disadvantage (right now anyway) is the lack of this combination/match INXS/with 300,000-400,000 miles.
So as you can surmise, the MATING (of the diesel power plant to transmission) is one major issue. Durability is another. Because passenger diesel's have been an even smaller population that the already small (less than 3%) passenger diesel population, this mating has been over looked, (for hopefully obvious reasons) when the 5/6 speed manual transmission mating has been, remains and will continue to be (one) an elegant solution.
So for example, the 2004 Civic has a 4 speed automatic. Pretty ubiquitous. Yet it took me a while to get over and put in perspective the feeling that the car really always had a hard time figuring out what gear it wants to be in. In addition, while Honda will deny this, their automatic transmission is and always has been the weakest link in a 3//4 timing belt change time frame (@ 105,000 miles per timing belt change), i.e., min of 315,000 miles to 420,000 miles. Automatic transmission repair, if you care to research is VERY expensive.
So given a 25,000 hour (SWAG HERE) diesel power plant, (which translates to 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles) it appears to be a fundamental mismatch to pair this durable diesel engine with a sub 300,000 mile transmission! This is especially true, since automatic transmission repair is exponentially more expensive than 400,000-500,000 mile clutch replacement.
I think that there are several dynamics at work.
1) Diesels here do not have a great reputation in the light vehicle sector. There is going to have to be a looonnnggg education period.
2) If this long education period is going to take say 5 yrs to accomplish who is best to do it? GM? Been there, done that, no thanks. VW? A natural since they've been here in the market but almost everybody knows that you have serious reliability issues with VW? Ford? Toyota? Nissan? All three are big into diesels all over the world. Why not?
HONDA?!! Honda has a great perception in this market that they don't have anywhere else. Mrs-family-vehicle-buyer feels very very comfortable with anything Honda makes.
3) Immediate sales. Until recently diesels could not be sold in every state here. For the last 7 yrs Toyota and Ford have been selling hybrids in all 50 states with no restrictions. This Spring when the Jetta comes here it will be the first time that light diesels will be able to be sold everywhere.
4) Cost. According to GM and Ford and Toyota the cost of making the new diesels compliant in all 50 states will be at least as expensive as any of the hybrid systems.
5) Perception. Hybrids have a great perception with the general public. Diesels don't yet ( see #2 above ).
6) Fuel Economy. According to Lutz the effect of the emissions controls will negate some of the natural benefits of diesel. They may not even be as fuel efficient as the hybrids!!!
The Jetta this spring will tell us a lot.
...At what price will they bring it in?
...What will the EPA values be?
...How will it compare to the Prius, TCH or NAH?
BTW the Accord in that article from the UK is our smaller Acura TSX and the ratings were in Imp Gal and were not CARB compliant. I'd expect the diesel Accord ( larger ) to hit about 35 mpg ( US Gal ) which is where the TCH is right now.
Compare and contrast this with Europe, which is fully 50% diesel and growing!! Japanese oems (in Europe) have had and continue to have tremendous challenges: first in establishing their brands in Europe. Once established, growing the market share. In addition, since they started offering (only)gassers to start, they either inadvertently or advertently dialed out the upwards of 50% (of the diesel) market, by NOT offering diesels. It is hard to imagine BMW, MB, VW are making vehicles that are much worse/better for the respective European/US markets and vice versa. The same would go for Japanese oems. If anything, Europeans should be pickier in that cars are almost exponentially more expensive. So for example, it would be a jaw dropper for a Japanese car US consumer to see how much (the same model) European Japanese car goes for in Europe! Indeed we have received feedback from European owners wishing they could pay US prices for their European cars (Japanese cars also for that matter)
So I think the real driver here is the system is really not that interested in REAL LESS consumption of oil. They are I would concede paying GREAT lip service. They are also working very HARD and steadily to increase (ultimately) the cost per mile driven.
This is also triangulated in the data, as world wide demand for oil continues to march north year over year, NOT south or is decreasing. Indeed a barrel of oil is today $87. per barrel. I read a survey that claimed in this day of wildly high oil prices the AVERAGE American driver yearly mileage has dropped 54 miles.... yes a full 54 miles in a year!!! 4.5 miles per month!!?? The yearly average is between 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year. Now that is between .0045 percent to .0036 percent. So if indeed it might be a goal to CUT 45% of imported oil, how long will that take? 100 to 125 years!!!????
What they didn't report is there are more cars and more drivers as the USA population is at it's highest 300 M plus! But that is moot given the sentence before this one, don't you think?
You're probably spot on in this statement because there are two separate forces at work here.
.. the quality of air or limited emissions group.
.. the quantity of petroleum products used group.
The ones concerned with 'greenness' and the quality of air are not that interested in limiting the quantity used so long as ensureing that the air is breathable.
The ones concerned with reducing our usage of petroleum products ( for national security, peace in the streets, freedom to move about as we wish ) are not so concerned with 'greenness'.
What they didn't report is there are more cars and more drivers as the USA population is at it's highest 300 M plus! But that is moot given the sentence before this one, don't you think?
From three recent studies published on this subject I see the greatest risk to our way of life is the fact that our usage which is 25% of the total worldwide usage is going to be put under pressure very very soon. Supply has its limits today, however our demand is not going to be constrained. In the near future our demand is going to be 30-60% higher than it is now due to more drivers, more vehicles and severe congestion.
Numbers: Of the 20.5 million bbl of oil we use daily 2/3 of that goes into transportation, about 14+ million bbls. In the near future we will need 20-22 million bpd of oil just for transportation and 7-9 million bpd for other uses. This extra supply is not available today.
First effect: I'd plan on fuel going to $5 or $7 or $10 a gallon. A $0.50 increase in fuel prices annually would put fuel at $7-$8 a gallon by 2017.
Second effect: The military and emergency services will get their share first.
Third effect: We will need new sources ASAP or we all will be required to drive less. The new sources should be biofuels but new developments in CA and MX will also be necessary.
Fourth effect: Everything we buy will be a lot more expensive due to higher fuel prices. In addition whole industries may dry up or go away. Boating comes to mind.
Gasser vs Diesel ( may require a free registration to read
quote:
I was sold on diesel when I saw the fuel-economy figures on the dashboard computer, registering 34 miles a gallon in city driving and 42 miles a gallon on the freeway. My car gets about 23 miles a gallon in town and 33 on the freeway.
The A4 diesel’s official numbers are even better: 30 in town and 52 on the freeway. That beats the 33 town-38 freeway mileage figures for Honda’s smallest car, the Fit.
Unquote:
I'd think that these would be similar for the Accord diesel as well. A combined EPA rating of about 38-40 under the new testing guidelines feels about right.
The $2500 upcharge also 'feels' about right for this new technology and it's a no brainer economically. If the vehicle is traded in a normal cycle then a good part of that upcharge will be recouped. Plus if the vehicle is kept 10+ years until it is essentially 'worthless' the lifetime fuel savings will far outstrip the initial extra cost.
When you take the cost of the standard engine that's not there and add that to the $2500 premium, that sounds incredibly overpriced.
Here is UK pricing and they are more willing to pay a large premium for diesel in the UK because fuel is much more expensive there than in the US.
Gas
http://www.autobytel.co.uk/NewCars/NewCarDetails.aspx?Car=34270
Diesel
http://www.autobytel.co.uk/NewCars/NewCarDetails.aspx?Car=37228
With the BPS @ .488 @ 17,177 L.
Actually the TDI experiences on the second 100,000 miles continues to be in the perfect storm.
1. MPG is consistently 40% better than like model gassers.
2. Fuel costs per mile driven continues to be a good percentage lower than like model gassers, even as one gasser model requires premium, premium is at par with diesel.
3. Insurance costs are cheaper.
4. Maintenance costs are cheaper.
5. The diesel is much more road able.
6. The power is more usable.
7. Low to high altitude operation has much less power and performance fall off than normal gasser
8. Fuel mileage fall off at altitude is less
9. Fuel availability has NEVER been at issue.
10. Edmuunds.com shows the diesel model to be up to 4,600 MORE (in resale value) than like gasser models.
11. It was better for the first and second years as it could have been sold for MORE USED than the NEW car price!!??
(exception would be disappointment for the folks who subscribe to the "Fast & Furious" set)
But the reason they have flatter power curve is that they have narrower torque curve. So, an engine’s operating range is limited. In other words, a diesel at 2000 rpm may have to do the work of a gasoline engine at 4000 rpm. In other words, this gasoline engine can afford to have half the torque of that diesel because it has twice as short gearing.
Another downside to diesel is that the engines are not as responsive. 2000 rpm in a diesel isn’t quite the same as 2000 rpm in a gasoline. Gearing, again, may play a role here as well. The reality of diesel engine lies with fuel economy, not performance. Despite improvements, NVH differences are noticeable too. Those are good reasons to help understand why even in diesel-favored markets like Europe, gasoline engines still rule even though ownership costs are much higher.
So for example US market, 2003 VW had diesel in two trim levels: GL,GLS, As I remember, a 6k difference. For me any ways, 6,000/$3. per gal @50 mpg, buys 100,000 miles of commute fuel!! If it is a choice between sunroof, leather seats etc and fuel... give me the fuel.
I am glad you agree with my past post on diesel gearing!
..."Another downside to diesel is that the engines are not as responsive. 2000 rpm in a diesel isn’t quite the same as 2000 rpm in a gasoline. Gearing, again, may play a role here as well. The reality of diesel engine lies with fuel economy, not performance. Despite improvements, NVH differences are noticeable too. Those are good reasons to help understand why even in diesel-favored markets like Europe, gasoline engines still rule even though ownership costs are much higher."...
I actually take the opposite view, it is an advantage! Indeed for USA roads much more adaptive than a high reving lower torque option.While car magazines have made sacred the 0-60 metric and mantra, for me it has little practical application. Diesel does 50mph-95 mph quite well. However I can see where folks used solely to (Honda) gassers would see this as a disadvantage. Indeed it might be one of the major issues that I mentioned in a past post, that might upset the Honda (gasser) faithful. To make this graphic, it is flog vs drive the torque scenario. Since I do both, it is more of a mental adjustment.
Secondly, most of my driving is "around town" and NOT on the highway which I believe is "best" for diesel engines. Would I be 'ruining" (causing the intakes to clog) my diesel if I do MOST of the driving in town. Please let me know, one way or the other, through email: kmil123@msn.com
Thanks for your time and attention!
First off, the intake clogging becomes a much more lower concern, in that ULSD is at 15 ppm down from LSD @ (as high as) 500 ppm. It is these sulfur by products recycled through the EGR and into the intake that caused the problem in the past. As you can see, sulfur ppm is decreased INXS of 97%!!
Second, the variable turbo vanes can get stuck if driven around town too much in low low RPMS or lug condition. So to keep the vanes running freely, basically it is making sure the revs go to 2,500 when cold and up to 3,000 when fully up to temp, i.e., slighly to moderately aggressively.
If one likes to cruise (highway) for max mpg, no issues in the 1600-2200 rpms range. SLOW but hey that is the price for max MPG!!
So lugging the iCTDI engine is NOT good. Conversely, "flogging" the iCTDI (like a VTEC, you fast and furious types know what I mean) is not good either.
(there is a longer technical answer that Robertmx would probably find more interesting, but I fear most are glazing over/falling asleep already)
It is clear that you have not seen my views on 0-60 tests that these automotive sources like Edmunds etc oversell. What I am talking about is something real. A diesel would do 50-95 mph well, but only if it has got good power to weight ratio over the operating range at which those speeds will happen. And that isn’t happening at 1800-2000 rpm.
What you’re calling “flog” is really engine at work. Just try keeping engine speed around 2000 rpm in a diesel and accelerate from 20-60 mph. Now try doing that in a gasoline engine with comparable power (but clearly less torque) keeping the revs around 5000-6000 rpm. If you understand gearing, do you not see a huge disadvantage diesel would have? Isn’t this something that necessitates 12-18 speed gearboxes in semis? How many shifts do they need to get up to 60 compared to a typical car that requires only one to get to 60 mph?
You can’t rely solely on torque to make a point on performance. It would suck to operate Prius (or an electric vehicle) that operates in 0-400 rpm range where ~300 lb-ft is on tap. But guess what, we would be talking a maximum of 22 HP. And we’re back to figuring out importance of power when it comes to performance.
BTW, even the gasoline powered Civic cruises at under 2200 rpm at 70 mph now. That too is a function of gearing.
No, you have not broached your views on the Honda diesel thread! So I would swag you agree with mine!
2950 #s vs 100,000 #s is not really a good comparison now is it? You should probably stick to the like model diesel/gasser Honda Accords in trying to make your point. The VW Jetta in the US market does have a 5 speed manual in both the gassers and diesel and NOT the 12-18 speed manual in the diesel, as you want to emphasize in your comparison.
Why would you want to deny that better/worse mpg IS a performance parameter? It does have dollar cost consequences! (good and bad as you can well imagine) Pretty simple question, using your example of 2200 rpm and ("cruising"- my sic @ )70 mph. Jetta gassers MIGHT get 30/31 mpg tops. Jetta TDI more like 59/62 mpg! Which would you chose and why would the one you didn't chose threaten you?
Don't want one? Chose the other, vice versa of course!! Each has their advantages, disadvantages, but you know that.
For my .02 cents when I go forward to get another Honda, all things being equal,I would chose a diesel model over gasser. If the 2004 Civic had the diesel option I would have gotten that and would be talking from Honda diesel experience rather than VW Jetta TDI experiences. Why would anyone satisfied with a Honda gasser find a diesel model option threatening!!??
Keep in mind passenger fleet diesels is NOT an untried concept, as fully 50% of the passenger vehicle fleet in Europe has been diesel and the percentage is GROWING!!. They also, as we have demonstrated, spend more for their diesel cars and diesel fuel than we do for our gassers. I would of course be remiss if I didnt say the price of RUG is at par with the price of #2 ULSD.
I’m not dismissing diesel. In fact, I suggested my GF to wait for diesels instead of selling her car that she did just a few weeks ago because she drives a lot. My argument is around debunking a few myths.
And that is why semis end up with 12-18 speed transmissions. They have several times the torque while weighing several times more, but they don't have the operating range and limited power. So, the idea is to operate near that peak power and over that narrow range, and to get up to speed, you shift several times to get up to speed, whereas in a car you might get away with one or none.
Put Civic Si gearing in Accord diesel, and drive it. You will have a lot of thrust in low gears due to impressive torque multiplication, but you will be shifting fast and going slow.
Don't ya just love a woman who can drive a diesel tractor trailer rig with 12 -18 speeds? :shades:
Allow me to answer it: You will be comfortably in fourth gear, just to get to 55 mph. This is why diesel engine can't use transmission ratios like high revving gasoline engines could. The difference translates to a different picture than peak torque numbers suggest.
Low rpm engine requires taller gearing, unless eternal shifting is desired.
So can diesels!!??. Indeed the European Jetta TDI comes with a 6 speed manual. As I have said before the US market Jetta TDI comes with a 5 speed. For some reason it seems to be an issue for you to "re invent the wheel."
The diesel Honda is not even on the market yet!?
WWW.TDICLUB.com deals a lot with issues you mention. I think topics like this are probably best left to web sites like that. I find Honda enthusiasts sites less than technical. It will probably be almost nonexistent for Honda diesels (for obvious reasons).
And remember, gearing is key to performance. You can only do so much with narrow torque curve.
The NY Times article that you quoted states "I was sold on diesel when I saw the fuel-economy figures on the dashboard computer, registering 34 miles a gallon in city driving and 42 miles a gallon on the freeway. My car gets about 23 miles a gallon in town and 33 on the freeway.
The A4 diesel’s official numbers are even better: 30 in town and 52 on the freeway. That beats the 33 town-38 freeway mileage figures for Honda’s smallest car, the Fit."
The reviewer obviously (at least he didn't write it) didn't allow for the differences in the UK's Imperial gallon and our US gallon. An Imperial gallon is approximately 20% larger than a US gallon. A UK mile is exactly equal to a US mile. The writer might be surprised at the actual numbers below since they are not as dramatically different.
Doing the UK to US conversions (rounded), per the dashboard computer:
A4 Diesel 34 mpg UK city = 28 mpg US, versus his 23 mpg town A4 gasser = +22%
A4 Diesel 42 mpg UK freeway = 35 mpg US, versus his 33 mpg freeway A4 gasser = +6%
Doing the UK to US conversions (rounded), per the "official numbers":
A4 Diesel: 30 mpg UK in town = 25 mpg US
A4 Diesel: 52 mpg UK on the freeway = 43 mpg US
With Diesel fuel costing about 20% more than regular gasoline in my area right now, and with the projected added cost of a Diesel engined Accord, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon just yet.
I find the torque curve of the diesel engine much wider than the gas engines. In 5th gear of the Passat TDI you have usable power from about 1300-3000 RPM, up hill. That is where the diesel makes the gasser look bad. On long up hill grades. I would not have guessed I would like the diesel as much as I do, until owning a couple. The Diesel Sprinter from Mercedes is unbelievable. Mine was the 2006 and it had plenty of power in the hills for the 8500lbs I was hauling around. It was a 5 cylinder with a tiptronic 5 speed. I would love to have that engine transmission in a 1/2 ton PU or my new Sequoia. I would be getting 30 MPG instead of 15 MPG with gas. You cannot really know until you drive one out on the open road just how much nicer they are than gas. You should take an E320 CDI out for a test drive to see for yourself. Or wait till Honda finally gets their act together.
link
That was why I mentioned that I'd expect the Accord to average in the high 30s to low 40s on a combined basis.
I would question why anyone would want one.
The price of diesel in my area is as high or higher than gasoline and it is much harder to find.
Yes, they get better mileage but I would think the additional pricing of the cars would eat that up?
I once had a diesel Peugeot. It smoked, it smelled and fueling it could be messy. I know, things have changed for the better. Still...WHY?
Just asking because I'm curious...
Past posts on this thread cover some of your curiosity, unless you are just hitting the reset button.