2008 Honda Accord Coupe and Sedan

blufz1

Torque..Gassers..2.4/160@4000..3.0/211@5000..New 4 diesel.>250@2000..V6 diesel>325@2000. You can figure out the rest from here!

eldaino

awesome numbers! and as a friend of mine would say...nuff' said! :P

robertsmx

A picture is generally painted about modern diesels and their all rosy side. They indeed are relative fuel misers. Since you brought up a comparison between MB E320 Bluetec and E350, C&D has the numbers. The only area, in their opinion, that the diesel was better, was in fuel economy. It was slower in performance tests (despite of “feeling faster”). It wasn’t as responsive and felt heavier than the 136 lb weight difference would suggest. They got 34 mpg from it though with some city driving compared to 26 mpg in the gasoline E350 (given the numbers, I’m assuming most of the driving was highway), a difference of 8 mpg.

Getting back to Accord, we actually have a way to see performance difference, but not including V6 (since Honda doesn’t offer V6 in European market). The European Accord is offered with 2.0 (gasoline), 2.4 (gasoline) and 2.2 (diesel).

The diesel (138 HP) is comparable in performance to the 2.0 (155 HP) and considerably slower than the 2.4 (190 HP). I won’t even try to compare it to V6 for performance. Its strength, however, is in fuel economy.

Power band in diesel is relatively narrow, which reduces the operating range compared to gasoline engine. So, it should come as no surprise that they are always in that power band. But to be there requires close ratio gearing (implying more gear changes), and since the band is narrow, they also require taller gear ratio (reduces torque multiplication, effectively negating some effect of the extra torque we read and talk about in spec sheet).

On the other side, 138 HP from diesel can be seen as stronger than 155 HP from gasoline power. The diesel torque curve is narrower and declines quickly but is beefier, resulting in a flatter power curve. So, average power is higher than comparable gasoline engines (even with a little more peak power).

A factor to consider is that diesel engine adds to the weight. To compare, in UK, CR-V EX/2.2 diesel is 250 lb heavier than CR-V EX/2.0 gasoline (1699 kg compared to 1585 kg). So, it is impressive to see what diesel engines can do to improve fuel economy, but we can’t count them as equal when it comes to performance (acceleration and handling).

robertsmx

Engine torque means little without considering the gearing. You certainly don't want Acura TSX gearing that is designed for a 7200 rpm redline in Accord Diesel which goes to 4500 rpm. Otherwise, by the time you hit 37 mph, you would already be in fourth gear, perhaps sixth gear will be required to get up to freeway speeds. And that would be the reason why semis require something like an 18-speed gearbox. They need a lot of gears to be to 60 mph unlike most gasoline powered cars that can reach that speed in second gear.

Due to narrower power band, diesel engines require taller gearing. The bottom line is, do they generate the thrust at speeds same as higher powered gasoline motors? Thats where the need for HP comes in. A 138 HP diesel at 60 mph would be producing half the thrust of a 276 HP gasoline at that speed, even if the diesel were producing 2-3 times more torque.

qbrozen

A picture is generally painted about modern diesels and their all rosy side. They indeed are relative fuel misers. Since you brought up a comparison between MB E320 Bluetec and E350, C&D has the numbers. The only area, in their opinion, that the diesel was better, was in fuel economy. It was slower in performance tests (despite of “feeling faster”). It wasn’t as responsive and felt heavier than the 136 lb weight difference would suggest. They got 34 mpg from it though with some city driving compared to 26 mpg in the gasoline E350 (given the numbers, I’m assuming most of the driving was highway), a difference of 8 mpg.

*confused*
That is exactly what I said. 34 mpg is 30% better (acually almost 31%) than 26. And the gasser is a slightly better performer.

Think of it this way, if that diesel was a 3.5, like the gasser, I'm willing to bet it would OUTPERFORM the gasser and still get 20-25% better mileage. So a diesel that outperforms and gets better mileage is certainly a strong possibility from any manufacturer. The question is, will anyone do it? And, if so, who will be the first? And how about this? What if Benz put the diesel in the C-class? It would still not match the C350 for performance, but it would beat out the C300.

robertsmx

if that diesel was a 3.5, like the gasser, I'm willing to bet it would OUTPERFORM the gasser and still get 20-25% better mileage.

I don't know about that. Perhaps the fuel economy advantage will be 10-15%! And we end up with speculation.

The performance difference was substantial. C&D quoted 0-60 in 5.9s for E350 compared to 6.8s for the diesel. Both are plenty fast, but I won't call it "close". Their verdict didn't seem to favor the diesel powered version however (when comparing performance/handling aspects of gasoline). That is not unexpected. In the end, it is about priorities.

maxamillion1

My whole point was that Honda has NEVER did either. There has never been a really "Cosmetically" sporty Accord nor has there been an Accord that focuses more on performance per se over the traditional Accords. The Only real differences between the 06-07 EXV6 6spd models and other Accords were purely cosmetic which wasn't much o/s of rims and carbon fiber trim and the fact that it had a 6spd manual. Otherwise, it was just as bland as the other models.

Why can't we have the best of BOTH? And aggressive looking Accord with a subtle body kit similar to the current Mazda6 that also offers performance upgrades along the lines of the Civic Si.

The Civic Si is a good example of what I'd like to see Honda do with the Accord. It's probably just a dream but an Accord with higher performance levels, better handling and some of the cosmetic goodies of the Civic Si (Sans the tall spoiler) would like Nice imo.

robertsmx

I don't want Honda to follow a show but no additional go logic. I know several automakers are guilty of that, but to me, it would be better to offer a real performance model to justify cosmetic frills. Honda does that with Civic Si. I do wish for a trim like that in Accord lineup. But that ain't happening... Acura has TSX.

If we're talking about cosmetics that are meant to suggest performance enhancement (as opposed to purely looks as in, say brushed aluminum trims as opposed to wood etc), then the vehicle better back up that look with performance. I don't want to see Honda offer Accord LX/AT with HFP like ground effects and trunk lid spoiler being delivered from the factory.

texases

They may have boxed themselves in with the TL - not much room for a hi-po, more $$ Accord at less-than TL prices.

lweiss

I would consider a diesel version of the Honda Accord, but have a few questions:

- Diesel fuel around where I live is still about 15 cents per gallon higher than regular gasoline, negating some of the economy gains. And at some points, it was 30 cents per gallon higher. Wonder what the long term price will be of diesel fuel vs gasoline, especially the new low sulfur diesel
- Maintenance- after the warranty is over (I keep cars a long time!), I would have to find a diesel mechanic because I doubt if my local car repair place is set up for that= more costly maintenance?
- Smell- maybe my schnozzle is extra sensitive, but I can smell a diesel car nearby easily- will they be really odorless or almost so?
- Noise- OK, maybe my ears are sensitive too, but I hear Mercedes diesels and for my money, I want a quiet car- will they be?
- Cold weather performance- old diesels had glowplugs for starting- will the new ones be improved in that area?
- Pricing differential- if it is similar to the hybrid price differential, forget it!

qbrozen

that's the biggest difference I've seen by far. Most tests I've read quote a difference of a half second or less. Mercedes original estimate was just .1 sec difference. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=117714

but we are kind of off topic ... although I think we know how we got here.

robertsmx

- Diesel is indeed more expensive than regular grade in my area as well, but the way gasoline prices have fluctuated, sometimes it does go up. That said, I was thinking about whether a proliferation of diesels in the USA would also result in increase of price for diesel fuel (have noticed diesel prices go up around winter, when apparently the demand is higher). But the higher price can be offsetted easily by increased fuel economy.
- With more vehicles on the road, that shouldn't be an issue in the longer term.
- Yes, that is a big one for me. I hate to have any diesel powered vehicle (new or old) around me. In fact, just this morning a 4-5 year old Jetta TDI in front of my car forced me to issue a "climate control recirculate" command to my TL.
- Diesels have gotten quieter, but they aren't on par with gasoline counterparts (largely also due to their inherent design limitations).
- See above. They aren't as quiet, but are quieter now than they ever have been. But it is not quietness that bothers me. I like to hear the engine on occasions and diesels have yet to demonstrate a pleasing note.
- Probably a non-issue with newer designs.
- There is a price penalty. I would guess it to be about $1000-$1500... less than gasoline-hybrids in the market today. There is a weight penalty too (as I mentioned, CR-V EX in UK with gasoline power is 250 lb lighter than the same trim/features with diesel power). The added weight reduces some of the impact of torque, but then if the priority is saving $$$ on fuel (albeit not forgetting the initial premium), then they still get the job done.

bristol2

All great questions and I don't know all the answers but here's what I do know...

- Diesel fuel around where I live is still about 15 cents per gallon higher than regular gasoline, negating some of the economy gains. And at some points, it was 30 cents per gallon higher. Wonder what the long term price will be of diesel fuel vs gasoline, especially the new low sulfur diesel
You are in an unusually high-cost diesel area. As gas has gone up, in most areas diesel has not. That obviously does not help you with a decision but think of it this way, if gas is $3 and diesel is $3.15 that is a difference of only 3.75%. Diesel tends to get 30% better mileage.

Maintenance- after the warranty is over (I keep cars a long time!), I would have to find a diesel mechanic because I doubt if my local car repair place is set up for that= more costly maintenance?
One of the benefits of diesel is lower repair frequency = lower repair costs. Oil changes are more expensive (more oil) but less frequent than gas. You always could choose an extended warranty but I think it will be more cost effective to google a diesel mechanic in 2012 when the car is out of warranty.

Smell- maybe my schnozzle is extra sensitive, but I can smell a diesel car nearby easily- will they be really odorless or almost so?
The flip answer is that you are in the car so why care. The good answer is that the smell is mostly sulphur. Since that is what has been taken out with ULSD, the smell goes with it. Alternatively if you find yourself an eco-warrior with some bio-diesel, you may just smell like french fries!

Noise- OK, maybe my ears are sensitive too, but I hear Mercedes diesels and for my money, I want a quiet car- will they be?
Honda's diesel (and Audi, BMW & MB) pre-inject some fuel before combustion. This prevents the diesel rattle that is the sound of the piston slapping as the main fuel combusts. The engine will still have a deeper note but will not have the diesel rattle of previous engines.

Cold weather performance- old diesels had glow plugs for starting- will the new ones be improved in that area?
This has been out of date as a problem for a while. The glow-plugs are pre-warmed during ignition now. For instance in a diesel Ford truck, you wait until a little plug icon goes out on the dash (5 secs or less) before cranking the engine.
For diesel fuel to gel you need 2 things- ultra low temperatures and no winter additives. Even if you get the ultra-low temps (don't think VA is in much danger!), diesel fuel has winter additives that prevent gelling.

Pricing differential- if it is similar to the hybrid price differential, forget it!
I'm with you on that! One of the great diesel scams in this country is that there should really be no premium for diesel, there are fewer moving parts and the engines are simpler. On the flip side they are heavier built (to handle the compression) and now to get the 50-state legal all the manufacturers have been adding complexity to the emissions controls.
It is the emissions controls and the design cost to make them that may up the cost.
Also Honda has developed a proprietary aluminum process to machine the diesel engine blocks so we will be paying for that also. The only thing I'd add is that Honda's hold their value better than most cars out there and diesels hold their value better than gas engines- conclusion should be that your 'investment' won't depreciate fast and your residual value (even after your long ownership) will still be good.

Hope that helps.

bristol2

This is kind of a funny site with info about the design of the Honda diesel:
http://paultan.org/archives/2005/05/22/honda-diesel-engine-advertisement/

kiawah

Larry,

I've had 2 diesels in my lifetime, a Mercedes which I had for 15 years (and should never had sold it), and a VW Golf which ended up getting hit and totaled. Both were fantastic vehicles. Every new purchase I make I revisit what new diesels are currently available at that time, and would purchase another in a heartbeat.

I would not expect to pay more for a mechanic, they're actually quite easy to work on. It would be easier for a gas knowledgeable tech work on a diesel, than it would be for him to work on a hybrid electric.

Cold weather, yes they have glow plugs in the really cold, but so what...that adds like 7 seconds to the initial start up time (flip the key to the on position, wait for the glow plug light to go out, hit the starter).

Those engines would run and run and run, could cruise all day long with ease.

Only thing that I found important is to have really good habits with changing oil.

As to the cost of diesel vs. gas, that is a supply and demand effect. Diesel is actually easier to refine than gas, and inherently ought to be cheaper if more and more vehicles were diesel.

Keep your mind open..

stevecebu

A factor to consider is that diesel engine adds to the weight. To compare, in UK, CR-V EX/2.2 diesel is 250 lb heavier than CR-V EX/2.0 gasoline (1699 kg compared to 1585 kg). So, it is impressive to see what diesel engines can do to improve fuel economy, but we can’t count them as equal when it comes to performance (acceleration and handling).

I'm a big diesel fan and drive a Hi-Lux and when I get back to the US no chance at buying any diesels for a while.
But What you say is accurate. If you compare diesels to Gas and you start boosting up the HP. Gas is the way to go if you want high performance fast 0-60 times and all that. Handling you can get because that's different.
The beauty of diesel is that for most of us it feels powerful and it goes great up to and above legal speed limits and it gets great economy doing so. But if you want Porsche performance or any high end performance car diesel until you get into true race cars are not the way to go.
Diesel pulls all the way through it's powerband so yes it FEELS faster than it is which for me is great! I can get all the power I want where I need and use it and I will cruise between 65 and 85mph on US highways depending on traffic. If everyone is going 80 I'm not going to go 65mph!
So for me it' great but for guys who want to race around or drag the car on the weekends or whatever, a diesel is generally a poor choice. But for everyday driving it's wonderful. I drive one everyday and I love it.
But you won't see the next Corvette/Porsche/Ferrari with a diesel. But Honda can't bring out the Accord diesel fast enough for me!

robertsmx

Diesel pulls all the way through it's powerband so yes it FEELS faster than it is which for me is great!

Not for the person right behind you in the left lane. :P

bmw335xi

Now that I just saw the new look on Inside Line I like it.
The styling is a lot better then the last years. Its a lot
meaner with I like. I hope the engine is good but knowing Honda it will be just fine. I hope it will be up in the 270
range. It will go faster then the Camry and look better. Now I do not have anything agents the Camry but it s just to bland in the styling department. But that works with Toyota so Honda will be intestering. I can't wait to it comes out!! :P

stevecebu

Diesel pulls all the way through it's powerband so yes it FEELS faster than it is which for me is great!

Not for the person right behind you in the left lane

Trust me if I am in the far left lane you won't be passing me unless you are really moving. I usually stick with the middle lane unless I am in a hurry. Which is most of the time.
I think an Accord diesel is going to have no problem going as fast as I need in the far left lane. Most of the times it's safer passing cars than to being passed.
I'll wager the new Accord diesel will do 120mph or so with no drama but economy will suffer. In some areas tho the traffic flow is 90+! Not a problem for me. I just want good economy at any speed.

dolfan1

All this does make great sense. The main reason I wanted a 6cyl was for passing power. I can see where the diesel makes a great deal of sense for everyday driving. Sure, the 6 may do 140 mph, but how many times are you going to do that? I've been driving for over 30 yrs and have never done close to that (though I do cruise @ 80 on the interstate).

It's a 20 year old memory, but I test drove a Camry turbo diesel and it seems that puppy had serious get up and go from the line. But I'm still a bit confused here, is the upcoming Accord going to have a turbo or not?

robertsmx

Turbo is unlikely, unless it is diesel.

If you're happy with "about average" get and go, then you would be ok with diesel. Don't expect it to deliver anything close to V6 acceleration though. The torque is there, power isn't. In fact, it is likely to be slower than I-4 as well unless we get an uprated engine.

jaxs1

Why say what will be faster than what when neither the car or even the specs are here?
Of course the V6 will be the fastest of why even offer it? If the V6 wasn't going to be fastest, they might as well just discontinue it as soon as the diesel comes out.
If you want the fastest, then just buy the V6.

robertsmx

Why say what will be faster than what when neither the car or even the specs are here?

Because that was the question. And the specs used to compare acceleration were from European market Accord (available with 2.0 and 2.4 liter gasoline, and 2.2 liter diesel).

blufz1

Most people won't care which is fastest when fuel hits $5 a gallon.

biker4

- Noise- OK, maybe my ears are sensitive too, but I hear Mercedes diesels and for my money, I want a quiet car- will they be?

This is very subjective - there are people that don't like the new Lexus IS cause they can't put up with the injector noise. :confuse:

You'll have to wait and hear one in person to decide. You could go to an MB dealer and listen to the E320CDi.

biker4

Sure they will - in all European reviews the top speed of the car is always one of the specs (because people care). Of course that has less meaning in today's world of nanny aids limiting speed.

maddog11

The topic of this thread is the 2008 Accord Sedan and Coupe but now it seems it's the Accord diesel, which is probably due in 2009. I don't get it. To me the best thing about Hondas is the free spinning, high reving engines which give the cars their character. Put in a diesel, which will have a low redline, you are going to have a car that does not seem like a Honda at all. One of the writers at the Temple of VTEC website stated he didn't think most Honda owners would be so thrilled with a diesel Honda once they drove one and I agree.

from_fl

The injector noise is due to Direct Injection.

from_fl

Accord goes diesel because it's hybird can't compete with Camry's version.

biker4

Yes, I know that - my point was that any kind of noise might be objectionable to anyone - regardless of how meanigless it might be to the majority.

biker4

Honda owners might want a free spinning, high revving engine but many also buy it for fuel efficiency - for those folks a car that can get 50mpg will be very compelling - regardless of what's under the hood.

thegraduate

Certainly. I know people like my grandmother didn't buy her 2002 Accord for its engine that is silky smooth up to its 6300 RPM redline. She bought it for its room, value, and economy for the price. I'd bet money that she's never had the car above 4,000 RPM (she's a right lane maven who drives the speed limit and nothing more). SO, when I drive it, I don't hesitate to wind it up! It has nearly 90k miles on it, and is so smooth and vibration free I just love it! (it's the 2.3L 150 hp version).

bristol2

I don't think there is any single dominant reason people buy Accords. A more durable, less consumptive vehicle seems like great Honda dna.

robertsmx

True. But don't expect Accord diesel to be able to deliver 50 mpg. A lot of people assume so because Accord diesel in UK is rated 52 mpg in rural cycle which, in the first place, is using imperial gallons (20% higher than it would be in standard gallons) and the UK ratings are "easier" than EPA ratings (which itself has gone down from controversial to ridiculous system). Mid-30s in mixed driving is more likely. A substantial upgrade from ~27 mpg I get from Accords I-4 in mixed driving (without trying).

And if speed weren't an issue, so far this month I am at 29 mpg (50-50 driving) in my TL with about 300 miles on the odometer, while EPA's new rating tells me I should expect 21 mpg. And I'm not taking extreme measures to do it. Just being gentle with the gas pedal, avoid braking and try to keep speed between 40 and 65 mph (an occasional 70 mph). A little help from fellow drivers helps or takes away the mileage too, as I discovered couple of days ago. Thanks to some people who refuse to take the foot off brake or cut people off and cause a traffic mess, my mileage actually came down an mpg (it was at 30 mpg).

And this I'm getting with an engine that is ultra-quiet when it needs to be, and sings pleasantly when I ask it to.

I actually managed 35+ mpg in TSX (loaner) over 100+ miles in city/highway mix, although it dipped down to 32.3 mpg (indicated) when I returned it, thanks to a traffic issue.

Besides, $5/gallon or more hasn't killed high powered gasoline cars in Europe, or even Japan.

thegraduate

That's what magazine testers have been saying for years. Honda Accords don't necessarily have one magic bullet, but they do nearly everything better than average.

I tend to agree, except that the fuel economy I get in my '06 4-cylinder is just about unmatched by other vehicles in the class.

stevecebu

All this does make great sense. The main reason I wanted a 6cyl was for passing power. I can see where the diesel makes a great deal of sense for everyday driving. Sure, the 6 may do 140 mph, but how many times are you going to do that? I've been driving for over 30 yrs and have never done close to that (though I do cruise 80 on the interstate).

A diesel will trundle along on the Autobahn in Germany at 100mph all day without a whimper. That's what diesels excel at and get great economy doing it.
If you want big speed and fast 0-60mph then a gas engine is the way to go.
In most places even 80mph will get you a ticket depending on the State. I set myself for 5mph over and turn on the Valentine One just in case.
The days of driving for pure fun are almost gone and offroad is great if you can find a place to go, but in general most of us drive under 100mph most of the time and twisty roads while fun usually have cops sitting in the sweet spots just waiting for you.
For me The accord diesel will do what I want it's a shame they are bringing them out so late in 2008.

autoboy16

i wonder if you would be able to make 50+mpg in a diesel accord...

-Cj

stevecebu

The topic of this thread is the 2008 Accord Sedan and Coupe but now it seems it's the Accord diesel, which is probably due in 2009. I don't get it. To me the best thing about Hondas is the free spinning, high reving engines which give the cars their character. Put in a diesel, which will have a low redline, you are going to have a car that does not seem like a Honda at all. One of the writers at the Temple of VTEC website stated he didn't think most Honda owners would be so thrilled with a diesel Honda once they drove one and I agree.

Well not everyone wants an 8,500 rev limit. I'm happy with down low torque and in the city this matters as does moving passengers around. I don't suppose that it matters to you that the guy who designed the VTEC engine also designed the new diesel.
Not everyone wants the same thing and Honda is offering a choice to it's customers it's one engine and you can still get the I4 or a V6. But neither will get 50mpg!
I think Honda will sell a LOT of diesels and as time moves on and the V6 diesel comes out things will change and fast.
You being in the US means you can only drive a very old diesel or a VW diesel. I drive a Toyota diesel everyday and love it and my economy is great considering I don't even bother trying to be economical with it. My friend who owns a CR-V does nothing but complain about his mileage or rather lack thereof!
Buy whatever you like but let us have our diesels.

stevecebu

True. But don't expect Accord diesel to be able to deliver 50 mpg. A lot of people assume so because Accord diesel in UK is rated 52 mpg in rural cycle which, in the first place, is using imperial gallons (20% higher than it would be in standard gallons)

Oh you can expect that you will get 50+mpg in the real world in highway driving in a diesel with no problem!
Rural driving in the UK is a lot different. I drove up in Scotland and it's very beautiful but hardly like US Superhighways which are mostly very long and fairly straight and flat.
Litres are so much easier because we don't have to guess what size a litre is.
Oh and for reference 1 US Gallon = 3.79 litres
I UK Gallon = 4.55 Litres

I fully expect an accord diesel to give an easy 50mpg on highway driving and even better if you drive slower. Diesels only use fuel to accelerate. Much simpler than gas.
So not a huge difference. When I convert in my head I use 3.8 and 4.5 it's much easier and close enough for my usage. So .76 litre difference between the two.

robertsmx

Diesels offer great fuel economy to go with acceptable performance, but let us stop there. And while we’re dreaming about getting a 50+ mpg Accord Diesel based on the fact that Accord Diesel in UK is rated to get 52.3 mpg, let us put things into perspective. Here is data from AutoCar (UK) road test of Accord and CR-V with diesel engines. I have converted all mileage numbers to reflect standard gallons (i.e. divided by 1.2 since imperial gallon is 20% larger than the standard gallon we use in the USA).

Honda CR-V 2.2-liter I-4 i-CTDi
Government Ratings: 29.0 mpg (Combined) / 36.2 mpg (Extra Urban)
Observed Ratings: 24.3 mpg (overall) / 32.7 mpg (Best) / 10.6 mpg (Worst)

Honda Accord 2.2-liter I-4 i-CTDi
Government Ratings: 35.2 mpg (Combined) / 43.6 mpg (Extra Urban)
Observed Ratings: 34.2 mpg (overall) / 42.5 mpg (Best) / 15.2 mpg (Worst)

Accord’s observed fuel economy was fairly close to combined and extra urban ratings but not so much for CR-V and neither got even close to 50 mpg.

Given that an Accord I-4 (gasoline) can be expected to deliver 27-28 mpg in mixed driving, one can expect Accord Diesel to get around 35 mpg unless Honda revolutionizes the diesel engine and its efficiency (again).

jet10000

Oh you can expect that you will get 50+mpg in the real world in highway driving in a diesel with no problem!

First of all, this is America, not Europe. For those of you who are using Honda's European diesel vehicles as a predictor of what will be sold in America, you may be in for quite a surprise.

This article was just published on cnn.com with quotes from GM's Vice-Chairman saying that diesels produced for the U.S. will have shortcomings.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/13/autos/lutz_on_diesel/index.htm?postversion=2007071315

For those who don't have time to read the article or watch his video, here are some of his points:

"The popular notion Lutz is trying to refute is that diesels, already popular in Europe, offer the fuel economy benefits of gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles but without all the added cost and complexity of gasoline/electric hybrid technology.

The problem, according to Lutz, is that making diesel engines work for the American passenger vehicle market, which is very different from Europe's, will require adding technology. That means adding complexity and cost, just like hybrids.

What's worse, along with adding cost and complexity, is that these technologies will also reduce a diesel vehicle's fuel economy, taking away the very reason for turning to diesel in the first place, said Lutz.

The basic problem, according to Lutz, has to do with increasingly tough vehicle emissions standards in the United States. In most of the United States, these standards are already much more stringent than in Europe and they're getting tougher. "

"That technology will add cost, said Lutz, as much as $2,800 per vehicle. Diesels already cost more than gasoline-powered vehicles because the engines themselves, built tough to withstand the high compression diesel relies on, are more expensive to begin with. Lutz put the current cost premium of a diesel engine at about $2,000."

"Are buyers of smaller cars actually going to pay a $4,000 to $5,000 premium to get a diesel engine, when the tougher the emissions [standards] you have to meet, the more the fuel efficiency savings[compared to a gasoline engine] shrinks?" Lutz says in the video.

As more emissions control technology is added, the fuel efficiency savings of diesel engines could be cut to as little as 12 to 15 percent over gasoline engines, Lutz estimated. And that's compared to current gasoline engines, not taking into account technologies now being investigated that could make gasoline engines about as efficient as diesels. "

So for those who are all excited about the promises of a 50mpg Accord, I'd wait till it comes out to believe that.

Furthermore, it's funny how people on this board have been issuing warnings about buying the 2008 Accord gasser too soon before the bugs get worked out. But I'd say there's a better chance that the 2008 has far fewer problems than a 2009 diesel with new emission technology that has never been used on widespread basis.

There are multiple things that could go wrong with the 2009 and I'm not willing to spend a $4,800 premium to be one of the guinea pigs.

Honda has already stated that the 2008 will have improved gas mileage and power. That's good enough for me. I'll review the diesel options when I'm ready to trade-in the 2008.

robertsmx

Even though I'm not a huge proponent of diesel engines although I do appreciate their ability to deliver excellent fuel economy, I think Lutz has lost his mind if he really said all that he did in that article.

What has he been drinking telling that diesel engines will add a $4K+ in premium on small cars? Even $2.8k he quotes is way too much. I expect it to be around $1.5K (or less). Even Mercedes E320 Bluetec carries a premium of only $1K over E350 (although, I'm assuming that both vehicles are identically equipped).

elroy5

I think Lutz is under-estimating what Honda can do. Of course, GM has been under-estimating Honda (and others) for a long time. Why should he(Lutz) be any different from all the other GM guys before him?

robertsmx

Thats actually how the problems start for the big-3. They believe in lagging behind then try to play catch up. But thats a topic for another interesting thread in progress (under news and views).

bristol2

What Lutz meant to say was "American diesels...emissions...blah..blah..complicated...blah...blah...can't figure it out...blah..blah...wish we could design engines like the guys at Honda...blah...blah" ad infinitum.

His genius answer is ethanol. Go Bob, Go. :sick:

blufz1

I think Lutz knows that Americans won't trust GM to make a good quality diesel. I think they,probably correctly,know they can't sell one....again.

jchan2

when Bob said that urea would be required to meet the 50 states diesel, because I remember reading somewhere that Honda had designed a 50 states diesel engine without using urea.

stevecebu

Given that an Accord I-4 (gasoline) can be expected to deliver 27-28 mpg in mixed driving, one can expect Accord Diesel to get around 35 mpg unless Honda revolutionizes the diesel engine and its efficiency (again).

Convert it to litres and then do the math again.
1 UK gallon is 4.55 litres and 1 US Gallon is 3.79 litres
http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/conversions.html
I included the link as proof.
Since I drive a diesel everyday I know what I m talking about and it gets far better than that. The accord will really impress as my truck is only 102HP/200TQ
But amazing economy and that's in traffic all the time. I doubt I use the highway more than once a month at most and that's only for 30km total! I still get 11-12km/L The biodiesel is really great stuff. My economy would be better if i didn't sit idling for 40 minutes here and there with the A/C on all the time while my wife runs errands and such.
The accord will easily get better than 35mpg and I'll bet money on it unless they detune it for the US on purpose.
A Civic gasser is rated at almost 35mpg. The Accord diesel will obliterate a gasser in fuel economy, get used to it.

Bob (I love Ethanol and invested GM's future in it) Lutz of course does not like diesels. Amazing how he is either clueless or lies better than a politician.
Too much money into ethanol. But he wants people to buy Gas cars anyway. Look at his track record lower and lower economy every year!

wytman

Just felt compelled to point out, 4.55/3.79=1.2 - the math was completely correct.

Your truck in the US units converts from 11-12 km/liter to about 28.2mpg. Typical 4cyl gasoline trucks in the US get around 22mpg or so combined. This type of mileage ratio is typical.

google lets you convert any unit to another right from their search bar. Real useful. Try it - hit google.com, and type in the search bar something like "20km/l in mpg"

stevecebu

Your truck in the US units converts from 11-12 km/liter to about 28.2mpg. Typical 4cyl gasoline trucks in the US get around 22mpg or so combined. This type of mileage ratio is typical.

Yes I'm sure you can get a 4 door Tacoma to get that kind of economy in heavy traffic all day long. I've never seen one that will do it tho. Remember i don't drive for economy. If you come here and drive you will see why. This country is completely screwed up to drive in.
So bring whatever gas model you want here, we'll fill up the same amount Litres of fuel and see if you can beat the diesel if we both drive for economy. Won't happen. You are too used to US roads. Economy here is stop and go traffic with no highways at all. The best you'll get at night is like a US city in the daytime.
I don't use the Google toolbar, no spyware for me thanks.
I think you have very little knowledge of new diesels. Your math was correct, it's just that many Americans convert it to 5.3 litres.
So ok you buy a gas model I will buy a diesel and we will both be happy, yes?