By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
"Handles well for a large car but stock tires hold it back. I am upgrading to high performance summer tires and dedicated winters." quoted from
http://autos.msn.com/research/userreviews/reviewlist.aspx?modelid=12207
Thanks.
Besides the higher initial cost, the really major turn off will the MASSIVE COST OF DIESEL FUEL!
Look at the cost of diesel fuel today then add a large price increase when the cost of refining the new ultra-low sulfur diesel appears at the pumps.
People are not going to want to pay an additional 50 cents or more per gallon for diesel fuel vs 87 octane unleaded.
Don't be so sure. People will pay a 20% increase in fuel per gallon, when their miles per gallon will go up 40%.
Since we don't know the mileage estimates, or the cost of diesel in 2009, we can't jump to conclusions so quickly.
They don't care about the price if they don't have to fund the terrorists.
I know ethanol can be grown as well, but mpg is terrible.
I do have one question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere: In the overhead console, just below the homelink buttons, there appears to be a small black jack next to what looks like a speaker or microphone. What is it, if you know?
Thanks.
The smart consumer buys diesel where the truckers buy diesel. huge turnover of fuel and the prices are generally cheaper then a buying diesel at a regular gas station. If there were good options in the midsize category and with my current commute, I would consider a diesel over a hybrid.
Um - it's been at the pumps for 3 months now.
The other thing is the Navigation system microphone.
$6K is way too expensive and even more expensive than a hybrid.
Bob Lutz says diesels are not worth the money.
Bob Lutz: Yes, with diesel there’s a 20 percent fuel economy improvement. There’s also a 20 percent increase in cost. And with the tough U.S. Bin 5 emissions requirements, it’s another 25 percent cost penalty, for an overall 45 percent cost increase for a 20 percent fuel improvement.
More of Bob Lutz's thoughts:
"The modern diesel is becoming more and more expensive as we have to have to gear up to meet Euro 5, which is very difficult.
"Then you have US Bin 5, which in terms of NOx emissions is five times tougher than Euro 5 and very difficult to meet - with a lot of control technology plus it will require an NOx reduction catalyst using urea which the US government hasn't quite approved yet.
"Assuming we can do all that, [for] a diesel hybrid you would be adding $US5-7,000 on-cost for the sophisticated hybrid system to the $5-7,000 on-cost for a Bin 5-compliant diesel. Now you've got a $12-14,000 cost penalty in the vehicle which the customer would simply never, ever [pay]."
Bob Lutz does not like the idea of diesel passenger cars in the US.
Rocky
Honda Accord: Lease Questions
Actually, there is a 30% increase in economy and the increase in cost is dependent on the model. For the mercedes e-class diesel, it is a $1k increase on a $50k car, so that is a 2% increase.
Maybe Bob was talking about GM vehicles only. Maybe they can only get a 20% increase in economy and it would cost them 20% more to do it ... but that is completely untrue of other manufacturers, as you can plainly see by looking at companies like Benz and VW.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
that would be what lutz was referring to, though, not jaxs1 since he was quoting ... but ok.
I'm not sure about that number. I'm pretty sure it is less than that in my area. Premium gas is a 20% increase and diesel is less than premium by me. But maybe in some areas.
hmmm... looking again ... are you SURE he meant the fuel cost? Because he mentions the extra cost of meeting Bin5 emissions standards. That would have nothing to do with fuel cost.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Just for general information purposes:
I just paid $2.04 a gallon to fill up my car, where Diesel at the same station was $2.40 = 18% extra over regular fuel.
I would think that the first oil from a new engine will be as bad as it gets, with alot of metal particles and blow by contaminants. What will be learned by analyzing that oil and not a sample from the 2nd or 3rd oil change once the engine had a chance to break in?
Thanks,
Mrbill
The engines are much better manufactured nowadays and that's why they no longer recommend you do any extra early oil changes on new cars like they used to in the olden days.
Not sure about Honda, but some manufactures use a special break-on oil when the car is built that you are absolutely not supposed to change earlier than recommended.
I guess the term "alot" is not the best to describe what will be in the oil. I would think that whatever is found as far as particulate will be at a higher level then would normally found in an engine with more miles.
I guess I'm from the old school since I ignored the warning to change the oil early in my 04 Accord, and did my first change at 1000 mi. Maybe I did something I'll regret later, but I also did early oil changes in my past cars and trucks and never had any problems. I usually keep vehicles to the 200k mark, and yet have had any oil related problems, so I get nervous trying something new like doing first oil changes at 5k miles or more on them.
Mrbill
I hear ya. I too always changed the oil early on my new cars until this Accord. I thought I would give Honda the benefit of the doubt this time. I can't wait for the report. Will post it here. It should show more metal particulate than a broken-in engine, but shouldn't by much per Honda.
Wadding this sucker up and having it get up on top of the accelerator is, in my opinion, the number one cause of this problem.
I think they were assuming the same thing I am. That you were pushing the accelerator at the same time you were pushing the brake pedal. We could both be wrong.
It kind of makes sense - you break, turn sharp, straighten out the wheel - the throttle is narrow, but the car is accelerating somewhat so the downshift follows.
With the two hooks that hold the Accord's driver's side mat in place, I doubt if that is the problem here though. I love those hooks, btw.
For all you new owners out there, you can now safely do your first oil change late!
************************************************************
Although we normally recommend a shorter interval for your first oil change, you can't go wrong following the oil life monitor that Honda has installed for you. This oil was somewhat abrasive withwear-in metals, but no damage has been done. Now that you've changed this oil out, you can expect to find lower wear metals (from new parts learning to work together) and silicon (from sand-casted parts) in the next sample. The TBN read 4.0, still active additive left. Those monitors seem to get more accurate as the engine ages. Try 6K again to monitor.
selected data:
TBN: 4.0
MOLY: 351 (universal average: 69)
Most of the other metals slightly above universal averages, with a few below averages;
Fuel: <0.5%
Wather: 0
Antifreeze:0
insolubles: 0.2%
SUS Viscosity at 210 F: 49.8 (should be 53-62)
Flash point: 360 (should be >355)
Can someone tell me how to post a picture, so I can post the entire table?
I believe it has to have a web address. The easiest way is to post the pic on your carspace page and link it from there.
For this oil change period I drove very gently for proper break-in, which is why the oil was only at 30% after 6K plus miles. I was pleasantly surprised at the high TBN number at 4.