backtop


Print 147 comment(s) - last by ahodge.. on Jun 7 at 5:49 PM


Honda's 2.2-liter i-CTDi diesel engine

Reaction mechanism for the NOx catalytic converter
The next-generation U.S. market Accord will ditch its hybrid powertrain for a clean diesel

When it comes to building ultra-efficient cars for the U.S. auto market, most manufacturers are going in one of two directions. You have some that go the compact route with small 4-cylinder engines and those who choose hybrid technology which can be found in compact and mid-sized sedans.

A third alternative, diesel, has floundered for the past two decades in U.S. passenger cars. Volkswagen -- which in the past offered diesel versions of its Passat, New Beetle, Golf and Jetta in the U.S. -- has no diesel passenger cars for the 2007 model year due to tighter emissions regulations. In fact, the only new car available with a diesel engine in the United States is the Mercedes E320 BlueTec -- but that vehicle starts at a heart-stopping $51,550 USD.

Honda looks to change things, however, with its next generation Accord family sedan. Honda's Accord has been one of the best selling cars in the U.S. for the past 20 years. The Accord nameplate has been built around a reputation for excellent resale value, great build quality, top-notch reliability, and respectable fuel economy.

Honda first tried to further improve the Accord’s image for "greenness" and fuel economy with the Accord Hybrid. That vehicle used a 253HP 3.0 liter V6 engine paired with Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid system. Honda promised performance greater than that of a normal V6-powered Accord but with fuel economy closer to that of a 4-cylinder Accord. Honda's mileage claims never quite panned out with buyers of the vehicles and sales of the hybrid never really took off.

Honda sold just 439 of its mid-sized Accord Hybrids in May 2007 (hybrids represented roughly 1.4 percent of all Accord sales). In comparison, Toyota’s Prius (also classified as a mid-sized vehicle) and Camry Hybrid racked up sales of 24,009 units and 6,853 units respectively for May 2007.

This time around, however, Honda will use diesel power instead of hybrid technology for its Accord, which has been redesigned for the 2008 model year. According to the Japanese Nikkei newspaper, the new Accord will have the option of a new Tier 2 Bin 5 diesel engine for the 2009 model year. Honda showcased the engine back in September 2006 and promised that it be used in U.S. passenger cars within three years. Honda's 2.2-liter i-CTDi uses a revolutionary catalytic converter filled with ammonia to "detoxify" NOx produced by the engine and convert it to nitrogen.

Honda isn’t the only manufacturer working on Tier 2 Bin 5 diesel engines for the U.S. car market. Volkswagen will come off its 2007 diesel slump with a new TDI engine in 2008 and even performance-oriented Nissan is looking to get into the diesel game in 2010 with its Maxima.

Honda’s position in the American auto market, however, makes its introduction of diesel passenger sedans a huge turning point for diesel in America and could go a long way to changing American opinion on diesel-powered cars.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

BioDiesel...
By daftrok on 6/4/2007 12:18:06 AM , Rating: 3
Diesel has finally reached the point in where it surpasses standard fuel in all categories. Before, the only real reason why all cars are not diesel powered is because of its nitrous oxide and sulfur emissions. With the introduction of Blutec (that cuts down the amount of nitrous oxide by converting it into other environmentally inert materials) and BioDiesel, there is no other reason not to make the change. Its homegrown, its more powerful, its more efficient, and now its more environmentally friendly. Booya.




RE: BioDiesel...
By ksherman on 6/4/2007 12:21:56 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah I have been very impressed by the advnacements that diesel is making. I really want my next car to be a deisel.


RE: BioDiesel...
By KaiserCSS on 6/4/2007 12:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
Considering that diesel is about $.80 less than gas here in mid-California, yeah, I'd like my next vehicle to be clean diesel as well.


RE: BioDiesel...
By lobadobadingdong on 6/4/2007 8:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
Must be nice, diesel is usually between 10-30cents more expensive than 87 octane in Texas.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Spivonious on 6/4/2007 9:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
Here in PA diesel runs about $2.87 and unleaded runs about $2.99. Until last month's gas price rise diesel was always more expensive.


RE: BioDiesel...
By heffeque on 6/4/2007 10:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel engines have been top engines in Europe for years. Most cars sold in Europe are diesel and even some expensive sports cars have diesel engines. Not the idea America has of diesel engines, is it. It's good to see that gas is getting expensive in the states too, that way people start looking at better engines instead of bigger cars. Ecologically it's better to have expensive gas prices :-)


RE: BioDiesel...
By kilkennycat on 6/4/2007 11:06:11 AM , Rating: 3
Hmm....

I was in Ireland 4 weeks ago for a couple of weeks and deliberately did my own personal analysis of diesel vs gasoline cars as I travelled around. Roughly 10% are diesel. The biggest numerical proportion of cars in Ireland are gasoline WITH ENGINE CAPACITIES of LESS THAN 2 LITRES.... and fuel consumptions greater than 30 miles per US gallon (37 per Imperial gallon). The annual car tax in most countries in Europe is based on an engine capacity formula with steeply rising financial penalties (er, ownership disincentives) on cars with engines greater than 2 litres. Fuel conservation by this type of graduated annual taxation on motor vehicles has been the norm in all European counties for over half a century... remember that Europe had ZERO oil reserves until North Sea oil was discovered.

I drove a VW Golf when I was in Ireland ... 1.4 litre gasoline engine. Got ~ 45 miles per Imperial gallon. Excellent performance for a small car, btw. Hybrids are virtually non-existent in Ireland, even though it is now the wealthiest per-capita country in Europe. There are a noticeable number of SUVs in Ireland. However, some changes in the car taxation rules next year will make the ownership cost of a SUV highly prohibitive. As in England, where the SUV is now colloquially known as the "Chelsea tractor" (due to the number of people in that wealthy area of London who own one) the SUV is now viewed as an anti-conservation and anti-social vehicle, especially in dense urban traffic conditions and on the typically narrow roads in England (and Ireland) where the aggressive behavior of some SUV owners is potentially dangerous.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Amiga500 on 6/4/2007 11:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'd reckon alot more than 10% of the cars around here are diesel mate, probably around 20-30%. Of the 5 cars in our family, 3 are diesel. Thinking of the neighbours, all diesel... apart from 1 Nissan Micra.

I remember reading that nearly 50% of sales were diesel recently, but of course, there is still catching up to do with petrol cars that are still in circulation.


RE: BioDiesel...
By techhappy on 6/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: BioDiesel...
By ahodge on 6/4/2007 3:16:19 PM , Rating: 4
It's "Who Killed the Electric Car?".
Biodiesel is a very realistic viable way for the US to decrease it's reliance on foreign oil. Biodiesel burns much cleaner than diesel. Most diesel cars have a cruising range of ~500+ miles...How many electric cars can claim the same? Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a full electric. They're fast and emission free (if your power company offers clean renewable power). It's just that clean diesel technology is easy, cheap and can be renewable with the use of biodiesel. Sounds good to me.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Crassus on 6/4/2007 8:06:32 PM , Rating: 1
I owned a VW TDI Station Wagon for two years in Europe (before I went to the US). I ran it on biodiesel only. It works great when it works, but I should note that of all manufacturers only Volkswagen actually approves its engines for biodiesel use, and Bosch, who manufactures their fuel injection system, still doesn't. Some people apparently paid a lot of money for new fuel pumps after their's failed due to the more corrosive nature of biodiesel. I should also note that there doesn't seem to be a finalized standard as to the makeup of the fuel yet and that it's very sensitive to cold temperatures (transforming it to biodiesel gel :c)
As for regular diesel - this is the same stuff as heating oil, at least in Europe. Watch what the diesel price at the pump does when the demand for heating oil takes off in fall/winter.


RE: BioDiesel...
By ahodge on 6/7/2007 5:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
Biodiesel is not corrosive. It's a solvent and acts like a detergent in your fuel system. The fuel pumps wouldn't be failing from getting a nice cleaning. They'd fail from bad home made biodiesel or from biodiesel that got too cold and gelled causing the pump to run dry. Biodiesel is absolutely safe and actually better for your pump than regular diesel because of it's very high lubricity. You just have to get it from a reliable source.


RE: BioDiesel...
By LogicallyGenius on 6/5/2007 4:30:00 AM , Rating: 1
People think BioDiesel is safe , what they dont know is that any farmed BioFuel is more dangerous than any fuel in mass use till date. For bioFuel we have to clear the lungs of the world , ie. the forests.

Its a total disaster. also creating food crisis.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Howard on 6/5/2007 12:35:40 PM , Rating: 3
Please go away.


RE: BioDiesel...
By TheGreek on 6/6/2007 11:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
also creating food crisis.


With a corresponding decrease in heat disease?


RE: BioDiesel...
By TheGreek on 6/6/2007 11:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
And heart disease too.


RE: BioDiesel...
By FredEx on 6/5/2007 1:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine a plug-in Prius and it running a clean burning diesel that uses bio-diesel as its back-up. A diesel that could be twice as efficient as a the gasoline engine used in a Prius now.


RE: BioDiesel...
By heffeque on 6/4/2007 4:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
I've been in the USA several times and I can say that roughly 10% of people are slim, the rest (90%) are fat people.

That's _obviously_ a stupid statement as well as both your statements (gas vs diesel, and that Ireland is the wealthiest per-capita country in Europe since it's not, it's Luxembourg that's almost double Ireland's per capita (PPP)). In Spain 80% of the cars sold this year were diesel, last year it was 62%. You should check out how many HDi motors the PSA group is making/selling every month.


RE: BioDiesel...
By protosv on 6/4/2007 11:05:15 AM , Rating: 2
This is true largely because of supply and demand. Theoretically, diesel is a less-processed, cruder form of gasoline, so it should cost less to produce, as there is less refining that needs to take place. So, less should be lost during the refining process. However, because so few cars in the US run on diesel, there isn't much demand for it, so there isn't much supply. This is why prices are so high. In Europe/Asia, diesel almost always costs less than gasoline. What will be interesting to see is if diesel really takes off in the US, will the price of diesel come down to reflect the increased supply (due to increased demand and lower manufacturing costs)? The laws of economics tell me yes, but my gut tells me that with these oil companies, probably not.


RE: BioDiesel...
By marvdmartian on 6/4/2007 11:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, if memory serves, gasoline and diesel come from two different "bands", or areas, of the byproducts we get from crude oil.
Gasoline is up in the high-volatile section (along with aviation fuel [avgas], and some other highly combustible goodies). Diesel fuel is in the next area down, which is primarily the kerosene-based fuels (diesel, jet fuels, kerosene, etc). Lower flashpoint, lower volatility.

I would have to agree with you that the price of diesel would likely rise, even though the cost of producing it wouldn't go up dramatically. Again, if memory serves, they actually get more kerosene-based fuels out of a drum of crude, than they do gasoline, which should make the price of diesel fuel lower, shouldn't it? Yet, we normally see it upwards of 25 cents higher per gallon!

Of course, other factors will determine the price charged for diesel fuel. Lower inventories in the wintertime, due to many people in the northern states still burning "fuel oil" to heat thier homes, can affect the price of diesel. The new ultra-low sulfur diesel formula that's required now for 2007 and later vehicles will likely keep the price up for diesel as well, as the oil companies can complain that higher productivity costs will hurt their normally enormous profit margin if they don't charge more.

And, of course, with anything else, as the use of diesel goes up, it's highly likely that the taxes the government charges on it will go up as well. That's never going to change, is it?


RE: BioDiesel...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2007 12:12:39 PM , Rating: 4
> "Actually, if memory serves, gasoline and diesel come from two different "bands", or areas, of the byproducts we get from crude oil..."

True, but complicating the picture is the fact that diesel can be cracked down to gasoline, and gasoline components can be reformed to make diesel. Doing so in either case is slightly more expensive than refining the raw band, though, so the cost vs. demand curve is quite complex, and depends considerably on how each individual refinery is set up.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Ringold on 6/4/2007 1:11:00 PM , Rating: 3
A recent Economist article suggests also that while refineries can be retuned to make more or less of various distillates, it's a time consuming and expensive retrofit, and also points out that many refineries sell heating oil at a loss mostly because they have it as a byproduct and otherwise have no other use for it, and it's been doing so for a long time. That suggests to me that refineries dont have much short-term control over the mix of distillates at all.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Oregonian2 on 6/4/2007 2:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, because so few cars in the US run on diesel, there isn't much demand for it, so there isn't much supply.


There's some truth in that. But I think nearly 100% of all trucks are diesel as well as trains (even if diesels make electricity that then drives the wheels). Anything with large petroleum driven motors is diesel I think. Also rumor has it that home heating fuel is basically diesel fuel with a different tax base (and perhaps slightly different processing). So a lot is made, just not going into family cars.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Crassus on 6/4/2007 8:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also rumor has it that home heating fuel is basically diesel fuel with a different tax base (and perhaps slightly different processing).


Yup. Which is why some reddish dye is added in Germany to heating oil to catch the tax evaders using heating oil as diesel fuel (which otherwise works flawlessly as such).


RE: BioDiesel...
By rackley on 6/4/2007 3:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
There are multiple substitutes for diesel in the supply market too, don't forget that straight dino-diesel isn't the only thing that can power diesel engines. Biodiesel (albeit more expensive at the moment) is another supply source. If they can figure out how to economically extract it from algae then we'd be all set. Also, straight or used vegetable oil can be used, and although it hasn't been tested in this engine yet it has proven to run reliably in most diesel engines just fine. There are a significant number of people (including some small commercial fleets) that use WVO to fuel their vehicles. I owned a 91 Jetta I ran on WVO and I currently drive a 1998 E300D that runs on WVO. The up front cost to set up a good WVO system will run $~1500-2000, but with $3+ gallon diesel, that's only about 20 tanks of fuel before you make your ROI. Diesel engines pave the way for both biodiesel and VO, whereas gas engine (even hybrids) still use dino-fuel or the colossal disaster called E85.


RE: BioDiesel...
By phil126 on 6/4/2007 4:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
More diesel is used in the US then gasoline. You forget that all tractor trailors run on diesel and get ~10 mpg. Also all construction equipment, trains, commerical ships, most Navy ships all run on diesel. The main reason diesel cost don't change as ratically is that companies buy with set prices. And Every barrel of crude produces more diesel than gasoline (at least it used to after all the processing these days I am not 100% sure).


RE: BioDiesel...
By Martin Blank on 6/5/2007 12:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
Far more gasoline is used in the US than oil. Crude oil is mostly made up of the chains that go into gasoline.

According to the DoE, for the week of 25 May 2007, refinery inputs totaled about 15.9 million barrels of oil, and from this came, among other things, 9.2 million barrels of gasoline and 4.3 million barrels of distillate fuel oils, which include diesel fuel (used primarily in trucks, trains, and construction equipment), heating oil (heating structures), and heavy fuel oil (used in ships and some power plants). This kind of production ratio is just about average.

You can see the numbers here: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu...


RE: BioDiesel...
By clawhammah on 6/4/2007 1:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
In Houston Diesel is about 30 cents less per gallon.


RE: BioDiesel...
By techhappy on 6/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: BioDiesel...
By ahodge on 6/4/2007 3:21:36 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously, viral marketing? Sounds like somebody here is a fanboy. Own a prius long enough to have to pay to replace that battery pack. Then show me your savings! Oh, and tell me how lovely for the environment it is to dispose of all those battery packs. Now, a hybrid diesel...that would be pretty cheap to run...just sell it before the warranty runs out.


RE: BioDiesel...
By s12033722 on 6/4/2007 3:29:18 PM , Rating: 5
How about we examine the savings you get with a Prius over a Corolla? The Prius got 44 MPG in the tests done by Consumer Reports. It has a base cost of $22,175. The Corolla costs $14,305 and gets 35 MPG. Now let's assume that gas costs $3.75 a gallon for the entire lifespan of the car and that you will keep it for 100k miles. The Corolla will use 2857 gallons of gas, and the Prius will use 2272. That's a difference of 585 gallons, for a total gas savings of $2193.75 over the entire lifetime of the car. You would pay $7870 more for Prius, for a total lifetime savings on the Prius of -$5676. Isn't that an amzingly good reason to go get a Prius?!?!?

If you are buying a Prius to save money, it is YOU who has bought into the marketing.


RE: BioDiesel...
By ahodge on 6/4/2007 4:17:21 PM , Rating: 3
Well done.


RE: BioDiesel...
By RogueSpear on 6/4/2007 11:29:33 PM , Rating: 1
Comparing a Prius to a Corolla is like comparing an Impala to a Cobalt. Completely different class of car and a completely different target audience. Also I got 53MPG on my last tank and my father normally gets the same or better than me. Don't know what to tell you about CU's results.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Reflex on 6/5/2007 2:52:04 AM , Rating: 3
The EPA gets the same results. Check the updated 2008 listings for the Prius. 44mpg is typical for the Prius.


RE: BioDiesel...
By s12033722 on 6/5/2007 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 3
Front headroom: 39.3" for Corolla, 39.1" for Prius
Rear headroom: 37.1" for Corolla, 37.1" for Prius
Front legroom: 41.3" for Corolla, 41.9" for Prius
Rear legroom: 39.3" for Corolla, 39.1" for Prius

etc....

The cars are very close in size. That leaves either performance or convenience items as differentiators. If the point of buying a Prius is to save money, then the Corrolla is a better choice. If the idea is performance, than many other cars are better choices. Same for convenience. When you take into account the batteries and manufacturing cost, the Prius is no more environmentaly friendly. Overall, the only reason to buy a Prius is that you bought into the hype and marketing.


RE: BioDiesel...
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 4:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering that diesel is about $.80 less than gas here in mid-California, yeah, I'd like my next vehicle to be clean diesel as well.

But that difference is CA limited, where the state average is always 50 cents/gallon above the national average, because of the special blend (secret sauce.)


RE: BioDiesel...
By RogueSpear on 6/4/2007 1:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe someone with better automotive knowledge than me could answer this: other than the obvious issue of cost, couldn't Honda match this up with their existing hybrid technology?

Recent articles here have described Peterbilt trucks and UPS delivery vans using a diesel-electric hybrid system (both made by the same company if I remember correct). Is there something about this does not translate down to passenger size vehicles?


RE: BioDiesel...
By nbesheer on 6/4/2007 1:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think they are going to use the hybrid tech on this car because like the article said it wasn't really that great with mileage compared to other hybrids o it's probably not worth it, especially when there is probably going to be a price hike already for the diesel engine.

Also will this be sold in CA because from what I understand is Jeep has a few clean diesel vehicle's but they are not sold in CA. I've also never heard or seen a Diesel new beetle in CA. :(


RE: BioDiesel...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/4/2007 8:21:59 AM , Rating: 1
The reason it wasn't great mileage with the ICE was that Honda positioned the Accord to be a performance car, and not a mileage car. They called it assist since it gave the car more power. Honda's appeal to the sports car poser crowd (please don't tell me any Honda is a real performance car - except the old S2000) and didn't configure the car to have good mileage. Toyota, on the other hand, positioned its hybrids for mileage, and so they get better mileage - they just don't perform like a Honda, but that's not the point.

IMHO, ANY fuel economy solution that works is better than guzzling any type of fuel, as with SUV's and Pick Ups, etc (unless you reeeeally need a pick up).

Also, biodiesel is pie in the sky since as soon as more than two people in one neighborhood want to pick up the grease from the local McD's, they are going to start chanrging for it, and who wants to get in line to pick up some free or low cost grease anyway?


RE: BioDiesel...
By TomZ on 6/4/2007 9:11:08 AM , Rating: 1
Biodiesel also increases NOx emissions and decreases fuel economy, so that needs to be factored into the biodiesel equation.


RE: BioDiesel...
By rackley on 6/4/2007 3:33:56 PM , Rating: 4
That's hogwash, where did you get that from, Exxon-Mobil? Or better yet, Citgo?

Maybe you're thinking of E85.


RE: BioDiesel...
By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 5:05:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Or better yet, Citgo?


After Katrina Chavez sent New Orleans a tanker full of refined gas. All Bush sent was Brownie.


RE: BioDiesel...
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 4:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After Katrina Chavez sent New Orleans a tanker full of refined gas. All Bush sent was Brownie.

Where else can one be downgraded for speaking the truth?

MAsherisms rule this blog.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Ringold on 6/5/2007 5:35:38 PM , Rating: 3
Masherism's dont rule the blog, reasonable people do. US Presidents have done much more wild things than Bush I believe is even possible of imagining, and the rule of law persisted, still persists, and will continue to do so.

Chavez, on the other hand, as I and many others forecasted, has set his economy on a deep downward spiral nationalizing industries left and right since he essentially voted himself the power to rule by decree and has recently grown fond of brutally suppressing the media.

The comparison is, therefore, extremely crude.

Additionally, there probably is indeed a certain number of people (especially from fellow hurricane prone states, like me here in FL) that understand when a hurricane is coming and you live in a high-risk area you GET THE HELL OUT. All they deserved was Brownie; they'd lived irresponsibly all their lives, didn't even bother to try to vacate the area, and then get caught in a very clearly foreseen disaster. At least Florida's poor in the trailerparks along the coast are intelligent enough to load up and head to their cousins/girlfriends further inland when even much weaker hurricanes come in. So no, not tons of sympathy there for such human trash.


RE: BioDiesel...
By TheGreek on 6/6/2007 10:12:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
US Presidents have done much more wild things than Bush I believe is even possible of imagining, and the rule of law persisted, still persists, and will continue to do so.


How does this change what he did or did not do? The fact that others have been worse alters what?

Actually I would ask these questions of your entire response.


RE: BioDiesel...
By TheGreek on 6/7/2007 10:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
Ha, I identified in the post above that the other guy strays off the subject matter. I'm downgraded and he's upgraded.

MAsherisms rule this blog.

Like Brownie, "You're doin' a heckuva job."


RE: BioDiesel...
By ahodge on 6/4/2007 4:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
NOx emissions can be actually LOWER than with straight diesel. An adjustment to timing can fix that. Also, if tuned properly, fuel economy should be on par with diesel.


RE: BioDiesel...
By theoflow on 6/4/2007 12:53:25 PM , Rating: 1
Oh yeah

"Who Killed The Electric Car" is a pretty decent documentry on the subject.


RE: BioDiesel...
By Ringold on 6/4/2007 1:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
Uh oh..


RE: BioDiesel...
By techhappy on 6/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: BioDiesel...
By ahodge on 6/4/2007 4:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
Electric vehicles ARE the future. But exactly what does that have to do with diesel? Clean diesel technology running biodiesel fuel is the PRESENT day solution to many of our fuel woes.


RE: BioDiesel...
By techhappy on 6/4/2007 2:43:54 PM , Rating: 1
BioDiesel may be a start, but realistically, when demand for Diesel goes up, so will the cost and then we'll be back where we started again, with Diesel at the same cost as gas.

The smart thing to do is to keep going hybrid and dump these combustion based motors in the garbage where they belong. We have the technology to go 100% electric, the GM EV1 was an example of this. Unfortunately GM makes the bulk of their money from parts and maintenance and they ended up killing their own creation. Now look at the fools, barely staying in business, nobody wants gas chugging SUVs.

Honda is foolish in my opinion for turning their back on hybrid technology. Meanwhile Toyota takes the lead.

One of the bestselling vehicles right now is the Toyata Prius. Hybrid and full electric is the future. Diesel sounds like a last minute ditch excuse by the oil companies to convince us to stay addicted to their lies.


RE: BioDiesel...
By rackley on 6/4/2007 3:37:23 PM , Rating: 4
Except diesel engines are, theoretically, about 30% more efficient than gasoline engines, requiring about 30% less fuel. That sure sounds like a major push by the oil companies to me.

Full electric would be nice, but the power grid in this country can barely take a heat wave, much less the enormous power suck created by everyone "filling up" their cars from their 110 outlets. Where would the power come from anyhow? The vast majority of power production in the USA is from coal-fired power plants. Just moving the pollution to the power plant doesn't eliminate it.


Detroit are you listening?
By chucky2 on 6/4/2007 1:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
I sure hope this spurs Chevy and Ford to get on with offering diesel's in their product lineup.

Take the Ranger available in the US: It's a nice little pickup that gets decent mileage with the fairly low powered 3.0L V-6.

The rest of the world however (or a large part of it) get the South American made Ranger which is available with a 3.0L PowerStroke diesel engine.

About the only other reason I can think of for Ford not offering that engine in the US, other than emissions (which could be solved with a small amount of $$$ I'm sure, is that they don't want the Ranger to compete with the F-150 and take away the Best Selling Truck in America for the Past 7093434 years title.

This is a great move by Honda...even though I'd never buy one, it's good to see this technology coming to us here in the US for the mainstream buyer.

Chuck




RE: Detroit are you listening?
By sprockkets on 6/4/2007 2:09:24 AM , Rating: 2
It has more to do with american's perception of diesels, i.e. they have memories of the smell from cheese wagons and the knocking noise. But go to even like central america and cars like the corolla have diesel engines, heck most are diesel there for obvious reasons, cost and fuel efficiency without stringent clean air requirements though.

Of course, I do not associate Honda with diesel engines either. And while I have read of this technology, it sounds like you have to fill your cat exhaust with ammonia.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By GreenEnvt on 6/4/2007 8:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
Honda's system didn't require filling it with Ammonia. The cat produced it's own ammonia through some other magical process.

They were having trouble getting the engine to make enough ammonia in larger engines, which is why they had only shown it on small (like 2 liter and under 4 cylinders) engines.

I don't know if this engine for the accord does produce it's own ammonia, or if it needs topups.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By TomZ on 6/4/2007 9:00:20 AM , Rating: 2
How could a car produce its own ammonia? That's crazy talk.


By theapparition on 6/4/2007 10:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How could a car produce its own ammonia? That's crazy talk.

Maybe you just fill a tank up with a little "home-brew"!

Seriously though, here is what honda is doing.

quote:
"Honda’s new diesel, targeted for introduction in the US by 2009, will not use a urea-based SCR system to meet the US Tier 2 Bin 5 standards. (Earlier post.) Instead, it is using a combination of an advanced combustion management (PCCI) and a new NOx catalytic converter, about which it provided more details.

The new catalytic converter utilizes a two-layer structure: one layer adsorbs NOx from the exhaust gas and converts a portion of it into ammonia, while the other layer adsorbs the resulting ammonia, and uses it later in a reaction that converts the remaining NOx in the exhaust into nitrogen (N2).

Ammonia is a highly effective reagent for reducing NOx into N2 in an oxygen-rich, lean-burn atmosphere—urea-based SCR system derive ammonia from the urea.

Honda’s ability to generate and store ammonia within the catalytic converter enables the creation of a compact, lightweight NOx reduction system for diesel engines. The system also features enhanced NOx reduction performance at 200–300ºC, the main temperature range of diesel engines."


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By PedroDaGr8 on 6/4/2007 10:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
Umm, it could easily produce ammonia.
Take NO2 and an unburned Hydrocarbon such as CH4 (these are just to keep the equations easy). The usual reaction in a catalytic converter is 4CH4 + 6NO2 --> 3N2 + 4CO2 + 4H20. You just harness this reaction to create NH3 instead of N2 gas.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By Proteusza on 6/4/2007 8:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
Low powered 3L V6? No wonder Americans dont like Diesels, they just arent big enough.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By MrPickins on 6/4/2007 11:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
I have that 3.0L engine. It is low powered for the displacement, and has the same fuel economy as the 4.0 (~20mpg in the city).

Remember, we're talking about a truck here. HP/torque is needed to haul loads, not to burn rubber and act cool.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 4:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have that 3.0L engine. It is low powered for the displacement, and has the same fuel economy as the 4.0 (~20mpg in the city).


Same here, 32 mpg on the highway at 65mph. It drops quickly after 70 mph. There's a lot of fun to be had watching others in the left lane on the highway, braking from 80 down to 70 several times per mile, and then speeding up again after the vehicle in front of them moves to the right lane. Yeah, they get crap mileage, but why feel sorry for such people? They create their own problems, their own expenditures for both gas and Prilosec. The really humorous aspect is these people are the ones screaming the loudest "Don't tell me what to do!" They refuse to accept that their moronic/needless consumption even exists, let alone affects others. Such a refusal is touted as freedom.

Fine. And duh.

quote:
Remember, we're talking about a truck here. HP/torque is needed to haul loads, not to burn rubber and act cool.

True, but somehow I don't see Detroit marketing agreeing with you. It goes back to the people described above.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By Crassus on 6/4/2007 8:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
Try the VW V10 TDI. It should give you enough torque to tow a house.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By Lord 666 on 6/5/2007 5:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Drove the V10 TDI Toureg, very impressive performance.

Too bad these cars will more than likely never come to the US:

http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/13108/2009-aud... - TDI R8

http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/country/gcf/n... - TDI V12 Q7


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By TomZ on 6/4/2007 8:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
The problem in the US is that we have very stringent auto emissions standardards, especially in California, and it is difficult to build cost-effective cars that meet the NOx standards. Selective catalyst reduction (SCR) systems are almost a must, but these require a source of ammonia/urea that is refilled periodically. There is currently no infrastructure in the US for wide-scale distribution.

These types of SCR systems are just now being developed for heavy-duty trucks to meet new diesel emissions standards introduced for that category. I assume that Honda is probably using a similar technology for this engine.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By Chris Peredun on 6/4/2007 9:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
For small truck/SUVs with diesels, Detroit was listening. Find a 2005/2006 Jeep Liberty CRD, and you'll be pleasantly surprised with the 2.8L turbo four under the hood.

Yes, it had a bit of the stereotypical diesel clatter at idle, but it didn't smell or puff black smoke. What it also had was the stereotypical stump-pulling torque of a diesel - 295lb-ft at 1800rpm .

But as TomZ points out - it was killed in 2007 by tightening emission standards.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By Reflex on 6/4/2007 5:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Very nice vehicle too, I own an 06 and it would be difficult to convince me to go back to gasoline. BTW, while the idle noise is slightly higher, the highway noise is in my opinion lower compared to a gas vehicle. At 60mph+ road noise is actually louder than the engine when its at temp.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By fxnick on 6/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Detroit are you listening?
By IceTron on 6/4/2007 9:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ahhh, ignorance is bliss isn't it?


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 4:36:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

Self imposed and combined with selfishness.

People with this skill set have always become very angry when seeing other people willing to sacrfice for a cause, it's typical human behavior.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By Ringold on 6/5/2007 5:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for environmentalists giving up everything they want to give up, as long as they dont force anybody else to.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By TheGreek on 6/6/2007 10:16:53 AM , Rating: 1
No need to worry, when it comes to self absorbed people expectations are always set to a negative number.

I guess generations of people who lived with self sacrifice to make a better life for their kids were all idiots in your book.


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By TheGreek on 6/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Detroit are you listening?
By goz314 on 6/4/2007 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Selective catalyst reduction (SCR) systems are almost a must, but these require a source of ammonia/urea that is refilled periodically. There is currently no infrastructure in the US for wide-scale distribution.


Why not just urinate in the catalytic converter? ok, just kidding. :)


RE: Detroit are you listening?
By camped69 on 6/4/2007 5:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I sure hope this spurs Chevy and Ford to get on with offering diesel's in their product lineup.


They already have them, they are trucks. Hell mine was madi in 1990. She's got 94K on her and runs like the day I bought it. Most modern diesel pickups are seeing 20-24mpg loaded or unloaded. That is in a very heavy truck. Slap an efficient diesel motor in a car that weighs nothing and I bet you could see somewhere near 50mpg. Compared to a gasser that might get 4-8 pulling the same load over grade. The longevity is a great thing for the consumer also. With proper maintenance these motors can easily see 400,000 miles. One problem with the ULSD is it's lack of lubricity which requires an additive. Which is an additional cost.

There is obviously a better way but wouldn't go so far as to say it is electrical. I'm sure you know what it takes to power a city. Multiply that by howmany ever kilowatts for every joe to plug their car in daily. I don't think batteries are quite there yet.

I don't believe any modern city can stand a major increase in diesel fuel. The problem with raising diesel prices is that our entire country runs on diesel. The increases over the last year alone have have put many small fleets out of business. With anymore increases you will not see huge companies go bankrupt but you will see the citizens paying astronomical prices for every single item they use whether it be goods or services. All the while big oil is laughing.

Then the when countries finally decide to secure oil the impolite way(by lighting of nukes), the people with diesels will be able fire up their rigs and head for the high country while the gassers are stuck due to their crappy ignition systems. :P


2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By Lord 666 on 6/4/2007 8:45:12 AM , Rating: 3
There are many "ifs" with this, but:

1. If the Accord achieves similar gas mileage as the Jetta TDI (averages around 40mpg, seen as high as 52.4mpg on highway)

2. Has better performance than the Jetta. Granted in 2008 VW is reintroducing the TDI Jetta with CDI technology. Its also increasing motor size and is estimated to shave 3 seconds off of 0-60.

3. Has similar driving dynamics as Jetta

4. The US government extends the hybrid tax credit towards clean diesels. The HOV lane permit would be nice too.

5. Similar or better safety features; needs rear side airbags like my Jetta has.

If all of the above are true, then I will be first in line at local Honda dealership. While I love the Jetta, its been in the shop more times for minor stuff than my last Honda ever. Stuff like the ignition thinking the key is still in when the motor turns off, rattles, a Sirius radio that looses its station presets.




RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By theoflow on 6/4/2007 9:29:04 AM , Rating: 3
It amazes me how little us Americans know about the foreign world.

First off, I suggest every soul to watch BBC2' show Top Gear. Although the newer episodes are more entertaining than practical, it at least exposes people to the outside motoring world.

But now to the first of two points. Diesel powered engines are basically more efficient than gas/petrol. If you go to the Honda.co.uk website, and look up the Accord (Which in the United States is the Acura TSX) the specs for the diesel are 52.3 MILES PER GALLON.

Go the the Ford website, and check out the beautiful Ford Mondeo (OK, to me it looks nice) and with a diesel it gets an average in the high 40's, topping out at 57 MPG on the highway in a 4 door sedan (saloon).

It is also better to reinforce the fact that Diesels are better powerplants in general than hybrids. The low end torque for diesels is great, which is pretty much where most of the gas is used from a standing stop.

Finally there is the last and possibly the more important point of contention. Alot of people are getting interested in hybrids mostly because it is the fact that will save them money and not really because of the environment. A previous poster alluded to this in that the complete carbon footprint of hybrids is not as green as people think. Taking into account the production costs and methods hybrids benefit mainly the end user. In a nuttshell, people are buying prius' to save money for themselves, with the environment a secondary point of purchase. A good indicator of this point is that a recent study (I honestly forgot where I saw it) said that Americans are actually using more gasoline even when they use hybrids. Families are buying a SUV and then a hybrid so that they can do more with the resources they have, and hybrids give them the ability to do more with the resources a particular household has at its disposal. Again, not necessarily for the environment.

Oh, and alot of people buy hybrids for HOV usage, which is a selfish thing, no matter how you look at it. I personally would love to have one of those stickers, but there is a sort of loathing factor isn't there?


RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By Lord 666 on 6/4/2007 9:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed about Americans being tunnel visioned with just US version of Websites. Check out www.honda.co.uk or www.mini.co.uk or www.vw.co.uk for cars that are nearly identical, but offer diesels.

The one car that really draws attention is the Mini Cooper D; it uses a Toyota diesel motor and will achieve high 60mpg with the fall refresh.

About the TSX/UK Accord, remember those are imperial gallons so the mileage is slightly less, but the point is the same. Even more dramatic is the CR-V diesel vs the gas version. The new CR-V is the best selling SUV in the US at the moment, when Honda finally imports the diesel its popularity will only increase.


RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By Oregonian2 on 6/4/2007 2:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Agreed about Americans being tunnel visioned with just US version of Websites. Check out www.honda.co.uk or www.mini.co.uk or www.vw.co.uk for cars that are nearly identical, but offer diesels


Why, speaking for the masses, should Americans be looking at websites to see cars we can't buy? To up our frustration level?

Nothing wrong with that for the curious, but for one who wants to buy a car (about the only reason most would be looking at car mfgr sites) looking at non-U.S. sites would only cause grumbling (yes, in theory one may then go ask one's dealer for the car, create demand, and have it show up five years later, but I suspect that doesn't work in real life.. or at least not for the U.S. based manufacturers who traditionally pay no attention at all to customer demand patterns -- they only focus on what gives them best margins).


RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By Lord 666 on 6/5/2007 5:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
These are two perfect examples of what Audi should import into the US. Drove the V10 TDI Toureg, the performance put a huge smile on my face.

http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/13108/2009-aud... - TDI R8

http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/country/gcf/n... - TDI V12 Q7


RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2007 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
Also remember that UK driving is different than US driving. A lot of places in Europe don't have as many stop lights as the US. Stop and go accounts for a lot of the poor mileage we see in the US. So yes while they are more efficient, we probably won't see the same kind of mileage as Europe sees since you guys use a lot of roundabouts. Here in the US the only places they exist really are in the north east.

And honestly I'm glad we have the stop lights. Because people drive like crap enough as it is. Introduce a system where people actually have to pay attention to whats going on around them and we'll have a lot more accidents since a lot of Americans think driving amounts to what you see in a Need for Speed game. Where a Honda Civic can do 75-100 mph around a 90 degree corner.


RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By Lord 666 on 6/4/2007 10:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm from the US (specifically NJ), mate. In NJ, we still have quite a few circles.

But the last time I was in London, drove a new Mini Cooper and came across several of those roundabouts. Driving on the opposite side on the opposite side of the car was challenging. Without fail, I hit the curb going around the circle pretty hard each time. Those Mini's are like slot cars and the car took it in stride.

UK driving is not that much different than NJ driving; they have lights and congestion. Driving on the M1 or M4 is similar to the Turnpike or GSP - save one difference; there are automated speed traps in the UK that take a picture and mail you the ticket. They even sell a GPS enabled radar detector alerting to when you are approaching these devices.


RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 5:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And honestly I'm glad we have the stop lights. Because people drive like crap enough as it is.

Around here lights are just one more potential mistake that doesn't upset the state of obliviousness of the typical driver.

Small towns, small minds.


RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By GoatMonkey on 6/4/2007 1:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In a nuttshell, people are buying prius' to save money for themselves, with the environment a secondary point of purchase.


As opposed to the completely selfless Europeans who buy fuel efficient cars only thinking of the environment and never consider their high fuel prices or tiny narrow roads.


RE: 2006 Jetta TDI Trade-In
By goz314 on 6/4/2007 2:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Please be careful about making fuel economy comparisons between european and american models. 1 imperial gallon does not equal a U.S. gallon.


My take on diesels in the US
By Amiga500 on 6/4/2007 7:53:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm quite surprised you guys (Americans) have not used diesel much more, given your love of the pick-up.

A diesel is much more fuel efficient, and will offer alot more torque than a similarly sized petrol. Since you tend not to drive pick-ups too hard (fast), it gives you power where you want it - low down, and with low revs comes durability.

NOx emission laws are a pretty sorry excuse (by whoever introduced them) for not having diesels IMO. [how many pickups are used in a built up area? - I suppose the question really is, how many are needed for use in a built up area (city)?




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/4/2007 8:15:32 AM , Rating: 2
Diesels are very prevalent in U.S. heavy-duty pickups. But they are nowhere to be found in our light duty full-size pickups.

And they have been largely shunned in the car sector.


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By TomZ on 6/4/2007 9:02:48 AM , Rating: 2
Widescale use of hybrids in the US is for sure hampered by NOx emissions, which are much higher for diesels than for gasoline engines.


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2007 9:48:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
how many pickups are used in a built up area?


You obviously don't live in the US. I live in Charleston, SC and half the people here drive pickups. Do they need them? No. But they drive them. It was the same in Orlando, FL. And Melbourne, FL. And Milwaukee, WI.

People here in the US to love to drive pickups because they think they're safer (yes a heavy truck with no rear traction in the rain or snow and that takes longer to brake is safer....) and, since a lot of Americans drive like shit, they like to be able to change lanes and just hit anyone in a car that doesn't move out of their way.


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By iFX on 6/4/2007 1:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of Americans drive trucks but not for the reasons you just pulled out of your ass. Think of something original - America bashing is so 1970s.


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By Ringold on 6/4/2007 1:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
My families been without anything other than three car's between all of us for the last, eh, two years? The inconvenience at first was minor. Every couple months when we want to do something but either have to do an unsafe or just plain stupid jury-rigging to get it done, make multiple trips, or just plain can't do something at all, it adds up, to where at this point the next person to get a vehicle will absolutely beyond all doubt get a truck.

Maybe it's the American lifestlye being different than the European one (which I'm not about to give up so long as I'm working and earning my wealth), but I don't know how the hell people, especially homeowners, get by without one in the family. (Or an SUV)


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By TheGreek on 6/6/2007 10:21:27 AM , Rating: 2
You can't rent any size truck when you need it?


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By TheGreek on 6/6/2007 3:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lots of Americans drive trucks but not for the reasons you just pulled out of your ass. Think of something original - America bashing is so 1970s.

Bring to people's attention the attributes of the most arrogant and oblivious is not something that can be limited to any given locale. And it's timeless.

Actually if you look at the number of people who drive pickups that have no scratches or scuff marks in the bed, those are the people who pulled reasons out of their ass for buying a pickup in the first place.


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By goz314 on 6/4/2007 3:03:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
People here in the US to love to drive pickups because they think they're safer (yes a heavy truck with no rear traction in the rain or snow and that takes longer to brake is safer....) and, since a lot of Americans drive like shit, they like to be able to change lanes and just hit anyone in a car that doesn't move out of their way.


Not to mention that it seems like everyone that buys a truck for use in city traffic these days absolutely must get it lifted by at least a foot and couple it with a set of 45" or larger tires. It's not enough just to get 8 miles to the gallon for some of these people anymore. They need to let people know how much of a hick they are from 10 feet off the ground and 2 miles away. Either that or they had an un-healthy childhood fixation with monster trucks that stayed with them into adulthood. (-Notice I didn't say "maturity," but rather adulthood. )


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By Hoser McMoose on 6/4/2007 5:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NOx emission laws are a pretty sorry excuse

It's not just NOx emissions but also the high particulate matter emissions that diesels have always had. This sort of stuff causes air pollution, smog and respiratory illness. In both the US and in Europe there are thousands of people every year that get sick and even die from respiratory illness that can be closely linked to air pollution.

American emission standards have traditionally been MUCH stricter when it comes to air pollution then European standards. European cars have tended to use less fuel (due almost entirely to the high fuel costs) but burn that fuel much less cleanly than vehicles in North America. That is starting to change now (and about time! The air quality in most major European cities is TERRIBLE!), with the new EU (Euro 4) emission restrictions having mostly caught up with those on this side of the pond.

As for driving pick-ups in the city, come to any North American city and you'll see pickups EVERYWHERE! Do the people "need" them? Of course not! Probably 90% of them have little to no use for a pick-up truck and many of those that do have a need for the truck could get by just fine with a much smaller pickup, but people LOVE the things. I don't understand it myself, pickups are the least safe vehicles on 4-wheels, offer terrible handling, cost a bundle both up-front and in gas costs and while they have lots of cargo room, you can't put anything in there that's sensitive to the weather when it's raining or snowing out (unless you get a box I suppose). Still, people LOVE 'em and you'll have to pry the keys from their cold dead hands before they'll give them up!


RE: My take on diesels in the US
By TheGreek on 6/7/2007 10:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
European cars have tended to use less fuel (due almost entirely to the high fuel costs) but burn that fuel much less cleanly than vehicles in North America.


Ain't that the truth. What year did they finally adopt catalytic converters? How much pollution from a 49cc 2 stroke scooter?


hybrid turbo diesel
By kenji4life on 6/4/2007 4:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
Because of the way diesel engines naturally respond well to turbochargers (compared to low compression gassers) I would think the best solution would be a Hybrid Electric Turbo Diesel. This should be able to find 200hp and 60 mpg easily in a mid-sized car.. The Jetta was already halfway there with the TDI.




RE: hybrid turbo diesel
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2007 8:36:04 AM , Rating: 2
Thats why I don't mind diesels. They respond so well to turbos you can easily up the boost and increase your horsepower.

Me and my girlfriend when we start living together want to restore an old Camaro(67-69) together. I'm considering when we do it to maybe see about putting a diesel V8 in it and turbo it. That way I'll have plenty of torque, cheaper fuel(provided the gas companies don't start raping us with high diesel prices again), and better mileage. Of course if not I'm dropping an LS2 engine in with a 6 speed that will still give me 18-19 mpg city and 29-30 highway. Maybe a little less if I put in a hotter than stock cam.


RE: hybrid turbo diesel
By Spoelie on 6/4/2007 9:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
Try getting one of BMW's 3L I6 biturbo diesels, from an old 335d or 535d or something, if you guys have those in america. Might be a tad too expensive, but you can try anyway.

272hp on standard tap, 320+hp if you optimize the chip. Easily over 600nm torque, and ours has a combined economy of around 28mpg. No turbo lag.

http://users.skynet.be/TailwinD/bmw1.png


RE: hybrid turbo diesel
By theapparition on 6/4/2007 10:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
Why go with the 3L 335 turbo engine when the LS2 puts out 400hp with much more torque.

But, FITCamaro, your not going to get anywhere near 30mpg when you stick it in a 67 camaro body. If you build this car up, you'll also probably go with much lower gearing, which will kill it even more.

But who cares about MPG, when your building a hotrod.


RE: hybrid turbo diesel
By GoatMonkey on 6/4/2007 1:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's so wrong to do any of those things to a classic car. Keep your Camaro as a gas guzzler but drive something else more efficient most of the time.


RE: hybrid turbo diesel
By Spoelie on 6/4/2007 3:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Because the diesel does get more torque (450 lb-ft if this converter thing is right - the metric system is soo much easier), has less than half the displacement but only slightly less power and is oh so more economical. And that was the point. I was just recommending a better engine than the older v8 diesels he was thinking of.

In the end tho, fitting and getting that engine would require soo much effort that it isn't really good sense


RE: hybrid turbo diesel
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 5:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But who cares about MPG, when your building a hotrod.

Do you think that an early Corvette with a fuel injected 283 V8 got lousy mileage? Put a 6 speed manual transmission in one of those and see what kinda mileage it would get on the highway.


RE: hybrid turbo diesel
By NastyPope on 6/4/2007 3:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
e85 blends are becoming more commonplace and the cost of converting the engine to run e85-e100 is about $225 for a v8 engine (less for 6 and 4 cylinder). Part of the cost depends on the need up upgrade your fuel injectors (or jets if running a carb) to flow more fuel as alcohol based fuels have less btus for combustion although they have very high octane ratings which allows much higher compression before knock (detonation) occurs. The increase in compression returns much of the power. One of the easiest ways to increase compression is to use a turbo or supercharger or if you have one already to increase the amount of PSI they provide.

Another benefit is a cooler running engine and when using ethanol based from sawgrass, soybean, or hemp the carbon footprint is almost nil.

It would most likely be far easier and economically viable to convert existing gasoline vehicles including hybrids to run e100 (e85 if we have to) while maintaining diesel/biodiesel for commercial applications and personal vehicles that require the massive torque and superior longevity diesel provides.


Still...
By IceTron on 6/4/2007 7:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
Still, diesel still stinks and is noisy unless I see some serious improvements in that area, i'll stick with gas. I got a 05 CRV and I really like it. Roomy enough to haul almost anything I can throw at it, yet small enough to not be a gas guzzler and pretty nimble on the road and not a bad offroader either. As soon as Honda comes out with hybrid CRV, im all over it.




RE: Still...
By Lord 666 on 6/4/2007 8:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Check out www.honda.co.uk, the UK spec CR-V diesel achieves substantial fuel efficiency increase. 2007 US 2.4 Gas is 22/28 (AWD/Auto) vs UK 2.2 diesel 29/41 (AWD/Manual and converted to US gallons)

Honda has already stated they feel hybrids are for smaller cars; Civics, Fits, etc. For medium to large cars, Honda is committed to diesels as a fuel efficiency models.

I also have a 2005 CR-V, compared to my 2006 Jetta TDI, it's a gas guzzler and now limited to short trips to mass transit and occasional shopping trips. Hopefully when the Accord diesel is released, they will also introduce the CR-V diesel.

Plus, you mentioned you have taken the CR-V off-road. In my area, it floods... really bad. On several occasions had to take the CR-V through flood waters and soaked it through the floorboards and carpets. The car still runs, but how would a hybrid handle that?


RE: Still...
By IceTron on 6/4/2007 9:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
You don't buy a CRV for fuel efficent needs, at least not if you compare it to cars, for a small SUV its pretty good. I get around 22.1 MPG from my 1.5 months owning my CRV and though its a bit less then my V6 Accord Coupe, my coupe won't allow me to haul a jetski, move my girlfriend to her new job or swallow a 42" plasma screen box.

Nor do you take a CRV in 3 foot deep water, its not designed for such an extreme conditions. Thats like asking a Civic Si coupe to compete in the Le Manns.


RE: Still...
By Lord 666 on 6/4/2007 9:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
But with the diesel version, you can both have a fuel efficient vehicle and SUV too. The diesel CR-V is like having your cake and eating it. The cost premium would be negated by the almost 30% fuel efficiency increase over the gas version.

Or said another way, you could sell the Accord coupe and still get better gas mileage than a Civic plus the savings on insurance of having one vehicle. Insurance rates are still largely based on horsepower, displacement, and fuel type; when I went from a V6 Accord to the Jetta, saved some serious money on insurance.

With the 250lbs of torque on the CR-V diesel, you can tow a lot more than one jetski.

About the flood water, sure its not designed for that, but don't really have a choice when it floods like that. The point was hybrids and flood water don't mix; especially a SUV hybrid.


RE: Still...
By IceTron on 6/4/2007 9:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I agree, its just that were not gonna see diesel from Honda in their models anytime soon beyond this Accord test in the USA because our EPA standards are still to damn low so the car manufactuers can get away with lower MPG rated engines.

My Accord is in the process of getting sold, I certainly have no justifiable reason to own 2 vehicles at this point. My insurance did drop a little bit with State Farm going to the CRV. I needed a more practical/versatile vehicle for my grown up needs, My immature teenager desires of cool/awesome factors in my cars has gone away


RE: Still...
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My immature teenager desires of cool/awesome factors in my cars has gone away

Maturity is becoming a scare commodity, especially around here.


Peugeot
By Cunthor666 on 6/4/2007 6:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
Peugeot's have some interesting diesel motors in 307 variants. But last I heard of them in USA was when they pulled out of the American market in 1992... pity since it is a really good small car.

In any case, diesel motors are quite a mature tecnology so it wouldn't supprise me if this Honda was better then hybrid engines at milage/performance ratio.




RE: Peugeot
By TimberJon on 6/4/2007 11:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
Living things die easily here in america when inside a small car. Peugeot, fiat, citroen, lotus, they have some small cars. At least in urban areas.


RE: Peugeot
By TomZ on 6/4/2007 5:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think that there would be much of a market in the US for a French-brand car.


RE: Peugeot
By Ringold on 6/4/2007 9:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
The country did recently place the Democrats in power over Congress and they sound like every French government for the last 40 years up until Sarkozy, so I don't know about that.

But then again, the seaboard states might love them. As long as a Mass. resident doesn't drive his cheese-eating car to Texas, it might be okay. At the first sign of a pickup truck, though, it'd likely surrender to the curb, so drivers best carry an AAA card.


RE: Peugeot
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 5:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think that there would be much of a market in the US for a French-brand car.

Are you suggesting that Americans can't surrender fast enough to the idea of a French car?


Regulations be damned
By dever on 6/4/2007 2:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Good for Honda. Even though numerous short-sited government regulations have been passed that favor one bit of technology (hybrid) over any other, Honda feels they can overcome this.

Realize that all the "hybrid-friendly" regulations simply slow down competing innovation in the field... all at the expense of individuals. Get rid of these inane regulations and let the consumer reward the most efficient technology with his purchasing decision.




RE: Regulations be damned
By techhappy on 6/4/2007 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Cough....Viral marketing....

Are you kidding, Hybrid gas savings to mpg completely destroys Diesel performance. There is no competition.

Yes, let's give the gas companies more business and when Diesel fuel price goes up, I will be laughing at you for paying the same price as gas. Meanwhile, I will be saving money on my Prius.


RE: Regulations be damned
By camped69 on 6/4/2007 5:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
If your going to the store to buy salad fixings or transport you to your office job then I suppose your Prius may be the ticket. But many people need a vehicle that can actually do some work. Like haul a load and this is specifically where the diesel engine will shine. Much better than any gasoline motor.


RE: Regulations be damned
By Crassus on 6/4/2007 8:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
And YOU complain about viral marketing, making such an obvious sales pitch for the Prius?!

The Prius may be more fuel efficient that a decent direct-injection diesel engine, but diesel engines give you TORQUE! Try climbing a steep mountain road with a Prius - its embarrassing. And I'm not just talking, I did it.


RE: Regulations be damned
By IceTron on 6/4/2007 9:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
If you bought the Prius with the idea that you would be climbing mountain roads with, you obviously didn't do your car homework.


Time to go electric
By Christopher1 on 6/4/2007 8:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think that it is simply time for all cars to be plug-in, electric models with gas simply as an added if you run out of electrical energy.

Seriously, some electric cars I have seen now get 100 miles on one charge - how many of you seriously drive further than that everyday to your jobs both ways? If you are, I would suggest moving and getting a house closer to where your job is!

There is no reason for people to have to drive 200-300 miles to their jobs everyday. The people who do that around our area to 'save money on housing up in Pennsylvania' are suckers, because they are driving away all of their savings going back and forth to their jobs in Maryland and then some.




RE: Time to go electric
By IceTron on 6/4/2007 9:05:12 PM , Rating: 1
OMFG, please tell me your joking.

The SECOND you start placing limitations of peoples freedom and right to live wherever they want, your support for WHATEVER idea goes down the shit tube.

This is USA, not Europe. WNFH. Will not fucking happen.


RE: Time to go electric
By TheGreek on 6/5/2007 4:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The SECOND you start placing limitations of peoples freedom

Please explain or show us where this limitation or conclusion was made.

There were comments that such activity was stupid, and how ironic, the reaction falls into this area as well, yes?

It just seems you were looking for an excuse to use the F word, the word of choice of high school dropouts and HBO programming, yes?


RE: Time to go electric
By Ringold on 6/5/2007 5:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
HBO, sadly some may say, probably has some of the more intelligent programming on TV. Rome was good, and wasn't horribly inaccurate. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee looks different, I havent seen it but hopefully it properly depicts the events -- no reason not to as real life was tragic enough for TV in that case. And the Sopranos has a certain level of sophistication.. at least, more than, uh, Heroes. I usually only watch HBO for the boxing though now that Rome is gone.

Of course, the real action is on SciFi Channel w/ Battlestar Galactica. :)


RE: Time to go electric
By TheGreek on 6/6/2007 10:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rome was good, and wasn't horribly inaccurate


It's original name was "Sex and the City - 400 B.C."


Diesel/Hybrid Potential
By NastyPope on 6/4/2007 12:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.penn-partners.org/evteam/attack.htm

These students/staff used the concept of electric assist for acceleration which is the greatest source of fuel consumption when running a vehicle. This allows for amazing performance while maintaining excellent mileage using Bio-diesel.

Mind you this is not a next generation engine as the Honda of this article but If such an engine were used I think it shows the potential for utilizing hybrid assist with a diesel. That there is a moderate increase in NOx emissions yet all other emissions are substantially lower makes the new ammonia based catalytic every more useful.




RE: Diesel/Hybrid Potential
By techhappy on 6/4/2007 2:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, this sounds more realistic. Diesel Hybrid electric, I don't see how Honda thinks that selling non-hybrids is going to help them right now, while Toyota slaughters their business with thousands of Prius units flying out of their car dealerships.


RE: Diesel/Hybrid Potential
By Reflex on 6/4/2007 8:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
#1 - Toyota is not slaughtering anyone, their sales represent less than 2% of their overall sales. Hybrids are not a market success, they are an experiment.

#2 - Selling a diesel gets an immediate 30% fuel efficiency gain with no special secondary engines needed. That is enough to catch them up to Toyota, and for a cheaper price. Its extremely smart, as pointed out you can still add a hybrid system to a diesel if its needed.


RE: Diesel/Hybrid Potential
By GoatMonkey on 6/4/2007 10:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
Prius is selling pretty well (around number 9 last month)...

http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/06/what_are_th...

There was a waiting list to be able to buy one for a long time.


Problem.
By Sungpooz on 6/4/2007 2:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel demand goes up, Price goes up.

Price goes up, Miles per Dollar goes down.

Miles per Dollar goes down, Sales for Diesel-running cars then go down.

Diesel-running cars' demand goes down, Diesel price slowly go down (due to still running diesel cars running around).

Then we will have wasted time in a boring circle. Diesel is only cheap now because demand is low. Wait 'til everyone is driving one and they will want to switch back to gasoline, whose price may a) drop due to less demand or b) have the supply of petroleum processed into gasoline reduced according to demand so it may be allocated to other sectors of development (such as other petroleum products).

It sounds good for now- but i have my skepticisms. However, If i'm wrong (I probably am- i have no real knowledge of gas), I'll be cheering for diesel.




RE: Problem.
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2007 6:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well the thing with diesel is that it should always be cheaper than regular gasoline. Diesel is made from the biproducts of normal fuel production. So we'll still be producing unleaded for other countries, but we can keep the diesel.

I do agree with you though. Until the recent gas spike, diesel was in some places more expensive than premium. Its because when everyone rushed out and bought diesels when they were told to, the gas companies were like "hey. lets raise the price."


RE: Problem.
By Spivonious on 6/4/2007 9:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Also, I think there are more taxes on diesel.


Viral marketing, A bunch of backward lies...
By techhappy on 6/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Viral marketing, A bunch of backward lies...
By Reflex on 6/4/2007 3:32:58 AM , Rating: 3
On average a diesel engine is just as efficient as a hybrid, in fact overall its more efficient. The problem with the Prius is that the total energy picture, when you take into account the increased production costs due to batteries, increased use of plastics and other concerns, is a net loss compared to a normal car over its lifetime. The Prius is an experiment, not a solution.

Electric cars are not possible right now either. Our power grid is stretched to the maximum, it was only a couple years ago when a minor failure caused a major outage across 1/3 of the US. If everyone started plugging in today, we'd have a disaster on our hands. Just to replace the energy consumed by automobiles in the US today would require 2500 nuclear power plants. We are not even close to that.

While BioDiesel as it is currently produced is not a good idea(massive destruction of rain forests to produce it), algae based diesels are coming down the line, do not require the use of precious freshwater, and are relatively carbon neutral. Making certain that there are enough diesel cars on the road to sustain its sales is a good shift to make, and very forward thinking.


By werepossum on 6/4/2007 10:24:53 AM , Rating: 1
Electric automobiles would generally be charged at night or in the evenings, when electric power demand is much lower (and therefore excess capacity exists.) Converting all cars and trucks would cause a huge demand increase, but converting 5% - 10% per year would have little impact. The exception would be those areas where demand shifting plants (which pump water into elevated storage reservoirs at night then generate hydro power during high-demand daytime periods) form an important part of the grid. The New York area blackout had more to do with human error and outdated switchgear than overstretched demand. California of course would be screwed.

That said, a plug-in hybrid electric would be great for me; my problems are in cost and selection. I drive a very small SUV (Tracker convertible) which gives good (not great) mileage, about 27 mpg combined city/highway. We use the 4WD for fishing and hunting trips, and for crossing the mountains. My wife drives a Ranger pickup - can't get along without a pickup - which gets poor mileage, 19/23 mpg. I'd love a diesel for that, but either way a plug-in hybrid, running electrically back and forth to work, with the gas or diesel for longer trips, would be great. Energy is more efficient when centrally generated and distributed by wire than when distributed by tanker and truck.


By MrPickins on 6/4/2007 12:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
I like the idea I heard of using coal power plant exhaust to provide CO2 for large algae farms, which are then harvested for bio-diesel.

That, along with other plant oils like hemp seed oil, could help reduce our carbon footprint by quite a bit if used to supplement our petroleum diesel supply.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/4/2007 12:31:09 PM , Rating: 4
> "Just to replace the energy consumed by automobiles in the US today would require 2500 nuclear power plants..."

Eh? I just did the calculation myself, and even ignoring the spare capacity present nightly in our current system, we could replace all the energy consumed by gasoline today with about 5.005E7 joules. 1100MW nuclear plants are pretty common, which would require about 520 new plants...or about a fifth of the 2500 you stated.


RE: Viral marketing, A bunch of backward lies...
By TomZ on 6/4/2007 2:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
I then calculated the odds of adding those additional 520 power plants, and came up with ... zero. Too bad - seems like progress will be very hard going forward in that direction either.


By Reflex on 6/4/2007 5:16:54 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. It takes 12-16 years to build a nuclear power plant. Even if the number was only 500, which its not(the US consumes 1 cubic mile of oil per year for transportation, you do the math), we do not have the money nor the political will to roll out nuclear power on that scale. After nearly three decades of saying no to nuclear, we are now considerably behind Europe in that regard, and at least two decades from any significant impact that it can make. It needs to happen, but since it will be a while before it does we need solutions that will impact us a bit quicker than that.

BTW, to those who suggest electric cars would only be on the grid at night I have to ask "According to who?" So, you do not believe employers will have spots for people to plug in during the day? You do not think the rich or misguided will simply plug them in whenever they want? How do you even mandate such a thing? And not everyone works 9-5 even if you could. Furthermore, night time 'excess' power is not so extreme and is to some degree seasonal. Its not like this is some vast untapped resource, and its certainly not enough to meet all of our needs, especially with many states severely restricting power plant construction(California).


RE: Viral marketing, A bunch of backward lies...
By techhappy on 6/4/2007 2:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, lets listen to you and pour our money into Disel cars and when diesel fuel ends up as expensive as gas, who are we going to turn to next, but hybrid cars to save us.


By Reflex on 6/4/2007 5:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
If Hybrids have a future, there is no reason they cannot be just as easily applied to a diesel engine as a gasoline one. Diesel is 30% more efficient due to energy density and compression ratios, that 30% would go further on a hybrid than on a gasoline engine.

As for the price of diesel, in most of the world, which runs diesel, it is significantly cheaper than gas. In the US it was cheaper than gas for decades, the recent jump above gasoline prices was due to the switchover from LSD to ULSD which constrained refining capacity. The largest refiner in the country is doubling thier capacity, all the new capacity is slated for diesel production.


RE: Viral marketing, A bunch of backward lies...
By Ringold on 6/4/2007 1:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
The left's never satisfied, is it?

There is no short term solution, whatever you may think. Refits of the Prius are expensive, and that won't change. Batteries have service lifes, which are then expensive to recycle, and that'll never change, and capacitor technology isn't even close to replacing them. Bio-fuels of all types are, thanks largely to private investment, coming along but still currently existing on subsidies and aren't nearly energy efficient enough to justify transition.

Diesel, small amounts of biofuels, stricter standards, it's all part of an interim solution that starts a transition to less fossil fuel consumption that'll take over a decade to start yielding serious progress. Technology just doesn't materialize overnight, and when it is available simply knowing something doesn't make it commercially viable.

The more rational here accept diesel not because we're all paid by ConocoPhillips but because we realize Diesel is more efficient and a nice segway to incrementally keep demand growth a tad lower while engineers tinker away furiously across the world improving the next generation of technology. It's as simple as that; no need for the rampant paranoia.

It's also, btw, a fast government-enforced transition to as-yet unviable technology that'd either create a huge blackmarket or send us to the economic stone age (or both), not the oil companies trying desperately to meet rising global demand after a decade of under-investment -- apparently, they only got in league with Satan after the dirt-cheap oil of the 90s nearly sent them all out of business. Couldn't possibly all be part of a natural business cylce, no?


By TheGreek on 6/6/2007 11:57:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The left's never satisfied, is it?

Thank God there are no self serving unscientific gross generalizations made on this board to substantiate political biases.

Where would we be if that were to happen?
Answer - Right here.


RE: Viral marketing, A bunch of backward lies...
By s12033722 on 6/4/2007 3:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, your constant yammering about the Prius is the most viral-marketing oriented garbage in this thread. I will repost my comment from slightly above for you so that you might actually stop spewing your uneducated nonsense and get in touch with reality:

How about we examine the savings you get with a Prius over a Corolla? The Prius got 44 MPG in the tests done by Consumer Reports. It has a base cost of $22,175. The Corolla costs $14,305 and gets 35 MPG. Now let's assume that gas costs $3.75 a gallon for the entire lifespan of the car and that you will keep it for 100k miles. The Corolla will use 2857 gallons of gas, and the Prius will use 2272. That's a difference of 585 gallons, for a total gas savings of $2193.75 over the entire lifetime of the car. You would pay $7870 more for Prius, for a total lifetime savings on the Prius of -$5676. Isn't that an amzingly good reason to go get a Prius?!?!?

If you are buying a Prius to save money, it is YOU who has bought into the marketing.


By RogueSpear on 6/4/2007 11:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Comparing a Prius to a Corolla is like comparing an Impala to a Cobalt. Completely different class of car and a completely different target audience. Also I got 53MPG on my last tank and my father normally gets the same or better than me. Don't know what to tell you about CU's results.


RE: Viral marketing, A bunch of backward lies...
By s12033722 on 6/5/2007 3:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
In regards to size and capacity, the two vehicles are very similar. If you are looking at convenience features or performance, many other cars will do a better job than either. There is no real reason to buy a Prius. There is a car that is a better option for every aspect of vehicle design.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/5/2007 3:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
The Prius is classified as a mid-sized vehicle with comparable passenger and cargo capacity to a Camry.

The Corolla is a compact more in line with a Civic.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki