Post by: Ben on January 05, 2007, 05:19:57 PM
--------------
http://news.windingroad.com/alternative-fuel/japan-report-hondas-new-diesel-initiative-to-spark-death-rattle-for-accord-hybrid/
Japan Report: Hondas New Diesel Initiative To Spark Death Rattle For Accord Hybrid
Filed Under: Alternative Fuel, Japan, Tech, Trends, Coupes, Sedans, Honda, Future Vehicles, Automotive News January 5th, 2007 9:37 AM
accord-hybrid-taillamp.jpgHonda president Takeo Fukui has been quoted in the Japanese press as saying that a next generation V-6 diesel will be commercialized by Honda, and is set to slot into the Ridgeline along with other unspecified models.
First, though, Honda will kick off with its 2.2-2.4-litre class, four-cylinder super clean turbodiesel thatll run in the next Stateside Accord, appearing around 2009. This is expected be a breakthrough engine, with emissions as clean as clean as a modern gasoline powerplant, able to meet even the toughest regulations in the world (i.e. the EPAs Tier II Bin 5 regulations).
Once this Accord diesel goes on sale, the Accord hybrid will be quietly retired. Hondas basic eco strategy going forward will be to keep hybrids for Civic-class and below offerings, with diesels for Accord-class models and over.
Or so it would seem, except that Fukui was also recently quoted as saying that Honda will consider a small diesel for the future, too. Presumably, however, if such a drivetrain is produced at all, itll be earmarked for Europe, where diesels make up more than half of the new-car market.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 05, 2007, 06:28:04 PM
I'm like you. I can't figure out why such cars aren't on the market already.
Post by: theCZ on January 05, 2007, 06:39:45 PM
Post by: Preacherman on January 05, 2007, 06:44:05 PM
Post by: Sindawe on January 05, 2007, 06:51:45 PM
Quote
I can't figure out why such cars aren't on the market already.
Diesels are dirty.
Diesels are noisy.
Diesels are underpowered.
Diesels are unreliable.
All misconceptions due to GM's diesel fiasco of the late 1970s. IIRC, they tried to convert gasoline engines to diesel rather than design a new engine from the ground up to be diesel. I would have loved to pickup a diesel VW when my Civic died, but could not afford to keep the rental I was in while waiting on the lead time for one.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on January 05, 2007, 07:24:02 PM
Ford also is working on a hybrid in the F150 that uses a hydraulic fluid for the alternative power transmission medium rather than an electric engine, using recombinant braking to compress large hydraulic cylinders for city driving. Numbers I've heard bandied about state that the city mileage figures in early test mules are > 60 mpg.
I'd buy a Tacoma today if they'd put a turbodiesel in it. For that matter, I'd buy the F150 diesel. I've heard about Honda's Eurospec diesels for a couple of years now. I'm sure it'll be as technologically advanced as their CVCC design was in its day. A diesel in a Ridgeline would be a modest saving grace for that monstrosity. In an Accord, it'd be a world-beater.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: wingnutx on January 05, 2007, 07:40:44 PM
I'd love a diesel engine in my Amigo back home.
I'd also like a diesel welder/generator, but those are so much pricier than the gasoline ones that i see for sale everywhere.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 05, 2007, 07:43:21 PM
Post by: Antibubba on January 05, 2007, 08:04:41 PM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on January 05, 2007, 08:19:21 PM
one issue with USA diesels has been the sulfur in our diesel mixture
Ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) is a term used to describe a standard for defining diesel fuel with substantially lowered sulphur contents. As of October 15, 2006, most diesel fuel sold at retail locations in the United States and Canada is ULSD.
The move to lower sulphur content is expected to allow the application of newer emissions control technologies that should substantially lower emissions of noxious particulates from diesel engines, similar to changes that previously took place in the European Union. New emissions standards will apply in some states beginning in 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 05, 2007, 08:23:56 PM
Post by: wingnutx on January 05, 2007, 08:35:37 PM
Do all diesel's have noxiously smelly exhaust, or was that just the Bradleys I used to drive?
That was the passengers, not the exhaust
Post by: Iain on January 06, 2007, 01:32:05 AM
Post by: Firethorn on January 06, 2007, 02:05:08 AM
So what's the bottom line? Now that we have low-sulfur diesel available here, the auto makers can market diesel cars and trucks that meet the necessary emissions standards?
Pretty much. Sulfer's in some ways the lead of gasoline. It was a cheap solution to a problem in it's time, then it was just being cheap and not removing it. Modern turbodiesels(IE not american cars) would be clogged horrendously fast with our current diesel. BTW I thought diesel in some states/locations were already low sulfer, and 2007 was the beginning of national implimentation.
I drove some diesels over in Germany and was seriously impressed. Heck, that's part of why I'm hanging onto my current car, I was holding out for the next generation vehicles to become economical, whether that was hybrid, diesel, or a car optimized for E85 or 100*. Diesel sounds very, very good as there's a biological version of the fuel that doesn't require any engine modifications
*IE a much higher compression engine. If I had to fill up with dino-fuel I'd simply have to use premium.
Post by: Dannyboy on January 06, 2007, 04:01:48 AM
PS Apologies for the drift.
Post by: Moondoggie on January 06, 2007, 05:25:47 AM
I havent' checked the tax rates recently, but the last time I looked the fuel taxes in most states on gas vs. diesel only varied by a few cents per gallon, if at all.
The "Obnoxious smell" of diesel exhaust should only be present when a diesel engine is first started until it warms up. Once the engine is running at it's intended efficiency there's very little odor.
Sindawe, you might want to rethink your position that diesels are underpowered/unreliable. Once you put a turbo on one, there's plenty of power. As far as reliability issues....I have over a million miles on my Detroit and it's never left me alongside the road yet! I've had the top off of the engine twice...once for a leaking oil seal (warranty) and once for a head gasket @ 940K miles. I'm still running all 6 original injectors (knock on wood).
I love my "Screaming Green Leaker"!
Post by: Sindawe on January 06, 2007, 05:57:56 AM
Post by: mfree on January 06, 2007, 06:23:01 AM
GM's problems were (1) no turbo and (2) NO WATER TRAP. ANY water got in the tank and the injection pump would freeze solid, and that's the *good* outcome... the bad one is if the pump let it through, it'd lift the head, warp it, break a piston, etc.
The Olds diesel block is quite a bit heavier than the standard block, bigger mains, etc. That's not a conversion.
GM screwed it up because they didn't want to add a $15 part that meant *gasp* maintenance to empty on a regular basis.
Post by: Sindawe on January 06, 2007, 06:43:57 AM
Quote
You are aware that the "converted gasoline engine" part is mostly a myth, right?
Citation? This is where I got the data about the converted gasoline engine.
Quote
In the 1970s and 1980s, GM pushed Diesel engines and cylinder deactivation technologies to disastrous results due to poor durability in the Oldsmobile diesels (this was a modified gasoline engine) and drivability issues in the Cadillac 4-6-8 variable cylinder engines.
Source: http://www.generalwatch.com/editorials/editorial.cfm?EdID=93
Source: http://www.generalwatch.com/editorials/editorial.cfm?EdID=93
If that is incorrect I'll happily post a retraction. I was not aware of the lack of a water trap in the design. Stupid choice in my eyes, since it seems to me that GM could have put the draining of the trap as part of the routine maintenance schedule and tacked on some extra fees to take care of it at the dealer => more profit.
Post by: Werewolf on January 06, 2007, 06:51:31 AM
According to both, one can buy a third party add on module that reprograms the internal computer used to control the engine and double or triple the power available. Those modules run about $500 or so are programmed to work once and restore the original programming once.
I have a hard time believing what they say but since they both say the same thing and at different times it's plausible.
Anyone here know anything about this?
Post by: Tallpine on January 06, 2007, 07:38:14 AM
An 18-wheeler gets what...? 5-7 mpg? To move about 80,000 pounds.
So why can't a 6,000 pound pickup/SUV get 60-80 mpg?
??I don't have to haul big loads all the time, so I could get by with a full-size pickup with a smaller diesel (4 cyl maybe?) - something comparable to a mid-size V8. It could still pull a horse trailer or flatbed around as long as you don't expect to go up long steep hills at 70 mph.
Post by: drewtam on January 06, 2007, 08:38:26 AM
A neighbor and I were discussing this a while back (he has had several Dodge Cummins pickups).
An 18-wheeler gets what...? 5-7 mpg? To move about 80,000 pounds.
So why can't a 6,000 pound pickup/SUV get 60-80 mpg???
An 18-wheeler gets what...? 5-7 mpg? To move about 80,000 pounds.
So why can't a 6,000 pound pickup/SUV get 60-80 mpg?
??It just doesn't scale that way. But if you had as many gears and drove as slowly, you might get close.
I think there are several reasons diesels never took off in the US:
diesel price premium
no fuel price advantage
heavier
smell
noise
low specific output
smokey
ULSD does have a significant emissions advantage, and therefore you can better NOx and PM aftertreatments. With better PM aftertreatment you can run a richer full load mixture getting up to 60-70% stoichometric. That means more power, and better specific output. Better specific output means you can reduce the size and weight and overall price of the engine. The better NOx reduction also helps prevent smog, and smell.
But a major portion of these key drawbacks for automotive use stills exists, even after ULSD. Europe uses diesels becuase they create a massive taxing structure to force it. And I don't think that is something this board would support.
Drew
Post by: Dannyboy on January 06, 2007, 10:17:02 AM
According to both, one can buy a third party add on module that reprograms the internal computer used to control the engine and double or triple the power available. Those modules run about $500 or so are programmed to work once and restore the original programming once.
I have a hard time believing what they say but since they both say the same thing and at different times it's plausible.
Anyone here know anything about this?
I have a hard time believing what they say but since they both say the same thing and at different times it's plausible.
Anyone here know anything about this?
Edge, Banks, and Quadzilla all make them. A friend of mine has a Quadzilla module on his Dodge and that thing is nuts now. He's also got a few other things such as a new intake, bigger turbo, etc. He's embarrassed numerous sports car owners.
Post by: HankB on January 06, 2007, 12:34:18 PM
Flash forward to the '80s . . . a colleague at work bought a Blazer (or Jimmy?) with GM's 6.2 liter diesel. He didn't like it - gave him all kinds of problems, especially in winter. (This was Minnesota.)
Now that I'm in TX, I'd consider a diesel before a hybrid. Hybrids have all the potential failure modes of a gas engine, PLUS all those of an electric car, PLUS additional potential failure modes in the interface. And if you keep cars >10 years like I do, you're looking at one, possibly, two, full battery pack replacements. $Ouch!$
Even Consumer Reports, that bastion of political correctness, questions the economic sense of hybrids, once you factor in ALL cost factors.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 06, 2007, 12:42:47 PM
Quote
Back in the '70's, a neighbor had a diesel Mercedes. (I think it was a 220D?) He claimed he burned "furnace oil" in it, for about half the price of "legal" diesel. Don't know if he was on the level or full of it.
I'm pretty sure he was on the level (at least it is possible). It's pretty much the same thing other than some additives and TAXES!!!I've had my tanks checked a few times at weigh stations (chicken houses) for non-road taxed fuel. That's why home heating oil and kerosene is dyed red, for easy identification.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 06, 2007, 04:04:33 PM
Post by: rwc on January 07, 2007, 07:15:34 AM
http://rav4world.com/index/diesel.html
Post by: Ron on January 07, 2007, 07:54:32 AM
Quote
A Toyota RAV4 D-4D would meet my needs nicely. Anyone know anyone at Toyota? grin
That is a cool little diesel. I'll have to look into that when it comes to the USA.
Post by: mfree on January 07, 2007, 08:42:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine#LF9
[edit] Oldsmobile Diesel problems
Despite the fact that these engines looked in large part like their gasoline cousins, they were indeed quite different. The castings were much thicker and heavier, and a higher quality alloy was used for the block and heads. The main bearing journals were also increased to 3.000 inches in size to compensate for the higher operating stresses and pressures that diesels exert on their reciprocating parts. The primary problem with GM's Diesel engines of the 1970s was due in large part to poor fuel quality (diesel fuel was notoriously filthy and contaminated with water in the late 1970's), which caused corrosion in the fuel injection pump. This corrosion could (and often did) cause an incorrect injection cycle, which would produce abnormally high cylinder pressures. This in turn would cause the cylinder head to "lift" up off of the block, and stretch (or even break) the head bolts. Once the head gasket was compromised, the gasket would leak coolant into the cylinder. At 22.5:1 compression, there was little volume left in the cylinder at TDC. The uncompressible quality of liquids means that the engine would hydro lock, breaking pistons, crankshafts, connecting rods, and other parts, resulting in complete and catastrophic engine damage. Why then, did other Diesel engines, from GM and other companies, not have these problems? The answer lies in the lack of an effective water separating system, such as can be found on other diesel applications. Overall, the main ingredients of disaster that affected this engine lie in: 1) A poorly designed fuel system, which was fostered by a desire to insulate the consumer from the unpleasant aspects of Diesel ownership. 2) A misguided attempt to market the diesel engine as if it was as convenient to operate and maintain as a gasoline engine. 3) A poorly trained service staff which often used the incorrect oils and service procedures for this (and any, for that matter) Diesel engine. These factors combined to create the ultimate downfall of this engine. In the hands of an experienced diesel operator, these engines can (and often do) travel for hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles. However, for owners who would just "gas and go", this engine was particularly ill suited to the task.
http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofedsl.htm
That one highlights specific differences.
http://www.robertpowersmotorsports.com/DieselWeb.html
With some pictures of differences
Post by: Sindawe on January 07, 2007, 09:21:42 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on January 07, 2007, 09:24:05 AM
Back in the '70's, a neighbor had a diesel Mercedes. (I think it was a 220D?) He claimed he burned "furnace oil" in it, for about half the price of "legal" diesel. Don't know if he was on the level or full of it...
Don't know for sure but it is in line with my knowledge...our furnace in Michigan burned "#2 fuel oil", which my dad told me is "diesel fuel, just cheaper without the extra taxes..."
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on January 07, 2007, 10:41:44 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 07, 2007, 04:43:20 PM
Interesting about the design differences in the failed GM V-8 diesel. This caught my eye, though:
Quote
A misguided attempt to market the diesel engine as if it was as convenient to operate and maintain as a gasoline engine.
As if Mercedes and Volvo diesel drivers are constantly fretting over their machines?
I'd love to have an older 240D and run restaurant oil in it, I'm right here in the land of the Friday night fish fry! In the meantime, I've been burning nothing but E85 in my truck since last May, it's sorta fun.
Then again, I'd burn between 100,000 -250,000 pounds of JP4-JP8 in a given sortie, and I know that stuff runs real well in military diesel trucks. (Nematocyst-870 would have a hemorrhage knowing I contributed so much to global warming in one day, especially after accusing me of being infatuated with my motor vehicles...) Wonder what Uncle Sam is paying per gallon/pound of JP8 these days, and if they pay road excise tax?
Post by: wingnutx on January 07, 2007, 06:19:31 PM
All military diesels run on jet fuel. It's better fuel, and simplifies supply lines.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on January 08, 2007, 03:16:31 AM
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_UScars.html
interesting:
http://www.car-reports.co.uk/jeep/story8.htm
The all-new five-cylinder Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.1 Turbo Diesel is fitted as standard with a sophisticated four-speed automatic transmission and goes on sale in November with an on-the-road price of £30,995 to complete the UK line-up of the American manufacturers luxurious four wheel drive range.
Built in Graz, Austria, and equipped with a new diesel engine produced by VM Motori in Italy, this latest Grand Cherokee model joins the powerful 4.0-litre and muscular 4.7-litre V8 petrol engine models which have given Jeeps flagship range a flying start in the UK, establishing it in recent months as the premier must-have luxury four wheel drive vehicle.
The 3.1-litre TD model is expected to create a further boost in demand for the luxurious Jeep models but also to account for a significant proportion of those Grand Cherokee sales. One third of all previous model Grand Cherokees sold outside North America were equipped with the former 2.5-litre turbo diesel engine and manual gearbox. This level of demand is expected to increase with the arrival of the new and sophisticated turbo diesel engine and its automatic transmission.
With 283 lb ft of torque - almost as much as the 4.7-litre V8 - the responsive turbo diesel unit delivers a remarkable blend of power, economy and ease of operation on road as well as outstanding off-road capability. The 3.1 TD is therefore expected to be particularly popular among those customers who tow horseboxes, boats, caravans or other types of trailer. It can tow loads up to 3500kg.
The new engine produces 138 bhp which accelerates the Grand Cherokee from zero to 60mph in around 13.5 seconds and has a top speed of 108 mph. It returns 29.1 miles per gallon on the extra urban cycle, 24.1 mpg combined and 19.5 mpg on the urban cycle.
Post by: roo_ster on January 08, 2007, 12:00:31 PM
Oldsmobile Diesel problems
In the hands of an experienced diesel operator, these engines can (and often do) travel for hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles.
In the hands of an experienced diesel operator, these engines can (and often do) travel for hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles.
A friend of the family bought one of these Olds used with ~50K miles. He finally sold it around the year 2000. He forgot how many miles he had on it, as he forgot how many times the odo rolled over.
He finally got rid of it because a girlfriend of his was ragging him for driving such a rustbucket (he lived part time in Iowa). Big mistake, as she left him soon after he sold off the Olds.
Oh, he drove diesel pickups for a living.
Post by: Iain on January 08, 2007, 02:00:03 PM
Post by: Ron on January 08, 2007, 02:40:55 PM
Pretty cool anyway
Post by: Bogie on January 08, 2007, 02:45:58 PM
Ideally, an S-10 or Dakota sized thing, extended cab (not four doors) with a longbed... Duallies would be interesting, if they were inside the body instead of outside... The engine from the Dodge/Freightliner/Mercedes "Sprinter" van would be interesting - inline 5 cyl turbodiesel... Those BIG vans get 25ish mpg...
Primary use of the vehicle would be commuting, but I would really like something that I could comfortably tow with.
Post by: Zed on January 08, 2007, 04:02:53 PM
Ford is making quiet noises about a 4.4L 8 cylinder diesel for the 2008/2009 F150.
Actualy it's a V6 Diesel that Ford is Developing in-house for the F150 & small-mid size SUV's (can't remember the Displacement but 4.4 sounds about right).
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 08, 2007, 04:25:13 PM
Ford is making quiet noises about a 4.4L 8 cylinder diesel for the 2008/2009 F150.
Actualy it's a V6 Diesel that Ford is Developing in-house for the F150 & small-mid size SUV's (can't remember the Displacement but 4.4 sounds about right).
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on January 08, 2007, 05:13:36 PM
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2006/10/ford_to_offer_d.html
Ford will offer a diesel engine for its light-duty F-150 pickup, likely around 2008, according to a former Ford executive in Automotive News earlier this week. The engine will come from Land Rover's diesel-powered Range Rover in Europe. It's a 3.6-liter turbodiesel V-8 that makes 267 hp and 472 pounds-feet of torque in the Range Rover and it helps the Rover get around 31 mpg on the highway.
This marks the first U.S. light-duty pickup truck to have a diesel engine, according to Automotive News. Those who tow covet diesels for their prodigious torque and massive pulling power, and most heavy-duty pickups like the Ford F-250/350 and the Chevy Silverado 2500/3500 offer them. Light-duty pickups typically have regular gasoline V-8s with less torque and towing capacity. To get a sense of how diesels affect things, compare Ford's F-350 with a regular gasoline V-10 to a diesel V-8:
2007 F-350 6.8L V-10: 362 hp, 457 lbs.-ft. of torque
Max towing capacity (4.1 axle, dual rear wheel): 13,100 14,100 lbs., depending on cab style
2007 F-350 6.0L V-8 (diesel): 325 hp, 570 lbs.-ft. of torque
Max towing capacity (4.1 axle, dual rear wheel): 15,000 lbs., all cab styles
The brawniest F-150 uses Ford's 5.4-liter V-8 to make 300 hp and 365 pounds-feet of torque, and it can tow up to 10,500 pounds. Since torque has greater impact on towing than horsepower, it's likely the diesel F-150 will tow considerably more.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Iain on January 09, 2007, 02:47:04 AM
What kind of Fifth Gear post is that? No Vicki or Tiff?
Pretty cool anyway
Pretty cool anyway
Apologies for that. At least Tim Lovejoy wasn't in it either.
It is pretty cool when you consider that aside from the ballast and the added tire pressure they made no modifications to a standard road car. That's a very powerful engine.
My dad has driven diesels almost exclusively for the last fifteen years. Been through a few, two Citroen BX's of which only one was a turbodiesel. Didn't mind them at the time, seemed quiet enough and the suspension on them was (and still is) great. Diesel technology has moved on since them though and after spending more time in Audi, Vauxhall and Peugeot diesels since then, I recently got a ride in a 'vintage' BX. Slow and extremely loud in comparision to the more modern diesels.
Post by: richyoung on January 09, 2007, 07:47:18 AM
Quote
This marks the first U.S. light-duty pickup truck to have a diesel engine, according to Automotive News.
Automotive news is full of poop. Chevy and GM half-tons were available with the 5.7 diesel enigine in the mid-80s.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 09, 2007, 08:07:47 AM
Chris
Post by: Tallpine on January 09, 2007, 11:22:12 AM
Quote
2007 F-350 6.0L V-8 (diesel): 325 hp, 570 lbs.-ft. of torque
Max towing capacity (4.1 axle, dual rear wheel): 15,000 lbs., all cab styles
Max towing capacity (4.1 axle, dual rear wheel): 15,000 lbs., all cab styles
I'm sure all the manufacturers rate even their heaviest duty pickups like that, but for a lot folks that I know, towing 15,000 pounds would be almost running empty.
Fill up a big gooseneck with cows and see what it weighs.
The "Hoots" delivered over 7 tons (14,000) of hay to our place, using a Duramax crew-cab. That's not counting the empty trailer weight, which must have been 6,000 pounds or more. Then there were the four big German guys
Must have been close to 30K gross.