oasis3582

According to this news post, Acura is bringing diesel to the TSX and RDX in 2009:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/21/a...wer-next-year/

LuvMyTSX

This would be great for those who want better fuel economy.

Heck, I'd consider a diesel RDX if the mpg was good.

XLR8R

Autocar tested the 2008 European Accord with the 2.2l i-DTEC.

180hp and 320 lb/ft of torque intially seems awesome, but note the the 9.0 sec 0-60 time (zzzzzz), in a sedan weighing 1000 lbs less than an RDX.

The economy though, 51mpg, may be worth it -- probably 35 to 40-ish in the RDX -- and I think they are talking Imperial gallons, the numbers will be lower in US gal.

From Autocar:

LuvMyTSX

Yeah, it's a little slow, but maybe it'll be a little faster with the new car. The '08 is the previous design. Also, different car mags get different results. I'm also not on a drag strip every day, so I don't place too much emphasis on speed anyway.

zalusky

Performance is not always first. I fully expect 4 dollar gas this year unless the recession actually puts a damper on price increases. I love all the other things about the RDX and performance is the first thing I would trade down. Perhaps they will continue to offer the gas engines and we both we will be happy.

darth62

Although autocar is reporting a 0-60 time, it is probably testing 0-62 MPH (which is the same as 0 - 100 KMH, a typical stat in Euro car mags). That would make it about a half a second faster.

Also, I see no mention in the autocar article of a TURBO diesel. I think this may be a normally aspirated version of what will show up in the RDX.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/228799/

ThePlainsman

It's too slow. Period. As for the importance of performance, it is going to be different for different people. Performance might be "the first thing to trade down" for some people but not for me. To me, there is nothing worse than a car that is boring to drive, especially when you have to spend a lot of time in it.

I drive 120 miles round trip to work every day. Almost all highway. I'd be bored out of my skull without performance. Screw gas mileage. I'll pay the tab. I'm not ready to drive like an old man.

LuvMyTSX

That's why there should be options, so hopefully everyone can get what they like.

XLR8R

You are right Darth, the article does not mention a turbo, which would be a strange oversight if it indeed has one.

However, most small turbo-diesels have a horsepower/torque ratio of about .57 For instance:

the 2005 Jetta TDI 1.9ltr---------------------100hp/177lb-ft = .57
the 2008 Jetta BlueTec TDI 2.0ltr-----------140hp/236lb-ft = .59

compared to the Honda iDTEC 2.2ltr-------180hp/320lb-ft = .56

If Honda pulled this off without a turbo, then VW had better figure out how Peter Thorndyke snuck Irish coffee into their petrol tanks...again!!

Beyond that, the 2.2ltr iDTEC intros I have been able to find all indicate forced-induction, as does this one: (note the turbo, upper left)

LukeaTron

To get diesel to burn cleanly and efficiently you need very high compression. I think semis run around 22:1 compression ratio with the boost factored in. It'd be very difficult to extract the optimum performance from a diesel engine forced induction. Well I should clarify, optimum performance across a wide RPM range. Industrial equipment does alright without it but those kind of motors (tractors, generators, etc.) usually run full throttle whenever they're in use.

For a car though, you pretty much need to have a turbo or you're squandering any possible advantage.

oasis3582

I think coupling the diesel engine with AWD instead of FWD would give the RDX a better launch and then a better 0-60 as well.

PR RDX

Don't forget that Turbo diesel engines are very easily modified. Just by installing a chip you could get easily 220 Hp and 400 lb/ft. of torque.

Fuel economy would suffer but if you need more power it can be done.

RENARELLO

Pugggggg!!!!!!

darth62

That is a damn clever analysis!