http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9712548-7.html

Check out this European Accord (US TSX) in Calf. with a diesel engine that gets 62.8 mpg on the highway (62.8 mpg X 17.1 gallon tank = 1073.88 miles). You could potentially drive 10,000 miles and only have to fill your gas tank 10-12 times compared to 23-30 times with gasoline for the same miles!

Add a hybrid engine to the diesel and the TSX might get better overall gas mileage than a Toyota Prius.

We might see this in 2010 or 2012 in the US,

 

Considering how much improvement diesel tech has come, this would be a good idea; especially a turbo diesel motor. Imagine the Torque!

 

not feeling the wheels... LOL
j/k...this looks good, but the recent new VW's turbocharged + supercharged 1.4L engine looked amazing. (european golf and polo)

 

When I spoke to a couple of Germans (on a trip to Europe) they said that they didn't believe hybrid tech. is worth it, because they can get the same economy from diesel engines. They kinda implied that Americans were weird.

 

I'd be all over that diesel that white on rice if they brought it here!

 

They make a good point though!

 

What the hell...that graphic on the side of the car looks like it was PSed on to the car.

 

hmmm..koooll only if they did that a tiny bit before i got my 07..lol~

 

I'll take two.

 

well the hybrids are "environmentally" safe.. as opposed to diesel..

 

Diesel is environmentally safe. There's new diesel and new technology out these days. It's not like the old diesel.

 

Germans don't like hybrids because they haven't figured out how to make one yet. Germans aren't fond of any Japanese cars.

As soon as a German company makes a hybrid- and it won't be too long- they will be more accepting of the technology.

 

if those numbers arent' fudged, that's simply amazing

 

I saw these diesel Accords in Europe in 2003. You can also get the same motor in the new Civic. www.honda.uk I looked at trying to get one over here, but then I thought about what would I do if something happened to the engine. Lots of down time and money. But I still want one.

 

I thought about it too, lol. I think I might write to Honda and tell them I'd buy if they brought it here, so long as it doesn't cost $40k or something.

 

sounds great but......, could have used it like 10 years ago......
it will help the environment but not enough to get us out of the trouble that we are in.....
I WANT HYDROGEN........, just think of the efficiency and power........

 

And how do you get hydrogen? Split water, right? Which takes energy. Which comes primarily from coal and other fossil fuels in this country. If you're concerned about the environmental impact of fossil fuels, I think hydrogen would be a bad idea. (And the whole global warming thing is exaggerated... but that's probably getting out of topic.) I vote for more nuclear power plants, then we can move to electric cars, then we have zero emissions. Done.

Until then, if you're paranoid about the environment, either diesel or hybrid sounds good to me. I'm just stoked about the mileage I get with my TSX. Looking at so many of the other choices, the existing TSX looks pretty "environmentally friendly" in comparison.

But with the new cleaner diesel, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

if that car comes out in 2010, it better not have the same exact stylings as the current TSX. b/c that'd be freaking outdated by then.

 

I'd be very interested to see the diesel brought to the states once we get our sulfur content in the right place.

Hybrid technology is very interesting but the people who say "hybrid is ecologically safe" I think forget about the batteries in their car which are both very toxic and require a lot of energy to make.

 

Got back to the States after spending a three-week vacation in Portugal, one of my Dad's friends gave me ride in his Diesel Accord on the way to dinner. My impressions were that the engine was superior to the TDCI in the Ford Focus I was renting. The engine sounded less more refined, with considerably less noise and vibration entering the car. Again, I was a passenger, and I didn't want to appear rude by ignoring my host by focusing on the car.

As for the rest of the car, the black rubber protection around the bumpers, 16-inch wheels, red light guage cluster, and sparser interior make the U.S. TSX appear truly worth the price.

 

The 2.2 i-CDTi should be slightly less than the current 2.4 petrol TSX costs, if Euro/UK prices are indicative.

 

Nicely said. This pretty much sums it up.

What we really need is a Turbo Diesel Plug-In Hybrid. Now we're talking!

 

I wonder if the fact that TSX odometers only go up to 999.9 miles would affect the MID display of the MPG. That would be funny if it wrapped to ~73 miles (1073.88-999.9), then divide by 17.1 gal, gets you a little over 4mpg.

Jeff

 

Yes i am concerned about the environment and you should be too....., ur young enought to see what will happen....., problem is that alot of people wont be though....., mostly people who are older and into politics..... and these are the people who govern this country....., things will change and then you'll "believe that we do have a significant affect on the worlds climate"

But anyway.... ,what i was getting at was the fact that hygrogen can be produced through geothermal energy like any where there are volcanoes of thermal vents like queensland....., thus making it far more sustainable and practicle..... (enregy created by the natural energy that the earth puts forth..., just like wind anf water) Not enough people/countries in the world can be trusted with nuclear technology nor is it a neverending resource...... in comparison to hydrogen which is the most abundant element on the planet/universe.....

.......not to mention that when we have this technology we will be pluging our houses into our cars> not our cars into our houses....., its like your own personal power plant...., plus hydrogen can used to make more hydrogen...., just like a car produces electricity for the machine......

but yes a 65mpg car is defiently better than what I have right now...., by like double.... -wow- would have been nice to get it when the rest of the world got it.... just shows ya how america works.....

 

The problem will be trying to sell a sports-luxury car that does 0-60 in 11 seconds. The Euro Accord diesel isn't exactly a rocket ship.

Fuel economy is great, but at what cost?

Consider this:
Car "A" cost $30,000 does 0-60 in 11 seconds and only consumes $5000 of fuel in the 4 years you own it.
Car "B" cost $25,000 does 0-60 in 6 seconds but it consumes $10,000 of fuel in the 4 years you own it.

What would you rather own? They both cost the same in the end, but what would be the more engaging driving experience for the 4 years you own it?

Some people get off on saving gas, but some like a faster car. If you get your jollies from saving gas, that's fine by me, but I'd rather have a faster car.

 

^^ That's why they'd need to have several choices, so everyone can get what they want. I agree that not everyone would want a diesel, but I think a lot of people would be interested in it. I'd love to have a fuel efficient car with all the luxuries and amenities of a luxury car. I'm into the philosophy that a fuel efficient car doesn't have to be an economy car.

 

I’m not usually stomping on the gas to do 0-60 in 8.7 sec in my 5AT. The only time I need to do that is when I’m showing off or jacking around in my car. My usually 0-60 times is in the 15-20 second range and I have around ¼ mile or more to get there. Make the 2.2 diesel a turbo diesel and add a 6th gear to the 5AT. The 0-60 time will be about 9 sec and that will make me a buyer of the 2.2L turbo diesel TSX with 35mpg average.

 

I would like diesel maybe on my next car so that I can save more money on gas especially with these ridiculous gas prices and since our car can really only use premium gas.

Spend 42 bucks on 11.5 gallons last night on the TSX. I hadn't gased since Sunday though.

 

I easily get 30 to 32mpg out of my 7-second TSX as it is. I wouldn't sacrifice 2 seconds to 60 to get 3mpg.

I was excited when the Fit came out because of it's amazing use of space and the high-30's mpg combined fuel economy. However, after nearly getting rear-ended on an on ramp on the test drive because I couldn't accelerate fast enough, I decided the fuel economy just wasn't worth the performance hit.

0-60 in 9+ seconds is just scary on today's roads.

 

Sure, you can have a fuel efficient luxury car, but it just won't be performance oriented.

A few manufacturers are adding hybrid drives to their luxury cars to give them excellent acceleration but they cost a lot more than comparably quick cars from their competition.

As I said before, fuel efficiency is a means of saving money. If you spend a lot of money to make the car fuel efficient and fast, then why make it fuel efficient?

 

Couple things I suppose I'd like to add:

These cars are NOT clean enough to meet the CA (and NY, VT, NH, MA and some other states with CA standards) emission standards. They could last year, but the standard jumped this year, and they can't do it. The funny thing is that last year, a lot of these engines wouldn't work here because we had too high sulfur in our diesel. Now we have the low sulfur diesel these engines need, but the emission standards are too tight. Result? Not a single brand new 2007 diesel passenger car for sale in the US right now. VW stockpiled a bunch of 2006 Jetta TDI to hopefully hold them over for awhile.

Mercedes and VW have committed to bringing new engines that are capable of meeting the new emission standards. However, they use a urea injection system on the catalytic converter that periodically sprays the cat with the urea solution to turn the emissions into ammonia. It works, but the urea tank must be refilled, and the urea system adds even more to the cost of the engine.

I believe (as stated) that Honda is thinking to sell a diesel car in the US by 2010 or so. They have also promised it will not require urea injection. Great! But I wonder what sort of expensive alternative technology it will have instead. Are people going to pay thousands of dollars more for a diesel engine rather than take the lower mpg of a gasoline engine and use the savings to pay for gas? I like the idea of the higher MPG, but I probably would'nt pay more than $1000 to $1500 extra for it.

Diesels are generally slow in all out acceleration numbers. They don't rev as high and for rippin acceleration runs are generally pretty poor. However, these diesels generally make a boatload more low-rpm torque than the gassers, and so in around town driving can actually be FASTER than the gas cars. You don't have to rev the snot out of them to get the power, and in most situations you're not going to redline in your gas engine in everyday driving. So, for everyday, most-of-the-time situations, diesel can actually be more enjoyable. But freeway onramps are less fun.

Hybrids are a very interesting technology, and a decent alternative. However, they're expensive, heavy, are un-proven, and one must consider the environmental impact of battery production and disposal and not just the better gas mileage they offer. Hybrids are fine (not my cup of tea) but I guess I question why we'd want something with environmentally damaging batteries and expensive, heavy technology when diesel offers pretty much the same real world fuel economy, in a cheaper package, for less money, and with proven, legendary reliability (diesels last FOREVER!). Seems like a hybrid is answering a question that doesn't really need to be asked. Just use diesel....

Lastly, I would be very interested in cars like this. Of course I'd have to drive it and consider the costs to buy one, but the prospect of getting few performance drawbacks with insane fuel mileage in a nicely sized car (no need to drive a MINI to get great mileage) is very appealing. I wouldn't want it in my Miata, but for an everyday driver where you use it just to putt around town and take freeway jaunts, it makes a ton of sense. I spent 10 days in Europe in a diesel, manual VW Passat wagon. I really LOVED that engine and the car. You could feel a little vibration at idle, but once underway you didn't know it was diesel. It was great around town, plenty of power on the autobahn. Only acceleration to highway speeds was a bit of a downer. But the best part? We drove it all over europe, at 115mph on the autobahn, through Zurich and Amsterdam, with 4 adults and full of luggage, and I averaged 39mpg for the whole thing! I was dumbfounded. Assuming the diesel engine wasn't that much more expensive, I would get the TDI over the 2.0L turbo gas in a heartbeat. Wasn't that much slower, and the increase in mileage was great. Loved it!

And such engines in small cars they get even more insane fuel economy. I think the European Ford Fiesta diesel (think, maybe between a mini and a civic) gets something like 60mpg on the highway (UK ratings). You can turn a 40mpg gasser Civic into a 60mpg diesel Civic. No loss in comfort, room, etc. Just change that engine!

Anyway, very long post. Sorry. I guess I'm just kinda excited about diesel after getting to experience it in a real car and not a HD pickup truck. Just really loved the driveability and the mileage. Worth a look. Just don't know if I want to wait to 2010 to get one.....

 

Well, I understand that it costs money to make them more fuel efficient, especially for a hybrid. However, my main reason for it is not for saving money, it's for using less gas, so it's more environmentally sound. Also, if hybrids and diesels were utilized in more vehicles, the cost of the technology would come down.

 

Fortunately, the new Honda engines ARE compatible with the new standards, they just aren't available yet. They are supposed to be coming around 2009 or 2010 I believe.

 

I love my driving my TSX - let me just make that statement clear.

However, as it is Friday of National Transportation Week, I propose we ride more bikes.

I am convinced that bicycles (and I suppose motor bikes) are the answer to the worlds problems. Combine that with a quality rail/bus system (I'm from Detroit - so this is utterly hopeless) and you get Europe. They are progressive, forward thinking and not nearly as fat as Americans.

Do yourself a fovor. Visit Copenhagen, Denmark. The women are all 6' tall, completly fit, and all ride bicyles to work in their skirts. It is the greatest place on earth.

On that note, I can't wait to get in my TSX at 5:00 and have a pleasant commute home.

- Typical American Hypocrite

 

Not to pull this too far off topic, but a good start would be a US policy that actually encourages fuel-efficient transportation. Gas is going up again (it's already up), so what's someone's solution - waive part of the gas tax during the summer! (I heard 25c/gal, so I'm not sure if this is a state (I live in PA) or a federal tax).

The main advantage hybrid, diesel, and subcompact and smaller cars have is fuel efficiency (lower fuel costs). If you basically subsidize gasoline so that it's 'affordable' to SUV drivers, how will those markets ever thrive. I'd much rather see the US raise taxes on gas (think European levels) and lets the economics of owning a more efficient car rise to the top.

I mention this in regards to my TSX. One of the reasons I bought it was because it's a 4 cylinder engine, and I really was hoping the mileage would be better than the 6 cylinder car I had previously owned. Maybe it's better if I did 100% highway driving (where I hear 35mpg+ isn't uncommon), but on my mix of city/highway driving, I'm seeing maybe 22mpg. I'm not sure that's much better than an '86 Supra I had 20 yrs ago. So much for progress.

Jeff

 

jwhite-
continuing the thread jack.....

I agree completely. Higher fuel prices encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars. Higher CAFE will make new cars more expensive, while gas stays cheap, so people will just keep their old cars and use the cheap gas. Plus higher CAFE doesn't do anything to help us actually DRIVE less either. Americans still drive long distances, have huge commutes to/from work, etc. Higer CAFE makes that easier (the cars drive further for the same fuel cost). Higher fuel taxes make the gas expensive, so people will buy high mileage cars AND cut down on distances and amount of driving.

J Winer -
To continue your thread jack..... Just curious who takes the cake with gals on bikes, Copenhagen or Amsterdam? I have never seen as many bikes as I did in Amsterdam. Never been to Denmark though. I also spend a decent amount of time in Detroit. Nowhere else have I found (except maybe LA) a metro region where so many people live so far away and drive a gazillion miles to work someplace else. I know people who live in Grosse Pointe and work in Birmingham. Ann Arbor to Auburn Hills. Crap, even Brighton is sorta the next "suburb" of Detroit, and it take a freakin HOUR to get from Brighton to downtown Detroit. I swear that entire region is built around the car. Every mile road is a mini expressway. Downtown Detroit has quick, painless access to 4 freeways within just a mile or two (easy to get out of town). Woodward is Metro Detroit's "main street", yet in nearly all locations is incredibly discouraging to people on foot. It is a fascinating layout, and the sprawl is terrible. Catch 22 on public transit. People are too spread out to make a system be able to serve that many people, so thus people wouldn't ride it, and then that becomes the excuse never to build it.

Ok, back to the diesel TSX. I still like it!

 

Europeans can walk, ride, etc., more than Americans because their cities are much more densely packed. The small town I visited the last time in Holland was dense, while surrounded by wide open spaces.

Where I work, the housing nearby is either run-down and scary or way too expensive. There's just no incentive for me to do that, when I can get 26-28 MPG on my commute. But they do have some condos right smack downtown, and some restaurants, but no grocery stores or department stores or really any kind of shopping -- that all disappeared decades ago. SO you can walk to work, but you'll still have to get into your car and drive to shop for anything! Kinda defeats the purpose, IMO.

Compare that to my London visit where I saw that you could walk from your apartment a few blocks, catch the train to downtown and walk a few blocks to work. I probably wouldn't mind that. Small grocery stores were also within walking distance. I imagine you have that sort of thing in some older US cities like NY.

My city isn't like that, and I can't imagine my city turning into NY or London (not that I would want it to, even).

I agree, as the gas prices rise, people will naturally gravitate towards smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Funny how that works. But I wouldn't want to put too many artificial taxes on gas (say to bring it to EU levels), as that will slow the economy and affect people directly in the pocketbook. In the short term, it really won't affect driving that much, as people "have to" get to work, etc. If phased in over enough years, people can budget to spend more money to live closer to downtown, rather than spend money on the commute, but it's still money spent that they wouldn't have had to otherwise spend.

Amsterdam has a crazy number of bikes. I've visted twice, and walked for miles. If you don't mind walking it's a nice city to walk in. I wouldn't try driving in it (where would you park?).

Atlanta has a nice metro rail system, but only so many people are going to be near a station. You can take a bus to a station, but now you're making it less convenient and more costly in time to where maybe you might as well drive. But for what it is, it's pretty decent.