Benush

I know if=n the past I've written of Acura's direction toward green cars. Ignore the TSX garbage in this posting from SEMA and look at the overall direction Acura/Honda is heading and it isn't towards a v8

MA eNews, Vol. 10, No. 42 - Oct 18, 2007
SPY PHOTOS—2009 ACURA TSX: AGGRESSIVE NEW LOOK WITH TURBO AND DIESEL OPTIONS ON TAP

Early this morning, not far from Honda's U.S. facilities, we were lucky enough to get a quick glance at the next-generation Acura TSX. The new TSX will take on a more aggressive look, taking design cues from the Sports 4 concept car shown at the 2005 Tokyo Motor Show.

An improved 2.4L i-VTEC four-cylinder motor will go into the base model with an expected 20–30–hp bump. The entry-level model will sport either a six-speed manual, or five-speed auto, and will be front-wheel drive.

A hotter Type-S model should also appear with power coming from the 260-hp turbocharged motor also found in the Acura RDX. The sportier model will feature a six-speed auto/manual DSG gearbox, and is expected to feature Honda's Super Handling All-Wheel-Drive system. While this vehicle will be sold as the Acura TSX in the United States, this same car, with just a few minor styling adjustments, will also sell in European markets as the new Honda Accord.

With the 2008 Honda Accord getting a diesel motor, it is possible that we could see a diesel TSX as well. Look for the TSX to start production towards the end of 2008.

Photo Credit: Chris Doane for Brenda Priddy & Co.

So reread that last paragraph - the Accord with a diesel engine and the same with a TSX can the RL be but a few years to that point.

Just my

lumpulus

Sure hope not...

kirbyflorida

Diesels won Lemans and Sebring, they are clean and quiet.
It will take American a while to accept them, they will be thinking of the old diesels.

loulinjai

I don't see a TSX with a base and type S version

TampaRLX-SH

The 4 cylinder green diesels that are a hit in Europe (the EuroAccord - TSX) sound great and get upwards to 60mpg. That engine will likley make it into our US model Accord. Right now, Honda is building new diesel engine plants as they cannot keep up the demand for them in Europe (Europe has very strict diesel compliance issues). It is expeced to be a 50 state compliance engine here in the US. I am unsure of Canada's requirements for diesels.

Honda is developing a V6 green diesel for the Ridgeline, Pilot, Odyssey and MDX. They are conidering this engine for the CRV and the Element (but I would expect a 4 cylinger diesel in these models before a V6 diesel). This engine is also being tested for the LEGEND and Europeans would prefer a more efficient, torquier green V6 in the LEGEND instead of what we hope for with a V8+. I read that as, if the Honda green diesel is accepted in the US (with a LOT of education to our market), then this green diesel V6 will likely be offered in the RL as well.

geronimomoe

There isn't really anything wrong with diesels. The E320 CDI is quiet, gets great fuel economy, and I believe is quicker than the gas powered E350 (or was it the older E320) MB.

Diesels have phenomenal torque output so they're quick off the line, unlike the diesels from the old days...

SPUDMTN

Diesel is the answer at this point in time. Until there's hydrogen fuel cell technology for the masses and until they can get a decent driving range out of the technology, I think the best thing is diesel.

Take the E320 Bluetec for example. It has a 600 mile range on one tank, is nearly as fast as its E350 brother (0-60 in 6.6s), features 400 lb ft torque (at 1600 RPM!), gets killer mileage (23/30), and is nearly everybit as refined as the E350. In my opinion, it's a no-brainer. Same can be said about the ML, R, and GL320s; there's just no competition.

Everyone just assumes that diesels are loud, dirty, and unrefined. However, with the advent of diesels on our shores again by the likes of Mercedes, BMW, and VW, (and Honda here soon), I'm sure the myths surrounding diesel will slowly be obliterated. It's just going to take people buying them (and the various corporations marketing the heck out of them). The fact of the matter is that Europeans live by these things; however, ever since America slaughtered the diesel engine (think GM diesels of the late 70s/early 80s--essentially a petrol engine running on diesel) there has been this stigma associated with them.

Given the choice between a gasoline or a diesel powered vehicle, I would choose diesel; hands-down, everytime, anytime.

Mike_TX

We've discussed diesels to death already in other threads, so I won't go there. But IMO the keys to diesel growth and acceptance in the U.S. depend on two things:

1. The availability of low-sulfur diesel fuel (not now widely available), and

2. The successful containment of particulates (aka soot), which are an inherent part of diesel exhaust and not officially treated as a "pollutant" by EPA and other federal and state agencies.

True, "particulate traps" and other devices are proposed for 50-state green diesels, but even the clean ones allow a lot of soot to get by. My own personal objection to diesels hinges on just that - if I get behind a current diesel vehicle in traffic, I will usually take the first side street, since the soot goes right past A/C and cabin filters and shuts down my bronchial tubes. I'm not convinced the green diesels address that well enough. They seem happy enough to just get better mileage and not produce as much nitrous oxides.

Do away with the soot and I'm on board. I drove a diesel Passat all over Portugal a year or so ago and it was a nice car.

.
.

TampaRLX-SH

The Honda green diesels have no more soot than a gasoline engine. They are infact lower than ULEV2 emissions in our current RL. The Honda 4 cylinder diesel currently offered in the EuroAccord is cleaner burning than a Prius and betters it in economy with multiples pf the HP and torque.

If you stood behind a EuroAccord diesel, you would not smell diesel, you would not see soot (although ANY fossil fuel burner will emit some carbon, especially on rich acceleration) and it would sound like a gasoline engine.

The Honda green diesels will not require urea packs, but instead have a second catalytic converter to address the sulfer and filter particulates.

The low sulfer diesel fuel refinement for these engines to run on is already available in the US. It will not require the infastructure support as will ethanol, hydrogen and reclaim support for hybrid batteries. You drive to the pump and select diesel, you get low sulfer diesel fuel and you drive with better economy, more torque, no tractor sound and you are greener that nearly all current gasoline engined passenger cars.

It may not be the long term solution for our fossil fuel dependencies, but it surely deserves intelligent consideration. The hybrid solution is more about fashion than making the best of the infastructure we already have in place. How green will all those hybrid batteries be in landfills?

Once Honda recieves it's 50 state certification - (yes, that includes the stringent states of California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont), the only thing that needs to be implemented is our perception that these diesels spew soot, smell and sound like a tractor.

TampaRLX-SH

http://www.foresightvehicle.org.uk/p...diesel_eng.pdf

Mike_TX

At the very real risk of starting the debate again, and with no offense to Tampa, I think it's important to separate fact from optimism here.

I've done a lot of research on the internet lately, and the only source that really says Honda's green diesels are cleaner (in particulate terms) than comparable gasoline engines is Honda itself.

Sources like the National Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and other similar sources (including environmental groups like the Sierra Club) do say the "clean diesels" are far LOWER in particulate production than older-style diesels, but that they still produce soot containing over 40 known toxins.

The EPA has decreed that, beginning in 2010, emissions from new diesels have to be no greater than those of gasoline engines, but they still concentrate mainly on NOX (nitrogen oxides). Honda uses a catalytic converter that converts much of the NOX to ammonia, which is then used to catalyze more of the NOX to plain nitrogen (essentially what the urea systems do, but without the maintenance issues of urea). Particulate matter is apparently still taking a back seat to the NOX which has been the main focus of air quality agencies all along, and many environmental groups are none too happy about that.

So, the question is this - Is there good scientific evidence somewhere that the green diesels (Honda or otherwise) are truly as clean at the tailpipe as modern gasoline engines (and not just in terms of NOX)? I'm certainly willing to accept good solid evidence (not advertising hype) of the cleanliness of the new breed of diesels if I can find it, but so far it eludes me.

Any good sources to point me to?

.
.

lumpulus

A Mazda with a Rotary engine also won Le Mans, but I'll never buy a car with a Wankel either.

Diesels are for trucks.

db22

BTW - Diesel in England costs more than petrol.

kirbyflorida

Too bad, you will be missing out on amazing engines.
And that Mazda was in 91, light years ago.
F1 will have electric motors next year, does that mean you will not buy one of those either?