99SI
 |
|
|
It sure would be nice to see that engine come over to NA and be in the Honda lineup somewhere. I imagine it would be perfect for the accord as well as the CR-V and Element. What is the torque figure on that engine?
|
RoadRunner
|
|
140hp@4000rpm
340nm@2000rpm
the only problem with this engine is the turbo supplied by garrett:(
|
RayChuang
|
|
We may just see the i-CTDi engine in the USA pretty soon.
I've heard that with the availability of low-sulfur diesel fuel starting in September 2006 Honda could easily make the i-CTDi engine meet the very stringent CARB 2007 model year requirements for diesel exhaust emissions. That could pave the way for the i-CTDi to be available on the Accord sedan and CR-V/Element small SUV's. :)
|
Wizard
|
|
99SI wrote:
What is the torque figure on that engine?
|
250 lb.-ft @ 2000 rpm
|
Szklanny
|
|
The new Lexus diesel has even better specs, so I'm not sure why Honda's diesel was selected...
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/default.aspx?carID=8926&yr=0
|
Terencemunro
|
|
|
The Lexus Diesel is not on sale yet. And numbers and specs tell only the half truth...
|
Chris_pnoy
|
|
I'm glad. American diesel is horrible compared to European version becuase our gas is still much much cheaper...
I know a bunch of people that would like a diesel engine, that way, people won't complain Honda's are torqueless...
|
6SPDTL
|
|
The time has come for a honda diesel in the US.
The hybrid mania is a complete crock. Economy gains are marginal in the real world and buyers will never recoup the additional cost.
There is no doubt that diesels are the future. As the Honda engine amply proves, diesel can offer similar if not better performance than gas, can be almost as quiet and can give over 30% percent better fuel economy. Thus, even if diesel is 20% more expensive than gas (it isn't) you still save 10% in $$$. Furthermore, green house emissions (CO2) are also reduced by appx the same amount as the increase in MPG. Furtheremore, diesel engines are more durable and have less parts than gas engines, thus engine reliability and longevity is increased (not really a problem with hondas:) ).Further, furthermore diesel infrastructure is widely available, plus you can produce it from regular organic refuse.
So what is the darned hold up????
As soon as clean diesel hits the market, they should bring this gem of an engine here. A six cylinder version would make gasoline engines irrelevant altogether!!
Honda should limit its hybrid sillyness and put a huge effort into diesel since as explained above its the fuel of the foreseeable future. They can keep playing around with the Ballard fuel cells for promotional purposes and not to find themselves out in the cold if hydrogen cells ever become a reality.
|
Sledge
|
|
RayChuang wrote:
low-sulfur diesel fuel starting in September 2006
|
The deadline is June 2006 :)
|
garfield134
|
|
I agree! The only real pollution issue that diesels have that compares significantly negative is NoX pollution. However, with the availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel in the US (we have low sulfur diesel now) in June 2006, a NoX catalyst can make that clean-up.
If my memory serves me correctly, the Honda diesel has a lower compression ratio than most diesels (about 17:1 vs. 22:1). High compression generates LOTS of NoX which is, unfortunately, an inherent problem of diesels. Thinking back to the articles on TOV a while ago on the Honda 2.2 diesel, it had an equivalent CARB emissions rating of ULEV without the NoX catalyst (the same rating as my '02 Accord EX). The nay-sayers claim that diesels cannot make the emissions requirements in the future. I remember back to 1973-1974 before cars had catalytic converters...the nay-sayers then said that the internal combustion engine was dead then, too.
The hybrids are cool but are awfully complicated. Looking at other manufacturers, VW is committed to their very sucessful TDi.
|
garfield134
|
|
Here are a couple of articles on TOV on the Honda diesel:
http://vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=136769&thread_style=flat
and
http://vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=136769&thread_style=flat
340 Nm equals about 220 lb-ft
|
Wizard
|
|
garfield134 wrote:
340 Nm equals about 220 lb-ft
|
Nope. 250 lb.-ft
("Honda" MDX is rated with peak 345 Nm in JDM which equates to about 253 lb.-ft, about the same as Acura MDX)
|
garfield134
|
|
|
oops!
|
RayChuang
|
|
garfield134 wrote:
I agree! The only real pollution issue that diesels have that compares significantly negative is NoX pollution. However, with the availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel in the US (we have low sulfur diesel now) in June 2006, a NoX catalyst can make that clean-up.
|
Of course, Honda better hurry it up because I've read from a couple of European automobile magazines that BMW has succeeded in getting their 3.0 and 3.5-liter I-6 turbodiesel engines meet the extremely strict 2007 CARB diesel emission standards using the 15 ppm low-sulfur diesel fuel coming in June 2006. That could mean BMW could offer the 3-Series, 5-Series and X3 with turbodiesel I-6 engines for the 2007 model year in the USA. I can see the X3 with the 3.0-liter I-6 turbodiesel being a particularly hot seller here in the USA. :)
|
|
|
| |
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
