Honda has been an industry innovator and leader in Hybrid vehicles. At least they were...
QuoteHybrids have now been hyped up beyond their own capabilities, so we find ourselves eagerly anticipating the comeback of the diesel engine...Nipon, claims that Honda's first diesel application in the Accord sedan will replace the Accord Hybrid sedan when it goes on sale around 2009...Nunn reports that the Accord Hybrid will be "quietly retired" upon the arrival of the four-cylinder Accord Diesel, which should be able to handily trounce the outgoing hot-rod V6 hybrid in fuel mileage at the same time delivering decent get up and go.
Source: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/05/accord-diesel-in-accord-hybrid-out/
I have looked at the hybrid with a smug smile. Doing some simple math and comparing costs it would take you 10-15 years to pay off that extra cash over and above the typical gasoline of the same car. That math doesn't factor in having to replace the entire battery array either.
They're being smart; mass consumer availability of diesel cars = easy mass utilization of biodiesel :)
Won't fly in Canada all that well, my family has owned a couple diesel vehicles and they are absolutely no fun in the winter. I have not been in a modern (1995 >) diesel so maybe they are better now in the Winter, but I have found performance to still be rather sluggish in comparison to the gasoline equivalent.
You just haven't been in the right Diesel vehicles then ;). Ignition systems for diesels have come a very very long way since the 70s/80s glow plugs. And power wise, you don't loose much at all anymore. Not since about '92 has there really been a very large difference between the two, other than $$$ and milage (and that tiny extra time to wait to start the vehicle). Diesels cost more, and as a general rule, get better milage - although Dodge has proven they can screw up that rule very easily (that is milage wise).
A friend has a Toyota Diesel Truck, and another a Unleaded of the same year. Both 4cyl vehicles, and both have the same power and torque from our tests. Both are stock engines. Diesel gets about another 11 miles to the gallon, but takes an extra 30 secs before you can start the truck.
I can't believe that. I will give you that a Diesel engine is more efficient as that has been heavily proven, but I can't give you performance in an identical engine size. Torque you might have, HP probably not so much.
Like I said, the more consumers who have a reasonable choice of diesel vs. nondiesel, the easier (read: cheaper) it will be to get people onboard the BD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel) train :) (PS: working at AltaAg, recent I have seen recent news releases that clearly show the AltaGov is all about promoting/supporting alternatives fuels including/especially BD*. Alberta -- that cold province Up North ;) )
- - -
* not to say it's a perfect replacement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biodiesel), of course...
Quote from: Shayne on January 05, 2007, 11:35:22 AM
I can't believe that. I will give you that a Diesel engine is more efficient as that has been heavily proven, but I can't give you performance in an identical engine size. Torque you might have, HP probably not so much.
Diesel has always been Higher Torque lower RPM than gasoline engines. However with Turbo Diesel injection having been matured over the years, I don't think it is a problem any more.
Cool.. Using google I found some Scholar links which should be suitable for research purposes. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3DDiesel+vs+Gasoline+performance%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3Dd4Y%26oi%3Dscholart)
I spent 20 minutes or so Googling for performance diesel information and can't find much. I know this isn't the forum to be talking about performance vehicles as most here are interested in the environment or would prefer something small and cheap to run.
Dodge produces a 2.4L 300hp 260 ft-lb engine in a car thats sub $30K (fully loaded)
Mazda produces a 2.3L 263hp 280 ft-lb engine in a car thats sub $31K (fully loaded)
GM produces a 2.0L 205hp 200 ft-lb engine in a cars thats sub $25K (fully loaded)
...and the best I could find for commercially available diesel is...
VW produces a 1.9L 100hp 177 ft-lb engine in a car thats sub $26K (fully loaded)
...I haven't driven the VW, but I have driven 2 of the other 3 and they are absolutely off the hook in terms of snap your head back, burn rubber down the block through 3 gears. City fuel economy isn't even comparable mind you (VW: 6.2C/4.6H GM: 9.2C/5.4H) on the highway it comes pretty darn close.
If you want a car to be a car then its good. I want more I guess. I want some fun while driving and now that I can afford to do so.
As for alternative fuel sources and blah blah Biodiesel, I gotta hand it over to Brazil and Venezuela for being the best of everyone clean burning Ethanol.
According to this article (http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3304463&fSectionId=3067&fSetId=381) the diesel has less of the mark acceleration, but blows the doors of the gas version in passing power.
Very interesting..
Looks like Audi Racing (http://www.dieselforum.org/technology-spotlight/diesel-racing/) has had success as well
Quote from: Shayne on January 05, 2007, 12:10:31 PM
I spent 20 minutes or so Googling for performance diesel information and can't find much. I know this isn't the forum to be talking about performance vehicles as most here are interested in the environment or would prefer something small and cheap to run.
Dodge produces a 2.4L 300hp 260 ft-lb engine in a car thats sub $30K (fully loaded)
Mazda produces a 2.3L 263hp 280 ft-lb engine in a car thats sub $31K (fully loaded)
GM produces a 2.0L 205hp 200 ft-lb engine in a cars thats sub $25K (fully loaded)
...and the best I could find for commercially available diesel is...
VW produces a 1.9L 100hp 177 ft-lb engine in a car thats sub $26K (fully loaded)
...I haven't driven the VW, but I have driven 2 of the other 3 and they are absolutely off the hook in terms of snap your head back, burn rubber down the block through 3 gears. City fuel economy isn't even comparable mind you (VW: 6.2C/4.6H GM: 9.2C/5.4H) on the highway it comes pretty darn close.
If you want a car to be a car then its good. I want more I guess. I want some fun while driving and now that I can afford to do so.
As for alternative fuel sources and blah blah Biodiesel, I gotta hand it over to Brazil and Venezuela for being the best of everyone clean burning Ethanol.
I don't know if this is commercially available here yet, and its sure to cost an arm and a leg, but BMW has a twin-turbocharged 2,993cc engine with 286hp diesal engine in there new 3 series (http://www.carpages.co.uk/bmw/bmw-3-series-11-08-06.asp) cars.
I knew about the Audi, after winning like 5 in a row they took on a challenge. Diesel engines have been a lot more reliable regardless.
As for the BMW the torque is the reason it passes better. Rather massive turbo lag if you don't keep the engine up in the 1/2 area of its red line of 4700rpm. You also can't get them in Canada, and they cost $51,958 in Germany.
I want affordable performance. Sure this rebirth of diesel is new and it will take some time, im interested to see what they do in the bigger SUV area though as this is where I think my next vehicle will be.
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/11344/2006-bmw-330d-the-diesel-dilemma-page5.html
Interesting info on why diesel in the USA is so rare
Quote from: Shayne on January 05, 2007, 01:26:12 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/11344/2006-bmw-330d-the-diesel-dilemma-page5.html
Interesting info on why diesel in the USA is so rare
I'll admit this is so true. Diesel is very limited in NA, compared to Europe and Asian markets.
And to respond to the original post of mine, I told you about the Toyota Truck on purpose, as I consider domestics to have diesels completely wrong. If you look at a Dodge Diesel Turbo, it doesn't do much better than their Unleaded in terms of milage, just cheaper gas to buy. Nissan, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagon, and even Mazda (once) have proven that they know what to do with Diesels.
But your right also. Diesel Engines are historically not a performance platform. Its meant for work vehicles or econo machines. And to this day, I wouldn't buy a diesel based on its performance specks when talking about the power band, horse power, top end, etc. I'd buy a diesel cause I'm going to work the living hell out of the thing, drive it to the ground, use it's torque for hauling purposes and I want it to last. Traditionally Diesel motors are more durable than Unleaded.
Quote from: Shayne on January 05, 2007, 01:26:12 PM
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/11344/2006-bmw-330d-the-diesel-dilemma-page5.html
I finally read this article front-to-back... Interesting acceleration specs. When performing a passing maneuver they didn't have to drop out of top gear? They could probably make the 330d faster than the 330i by simply hooking up a high-power-capable Continuously Variable Transmission that keeps the engine revving at the sweet spot no matter what speed you drive...
I'll agree with Melbosa that diesels historically were for work vehicles or econoboxes, but I don't see why that has to remain that way in the future. With the proper gearing changes any engine can be made either more fuel-efficient or better at accelerating the vehicle it's in; diesels have the advantage of providing more power using less fuel, but the disadvantage of creating more pollution in the process.
I still say that the way to go (as a car manufacturer) is to build cars with big electric motors that can be geared so that even at highway speeds the motor's turning slow enough to provide lots of power (electric motors lose torque as their RPM increases), and to use a gasoline or diesel motor *just to generate electricity*. This combining two types of motors makes the vehicles more expensive than they need to be.
Quote from: Shayne on January 05, 2007, 01:22:21 PM
I want affordable performance. [...] bigger SUV [...] is where I think my next vehicle will be.
I find anything that gets the moniker "SUV" is automatically priced higher than a nearly-equivalent vehicle without that moniker. I consider wagons to be nearly-equivalent to FWD mini-SUVs (which frequently let you buy an AWD system for a marked price increase). I consider minivans (on which you can get AWD) to be nearly-equivalent to AWD/4WD regular SUVs (where the AWD/4WD does not have a lo-range option). Generally the price for an SUV is 20% to 30% higher than the price of a nearly-equivalent wagon or minivan, ignoring the luxury brand names like Lexus, Infiniti, Cadillac, and Chrysler. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're looking for affordable performance I don't think the bigger SUV market is where you should be shopping, and if you're shopping for a bigger SUV, don't make "affordable performance" one of your requirements.
I totally agree Thorin, I'm however not looking at the Escalade, Yukon, Pathfinder type area, nothing of that size. I'm looking at the smaller size. The Honda CRV, Toyota Rav4, Jeep Liberty perhaps the Xterra type area.
A mini-van simply isn't practical for me (7 passengers? We are never having kids), and some rough Googling shows me that Toyota offers a AWD version and its $37k (to start)! A wagon still suffers from the brutal ground clearance, lower driving position, ugly styling, and I can't think of a AWD Wagon outside of Subaru (does the Focus come in AWD?).
My lifestyle and my personally lead me towards either a sports car or a sporty SUV, since I can't have a sports car (ever tried to pack in a long weekends worth of camping gear into one?), I'm going towards a small sporty SUV. BTW when I say bigger, i mean bigger then my Cobalt :)
I really expected you, Thorin, to have tons of input on this whole hybrid vs. gas vs. diesel vs. electric. I also disagree with you on the gas engine to create electricity to power motors to turn the wheels (look at how many inefficiencies you created in the form of constant energy transfer and conversion). Long term, i think that Diesel will be the way to go. I'm not convinced of our Hydrogen ways yet (rotory for the win!), and electric means large, heavy, and expendable batteries.
I'd be interested in seeing what you end up buying Shayne. Since my wife and i are thinking in the same direction within the next year or two. The Saturn is just to small, especially on those long weekend camping trips. I?m tired of my eyesight sitting lower then the back bumper of most vehicles on the road. And we need to start thinking of space for maybe 2-3 children in the future. I was looking at more of the North American brands. But maybe I should be paying more attention to the foreign scene.
The old Saturn's days are numbered, 1993 with over 260k km on it. The repair bills are starting to rack up. It will make a good second vehicle though.
Quote from: Shayne on January 06, 2007, 10:26:04 PM
I really expected you, Thorin, to have tons of input on this whole hybrid vs. gas vs. diesel vs. electric.
Heh, sorry, I've been busy with the family lately :P
Quote from: Shayne on January 06, 2007, 10:26:04 PM
A mini-van simply isn't practical for me (7 passengers? We are never having kids), and some rough Googling shows me that Toyota offers a AWD version and its $37k (to start)!
I consider a minivan to be nearly-equivalent to a large SUV. You'll be hard-pressed to find one of those for $37k MSRP from a company with a reputation like Toyota (the other half of the premium-charge equation; car companies typically charge more if it's called an "SUV" and/or if they have a "quality reputation"). So if you loook at a minivan, then compare it to a seven-passenger SUV with enough room behind the rear seat to put four suitcases (something like the Dodge Durango doesn't really fit this bill; yes, it has seating for seven, but you can barely fit a couple of handbags in the trunk).
Quote from: Shayne on January 06, 2007, 10:26:04 PM
A wagon still suffers from the brutal ground clearance, lower driving position, ugly styling, and I can't think of a AWD Wagon outside of Subaru (does the Focus come in AWD?).
Up until 2007, Toyota Matrix had an AWD version around $23k.
Up until 2007, Suzuki Aerio had an AWD version (can't find an MSRP for it, but it was in the $23k to $25k range).
Dodge Caliber has an AWD version at $24k.
Honda Element has 4WD for $31k.
Audi A3 has Quattro AWD for $34k (starting to get expensive, I know).
All the Subarus are AWD these days.
Volvo V50 T5 has AWD for $42k, V70 2.5T has AWD for $48k (err, but it's fun to drive and really safe?), XC70 for $48k as well (with 7.75" of ground clearance, almost as much as a Ford Explorer).
VW has a Passat Wagon with 4Motion, but it's $48k, gah!
Mazda has a CX-7, but they officially call that an SUV (although it looks much more like a wagon to me).
Audi, Subaru, and Volvo all have a lot of luxury goodies in them. The VW I would hope to be the same, although I don't know.
No AWD wagons from GM, Ford, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai; yeah, there aren't a lot of AWD wagons available. If you drop the requirement for AWD, a more wagons become available (for cheaper prices).
Cheaper versions of the Matrix (and its twin the Pontiac Vibe), the Caliber (and its twin the fugly Jeep Compass), the Element, the V50 and V70, and the Passat Wagon.
Also Ford Focus, Mazda3 Wagon, Mazda5, Mazda 6 SportWagon, Chevrolet HHR and Malibu MAXX, Dodge PT Cruiser, and Saab 9-3 and 9-5 SportCombi. I might've missed some, as I haven't been keeping up with news on wagons. I can tell you *lots* about minivans, though :P
Quote from: Shayne on January 06, 2007, 10:26:04 PM
A wagon still suffers from [...] ugly styling
My lifestyle and my personally lead me towards either a sports car or a sporty SUV, since I can't have a sports car (ever tried to pack in a long weekends worth of camping gear into one?), I'm going towards a small sporty SUV.
The three major factors in buying a vehicle are usability, price, and image. Usability includes what the vehicle can hold and how easy it is to drive. Price includes initial cost and maintenance costs for repairs (aka reliability). Image includes the impression you're trying to make on others with your vehicle (such as wanting something called "sporty" or "SUV" or "family-oriented"), as well as your own like/dislike of the styling of particular vehicles.
Different people will prioritize these factors in different order, but everyone will consider each factor at least a little bit. From your posts, I would guess that you prioritize them as such: 1. usability, 2. image, 3. price. Mine are 1. price, 2. usability, 3. image. Not diametrically opposed, but different enough that we probably won't see eye-to-eye on what vehicle to buy; when you say you want a RAV4, I immediately think, "Why not save a few thousand and buy a Mazda3 Wagon?".
Back on-topic to the electric/hybrid/diesel/gasoline engine debate...
Quote from: Shayne on January 06, 2007, 10:26:04 PM
I [...] disagree with you on the gas engine to create electricity to power motors to turn the wheels (look at how many inefficiencies you created in the form of constant energy transfer and conversion). Long term, i think that Diesel will be the way to go. I'm not convinced of our Hydrogen ways yet (rotory for the win!), and electric means large, heavy, and expendable batteries.
1. A 100cc or 200cc gas engine optimized to run at a certain speed can create lots of electricity, especially if there's gearing between the motor and the alternator - alternators spin at the same speed as car engines now, but why not make the alternator spin 10x as fast as the motor and produce however much more electricity that would be?
2. If there's a self-powered electricity generator, the battery array can be much smaller.
3. Electric motors are highly-efficient at low RPM. With proper gearing (or even better, a CVT transmission) they can be kept at low RPM even at highway speed.
4. The problem with hybrids (besides the price) is that either the two motors spin at slow speed so that the electric motor is highly efficient, or they spin at high speed so that the gas motor is highly efficient. If they unmarry the two and just use the electric motor to move the car, this becomes much less complicated.
5. If the motors are separated and only the electric motor provides forward motion, the process will become cheaper and the technology will become cheaper.
6. Electric engines provide highly-advantageous power-to-weight ratios over gasoline or diesel engines, even when including a small generator. The biggest problem they face is running out of steam at higher RPMs. Again, I think finding the right gearing will solve this problem.
Now if only the car execs would read this post and realize that GM's EV1 and EV2 concepts were great cars in need of a small generator that recharged the batteries!
There are lots in the Cross over category... the one I have had my eye on is the Suzuki SX4 I am quite impressed with most of the features... everything that I have read gives me the impression they are heading in the correct direction, AWD Fully Loaded approx 24K. Too bad Vibe/Matrix no longer have AWD.
The 6 Speed was the best Matrix from what I understand.. The AWD only came with one engine option and it wasn't as powerful.
The Matrix is still one of my favorites in the market based on function. With everything folded down there is lots of cargo room, there is head room for me even with the sunroof option, and the leg room passes my driver test where I sit in front, set the seat and crawl in the back.
I'd take the Vibe over the Matrix, built in the same plant, GM kick ass 0% financing deals, and personally the styling is better :)
Quote from: Shayne on January 08, 2007, 04:21:38 PM
I'd take the Vibe over the Matrix, built in the same plant, GM kick ass 0% financing deals, and personally the styling is better :)
I would rather have the Toyota engines, from what I recall the only features that differ on the Pontiac version are the paneling, interior and engines.
Hard to pass on the financing deals though.
The Vibe and Matrix both have the same 1.8L I4 engine in them that is also found in higher-power form in the Toyota Celica. There's basically no difference between Vibe and Matrix, unless you get the Matrix XRS where the engine has been tuned to put out more power, or the Matrix AWD (because AWD isn't offered in the Vibe). In fact, if you're driving a Vibe you can use Celica performance parts on your motor - it's all the same block, head, etc.
We seem to be drifting from the original topic again :P
Sorry dude, same engine too. The Pontiac has a Toyota power plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_ZZ_engine
Quote from: Thorin on January 06, 2007, 09:44:19 PM
I still say that the way to go (as a car manufacturer) is to build cars with big electric motors that can be geared so that even at highway speeds the motor's turning slow enough to provide lots of power (electric motors lose torque as their RPM increases), and to use a gasoline or diesel motor *just to generate electricity*. This combining two types of motors makes the vehicles more expensive than they need to be.
Well then you should take a look at the new Chevy Volt (http://digg.com/tech_news/The_Chevy_Volt_Somewhere_Between_Sixty_and_One_Million_Miles_per_Gallon)
Nice find. Too bad they're relying on battery technology that they think will take five to ten years before it's available... But yes, the Chevrolet Volt is precisely what I had in mind, a PHEV ("Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle"). I've seen some numbers bandied about there... Looks like the gas motor gets 4.7l/100km ( = 21.28km/l, = 59.84mpg); that still seems sorta high, especially if you never plugged it in. I would've thought they'd get better mpg than that. As an example, I used to drive a Suzuki Swift 1.3L 4cyl, and the best fuel economy I got was 806 km on 38.45 litres (20.96km/l or 58.95mpg).
The idea of a gas or diesel motor generating electricity for an electric motor that then moves the vehicle isn't new, by the way. That's how diesel locomotives have worked for years and years.
I'm surprised to see that GM went with a turbocharged 1.0L motor, too. Can't they build anything smaller with better fuel economy? Suzuki makes cars in Europe with 600cc engines that can go 150km/h, I'm sure GM could make a 200cc engine that creates enough electricity for this motor.
While it does seem rather low for an electric vehicle, its also doing 0-96 km/h in 8 seconds and a top speed of 193 km/h, something I think your little 1.3L Swift might have trouble keeping up with. This would be a performance vehicle. I'd like to see the same technology but with more of a generic commuter car design and implementation.
Smart Car does 20.83 km/L or 49 mpg. Also has a 0-100 km/h of 19.8 seconds
Well the electric only range isn't that far, it is enough to get your to work and maybe back for some people.
They also stated that they power source is modular. Right now it is a gass engine, but it could easily be changed out for a fuel cell down the road.
Seems like a well performing compromise to me. Also probably a good platform to experiment on.
Quote from: Shayne on January 13, 2007, 02:01:08 PM
While it does seem rather low for an electric vehicle, its also doing 0-96 km/h in 8 seconds and a top speed of 193 km/h, something I think your little 1.3L Swift might have trouble keeping up with. This would be a performance vehicle. I'd like to see the same technology but with more of a generic commuter car design and implementation.
Smart Car does 20.83 km/L or 49 mpg. Also has a 0-100 km/h of 19.8 seconds
Good point - my Swift did 0-96km/h in 12.2 (I must've measured it a hundred times!), with a top speed higher than the speedometer-that-only-went-to-140, but 156km/h according to a friend who helped me measure my top speed on the highway.
According to Smart (http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?id=4730), the Smart Car gets 4.6L/100km city ( = 21.74km/L, = 61.14mpg), 3.7L/100km highway ( = 27.03km/L, = 76.01mpg), with a top speed of 135km/h and 0-96km/ time of 19.8. That's better than the gas engine used to generate electricity for the Volt, and as far as I understand how motors and electrical energy work, generating a couple hundred kilowatts is a lot less work than pushing a car along at highway speed.
This is why I'm surprised they're using such a big gas engine just to generate electricity, and why I'm so surprised it uses so much fuel to generate the electrical energy. I would've thought they could make the engine more efficient, especially as they can pick the sweet spot for the motor (i.e. most efficient RPM).
But hey, the Volt is still years away; they'll probably make the powertrain more efficient before then. Kudos to GM for at least pursuing this path, as it will turn out to be cheaper and more fuel-efficient than the dual-motor systems currently available.
Could also demand premium fuel which would increase the efficency. The Smart Car is also a diesel which accounts for the better milage.
I used to be sweet on the Volt because its all-electric drivetrain with a gas-powered generator seemed like a great idea. Hmm, turns out there's other things to consider when making an all-electric car. For instance, what do you use to generate heat in the winter? In an all-electric, there's no engine to siphon heat from...
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080221/AUTO01/802210430/1148/AUTO01
(http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20080219&Category=AUTO01&ArtNo=802190349&Ref=AR&Profile=1148)
Ya, I had thought of that as well, however the "gas-powered generator" should be able to take car of those problems for now.
Even electric motors create waste heat, but only when they are moving,
Dude! What a rez! Over a year!