Last post on Nov 22, 2010 at 7:13 AM
You are in the Honda Accord
What is this discussion about?
Honda Accord, Diesel
#607 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [ruking1]
Jan 09, 2008 (3:17 pm)
I've owned a 1997 Passat TDI 5 speed since purchasing it from Carmax in April 1998 with 12,000 miles on it. I check my mileage each time I fill up (about 800 miles into a tank) and I am averaging upper 40's...typically 47-49 mpg.
I have test driven both the EX-L-4 and an EX-L-6, I look forward to the introduction of the Accord diesel. I am 6'5" and find that I am probably just at the maximum size to fit in the Passat, where I fit very comfortably in both of the new Accords.
Also, we have owned a 2000 Odyssey, and currently own a 2003 Pilot, and I have been very impressed with the reliability of both vehicles. While the Passat has been the best VW I've owned (including a 1985 Golf diesel (similar mileage but less reliable), and a 1993 Golf gasser), it has it's challenges...specifically, the electrical system.
I have also heard that Honda may introduce a diesel Pilot...if that vehicle can achieve mid-30's in miles per gallon, Honda would have a runaway winner.
I took a look at the Accord Hybrid years ago and after determining that its primary purpose was to enhance performance rather than it's overall mileage, I walked away.
If Honda is able to provide reliable, quality vehicles with diesels that provide mileage similar to my VW experience, I'll never walk into another VW showroom.
#608 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [oldoarsman]
Jan 09, 2008 (3:56 pm)
"I have also heard that Honda may introduce a diesel Pilot...if that vehicle can achieve mid-30's in miles per gallon, Honda would have a runaway winner"
Welcome to the thread!
Since we are in a Honda thread, a diesel Pilot would be WOW!! The only thing I would REALLY want is a MANUAL option, 5/6 speed!!!! We would be at the 2020 35 mpg fuel standard 11/12 years EARLY !!!!
If you do not mind, how many miles since 1998 ? (12,000 miles)
#609 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [ruking1]
Jan 10, 2008 (6:21 am)
Sorry, but there is no way a Pilot will get 35 mpg, even with a diesel. It is way too heavy, with the aerodynamics of a brick. The current Pilot is rated at 18 mpg combined. Diesels typically give 30% increase in mpg over equivalent gas. That would be an improvement to 18 + (18 * .33) = 18 + 6 = 24 mpg.
For a Pilot to get 35 mpg, that would require over a 100% improvement in mileage. No chance a diesel would give you that. None, nadda, zippo.
#610 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [nedzel]
Jan 10, 2008 (6:53 am)
O. K. It'll get 30-31 highway,pull 6500 pounds, last 500k, and can be parked in your garage. What's so bad about that?
#611 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [nedzel]
Jan 10, 2008 (7:59 am)
Perhaps you should read my take on the 2020 35 mph standard with similar deviation characteristics from the current 27 mpg standards. So for example using your quote of 18 mpg, that is -9/27=33.3%*35=-11.655=23.35. So assuming the same relative deviance anything over 23.35 is PURE gravy (from the 2020 35 mpg standards view) . A run away hit (which was the declaration/ hope is still of course 35 mpg. So between 25-40 mpg why would anyone get a for example get an inappropriate car ? (size 4 shoe when a 10 fits?)
Also given my own experiences with diesels, it is both do able and in range. My take is those targets will expand the segment not sink it.
Is it on the market right now? Obviously NOT !??
#612 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [ruking1]
Jan 10, 2008 (8:40 am)
This might be a clarification since what we have talked about is not sound bite able.
Perhaps you should read my take on the 2020 35 mph standard with similar deviation characteristics from the current 27 mpg standards. So for example, using your quote of 18 mpg (on an epa 16/22) , that is -9/27=33.3%*35=-11.655=23.35 mpg. So assuming the same relative deviance, anything over 23.35 is PURE gravy (from the 2020 35 mpg standards view) . Indeed given the current epa, the higher number of range (30%-your take) would be 28.6 mph.
A run away hit (which was the declaration/ hope is still of course 35 mpg. So between 25-40 mpg why would anyone get a for example get an inappropriate car ? (size 4 shoe when a 10 fits?) So for example on the 2003 Jetta there is 29 mpg gassers and 48 mpg diesel . Now the diesel gets 39.6% better ( I can routinely get 50-59 mpg) but I can be a bit of a lead foot so I used 48 mpg) . . These have been on the market since before 2003. So if Honda is able to match the RATIOS of VW, motors, my take is those targets will make Honda Pilot a run away hit, expand the segment, not sink it.
#613 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [ruking1]
Jan 10, 2008 (3:50 pm)
Thanks for the welcome!
I have 142,000 miles on my Passat, and it's still running efficiently and strong...the only problem is that the interior is beginning to show the years (the headliner is sagging, the seat fabric is showing as many wrinkles as I am, and the fabric boots for the shifter and the emergency brake need to be replaced). I bought my Pilot back in 10/02, and it has 67,000 miles on it. Those miles would have been on my Passat, but the Pilot is a great vehicle and I fit more comfortably.
My mileage experience with my Pilot is 21/22 mpg...mixed highway and secondary roads...I trade off between the Passat and the Pilot with about 10,000 miles/year in the Pilot and about 14,000/year in the Passat.
By the way, diesel fuel in our area (central Virginia) is about $3.25/gallon. Based on the mileage I am able to achieve with my Passat (a little more than 2x the mileage in the Pilot), it's like paying $1.63 for a gallon of gas! Not bad, even with the escalating fuel prices we're seeing these days.
If I can beat the mileage estimates for the original Pilot, maybe I will be able to reach the low thirties when the diesel is introduced.
I think that Honda is on to something. The current diesel technology at VW meets or beats the hybrids when the vehicles are used for long distance/highway driving. I really feel that if Honda can match the efficiency of the VW diesels, and produce a vehicle of typical Honda quality, they will be, literally, miles ahead of their competition.
#614 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [oldoarsman]
Jan 10, 2008 (7:58 pm)
For sure the Honda Pilot has been "best in breed" for a few years. I doubt Honda will give up one of those in THAT segment. So if you look at the 2020 new 35 mph standards, it is almost a no brainer (SWAG) for Honda to use a V6 turbo diesel. I think the difficulty will be a (new) good 6/7 speed automatic.
Using your example of 20 mpg, the current Pilot deviates from the current 27 mpg standard app 26%. So assuming no change in deviance that would put the (forward looking) Pilot at 26 mpg.
MB E320 V6, 3.0L (210 hp/400 #ft of torque (turbo diesel) currently is epa rated at 23/32. I know a guy that has one and cruising at 80 mph gets 40 mpg.
So it will be interesting to see what happens.
#615 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [blufz1]
Jan 11, 2008 (6:53 am)
"O. K. It'll get 30-31 highway,pull 6500 pounds, last 500k, and can be parked in your garage. What's so bad about that?"
Nothing. Except that it is a pipe dream and won't happen. Pulling 6500 pounds, sure. Able to fit in a garage? Sure.
Last 500k? Maybe. The reality of diesel reliability is that old, heavy, iron-block, low rpm, low-powered diesels would last forever. As is seen in the boating world, light, high-power, turbo-charged diesels don't last as long. David Pascoe debunks some of the myths around diesels: http://www.yachtsurvey.com/GasDiesel.htm
Getting 30 mpg on the highway in the near future? Not going to happen. Mercedes has some of the best diesels on the market, but their diesel M-series and GL-series (which are similar in size and weight to the Pilot) don't get near 30 mpg.
And the increased emissions regulations are both adding cost and reducing mileage.
Yes, the Mercedes diesel sedans get excellent mileage. But an SUV is not a sedan. SUVs have about 50% larger cross-sectional area and the aerodynamic drag is directly proportional to the cross-sectional area. In addition, SUVs have more ground clearance, so there is more air moving underneath the vehicle, adding to aerodynamic drag. Increased aerodynamic drag greatly reduces mileage at highway speeds.
In addition, SUVs are heavier, have higher tow ratings, and higher gross vehicle weight ratings, so they need larger tires. The larger tires increase rolling friction, also reducing economy. SUVs are also heavier and that also reduces economy.
I am a diesel supporter. Diesels are the best currently available technology for light trucks. But we need to look at them realistically. They will give us ~30% improvement in mileage, but at an added cost of ~$4000 due to the ridiculous EPA and CARB regulations. They won't get us to 35 mpg on a full size SUV.
#616 of 749 Re: Diesel and Annual Maintenance [nedzel]
Jan 11, 2008 (8:09 am)
There is no doubt you are describing variance. Indeed if you are saying there are NO guarantees that ALL will get (in this case) 35 mpg or 500,000 miles on a diesel engine, you indeed would be spot on. However your position/take really conveys NO real information. Way too broad brush. Indeed there is NO piece of YOUR equipment I could not beat to death better than you!?? Conversely vice versa would probably apply. : UPSHOT: variance. In effect your positions glosses over the 25-40% fuel advantage. Another is the fact the diesel is better adapted to our roads than a like model gasser.
A good example is the Honda Civic (gasser) thread Real World MPG. For my .02 cents one of the better so called "economy" cars currently on the market. Can it be better/worse? ABSOLUTELY. Example: some folks look at the EPA 29/38 like a deer looking at the head lamps. It becomes almost mantra/cult like in terms of how dissatified they are if they do not get the EPA. Now the VARIANCE is printed on the new car sticker which is almost totallly ignored.
There is also a survey of app 587 (at last post) Civic drivers and indeed the survey shows what drivers have reported. Predictably there is variance.
Indeed I am living "the pipe dream". However my take is it is seamless reality. I need 400,000 to 900,000 more miles to say the turbo diesel engine can/can't last 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles. Like model gasser/s Jetta's struggle to get 29 mpg. On a TDI, I routinely get 48-52 mpg in a daily routine commute, point a to point b, The range has been from 44-62 mpg. Using your broad brush strokes, 29 mpg is no different than 48-52 mpg. Mathmatically impossible to get 62 mpg. 5th grade math would beg to differ.
Again using that same routine commute, a 450 # LIGHTER Honda Civic gets 38-42. If we compensate for the lighter weight by saying taking readings with 3 more passengers what do you think would happen with the Civic mpg?