Accord Diesel

I just read on a British site a test on the Accord diesel they have there.
All Honda design 2.2 Liter turbocharged. Averaged over 77 miles ( not
km's) on a gallon. I figure in real life driving , should be good for at
least 50 mpg. They also have Civic and CRV diesels. Scott

 

Ah, that's probably a UK gallon

 

Nope. on a UK gallon it got 92 mpg. I will try to get the site for you to
look at. Scott

 

It's rated at 5.4 L/100km, 52.3 mi/imperial gallon, 43.5 mi/US
gallon. The 92 (or whatever) was from some press release from some
gimicky drive. Honda is good, but not THAT good.

 

Still really good in my book. Scott

 

Bit will it run on Grease?

--


Donald Rumsfeld: "If you're asking if there's a direct
link between 9/11 and Iraq, the answer is no."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4865948/

On May 01, 2003, President Bush declared that,
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain --
I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the
interesting thing about being the president.
Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they
say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
an explanation. "
- George "Dubya" Bush

 

actually I have been reading about the diesel and I am waiting for it to
come to the US before so I can purchase. Hopefully it will be engineered to
meet the new diesel emission standards

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for diesels to come over here.

I'm not too familiar with the "new diesel emission standards" but I
suspect that they are prohibitively strict...otherwise, we'd already
have a lot more diesel powered cars over here. Europe is awash in
diesels...just about every model of every car has a diesel option.
Interestingly, the diesel option is often the high performance option.
Alfa Romeo has some seriously fast diesels, particularly in the torque
department...really fast off the line.

Our problem is the fuel. We have really dirty diesel fuel in our
country. In Europe, they have cleaned up their diesel fuel
considerably. The governments require that the refineries really
clean the stuff up. The technology exists to really clean it up, but
it's expensive. The exotic diesel engine technology over there is
dependant upon this cleaned up diesel fuel. It may not be possible to
adapt this technology to our dirty fuel. Then you add in these new
diesel emission standards and it really makes things impossible.
Bottom line, our government, our oil industry, our auto industry, and
especially our fuel refining industry don't want diesel to take off
over here. They don't want to make the investment in clean diesel fuel
technology. And why would they ? The status quo is making them rich.
Cleaner air, better performance, better gas mileage, and the
consequent reduction in foreign oil dependancy all mean nothing when
compared to the bottom line: profits.
The industry will not clean up our fuel unless it is forced to do so.
And we all know that will not happen.
It's too bad.


Cheers, --N

 

Biodiesel is becoming more popular and available in North America - I
know there's at least one company producing and selling it here in the
Vancouver, BC area, at lower cost than regular diesel as added incentive.

From http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/default.shtm:
What is Biodiesel?
Biodiesel is the name of a clean burning alternative fuel, produced from
domestic, renewable resources. Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it
can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel
blend. It can be used in compression-ignition (diesel) engines with
little or no modifications. Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable,
nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics.

 

...

I agree with some of your post, not all. The auto companies are
already making plenty of diesels for the other markets, i.e. Europe.
So, contrary to your post, they'd like to be able to leverage that
capability to vehicles in the US. They are engaged with the gov'ts
on ways to make it happen.

 

dude, biodiesel is totally works, but let me ask you, what is the point
of growing literally /tons/ of crop, just to harvest a few pounds of
fuel? what about all the biomass that's being thrown away? it makes no
sense! the /true/ eco-solution is to throw the whole lot into a
digester and use the whole organic content, not just a teensy little
fraction that happens to accumulate in a seed pod.

 

Well for one thing, biodiesel doesn't HAVE to come direct from any
"crop". From biodiesel.org:
How is biodiesel made?
Biodiesel is made through a chemical process called transesterification
whereby the glycerin is separated from the fat or vegetable oil. The
process leaves behind two products -- methyl esters (the chemical name
for biodiesel) and glycerin (a valuable byproduct usually sold to be
used in soaps and other products).

also:
Is Biodiesel the same thing as raw vegetable oil?
No! Biodiesel is produced from any fat or oil such as soybean oil,
through a refinery process called transesterification. This process is a
reaction of the oil with an alcohol to remove the glycerin, which is a
by-product of biodiesel production. Fuel-grade biodiesel must be
produced to strict industry specifications (ASTM D6751) in order to
insure proper performance. Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to
have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. Biodiesel that meets ASTM D6751 and is legally
registered with the Environmental Protection Agency is a legal motor
fuel for sale and distribution. Raw vegetable oil cannot meet biodiesel
fuel specifications, it is not registered with the EPA, and it is not a
legal motor fuel.

Most importantly, from biodiesel.com:
Currently biodiesel is produced mainly from field crop oils throughout
Europe and used widely in a range of diesel vehicles not easily found in
the U.S. The fuel produced in Hawaii by Pacific Biodiesel, Inc. is made
totally from recycled cooking oil and used mostly in generators of all
sizes, commercial diesel equipment, vehicles, and marine vessels. Since
the opening of the Maui processing plant, it has become more economical
for pump trucks to deliver used restaurant oil to Pacific Biodiesel than
to landfill it, resulting in a landfill diversion total of over 40 tons
of used cooking oil per month.

In short: Not only are the crops it comes from VERY renewable (primarily
soybean), not only are the by-products of production re-saleable, but it
can also be made from recycling already-used cooking oils!

 

supposedly, theres a diesel fuel changeover in effect soon. less
sulphur, just like in EU. so those cars should be able to be sold here
within a couple years. even in the peoples republic of kalifornia.

 

do you think electric cars have no environmental impact too? where does
fat or vegetable oil come from? mcdonalds?

and neither you or the greenie spinmeisters have addressed the point
about very low conversion rates for oil/fat crops vs. biomass
processing. whether any individual crop is renewable is not the point.
what matters is that to be valuable, you have to be able to grow
sufficient tonnage to cope with fuel demands. there are not enough
acres to grow enough fuel by the oil/fat crop method. there /is/ that
possibility using biomass conversion.

 

the big deal seems to be waste oil from restaurants, etc. little do most
people know that its already recycled by companies like darling. turned
into anything from animal foods to cosmetics.

 

and that's cool, but there's just not sufficient tonnage to run a city,
let alone a continent.

 

True, but near simultaneously there will be even more stringent
emissions regs. I'm not a true expert, but my understanding is that
it is still up in the air as to whether diesels will be able to meet
these upcoming standards even with the low-S fuel. Or maybe that's
just a matter of how much added cost it will incur?

 

That'll mean eating a *lot* more french fries!

Seriously, is this a possible way to use up all the corn the US is storing?

 

It looks to me like we have "kalifornia" to thank for that.
It looks like California finally got the ball rolling, and Bush and
the oil industry finally caved...well sorta...
We're scheduled to get the ULSD (ultralow sulfur diesel) in 2008.
This fuel will ultimately cost 2-4 cents more per gallon to produce,
but there will be a considerable initial investment...to retrofit or
replace the current refineries...an investment the refining companies
have been quite reluctant to make. They've got a nice cash cow going
here, and why spend money on new technology when people are still
quite content with really old technology...
I wonder why they finally caved...it's not like them..
So we're scheduled to get the stuff in '08...my bet is it will be more
like 2012, after the industry has used up every stalling tactic it can
think of, and of course figures out how to get the taxpayers to foot
the bill...
So in the meantime we get our measly selection of diesel cars, and the
big semis will continue to spew filthy diesel exhaust into our
environment...but at least we've made SOME progress...albeit at a
glacial pace.
Still, I'm looking forward to one day enjoying the modern technology
Europe enjoys today.

Thanks for mentioning the upcoming changes.
That prompted me to look around and I found some good stuff about this
underpublicized issue.

This site is packed with info for those who are interested in the nuts
and bolts of fuel technology:

http://www.jettclan.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=printview&t=1705&start=0

Here's a small excerpt:

Stinger - Aug 02, 2004 - 09:26 AM
Post subject: 19Delta....not Sulfur free...just very low
sulfur...Europe currently had what is called ULSD...ultralow sulfur
diesel...(and California actually has it as a requirement now as well)
it is allowed to have no more than 15ppm sulfur content...the road
diesel currently in north america is only restricted to be no more
than 200-250 ppm of sulfur....that is the reason for diesel vehicles
being so dirty in NA...plus all non road diesel is only restricted to
350-400 ppm....the real problem with the sulfur is that it destroys
emissions equipment....thats why European diesel vehicles are so much
cleaner running than NA's (and also why we have not been provided the
most technologically advanced diesel motors available...because they
are designed to run on the ULSD)....and it would only cost between 2
and 4 cents a gallon more to produce the lower sulfer diesel. Bush
actually did a good thing in THAT respect...he recently signed on that
ALL diesel...offroad and on road would have to meet the ULSD
requirements by 08 I think...previously is was only on road by 06...by
making it an across the board Rq. it will simplify the refing
changeover so that only 1 type of diesle will now be produced which
should help lower the cost of the new rq. Unfortunatly he has not seen
that biodiesel is really the current available alternative fuel that
needs to be funded..instead of the fuel cell which ,at any real
production levels, is at least 20 to 30 years away....ok rant off for
now..back to work. I am enjoying this thread though...I hope that it
is getting some reading from the larger comm because this is a real
issue for the future and we really already have the tech now to help
solve it...most people think that the technology to replace crude oil
is far off very expensive stuff.....but with bio fuels available
NOW...that is simply not the case...oh and BTW soy and canola based
fuels are actually BETTER for the motor as well...they lubricate the
system MUCH better than crude oil does...not to mention they smell a
HECK of a lot better...a bit like a french fry machine.



Cheers, --N

 

Why not? Think of how much raw mass there is produced by this
fast-food-driven continent.

I know that biodiesel is being sold for less than regular diesel right
now in the Vancouver area, so obviously someone has worked out the price
point.