Honda CR-V 2.2 i-CDTi EX - Short Take Road Test

Ah! Stop the madness! Bring this car to North America!

For all you Manual Transmission die-hards, look at the lower middle console....
A diesel CR-V proves to be one stingy little trucker.
BY JARED GALL July 2009

When you’re talking trucks, diesel power trumps all. With their mountainous torque, diesels put up huge numbers for towing, and the engines also deliver (relatively) small fuel-consumption figures and—in a more recent development—low emissions. But what about compact trucks? Is a diesel the same feel-good pill in a unibody, car-based trucklet?

Hey, Don’t I Know You?
To find out, we called up the diesel wizards at Bosch and borrowed a German-market Honda CR-V oil-burner from their fleet. This is the same 2.2-liter four-cylinder turbo-diesel we tested in a Euro-market Honda Accord in August of 2008, with 138 hp and 251 lb-ft of torque. That’s 28 fewer hp but 90 more lb-ft than the gas CR-V we get here, twisting through a six-speed manual in our tester.

While the Accord seemed compromised by the diesel and its relative lack of zest, the engine is a more natural fit in the CR-V; few people expect rocket power in their small SUVs. Indeed, although the diesel CR-V’s 9.4-second 0-to-60 huff would have placed it second to last in our most recent compact-SUV comparo, it is within one second of all but the two fastest competitors and only 0.3 second behind both the test average and the gas-powered CR-V. And, once its turbo spun up, the diesel CR-V’s 17.0-second quarter-mile run at 80 mph would have landed it firmly mid-pack, 0.1 second ahead of its gas sibling, which also happens to weigh over 200 pounds less than the oil-burner. Our observed fuel economy of 28 mpg, on the other hand, exceeds the comparo average by 47 percent. For comparison, our highest recorded average for a gas-fueled CR-V is 22 mpg.

Honda-High Redline—for a Diesel
This small diesel is at its most impressive at high rpm, where it pulls hard even past the indicated 4500-rpm redline, all the way to the 5000-rpm fuel cutoff without a hint of the high-rpm drop in power historically associated with diesels and still exhibited by many modern oil burners. The turbo is slow to spool up, though, taking what feels like two full seconds or more to wind up to full power. Thankfully, the six-speed manual wouldn’t feel too out of place in a Honda S2000, and its slick action facilitates quick shifts that keep the turbo on boil. Once the boost spools up, back-road passes are quick, and the torquey four doesn’t seem to care much what gear it’s in.

Specifications
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, four-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon
ESTIMATED PRICE AS TESTED: $33,000 (Germany)
ESTIMATED BASE PRICE: $24,000 (Germany)
ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve diesel inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 134 cu in, 2204ccPower (SAE net): 138 bhp @ 4000 rpmTorque (SAE net): 251 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
TRANSMISSION:6-speed manual
DIMENSIONS:Wheelbase: 103.1 in Length: 177.9 in Width: 71.6 in Height: 66.1 in Curb weight: 3724 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 9.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 33.3 sec
Street start,
5–60 mph: 10.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 17.0 sec @ 80 mph
Braking,
70–0 mph: 177 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g

FUEL ECONOMY: C/D observed: 28 mpg (US mpg)
But the amount of noise produced by this engine makes it feel relatively unrefined, and it’s way louder inside at idle than a gas-fired CR-V (51 dB versus 39 dB). A VW Jetta TDI’s diesel engine is similar in size and output but quiet enough to mask its sparkless roots. The CR-V, on the other hand, clatters so much that drivers might think they’re sitting seven feet off the ground and have a sleeper berth behind them. Personally, we like the small diesel clatter, because we like to know we’re driving something a little different, but we see how some might find it off-putting. As for the usual towing benefit of a diesel, the oil-burning CR-V is rated in Europe to handle 4400 pounds, an additional 1100 compared to the equivalent gas-powered version.

No Plans to Bring it Stateside
A price increase of between six and seven percent (depending on country) in Europe translates to about an extra $1500 in the U.S., a difference that would take about 50,000 miles to make up at current fuel prices. But that’s a palatable premium to us; we find the torque rush addicting. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with getting better mileage (as long as you don’t hypermile to do it; that stuff is just wrong).

However, given the current volatile fuel market, that 50,000 miles could become 75,000 or 80,000 tomorrow. Besides, the various ways gasoline and diesel vehicles are taxed throughout Europe means that the pricing difference could be much greater in the U.S., and although the vehicle seen here meets current European emissions regulations, it does not meet the U.S.’s stricter set of rules. Cleaning it up even more would further compound any price difference. Not that it matters, as there is no diesel CR-V headed across the pond any time soon, and Honda’s plans to bring any diesels to the U.S. are currently on hold while the company expands its hybrid lineup.

Source;
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/honda_cr-v_2.2_i-cdti_ex-short_take_road_test

What to Expect in a North American Diesel Honda Accord/Acura TSX

Well, it looks like the Acura TSX is going to be getting the Diesel treatment here in North America before the Honda Accord. The diesel is currently being sold in Europe as the European Accord (for those of you who don't know, this Euro Accord is smaller than our current NA Accord and is badged under the Acura Logo TSX). I am guessing that the NA Accord will get the diesel by 2010 or 2011 along with the Honda CRV. Here's an artcle I found on the NYTimes. Keep in mind, all of you Canadians, the US gallon is smaller than the Canadian gallon, so MPG numbers will be dramatically different here, four Canadian gallons = five U.S. gallons.

A Honda on a Diesel Diet
By LAWRENCE ULRICH

HONDA has spent decades establishing a reputation for fuel efficiency. But nothing in the company’s current lineup, including its Civic Hybrid, can match the mileage of the diesel Accord that I recently tested in and around New York City.

Minus its diesel powertrain, the European-market 2007 Accord that I drove is nearly identical to the car that Honda had been selling in the United States as the Acura TSX. That Accord should give a solid indication of the mileage and performance American consumers can expect when

Honda offers a diesel option for the redesigned 2009 TSX.

The Accord — a demonstration car provided by Robert Bosch, the German technology company, to highlight its fuel injectors and other diesel components — returned a remarkable 53 miles a gallon on the highway, 34 in the city and 44 in combined driving. Those miles included a bumper-to-bumper crawl through Manhattan, the worst possible conditions for fuel efficiency.

The model I drove was powered by a 4-cylinder diesel displacing 2.2 liters and producing 140 horsepower and a stout 250 pound-feet of torque — the force that drivers feel pushing them into their seats under acceleration. That huge torque relative to the engine’s size is a main advantage of modern turbodiesels, making them well-suited to small economy cars and to burly S.U.V.’s that need torque for towing and hauling.

The America-bound Acura will use a new version of the 2.2-liter engine that I tested. The engine is notable for meeting 50-state emissions standards with no need to carry an onboard tank of urea, an ammonia-generating solution that other diesels use to scrub smoggy nitrogen oxides from the exhaust. Honda’s patented pollution system generates its own ammonia to fulfill the same mission. While that cleaner emissions system wasn’t installed on the Honda I tested, engineers expect it to have no discernable effect on fuel economy.

As with other diesels I’ve driven recently, the Honda’s frugal highway mileage and versatile power are important advantages over the typical hybrid. The Accord covered the zero-to-60 run in just under 9 seconds in my testing, which doesn’t sound spectacular on paper. But its passing power from 30, 50 or even 70 miles an hour was terrific, as the Honda easily shot past slower cars.

And as more hybrid owners are discovering, their cars deliver little or no mileage gain on the highway. That’s because battery packs and electric motors add several hundred pounds, and the system also contributes negligible energy at freeway speeds.

Also unlike hybrids, which require drivers to go easy on the gas pedal, watch the speed limit and coast when possible to improve the mileage, the diesel Honda delivered brilliant economy with no special effort. Even spirited driving didn’t dent the mileage much. The Accord delivered 50 m.p.g. even during a 75-m.p.h. cruise and 40 m.p.g. when I flogged it like a Nascar yahoo.

The Acura’s only diesel telltale is an idle that’s slightly louder than a gasoline car’s, though it’s not at all obtrusive. There was no trace of diesel smell or black exhaust and except for the enormous diesel decal on the car’s side, my passengers would have been unaware that a diesel was under the hood.
(Nice!)

I also recently spent a week with the Audi Q7 3.0 TDI sport utility, which will go on sale in January. That model, with a 3-liter turbocharged V-6, delivered about 25 m.p.g. on the highway. But the Audi’s mileage seemed more fragile than the Honda’s, dropping sharply in city traffic and in spirited driving. That was probably due to its sheer mass; the Q7 weighed more than 5,000 pounds.

Audi also demonstrates the performance possibilities of diesel with its exotic R8 V-12 TDI concept sports car, which I took for a too-brief test drive. That blood-red, all-wheel-drive Audi had a 12-cylinder diesel mounted behind my head, generating 500 horsepower and an astounding 737 pound-feet of torque. Audi claims the R8 will rocket from 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds and reach a top speed of 190 m.p.h., all while delivering 24 m.p.g. Audi has not said whether it will put the car into production.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/automobiles/autoreviews/18DRIVE.html?_r=3&fta=y&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin