Honda touts gasoline-killing diesel system
By Donald Melanson 
posted Sep 27th 2006 2:44AM
posted Sep 27th 2006 2:44AM
Lest you think Honda's devoting all its attention these days to developing future instruments of destruction, you can take some comfort in the fact that it is (for now) primarily a car company and, as such, is still working on technology to help us humans while we're stuck driving ourselves around. To that end, the company's just unveiled a new diesel powertrain system that is says will run as clean as a gasoline-powered car, not to mention provide better mileage. Diesel-powered vehicles are already known as gas-sippers, of course, but also have higher exhaust levels of nitrogen oxide. To cut that down, Honda incorporated a rather dangerous-sounding two-layer catalytic converter into the drivetrain, which converts the nitrogen oxide into less environmentally-harmful nitrogen. The first cars using the new diesel technology are set to hit the U.S. market in 2009, with Honda also open to the idea of licensing the technology to other automakers. In related news, Honda also announced an updated version of its Honda FCX fuel-cell vehicle, upping the maximum driving range to 354 miles and the max speed to a respectable 100 miles per hour. It'll be available in limited numbers in Japan and the United States in 2008, and we assume that when they say "limited" they really mean it.
ummmm yeah... volkswagen has been using their low emissions 2.0TDI in europe for a couple years now and it will be coming to the states in 2008 also.
When this new low-sulfer diesel is completely integrated into the market Im sure well see alot of companies jump on the bandwagon VW and other Euro auto-makers built years ago.
From the original post:
"The new stack is designed to allow the hydrogen and water formed during electricity generation to flow vertically instead of horizontally, making the component 20 percent smaller and 30 percent lighter than the previous version."
Er, yeah, that really sounds "dangerous." Seriously Engadget, WTF with the condescending editorial jabs?
Oops, I forgot the blog credo - snarky, ignorant AND judgmental.
Ummm.....you read the wrong article. Engadget was commenting on the ACTUAL artice (see that 'read' link).....
ignorance.
LittleJoe I had a TDI in my 2000 Beetle-I almost always got between 44 and 46 mph. We don't have to wait for 2008 to roll around because the TDI's are here now.
Imagine if the car companies combined a TDI + Electric to make a super fuel efficient hybrid!
btw, TDI stands for Turbo Direct Injection.
Your TDI has terrible emmisions. That is what LittleJoe is referring to.
electricity is dangerous too - it will never be put in the home.
BTW, diesels are not gas(oline) sippers. They use no gas. they use diesel fuel (or fuel oil)
VW's 1.9 TDi doesn't meet 2007 emissions standards, and will not be sold in the US.
VW's 2.0 TDi does not meet 2010 emissions standards, which Honda's diesel technology does. VW meets European diesel standards, which allow much more emissions of nitrogen oxides, which produce smog and are very difficult to remove from diesel exhaust.
The real question is, how much does Honda's technology cost? Diesels already cost a premium over gas engines. They're simply more expensive to produce. Now you add expensive catalysts to the exhaust, the cost just goes up and up. In Europe, where diesel can cost $5 per gallon easily, you get a quicker payback than when gas is $2.50 or less, as in the US.
It is the same dilemma you have with a hybrid. You can't pay back the extra cost of the hybrid technology in the useful life of the vehicle when gas is only $2.50 a gallon.
I'm not sure you'll even see a payback on diesel. Diesel where I'm at (Southeast Texas) is around $2.69 a gallon while regular unleaded is around $1.99 a gallon. You'd have to have had a terribly inefficient car before buying into this technology to see a definite payback. :(
Maybe that'll change by 2009. Hopefully Honda will include this in a hybrid model. :)
Is this really as new as it sounds, or just a slight upgrade to the catalytic-converter-like filters in all Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel vehicles (which all 2007 model year cars must have in the US)?
"incorporated a rather dangerous-sounding two-layer catalytic converter into the drivetrain"
FYI: catalytic converters aren't part of the drivetrain.... they're part of the exhaust system.
@Mike He read the right article, the "Read" link just linked to the 2nd page, which covered the fuel cell tech. And the first page about the diesel said this about the converters"
"Honda's new diesel drivetrain generates and stores ammonia within a two-layer catalytic converter to turn nitrogen oxide into harmless nitrogen."
Doesn't sound very scary, does it? so his point still stands. Ignorance
@clemonator
"LittleJoe I had a TDI in my 2000 Beetle-I almost always got between 44 and 46 mph. We don't have to wait for 2008 to roll around because the TDI's are here now."
That's some smokin' ride you've got there. I think I'd prefer a car that I can take on the highway without getting rearended. ;)
It makes a lot more sense in Europe because gasoline is generally taxed much higher than diesel. Add to that the simpler, and hence cheaper, diesel engines and their approximate double lifetime over gasoline engines, and you have a winning technology.
I'm currently working on a methane car that is powered by the flatulence from cattle and pigs.
Ultimately is will be powered solely by the occupants.
Would someone please invent a transporter (ala Star Trek) so we can dispense with all this driving jazz. My commute is now one hour and five minutes (one way). This is horribly inefficent in both time and fuel. Granted, having my particles unassembled is not ideal, but gadzooks, if I end up in one more jam due to one guy three miles ahead tapping his brakes, I will scream.
Please see info on the 2008 VW TDI. It appears to a year ahead of Honda. see link...
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/23/2008-vw-jetta-tdi-spotted-in-the-us/
i certainly hope nitrogen isnt dangerous, its what, 78% of our atmosphere?
(urge to listen to juno reactor, rising, rising...)
Hondas are horrible cars. Bad engineering and very cheaply built.
All of you are full of yourselves, and interested only in poking the others in the eye with your comments. However, the entry from "Neutral" is particularly egregious.
Wake up and smell the coffee, you moron! Honda leads the world in automotive development because they are far-sighted and offer the best value for the money on the planet. What do you drive...a Plymouth, an Oldsmobile, or some other dinosaur? Jerks like you deserve what they drive. The Hondas i've had a re the most trouble-free, fuel efficient cars I've ever owned. Read Consumer Reports, or the automotive press, Honda's reputation for reliability and innovation are second to none.
I love it when ignorant red necks come to post. Honda cars sold in the U.S. is more than likely made in the U.S. If you think Honda cars are cheaply built, then that shows the appreciation you have for U.S. factory workers. Also, VW technology is not the same as Honda technology, both of the technology works to lower emissions, but they do it differently. Ultimately, the car that meets U.S. emission standard wins, and right now, that's Honda.
I've no idea where you guys are coming from but so far your obviously well appreciated American (or even
Californian) emission standards have been pure crap.
When imported (and somewhat fuelefficient) German cars have to be adapted to consume more fuel so they meet
the emission standards one can pretty much tell where the stink is coming from and I'm not even
starting to talk about SUV or even regular American cars and their typically loughable mileage.
There's one basic rule of chemistry: More input means more output. And in the burning process one thing that
will always be in the results of the equation is CO2, which as we all know is one of the biggest threats to
our environment.
Sure NO or NOx is no good as well but the implicit tradeoff in those laws is (or likely was) that you can
produce as much CO2 as you want as long as there's as little as possible of other gases in the exhaust.
This is quite a bit narrowminded.
Regarding diesels: Yes, Diesel produces different chemicals than regular gas, but since they are typically much
more efficient they produce less output per liter burned fuel which is a good thing. Regarding produced smoke:
Since a few years you would hardly notice any because the diesel and the engines noticed some real improvements.
And especially the French are driving the development of particle filters which effectivly reduce the smoke to
almost zero.
Not to mention that diesel engines can also run on oil produced from plants which completely does away with all
of the problems mentioned before, it's still the crude oil that causes many of the drawbacks regardless whether
we're talking regular fuel or diesel.
All in all diesel engines are a proven step to more efficient and cleaner cars on the way to completely
environmental friendly cars.
Never mind that the worst my car will ever do is 30mpg long distance full speed (where full speed means around
140mph max and an average of around 80mph) or typically 45-50 mpg per tank. Oh yes, and this is a "non-smoking"
ride although diesel driven. Go figure...