Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums
Other Hondas & General Topics => Honda & Other Honda Models => Topic started by: VicW on October 19, 2020, 02:10:46 PM
-
In the 'Times 'today, Honda are to stop selling diesels with immediate effect, they will sell whatever dealers have in stock however. They are to concentrate on their electric and hybrid models. No surprise there then.
Vic.
-
Never owned a diesel in my life.
Yes they were cheaper to run for long journeys but the additional servicing cost partially wiped that out.
-
Never owned a diesel in my life.
Yes they were cheaper to run for long journeys but the additional servicing cost partially wiped that out.
A lot of diesels were just used for shopping and school run..... they did make sense for drivers with a pretty high annual mileage, but not for school run cars. The truth is government prioritised Co2 over everything else, even though car industry and anyone with a bit of knowledge knew that diesels were awful for NOx, which is far worse for people than Co2 - and car makers cynically covered up the bad emissions from diesels, both particulates ( which contribute to melting of ice caps ) and Nox. The Japs upset the EU industry way back when they said the 'from an emissions point of view, Diesel is a dead end technology' . Unlike the European motor industry that hitched their wagon to the Diesel engine the Japanese were reluctant makers of Diesel engines and preferred to make petrol engines more efficient and hybrids...
-
I have owned three diesels, all Peugeots, when diesel was considerably cheaper than petrol and I was doing seventy mile round trips a day to get to/from work. The first was in 1985 when diesel cars were comparatively rare and it was quite usual to pull in for fuel and have the cashier shout to you that you putting diesel in.
The government soon realised that they were missing out on fuel tax and soon made the diesel an uneconomic proposition unless you were doing very high mileages.
It can't be long before they miss the fuel tax on electric vehicles and put road tax on them. The government will be looking for ways to recover the cost of Covid 19 soon and three obvious targets are road tax, fuel tax and insurance tax all of which affect the road user and put the price of everything up.
Vic.
-
I would slap an "emissions levy" on fuel, priced so that it disproportionately hits diesel but will also improve the financial case for vehicle owners to move towards hybrid or full electric. The car industry is already moving in the right direction but there's little sign of vans and lorries making the move. Long distance lorries may have to wait for hydrogen fuel cells but higher fuel costs may encourage rethinking of business models which involve moving goods all around the country. However, there's no reason for vans, which seem to be proliferating due to increased home delivery of everything, to not move to lower emissions power. And for anyone who whinges about the increased fuel cost I would point out that it can be easily offset by dropping their speed. Perhaps it's time to bring back the 1974 speed limits http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/15/newsid_2559000/2559807.stm in order to reduce emissions.
-
I used to deliver garage parts in a diesel van and my daily mileage could have easily been accomplished with a BEV.
-
I'll be sorry to see diesels go, although I fully understand and accept the reasoning behind it, I prefer the way they drive, always plenty power as you pull out of a bend at low revs, always good mpg.
I've owned 6 petrol cars and 4 diesels, got one of each at the moment, I'm all for making electric and hybrid cars another viable alternative for those that they suit, that can only be a good thing, but they're not ideal for everyone or every journey.
-
I do a lot of walking.
I hate diesel exhaust fumes.. especially when the engines are cold.
Glad to see them eventually go in cars.
-
I do a lot of walking.
I hate diesel exhaust fumes.. especially when the engines are cold.
Glad to see them eventually go in cars.
I've been doing a lot of cycling and notice the same. I'll be happier (and probably healthier) when there aren't any diesel vehicles, small or big, on the roads.
It also appears that Honda have just brought forward the phase-out that was announced in 2019 https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/honda-ditch-diesel-europe-2021 which is probably tied in to closure of the Swindon plant which makes the 1.6 litre diesel engine. As demand for diesel is shrinking while the vehicle market itself is in the doldrums then it makes commercial sense to stop the diesel production a bit sooner.
-
I would slap an "emissions levy" on fuel, priced so that it disproportionately hits diesel but will also improve the financial case for vehicle owners to move towards hybrid or full electric.
That might force me back to a petrol doing half to two thirds the mpg, there are many diesel owners who will not be able to afford an EV or hybrid petrol. We don't all drive new cars. That would increase my CO2 emissions considerably, but what about diesel particulates? The vast majority of vehicular particulate pollution comes from tyres, road surfaces and brake friction materials, and not modern diesel exhausts - tyres alone can produce over 1,000 times the particulates per km than a regulated diesel car exhaust.
I'm not anti-EV, far from it, but there has to be an accessible option for those who can't afford new cars. I'm a firm believer that the biggest contribution to reducing air pollution, and of course congestion, would be the adoption of comprehensive, comfortable and affordable mass transit systems, similar to those found in many European countries.
Cheap trains, trams and good quality buses - we are years behind the rest of the developed world.
-
I'm a firm believer that the biggest contribution to reducing air pollution, and of course congestion, would be the adoption of comprehensive, comfortable and affordable mass transit systems, similar to those found in many European countries.
Cheap trains, trams and good quality buses - we are years behind the rest of the developed world.
Except we are now being told not to use public transport.
I think the best way to reduce vehicle emissions is to increase the duty on fuel and so restrict miles driven by price. I would hate that to happen but it would work. I wouldn't go shopping three times a week if it cost me £10 a shot.
That or some other method of monitoring miles covered and charge accordingly.
-
Before I retired I used to drive home via the M25, junctions 10 to 15. Chertsey to Heathrow.
My direction was fairly clear but the anti-clock carriageway was stationary, nose to tail, from junction 11 (M3), right back to junction 14, Heathrow terminal 5, Thu & Fri, back to junction 15 and beyond.
I guessed these were the same drivers who were happy to do this every day and not try and seek out a better route.
That must have been a pollution hotspot.
-
I'm a firm believer that the biggest contribution to reducing air pollution, and of course congestion, would be the adoption of comprehensive, comfortable and affordable mass transit systems, similar to those found in many European countries.
Cheap trains, trams and good quality buses - we are years behind the rest of the developed world.
Except we are now being told not to use public transport.
Yes, granted. I'm not thinking about the current situation at all, but more of a long term solution.
The question is, when all the current woes are over, will the behavioural changes towards public transport be baked in? Will people trust going back to using public transport, or stick to their cars? One thing I do know, UK roads won't support the growth in private cars and road transport for much longer.
I think the best way to reduce vehicle emissions is to increase the duty on fuel and so restrict miles driven by price. I would hate that to happen but it would work. I wouldn't go shopping three times a week if it cost me £10 a shot.
That or some other method of monitoring miles covered and charge accordingly.
That's the key, reducing the miles driven. It's pointless changing the fuel source, when the majority of harmful car emissions don't come from the exhaust. The choice is whether that's done by carrot (an attractive alternative) or stick (increased taxation), or a combination of the two.
-
That's the key, reducing the miles driven. It's pointless changing the fuel source, when the majority of harmful car emissions don't come from the exhaust. The choice is whether that's done by carrot (an attractive alternative) or stick (increased taxation), or a combination of the two.
I'm sure that when life gets to the new normal there will be more people working from home which will reduce the amount of commuting. There will also be a permanent shift in shopping habits although the reduced car mileage will be partly offset by more delivery vans dashing around.
Higher fuel costs might encourage people to drive more economically which will have a significant positive impact on the transport carbon footprint. However, there would need to be an awareness campaign (starring Jocko?) supporting any fuel price increase to alert people that a less aggressive driving style can offset any fuel cost increase and benefit the environment.
-
Perhaps it's time to bring back the 1974 speed limits http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/15/newsid_2559000/2559807.stm in order to reduce emissions.
To be honest, I think there is a lot of sense in this. The difference in emissions produced at 60mph v 80mph is massive. This where modern diesels are too good. My Jazz at 60 is a relatively relaxing place to be, but at 80, its a frantic buzz box. A long legged diesel with 6 gears however, will sit at 80 all day long without feeling remotely busy or stressed. Bring in a lower speed limit, and emissions will fall. A lot more patrol cars to enforce would be very welcome.
-
Perhaps it's time to bring back the 1974 speed limits http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/15/newsid_2559000/2559807.stm in order to reduce emissions.
To be honest, I think there is a lot of sense in this. The difference in emissions produced at 60mph v 80mph is massive. This where modern diesels are too good. My Jazz at 60 is a relatively relaxing place to be, but at 80, its a frantic buzz box. A long legged diesel with 6 gears however, will sit at 80 all day long without feeling remotely busy or stressed. Bring in a lower speed limit, and emissions will fall. A lot more patrol cars to enforce would be very welcome.
80mph? ;)
The 1974 limits are being introduced by stealth around here anyway. All A-roads in and out of the local town have had their limits reduced to 50mph over the last couple of years, most with average speed cameras. Long suburban 40mph stretches have recently been reduced to 30mph, another one changed this last week. Personally, I don't mind it at all... but I've noticed a big increase in tailgating behaviour, particularly in the long camera-free 30mph stretches.
It's a far cry from the problems we had trying to get the local authority to reduce the 60mph speed limit outside our local primary school. After being fobbed off by the MP and referred back to the county council, we were basically told that there would have to be a fatality before anything could be done.
-
We've lots of long stretches of relatively empty A road and dual carriageways in East Anglia. Sometime the speed of some cars remind me of my time on the Autobahn. 80 mph seems to be pretty average. Enforcement would be very welcome.
I've never understood tailgaiting. Its not like driving closer to the car in front is going to reduce journey times, only increase risk!
" reduce the 60mph speed limit outside our local primary school" far too fast. When children are around, 20's plenty. The will survive 20.
-
In the US, during their Double Nickel period, it was mandated that all new cars sold had to have a speedometer that registered a maximum of 85 mph and 55 mph was distinctly marked. I had a hire car with the speedometer with the 5's as the predominant marks and a large, blue, 55 for the national speed limit.
People would be a bit more careful if the could only boast about 85 mph as their top speed and motorways may be a bit slower if the 99 mph brigade didn't know if they were over or under the licence risking ton.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/55Mph_dashboard_demo.jpg/1024px-55Mph_dashboard_demo.jpg)
-
I agree.
On motorways I'm perfectly happy to sit in the inside lane at ~60mph. It's more relaxing and I don't arrive at my destination worn out.
One of the first things I was told when training for the advanced driving test, way back in the late 70's, was that you should arrive just as relaxed as when you set off.
-
One of the first things I was told when training for the advanced driving test, way back in the late 70's, was that you should arrive just as relaxed as when you set off.
I think that's almost impossible now, isn't it? :)
I can drive hundreds of miles in the Scottish Highlands and arrive tired, but relaxed. 50 miles on the busy roads around me and I get home mentally exhausted.
-
On motorways I'm perfectly happy to sit in the inside lane at ~60mph. It's more relaxing and I don't arrive at my destination worn out.
I'm also happy cruising in the inside lane except when all I can see out of the back window is the bottom part of a lorry's radiator. I then decide it's time to leap-frog the lorry in front of me and get some fresh air between me and the vehicle behind.
In fact that's where the tail-gaters win. By getting very close to the vehicle in front they are putting psychological pressure on the vehicle's driver to go a bit faster. Drive at the speed limit and after a while you'll collect a tail of vehicles which want to go faster.
-
Currently the M4 is being 'downgraded' to a smart motorway.
The limit is 50 and I've found that when I set the cruise to be exactly 50 according to my Garmin and phone GPS my digital speedo is registering 53.
I drive from J3 to J10, and return, at GPS 50 all the way and if anyone behind tries to push me they can talk to the car as It maintains a steady speed.
What I do see from time to time is the ones who come screaming up to a Specs camera, hit the brakes for the camera, then zoom off again. What they don't realise .......... :)
-
I deal with motorway/dual carriageway tailgaters by slowing down. Up here the roads are quiet enough that an HGV can easily overtake if they want to, and regularly do. My cruising speed is 53 mph on the GPS speedometer (almost 60 on the car speedometer).
-
Hi
The best advice for tailgaters is you do not speed up or slowdown
You double your safe distances to allow safe stopping of your car and that of the tailgater behind you.
They may choose to overtake you anyway during that time
Many thanks
John
-
You double your safe distances to allow safe stopping of your car and that of the tailgater behind you.
That's fine until a cat shoots across the road, or some other unforseeable event happens in front of you.
I just stick to the limit, it infuriates them having to do 30mph anyway. If I'm on a dual carriageway or motorway, they can overtake - I'm not stopping them.
-
Hi
There is not a correct answer and I thought we were talking of maintaining the current speed limit
In your example an accident is likely to happen as it could if a child were to run out onto road. So you have to have and use observation for driving as normal
Many thanks
John
-
Hi
The best advice for tailgaters is you do not speed up or slowdown
You double your safe distances to allow safe stopping of your car and that of the tailgater behind you.
They may choose to overtake you anyway during that time
Many thanks
John
That is correct. It is designed to account for cats too if you think about it.
-
There is not a correct answer and I thought we were talking of maintaining the current speed limit
I very seldom drive at the speed limit. The speed limit is just that. A limit. It is a maximum allowable speed, not a recommended or advised speed. I realise that to travel at considerably under the limit could, under certain circumstances, be dangerous, but that is "considerably" under the limit, not "safely" under the limit.
My current favourite pastime is travelling at bang on 20 mph in a 20 mph limit (half the urban areas around here) with a queue of speedfreaks champing at the bit behind me.
-
That is correct. It is designed to account for cats too if you think about it.
I thought about it, but I still don't understand how it stops a tailgater running into the back of me when I brake sharply to avoid squashing a cat.
-
It prevents damage to the front of your car as well ;D
-
The speed limit is just that. A limit.
Unfortunately, some drivers behave as if it's the minimum allowable speed.
When I checked my Crosstar's speedo against the sat-nav I recall the speedo being only 1 mph higher. It's as if the speed is measured accurately and then one is added as a margin. Being a digital speedo it's easy to do that rather than apply a proportional increase.
Perhaps the most troublesome roads are rural ones where the nominal speed limit is 60 mph and, while the car might get round the bends OK my front seat passenger complains of feeling queasy. I therefore tend to be below the limit which also provides a comfort margin against meeting the unexpected. On such roads I'm happier following a safe distance behind a carefully driven lorry although I sometimes end up with the radiator of another lorry blocking the view in my rear view mirror. It's not just car drivers who ignore speed limits.
-
Honda are to cease to manufacture diesel engines, Honda also one of the first to abandon the 2-stroke engine, while Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha were principally 2-stroke engine manufacturers, Honda were unique in being 100% 4-stroke in their range of road - legal motorcycles
-
Honda are to cease to manufacture diesel engines, Honda also one of the first to abandon the 2-stroke engine, while Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha were principally 2-stroke engine manufacturers, Honda were unique in being 100% 4-stroke in their range of road - legal motorcycles
Honda were very slow to start making Diesel engines as well, they reluctantly made them in the end because they were missing out on the company car market. But they knew a long time ago that as far as emissions were concerned they were 'a dead end technology' and makers were chasing their tails with ever more expensive, complicated, unreliable and less effective plasters for emissions - something the Germans tried to hide from the buyer and governments for decades because they were so heavily invested in Diesels. Governments were blind by concentrating on CO2 and ignoring all the nasty stuff that diesels pump out, there are scientists that have said that it may well be the particulates from diesels that are darkening the ice caps and absorbing sunlight causing melting and not CO2.
-
Honda are to cease to manufacture diesel engines, Honda also one of the first to abandon the 2-stroke engine, while Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha were principally 2-stroke engine manufacturers, Honda were unique in being 100% 4-stroke in their range of road - legal motorcycles
Honda were very slow to start making Diesel engines as well, they reluctantly made them in the end because they were missing out on the company car market. But they knew a long time ago that as far as emissions were concerned they were 'a dead end technology' and makers were chasing their tails with ever more expensive, complicated, unreliable and less effective plasters for emissions - something the Germans tried to hide from the buyer and governments for decades because they were so heavily invested in Diesels. Governments were blind by concentrating on CO2 and ignoring all the nasty stuff that diesels pump out, there are scientists that have said that it may well be the particulates from diesels that are darkening the ice caps and absorbing sunlight causing melting and not CO2.
The EU commission truly lost the plot, of the emissions produced by a car, diesel or petrol, the only exhaust gas constituent not subject to defined not-to-be-exceed limits is the CO2 content, all other constituents, Nox, PMs etc they had defined do not exceed number, ie Nox 180 unit/km , or 80 units/km, for CO2, you could throw out as much as you wish provided the car maker accepted the one off penalty charge and the buyer paid the VED rate.
My thoughts on why the EU was so diesel crazy until the veil was lifted:
1)Make the EU car market uniquely diesel-centric, to ringfence the German / French brands from competition on price with Japanese / Asian petrol-centric brands.
2)Hybrid cars are expensive, the low-profit low-productivity Eu car makers could not afford to manufacture hybrid cars, the additional cost of a hybrid battery greater than the profit margins on a typical EU manufactured car. In the early days of hybrids , you needed the well-filled war chest of Toyota and Honda to purchase a ticket for the hybrid theatre
-
I'll be sorry to see diesels go, although I fully understand and accept the reasoning behind it, I prefer the way they drive, always plenty power as you pull out of a bend at low revs, always good mpg.
I've owned 6 petrol cars and 4 diesels, got one of each at the moment, I'm all for making electric and hybrid cars another viable alternative for those that they suit, that can only be a good thing, but they're not ideal for everyone or every journey.
Petrol cars can drive with power and torque as per a diesel, we need to abandon the high speed / high rpm engine strategy for low rpm / high torque petrol engines, why do we have 120 mph cars and 6500 rpm redlines when the limit is a mere 70 mph
-
Perhaps it's time to bring back the 1974 speed limits http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/15/newsid_2559000/2559807.stm in order to reduce emissions.
To be honest, I think there is a lot of sense in this. The difference in emissions produced at 60mph v 80mph is massive. This where modern diesels are too good. My Jazz at 60 is a relatively relaxing place to be, but at 80, its a frantic buzz box. A long legged diesel with 6 gears however, will sit at 80 all day long without feeling remotely busy or stressed. Bring in a lower speed limit, and emissions will fall. A lot more patrol cars to enforce would be very welcome.
It was found that some car manufacturers installed software defeat devices which switched off diesel exhaust emissions suppression at speeds greater than 75 mph, the cars then produced very high levels of diesel exhaust pollution. The car makers did not miss any trick they thought they could get away with
-
The EU commission truly lost the plot, of the emissions produced by a car, diesel or petrol, the only exhaust gas constituent not subject to defined not-to-be-exceed limits is the CO2 content, all other constituents, Nox, PMs etc they had defined do not exceed number, ie Nox 180 unit/km , or 80 units/km, for CO2, you could throw out as much as you wish provided the car maker accepted the one off penalty charge and the buyer paid the VED rate.
CO2 is simply fuel consumed by another name. the "regulated" pollutants are the toxic ones, and a manageable unfortunate by-product of the vagaries of combustion of HC fuels in air (N2 and O2). By manageable I mean they can be modified to a greater or lesser extent by engineering the combustion system, pressures and temperatures, and after-treatments etc.
CO2 and H2O are just a consequence of burning HC fuel, the more you burn the more CO2 it produces, unavoidably in principle.
Fuel consumption is principally a function of vehicle mass and size (area, drag). At one time there was a table of "ton.miles/gallon" for many production cars, today's equivalent comes out at somewhere round the 50 tonne.miles/gallon (imp) mark, in other words a 1000kg car will do around 50mpg (imp) typically over a mixed drive cycle, maybe a little better.
Physics and thermodynamics say that with a "normal" ICE burning liquid HC you can't do vastly better than this. The principal way to lower the CO2 values is to make cars smaller and lighter with lower performance levels (operating the engine at nearer optimum efficiency regions). That isn't the trend for a lot of cars, they get bigger (ergonomics for modern people), heavier (more gizmos and better crash performance), and higher performance (desirability/sales&marketing).
The USA/California have had CO2/gas guzzler taxes and penalties for decades, which were paid by the manufacturer. If you impose a CO2 limit you essentially limit the size/weight of an ICE vehicle, which is a fundamental step change in regulatory principle. Some markets in effect have such rules for certain segments (Japan and kei-cars).
EV/hybrid sort of by-passes that issue by putting the CO2 somewhere else (power stations).
-
The EU commission truly lost the plot, of the emissions produced by a car, diesel or petrol, the only exhaust gas constituent not subject to defined not-to-be-exceed limits is the CO2 content, all other constituents, Nox, PMs etc they had defined do not exceed number, ie Nox 180 unit/km , or 80 units/km, for CO2, you could throw out as much as you wish provided the car maker accepted the one off penalty charge and the buyer paid the VED rate.
CO2 is simply fuel consumed by another name. the "regulated" pollutants are the toxic ones, and a manageable unfortunate by-product of the vagaries of combustion of HC fuels in air (N2 and O2). By manageable I mean they can be modified to a greater or lesser extent by engineering the combustion system, pressures and temperatures, and after-treatments etc.
CO2 and H2O are just a consequence of burning HC fuel, the more you burn the more CO2 it produces, unavoidably in principle.
Fuel consumption is principally a function of vehicle mass and size (area, drag). At one time there was a table of "ton.miles/gallon" for many production cars, today's equivalent comes out at somewhere round the 50 tonne.miles/gallon (imp) mark, in other words a 1000kg car will do around 50mpg (imp) typically over a mixed drive cycle, maybe a little better.
Physics and thermodynamics say that with a "normal" ICE burning liquid HC you can't do vastly better than this. The principal way to lower the CO2 values is to make cars smaller and lighter with lower performance levels (operating the engine at nearer optimum efficiency regions). That isn't the trend for a lot of cars, they get bigger (ergonomics for modern people), heavier (more gizmos and better crash performance), and higher performance (desirability/sales&marketing).
The USA/California have had CO2/gas guzzler taxes and penalties for decades, which were paid by the manufacturer. If you impose a CO2 limit you essentially limit the size/weight of an ICE vehicle, which is a fundamental step change in regulatory principle. Some markets in effect have such rules for certain segments (Japan and kei-cars).
EV/hybrid sort of by-passes that issue by putting the CO2 somewhere else (power stations).
Excellent posts.
Many thanks.
-
Honda are to cease to manufacture diesel engines, Honda also one of the first to abandon the 2-stroke engine, while Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha were principally 2-stroke engine manufacturers, Honda were unique in being 100% 4-stroke in their range of road - legal motorcycles
Honda were very slow to start making Diesel engines as well, they reluctantly made them in the end because they were missing out on the company car market. But they knew a long time ago that as far as emissions were concerned they were 'a dead end technology' and makers were chasing their tails with ever more expensive, complicated, unreliable and less effective plasters for emissions - something the Germans tried to hide from the buyer and governments for decades because they were so heavily invested in Diesels. Governments were blind by concentrating on CO2 and ignoring all the nasty stuff that diesels pump out, there are scientists that have said that it may well be the particulates from diesels that are darkening the ice caps and absorbing sunlight causing melting and not CO2.
I believe that the reason for Honda's reluctant adoption of diesel was very persobnal. Soichiro hated them and two strokes too. Honda didn't adopt them until Soichiro died and were so late in the game, they had to get their first diesel car engine from Isuzu. Bunging that engine into a Civic body made for a bugger of a turning circle!
In the long run, it seems that Soichiro san's faith in 4 strokes has been justified. They'll be around for a while yet in hybrids and maybe as users of synthetic fuels.
-
Perhaps it's time to bring back the 1974 speed limits http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/15/newsid_2559000/2559807.stm in order to reduce emissions.
To be honest, I think there is a lot of sense in this. The difference in emissions produced at 60mph v 80mph is massive. This where modern diesels are too good. My Jazz at 60 is a relatively relaxing place to be, but at 80, its a frantic buzz box. A long legged diesel with 6 gears however, will sit at 80 all day long without feeling remotely busy or stressed. Bring in a lower speed limit, and emissions will fall. A lot more patrol cars to enforce would be very welcome.
Emissions and fuel consumption at 60 mph vs 80 mph, you cannot beat the laws of physics, double the speed and the power needs go up by a factor of four, emissions, at least one manufacturer set their diesel cars to switch off emissions control at a speed of geather than 75 mph, the toxic emissions from the tailpipe would then skyrocket to many times the Eu regulated limits. The european car makers are without morals and cannot be trusted
-
Honda are to cease to manufacture diesel engines, Honda also one of the first to abandon the 2-stroke engine, while Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha were principally 2-stroke engine manufacturers, Honda were unique in being 100% 4-stroke in their range of road - legal motorcycles
Honda were very slow to start making Diesel engines as well, they reluctantly made them in the end because they were missing out on the company car market. But they knew a long time ago that as far as emissions were concerned they were 'a dead end technology' and makers were chasing their tails with ever more expensive, complicated, unreliable and less effective plasters for emissions - something the Germans tried to hide from the buyer and governments for decades because they were so heavily invested in Diesels. Governments were blind by concentrating on CO2 and ignoring all the nasty stuff that diesels pump out, there are scientists that have said that it may well be the particulates from diesels that are darkening the ice caps and absorbing sunlight causing melting and not CO2.
I believe that the reason for Honda's reluctant adoption of diesel was very persobnal. Soichiro hated them and two strokes too. Honda didn't adopt them until Soichiro died and were so late in the game, they had to get their first diesel car engine from Isuzu. Bunging that engine into a Civic body made for a bugger of a turning circle!
In the long run, it seems that Soichiro san's faith in 4 strokes has been justified. They'll be around for a while yet in hybrids and maybe as users of synthetic fuels.
The air-cooled vs liquid-cooled engine was another Sochiro tenet, he insisted on air-cooling for his cars, it is written that the engineers developed liquid-cooled engines in secret. Liquid cooling has many advantages, a ready source of heat for the passenger cabin, stable engine operating conditions , muting of mechanical noise by the engine, it is hard to understand the stance against liquid-cooled by Sochiro.
-
I have owned three diesels, all Peugeots, when diesel was considerably cheaper than petrol and I was doing seventy mile round trips a day to get to/from work. The first was in 1985 when diesel cars were comparatively rare and it was quite usual to pull in for fuel and have the cashier shout to you that you putting diesel in.
The government soon realised that they were missing out on fuel tax and soon made the diesel an uneconomic proposition unless you were doing very high mileages.
It can't be long before they miss the fuel tax on electric vehicles and put road tax on them. The government will be looking for ways to recover the cost of Covid 19 soon and three obvious targets are road tax, fuel tax and insurance tax all of which affect the road user and put the price of everything up.
Vic.
i used to drive a Ford Connect 1.5 diesel, the fuel consumption was about the same mid-50s as my Dsi Jazz, (measured by odometer and fuel dispensed by the pump) I drove the Ford at the same speeds as I would my Jazz, the difference in weight and size is considerable, the Connect weighed 2300 kg, double the weight of the Jazz. It is hard to explain such wildly different vehicles driven in the same style could return similar fuel consumption. It is a fact the Ford did not meet emissions standards in real world driving, official tests on the Focus with the same engine showed Nox to be 5 times the Eu6 limit, if the Ford was tuned to meet Eu6 limits in real world driving I suspect mpg would fall significantly