Now that the HAH will be dumped in favor of a diesel for '09, I still don't understand why Honda didn't mate their hybrid system to an I-4 instead of a V-6 like the current Camry hybrid. Even after the Honda V-6 hybrid clearly wasn't catching on, why didn't they try the I-4? It would have been good for at least 38-40 real world mpg. Toyota's Camry hybrid is selling well.

My thoughts all along. I find it interesting that the HAH gets 30 mpg according to the GH database here, and that's close to what my Acura TSX gets (with a 205 hp I-4) in, of course, non-hybrid form (the Acura TSX is actually the European Accord). A car like that, or the Accord equivalent, would be a champ with a hybrid system. I never understood why they went with the V6 in the HAH. It's that kind of poor decision making by the auto makers that actually drew me to a non-hybrid (for a while) until they get serious about getting a next-generation improvement on the street.

*** Retired after 65,000 outstanding miles ***

I heard that the four was too long to fit, with the IMA motor-generator sandwiched in there. The V-6 is shorter (crankshaft length). Even if that is the case, it seems odd that Honda, of all the manufacturers, couldn't find a way to do it. They are first and foremost an engineering company.

Honda went with the V6 in part because they wanted to have the first V6 hybrid vehicle. That was something they definitely achieved.

But they also expected it to sell well. In that arena they failed.

In this market Honda cannot afford to have it's vehicles compare badly to the Toyotas. The IMA is very very capable in Civic-sized vehicles and smaller. It's cost effective and it performs well for that size vehicle.

The IMA is not very capable for midsized vehicles. A 4c IMA HAH would be less expensive comparitively than a TCH but when the small boost in power and small savings in FE are compared to the TCH it would be 2nd rate. Honda cannot have this happen. They recognize the current limitations so why try to fit a square peg in a round hole. Clean diesel is Honda's chance to create a 'Prius situation' of it's own.

Clean diesel will be every bit as efficient as the Toyota hybrids the main problem is to get them to the same cleanliness level. Honda seems to feel that it has already. If they do, then they can use their excellent technology to compete on an 'Us vs Them' basis rather than 'We too' basis.

Clean diesel? It's my understanding that it is nowhere near a Sulev or PZEV category. It's just cleaner than it was before low-sulfur.

Why do they think american Accord owners would buy a diesel? My brother is pretty typical in the Accord car world (owned 2, loved them), but went with a Prius. Loves the Prius even more than the Accords. He'd never ever consider a diesel.
Just one person, sure, but I don't see a diesel selling any better than a V-6 hybrid Accord. Diesels are for trucks, ask anyone.

I see this as a "HSD has us beat, let's go somewhere else to compete..."

'04 Seaside Pearl #7. Fumoto oil drain, mudflaps, rear bumper scuff protector & rear warn system, compass mirror, EV mode button, 8" subwoofer in right rear cubby & 6" subs under seats, power lumbar in the front seats, Coastaletech hitch w/ Aspen bike/snowboard rack. iPod2car, 2 amps, Alpine component speakers, and DVD video, solid 47 MPG @ 70000 miles.

Not only would Honda be using the clean diesel fuel but it's engine technology would be eliminating many of the emissions that keep new diesels off the road in the CARB states. They may not be AT-PZEV ( to be determined ) but they should be SULEV's.

On the positive side these should be every bit as fuel efficient and cost effective as a TCH, assuming of course that the vehicle pricing is in line.

On the ???? side..
Will the emissions be clean enough to satisfy those most interested in reaching zero emissions? ( to be determined ).
How many buyers a) are aware of the emissions levels of their vehicles; b) care enough to make a purchase based on minor variations?
How receptive will the N American driving public be towards light diesels?
How will the N American public be educated toward this new diesel technology?

Personally although I love the Prius I drive, it still uses 20 gal of gasoline for every 1000 mi I drive. If I had a bio-diesel source produced locally and near enough to not be a major inconvenience I'd likely go with a diesel and keep all my fuel spending in N America iso knowing that presently some ends up in the MidEast.

A friend of mine at the office test drove the TCH and decided she wanted a V6 instead, so she bought a non-hybrid Camry. I don't know if she considered the HAH at all, but I suppose she would have been exactly the person the HAH was intended to attract. Too bad I didn't know she was even shopping until after the car purchase was made, or I would have brought up the alternative option...

Since I see this topic coming up, here's something to think about. Although diesel yields better fuel economy, a gallon of diesel has roughly 18% more carbon density than gasoline. This means that a gallon of diesel yields roughly 18% more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline. Google it and you will find the same numbers.

I am not sure how much more efficient diesel is, but it needs to be at least 18% better (per gallon) to make a "real" difference.

I too wish that Honda had tried an I-4 hybrid Accord. Sometimes they miss.

spyder, I think Honda said that the diesel accord has tier 2, bin 5 emission standards. Which would put it at the worst allowable at least in Cali. Beatle, i test drove the THC, and it was a bit sluggish on start, also a very big car as well.