If they put it on a large motorcycle.I hope its quieter then these ear splitting " who a mobiles"have had a lot of friends get killed or injured on large motorcycles,is the market actually growing for these devices?,the name eludes me but there is already a good european diesel engine that works good on motorcycles.
I believe too,that NOX emission worry has gone a bit to far,for pitys sake make the motorcycles NOX exempt(there isnt that many of them-the old gassers are plenty smelly)
As usual, not meant for the United States. WAKE UP PEOPLE. This engine is clean and gets nearly 80 mpg?
great, Now put it in a motorcycle chassis!
the long way round, down, across or up would be great on a diesel.
And with this sector of the motorcycle market growing the time is right.
The U.S. always has its priorities in line. Thank you EPA and other regulatory bodies from keeping fine motors out of our market.
Sean Brendan Phelim Moore.
A diesel on a motorbike? There a good reasons why people don't put diesels in motorbikes.
They are heavy - which affects manuverability. No one is going to ride a motorbike that wants to resist change in direction because of an overly heavy engine. That is dangerous.
Emissions controls are more complex and involved on diesel engines. Are you going to use a catalytic converted to reduce particulate emmisions? Urea injection for NOx emissions? Any solution will add more weight, cost and complexity to your motorbike. The increase in weight means you need to upgrade the brakes and suspension systems. This adds further weight and cost.
They are low revving compared to petrol car engines and incredibly low revving when compared to your average motorcycle engine. You would need an extremely complex gearbox to make use of the torque. Torque that is overkill for a bike weighing anything near or under 300Kg. This is only adding further weight, complexity and cost.
The turbo lag would be so appreciable on a motorcycle compared to a petrol engine that it would be potentially dangerous and frustrating to ride.
The manufacturing costs relative to a comparable petrol motorbike would be unjustifiable. What would the selling point be?
The only advantage would be fuel consumption. If fuel efficiency was your main concern then there are already motorcycles built to be fuel efficient on petrol - not surprisingly, honda sells them.
If I've missed some advantage you are thinking of - please let me know.
I will be very disappointed if Honda only provides this engine to Europe. Australia could certainly benefit from it and it would do the Honda brand here a great deal of good.
There is a proven precedent. Hyundai sells their I30 with a 1.6 Turbo diesel and it has gained a lot of popularity and wide acclaim. Not surprisingly it is a fuel miser. If honda sold the Civic with this engine and a dual clutch gearbox or a finely tuned CVT, they would be on a winner.
Interesting article, but I have a suggestion for the author. In an article about the lightest engine in it's class, it might be a good idea to give it's actual weight, not just a comparison to another engine's weight.
The headline speaks of lightest ever, so too, the first sentence but not till the second paragraph does weight actually get mentioned. And I still don't know how heavy this engine is!
This looks like an excellent advance. I bet it won't be long before this is used in aircraft too.
One should note MPG is in metric so more like 65mpg with US gals as ours are smaller.
I'd bet it weighs about what a MC engine of similar power does. They are not light. I built an E MC using 240lbs of lead batteries from a Kaw 750 and it weighs less than stock!!
Heavy bikes have advantages to they are more stable in windy conditions and if you have the right ratio of weight to tire/road contact area they are plenty nimble.
Also having different gear ratios does not make the transmission more complex.
I will take the heaviest bike I can lift back onto it wheels by myself.
We ALL need to petition Obama and the government agencies to abandon their stance against diesels which obviously bring many more miles per gallon than what we have to offer. I believe they are measuring them by the minute instead of overall per mileage and so get it wrong and apply foolish sanctions against these engines. We need them NOW congress-EPA whoever the genius's are who are holding them back-why? There must be some lobby that stops them in favor of buying more fuel is all I can think!
I guess there's no market in the USA for a car that gets 78.5 mpg. :-)
SBPM & Austrailan-
Ducati has made a production diesel motorcycle.
jerryd . . . as an aside, I was considering an electric MC build as well, but I haven't found anyone yet who has seriously commuted on one for more than a year! EVERYBODY that I have talked to personally quits riding them after a few months because of problems or boredom. What was your Experience?
Ducati does make a diesel- but only on a naked bike- thus throwing away one of the major advantages- long range economy, for the sake of producing what to me looks like something of a gimmick.
A small and refined diesel (yes they do exist) in a full-on touring bike would give the advantage of effortless milage coverage, plenty of torque for a bike laden with luggage and possibly two up, and very good economy.
I'm with Sigfreid. How can Honda claim it is lightest in its class, and not say how much it weighs ?
Ducati does NOT have a diesel engined motorcycle. They have partnered with the brand "Diesel" that make clothes.
the USMC have a diesel bike based on a KLR650 - they just want to have one type of fuel. Acceleration is an issue - top speed and fuel economy isn't.
What I would love to see with this motor is it chopped in two - a twin cylinder 800cc turbo with 60ps and 150nm AND 1.5 l/100km. Woohoo - put this into a thoughtful hybrid (bit like my old sirion - great little car) that has good aero and regenerative brakes, and it should be able to get 1l/100km for a versatile little car. Or put it into something like a jimny or sierra for 4wd fun.
Then run them on green biodiesel. Or better yet, use the regenerative power to create fuel from atmospheric C02 via a zubrin process... Put 100l into the car, and never have to put fuel into it until the next service...
No more money grubbing oil companies and expensive fuel imports, for cars anyway! And no more fuel crisis....
Why can't we have this in OZ? Because our engineers and engineering schools suck thats why. We can only turn OZ into an efficient gravel pit for the big guys, not actually create anything of use from out cast natural resources.
Ford's 3 cylinder ultra-lite engine burns gasoline but does get good mileage and is available in U.S. GM has offered little in advanced technology for the common folk. Pain in my heart is that this fine diesel effort did not come from Detroit Michigan or anywhere else in the U.S. ? We have lost so much ground now.
The problem with a car in the USA that gets 75+ mpg is that all of the political entities that tax fuel would go broke. The net cost of fuel is about the same in the United States and Europe. The difference in what the motorist pays is due to taxes. In the US, taxes are fairly low. So the public is willing to tolerate reduced mileage due to engine calibration and gas dilution due to ethanol. But in Europe where the gas taxes are a majority of the purchase price, the public would not stand for paying onerous taxes on a fuel that was deliberately blended to give reduced mileage. So Europe gets better gas and better engines than we get here. Wait until the hybrids start getting into a significant percentage of vehicles and states realize that they are contributing their fair share of road use taxes (paid via fuel taxes) and start charging additional registration fees. And a big economy of the plug-in electrics that one charges up in their home garage is that they pay no road use taxes. That will change.
"How can Honda claim it is lightest in its class, and not say how much it weighs ? "
Simple. You write the class specifications so that your engine is the only one that qualifies. Then you are the winner!! You get full bragging rights. Just hide the fine print.
Voice of Reason we can't have diesel cars in the US because of NOx emission standards in states like California and CT. Volkswagen had to move away from diesel cars. No one needs to wake up, we just need to change emission standards to EU Rule.
I agree with others in that there is absolutely no logical reason why private US consumers- of small passenger vehicles- should be restricted from purchasing this sort of improved diesel technology.
Yes, reasonable NOx, C particulates, and other standards must be considered but except for VW, BMW, and Mercedes auto manufacturers have all but abandoned the US market. CA is responsible for this situation for the last 15years.
See and sign my petition on petitions.whitehouse.gov ! http://wh.gov/IaPh
An old article from Gizmag:
A quick Bing and there is not much in the way of diesel motorbikes.
Not many manufacturers and not much interest outside of military applications. They only wanted diesel motorbikes for logistic simplicity. They then use the same fuel as everything else in the field.
If you ride a motorbike and drive diesel vehicles, you quicky understand why diesel engines and 2 wheels have limited application together.
Dear President Obama,
Reduce of reliance on foreign oil by improving conservation efforts. Force a change in legislation allowing high mileage engines into the US.
"They are heavy - which affects manuverability. No one is going to ride a motorbike that wants to resist change in direction because of an overly heavy engine. That is dangerous."
How do you explain big cruisers that weigh 600, 700, 800 pounds or more?
I drove a diesel truck for a years and rode a motorcycle for a decade and I would love a diesel motorcycle.
It's not the EPA as European emissions are just as strict. There is simple little demand for diesels in the U.S.-period. Quit blaming the Feds for everything.
California and two other states are absolute death on diesel engines and the EPA is part of the problem with their bureaucratic maze and not licensing things that their regulations would actually allow.
I hope all you American diesel and motorcycle enthusiasts noted that this engine is both small, suitable mainly for typical european small cars rather than your big pickup, and turbocharged, which wouldn't suit a motorcycle at all, unless you like burning your leg on the exhaust.
re; Paul Gracey
Turn the engine so that the exhaust manifold is to the front and route the exhaust underneath the engine.
MPG means miles per gallon which are english measurements, not metric. The article states a fuel economy of 3l/100km which is equal to approx 78.4 mpg depending on how you round, once you convert liters to gal and km to miles.
a C.V.Transmission would work very well and deliver the torque easily, weight is not that much of an issue large cruisers go up to and beyond 400Kg.
Not everyone want a crotch rocket, imagine a diesel bike with sidecar touring.
EPA EEMEEAA. EPA is geared to US petroleum market and gas hogs. Lock step with oil companies. In EPA system, it is it's OK to burn 2 gallons per mile as long as they are cleanly burned. European model is to raise total miles per gallon with lower emissions to get a lower overall number. That is why EPA limits diesel access to the US market. EPA encourages low mileage vehicles. In Europe, 60% of new cars are diesel and you cannot smell them or see any exhaust, very clean.