Honda Accord 2.2 CTDI

Nikumba

Nikumba

Nikumba

Soldato
Joined
4 Dec 2002
Posts
4,014
Location
Bourne, Lincs
Looking at replacing my 2.5 V70 petrol with a diesel as will save me a bunch of cash on fuel.

Currently it has 204K on the clock and still runs good most of the time, but I have a feeling a coil pack is on its way out.

So was looking at the Accrod 2.2 CTDI's 2005/2006 with 50K on the clock, need to go have a drive in my mates, but what are peoples opinions on them here?

Thanks

Kimbie
 
I like them, and they are apparently one of the more reliable of the Diesel engines.

There will be some people along shortly asking what your mileage is, and telling you that you do not need a Diesel, regurgitating some common diesel issues they've seen on here, that aren't nearly as much of a problem with your choice.

Just take it with a pinch of salt :)
 
And there will also be MikeHiow, talking rubbish as usual :)

What mileage do you do - you are going to need to spend several thousand pounds to replace the V70 with a diesel so make sure you run the numbers to make sure its really going to save you money. The early Accord CTDi's had numerous complaints of quite poor fuel economy.

From the HJ car by car breakdown:

Reports of mid 30s fuel consumption of early 2.2iCDTIs.
Click to expand...

Reports of problems with inlet manifold swirl chambers of 2.2iCDTIs at high mileage. Also of inlet manifolds cracking, emitting fumes to the cabin. Best to have replaced before the 3 year 90k mile end of warranty. Though even after, Honda will sometimes pick up the tab. By 2010 Honda had extended its warranty on both the inlet manifold and the timing chain to 7 years or 125,000 miles, whichever comes first.

Report of cracked injectors on 2.2iCDTI after 100k miles.

Complaint of cracked exhaust manifold of 2.2iCRDI that seems to occur on 2007 cars at high mileage. Occurred to reader at 150k miles. Honda has extended the warranty on the manifold to 125k miles or 7 years. The danger here is of drowsiness caused by carbon monoxide sucked into the cabin.
Click to expand...

The fact Honda themselves extended the warranty on these parts clearly indicates there is an issue, regardless of the guesswork MikeHiow has chosen to share with us. There are also the usual injector concerns.

If you run the numbers and find a diesel does yield worthy savings, you would probably be better off with something from the VAG stable. Although noisy, unrefined and irritating, the PD engined VW diesels are quite hardy and economical.
 
Wow, you found some common problems (like every car doesn't have some, and one is even specific to one year/one reader account at 150K!) and claim I'm talking crap based on that? You really are trying ever so hard to make up for the silly things you've been coming out with recently, aren't you?

Do not forget, I spent a while researching the 2.2CDTIs when first looking to replace the ST.
 
Last edited:
They are called 'common' for a reason, they are common. Buying a 6 year old commonrail turbodiesel isn't the guaranteed moneysaver many people think. It is foolish to overlook this, especially when more reliable alternatives exist.

I took the attitude I did with you because of your ridiculously loaded first reply in this thread :)
 
My point was that from what I managed to find out at the time, the usual CR Diesel issues aren't nearly as much of a problem with these cars as they are on others. Hence my comment about taking it with a pinch of salt, rather than saying "ignore them".

In fact, I believe there is even a thread on here somewhere confirming so.

You also know full well that I'm referring to the people who seem to mindlessly repeat what they've read elsewhere in this forum rather than applying knowledge to their reply.
 
Which still leaves the mediocre fuel consumption.

If he does 30k a year its a no brainer. If he does 15-20k a year it's worthy of consideration. If he does under 10k a year its a waste of money. It's foolish to say you should ignore people pointing this out - it's all about running the numbers and working out whether it saves you enough money to be worth a) the bother and b) the risk.
 
In terms of mileage, I do about 800 miles a month 600 is commuting another 200 on other stuff, with an average 30mpg in my Volvo and I get 400 miles to a tank at a cost of about 90 quid, most of that driving is sat at 50-60mph.

If I swapped to a diesel I would expect to get 45mpg which would give me over 600miles on a tank at a cost of about 80 quid.

So I can go further for less, also I am concious of the fact my Volvo is getting on, and last repair was a replacement power steering pump and some other bits

Kimbie
 
800 miles a month is not even 10k a year.

Moving to a diesel would save you just £45 a month - and thats before we account for risk involved in older commonrail turbodiesels and assuming you'd even get 45mpg - many people with early Accord CTDi's complained of just mid 30's mpg.

Replacing the Volvo with a petrol car might be more prudent. A petrol Accord for example will be newer for your money, and very reliable.
 
I can see your point Fox, but a replacement I would like to future proof changes in circumstances eg moving to a new job further away, visiting people etc.

But what petrol would you suggest moving to then?

Kimbie
 
I have a civic with the 2.2CDTI - granted it only has nearly 17k on the clock but I haven't had it a year yet, but since I've got it, including city driving the average mpg for the 17k is touching 43mpg. On a long motorway run you get 45-50 @ 70mph.

It's a good engine, revs nicely, but it does drink fuel if you drive it hard (surprise surprise!). I only have a 45L tank, but I'm making it stretch over 450miles at the moment with long motorway runs. So it does the trick.
 
That's the total combined mpg since new. You can get a lot more on the "average since last fill up" - but I am driving it with care to try and make my tank last longer - boring perhaps, but there you go :p

Not sure how many revisions that engine has had - but it seems pretty decent so far. Drank quite a bit of oil when new and breaking in - but now it's nicely bedded in it just plods along nicely.
 
[TW]Fox;18514671 said:
He drives a brand new Civic not an 'early Accord'. Do keep up.

Although frankly low 40's isnt hugely impressive from a small diesel hatchback, if I'm honest.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. However, the number is slowly creeping up. And typically at the moment, if I do the calculations 450+ miles with a 45L tank equates to about 45-46mpg. Sure, not brilliant, but considering I do drive in town too I can't complain (and I hardly pay anything for the car! ;)).

Although the manufacturer's books say 55+ combined, you have to bear in mind they don't take into consideration traffic, gradients of hills, constant acceleration/deceleration or 70mph.
 
Think my dad's 2005 Accord is averaging around 49 - 51mpg combined atm.

He's currently going through an issue with VSA failure atm, cars done 69k nowt else has gone wrong till this, which might be about to set him back £1,800 to put right.
 
Unless your Dad is driving his car on the EU test, he isn't acheiving 'combined' as combined is not 'a 50 50 mix of motorway and town' or whatever. Though, 49mpg does sound more impressive though still hardly worth the bother at just over 9000 miles a year.

I suspect a 4 cylinder petrol Accord would cost perhaps 30 quid a month in fuel more, whilst allowing the purchase of a newer car for the money, or the same age car for LESS money, saving you cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom