"uses a new type of low voltage spark plugs"

Should this read glow plug instead of spark plug?

.

Fantastic! A new diesel engine that **almost** gets as good fuel mileage as a 30 year old diesel in a VW Rabbit.

No doubt this engine has been banned by the U.S. congress. Thanks Pelosi/Reid!

.

Banned by the U.S. congress? I hate to burst your bubble but no one's banned any car over here...

"no one's banned any car over here"

T2bin5 is a 'ban' on all vehicles that do not meet the stringent standard. CARB has 'banned' most light duty diesels for several years now.

Gee, I wonder if the oil lobbies have anything to do with banning fuel efficient vehicles? GM and Ford both claim that there is no market for their European high-efficiency diesel compact cars, such as the EU version of the Ford Focus which gets 65 mpg, because people who drive compacts don't want to fill up at truck stops (where they would have to go to find diesel in some small communities.) If you believe that, you probably think we should bail them out. It is true the last version of the VW TDI (the only imported high-efficiency diesel) did not pass CARB rules because of its black smoke at start up problems. Those problems have been solved and VW is once again importing them.

Not to digress, but isn't 20,000 miles normal for an oil change on a standard passenger (diesel) car?

I thought it was 40,000 if you use fully synthetics (which no one I know pays the extra for)

"Gee, I wonder if the oil lobbies have anything to do with banning fuel efficient vehicles?"

Actually, no. The truth is that the "environmental" lobbies have had small diesel engines banned. Like the above post states, VW is now back with their diesels. Mercedes is as well.

Diesel engines are roughly 30% more thermodynamically efficient (mostly due to higher compression, part because of fuel energy content) than gas engines. Want your mileage to go up 30% - buy the same vehicle in a diesel. Want your VW Jetta to go from 32 mpg to close to 50mpg - buy the diesel. But one can't buy most diesel cars in the U.S. because, yes, most small, incredibly efficient, diesel engines are banned by congress.

It ain't even environmental lobbies. Manufacturers such as VW can bring over diesels at about a grand over MSRP compared to a similar trim level, just like other manufacturers can. The problem is that most don't consider it worthwhile considering how low (relatively) fuel prices are and the diesel/gasoline spread. They have to pay a bunch for testing of a product that'll be a grand or so more expensive right out of the gate at a time when people aren't looking for expensive new vehicles due to finances, not to mention fuel prices don't translate into as wide of a savings.

VW knows it has market share because it's been the one and only lower cost manufacturer to offer diesels in passenger cars over the past couple decades, but for the other manufacturers they would have to fight VW for that bread and butter w/ products that have never seen American shores, ie unknowns. The same goes for the smaller sub-compacts I suppose. We haven't seen a VW Lupo, a Ford Ka, or just about any other small sub-compact except for the Smart (total niche) because they're just too small of a return w/ too big a risk.

European car makers are looking towards diesel hybrids. With electric motors powering the rear wheels and a small turbo diesel to power the front wheels. With improving battery technologies it would be simple to extend the all electric range of such vehicles and improvements in light weighting the rest of the vehicle can help reduce the overall weight (making extensive use of plant based composites can help lock up carbon.) Dual fuel use of natural gas in diesel engines could further reduce the emissions / running costs of these vehicles. Ideally these vehicles would work as a fleet of taxibuses, making use of mobile communication and sat nav to provide cheap and flexible public transport.

As if there were a credible and powerful environmental lobby ... that's ridiculous. The only reason environmentalists could get air quality standards passed was because it happened to dovetail with oil interests in Texas. Whenever air quality and safety standards cause mpg to go down and vehicle weight to go up, it's because powerful interests are happy with that result. The tiny little environmental and safety lobbies don't win unless it's good for big oil, big mining, big three and big steel. Governing is always about reaching consensus. Banning the little VW TDI met those requirements and nobody at the Sierra Club was cheering--except where the same rule helped clean up the worst offenders in the trucking industry. Do you really think we would have catalytic converters if they didn't add weight, cost, and fuel inefficiency? In 1981 the Chrysler K car got 41 mpg on the highway, carried 6 passengers with virtually zero aerodynamics. That nearly beats the Prius today. Do you really blame the rising inefficiency of US automobiles on environmentalists? Just because people are fighting to save the earth, doesn't mean they are winning.

creativforce,

According to fueleconomy.gov, the 1984 Aries K car got 31mpg highway with a (rare) 5 speed manual. The automatic got 24 mpg highway.

fueleconomy.gov doesn't go all the way back to 1981, but I really doubt your statement about that year's K car getting 41 mpg highway. Do you have any sources to back you up?

I found it on Wikipedia and didn't question it because that's what I remember getting when I owned one. The automatic probaly got MPG in the high 30s. Here is the text of the article:

[edit] Sales figures
The actual K-cars (Dodge Aries, Plymouth Reliant, Chrysler LeBaron, Dodge 400, and, in Mexico, Dodge Dart) sold very well, selling between 280,000 and 360,000 every year from 1981 to 1988, and edging over 100,000 in their final year, 1989. The manual transmission provided acceleration of 0-60 mph in 10 seconds, while the automatic was between 13 and 14 seconds, similar to or better than most competitors, while gas mileage was rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city, 41 mpg highway with the manual transmission. All had a 100.1-inch (2.54 m) wheelbase. The overall length of the two and four-door models was 176 inches (4.5 m). The wagon was 0.2 inches (5.1 mm) longer. The vehicles had a 13-gallon fuel tank. The coupe and sedan had approximately 15 cubic feet (0.42 m3) of luggage space; the wagons, 35 cubic feet (0.99 m3) with rear seat up and about 70 feet (21 m) when folded. Numerous improvements to the sound insulation and general feel were made in 1983; in 1985, the Reliant, Aries, and LeBaron received a facelift, with a rounded front fascia, smoother hood, and bigger taillights, accompanied by fuel injection on the 2.2 liter engine and a 2.5 liter engine replacing the Mitsubishi 2.6.[2]

They were also initially very profitable, and Lee Iacocca credited them with allowing Chrysler to pay off its loans early.[3]

creativforce,

That would have been using the old EPA method, which was a lot less strict. The updated numbers are used on fueleconomy.gov and are comparable to current gas mileage figures.

In other words, the Prius would get 30% better mileage using the old method as well. I know which of those two cars I would rather have a crash in, or breath the exhaust from.

The new method is meant to reflect how Americans typically use their cars (in heavy traffic, with the heat or air conditioning on, etc). The old method was more of a best-case scenario (mild day, clear road).

It's not at all unusual for individuals to beat the current EPA numbers, especially the people who read this site. I typically beat the EPA's numbers by 20% in my own car, without even trying.

According to the 1982 fueleconomy.gov data file 1982 K-cars w/ a M4 did get ~41mpg highway, and ~26mpg city.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/download.shtml

But, since the test was even before the testing used in today's "old" EPA ratings, the ones that pegged the Prius at 55mpg combined, I imagine that using the test from 1982 would result in the Prius getting ~60+mpg combined compared to the 1982 K-car at ~36mpg combined, so we aren't talking about an apples to apples comparison here by using the newest numbers on the Prius compared to figures on the K-car from 1982.

Thanks for the info, I forgot about the ratings change. However, you can split hairs all you want, but the truth still remains that US auto makers have fought progress for 30 years. Fuel efficiency standards in the EU and Japan as well as their insistence on quality over planned obsolescence have allowed their auto makers to crush ours. The American car buyer has simply moved on. We can't afford cars that break down as soon as the warranty runs out. Nor can most afford the personal vanity of buying a new one every three years. Anyone with a brain can look at Consumer Reports before they buy and see 10 years of red dots under honda and toyota a ten years of black dots under cars from the big three. Why has it taken the big three so long to crack that book? It's simple, the culture of arrogance is so strong in Detroit that i don't think they can be saved. Selling their jets and driving a hybrid to Washington is a nice gesture, but if they want to learn something they should drive to Washington in a 15 year old Camry with 250,000 miles on it.