Hopefully these stories are posted simply to take up space - as they contain no information of any importance or usefulness.

We care about energy now. Not, you-know-what.

Reel$$, this car's C02 emissions are down because its fuel consumption is down. So, maybe you only care about energy. The way you get lower C02 emissions is by saving energy. Even if I agreed with you that global warming is a hoax, which I certainly do not, I would applaud this car's reduced fuel consumption for many other reasons. You don't like this article? Just change the title to "GM Opel Cuts CO2 from 1.7 CDTI ecoFLEX Zafira Van fuel consumption to 5.3 L/100km (44.4 mpg US)".

Reel, if you don't like what you read on this site, you can always go to a site that puts out your preferred propaganda instead, and you will go on blissfully unaware of the world around you.

Reel, if you don't like what you read on this site, you can always go to a site that puts out your preferred propaganda instead, and you will go on blissfully unaware of the world around you.

Sorry Will but Reel isn't "blissfully unaware," he's a blissfully trollish: There is a type that gets its jollies from talking down people who disagree with them. Seeing as how over 70% of the world disagrees with him he must be a very happy person.

This is one more good mini step towards better energy performance. Five more steps like that one would make it an acceptable vehicle.

Hybridization may be the only way to achieve it.

No. As we are seeing via the internet and its ability to deliver balance instead of one monotonic idea - CO2 has fallen out of favor due to overuse and exaggeration.

When the mainstream media finally tires of plunging viewership, listeners, readers, and chooses to re-enter the real world of ratings and sales and open discussion - they will have stricken CO2 from their energy vocabulary. And lo and behold - readership will skyrocket!

Hey GM! What's with the delay in bringing vehicles like this to North America? Why do you think that so many of us were buying small, fuel-efficient imports all of these years? Oh, never mind. Go back to sleep.

Detroit is too smart to bring a 110 mph, 44 mpg mini van to America. They know we don't want power and efficiency. It would never sell. Or, are the executives who make these decisions afraid the oil companies would stop feathering their Caymen Island bank accounts?

110 mph and 44 mpg are conflicting goals in a minivan. The former is pointless; the latter should be looked at as the primary goal.

I would imagine that there is more to bringing a European model to the U.S. than putting a new name plate on it. Since E.U. and U.S. regulations may be different, it could take a while to bring it over. Now, if the regulations were aligned, it might be easier. But that makes too much sense.

SJC: Please note: The Saturn Astra is an Opel Astra built in Belgium and exported as a Saturn. What had to be done to make it US-legal, I'm not sure. But clearly it can be done. As for that Diesel engine, yes, US emissions laws are more stringent, but as BMW and VW have already shown, a Diesel car can be made 50 state legal.

To correct my previous post for a suggested new title for this article: "GM Opel Cuts fuel consumption for 1.7 CDTI ecoFLEX Zafira Van to 5.3 L/100km (44.4 mpg US)". Whether you care about energy or CO2, this is a win-win.

The European fuel consumption test is not very realistic. US EPA estimated mileage would be significantly less.

Meeting US emissions standards would also further reduce mileage and/or performance.

Optimising a diesel engine and its emissions systems to meet US emissions standards is technically very difficult and costly. Manufacturers of "clean" diesel passenger cars currently offered in the United States were able to reintroduce diesel engines only after years of delay due to the technical difficulty.

A "clean" version of the Opel 1.7 CDTI ecoFLEX Zafira Van could certainly help reduce oil consumption, but don't expect the average driver to get 44 mpg(US), and don't expect it to come to the US very soon or very cheap.

Don't be so naive. US emissions standards were not created by the big, scary, all-powerful ecology lobby. The big money in Washington is oil and manufacturing. US emissions standards were created by oil and car lobbies for oil and car lobbies. If cars started using more diesel, it would make trucking too expensive, thus shifting more freight to trains and away from profitable business for the oil companies. Trucks are hardly used in Europe because they are 200x less efficient than trains, and they do 300x more damage to the roads. Road tar and truck diesel is big profit for US oil compnanies. And if our cars were twice as efficient, well that would be half as much money for them. But what do I know? What's good for big oil is good for America.

I agree that rail is more efficient than road. There is an airport in Houston named the George Bush Intercontinental...this gives you some idea of the pull down there with the oil boys.

Dear Creativforce,

I do not enjoy the accusation of naivety. US emissions standards were created neither by the ecology lobby nor by oil and car lobbies, but by the EPA with input from several different sides. In fact, the EPA actively supports development of economically competitive clean diesel engines, and proactively studies, tests, and develops clean diesel vehicles in its Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. One of the main goals is to work together with universities and industrial manufacturers to bring to market cars and trucks with clean optimized combustion diesel engines that are capable of meeting emission standards with existing affordable conventional exhaust treatment systems.

Also, in the U.S., not only trucks, but most freight trains also use diesel fuel, and must also comply with new stricter EPA emissions regulations. But the emissions standards for PM and NOx are more lenient for locomotives, thus actually favoring railroad.

Creativforce, you wrote “Trucks are hardly used in Europe because they are 200x less efficient than trains”. In fact, the market share split between road and rail for freight transport is about:
EU-15: 84% road / 16% rail
U.S.A.: 41% road / 59% rail

List of sources to support the above comment:
epa.gov/air/caaac/index.html

epa.gov/otaq/technology/420r06008.pdf

epa.gov/otaq/technology/deerpresentation.pdf

epa.gov/otaq/locomotives.htm

yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d41dcc0e24d31638852572a00065af98/8fddd1921384f18a85257292005ad2c4!OpenDocument

epa.gov/otaq/cert/hd-cert/stds-eng.pdf

hks.harvard.edu/taubmancenter/pdfs/working_papers/fagan_vassallo_05_rail.pdf

eea.europa.eu/publications/transport-at-a-crossroads/at_download/file