I second that! There are tons of cars over in Europe that I wish I could buy. Small gas cars are finally availble here, but the nicest ones like the Audi A2 are not (it's supposed to 80 MPG...so much for 40MPG). The "Big Three" automakers all have great diesel engines for all car classes, that I wish I could buy. What's also missing is diesels for small trucks, or for that matter, diesels for full size trucks that aren't huge. It would be nice to be able to buy a diesel truck and not have to pay at least $40000.

you guys live in some murky water over there , I cant understand when over here in europe, cars are getting more and more efficent , in the USA the opposite is true !

A large part of the reason that the U.S. market has not been able to increase efficiency as much as the European community, is the ever-constricting emissions regulations. American automotive emissions have been reduced dramatically, even from as little as five years ago. The down side of the reduction, is that to tune an engine to burn cleaner, you must make a sacrifice of either specific output (hp/liter of displacement) or fuel efficiency (miles/liter of fuel). As Americans are very hesitant to relinquish their large, powerful vehicles, and low emissions are a must, that leaves only efficiency on the chopping block.
A perfect example of what NOT to do is the Volvo XC90 SUV. In previous years, the base engine was a sophisticated 2.5 liter turbocharged inline-5. This powerplant provided favorable specific output, modest fuel consumption (for an SUV), and adequate emissions controls. To cut costs, and cater to consumer demand, however, GM decided to plug in a bigger, heavier, less sophisticated 3.6 liter V6. Now, the XC90 has more power, and comparable emissions, but weighs more, and has much poorer volumetric efficiency.

Bike Commuter Dude:
Ford owns Volvo, not GM. But I see your point and I wish the U.S. would adopt lighter NOx limits so we could have some decent diesels over here. But that would make too much sense.

"A new CSI/40MPG.org national opinion poll to be released at the same time will show that there is an unsatisfied market of millions of Americans who want highly fuel-efficient vehicles but have been frustrated in their attempts to get them."

Why is Toyota putting sales incentives on the Prius. Somebody is not telling the truth, and money does not lie.

When are we going to give vehicle fuel consumption in standard units = Km/litre (like in Japan and China... etc)?

The current: miles per USA gallon; miles per Imperial gallon and L/100 Km add unnecessary confusion.

My wife's Corolla meets the '40 mpg Organisation' objective regularly.

Harvey D.

You also have to account for the fact that fuel economy figures in different countries are determined using different test cycles. Even if you did the long division, you'd still have numbers that were not fundamentally comparable when comparing different models from different markets.

Personally, I'm rather happy with the stringent local air quality standards we have here in the U.S. I can stand near a heavily used road, breath deeply, and not get hit with an overwhelming petroleum odor. I can go to LA and not have to deal with the smog anymore. I can only imagine the more serious public health benefits that flow from all of this. Fifteen years ago, the air in big cities or near major roads was not nearly this good, and I can only imagine that it was even worse twenty five years ago -- though my own personal memory runs out by that point.

We could go for smaller cars -- but what about the safety regulations?

Frankly, we'd get about five times as much fuel savings if we substituted 20 mpg vehicles for 15 mpg vehicles rather than upgrading 35 mpg vehicles to 40 mpg, everything else being equal. That's because 5 is a greater fraction of 15 than it is of 35. It breaks down this way:

1. We have two hypothetical drivers, X and Y. Assume that both drivers will put on 12,000 miles per year.

2. X drives an SUV getting 15 mpg. He burns 800 gallons of gas that year. If he instead gets a vehicle that gets 20 mpg, he will only burn 600 gallons per year, saving 200 gallons.

3. Y drives a compact car getting 35 mpg. She burns 342.86 gallons of gas that year. If her car got 40 mpg, should would burn only 300 gallons. Savings: 42.86 gallons.

4. A savings of 200 gallons is 4.666 times larger than a savings of 42.86 gallons.

5. Given current technology, costs, market demands, perforance/size preferences and safety/emissions requirements, it seems much easier and more feasible to convince a significant fraction of drivers with 15 mpg vehicles to move to 20 mpg vehicles than it would be to move 35 mpg drivers into 40 mpg vehicles.

6. Given that it is probably easier to replace painlessly 15 mpg vehicles with 20 mpg vehicles, given that such a substitution has a far larger environmental benefit, and given that there is a rather large pool of current 15 mpg class drivers ready to be weaned off their present habits, I'm going to spend the majority of my efforts working that angle, rather than griping about being stuck with a 35 mpg vehicle instead of a 40 mpg one.

For all the environmentalist cynics out there, you can thank the air emissions people for the dearth of 40+mpg vehicles. Europe's diesels don't meet T2Bin5 emissions levels.

Since they have experience and massive existing investments with diesels they are trying to clean them up and pass, but no one has done it yet, but promise maybe next year.

Bureaucrats wanting excellence as the enemy of merely good. unfortunately, That comes from not having to put your job or your money where your mouth is. Impossible standards that no one can meet? No problem promulgate them anyway.

Emission regulation (for smog forming emissions) regulating gasoline engines are equivalently tough in all developed countries, thanks to CARB who initiated crusade for clean air 30 years ago. Gasoline cars sold in US are of same sophistication and efficiency as anywhere in the world. Cars sold (other word, bought) in North America are just bigger and more powerful than in other countries (except Australia). No relaxation of emission standards will improve their fuel consumption.

And for every one person who wants dirty diesel cars NOW to save some minuscule amount of money per mile driving, there are 10 peoples who do not want to inhale carcinogenic fumes they emit. How dare they?