This car may compete with many small HEVs such as the Toyota Aris Hybrid.

It may become a matter of choice between ICE diesel and gasoline HEVs.

Numbers like "3.3l/100" are NOT real world! The validation tests used are on a rolling road, with no aero load.

These cars are no more ENERGY EFFICIENT than any other ICE car, they're just making all engines Diesel, making them smaller and playing around the edges with stop-start and alternator regen.... It's all Greenwash basically!

Auto makers are now focused on MPG figures so much they are building cars specifically to score high numbers on these Dyno tests, just so they can paint it down the side of the car for PR shots (see above example)

The PNGV cars in 1999 were diesel hybrid and got 70 mpg. No reason people can not build diesel hybrids, but few do right now.

My first question would be: Will it be available in North America? and the next question would be: What will the EPA mileage ratings be?

I know that GM is supposed to have a diesel powered variant of the Chevy Cruze available for the 2013 model year but so far I have not seen any details on the car or the engine.

If it were 50 mpg, you would have the choice between the Prius C and this. That would be an interesting market study in the U.S. If they both are the same price, get the same mileage, are the same size and performance, which would sell better?

I would guess that the Prius C would sell better. There seems to be a built in bias against diesel cars in the U.S. Some think of smokey clanky engines, that use fuel that is more expensive. If your neighbors don't own one, chances are you don't either.

"The EPA 5-cycle is typically about 20% lower than the NEDC, so about 57 mpg would be a reasonable guess."

You also need to factor in the economy hit to bring the diesel to EPA pollution standards.. best bet would be to compare VW diesels that are both sold in the US and Europe.

Also consider the cost of the engine and the additional cost of diesel fuel in the US. Its an iffy proposition when you consider the possible higher repair costs.

@Paul
The test method does take aero load into account! Kind of stupid if it did not… In short, a coast down test is made on a test track outdoor (with rigorous specifications on surface, inclination, etc…) and the settings for the chassis dynamometer simulate the road load. On the condition that the driving cycle is similar, the laboratory can very accurately match on-road measurements. Objections could, of course, be made against the driving cycle used, claiming that it should be “tougher”, include lower (or higher?) temperature, more use of auxiliaries, etc. Consequently, it would be very simple to come up with a test cycle that gives much higher fuel consumption than average Joe. Perhaps our authorities should consider that if it could make us all much happier. However, the main objective is to compare cars under similar conditions. Work has been going on for many, many years to come up with a world-wide harmonized test cycle. It might still take many years before such a test cycle could be implemented. Of course, this test cycle should be better than those we use today. However, we can be quite sure that it would never be representative for any country, any driver (Paul?) and so on. The main purpose is for comparison, period.

I happen to have one of these “fuel-efficient” cars. It is much bigger and more powerful than the car in the article, so the fuel consumption is higher but 4,9 l/100 km is still very good for a station wagon. I may not live in a REAL WORLD but I can easily get 4,8 l/100 km, or below, in normal driving. This is actually what I have as a reading since my last refueling, although it is winter and my car is parked on the driveway in the cold all the time. Good? Yes, I think so!

I have a 2008 Focus wagon with this Engine fitted, albeit in 110 BHP 16 valve form.
It's a smooth little lump and goes well enough but I get nowhere near the official combined economy figures despite pretty gentle use, much of it on the open road.

I find you can expect a real world figure 20% down on official calcs with many cars, and I use that as a basis for ownership calculations.

You know the people in the US I know, have been crying for high mileage diesels for years. From small pickups (Toyota, Nissan) to mid-sized cars. Other than VW where are they? I've been driving a Jetta TDI and averaging 40mpg since 2002. Running on bio-diesel for most of it. A few of us have been talking about diesel-hybrids for years. Where are they? Fuel consumption in this country could take a major hit right now with known tech without waiting for new battery tech or hydrogen. VW's new Diesel Hybrid Crossover concept claims 135 mpg. Volvo's likewise. Bring it on. Even stop and go tech diesels could blow gas ICE out of the water. Even with subtracting your 12% for gas equivelant. With new PM filters, Blue Tech for Nox and stop/go, bring it on. Now. Screw the Middle East and all other oil producing countries and our tendency to exploit the third world. Peace through diesel hybrid.

A diesel hybrid makes a lot of sense.

Like, maybe GM will follow the hugely successful Volt with an even MORE "perfect" car.

@SJC
I have such a car you mention. It is a BMW 320d Touring. It gives me 50 mpg, reasonable good performance and enough room for me (179 cm and 65 kg) and my family. It is somewhat smaller than a Camry but why not a 520d Touring if you need a bigger car. The fuel consumption is almost the same as the 320d. BMW already has a NOx catalyst ready since a couple of years for the 6-cylinder engines, so adapting this technology to a 4-cylinder engine for the US emission norms would not be a problem (a smaller engine would, in fact, further reduce NOx). A urea catalyst is not needed and would be more expensive in this size class. Why are these cars not marketed in the USA? Well, I presume that BMW has found that there is no market in the USA for diesels. Just the word “diesel” is the worst kind of label you could give to a car in the USA. Perhaps hybridization could change that perception but then performance and price would jump up to a level where the car would not be affordable any more. In general, BMW cars are expensive in the first place even with conventional gasoline engines.

With the price tags you suggest, I would choose the diesel hybrid for $30 000. My city driving is fairly limited, so current PHEVs with the price tag indicated would not be a good option for me. Others might have different conditions and viewpoints.

Current EU regulation for fuel consumption is so biased that it gives totally ridiculous fuel consumption numbers for PHEVs. For example, an electric range of 25 km cuts fuel consumption by 50%. Car magazines have realized this and love to prove that “representative” driving patterns give far higher fuel consumption than the legislated numbers. In fact, the added battery weight can even result in higher fuel consumption and CO2 than a conventional HEV, in spite of if the electricity contribution is counted as zero. Sometimes, they even come close to a conventional car. Maybe a small 3-cylinder diesel engine in a parallel hybrid driveline that gives very good fuel consumption even in highway driving could be something to consider for PHEVs, since it would provide low fuel consumption under any driving condition.

BTW, the new efficient Ford Focus to be introduced this spring as well will have a NOx catalyst (Euro 6), so this could be an option for USA but I doubt that Ford will market it in the USA.

It is possible to create a “driving route” instead of a “driving cycle” that takes engine power and driving style into account. Thus, a less powerful car will not accelerate as fast as a powerful car but the total distance will be the same. This has been discussed for the now World-wide test cycle. In contrast, congested traffic forces all cars to follow basically the same speed pattern. A mix of both options might be the best. We should also note that the basis for the EU and US test cycles was recorded in the 1970’s so neither one of these test cycles is very representative for the driving pattern today. So back to my original question: would our governments make us all happy if they used a test cycle that gives higher fuel consumption? Or should we educate all drivers in “ecodriving” to get the advertised fuel consumption? I would vote for the second option. Ecodriving actually implies quite brisk accelerations in most driving conditions, so it does not have to be slower than normal driving style. This is what I practice as the first crucial point. The second one – and this is very, very basic – I just keep the speed limits, or at least do not exceed them by more than 10%. By following these two simple rules, I get 50 mpg with my car.

@SJC
Maybe you have to encourage the buyers somewhat if you want to reduce fuel consumption. Examples from some EU countries have shown that relatively small incentives can change customer behavior a lot. Preferably, it should be some kind of feebate system, not just an increased tax or an incentive that is gives unjustified credits to some type of cars. If the feebate system is fully “internally” funded, it might be easier for customers to accept it.