EPA Test Confirms Fuel Economy of Smart Car Americanized for ZAP at 40 MPG

40 mpg for a tiny car? Lame! Sell the diesel one whydoncha! -mt
==== author's response follows ====
Agree that diesel one be good. But be careful with the comparison. IF this is the new EPA mileage rating system that was used the rating of 40 is probably far more realistic than the previous system would have indicated. Hypothetically, the old method would have rated it much higher. We all have to sort of re-boot our minds to frame these numbers from now on.

I stumbled upon this petition a little while ago and I'll share it with you now because it seems relevant to this article. Participate.net, a website run by Participant Productions, has created a petition as a promotion for Syriana (which they produced.) Basically, the petition asks the CEOs of Ford, GM, and Chrysler to develop more hybrid cars and decrease America's dependence on oil. Seems like a pretty cool way to get your voice heard if you care about the environment. Here's the link:

http://www.participate.net/oilchange/telldetroit

Enjoy.

Okay, my 2003 Taurus gets 33 mpg on the highway.
This tiny thing should get 60 plus!

I agree that 40 mpg for a car of that size is not super impressive in the highway (though it certainly above average), but I think the reason for that might be that the smart was designed primarily as a urban car. 40 mpg in the city for a non-hybrid, non-diesel is pretty high, and the transmission and engine are probably optimized for that kind of driving.

Still, I wish the (bio)diesel version could make it to the US (it's available in Canada), or that a new more efficient gasoline would be produced (or one of the concept versions shown here).

Maybe they could even get a motorcycle engine. That didn't seem to hurt fuel economy and made the smart into a pocket rocket ;)

The Z cars conversion would never beat 40mpg. It's a high revving bike engine and a car would be undrivable at low revs with one.

My friend has a Toyota Yaris that easily seats four people and regularly does upwards of 50mpg. A US gallon is the same as a UK gallon isn't it? i.e. 8 pints.

No, a US gallon is 0.83 on a UK gallon.
So 40 mpg (US) = 48mpg(uk).

I think.

My 1993 Geo Metro got 45-50 mpg. What is so smart about that? In 14 years I think they could have done better.

ok, lame

they were reporting that it would get 60. 40? My scion gets 38, and it's way way cheaper and has room. I would have bought one of these if it really got 60, but 40? wtf?

==== author's response follows ====
I too have a Scion (xA) and am regularly getting only 26 mpg in city driving. Frustrating two ways. Personally (dialog with dealer led to no additional insights into why so low). And conceptually (mileage per se always seems to be way too imprecise). We all need a far better metric.

I have to parrot what other posters have said. These numbers are so much less than impressive. My average stop-n-go leadfoot mileage in my 91 Mitsubishi Eclipse is 27 mpg. My best week was 36 mpg, and my highway average is 41 mpg. Mind you, this is a sports car with pre OBDII engine management, and the the only modifications I've made were to actually put wider tires on it for better handling (which reduces mileage significantly by increasing each wheel's moment of inertia), and replace the gear oil in the tranny with low viscosity polymer based lubricants.

My car cost $500 (mechanics special, obviously not a practical consideration for everyone). These ZAP cars are pushing $25K?

My 1973 VW Karmann Ghia can get over 30mpg of real world driving. It sits two and has a ton of cargo space. I agree with other posts, 40 mpg from a car that is 30-odd years newer at a tune of $20K seems too low.
SMART cars are excellent for urban environments, but they need to be more fuel efficient, 50mpg+ at least.

Oy! 40MPG is for crap. 2005 VW Golf TDI GLS... 45-50 mpg all around driving, ALL THE TIME. That's before I switch to grease and get a nice 200 MPG of diesel! ;)

Seriously, even on straight diesel my car blows this out of the water, even in Manhattan driving. Yes, its a 5-speed.

"Oy! 40MPG is for crap. 2005 VW Golf TDI GLS... 45-50 mpg all around driving, ALL THE TIME. That's before I switch to grease and get a nice 200 MPG of diesel! ;)

Seriously, even on straight diesel my car blows this out of the water, even in Manhattan driving. Yes, its a 5-speed."

You also have Bin 10 emissions. The MPG you're claiming is higher than EPA, btw.

Umm...

Yes, he's claiming higher than EPA. EPA is 37/46 for his car, IIRC. Anyway, diesels can often beat the EPA estimates once broken in.

Love this comment thread, but want to point out something being overlooked. All agree we want to see small, efficient, safe, attractive cars become popular in the US, just as they are in Europe and elsewhere. By focusing just on the mileage (a situation reinforced by my choice of headline) we are overlooking style and crash worthiness. These are the things that mainstream buyers will first look at. Once SmartCar comes in and gets popular, competition will emerge. It's a start.

"Anyway, diesels can often beat the EPA estimates once broken in."

Lots of cars can beat EPA depending on how they're driven.

BIN 10 emissions, so what? If you calculate out the total amount of pollution it takes to refine a gallon of gasoline over a gallon of diesel, then factor in the general rule of 30% better mileage, the total is so far in diesel's favor it is astonishing. Don't fixate on the tail pipe, comprehend the entire system.

Of course, the emission difference is almost marginalized if running B100 or, like I do, waste vegetable oil. No gasser can do that no matter what. E85, yea, do the carbon and pollution math on that stuff from pasture to tail pipe.

Of course that's higher than EPA. That's why I specifically wrote that it is a stick shift. If this went over your head, do a little research why don't you.

Americans gotta get their heads out of their butts about diesel passenger vehicles (amongst a bunch of other shyte)

"BIN 10 emissions, so what? If you calculate out the total amount of pollution it takes to refine a gallon of gasoline over a gallon of diesel, then factor in the general rule of 30% better mileage, the total is so far in diesel's favor it is astonishing. Don't fixate on the tail pipe, comprehend the entire system."

Please. First of all, fuel economy is somewhat independent these ratings. What shocks me is that a vehicle with such high fuel economy can be so dirty, since it's obviously consuming less fuel per mile than most other vehicles. As for "comprehending the whole system", please demonstrate with some evidence about this supposed "systemic" cleanliness of diesel.

"Of course, the emission difference is almost marginalized if running B100 or, like I do, waste vegetable oil."

You musy not travel far from home, then, as biodiesel is not widely available at all. So, unless you're keeping close to home in all your driving (which means you have lower fuel economy than someone who has more highway mileage), then you're fueling with normal diesel, which is very dirty compared to gasoline. This is systemic thinking that you laud, not looking at the marginal use of veggie oil when you have access to it.

"Of course that's higher than EPA. That's why I specifically wrote that it is a stick shift. If this went over your head, do a little research why don't you."

Nice - a personal insult. A sign of a strong position. I did do the research, that's why I knew your numbers were higher than EPA for a 5-speed manual 2005 Jetta TDI.

"Americans gotta get their heads out of their butts about diesel passenger vehicles (amongst a bunch of other shyte)"

That's your opinion. At this point the technology is still very dirty, as is the fuel. And to think there's easy solutions about it (eg, ignoring the costs associated with cleaning up the diesel combustion process, which is substantial) is to present a limited view of the issues.

Joseph Joseph Joseph, you need not take offence.

I need not recite to you what a simple Google search will reveal. Diesel is significantly less refined than gasoline. You'll find a plethora of information on this, and how it compares to gasoline on a systemic, well-wheel basis. Europe figured it out many years ago.

Now you are completely off base with your comments about BD and veggie. My aux tank holds 10 gallons. With an easy highway mileage of 50mpg even with my "spirited" driving, that's 500 miles on veggie without dipping into the stock diesel tank. Funny you should say such a silly thing as I just drove from western MA to the village in Manhattan last night, returning this morning, 360 miles round trip. With the two start ups and purge cycles I maybe burned 1/2 gallon of diesel.

See, that's the beauty of passenger diesels, high MPG=Long range, hence it being perfectly suited for BD or WVO.

Now am I against particulate filters and such? No, of course not! These technologies have already been mandated in Europe so the costs you mentioned are marginal at best. Again, you seem to suffer from American's disease: if it hasn't happened here then it must be impossible or too expensive. Please do a little more research on why our high-sulfur crap for diesel has prevented these technologies from coming here sooner. This year our diesel finally gets cleaned up.

I do so wish there was a way I could put you up on a public pedestal in 5 years for ridicule...when 20% of all passenger vehicles sold in the US will be diesel or diesel/electric hybrids, running on various mixes of BD. Know in your own mind that I will be thinking of you on that day. :)
===== author's response follows ====
Good that we're all willing to learn from each other right? We all makes mistakes from time to time, including TH authors.

As to why our diesels have relatively high sulfer... US Refineries have not been upgraded to reduce sulfer content so owners can keep the return on capital employed (ROCE) up. Until EPA mandates a switchover to low sulfer fuel it won't happen. Classic example of how command and control regs are needed for improving ecoefficiency. Pure motor vehicle design won't do i on its own. Further, and ironically, Venezuelan crude is very "un-sweet". Should they embargo sales to the US as part of a larger policy dispute it would help clean our air!

Umn, unless I missed something, all diesel fuel in the US is mandated to go low sulfur in 2006.

Just in case you need a bit more info and Google isn't working at the moment, here is one of many links on diesel WTW vs. gasoline and other fuels:

http://www.mizuho-ir.co.jp/english/knowledge/wtwghg041130.html

Ahh, what the heck, here's another:

http://www.looksmarttrucks.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_3_7/ai_98246943

Sooo, how's that sound to ya?
==== author's response follows ===
Your right, the mandate was for 2007 on to start phasing in the new sulfer regs. However..and I am reluctant to get into partisan stuff here for fear of unleashing something bad..there are forces afoot trying to slip the requirement or end it. One such effort cites the burden of Katrina caused investments and the need to spend the money on gasoline refining capacity, etc etc. If we get aonther bad hurricane season this summer I fear that the "FreeMarketopians" will use this as an excuse to drop the reg. JL

Yep, unless something happened recently, here you go:

http://www.natso.com/Content/NavigationMenu/InformationCentral/UltraLowSulfurDiesel/default.htm

Not to be inflammatory towards any one person, but what is it with people here and their blind hatred of diesel? Google should remove any of that as the information is at anyone's fingertips. Again, with all the facts easy to find and clear as day, a pragmatic acceptance of what is better for the environment should be automatic, right? I mean, its not like we're arguing opposing God beliefs or something, right?

This discussion reminds me of something interesting I read on john1701a.com:

"In a round-about way it is sort of true that sulfur equates to clean, but definitely not the way some people believe. The misconception that sulfur in gas is the direct cause of dirty emissions just doesn't seem to go away. You cannot simply switch to low-sulfur gas and magically get cleaner exhaust from the tailpipe. It doesn't work that way. Emissions will only be as good as the hardware cleansing it. The problem sulfur causes is the reduction of effectiveness, because it builds up inside of that exhaust system. This was why PZEV warranties were only offered in states that already had low-sulfur gas. That emission rating had to remain at the cleanest level for an entire 150,000 miles. Accomplishing that with high-sulfur gas simply wasn't possible for the entire duration. Yes, it would be that clean for awhile. But eventually the sulfur build-up would push emissions below the threshold. SULEV has a 120,000 mile requirement. For ULEV, it is only 100,000 miles. It's all about the hardware. That is what delivers the clean. Sulfur just shortens the life of that hardware."

How nice for them (Zap). I've wanted a Smart car for *years*, and signed up with their site *years* ago. I frequently get self-congratulatory press releases from them, but no information on how to actually purchase a car. At this point, the sight of the name alone infuriates me.

At this point I'll go through any other route to buy a car than Zap. If that means no chance at the car I've adored for forever, so be it.

Indeed MGR, you got it right. Now that we will have low sulfur diesel, we can also get the emissions technology that has already been fielded in Europe.

For the haters, or at least, the willfully uninformed, here's one last little jab of reality to hopefully jar you from your fog:

Diesel vehicles last significantly longer than their gas counterparts. That is, a typical gas Golf is rated at 150,000 miles conservatively. The TDI is rated at 350,000 conservatively. In addition, diesels take much less in the form of upkeep due to their lower revs. Oil changes are at least double the mileage, if not 3 times compared to gas engines. That also means other major components like the transmission last longer and have less need for servicing. So now you have literally hundreds of tons of CO2, pollution, and raw materials that are saved over the life of the diesel as compared to the gasser. I can't imagine this does not enlighten any sentient being.

Well, you certainly can speak in large volumes, but you didn't provide any data to support your "systemically cleaner" claim, which is all I really asked for.

When you analyze things systemically, you need first to evaluate what's actually happening in the present, the economics of the various trade-offs, and the potential scalability of a given solution. I'm sure it makes you feel good to be running on veggie oil, but that's not scalable. And you were the one who discussed a 2005 Jetta TDI, not future technology, so to then slip into a discussion about the changes in fuels (and the changes in technology which will be needed to accomodate that fuel) is not relevant to the dirtiness of the vehicle you drive now.

I have no problem with people advocating a type of solution, so your insult about me being a hater (among all sorts of other pointless insults) is out of line. If you think that by misrepresenting where the technology is now, the replicability of your personal situation, the fact that you're making empirical claims without backing them up, and inflating the real-world MPG capability for people in general, it serves to give the impression that you wish to "load the deck" of your argument - ie, fudge things in favor of that which you advocate.

Me, I prefer to state supporting data as conservatively as I can, as to not seem to ready to put data in favor of that which I prefer.

There's all sorts of other limitations of diesel technology which I didn't even touch (eg, cold weather behavior).

If you favor the technology, you'll do yourself a favor to be a more fair advocate with your supporting numbers, as well as honesty about the drawbacks of your preference.

Silly silly man. Your answer is the mighty Google. Use it and learn. Or, continue to fight against your own interests like the typical quasi-sentient-hairless-simian you seem to be. Oh yea, and global warming, or the influence of human activities upon it, is a myth, until someone has the data to prove it. Of course, at that point there is no point.

Bye bye now.

Please, lets keep it civil. You guys might disagree now and agree in the comments of some other post. Lets not get personal.

Comparison of 2006 Jetta TDI sedan with 5 speed manual and 2006 Prius:

EPA fuel economy (mpg)
Prius - 55
Jetta - 38
Advantage: Prius

Avg User MPG from fueleconomy.gov
Prius - 47.9
Jetta - 40.1
Advantage: Prius

Annual fuel costs
Prius - $683
Jetta - $1,018
Advantage: Prius

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Prius - 3.4 tons
Jetta - 5.6 tons
Advantage: Prius

EPA Air Pollution Score
Prius - 8 (9.5 in stricter states)
Jetta - 1
Advantage: Prius

MSRP (with no tax rebate)
Prius - $21,725
Jetta - $21,605
Advantage: Jetta (by $120)

MSRP (with tax rebate)
Prius - $18,575
Jetta - $21,605
Advantage: Prius

Transmission
Prius - CV
Jetta - manual
Advantage: Prius

Other incentives
Prius - SOV use, free parking, state tax breaks, etc
Jetta - none
Advantage: Prius

Criteria pollutant emissions over 120,000 miles
NOx (Compounds containing nitrogen and oxygen; they combine with hydrocarbons in the sunlight to form smog)
Prius - 3.6 kg
Jetta - 72.0 kg
Jetta = Prius * 20

Non-Methane Organic Compounds (Compounds containing carbon; they combine with NOx in the sunlight to form smog)
Prius - 6.6 kg
Jetta - 33.6 kg
Jetta = Prius * 5.09

Carbon Monoxide (A colorless, odorless, poisonous gas)
Prius - 252 kg
Jetta - 768 kg
Jetta = Prius * 3.05

Particulate Matter (Tiny particles of solid matter that lodge in the lungs and deposit on buildings)
Prius - 1.2 kg
Jetta - 9.6 kg
Jetta = Prius * 8

Formaldehyde (A lung irritant and carcinogen)
Prius - 1.32 kg
Jetta - 3.84 kg
Jetta = Prius * 2.91

Greenhouse Gases
Prius - 24,675 kg
Jetta - 40,642 kg
Jetta = Prius * 1.65

Advantage - Prius by a factor of 1.7 to 20

"Please, lets keep it civil."

MGR, please show me where I am not being civil. I would appreciate that you don't play the "both be civil" game when I haven't thrown a single insult, nor been uncivil in any form, despite the fact this other individual is being grossly uncivil.

Here is your site's rules:
"Any comments made with the intention of instigating trouble will be removed. Discussions and debates are welcomed, insults and flamatory remarks are not."

Are you going to abide by those terms and strike his comments or not?

It was a general and preventive "lets", and it wasn't directed at you, Joseph, but please don't tell me what to do.

My warning is enough for now.

That's enough for me.

Best of luck.

Ahh... so Joseph's agenda revealed. You decided to compare the Prius to the Jetta TDI Sedan. So you're a Prius owner/lover? First off you should have compared the Golf to the Prius, more accurate comparison. No matter, your numbers are pretty good.

But, you still have not addressed the biggest issue: EMBODIED ENERGY.

Since the TDI is rated to last at least twice as long as the Prius, uses one third the amount of motor oil (10,000 miles between changes instead of 3000), and does not have the issue of battery replacement/disposal, the Prius already loses without the need for raw numbers that you so crave. Of course, add to that the empirical data I already linked to regarding Well-To-Wheel of diesel, and you suddenly realize how very wrong you actually are.

You still seem so absolutely limited in your view, all you see is that tail pipe. It is people like you (who cannot comprehend the entire system) who have gotten us in this pickle to begin with. Why not broaden your scope?

Since the '07 TDIs will meet CARB, what is your position on that?

You challenged me on the WTW data, I crushed you on that. You challenged me claiming that BD and WVO are only good for short trips, I crushed you on that nonsense. Now you list a bunch of "end numbers" thinking this clinches your argument, but anyone reading this forum knows you have left out the whole equation.

Now stop arguing with me because your ego is so overpowering and go become enlightened. I know that may mean changing your view about your precious Prius, but you'll be better for it (and so will the biosphere).

Argument can reveal useful insights. Let me please suggest that the level of understanding revealed here already is way beyond what most consumers are capable of comprehending. That's what we have a 'partly-free' market for (to sort things out). One example to illustrate.

We've all seen 20 and even 30 year old dump trucks on the road belching diesel smoke. Sure they can last forever, in comparison to a gasoline engine; but overhauls often get skipped, with the gross results visible to all. Inspections and regulations that mandate fines for non-compliance are needed to make the design benefits work for society.

There is an additional issue with diesel vs gas: design-life matching. The design strategy of most car makers started out with a target of the vehicle lasting about 70K. Obviously a diesel engine can last way longer than the body and accessories, if well built. That is why easy replaceability and simplicity of disassembly of all vehicle parts have to be included to make the diesel's longevity worthwhile. It can't happen unless the intention is to make the car stay on the market as long as the design life.

Well, I just can't resist. Joseph, please read the following VERY CAREFULLY. How you react to this information will speak volumes.

TDI vs. gasoline - The TDi emissions levels are among the lowest ever for Diesel powered engines. All TDi powered Volkswagens sold in the US meet so-called "Tier 1" emission limits. The TDi is often "cleaner" overall than gasoline powered cars. CO2 emissions are 25% less than a conventional gasoline powered engine. CO, HC and NOx emissions are less than previous Volkswagen Diesels. Diesel fuel has lower evaporative emissions than gasoline. Diesel fuel also requires less energy intensive refining than gasoline.

Diesel engines generally emit higher amounts of NOx and particles than equivalent gasoline powered cars, even though CO and HC emissions may be lower, and total emissions are lower due to much better fuel consumption. The current TDI Volkswagens typically emit slightly somewhat lower than the Tier 1 limits for NOx and particles (around 0.052 g/mi of particulate matter [PM] and 0.82 g/mi of NOx per EPA data), but the CO and HC emissions are far below the Tier 1 limits and well below the emissions of the equivalent gasoline engine.

Furthermore, most of the unregulated toxic gaseous emissions tend to be lower for diesel engines. For example, benzene (which is a known carcinogen) is lower in diesels by nearly an order of magnitude (i.e., factor of ten) than an equivalent gasoline engine. Diesels also tend to be significantly lower in emissions of alkenes (e.g., ethene), carbonyls (e.g., formaldehyde), and semivolatiles like polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens).

PM has always been regulated by mass (e.g., grams per mile). However, very recent studies show that particle number may be the more important aspect of PM emissions. According to a "real world vehicle testing report" by University of Minnesota renowned combustion particle scientists, new data show that PM number emissions from modern gasoline cars may equal or exceed diesel PM levels. It goes on to discuss gasoline PM emissions and that fact that gasoline engines may need a particulate filter much like that of a diesel. The University of Minnesota study showed that newer and older gasoline vehicles matched or exceeded diesel PM number emissions at high speed/load . It appears that diesel engines equipped with diesel particulate filters (DPFs), as many are now in Europe, will have a significant advantage in PM emissions over gasoline engines. Other recent studies are suggesting that gasoline PM is generally more toxic that diesel PM.

The emission levels from diesel engines tend to remain more-or-less constant throughout the useful life of the engine, whereas gasoline engines have many more emission-related components which deteriorate and lead to higher and higher emissions as the engine gets older.

Volkswagen has made continuous progress on emissions through the years, and 2000-model TDI engines emit far less than the 1996 models first available here. Further progress has been made in Europe with new fuel-injection and emission-control technology, but for various technical and market-related reasons, this technology is not available here yet, but will likely be arriving within the next few years.

California and New York issues - The state of California places limits on the "fleet average" emissions of auto manufacturers. Currently, a manufacturer can only sell a certain proportion of "Tier 1" vehicles in relation to the number of "LEV" or low-emission vehicles. Certain other states have copied the California legislation. Volkswagen has stated that the withdrawal from sale of 2000-model TDI vehicles from certain states is due to these reasons. Furthermore, California has declared diesel exhaust to be a toxic air contaminant, although other studies dispute this conclusion. The situation in New York is the same.

NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are involved in complex photochemical reactions to form ground-level ozone. Recent U.S. Department of Energy-supported studies have strongly suggested that the strict control of NOx emissions may have the unintended consequence of making ambient ground-level ozone worse. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has put increasingly strict emission limits on NOx emissions in an attempt to reduce ground-level ozone (ozone is an inhalation health concern), for which Southern California is notorious. However, many previous studies have shown that ozone levels are actually higher on weekends (WE) than on weekday (WD) (WD/WE effect) when diesel truck traffic decreases relatively much more than automobile traffic (which mostly are powered by gasoline engines). The DOE studies have confirmed that NOx is reduced significantly more than VOC (HC) and as a result ozone levels increase. It has been discovered that most large urban areas in the U.S. have similar conditions in which ambient ozone levels rise with decreasing ambient NOx levels and that NOx controls in Southern California (and other urban U.S. locations) are generally counterproductive for reducing ambient ozone, they actually increase ambient ozone levels. Were it not for large concurrent HC emission reductions on weekends, weekend ozone would be even higher than it is, and the weekend/weekday ozone difference would be even larger. DOE concludes that gasoline exhaust and gasoline vapor account for ~80 percent of ambient NMHC (VOCs) in on-road samples and at regional air monitoring locations suggesting that gasoline emissions are responsible for the majority of ozone found in the SoCAB. Whether these recent findings change CARB's (or even EPA's) ozone control strategy remain to be seen.

In addition, other recent studies are suggesting that carbon monoxide (CO) emissions (most of which are from gasoline engine vehicles) are becoming more and more responsible for generating ground-level ozone. The National Research Council's (NRC's) report confirmed the importance of carbon monoxide in the formation of urban ozone, concluding that more than 20 percent of vehicle-related ozone pollution comes from carbon monoxide. The Council also notes that carbon monoxide emissions will play an even larger role in ozone formation as volatile organic compound emissions from vehicles continue to decrease. Another source concludes that CO emissions may be responsible for as much as 35% of the ground-level ozone.

CARB (and to a slightly lesser extent EPA) focuses on reducing NOx. But atmospheric scientist Gary Whitten of ICF Consulting notes that if the tradeoff of reducing NOx is to increase hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions, the environment would be poorly served. The reason, according to Whitten, is that a reduction in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions has a much greater beneficial impact on ozone formation than an equivalent reduction in NOx. Whitten concludes, "The effectiveness of THC for reducing ozone in these simulations must be as much as 8 times better than NOx reductions on an equal percentage of the mobile emissions basis." Since diesel engines tend to have significantly lower emissions of CO and HC (VOCs), while generally higher emissions of NOx, one could conclude based on these recent studies that an increasing market share of diesel-powered cars and light trucks will have a positive impact on ground level ozone rather that the negative impact which has always been assumed.

The future - Tier 2- The USA will be phasing in "Tier 2" emission limits over the next few years. These emission limits are considerably stricter than the Tier 1 limits, and existing TDI engines emit more than the allowable NOx and particles under the Tier 2 limits. On the other hand, the USA will also be phasing in requirements for truly "low sulfur" fuels, which may open up additional options for the auto manufacturers, since sulfur contained in fuel prevents the use of catalysts that can deal with NOx and particles more effectively than at present. Also, the North American auto manufacturers have a number of diesel engines of their own under development. Several manufacturers have demonstrated the ability to meet the final Tier 2 "permanent" bins. Diesel engines from four automakers have passed the Environmental Protection Agency's stringent 2007 emissions regulations for cars. Toyota Motor Corp. and Volkswagen AG are two of the automakers who have met the 2007 standards. Detroit Diesel Corporation, a subsidiary of Daimler-Chrysler (DCX), developed a first-generation, integrated CIDI engine and emission control system for automobile and light-duty truck applications. This system, applied to a DCX Neon vehicle simulating a vehicle with a 2,250-lb inertia weight, includes CLEAN Combustion© technology in conjunction with a first-generation emissions control system. It has achieved Federal Emission Standard Tier II Bin 3 NOx and PM emissions levels over the transient Federal Test Procedure 75 (FTP) cycle. Combined fuel economy (integrating FTP75 and highway fuel economy transient cycle tests) was measured at 63 miles per gallon. This vehicle met Tier 2, bin 8 (a permanent bin) emission limits without any emission after treatment control. FEV, a manufacturer of fuel injection equipment, has demonstrated that with a specific combination of emission control equipment, a light-duty diesel was able to meet California's very strict SULEV emission standards (with near zero CO emissions). Durability issues are still being worked on as both EPA's Tier 2 and CARB's LEV II standards have a "full useful life" (FUL) requirement. However, Robert Bosch Corp. has developed a particulate trap filter for diesel engines (DPF) that it says meets the government's tough 10-year, 150,000-mile durability requirements. EmeraChem has developed a NOx adsorber which it says retains > 95% NOx reduction efficiency for >200,000 miles.
==== author's reponse follows =====
Punch in some links and cites and we might be able to move this up to being a standalone post. Thanks for the effort.

There's room for hybrid and for high performance/low emisison diesel propulsion in the near term. Next comes biofuel and petro-diesel powered hybrids. All of these are plausible within the 10 year window within which we MUST get serious about climate change. It's not a binary choice. Hybrids can get seriously more efficient in several ways as can pure play diesels.

"Punch in some links and cites and we might be able to move this up to being a standalone post. Thanks for the effort."

There's only one link necessary, since he plagiarized it in its entirety from Fred Voglmaier.

http://tdiclub.com/TDIFAQ/TDiFAQ-5.html

The reason you could tell it wasn't Chingy is that it was written coherently and without copious volumes of misdirected personal insults.