I was just curious why Diesel in the U.S. isn't very popular. I got into a discussion with someone who lives in Germany where most cars consumes Diesel. He said that Diesel cars tend to have a lot higher Torque, which makes it a lot faster or at least get's to the desired mph quicker than cars that has a high hp. It also gets more mpg.

He also brought some brochure from Mercedes. I can't quite remember but the C350 in Germany or Europe itself, only has 220 or hp and 300+ torque. It also showed a chart that higher torque goes a lot faster and more benficial on lower speeds, up to about 100-120 mph while hp's kick in at higher rpm's and higher speeds, over 100 mph. With that logic, it seems better to have it in the U.S. where most cars won't even hit 100 mph in their lifetime. That may not be 100% accurate but that is what I remember from what he told me. can anybody elaborate more on that?

The only reason I can see is the price difference between regular gas and diesel. However, now that gas prices has gone up, is the gap between the two close enough that Diesel is becoming a much better alternative. I think that is also one of the main reasons a lot of car manufacturers are bringing diesel cars in the U.S. What do you guys think?

i can think of a few reasons:
1) Notall gas stations have diesel pumps, and if they do, only the #2 pump does
2) They "used" to be loud and un-luxury like
3) They "used" to pollute a lot, some still do without the bluetec technology
4) They have torque, but their performnce numbers for horsepower are weak. Plus the torque numbers are much higher now than in the past
5) Diesel is more expensive

Diesel is dirty

Diesel is getting cleaner, it is still not as clean as regular gas, that is the main reason it is not used widely here

Have you seen the diesel price lately...

Also, on a more equal basis, for example like the 335i vs. 335d, the diesel version tends to be more expensive.

i hate the noise

so many reasons why diesel still sucks.

1) diesel is more expensive than gas
2) more expensive to purchase vs gas engines
3) more expensive to maintain vs gas engines
4) pollutes more than gas
5) imagine every car on the road sounding like they were light diesel trucks
6) performance sucks, and if it doesnt then mpg is no better than gas
7) if demand for diesel were to increase, prices would go sky high and truck drivers will strike like they did in spain, shutting down practically every aspect of life

i saw a brand new jetta TDI and it spewed a black cloud when they were going from a light. its disgusting. LA smog is bad enough, we dont need to turn it into calcutta or beijing. maybe blutec is better or something, but theres only so much the car maker can do.

In the US, diesel costs more than gas. The end.

Thanks for all the response. As for the price, I don't think it is a factor anymore. My Lexus takes in premium which cost about $4.80 a gallon while Diesel cost about $5-$5.10. I'm not sure how it is calculated but the difference should be minimal with price and mpg of each.

Performance-wise, with a high torque, it should peform better, especially for daily driving. Right?

Thanks for all the response. As for the price, I don't think it is a factor anymore. My Lexus takes in premium which cost about $4.80 a gallon while Diesel cost about $5-$5.10. I'm not sure how it is calculated but the difference should be minimal with price and mpg of each.

Performance-wise, with a high torque, it should peform better, especially for daily driving. Right?

I guess I should have been more clear. You asked in your OP why diesel vehicles aren't popular in America when they are in Europe. The point is that in Europe, diesel has historically been cheaper than gasoline (this has changed recently, with diesel trending towards gasoline price, although the average price of diesel per gal is still around 60-80 cents cheaper even today). In the US, the reverse has been true, with diesel historically being more expensive. Hence why diesel vehicles have gained traction in Europe but not in the US.

I know you young 'uns hate it when us old farts tell you about the good old days. Well, there were bad old days too. After one of our earlier oil shocks, yep, this isn't the first, General Motors with its infinite grace and wisdom decided they were going to give Americans diesels. Diesel was cheaper than gas back then and the mileage was terrific. So General Motors, proving that they really are dumber than a bag of hammers, took the gasoline small block V8 and set up a new set of heads on it for the diesel application in most all of its big cars. Of course, diesel is compression ignition and compression ratios in excess of 20:1 aren't uncommon. That's why diesels are much, much more robust engines than equivalent gas engines, all the metal needs to be beefed up to handle the loads from the compression. Except for when GM makes diesel junk to scam the car buying public. And what happened to the GM diesels? They developed a quick reputation for exploding destroying virtually everything, block, heads, everything.

The Europeans use diesels that are designed to be diesels and the high tech ones are a very different animal than anything that went before. A lot of people today are not aware of that part of diesel history in the US. A lot of people today are aware of it. So besides all the other mentioned reasons, you can add this one for the older generation. Among those who bought proper diesels, such as benz, they often have very fond memories as a diesel done right will go a very, very long time before needing a rebuild, generally multiples of the lifespan of gasoline engines. Add all the other reasons and the perception is that the American consumer is hesitant to go for diesels. I don't know how much of that is fact and how much is fiction. I see a lot of pickups in diesel as the guys who have to have them have found the diesel to be a great combination of mileage and power.

As the price of diesel rises, well ovr $5/gal here in NoCal, the advantage of diesel is eroded. But one thing is for sure, you won't know how well they sell until they start getting them here. Europeans can get big Audis with 3.0 and 4.2 liter diesels, big bimmers with 3.0l diesels, and big benzes with the 3.2l diesel but the only we can get here is the E320. If they don't bring them here, no one knows how exactly they will sell. But they need to sharpen the pencil and sell them at or less than the gasoline engine prices, also like europe. Bring them here and figure that mileage fanatics will pay more for them and you can add another reason to avoid them.

Thanks for all the response. As for the price, I don't think it is a factor anymore. My Lexus takes in premium which cost about $4.80 a gallon while Diesel cost about $5-$5.10. I'm not sure how it is calculated but the difference should be minimal with price and mpg of each.

Performance-wise, with a high torque, it should peform better, especially for daily driving. Right?In reality, any car should be able to perform daily driving tasks with ease - some of us just like to do it better and easier. :driving:

They may have a helluva lot more torque, but their low redlines limit their 0-60 performance capabilities.

When I lived in Mexico, diesel was much cheaper than regular gasoline. However, it was especially high in sulfur which added to the smog problems when I lived in Mexico City (even the regular gas had this issue). However, diesel was especially popular because diesel could be found at any station.

There is one reason I would buy a diesel, and that is Bio-Diesel. The only diesel I have ever considered though is the VW Jetta.

Why I don't own a diesel now? Simple put, its about a $1 more a gallon, then regular gas, and I don't think I have the time right now to make bio-diesel.

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the explanations. I guess it makes much more sense now.


They may have a helluva lot more torque, but their low redlines limit their 0-60 performance capabilities.
Could you get furtehr into that? How does 0-60 suffer? I thought the low redlines, high torque allows the car to get to higher speeds quicker than a regular gasoline car?

I wouldn't get hung up on 0-60 because anyone using that meaningless spec to benchmark a car for purchase now doesn't have much to go by in the US. To the best of my knowledge there have never been any of the modern diesels that are performance oriented made available in the US so no one here has any experience with them. If Audi decides to produce, and bring here, the R8 diesel, you won't find very many people complaining about 0-60. But when all you have to benchmark is some 120hp diesel in a VW, it's not very impressive. I don't remember the reviews exactly but the proposed numbers on the R8 diesel are on the order of 0-60 in the 4's, 200mph top end, and 22 mpg.

The Europeans went to diesel primarily for mileage and as they cleaned up tried to present a case for them ecologically. But as more attention gets turned to different technologies, the stories are often changed. The following is from IEEE:

11 June 2008—Diesel vehicles are increasingly presented as an equal alternative to gas-electric hybrids, thanks to their up to 5.88-liter-per-100-kilometer (40-mile-per-gallon) fuel economy advantage over conventional gasoline-powered cars and trucks and new emissions-control devices that vastly reduce their exhaust. “We think that’s a win-win for both the environment and the climate,” says Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum, a Frederick, Md.–based trade group that promotes diesels.

But mounting evidence on the pernicious effects of particulate pollution—including a potentially serious contribution to climate change—suggests that diesel’s promise may be oversold. Some regulators are getting the message. California is implementing new fuel standards to reduce the carbon content of transportation fuels, and draft rules for the state’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, to be finalized by the end of this year, seem to explicitly avoid giving automakers and consumers an incentive to switch from gasoline cars to diesels as a solution to climate change.

“We expect the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard to introduce more alternative fuels: biofuels, electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles,” says Renee Littaua, manager of the fuel section at the California Air Resources Board (CARB). “We’re not looking to give credit to dieselization.”

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order last year calling for a 10 percent reduction by 2020 in the greenhouse-gas pollution associated with the production and burning of motor fuels sold in the state. But CARB staffers hope to keep fuel suppliers from selling more diesel instead of gasoline to meet this commitment. Fuel producers and importers would have to reduce the carbon content of both fuels to comply.

Understanding why California is ambivalent on diesel requires a closer look at diesel performance and emissions. First, while diesel vehicles go farther on a liter of fuel than gasoline-powered vehicles, it takes more energy to produce a liter of diesel. “In terms of barrels of oil, there’s a greater amount of petroleum per gallon in diesel than there is in gasoline,” says Don Anair, a senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy organization in Cambridge, Mass.

More oil per liter means that diesel’s fuel efficiency translates to a somewhat smaller climate change benefit. CARB estimates that when corrected for diesel’s higher energy and carbon content per liter, the average diesel vehicle will generate 19.8 percent less carbon dioxide than the same vehicle running on gasoline would.

The bigger knock on diesels is higher tailpipe emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to photochemical smog and soot. Anair is the first to admit that diesels have come “a very long way” thanks to particulate traps and other equipment, which capture about 95 percent of the engine’s soot. It is thanks to these advances that over half a dozen major European, U.S., and Japanese automakers will be offering diesel cars across the United States starting with the 2009 model year. Nevertheless, says Anair, these “clean diesels” will still have higher tailpipe emissions than comparable gasoline-powered cars.

Under federal tailpipe standards for pollutants such as soot and NOx, automakers can qualify a given vehicle for a range of different performance levels, called bins, that run from Bin 1 (equivalent to a battery-powered vehicle with no tailpipe) to Bin 10 (the highest pollution level allowable, which many SUVs will be shooting for). “The new diesels are generally going to meet the Bin 5 standard, whereas there are gasoline vehicles that have been meeting the lower bins for a while now,” says Anair. Hybrids are among the best, with Toyota’s Prius and Camry Hybrid hitting Bin 3 and the Honda Civic Hybrid qualifying for Bin 2.

That extra pollution from diesel is important to CARB. At its May board hearing, agency staff presented an updated estimate of the public health impacts of black carbon (of which diesel soot is the state’s top source). The new analysis found black carbon to be 70 percent more toxic than previously believed and suggests increasing the estimated annual mortality caused by fine-particle pollution in California from 8900 to as much as 24 000.

Black carbon is also under scrutiny as a contributor to climate change. In contrast to sulfate particles from power plants, which cool the earth locally by reflecting away sunlight, black carbon particles absorb sunlight and release heat. Estimates of black carbon’s warming effect have varied widely, prompting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to downplay it. As a result, regulators—including CARB—have left it out of their analyses of diesel emissions.

But recent research could change regulators’ minds. A report in Nature Geoscience this March by atmospheric scientist V. Ram Ramanathan, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in San Diego, and University of Iowa chemical engineering professor Greg Carmichael, measured black carbon’s warming effect at three to four times as much as the range of estimates recognized by the IPCC. They conclude that emissions of diesel soot and other forms of black carbon may have a warming impact on Earth’s atmosphere second only to carbon dioxide. The result affirms above-average estimates from researchers at Stanford, Caltech, and NASA that clashed with the IPCC view.

Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering who first identified black carbon’s warming potential in 2000, says that factoring this potential in could eliminate most of diesel’s apparent carbon advantage. “It’s just total nonsense to think that diesel cars actually reduce carbon emissions,” says Jacobson.

In a hearing before the U.S. Congress’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform this past fall, Jacobson testified that a diesel emitting 10 milligrams of black carbon per mile (the limit for Bins 2 through 6 under the federal emission standard; 6.25 mg/km) will cause more warming than a typical gasoline-powered car even if it is 30 percent more fuel efficient. Jacobson’s conclusion: “The conversion of gasoline to diesel vehicles is a poor strategy for addressing global warming.”

And FYI, just because a diesel makes more peak torque doesn't make it faster. If you have a wider powerband (and petrol engines of the same size do) with a higher average horsepower (petrol again) and the gearing to take advantage of it (no problem either way), then that car will be faster. The amount of torque you make over a given time period is horsepower; and that is what accelerates a car.

Diesels are slow compared to petrol engines (as in apples to apples comparisons here - you show me balls to the wall diesel, I show you balls to the wall petrol), they are noisy compared to petrol engines (anyone who says otherwise is deaf - I sat next to a BRAND NEW VW TDI today in traffic and it sounded like total ass), and the fuel costs A LOT more in the US... about 15% higher on average from what I've seen.

In the US, for now, it has no place except for HD trucks (where it has such a huge mileage and tow-friendly powerband advantage where it makes sense)

As for addressing global warming: Man-made global warming is a scam perpetuated by junk science and people/corporations trying to gain power and wealth. HOWEVER... the impending Energy Crisis IS real and conservation is very important in THAT regard.

^^^ The price of diesel here in CA is only about 4%-6% difference, that's why I was curious. It would more than make up if the diesel car makes 35 mpg compared to about 25 mpg, or at least by my guess would be about the same.

Are diesel cars today, even in Europe, still loud?

In my area, regular is averaging $4.00. Diesel is averaging about $4.85.

If that price differance isn't enough, imagine if 75% of vehicles in the US were diesel? How much do you think diesel would cost then?

I think we'd be looking at $6+/gal.

It is why we've seen the recent spike for diesel shooting past the price of regular. DEMAND. Let's not create MORE demand by getting diesel cars.

That would create a huge economic problem as everything would go up even more do to shipping costs (almost everything including food is shipped by diesel trucks).

so many reasons why diesel still sucks.

1) diesel is more expensive than gas
2) more expensive to purchase vs gas engines
3) more expensive to maintain vs gas engines
4) pollutes more than gas
5) imagine every car on the road sounding like they were light diesel trucks
6) performance sucks, and if it doesnt then mpg is no better than gas
7) if demand for diesel were to increase, prices would go sky high and truck drivers will strike like they did in spain, shutting down practically every aspect of life



1. But, I don't think this was always the case. Wasn't diesel until recently, less expensive to operate mpg-wise? Diesel used to be cheap, I thought!

2. The Mercedes models I checked out were only $1000 more for the diesels. And that's Mercedes!

3. I don't think this is true. I thought diesel engines were simpler to understand and therefore easier to maintain. If not, I do know that for whatever reason, when you see diesels that have been maintained at all, it's easy to see ones that have gone beyond the 300,000 mile mark, no problems (mechanically). And I mean cars. I'm sure trucks are even wilder.

4. As with the above report, yes. But I don't think in the way people think. I don't know where these huge clouds of black smoke are coming from. Huge trucks run diesel, if not always, then often. Do you see huge clouds of black smoke coming from *every* truck you see on the road? I don't. I know all the Mercedes diesels (the late models) I've seen were just that--the badge only. No sound, no smoke, nothing.

5. Every car on the road wouldn't sound like they were diesel trucks, because diesel cars aren't diesel trucks! Old diesel cars still running around may sound awful, and I don't know the reason for this. Maybe extremely poor maintenance? Someone who was around back in the day could confirm.

6. Performance is not bad. Miles per gallon is better than gas. (What??)

7. Now THIS is likely true. As with the above report, there's less diesel in a barrel of oil than gas. I would think this would be a cause for major concern, actually. How much do we rely on trucks to get us stuff? If cars increased demand for diesel that trucks need, the price of everything will go up (more).

I think the ratio I read a little bit ago was something like 85/15 gas/diesel. But I could be wrong. This is what led up to the whole Spain thing.

This was not intended as a singling out of this poster, but there was a list of items that included others' points, and these struck me as mostly not exactly correct. This may seem to be the case now, given a limited sample, but not exactly.

The clouds of smoke you see coming from a diesel engine under load (known as blackstacking) is caused by incomplete combustion of the incoming fuel-air charge. Modern electronic controls have minimized this effect, but it still exists. Watch a diesel-electric locomotive strain hard to get a long string of heavy-laden freight cars underway or climb a steep grade. Even with very sophisticated fuel management, that black plume announces the presence of a diesel at work.

Because EPA standards tend to favor diesels, this emission of particulate carbon (soot) is not evaluated in most test procedures. While diesels are inherently low in CO emissions (they and electric vehicles are used exclusively in mines, for example, where CO could be a serious problem) and can be improved in NOx and SOx emissions, they are not really "clean" - as Lexmex and others have indicated.

Diesels like gas turbines are extremely efficient at constant speed - which accounts for their popularity in applications where constant-speed operation represents a good portion of their service, such as in ship's propulsion systems, generators, pumps, or over-the-road trucks. Their performance advantage falls off a bit when put into stop-and-go service, although they do retain a wide margin of reliability simply by eliminating most of the engines' electrical system.

As Ron noted, the American experience with passenger-car diesels was poisoned by the GM experiment with the 350 V8 Diesel. Buyers paid a premium price for their Cadillac or Oldsmobile to be delivered with a diesel engine, but most began to fail catastrophically within two years. Replacement was usually handled under warranty - replacement with another diesel engine. As you might expect these too failed, and some of the million-plus customers began to scream loudly and publicly.

They were trapped in a nightmare scenario from which there was no escape. The only way GM would honor their warranty was to replace the failing engine with another similarly flawed product that had been designed to be manufactured alongside gas 350's on many of the same assembly lines and rushed into production. GM did not understand the subtleties of a 4-stroke diesel (the popular "Jimmy" diesels used in commercial service were 2-stroke engines) and their dealer network was ill-prepared for the onslaught of troubles.

Many owners converted their diesel cars to gas engines at no small expense out of their own pockets. A cottage industry grew up across the country of shops that specialized in this conversion to a standard GM small block engine what was proven reliable. I had a couple of friends who owned Olds or Caddy diesels and took this option simply for economic reasons. While GM would replace their diesel with another diesel that might go a year or two without serious problems, used GM diesel cars fell to a price on the used market to HALF that of their gas-engined siblings. If you rolled off the lot in a $20K (1979) Oldsmobile 98, it was instantly discounted to $10K.

For $6K there were a number of shops that would yank that oil-burner and replace it with a gas engine. One of my friends took this option after fighting the diesel for over two years and ended up with a very nice Olds '98 that served his family well for over 120K miles. He even sold it for something near bluebook price too.

Add to this fiasco the shrinking difference between gasoline and diesel prices, and "diesel" no longer made economic sense. It was a sales "gimmick" like that of hybrids that could not justify their premium prices on savings at the pump. Jeep's recent experiment of offering their 4 cyl (Peugeot) and 6 cyl (Mercedes) "Common Rail Diesel" in some of their smaller lines looked promising, but never really took off in the domestic market, thanks to the GM fiasco with the 350 Diesel. Evidently the American public hasn't quite forgotten their experience with the little engine that couldn't.

It is why we've seen the recent spike for diesel shooting past the price of regular. DEMAND. Let's not create MORE demand by getting diesel cars.



No. That is not correct. Diesel now costs more than regular (and in some cases more than premium) because it is simply more expensive to produce. The EPA has mandated the new low-sulfur diesel fuel nationwide, which cannot be produced as cheaply as the former high-sulfur fuel we had. However, if demand eventually does increase enough, the price may come down a little simply due to economics of scale....right now, the oil companies don't have much demand for diesel fuel other then large trucks and diesel locomotives, and they are forced to produce an expensive fuel for limited demand in the auto market, thereby keeping economics of scale up.

I have never been a huge fan. This article from the IEEE explains some of
the minuses of the fuel.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6341

2. The Mercedes models I checked out were only $1000 more for the diesels. And that's Mercedes!


I believe that MB's profit margin is reduced on those vehicles because the premium is only $1000 and the technology costs more than that, specifically the bluetec.

The point is that in Europe, diesel has historically been cheaper than gasoline (this has changed recently, with diesel trending towards gasoline price, although the average price of diesel per gal is still around 60-80 cents cheaper even today).

Not true in the UK - diesel is more expensive than gasoline.

Check it out:

http://www.petrolprices.com/

At pounds 1.45/ltr max for diesel, that's (x2 x 3.8) $11 a gallon! :yikes:

I have never been a huge fan. This article from the IEEE explains some of
the minuses of the fuel.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6341

Nice find.

Nice find.


I thought that too. That's why I posted it in #15.

I had a diesel Mercedes from 1975-1995. It had no acceleration, but other than that it was a great car. But today's diesels are quite different. They keep the glow plugs operating for a long period, for less smoking, and thus they burn out after a while. Also, there is a lot of electronics; whereas my old Mercedes had essentially no electronics. So, I don't think the high trouble-free mileages you got on older diesels can be expected with the new ones. On the other hand, you now get better acceleration and less smoke (but the smoke never bothered me, only the people behind me).

Not true in the UK - diesel is more expensive than gasoline.

Check it out:

http://www.petrolprices.com/

At pounds 1.45/ltr max for diesel, that's (x2 x 3.8) $11 a gallon! :yikes:


So it would only cost $2,200.00 to fill an 18-wheeler up in the UK. Not bad.

Not true in the UK - diesel is more expensive than gasoline.

Check it out:

http://www.petrolprices.com/

At pounds 1.45/ltr max for diesel, that's (x2 x 3.8) $11 a gallon! :yikes:

The average I mentioned is for all of Europe. I think there were three or four countries for which diesel is already more expensive than gas, with the UK being one of them.

Also, as I mentioned, diesel catching up to gasoline prices in Europe is a recent trend.

A big thing that I havent seen mentioned is smell. Diesels smell. And they make cities smell. This was a big problem over in Europe.

Diesel is dirty

Diesel is getting cleaner, it is still not as clean as regular gas, that is the main reason it is not used widely here


Thats the big misconception. Diesel LOOKS dirty but the fumes are MUCH cleaner and safer for the environment than gasoline.


Diesel is not big here because there has been no need for it, gas has been cheap enough where Americans didnt care. Gas has been expensive in Europe for 20+ years already so they made cars that are more efficient.

A big thing that I havent seen mentioned is smell. Diesels smell. And they make cities smell. This was a big problem over in Europe.

'was' being a key word, but it wasn't just about diesels... for all their bluster, the Europeans weren't on board with basic pollution controls like cat converters until not too long ago and there's still tons of REALLY polluting and stinky GASOLINE cars on the road there. One reason they weren't on board with cat converters was because they were protecting their own auto industry, plus the cars were so gutless to begin with that adding cat(s) would pretty much kill the power.

But all that has improved a lot, and Europe is less stinky. Now if they just appreciated showering and antiperspirant more... :p

Diesel is dirty

Diesel is getting cleaner, it is still not as clean as regular gas, that is the main reason it is not used widely here

Don't kid yourself, buddy. :thumbup:

That's what certain circles want you to believe. The fact of the matter is that your average ULEV SUV is also very dirty but just because it's A) powered by a gasoline engine and B) has the ULEV certificate our perception informs us that these vehicles are "clean". They're not if you think about it deeply.

Modern diesels are in fact clean and getting cleaner as technology progresses. But not only the technology is important here but the quality of diesel fuel. Let's face it, the US has poor quality diesel fuel as a whole and this means during the combustion process the dirty chemical elements are released. Although the situation is improving I believe (otherwise MB couldn't sell their high-tech E320 CDI / E320 Bluetec there), it will still be some time before all of the US has cleaner diesel fuel suitable for modern high-tech diesel. We also need more fill-up stations offering diesel fuel.

As an American working in Germany (and driving a diesel-powered car) I can attest to some of the great diesels that consumers have the choice of driving here. Almost every car in every niche has a diesel engine option. Even sports cars are now becoming popular with an oil-burner upfront, especially in French cars.

Even the Japanese have some great diesels here albeit a few brands only. Honda has a superb diesel engine in the Accord and Subaru just joined the party with an innovative and clean boxer-diesel. Sadly, Toyota doesn't have very good diesel engines here and some of their cars lack a particulate filter - which is standard on almost all German, French or Italian diesel cars.

Well, as you can see from my signature I drive the new C class C200 CDI (company car) and I am happy with the performance and fuel economy. This vehicle is an entry-level model but the large torque reserves and efficient 5-speed automatic work well to propel the car in an agile and quick fashion. In all honesty, I'm happy with the car despite me having grown up with big and powerful engines back home in Maryland. Living here for a year has totally changed my outlook on things and appreciate this as I think it makes me a better car enthusiast. :)

What you all might also want to consider is the impact of Diesel if it DID take off in the US market. Most commercial and manufacturing companies around the world use Diesel as their main source of fuel. It's already pretty expensive here in the US. Many years ago, the EU made Diesel cheaper than Gas (by taxing gas more than diesel I think), and Diesel car sales soared. That may not be the case today, right now, as of this moment, but it is true that a higher percentage of cars in Europe are Diesel compared to the US right now.

BUT. If the US tried going after a diesel market here, the strained Diesel supply would get further strained, most likely shooting the prices higher than current levels. We can't simply amp up the amount of Diesel refineries produce either. Most refineries in the US are set up for catalytic cracking, which turns each barrel of crude into about 50% gasoline, 15% Diesel, and the rest into other petrol products (asphalt, home heating oil, jet fuel, etc).

But in Europe, most refineries are set up for Hydrocracking, which yields 25% gasoline and 25% diesel, and the rest into other products. So if the US pursued Diesel cars as the cure all, it would constrain current supplies massively unless something is done about the supply. The problem with doing something about the current supply, is that any course of action will take years to accomplish. You know, converting refineries or building new ones. But a new refinery hasn't been built in the US since 1979...

It seems to me that although Mercedes currently downplays the refining capacity issue, it will turn out the be an issue should the popularity of diesel cars take off. Is the fix in? Is big oil making us buy gasoline? Maybe. But there's something about the way refineries are set up in the US that correlates with Diesel capacity being squeezed here. I sourced this information from an Op-Ed piece in Car and Driver magazine, April 2008 issue. Still, I think a main reason why diesel is not popular now is because of how it was back then: stinky, rattly, and hard to find refueling stations. Although diesels of today are light years ahead of the way back then, fitted with NOx reducing urea injection catalysts, high pressure fuel delivery, self-cleaning particulate traps, etc. But remember, that advancement costs money. More than current gasoline equipped cars too. Diesel (depending on the composition), burns cleaner in some aspects than gasoline, but the NOx emissions varies with the sulfur content, as does the particulate problems, which is still higher than gasoline. I wouldn't say it's cleaner than gasoline though, I would just say it's still dirty, but in a different way. Current technology has all but eliminated these disadvantages for Diesels, and at the same time some diesel advancements (direct injection) have improved gasoline engines. I personally would take diesel over gasoline, all other things being equal, but they're not, so gasoline it is. That's just my take on things though..

Modern diesels are in fact clean and getting cleaner as technology progresses. But not only the technology is important here but the quality of diesel fuel. Let's face it, the US has poor quality diesel fuel as a whole and this means during the combustion process the dirty chemical elements are released. Although the situation is improving I believe (otherwise MB couldn't sell their high-tech E320 CDI / E320 Bluetec there), it will still be some time before all of the US has cleaner diesel fuel suitable for modern high-tech diesel. We also need more fill-up stations offering diesel fuel.



That's already happened, Dustin. The EPA, a couple of years ago, has already mandated the use of Euro-style, low-sulfur diesel fuel here nationwide. That's one reason why it is expensive, even more so than 93-octane premium gas. It is expensive to produce, and for regular diesel-powered cars (large trucks and diesel locomotives are another matter) you run into economies of scale because there is still a limited market for it here in the U.S.

What we need is more diesel cars sold at retail so that demand for the low-sulfur fuel will go up, supply will increase, and prices will come down. Americans have traditionally had a dislike of auto diesels, based on outmoded experience with the unreliable, sluggish, noisy, dirty, hard-to-start diesels of 20-30 years ago, some of which were converted gas engines and a total disaster. It's time to toss that old image out in the trash where it belongs....we live in a world of totally different diesels and fuel now.

And, as I understand it, M-B does indeed have plans to being the Bluetec diesels over here, starting with the E models.