You've obviously not read many stories like this on AB or ABG. They virtually always convert the EU ratings to US gallons when mentioning the mileage of European vehicles. It's hardly a diesel only phenomenon. Look back at any number of European car stories and you'll see the same conversions and quotes.

I feel that it's better than just stating the EU mileage which then makes people think that the car is capable of 20% better mileage simply because of the larger Imperial gallons.

Granted, I agree that the EU testing gives an optimistic view of actual attainable mileage, but considering the alternative of quoting only EU figures, I think this is a good compromise. Especially considering that the vast majority of these cars will never be subject to EPA testing to determine what the comparable US mileage would truly be.

It's no different than this recent post on ABG: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/03/japanese-ratings-call-prius-worlds-most-efficient-car-89-4-mpg/

↓↑report

You can't even compare the driving cycle since the US driving cycle emphasizes on stop and go traffic while the European cycle emphasizes on slow to medium speed highway trffic. Thus hybrids usually score not so different in both cycles while there is this 10% to 20% gap on non hybrid vehicles.

I do not buy the point on energy density. Since I buy diesel by the litre and not by the kWh (like I do it with natural gas) adjusting the mileage does not make sense. For ecological impact or efficiency just take the C02 numbers.

Diesels and hybrids both make sense, diesels for longer commutes with less stop and go and hybrids for typical urban driving conditions.

↓↑report

Mattias 1:19AM (4/22/2009):

> You can't even compare the driving cycle since the
> US driving cycle emphasizes on stop and go traffic
> while the European cycle emphasizes on slow to medium
> speed highway trffic.

That's why I protested. This cycles cannot be compared yet article suggest so implicitly.


> Thus hybrids usually score not so different in both cycles
> while there is this 10% to 20% gap on non hybrid vehicles.

Sorry, but this is rubbish. ECE stands for European standard.

Toyota Prius II EPA: 46 MPG
Toyota Prius II ECE: 4,3 l/100km ~= 54 MPG

Lexus RX400h AWD EPA: 25 MPG
Lexus RX400h AWD ECE: 8,1 l/100km ~= 29 MPG


> I do not buy the point on energy density. Since I buy diesel
> by the litre and not by the kWh (like I do it with natural gas)
> adjusting the mileage does not make sense.

OK, but don't call it fuel consumption then. Call these unadjusted MPG rating "Cost to refuel".

Because of this idiotic naming conventions, 95% of brainwashed people think diesels are environmentally friendly when compared to ordinary gasoline cars (even below you get one, bragging about how this Insignia is "efficient"). Again, untrue.

Volkswagen Touran 2.0 TDI DPF: 159 g CO2/100km, 0-62 in 10,2 sec
Volkswagen Touran 1.4 TSI 140HP: 166 g CO2/km, 0-62 in 9,8 sec

Considering that making a unit of energy as petrol requires now more fossil energy than in the form of diesels (source: "Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context", WELL-TO-TANK Report, Version 2b, May 2006), diesel is just equally inefficient as advanced petrol engine.

Add to this diesel horrid tailpipe emission performance:
http://adac-ecotest.awardspace.biz/
860 cars tested. Sorted by pollution rating, diesels mostly occupy last 400 places.


> For ecological impact or efficiency just take the C02 numbers.

I'm always up for that. But then all over the Internet I have to deal with "global warming is a hoax" idiots that emerge immediately when keyword "CO2" appears.

But anyway:
Insignia ecoFlex: 136 g CO2/km
Toyota Prius II: 104 g CO2/km
Toyota Prius III: 89 g CO2/km

So much for Insignia "efficiency".


> Diesels and hybrids both make sense, diesels for longer
> commutes with less stop and go and hybrids for typical
> urban driving conditions.

Diesels don't make any sense in cars and never will. Realize that Atkinson cycle petrol engines in hybrids get peak thermal efficiency of 37% (Source: Performance and Emissions of The Toyota Prius, Mike Duoba, Staff Engineer, Advanced Powertrain Test Facility, Argonne National Laboratory, link: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/2.pdf ). Diesels get 40%. And hybrids never need variable vane turbocharging, ultra high pressure fuel delivery systems, fragile injectors, particulate filters, AdBlue injections, double mass flywheels, wearable clutches, intercoolers and complex gearboxes with hydraulic-mechanical servos (Toyota hybrids have neither clutch nor gearbox as we know it). Hybrids also work just as well in cities as on highways due to efficient Atkinson cycle.

Diesels have only been invented to charge customers more after faking the perception of "efficient" car.

Need a proof?

5-year total ownership costs, 2004 cars (Totals are not only fuel and repairs but also maintenance, financing and so on):

Toyota Prius II: Fuel: $5,285 | Repairs: $2,291 | Totals: $29,669
Source: tinyurl.com/Prius5yOwnershipCosts

VW Jetta 2.0 GL gasoline: Fuel: $10,402 | Repairs: $2,684 | Totals: $30,523
Source: tinyurl.com/JettaGasser5yOwnershipCosts

VW Jetta 1.9 TDI GL diesel: Fuel: $8,742 | Repairs: $3,540 | Totals: $34,305
Source: tinyurl.com/JettaTDI5yOwnershipCosts

So much for diesels...

↓↑report

This "good enough" 40mpg currently reflects European perception. Small cars are good enough if they get 5l/100km, compact cars are good enough at 6l/100km, Insignia sized cars are good enough at 7l/100km -- as diesel of course. For petrol vehicles you might add another liter.

At 7 to 9$ per gallon this kind of efficiency is a must. And it is nice to see those detail tweaks that help bringing down real world consumption.

↓↑report