I find it comical that they list the Scion xD as an SUV/CUV in Europe.

↓↑report

Left wing, right wing, bullsh*t.

YOUR too brainwashed to realize that "they" use that to divide us and keep us infighting instead of fighting them for more rights and other benefits.

You think it's a coincidence that Shia fight Sunni, Hamas fights Fatah, Tutsis fight Hutus, and in the recent past in the US Whites fight blacks? It's to cement the establishment's power and to distract people from the real issues.

Also, you act like it's the lefts fault that we can't get these cars in NA, but last I checked the rich oil men don't vote democrat.

↓↑report

Yeah, "powerful special interests". These are exactly three: ignorance, stupidity, narrow-mindedness. I can understand the American fear of NOx and the resulting emission regulations, but I cannot understand that many politicians are unable to differentiate between a vehicle used for commuting outside urban molochs (where diesels can significantly help reducing greenhouse gases) and vehicles used in stop and go traffic (where hybrids are clearly the best choise). The tax system in many European states creates an incentive in this direction, unfortunately not strong enough.

Taxes are another point: They are just necessary to keep a state running. So it makes sense to use them as a regulatory instrument. So why not cut down taxes on income and raise taxes on fuel instead. People reducing their consumption will have an incentive.

You might argue that taxes should be used for certain purposes and not to steer consumption. So taxes on gas might only be used to cover the costs of motoring? Right, but the costs of motoring also include the costs of the Iraq war that was at least partly started for access to oil (no WMD!). If you try to raise the tax on gas to partly pay for the war you might end up at $10+ gallon.

↓↑report

This list is very misleading, as usually when someone at Autobloggreen post diesel propaganda and advertisement article.

It's missing one contender:


Lexus RX450H.....3500cc....300HP.....6.4 l/100km...36 mpg U.S


Source: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/fahrberichte/lexus-rx-450h-im-fahrbericht-neues-crossover-modell-mit-hybrid-antrieb-1248836.html
Fuel economy calculated from RX450h 148 gCO2/km emission quoted in the article.

That's apparently the result of European fuel economy certification, the same all the diesel small SUVs have been subjected to.

Only the Lexus RX450h is a large SUV (by European standards) and has 300HP, not some slacky 140HP as compact diesel SUVs getting comparable fuel economy.

Just to give you some perspective:

BMW X3 xDrive20d DPF........1995cc...177HP.....6.5 l/100km....36.2 mpg U.S
Lexus RX450H.......................3500cc...300HP.....6.4 l/100km... 36 mpg U.S
Subaru Forester 2.0D DPF...1998cc...147HP.....6.3 l/100km....37.3 mpg U.S

Both the X3 and the Forester are also nearly one class smaller.

↓↑report

Maybe not so much a conspiracy as such, more like a misguided approach by U.S. regulators to craft LDV emission regulations that favor gas engine emission profiles. There's nothing "magical" about the Tier 2 or LEV 2 emission regulations from an air quality perspective.

Diesel engine emission profiles typically are considerably different than gas engine emission profiles. Diesels tend to have higher NOx and PM emissions, but lower HC and CO emissions (these are the 4 main "criteria" emissions that are currently regulated). Even the older "high polluting" diesels generally had lower emissions of CO and HC (why is no one ever concerned with higher CO and HC emissions?).

EPA and CARB have decided to hit NOX and PM emissions harder than CO or HC in the latest emission regs (Tier 2/Lev 2), in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that reducing NOx relatively more than HC (and to some extent CO - CO has the same ozone production pathway as HC) in metropolitan areas will not only not provide any benefit in ozone ("smog") reduction, it has the potential to make it worse. This is often referred to as the "NOx disbenefit", something that even EPA acknowledges occurs.

There is no such thing as a "VOC-disbenefit" in which lower ambient VOC (HC) levels potentially will increase ambient ozone levels, and virtually all non-attainment with the ozone NAAQS occurs in metropolitan areas (and thus most exposures to unacceptably high ambeint ozone levels). Why the regulators chose to focus on NOx is beyond perplexing.

Even though engineers have been able to "force fit" diesel emissions into being able to meet the made-for-gas Tier 2/LEV 2 emission regs, it increases cost and reduces efficiency for little or no air quality benefit.

↓↑report