Hyundai’s 50 MPG SUV

50 mpg could be british gallons, so about 40 US mpg. still great though.

That is what I thought. British gallons.

Hyundai's moving up slowly but surely. Eventually IMO they will be a widely consumed brand due to it's value for money.

I want one with that diesel! Does this come with a third row? Beats driving an expensive minivan! Great mielage!

truckmen.

Wish in one hand and you know what in the other.

The regulatory environment of the U.S. is such that one could more easily ride a camel through the eye of a needle than an automaker can bring diesels here in mass.

Never mind that diesels have been somewhat cleaner burning, overall, for some time burning ULSD with particulate filters than gas cars.

Never mind that diesels generally emit fewer levels of CO, CO2, THCs and VOCs than gas cars; and trail gas technologies only with respect to nitrogen oxides.

Never mind that new technologies for modern diesels using cleaner fuels and DPFs, reduce PM 90% from 2006 EPA limits and are now on-par with gas cars with respect to PM.

Never mind that diesels can ALL use biodiesel and other alternatives to petroleum-based fuels with absolutely no engine modifications or loss in fuel economy. Try that with a gas car burning ethanol!

Never mind that we could have diesels in this country in 2007 that emit half of the emission substances as the cleanest diesels sold here in 2006.

Never mind that a one-third U.S. fleet of light-duty diesels could save us 1.4 million barrels of oil per day, which equals what we currently import from Saudi Arabia.

Never mind that almost all automakers, including American automakers, strongly desire bringing clean diesels to our shores in mass; and that they all have the capability to do so with a 50% diesel, market base in Europe for 2006.

Never mind that the Governor of Montana has a plan wherein the U.S. could provide enough transportation fuel for our country for the next hundred years converting coal to clean diesel fuel. This plan even includes the prospect of sequestering much of the carbon back into the ground.

No; never mind any of that. Our EPA and the California ARB--in their wisdom--have decided that Americans should not be entitled to these great products that can save oil, improve national security, and help protect the environment, because engineers were unable to reduce NOx by 70% in just one model year. Even the E320 BlueTec, which uses advanced, De-Nox equipment and reduces NOx 60%, can still not be sold in five states, even as it is, overall, much cleaner burning than a comparable gas car and gets 37 mpg, hwy with 388 lbs of torque.

We have a vehicle emission policy that allows unlimited sales of a compact car that gets 10 mpg (Bentely GT), while concurrently outlaws, for 2007, the most fuel efficient compact car sold in the U.S. for 2006 (Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit TDI--manual transmission, Volkswagen New Jetta TDI--automatic transmission: source www.fueleconomy.gov--2006). These VWs, plus the New Beetle TDI, which led all subcompacts in 2006, emit only one-third of the greenhouse emissions of that--completely legal--Bentley GT.

Americans should be raising sand about the direction our EPA is taking us all in the name of a small amount of nitrogen oxides that has little to do with affecting air quality one way or th

gregsfc, I fully agree with you. Funny how the EPA will let coal-powered generating plants and other companies off the hook for belching pollution into the air, but won't allow diesels which run very clean these days. Of course when was the last time our federal goverment did anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We finally get our CAFE standards to rise, then Detroit starts bitching about how we'll kill the passenger truck market. Ummm... couldn't these things run on diesel? Didn't they at one time or another? It's torque, not HP, that pushes a truck forward. Perhaps their lobbyists could take that route.

zombie8, just look how many old trucks and cars are on the road today emitting hundreds of times the substances as a modern clean diesel would even without these advanced, De-Nox devices. Just one old dump truck emitting plumes of black smoke, that I see every day, negates the gain of 1,000 super clean cars sold in America. We are not getting a good bang for the buck. If we want to clean up our air, we should start with what is most polluting the air, and put less emphasis in things like going from .2 gram per mile of NOx to .07 gram per mile. This is especially true when making such drastic requirements will keep a fuel-saving technology from even coming to our shores.

Don't get me wrong. We will get clean diesel vehicles in upcoming years that will be superior to gas cars with respect to CO, CO2, THCs, and VOCs while equaling them with respect to PM and NOx. I expect they will be popular, but the policies set in place forcing that technology to reduce NOx--ahead of when it can be achieved in an economically-friendly manner--will limit our choices to up market vehicles, and will delay our choices as well.