NATURAL GAS AND HYBRID VEHICLES STILL STARS, DIESELS STILL NO-SHOWS IN ANNUAL RANKING OF TOP ECO-FRIENDLY VEHICLES

Grand Cherokee V6 17/22 Diesel 20/25

Here is why the Bluetec would not score highly on this scale. From the EPA's GreenGuide...

E320 Bluetec
Air Quality 3/10
CO2 emissions 7/10
mpg 23 city/32 hwy

E350 gasoline
Air Quality 7/10
CO2 emissions 5/10
mpg 17 city/24 hwy

Is there really enough of an improvement on mpg (avg 7 mog improvement) to mitigate the abysmal 3 score on air quality? (And this is the air quality of the supposed CLEANER diesels.) Even if the averaged scores made the Bluetec more "green" than the 350 (which is debatable), is it nearly green enough to compete with the likes of the Civic GX, Prius or Yaris. Not even close.

E320 CDI for sure dont`t win , maybe E320 CDI bluetec , when diesel don`t have a lot of catalyst then it is very dirty (NOx , HC etc), when it have a lot of catalyst then it may be as green as petrol engine , don`t look only for CO2 emission

This "study" is a crock. Results are calculated by what emissions standard a vehicle fits then somehow comparing that to its gas mileage rather tan looking at it's actual emissions and comparing those results to competing vehicles.

It is not a crock. The study uses a scale that includes gas mileage and emissions. A small Bluetec Golf, getting 50 mpg might make the greenest list, because its high mpg will score enough points to counteract its middle of the pack emissions (T2B5, but not LEV or SULEV). A Bluetec midsized E class getting 27-30 mpg will not score a win because, despite having better mpg than its base models, is still not high enough to counteract its middling emissions scores.

Hence no GS450h or RX400h on the list. Definitely improved mpg and emissions compared to base models, achieving SULEV, but only mid to high 20s mpg. Not nearly enough to score a top ten ranking.

I think revealing the whole list of cars would be illuminating.

Just looking at the list of the "meanest" vehicles, all of those diesel cars are not subjected to the same stringent emissions regulations that a mass produced diesel "car" would be subjected to.

If nobody has noticed, that's the reason why the U.S. currently only has diesel SUVs and trucks available. To get a diesel car through is nearly impossible, despite the fact that we have the cleanest diesel fuel in the world.

I wouldn't doubt the diesel cars would give the "greenest" a run for their money.

Huh?
The US has the dirtiest fuel in the world ... that's why you don't get the diesel cars!
Its finally getting cleaned up, but as long as "Ultra-low sulphur" is an option (not the standard grade) you're running behind the pack.

Once the new cleaner diesels come out, I predict you wont see so many at the bottom of the list, as they will be meeting the basic emissions standards, finally. BUt you still wont see them at the top of the list, because while mileage on adiesle may improve on its gasoline counterpart by a few mpg, that will not be enough to counter the still not quite there emissions that makes

...cont.... (sorry)

up half the equation for a car to be green.

To be considered a green car, you cant just increase the mpg from the low 20s to the high 20s.

A Bluetec E class will not somehow end up on the greenenst list just because of its better mpg than a base E. That is not enough. It will just avoid being on the meanest list.

This sort of a test is unfortunatly the kind of short sighted test congress makes decisions on.

This test is entirly correct in saying that a hybrid car or natural gas vehcile will produce less emissions out of their tailpipe. I'm a fan of the new diesel's and there is no way I could argue that the new diesel is cleaner than a hybrid. It is as clean as the most modern gas engine however, which diesel has never been able to say before. What is lacking is a long term study to see the effect of a whole bunch of hybrid cars needing their batteries replaced, and what the environmental impact that would be. Testing a tailpipe is only one part of a vehicles "green" footprint...and by not showing the entire footprint you misrepresent the actual impact they have.

The big argument for diesel is that it has a ton of power and gets great gas milage...which is good for us the consumer and not specifically "good for the environment".

The other aspect is that unfotunatly a large portion of the world cannot live with the above green cars . If I am single or if I'm married without kids, then yes the above hybrids and CNG's would be a good choice. I however have a family. And those people who have to carry more than 1 other person in the car for any duration in time, will find it extremly hard to do in the above vehicles (save for the Altima). So until a hybrid vehicle is built that can handle a family and all their crap (those with kids know exatly how much crap I'm talking about) and get 40mpg... most people will not purchase them, no matter how green they are.

So I will not dispute the emission results of this study however the image being portrayed as hybrids being the be all end all of super eco friendly cars, is highly suspect.

This survey encompasses emissions and fuel economy, both being important when considered a "green" machine. Diesels have got the mpg part of the equation down. The question becomes, is it enough of an improvement to offset the poorer emissions? Even with the new cleaner diesels. (Even putting aside the issue of expense of the higher cost engine and fuel.)

There is no reason a Prius cannot meet most families' needs. 5 passenger seating with a large cargo area. If it is still too small, Ford makes a pretty awesome Escape hybrid, not getting 40 mpg, but pretty close. That may come closest for SUVs to meeting your stated needs, as the higher performance Toy/Lex SUV hybrids sacrifice some mpg for performance, while the Camry and Altima lack the cargo space.

Right now, no diesel can touch the low emissions/high mpg combo that hybrids deliver.

From ACEEE's website Re:diesels

"Manufacturers of the diesel models on our “Meanest” list have already unveiled plans to bring cleaner diesel models to the country in 2008, containing more sophisticated emissions control systems that purportedly will meet the Tier 2 Bin 5 emission standard. However, diesel models such as the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec continue to be sold in the United States with only a Tier 2 Bin 8 designation and are still not widely available in states that abide by California’s emission standards. No clean, diesel-powered vehicles are likely to make a showing in the 2008 calendar year, despite continued promises from manufacturers. "

Wow, where are all the diesel people? I wanted to get into some serious debates here. I'm too bored today at work. Is there some IS-F/M3 argument going on somewhere? chirp chirp chirp.....crickets.....

Compare the Bluetec with the Lexus GS 450h (from EPA Green Vehicle Guide)

Lexus GS 450h
Air Quality 9/10
greenhouse gas 7/10
mpg 22 city/25 hwy


E320 Bluetec
Air Quality 3/10
greenhouse gas 7/10
mpg 23 city/32 hwy

The Bluetec only really trumps the GS with hwy mpg, yet does so at a high air qality price. (Not to mention, the GS is way faster.)

Note also that the greenhouse gas scores are the same, despite the diesel's higher mpg. This is because a real calculation of CO2 and other greenhouse emissions takes more into consideration than just higher mpg, as explained here.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Aboutratings.do#aboutgreenhouse

An explanation of air quality scores (with bin info) is here
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/summarychart.pdf

GS 450h is T2B2, Bluetec is, as mentioned T2B8.

Hope people find these real facts useful when comparing Bluetecs and diesels to hybrids. It's a shame that people seem to be ignoring this thread, as the results are illuminating. Needless to say, this data will need to pop up in other places, as the diesel fanatics wont go away any time soon.

So, the Hybrid Lobby Group put out its annual bogus report.

This crap is so pathetic that its not even worth responding to.

huu: "If you don't create pollution, you don't need to hide it with catalytic convertors" ... i really hate to break this to you, but your beloved hybrid natural disasters all have catalytic converters because they all create pollution.
Not as much as it takes to make them (they generate orders of magnitude more destruction than normal cars to build) but they still do pollute and would be illegal without converters.
Please come back after you get over the shock.

Okay, here is your clean diesel advocate.

#1. The conclusion has no basis. There are zero clean diesel automobiles being sold in our market because the EPA and CA ARB have kept them out, so how can an article rate products that don't exist. That might as well have included 80,000# GVWR tractor-trailers and compared that against hybrid cars. All we have are forty-five state emission compliant diesels and these are not clean diesels and are not even close to the limitations of clean-diesel technology.

The absence of clean diesels is not the fault of the automakers or slow technology development, but the fault of the EPA who took one and a half years to approve SCR, NOx-redcuding technology and when they did finally approve SCR, they put forth parameters that the auto industry had to design around, which further delayed production another year. So basically, we've had the technology for two years to get clean diesels in America that are as clean as gas-powered cars in every category, and we should have had clean diesels for a year and a half, but the EPA and the CA ARB decided to keep them out to give hybrids a chance to catch up to the fuel-saving, cost efficiency of modern, clean diesels.

#2 Our parameters for determining cleanliness and meanness are biased against diesels and favor gas power and gas-electric hybrids. In other words, our system is set up to give gas power a good score and diesels a poor score, even after the clean diesels come in.

Our NOx limits and PM limits are the toughest in the world, but we have no CO2 limits which favor diesels and our CO limits have not be reduced since 1985 (this also favor diesels). Moreover, diesels perform better with regards to total hydrocarbons. So, to come across as clean in the U.S., a car can emit all the poisonous CO within the limit (3.4 grams per mile) but cannot emit even a trace of PM or NOx (less than .02 and .14 gram per mile respectively).

#3. Did the conclusion take into account that all diesels can reduce the amount of all pollutants save NOx though the use of biodiesel blends of fuel, since all diesel cars are alternative-fuel capable, yet not a single hybrid is alternative-fuel capable beyond 10%. Of course not!

Simply by choosing B20 (which can be chosen for any diesel engine without loss of fuel economy or engine modification, one can reduce each pollutant an average of 15% (save NOx) and reduce CO2 output another 15.6%, while reducing mpg only .2%.

Diesel car registrations increased again in Europe for 2007 against predictions that it had topped out in 2006. Europeans chose a diesel power train 53.3% of the time when buying a new car in 2007 versus 51% in 2006. America must be right by denying our citizens this technology and over one-billion Europeans must be completely stupid [sarcasm]!

huu76.

Again, you've got it wrong!

The best place for diesels is the small car platform.

If I've purchased a luxury sedan or a sub-compact, I'm not looking to tow. The lower towing capacity of these diesels is due to the gearing which is maximized for fuel efficiency. The extra torque is not beneficial for towing, but allows for a mid-range RPM for highway cruising and for the superior driving dynamics. With higher, low-end torque, my Jetta TDI does not need a passing gear. Ever! It cruises along at 2100 RPM; on the highway; all the time. The result is 48 mpg. The regular Jetta jumps all over the RPM gauge and gets only 26 mpg. The gas Jetta sometimes subjects the driver to high-pitched, screaming motor, but the diesel Jetta driver never gets this annoyance.

A Polo BlueMotion gets 72 mpg (U.S.) versus a Nissan Versa, a Toyota Yaris, and a Chevy Aveo which range between 34 and 41 mpg highway rating. These cars are about the same size and performance output, yet the diesel gets almost 100% mpg improvement. Yes, the cost would be more, but so is a gas-electric hybrid applied to such a car.

I would argue that diesels have a bigger place for small cars than for big pickups where the efficiency gains are minimized by the hulking wind breakers that they must pull along. A good example of this is the Jeep Grand Cherokee that has to work too hard being pushed by a 3.0-liter V-6 diesel. That engine gets the E320 BlueTec 37 mpg (40% improvement), but the Jeep gets only 20 (18% improvement).