putting on flame suit
 

I know it's heresy to say thing like that on this forum, but a typical diesel car sold in Europe is not all that "clean". Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a diesel engine as much as the next guy, and I used to believe that the only real problem with cleaning up diesel exhaust in the high sulfur content in US diesel fuel. Once ULSD standard kicks in, and they start selling diesels with normal catalytic converters, I thought, diesels would be even cleaner than gassers due to lower fuel consumption. I kept thinking that until I had to spend a couple of weeks in Barcelona, where there's lots of diesel cars (seems like way more than half, but that could be reticular activation speaking), and fuel is already ULSD. I had to walk from the hotel to a customer site each morning, about 15 min along the Diagonal Ave. That is a pretty busy street -- not congested beyond hope, but busy. Let me tell you -- air quality along that street was BAD, way worse than anything I've had a chance to experience in US cities. I started considering taking a longer route just to breath cleaner air. The problem? NOx emissions. Sulfur or not, diesels burn hotter than gassers, and thus produce more NOx. A good catalytic converter can take break some it down back into N2 and O2, but apparently not all of it. A more advanced device, like an urea injection thing MB touts, is necessary to bring NOx level down further.

European cities do suffer from air quality problems, caused in large part by diesels. Google it. German cities are particularly hard hit, and under a new law there citizens are allowed to sue cities if the level of air pollution exceeds a preset level, which happened already in several cities. German automakers are now scrambling to make more advanced emission control devices standard on all new vehicles, something they hoped to postpone until 2008 or so due to cost.

So EPA may be nazist in nature (Tom DeLay used to say it's Gestapo back during his exterminator days...) but diesel emissions are not a problem some tree hugger conjured out of thin air just to piss you off. It's a real issue.

Mercedes makes a lot of less expensive stuff....all of it with diesels...

what they don't want to do is sell them to the great unwashed masses here...in the USA.

They only care about selling cars the the very well off that can afford $60K plus for a car....

Also, MB now owns Chrysler and the last thing they want to do is compete against themselves in the US. It makes sense for them to keep the MB and Chrysler markets separate.

I have heard that Chrysler is considering a 300C Diesel for the North American market, they already sell it in European markets. I also saw that post about VW phasing out TDIs in North America. Is that why I can't find a 2006 Passat TDI? I like the new bodystyle and would like it with the TDI engine.

One MB from Europe I'd buy would be.....
 

The SLK model with the 3 turboed six. Hear it will do 0 to 60 in about 5.7 sec. and top out at a speed governed 156 mph.....and still get 47 mpg test figures. That would probably be the last new car I'd ever buy....yep, I'm 60 years old. Make mine blood red with a tan/palomino interior...7 speed automatic.....amg aero kit and wheels/sticky tires/handleing kit.

Run-em

little long sorry
 

OK... so what is the real difference in burning bio versus Standard#2. Thkis thread has gotten me a litle bit confused. We as Americans want things bigger and better always, which will and is our biggest problem. The SUV boom is what brought about our current problems with fossil fuels. For the moment there is enough fuel to go around. No one is producing it. I got a slight history of different types of crude oil Light, Med.,and Dark. The US wants the light because it has the most gas whereas most of the light comes from the middle east (Iraq). If the Government wanted to receive different grades from elsewhere them wouldn't there be more diesel. Or we need to increase production and awareness of Biodiesel. Once the infastucture of Bio is established that would relive some on the strain on the planet... But one trouble is that there is too much of a debate going one between Gas and Diesel. People are too brainwashed by Hybird technology. They are looking at the immidiate solveing of the problem better fuel economy, but in the long run they will have to take into account of the batteries and what damage they will do when it comes time to replace them. THere isn't really a facility to handle the recycleing of the battery, and toyota has admitted that those battaries won't last longer than about 10 years, then they have to fork over 8 grand to get a new one. The biggest thing to solve this issue is awareness. Gas has its pros and cons, Diesels have thier as well. I feel that diesels have more pros, Longevity, versatility of fuels, More power (pulling). Also it really is not good that you cannot get a new passenger car powered via diesel in california, Yet they run many powerstokes, Duramaxs, etc. These vehicles eat the fuel right up. I was at a fueling station the oother day where a new power stoke took almost 80 dollars in fuel, then he pulled out gunning his engine the whole way out and down the street ii could hear the turbo whine from a block away. People like that need to get a slap to the face that they are fracking stuff up for everyone else. Because for every conservitive driver there are 5 more who drive like that guy. this got a little long but i guess i needed to let it out... oh yeah i wouild love a new E320CDI

I agree with Meta, we need to have alternate fuels such as biodiesel, and ethanol and not be so caught up in having the hybrids. I for one am willing to try making some biodiesel after I do some research and fully understand the process. I also think it would be a big boon to our agriculture system to have an outlet for their production if biodiesel production increases.