Too bad the new ULSD doesn't smell like the the old skool diesel fuel...

↓↑report

We get the shaft for two reasons...

1) Americans don't by hatchbacks in any real numbers, no matter how great a car it might be

2) American's still don't get the idea of how great diesel cars are

To be fair, until we started getting the cleaner diesel, many of thse great engines wouldn't run here.

I too will cast a vote for BRING THAT CAR HERE!!!

↓↑report

SOOooooo agreed,

I was thinking the same thing for quite a while now.

I think it's cause the auto companies know most of us in the US are ok with crappy unoriginal cars. They've pulled the wool over our eyes and reaped the benefits.

Look at the Euro version of the Focus. More tech, better styling, better handling, for the same price!

Bastards!

↓↑report

actually, autoblog is the only one dreaming of 40-50mpg.
the original article makes no mention of fuel waste.

↓↑report

The 40-50 mpg comes from Autoblog's penchant for oilburners.

* Autoblog likes to overstate diesel mileage and/or give the imperial gallon figure instead of the US one.
* They also like to tout how some miniscule B-segment diesel gets better mileage than a EPA midsize hybrid.
* Finally, they also greenwash diesel's inability come even close to Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards. It's a common fallacy that fuel efficient == green.

A lot of people have been badly hoodwinked by diesel. Sure, it's a good thing in terms of fuel economy, but if you listen to some people, you'd think it was the second coming. Spend some quality breathing time in a large German city and you'll understand why diesel isn't the panacaea it's made out to be by it's North American fanbase.

If you want clean and fuel efficient internal combustion, you want LPG or CNG.

↓↑report

Actually 2.0l diesel from BMW has 177hp@4000rpm. The consumption you cite does not seem to fit any of the models that have this engine.

European diesels do not excel in anything except pollution. Gasoline engines could easily post better fuel consumption (that is mass of fuel consumed) if they were allowed to pollute as much as diesels.

Diesels do not have throttle valve and can run on a very lean mixture. Gasoline engines can do the same (especially those with direct injection), but the tougher regulations for gasoline engines have prevented them to do so.

The lower tax on diesel fuel and the lower pollution standards for diesel engines are the only reasons diesels have spread in Europe.

↓↑report

Actually no. The specs you are quoting are for the 2.3liter engine. The 2.0l engine has 177hp. There is nothing state of the art in those European diesels, except perhaps that they pollute more. I hope they never cross the ocean, every time I go in Europe to see my parents I have to cope with diesel pollution, which is awful in the cities.

↓↑report

you are confusing old diesels with new modern ones.
My beef with all you guys naysaying the diesels arrival to the US is where are your outrage over the extremely poluting trucks on our roads. Not only do they polute they damage roads. Puting trucks on trains to cross the country would be much better... anyways back on topic.
You are right though, gasoline engines could get better milage if we had LIGHTER and or smaller cars.

↓↑report

my god dondonel learn facts befor you come up with wrong knowlege..

the 123d is a 2.0l diesel engine...

I am in Germany and here the latest diesel engine sold by BMW is a 204hp

2.0l (1995ccm) 4cyl 204hp diesel is sold as the

123d
-5door hatchback
-3door hatchback
-2door Coupe
-2door convertible

if you dont belive me look at
http://www.bmw.de
under the specs for the 123d

the engine has exactly the same displacement as the 118d and 120d.... you have to learn that the numbers at BMW are not the displacemant of the engine...
the 335i is a 3.0l inline6 not a 3.5l
the 123d is a 2.0l inline4 not a 2.3l



@ Dondel
1. consuption ratings are from the BMW hompage and are manufactor ratings
2. the strongest 2.0l diesel engine from BMW is 204hp not 177hp
3. diesel engines are allways more full effective as petrol... no matter what fancy trick you try at petrol engines, learn basics facts befor posting!
4. the price different between petrol and diesel in Germany is currently between 1-2Cent..no argument..
in fact diesel have a tax drawback in Germany with higher yearly car tax... that does not stop consumers to buy 50% of all new cars in Germany with a diesel engine
5. the reason why we drive deisel is
- lower CO2 emissions..
- lower consuption (MUCH lower)
- diesel engine have a much better long time endurance

↓↑report

@ nagmashot

You're right, 123d has a 2.0 engine. I know very well that BMW uses numbers as equivalent displacement rather than actual, I just did not pay attention with this engine. This does not change anything from what I said before. Auto diesels are more polluting that gasoline engines and bring no efficiency gains.

By European standards (Euro IV), diesels are allowed to have NOx emissions more than 3 times higher than gasoline engines. Why in the world would you allow this to happen??

Gasoline is also taxed much more than diesel fuel, in EU15 average gasoline taxes are 163% (over the petrol station price), while for diesel fuel they are at 118%. In Germany, where you said you live, the current numbers are 185% tax for gasoline, 132% tax for diesel fuel.

You're buying diesel because it is cheaper (to fill the tank), not because it is more fuel efficient than gasoline. European car manufacturers together with legislators made the diesel more attractive through an idiotic tax system. This happened at the beginning of the 90s, when European manufacturers felt the pressure of Japanese manufacturers (that were not producing diesels at that time).

Auto diesels are NOT more fuel efficient than gasoline engines today. Be aware that efficiency comparisons among different fuels should look at the mass of the fuel burned, not volume (this is what efficiency is: how much mass of fuel was burned for the power output). When fuel consumption is converted into mass consumed it is obvious that given a fair comparison (same car, same power, same acceleration and max speed) diesel engines are not more efficient than gasoline engines. You can see that rather nicely in CO2 emissions:

2007 BMW 530i: 271.7 PS, 182 g/km
2004 BMW 535d: 271.7 PS, 211 g/km
2007 BMW 535d: 285.9 PS, 182 g/km

To summarize, you're not buying diesel because it has lower CO2 emissions or lower fuel consumption (it doesn't), but because you're buying the hype and your knowledge is so lacking that you're believing everything manufacturers/legislators are throwing at you. Symptomatic for this behaviour is the use as the (only) criteria for engine quality the power/displacement ratio (even worse, on a turbo engine, hah).

Dondonel

↓↑report

@ nagmashot

You're right, 123d has a 2.0 engine. I know very well that BMW uses numbers as equivalent displacement rather than actual, I just did not pay attention with this engine. This does not change anything from what I said before. Auto diesels are more polluting that gasoline engines and bring no efficiency gains.

By European standards (Euro IV), diesels are allowed to have NOx emissions more than 3 times higher than gasoline engines. Why in the world would you allow this to happen??

Gasoline is also taxed much more than diesel fuel, in EU15 average gasoline taxes are 163% (over the petrol station price), while for diesel fuel they are at 118%. In Germany, where you said you live, the current numbers are 185% tax for gasoline, 132% tax for diesel fuel.

You're buying diesel because it is cheaper (to fill the tank), not because it is more fuel efficient than gasoline. European car manufacturers together with legislators made the diesel more attractive through an idiotic tax system. This happened at the beginning of the 90s, when European manufacturers felt the pressure of Japanese manufacturers (that were not producing diesels at that time).

Auto diesels are NOT more fuel efficient than gasoline engines today. Be aware that efficiency comparisons among different fuels should look at the mass of the fuel burned, not volume (this is what efficiency is: how much mass of fuel was burned for the power output). When fuel consumption is converted into mass consumed it is obvious that given a fair comparison (same car, same power, same acceleration and max speed) diesel engines are not more efficient than gasoline engines. You can see that rather nicely in CO2 emissions:

2007 BMW 530i: 271.7 PS, 182 g/km
2004 BMW 535d: 271.7 PS, 211 g/km
2007 BMW 535d: 285.9 PS, 182 g/km

To summarize, you're not buying diesel because it has lower CO2 emissions or lower fuel consumption (it doesn't), but because you're buying the hype and your knowledge is so lacking that you're believing everything manufacturers/legislators are throwing at you. Symptomatic for this behaviour is the use as the (only) criteria for engine quality the power/displacement ratio (even worse, on a turbo engine, hah).

Dondonel

↓↑report