• Dec 19th 2008 at 8:02PM
  • 27
The 2009 Green Car of the Year, the Jetta TDI, could also be named the 2009 North American Car of the Year. After winning the top honor in LA a month ago, the Jetta TDI joins the Ford Flex and the Hyundai Genesis as finalists for the NACOTY award that will be handed out at the start of the Detroit Auto Show next month. The diesel love extends to the North American Truck of the Year, where the finalists are: the Dodge Ram, the Ford F-150 and the Mercedes-Benz ML320 BlueTEC. While the 50 judges will be picking from a long list of characteristics (read 'em after the jump), you can choose your favorite for whatever reason you want. So:

What's your choice for 2009 Car of the Year?
Jetta TDI 712 (57.4%)
Ford Flex 105 (8.5%)
Hyundai Genesis 117 (9.4%)
None of those, thanks 306 (24.7%)

How 'bout for Truck of the Year?
Dodge Ram 112 (10.6%)
Ford F-150 258 (24.3%)
Mercedes-Benz ML320 BlueTEC 448 (42.3%)
Something else 242 (22.8%)


If you chose "none of the above," please let us know what your choice is in the comments.

[Source: NAIAS]

PRESS RELEASE:

Finalists Announced for 2009 North American Car and North American Truck of the Year Awards

Finalists for the 2009 North American Car and Truck of the Year Awards were announced today (Thursday, Dec. 18) at the Detroit Economic Club's annual auto show luncheon.

The finalists for the 2009 North American Car of the Year honors are the Ford Flex, Hyundai Genesis and Volkswagen Jetta TDI. Finalists for the 2009 North American Truck of the Year award are the Dodge Ram, Ford F-150 and the Mercedes-Benz ML320 BlueTEC.

Between now and the opening of NAIAS 2009, the 50 journalists who serve as jurors will vote again ranking the finalists. Winners will be announced at the show's first press conference on Sunday, Jan. 11.

Vehicles are honored for setting new standards and new benchmarks in their class. Top criteria in the competition are value for the dollar and affordability. Vehicles also are judged on general design, safety, fuel economy, handling and general roadworthiness, performance, comfort, assembly quality, functionality, technical innovation, driver satisfaction and price.

2009 North American Car of the Year Candidates
Audi A4

Jaguar XF

BMW 1 Series

Lincoln MKS

Cadillac CTS-V

Mazda6

Dodge Challenger

Nissan GT-R

Ford Flex

Pontiac G8

Honda Fit

Toyota Venza

Hyundai Genesis

Volkswagen Jetta TDI


North American Truck of the Year Candidates

BMW X6

Kia Borrego

Chevrolet Traverse

Mercedes-Benz ML320 BlueTec

Dodge Ram

Nissan Murano

Ford F-150

Subaru Forester

Honda Pilot

Volkswagen Tiguan

Infiniti FX35/50


* bold indicates finalists

NewsFlash and ShowTalk Go Digital
This year, the Auto Show's key industry publications are being designed and delivered in a digital format. This move reflects the Auto Show's commitment to deliver both event and industry-related news in a more timely and productive way. The new approach to NewsFlash and ShowTalk is part of a larger auto show communications' initiative that will be implemented beginning in 2009. Experience more at the new Auto Show web site, www.naias.com.

About the North American International Auto Show
Rod Alberts - Executive Director
Entering its 21st year as an international event, the NAIAS is among the most prestigious auto shows in the world, providing unparalleled access to the automotive products, people and ideas that matter most - up close and in one place. One of the largest media events in North America, the NAIAS is the only auto show in the United States to earn an annual distinguished sanction of the Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d'Automobiles, the Paris-based alliance of automotive trade associations and manufacturers from around the world. The NAIAS Web site can be accessed at www.naias.com.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 27 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      My car gets about 17/23 (Dad bought me a 6 cyl) I wanted a 4 cyl even when gas was $1.60 a gallon knowing it would cost more to run. If I can get 35 city in a diesel then the price of diesel is negated by the jump in mpg?

      I'd love to buy a Volt or a ER-EV but theyre currently vaporware. A TDI is the best technology currently in mass production.
        • 6 Years Ago
        you should change your name to monologue

        "Unlike you, I don't choose my vehicles specifically based on which one gets the best mileage or is the cheapest."

        um that is not what this thread is about. Personally i drive a 2002 WRX which i purchased for driving pleasure and cause its a great car. What started this discussion was the question in the first post.

        "If I can get 35 city in a diesel then the price of diesel is negated by the jump in mpg? "

        To which i replied that no the price is diesel far outstrips the benefits especially when considering the added vehicle purchase price. From your above duscussion (which kudos has a lot of good links and information)
        - The Jetta TDI averages 35-40 depending on who you talk to.
        - The prius averages 41-45 depending on who you talk to (fueleconomy.gov users average 45)
        - The Fit well you only quoted one source where it got 30mpg. The same source that only got 35mpg in the jetta TDI. If you take a look at fueleconomy.gov, manual drivers are getting 35mpg.

        Since this discussion is about whether it is cost effective to upgrade to a diesel, the answer is clearly and resoundingly no. A prius costs the same as a jetta TDI yet returns far better cost per mile. A fit costs $8-10k less than a jetta TDI and still costs less to operate per mile after factoring in the fuel price differences. Obviously that should not be your only criteria when purchasing a car but that is the discussion at hand.

        antonym said
        "I made the same comparisons as you did with the same vehicles and you claimed that it was "not a proper comparison"."

        Its not a good comparison. Comparing a 2.5L jetta 5cylinder gas mileage to a 2.0L 4cylinder diesel is not a good comparison to show the fuel savings obtained by going to diesel. The 5cylinder is a hog, and the diesel should be compared to a car in its class that gets good mileage like a civic, or a Prius. That comparison is not a very valid one because it takes the worst performing gas engine in its class and compares it to a diesel to derive the cost benefits of diesel. Why do you find that hard to comprehend.

        Anyway thanks for the above email because it really proved just how much better the cost per mile is with the Jetta TDIs competition. That said i would rather drive a jetta TDI than a prius but atleast i wouldnt fool myself into thinking im somehow saving money.

        • 6 Years Ago
        quote from BoneheadOtto: -
        "I love that everyone claims that diesel drivers should expect far better mileage than the EPA states. News flash this is the same for all cars if driven responsibly. Fit owners regularly claim mid 40s for a car only rated at 34mpg." -

        First off, I'm not disagreeing with you. A careful driver can achieve better mileage in most any car. I never once disputed that. The difference is that with a diesel driver will tend to achieve better mileage without changing their driving habits. Recall that the Jetta TDI Cup cars achieved 25mpg during race conditions. You can get better than the EPA figures without hypermiling it.

        Secondly, show me these claims of mid 40mpg mileage for a Honda Fit. From respectable sources as well, not one guy down the street who said it happened once and has a hand-written note to prove it.

        I'll gladly show you several instances of where TDI's regularly achieve better than the EPA figures.

        The fueleconomy.gov site shows that for the '09 TDI Jetta automatic, real-world drivers have an average of 40mpg. That's an average as well, not a hwy figure. Granted, that is only 15 drivers, but the car did just recently arrive here.

        For the manual, the average is also 40mpg, but from only 6 drivers.

        Motor Trend has added one to their long-term fleet and after 7000 miles they've averaged 34.9mpg. Not spectacular, but still beating the EPA combined figure considering that auto reviewers tend to be quite lead-footed.
        http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyear/112_0902_2009_volkswagen_jetta_tdi_arrival/index.html

        For comparison's sake, Motor Trend also had a Prius in their long-term fleet which averaged 41.6mpg over some 22K miles.
        http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyear/112_0601_2004_toyota_prius/gas_mileage.html Well below the 55mpg average that was shown on the Monroney sticker or even the 46mpg of the updated mileage stickers.

        Popular Mechanics managed 45.4mpg hwy in their test.
        http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4284188.html?page=2
        The same test where they managed 44.8mpg hwy from a Prius. So, the Jetta outperformed the EPA test(and by more than 5mpg as well), but the Prius performed virtually identical to the EPA figures. Not surprising. The '08 changes in the EPA figures were made precisely with hybrids in mind. They were so inaccurate before that they were updated and implemented across the board.

        However, for diesels particularly, the old ratings are closer to more accurate, at least more so than the outlandish 60mpg ratings for the Prius which virtually no one could achieve. Looking at the last Jetta TDI available here, in '06, the TDI was rated at 35/42 using the old rating method. Drivers on fueleconomy.gov are showing an average of 41.2mpg for that model, still over the old EPA figures, but much closer than the updated '08 method which puts that car at 30/38.

        Edmunds tested the '09 Jetta TDI and achieved 35.3mpg in their testing.
        http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=132146/pageNumber=3

        Edmunds also has an '09 Jetta TDI in their long-term fleet and is averaging 34.9mpg so far.
        http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyear/112_0902_2009_volkswagen_jetta_tdi_arrival/index.html

        Edmunds also tested an '09 Honda Fit and achieved 30mpg combined which is 1mpg over the EPA combined figure for the car. I'm thinking a 45mpg hwy average was not part of that.
        www.edmunds.com/new/2009/honda/fit/101061257/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=132028

        Additionally, Edmunds had an '04 Prius in their long-term fleet which managed 41.4mpg over 40K miles.
        http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=101393/pageNumber=8

        I'm noticing a trend here.

        I'm not even bothering with responding to the rest of your comment. Quite honestly, it made little sense. I made the same comparisons as you did with the same vehicles and you claimed that it was "not a proper comparison".

        Nonetheless, I'd much rather drive a TDI Jetta than a Civic on any stripe(except possibly the Si). Unlike you, I don't choose my vehi
        • 6 Years Ago
        Well, if diesel prices were 55% higher than gas, you're analysis would make a bit of sense. At least as much sense as it makes to buy a car based on a snapshot of fuel prices anyhow(that is to say, none).

        Looking at prices nationally, the only way that makes sense given the nature of this website, diesel is less than 45% more expensive than gasoline right now. Today's national average for regular gasoline is $1.65/gal. Diesel is currently at $2.37/gal. That's an actual difference of 43.6%.

        Let's do a little math to see what that difference means. Using the same EPA data you did for the Jetta, if the diesel Jetta needs to perform 44%(rounded up) better than the gas version that means it would need to achieve 30/45. Not too far off from the actual EPA figures. That's not even counting that the EPA figures for diesels are typically quite low. A TDI Jetta driver can likely expect closer to 50mpg hwy vs. the 40 that the EPA claims.

        During the high prices of the summer and before, diesel maintained about a 15% price difference with regular gasoline and I believe we'll get back to that level(if not even lower) in the coming months(think around spring).

        There are two main items which have created the price difference we are seeing currently. One is the rapid decrease in oil prices. That decrease(along with a similarly large decrease in miles driven by Americans) also lead to a rapid decrease in gasoline prices. Note that since oil prices have leveled-off(relatively speaking), so have gas prices.

        Since Dec. 8th, gas prices have dropped less than 5cents/gal nationally. On the other hand, diesel prices have continued to fall, dropping 15cents/gal over the same timeframe.

        There is a reason for this. The demand for diesel fuel has been kept high due to the increased demand for home heating oil(very similar products). Being winter and all, this is when the demand for home heating oil is highest. As the winter wears on and moves into spring, expect to see that demand decrease which will translate into lower prices for diesel.

        In other words, don't count on diesel prices 45-55% higher than gasoline to be the norm. It's no more normal than the financial malaise that the country(and World) finds itself in right now.


        Here is a link to back up my data: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
        • 6 Years Ago
        well a jetta diesel gets 30/41
        the non diesel that is a 5 cylinder gets 21/31
        with diesel costing 55% more, the diesel would have to get 33/48 to have the same fuel cost as the 5cylinder.
        Compare it to something like a civic that gets 25/36 and it makes even less sense. The jetta diesel would have to get 55mpg on the highway to match the civics $/mi gas cost at the current gas prices

        • 6 Years Ago
        here in Texas diesel is $0.90-$1 more per gallon than regular gas. Here it does average out to 55% more for diesel. During the height of the gas crisis this summer it still was averaging $1 more per gallon than regular. That equated to almost 25% higher pricing than regular gas. Less of a difference but still a difference.

        I love that everyone claims that diesel drivers should expect far better mileage than the EPA states. News flash this is the same for all cars if driven responsibly. Fit owners regularly claim mid 40s for a car only rated at 34mpg.

        Monotone said....
        "Using the same EPA data you did for the Jetta, if the diesel Jetta needs to perform 44%(rounded up) better than the gas version that means it would need to achieve 30/45. Not too far off from the actual EPA figures."

        well comparing an inefficient 5 cylinder jetta to a smaller displacement 4cylinder diesel is not the proper comparison. But even with that comparison the diesel looses. It still needs 10% better hwy mileage to match those numbers. And the diesel car cost more. Factor that 44% into a car like a civic (25/36) and the jetta diesel needs to get (36/52) to match the $/mi of a civic which costs thousands less to begin with.

        I do agree that diesels are great for decreasing oil consumption, and getting torque in an economy car. But they simply do not cost less to operate or purchase and they are inferior to hybrids. The only case where the diesel shines over the hybrid is in highway cruising. Most of us do little open road cruising compared to city driving.
      • 6 Years Ago
      None of the cars currently in production deserve an award. Not one of them is innovative enough to merit recognition. Any internal combustion engine vehicle qualifies for the car of the year award for 1899, not 2008. Sadly, there's nothing else in production.

      Not to worry, today's cars will be revealed for the pathetically primitive technology they are within 35 years. In fact, every single technology currently discussed on ABG will look as primitive as cave paintings in 35 years.

      I mean seriously, can we get past the war of the ancient technologies here? Electrochemical batteries were invented in the 18th century. Fuel cells were invented in the 1830s. Both spark- and compression-ignition ICEs were invented in the 1890s. I'm willing to bet that none of these technologies as they currently exist will be in use in 35 years. ICEs are inefficient. Batteries are heavy. PEM fuel cells have too many problems to list.

      As ABG readers argue about which century-old technology will take us into the future, scientists and engineers are working on new technologies that function at the nanoscale. These are the future. Not diesel. Not Li-Ion batteries. Not PEM fuel cells. Certainly not gasoline.

      To those who might argue that these future technologies are too far away to be of any use: you do realize that global warming is going to happen, right? There's no way people are going to stop burning fossil fuels in time to stop it. But nanotechnology will enable us to capture carbon in large quantities for use as a building material (in fact, we'll need that carbon--steel is soft at the nanoscale, so we'll need diamond or at least graphite). Global warming can and will be stopped, if indeed it is caused by humans burning stuff. And in the future, we'll be able to use fossil fuels for energy and materials without releasing any CO2 or other pollutants.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I just paid $2.19/gallon for diesel two days ago, and guess what the price was for premium gasoline at the same station? $2.19/gallon. Clean-burning diesel engines are pure genius, too bad only German manufacturers realize it.
      • 6 Years Ago
      BoneHeadOttos' argument makes no sense.

      All automakers must design emission systems that prove to meet standards up to at least 150K miles. Diesel designers must do the same thing. This is why many of them are just coming to market.

      Why would anyone assume that the system designed for diesels would fail any sooner than those for gas cars, and yes, gas cars will pollute just as bad without their systems working. Maybe not with respect to PM, but they emit huge amounts of CO (a poisonous gas) and hydrocarbons, two areas in which diesels fair better.

      Diesels are less compicated, in many respects, than even naturally-aspired gas engines, even with advanced fuel delivery systems. There are no oxygen sensors; no spark plugs or wires; and no distributors.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Diesel COTY? Hell, yes!

      Where's the electric cars? Oh yeah, I forgot. They are over-priced, not-ready-for-primetime vaporware!
      • 6 Years Ago
      Hey, this new TDI is amazing. Just think about it. If we are even comparing the pollution scores of a new diesel in the U.S. to a Civic gasser, in a country where regulators have designed a system to favor gasoline-powered cars, then we are writing about a technology that has done amazing things in a short amount of time. If one doesn't believe our system is biased, all one has to do is think about how a 12-cylinder Bentley or 10-cylinder Viper could ever be allowed on our roads, while, at the same time, a 1.4-liter, 3 cylinder, diesel that scores better in every respect except for NOx cannot.

      I have a 2006 Jetta TDI. I get 46 mpg, 80% hwy, driving conservatively. I get this great fuel economy even running 20% biodiesel (can't say that for ethanol-capable vehicles). But my vehicle could not even be produced in the U.S. after Dec. '06 due to pollution scores. We can't blame VW, because the EPA lagged with respect to mandating cleaner fuels years after the rest of the world had gone cleaner.

      But this new 2009 TDI will get the same fuel economy as my weaker, dirtier vehicle; it has 40 more horsepower and 59 more lbs of torque; it is 95% cleaner burning than the cleanest diesel produced just two years before; it scores better than many comparable gassers with respect to many pollutants, and even better when blends of biodiesel are used. It falls short only with respect to NOx. Look what is accomplished with respect to NOx. The EPA demanded that diesels go from 1 gram per mile to .07 gram per mile with respect to NOx (fleet average) in just two years (even sooner for CA, ME, VT, MA, and NY). The fuel to make this possible was not even available till Oct. 2006. Gas-power technologies have never had to go so far, so quickly.

      Moreover, look what diesel designers have done with respect to PM. They've gone to polluting 100s of times more PM than gas cars, to virtually eliminating PM. Mercedes-Benz and VW were able to accomplish this immediately after the cleaner fuel came to market.

      VW has gone from a very efficient, 1.9-liter to a much more refined, higher-performing, vastly cleaner-burning, and just-as-efficient 2.0 in a very short amount of time.

      Comparing current fuel prices is a stupid argument. Two summers ago I paid $.30 less per gallon than folks did for regular unleaded. This went on for months. Just because diesel is $.80 higher now, is no reason to assume this is a constant. Most people will own their vehicles longer than three months.

      Diesel technologies for the American, light-duty market could save us 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, roughly what we import from Saudi Arabia, with only a 1/3 market penetration. There are diesel cars in Europe about the same size and power as a Honda Fit that get almost 70 mpg (i.e. VW Polo BlueMotion). And biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine without modification; has a much lower carbon footprint than any other viable alternative fuel; and biodiesel will not significantly lower fuel economy, unlike ethanol-capable vehicles.

      Clean, as it refers to cars, is a relative term. Every diesel doesn't have to beat out every hybrid, in every category, to be considered a viable alternative for the American public. If a diesel driver uses one-fourth less petroleum to drive, even less with biodiesel blends; meets the same pollution standards as gas-powered drivers; and can do all of this with absolutely no sacrifices, then how can one knock a technology that is--at least--newer than spark-ignition technologies.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Diesel ?
      Are you kidding ?
      Are you once again going to cling to a "sinking ship" technology ?
      Still trying to have that obsolete, stuffy, ineffective and environmentally insecure COMBUSTION principle operational ?

      WE HAVE TO STOP BURNING THINGS , to get power !!!

      ( It's so stupid you're dumbfounded when you THINK about it )

      Our worlds environment is vastly more precious than any capitalistic exploitation desire ...
        • 6 Years Ago
        Yes trouble ; one trouble is that many have trouble seeing the imminent consequences of fossil fuel burning .

        ( Apart from the horribly lousy efficiency of ICEs )

        Cars as we've grown used to know them , really ought to be replaced by completely new new concepts of travel and transportation.

        TECHNOLOGY
        could easily combine
        the convenience of automation with
        the efficiency of 'on-demand' matching ,

        but

        GREED & CAPITALISM
        will never take any responsibility whatsoever, unless forced by laws and threats of summons or instant disaster (climate collapse).
        This is an additional trouble.

        One of the most disturbing troubles is that
        a whole generation is so deeply rooted in the system of 'automobiles', that the ability to imagine better system(s) is crippled.

        As long as we let money alone steer our society we're really heading for trouble.




        • 6 Years Ago
        Yes diesel! I have trouble understanding how a car that averages 50 mpg is sinking ship technology. Perhaps the (not so) big three will see they can sell diesels in America too! I would love an EV, but I have yet to see one!!
        • 6 Years Ago
        Diesel has a lot of advantages. More torque, good highway mileage. BUT and this is a big BUT it has a lot of disadvantages. Here in the US low grade is $1.60 and diesel is $2.50. So you have to get 50% + more mileage on the highway to break even on gas. Not to mention the extra vehicle cost associated with diesel.
        Then there is the fact the diesel pollutes more. So in the US where we have expensive diesel and higher emission standards, a diesel should NEVER be crowned the green car of the year. They just pollute too much and offer little cost savings, and only benefit those that primarily drive at hiqhway speeds (which is mostly rural drivers. City drivers still benefit way more from hybrids).
      • 6 Years Ago
      Diesel should never be green COTY. Good car yes. Environmentally and wallet friendly NO.

      With gas currently costing 55% more than regular and 35% more than premium It makes way more sense to buy a gas burning car for less. You will pollute less smog creating particulates.

      The jetta GLI gets 31 on the hwy, but the diesel gets 41. But since diesel costs so much more they both equate to the same fuel costs. Compare a diesel Jetta to a fit and diesel looks even worse. I like the drive of diesel but its not a wallet or eco friendly choice. Buy it cause you like it but dont fool yourself.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Once again reading comprehension fails you.

        You are equating the Air Pollution score with the Tiers and Bins of the EPA standards. Even then, you are misreading something.

        A Civic Hybrid and Jetta TDI are not in the same Bin. That was your original claim. Here's the quote from you,

        - "These cars are in the same bin but pollute different amounts." -

        and a second quote in case your ignorance to what I am saying wasn't clear enough,

        - "They must meet the same standard for polution but that does not mean they pollute equally. And yes their particulate limits are the same for the tiers and bins they are in" -

        You got one part correct there, the particulate limits are the same for the Tiers and Bins they are in. That's it though. The reason they pollute differently is because they fit into different emissions standard categories.

        Once again, the Civic Hybrid is a Tier2Bin2 car and that's the only reason it recieves a 9/10. The Jetta TDI is a Tier2Bin5 car and thats the only reason it achieves a 6/10. The 1-10 rankings are based solely on what Tier and Bin the car falls into. Find another T2B5 car and it will have the same 6/10 rating as the Jetta TDI. Same for the Civic Hybrid, find another T2B2 car and it also will have a 9/10 rating as well.

        Look at this link once more and look at the far right column under Tier 2 Program. It's right there on the 1st page, you can't miss it.
        http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf

        But, your original point was only regarding Particulates which I've refuted twice now. It seems that since your assumption was proven to be incorrect, you've now widened it to air pollution in general. In that sense you are right, the Civic Hybrid has higher (total)emissions than a Jetta TDI. I admit that, never said it wasn't true. But, you are completely ignoring the reason why which I've pointed out to you twice now and you still don't get it.
        • 6 Years Ago
        "But, to refute the original point you made, if two vehicles are in the same Bin, they will ahve the exact same pollution limits. Not to say that their emissions will be exactly the same, but they will not exceed those limits."

        How is that refuting what i said. That is exactly what i said in my previous post. They must meet the same standard for polution but that does not mean they pollute equally. And yes their particulate limits are the same for the tiers and bins they are in but that also does not mean the pollute the same amount. The jetta is has a poorer air polution score in comparison to other similar cars like the civic i mentioned. And this is coming from fueleconomy.gov. The jetta gets 6/10 and the prius and civic hybrids get 8-9.5/10 for their air polution score.

        According to this site the Jetta absolutely produces more smog creating emissions. and i quote from the site explaining their air polution score

        "The Air Pollution score represents the amount of health-damaging and smog-forming airborne pollutants the vehicle emits. Scoring ranges from 0 (worst) to 10 (best). This score does not include emissions of greenhouse gases (see the Climate Change rating). "

        So according to the EPA the jetta does pollute more. Diesels rate worse than hybrids and worse than almost all gas burning cars in the same class. And smog pollutants are absolutely worse with diesels because their air pollution scores are lower.
        • 6 Years Ago
        You obviously failed to read through the link I gave you.

        For one, I was referring to the particulate emissions which you mentioned in your first comment. In that case, the Civic Hybrid and Jetta TDI have the exact same limit on Particulate Matter(PM).

        Also, a Civic Hybrid and a VW Jetta TDI are not in the same Bin either. The score you mentioned signifies that the Civic Hybrid is a T2B2 vehicle, the VW Jetta TDI is a T2B5 car. Check the link I gave you and you'll see on the right side of the page where those scores come from. Nonetheless, the PM limits for both Bins is the same and that was what you mentioned in your first comment. But, to refute the original point you made, if two vehicles are in the same Bin, they will ahve the exact same pollution limits. Not to say that their emissions will be exactly the same, but they will not exceed those limits.

        Read up a little on the subject and we might have a conversation which gets us somewhere.
        • 6 Years Ago
        @montoym
        Obviously if a car is to be sold in teh US it must meet emissions standards. That does not mean all cars within a bin pollute alike. Go to fueleconomy.gov to see that jetta diesel only gets a 6/10 score for air polution. A civic hybrid gets a 9/10 score. These cars are in the same bin but pollute different amounts. So when it comes to crowning a green car of the year. Why would you consider diesel which pollutes more than other cars.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Well, based on the actual certified emissions data (available at http://www.epa.gov/oms/crttst.htm (EPA) and http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2009/2009.php (CARB)), the '09 Jetta TDI has as low or lower overall emissions than either of the two gas competitors other that possibly NOx.

        The Jetta TDI also does not have the evaporative emissions of the gassers. HC is the pollutant responsible for urban smog, not NOx.

        So, I don't agree that "diesels pollute more". These new "clean diesels" pollute less, if anything, regardless of the "green score" they're assigned.
        • 6 Years Ago
        wow you are missing the point entirely and getting hung up with one part of my point. I agree and have agreed with you captain reading comprehension (whom needs improvement) that the particulate matter is the same for the tiers and bins that these cars are in. However not all cars in the same tier or bin (or to clarify for monobrow, with the same particulate limit in their tier or bin) emit the same amount of pollutants. The fact is that the jetta pollutes more. This is verified by the fact that it gets a lower rating from fueleleconomy.gov. Yes the 10 point scale doesnt give you particulate numbers but if they get a lower scale for "the amount of health-damaging and smog-forming airborne pollutants the vehicle emits" then the car obviously puts out more particulates.

        Monotone, the point is that the jetta pollutes more than other cars in its class. The other cars in its class may be in different tiers and bins but what does that matter. The Jetta pollutes more.

        So to get back to my original point for Mr Monocell here
        "Diesel should never be green COTY"
        diesel pollutes more. That is the discussion here and monotrack has not refuted this twice. He is just hung up on particulate matter, but has no data other than the bin limits. He has not proven that the jetta actually produces the same particulates as the civic. The only evidence we have is its 6/10 rating.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Particulate Matter(PM) is a non-issue with modern 50 state legal diesels. You must not have received the memo.

        http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf

        T2B5 standards(for both gas and diesel, mind you) limit PM to 0.01g/mi. This is the same as Tier2 Bins 2-6 which covers virtually all passenger vehicles sold in the US currently. Bin 1 is reserved for vehicles which emit no pollution(ZEV in CARB-speak) and thus drops the PM limit to 0.00g/mi.

        As far as the price differences between gas and diesel, see my post below.
      Roland
      • 6 Years Ago
      It bothers me to hear all those naysayers on diesel every time this alt fuel is proven/shown to be superior to gasoline.
      Gassers always scream "smelly, dirty, ancient techonology, slow, heavy, expensive" and gassers are holding out for EV's.
      Well EV's are like previously stated are vaporware and EVs like the Volt when they are out are starting in the $40k range. Umm --TDI Jetta is $23k. Can't see where "diesel costs more" happens here--
      Modern tier/bin EPA requirements put diesels in USA as clean as gassers!!
      If everyone drove a clean diesel car or light truck today OPEC would be out of business as we would cut our oil use by 30 to 40%.
      So I will drive my diesel cars and hold out for Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles by 2015 as diesel engine longivity is another advantage!
      BTW -- keep looking at that crack spread of RUG vs diesel. By mid 2009 I predict diesel to be cheaper due to changes in technologies and the opening of new diesel refineries worldwide.


        • 6 Years Ago
        @Roland
        @ BoneheadOtto:

        The 2.0L VW TDI does not have a urea injection system. It does not require one to meet the 50-state emissions standards. Smaller diesel engines can do without them. I didn't expect you to know that though since you seem quite ignorant of diesels on other fronts as well.

        Not to mention that many of the same technologies, DI, Turbos, etc are also becoming more commonplace on gas engines. It's not as though gas engines are getting less complicated while diesels are getting more complicated.

        Plus, if they will wear out on a diesel, I guess they will also wear out on a gas engine right? So, what point were you trying to make?
        • 6 Years Ago
        @Roland
        I am with you Roland.

        People have to look at the overall cost of producing a vehicle, not just real time operating costs.

        If my clean diesel lasts twice as long as your gas burning Civic and I am able to burn biodiesel, then which car is better for the environment?
        • 6 Years Ago
        @Roland
        @ Pablo
        the eurethra injection system on your diesel will go out in that lifetime and chances are you will be driving a smoking poluting diesel around thinking you are somehow doing something good for the environment. Plus with cars lasting 10-15 years anyway, why do you think that somehow you will keep your diesel longer. I keep hearing this story about how diesels lost longer but diesels now employ entirely new technology such as common rail injection, DI, turbos, fancy particulate catalytic converters. They are notably more complicated than gas engines and honestly no one knows how well this new technology will hold up. Plus in 10-15 years you will do more good for the environment by ditching your diesel and purchasing a plugin hybrid. they will be plentiful by then.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X