• May 7, 2009
Modern compact SUVs don't need to drink fuel at quite the rate of their larger, more easily spotted cousins (HUMMER, Range Rover, we're looking at you). Over in Europe, drivers have opened their arms to compact SUVs as an alternative to sedans and mini vans. Current offerings share car platforms and can be found with the decent-mileage diesel engines. How frugal are these mid-size SUVs, really? Follow us after the jump and you will see the 20 most economical compact SUVs available in Germany (check out last year's CO2-based list here).


[Source: Auto News]

Model Engine size (cm3) Power Fuel consumption (l/100km) Mileage (mpg U. S.)
Suzuki Grand Vitara 1.9 DDiS Club 5-door DPF 1,870 129 7.0 33.6
Renault Koleos 2.0 dCi FAP Expression 4x2 1,995 150 7.0 33.6
KIA Sportage 2.0 CRDi LX 2WD DPF 1,991 150 7.0 33.6
Hyundai Santa Fe 2.2 CRDi GLS 2WD 5-door DPF 2,188 155 7.0 33.6
Hyundai Tucson 2.0 CRDi VGT GLS 2WD DPF 1,991 140 7.0 33.6
Mercedes GLK 220 CDI BlueEfficiency 4Matic 7G-Tronic 2,143 170 6.9 34.0
Nissan Qashqai+2 2.0 dCi DPF acenta 2WD 1,994 150 6.7 35.1
Mitsubishi Outlander 2.0 DI-D Inform DPF 1,968 140 6.7 35.1
Land Rover Freelander Td4_e E DPF 2,179 152 6.7 35.1
Audi Q5 2.0 TDI quattro DPF 1,968 170 6.7 35.1
Toyota RAV4 2.2 D-4D 4x4 DPF 2,231 136 6.6 35.6
Jeep Compass 2.0 CRD Sport 1,968 140 6.5 36.2
Honda CR-V 2.2 i-CTDi Style DPF 2,204 140 6.5 36.2
BMW X3 xDrive20d DPF 1,995 177 6.5 36.2
Subaru Forester 2.0D Active DPF 1,998 147 6.3 37.3
Suzuki Jimny 1.5 DDiS Club 1,461 86 6.1 38.6
Ford Kuga 2.0 TDCi Trend 2x4 DPF 1,997 136 6.1 38.6
VW Tiguan 2.0 TDI Trend & Fun DPF 1,968 140 5.9 39.9
Nissan Qashqai 1.5 dCi visia 4x2 1,461 106 5.2 45.2
Toyota Urban Cruiser 1.4 D-4D Trek 4x4 DPF 1,364 90 4.9 48.0



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
  • 10 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      You know I really don't get the "Pro Pollution", I should be free to pollute the air, mouth breathers.

      It isn't some kind of conspiracy. No one is trying to keep these cars out, we have clean air standards and they don't meet it. It is a technical issue. VW has managed to clean up their cars.

      Think back 5 or 10 years ago when you could sell a dirty diesel. Where any of these players here??? No because they understand the maket just isn't here. What conspiracy was keeping them out then?


        • 5 Years Ago
        Maybe not so much a conspiracy as such, more like a misguided approach by U.S. regulators to craft LDV emission regulations that favor gas engine emission profiles. There's nothing "magical" about the Tier 2 or LEV 2 emission regulations from an air quality perspective.

        Diesel engine emission profiles typically are considerably different than gas engine emission profiles. Diesels tend to have higher NOx and PM emissions, but lower HC and CO emissions (these are the 4 main "criteria" emissions that are currently regulated). Even the older "high polluting" diesels generally had lower emissions of CO and HC (why is no one ever concerned with higher CO and HC emissions?).

        EPA and CARB have decided to hit NOX and PM emissions harder than CO or HC in the latest emission regs (Tier 2/Lev 2), in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that reducing NOx relatively more than HC (and to some extent CO - CO has the same ozone production pathway as HC) in metropolitan areas will not only not provide any benefit in ozone ("smog") reduction, it has the potential to make it worse. This is often referred to as the "NOx disbenefit", something that even EPA acknowledges occurs.

        There is no such thing as a "VOC-disbenefit" in which lower ambient VOC (HC) levels potentially will increase ambient ozone levels, and virtually all non-attainment with the ozone NAAQS occurs in metropolitan areas (and thus most exposures to unacceptably high ambeint ozone levels). Why the regulators chose to focus on NOx is beyond perplexing.

        Even though engineers have been able to "force fit" diesel emissions into being able to meet the made-for-gas Tier 2/LEV 2 emission regs, it increases cost and reduces efficiency for little or no air quality benefit.
      harlanx6
      • 5 Years Ago
      The lobbyists are making sure we don't ever get most of these in the US. The left wingers will tell you it's because they can't meet US standards and are too dirty. I am not buying it for a minute. The only possible answer is there are powerful special interests who don't want us to use less imported oil, and they are walking in lock step with the brainwashed left.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @harlanx6
        Yeah, "powerful special interests". These are exactly three: ignorance, stupidity, narrow-mindedness. I can understand the American fear of NOx and the resulting emission regulations, but I cannot understand that many politicians are unable to differentiate between a vehicle used for commuting outside urban molochs (where diesels can significantly help reducing greenhouse gases) and vehicles used in stop and go traffic (where hybrids are clearly the best choise). The tax system in many European states creates an incentive in this direction, unfortunately not strong enough.

        Taxes are another point: They are just necessary to keep a state running. So it makes sense to use them as a regulatory instrument. So why not cut down taxes on income and raise taxes on fuel instead. People reducing their consumption will have an incentive.

        You might argue that taxes should be used for certain purposes and not to steer consumption. So taxes on gas might only be used to cover the costs of motoring? Right, but the costs of motoring also include the costs of the Iraq war that was at least partly started for access to oil (no WMD!). If you try to raise the tax on gas to partly pay for the war you might end up at $10+ gallon.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @harlanx6
        This list is very misleading, as usually when someone at Autobloggreen post diesel propaganda and advertisement article.

        It's missing one contender:


        Lexus RX450H.....3500cc....300HP.....6.4 l/100km...36 mpg U.S


        Source: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/fahrberichte/lexus-rx-450h-im-fahrbericht-neues-crossover-modell-mit-hybrid-antrieb-1248836.html
        Fuel economy calculated from RX450h 148 gCO2/km emission quoted in the article.

        That's apparently the result of European fuel economy certification, the same all the diesel small SUVs have been subjected to.

        Only the Lexus RX450h is a large SUV (by European standards) and has 300HP, not some slacky 140HP as compact diesel SUVs getting comparable fuel economy.

        Just to give you some perspective:

        BMW X3 xDrive20d DPF........1995cc...177HP.....6.5 l/100km....36.2 mpg U.S
        Lexus RX450H.......................3500cc...300HP.....6.4 l/100km... 36 mpg U.S
        Subaru Forester 2.0D DPF...1998cc...147HP.....6.3 l/100km....37.3 mpg U.S

        Both the X3 and the Forester are also nearly one class smaller.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @harlanx6
        Left wing, right wing, bullsh*t.

        YOUR too brainwashed to realize that "they" use that to divide us and keep us infighting instead of fighting them for more rights and other benefits.

        You think it's a coincidence that Shia fight Sunni, Hamas fights Fatah, Tutsis fight Hutus, and in the recent past in the US Whites fight blacks? It's to cement the establishment's power and to distract people from the real issues.

        Also, you act like it's the lefts fault that we can't get these cars in NA, but last I checked the rich oil men don't vote democrat.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Sorry,but i had to laugh at those numbers for Lexus.
      In REAL life,this car takes more, esspecially once you eat up its batteries(like on long journey). With diesels I often found that they use less than its said.
      I do not care to have 300hp as I could NEVER use them, but nice strong torque,almost all the time. And that's the biggest different between petrol-diesels.
      You simply get more torque - easier acceleration of the care and as a result less consumption.
      And no,I am not diesel fan. I drive petrol sport coupé and like speed, but do often rent diesels SUVs and they are just great.
      So yes diesels are good and who ever is not really sure,please go and try (if you can). Dont trust numbers,trust yourself.
      • 5 Years Ago
      The FIATs are missing - if you consider the Panda 4x4 a SUV (just having seen it in Jeep disguise, I assumed this would fit). As a Panda 4x4 1.3 Multijet 16V (1248cc, 70hp) it gets around 44.4mpg (5.3l/100km).
      They even go as far as selling the Sedici, a badge engineered Suzuki SX4, as an SUV.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I find it comical that they list the Scion xD as an SUV/CUV in Europe.
      • 5 Years Ago
      BTW: The Volvo XC60 is missing. It now reaches 5.9l/100km or 39.9mpg...