A Chrysler 300 that can already acheive CAFE 2020 35 MPG standards

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/07/20/in-the-autobloggreen-garage-diesels-you-cant-have-chrysler-300/

The 3.0L common rail direct injection diesel is available in a wide variety of Mercedes models in Europe and is coming to the US market in the E, ML and GL class vehicles as well as the Jeep Grand Cherokee which recently went on sale. In the 300 it is rated at 215hp and 376lb-ft of torque almost matching the larger thirstier 5.7L Hemi. The best part is the fuel economy of 26.2/42.8 mpg city/highway. That's something no Hemi can match unless the engine is off and the car is rolling downhill in neutral.

The elephant in the room is who will buy one/will enough buy one to make it worthwile to offer it?

Acceptance...real, significant acceptance of diesel cars in the U.S. can happen but I suspect it will not be an easy or quick transition.

^They're gonna have to given the rising cost of gasoline. American's have been spoiled with cheap gas. European's haven't had that luxury, and have learned to embrace diesel.

I like it.

The elephant in the room is who will buy one/will enough buy one to make it worthwile to offer it?


And then I look at the 700,000 or so diesel pickups that are purchased every year - at a cost penalty of $7,000 or so - and I think "why don't any of those manufacturers see a real demand for a diesel car"?

The manufacturer that can bring an affordable modern diesel to the passenger car market will do just fine, I believe. We'll see what happens with Honda's attempt at doing so.

And then I look at the 700,000 or so diesel pickups that are purchased every year - at a cost penalty of $7,000 or so - and I think "why don't any of those manufacturers see a real demand for a diesel car"?

The manufacturer that can bring an affordable modern diesel to the passenger car market will do just fine, I believe. We'll see what happens with Honda's attempt at doing so.
Nissan will have one; so will most manuracturers. Convincing people to buy them has everyone scratching their heads right now.

Buying a diesel pick-up is far different, mentally speaking, than buying a diesel car; that will be especially true of anyone who remembers the POS diesels the GM tried to sell in the late 70's/80's.

Diesels "should" be where a good segment of the market goes but people "think" they know about diesel cars - replacing what they think with reality is going to be the trick!

I think switching to diesel is inevitable, and will probally become the fuel of choice within 10 years.

The big issue with the new CAFE standards isn't that cars will have problems making the numbers. It's that light trucks and SUVs are added into the numbers.

Small cheap cars aren't going to have the pricing room for diesels. Hybrids, while a feel-good powerplant, doesn't do much for profitability for both the automaker as well the buyer who isn't likely to recoup the extra cost through fuel savings. Diesels, on the other hand, seem to be a natural for large cars and light trucks. The pricing is high enough to adsorb more of the cost, and the fuel savings will more than make up for the higher price (which I suspect is far cheaper than a Hybrid system). With more routine transportation, the high price of gasoline will drive more people into smaller cars.

I don't buy into the doom-and-gloom that many here have over the new CAFE standards. A good portion of the standards is going to be done by the marketplace as gas crosses $4 then $5 per gallon. Unlike the 70s, cars today already have more than enough power to be tuned for better fuel economy, and have crept up in weight where there's again room for weight loss. Unlike the 70s, cars are so clean today that there isn't a single peep about new emission standards even from treehuggers.

Finally, car makers have 13 years to do a 30% improvement in fuel economy instead of 9 years to do 100%. Again, this time, the marketplace seems likely to do a large portion of the work, and the technology needed is already here, and has been for some time. Clean running diesel engines.

The diesel may get good mileage, and if it is financially viable for Chrysler, it may be a good idea. However, the article seems to be trying to hint it will be the equal of a Hemi powered vehicle in at least acceleration, simply by their comparison of torque numbers on both engines. I am not trying to piss on the diesel lovers parade, but 215hp is not going to be blowing any minds, especially in a car as heavy as the 300.

Even with the latest urea injection, NOx adsorber, regenerating particulate trap, etc., $5000 exhaust systems, I don't believe the diesels will meet the average California emission requirements.

For those who don't know, California has multiple certification levels, but the manufacturers have to meet a fleet average based on the HC emissions of the certification levels.

For example, if the LEV2 certification level for HC is .075g/mile and the ULEV2 is .04g/mile (offhand, I'm not sure those are correct), then an LEV2 vehicle is counted as .075 and a ULEV2 is .04. If the fleet average is .058, then you have to sell one ULEV2 for every LEV2 vehicle.

So diesels may help CO2, but they could never be more than a fraction of the fleet.

I'd be interested to know if anyone knows of any diesels that will have ULEV2 or SULEV2 certifications.


Btw, the Federal standards have a similar fleet average provision, but the details are quite a bit different.

If the government is trying to promote an improvement in fuel economy then why are SUVs exempt from the gas guzzler tax and diesels are taxed $7,000?

Diesel has been as up to 65 cents more than regular gasoline around here, so no way in hell will anyone buy that.

^That I don't get aren't they both to be about the same cost to produce?

^That I don't get aren't they both to be about the same cost to produce?diesel is cheaper to make.

Diesel has been as up to 65 cents more than regular gasoline around here, so no way in hell will anyone buy that.


I don't get that either. In Tampa, diesel is the same or slightly higher than 93 octane. And I thought diesel is a far less refined and cheaper fuel than gasoline. Plus it's a pain in the ass to find.

diesel is cheaper to make.

:think: gasoline subsidizes diesel fuel, it might be easier to make ( I guess, but making low sulfur diesel certainly adds to the cost) and its in an area thats in more demand for other uses and that drives the price up again.

93Phoenix-diesel trucks arent taxed $7000, they cost $7-8000 above a gas engine, which Robert was referring to as a cost penalty. I'm on my 7th diesel pickup, and high diesel prices are killing my profits. I haul collectable vehicles nationwide. Diesel used to be 20 cents/gallon below unleaded, and now its 30-50 cents/gallon more than unleaded.

^That I don't get aren't they both to be about the same cost to produce?

The mandate to remove sulphur added to the cost of diesel, the usage of diesel continues to increase as we ship more freight via truck, and it competes with jet fuel and home heating fuel at the heavier end of the refining range. All of these things start to add up.

Diesel fuel is closer to crude oil than gasoline, so it doesnt require as much refining. However, as demand for diesel fuel grows on this planet and the supply remains constant, the laws of supply and demand raise the price.