http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/06...chrysler-300c/

 

We have just got the diesel and touring RHD models in Australia this month.


www.chrysler.com.au

 

You can partially thank the good old wonderful EPA, because it seems they hate diesels, along side with corporations really not thinking the Americans want a diesel.
I remember emailing GM back around 2002, asking them why they did not have a diesel in their Suburbans. Their response was that they would have to raise the ride height by 2-3 inches, and they did not feel customers would like that. That was their excuse. (Don't mind the fact, the Suburban, I guess, basically shares the same frame as the Silverado, which *oh my gosh* has a diesel!!)
As far as Chrysler not offering diesels, well, it seems they are getting better. They did get the Liberty diesel, and was quite popular. I just read the Grand Cherokee will be getting a diesel, a 3.0L, with a gain of 3MPG city, 2MPG highway (over the 3.7L gas) and 5MPG city, and 3MPG highway (over the 5.7L, however, I doubt people are going to not buy a HEMI just to get a diesel). The source also said they will be dropping the diesel out of the Liberty in 2006, because it does not meet the new, stricter emissions that go into effect 2007 (thanks, Al Gore).
They also made the switch from the conventional Dodge Ram van gas powered to the Dodge Sprinter, diesel powered. The old Ram van got probably in the neighborhood of 15MPG. The Sprinter, 25-30MPG. My ex-boss (before I joined the Air Force) had a 2004 GMC Savanna work-van conversion, no matter his load, driving conditions, etc. he would get 13MPG. He's worried about the Sprinter not being able to haul as much (on the weekends, he usually puts a pallet of salt on board, which weighs about 2,300 lbs.; plus several hundred pounds of tools, etc), turns out, the Sprinter, depending on specifc options, is usually rated for more than the GMC (and thats before the differant, heavier box was put on the GMC). I've seen a lot of these Sprinters driving around, and every guy I talk to likes theirs.
Chrysler seems to be "leading the way," as far as bringing diesels to the American market, of course, there could always be more.

 

and alongside with shadowzform, a man of high respects worldwide in automaking industry, thinking that Americans do not want deisels. [8D]


That's why we are griping about gas prices here.. people too traditional (or maybe lazy) here to try to move to deisel or other alternative fuels. (many other reasons but ill leave it at that) People here are lacking enthusiasm for change. It's been a characteristic trait since the country started...lol

 

True... or is it? Personally, I feel part of the problem with peoples reluctance to call for more diesels, is because (1) misconceptions of diesels (arn't they all loud and smelly like those semis?), and (2) activist environmentalist wacko's claiming they are the spawn of the devil (simply because these same people can not do research).
Griping about gas prices - yes, us Americans are doing that. Unfortunatly, we do not realize that even at the $2.90-ish we are paying, we've got it good compared to what Europe has been paying for many, many years. Sure, people in Venezuela can buy gas for like 5 cents a gallon, but I doubt the average Venezuelan makes $45,000 a year, like we do here in America. People gripe about paying $60 to fill up, but go right out and make $400 a month car payment without giving a second thought, get a $2,500 a month mortgage without thinking twice, and the funny thing, a recent news report I read said its the people making around $50,000 a year that say gas prices are hurting them most.
But, none-the-less, it would not hurt American auto companies to expand their diesel selection. (Hell, what do GM and Ford have to loose anyways, just add a little more debt to their piles!)

 

Accually its the environmentalist wacko's who buy diesels, because they run bio desiel in it, it's very popular in that community, bigger the hybrids.

 

Their also the people that say we should all use public transportation, which, is nice in theory.
You do bring up a good point, 2coff. The problem is, I want diesels in the vehicles they don't want (trucks and SUVs). Even if they developed a diesel truck/SUV that cut emissions by 50%, and increased fuel economy another 20% over current diesels, they would still find something to bi#ch about ("well, it still doesn't get as good mileage as a car") Sure, they can shove a small diesel in a compact car and get 40MPG, or keep the same car as a gasser and get 30MPG (for example) but I want something I can fit in (I'm 6' 3", I drove a Honda Civic hatchback for about 5 months last year, and it just wan't right) and actually use (i.e. moving more than just my body).
They drive diesel powered cars (and small ones at that). The Ram 1500, Dakota, Durango, and all the cars (including full size, such as the 300 that was linked to) could use a diesel. It would be sweet, and something I would actually consider making a payment on.

 

I heard we were supposed to get this. I can't understand why this would not pass the tests when this same engine is supposed to pass the tests for the Grand Cherokee. Yes the EPA is partly to blame for the lack of diesels in the U.S. The 2.8L in the Liberty has been dropped as a result of these obsessive-complusive standards. Volkswagen had to drop their diesel line-up for 2007 because of these regulations. The EPA causes more damage than they prevent if you ask me. Fuel mileage continues to get worse in economy cars partically because of these regulations. Regulations make cars less fuel efficient.

In a few years, I believe diesels will skyrocket because Honda is going to bring them to the U.S. They are having trouble selling their hybrids. That is what they said in a USA Today article a month ago. Hybrids are a fad that is already starting to die out.

 

"Hybrids are a fad that is already starting to die out."
I believe it! I remember last year, I read that used Toyota Prius's were selling for more than new ones, simply because people wanted to get their hands on one (because of the big hype of higher gas prices.) However, I haven't heard too much about hybrids recently.
Personally, I would stay away from hybrids because of what I would call "future" costs. Ie. they are not a proven technology, and, in the auto industry, non-proven technologies tend to cost consumers a LOT of money when repairs are needed, and that never get publicised.

 

A friend of mine went to a Honda dealership and while he was about to buy a mid-optioned Accord, the salesman offered he a fully-loaded Hybrid Accord for a very small price (less than $1000) increase that had been sitting on their lot for a few months (it was supposed to be worth close to $30,000 new and my friend spent around $23,000). He turned it down because he knows the truth about Hybrids as well.

Your right about the unproven technology. The Prius has had problems with the gas engine refusing to restart due to the constant shutting off and restarting (a stupid idea from the beginning). Think about it, why do people not turn off and restart their engines, because it is hard on the starter and engine. The Prius is supposed to have something close to a 13.0 to 1 compression ratio on an all-aluminum engine. That is just asking for problems if you ask me. You have to replace the batteries after a while, and as we all know batteries can't hold their charge as well as they get older so that means lower mileage in down the road. I have already heard of them having problems with the CVTs in those (another bad idea). I have read that these Hybrid will electrify and shock you if try to escape after having a wreck.

Diesels are so much better. We should go with those instead.