Maybe the new owners at Chrysler will come to the realization that diesel represents the only viable future for trucks and SUV's in an era of ever-escalating fuel prices. Of course, it would help if our dear ol' EPA would come to that realization, too, and modify its emission requirements to recognize that reduction of CO2 emissions (that diesels offer) might just be a little more important than the currently over-restrictive controls on NOx. Now that I've vented about that--herewith my suggestions to Jeep for some CRD's that they should build--and now!

Jeep Wrangler Rubicon CRD--The VM 2.8 would be a perfect engine for the Wrangler Rubicon. Economy and low-end torque--matched to the Rubi's 4:1 transfer case--would make it the perfect off-road animal. They'd probably have trouble giving away the 3.8 in the Rubi if they did this.

Jeep JT Rubicon CRD--The JT has been featured in some the off-roading magazines. It's a pickup version of the Wrangler, built on a Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon chassis. It harkens back to the Jeep CJ-6 of yore that could be had in a "pickup" version and to the Jeep Scramber of the early '80's. The "show" version has the 3.8. Jeep should (1) build this vehicle for U.S. sale, and (2) put the 2.8 engine as standard. I bet they'd sell tons of 'em, both in the U.S. and worldwide.

Jeep Liberty Rubicon CRD--OK, a new Liberty is in the works. For God's sake, offer it with the 2.8 CRD option. While you're at it, build a Rubicon version--with a SOLID front axle (maybe use the Wrangler Rubicon chassis as template?). Put tall enough tires on it and adequate skid plates to make it really "Trail Rated." Oh yeah, use the 4:1 RockTrac transfer case. You might just get some of us current Libby CRD owners that are a little bummed about its backcountry prowess to spring for a new one.

Jeep should figure out that cute-utes are not their salvation. As fuel becomes more and more expensive, the truck/SUV market is going to retrench considerably--back to those who actually buy these vehicles for their intended purposes for backcountry use. The cute-utes won't cut it for those customers. It's kind of amazing--with all of the variety of 4WD's on the market today, there is actually a SMALLER selection of vehicles that are truly backcountry trail capable than there was, say, 40 years ago. And, back in 1960 you could actually buy a Jeep with a diesel engine. As of today (unless Jeep actually is building the CRD in the Grand Cherokee, which I haven't seen as of yet), they don't. Silly . . .

Personally, I think the emissions issue is a bit of a red herring. If Mercedes and Volkswagen can meet the new emissions standards, others can as well. From what I have read, Honda's European diesels meet the new specs already... Honda just does not want to the hassle of setting up new infrastructure to support diesel products in the US (training tecs, supplying parts, etc...) Heck, apparently VM has no problem either (given that they are building the new V6 diesel for Cadillac).

I don't think Chrysler was ever serious about mass marketing diesel engines in small SUV's. Like General Motors and the infamous EV1, the Jeep Liberty CRD was intended to be a PR move in the US. Lots of people complaining about high gas prices, global warming, foriegn oil dependence. Other US automakers were taking baby steps towards hybrids. Toyota and Honda already leading the way. Chrysler had to do something, so they offered the CRD for sale (in very limited numbers) in the US, and hyped the heck out of it.

Sales exceeded their expectations, but that did not matter. They had no interest in upgrading the VM engine to meet the new specs, or sourcing a new engine, because they never intended to mass market it anyway. The retirement of the US spec CRD was likely planned before the first one ever showed up at a dealership.

Same with the Grand Cherokee CRD (which does meet US clean air specs)--they never intended to mass market them.

I've only had my Liberty CRD for a few months now, but I am loving it. It fits what I need perfectly... a small SUV with good towing ability, decent off-road ability, and good gas mileage (plus the ability to run bio-diesel). I dont see anything else on the market that I'd swap it out for, and the only potential vehicles I would consider would be something like a Wrangler Unlimited with a small diesel (and good MPG, not Grand Cherokee CRD MPG), or if Toyota were to begin offering a diesel drivetrain in the Tacoma's (like they offer in their small trucks everywhere else in the world).

Not quite accurate - it meets Euro IV/V emissions specs, which are less stringent than US EPA requirements. Honda has issued press statements which say the same 2.2 diesel in Europe will not meet US EPA regulations and they are working on downstream emissions equipment (reportedly plasma treatment rather than SCR) to meet US EPA for 2010. The downside to the plasma treatment was reported to be the fuel economy hit caused by the 1KW electrical load needed by the plasma treatment for small displacement 4 cylinder engines in the 2 liter arena. Later statements from Honda removed the sections specifically stating that they would not need SCR with Adblue to meet emissions requirements. It may be that Honda wants to leave all options open to them based on their current rate of progress.

If you notice which vehicles claim to meet 07 EPA without SCR/urea injection, by using NOx traps with catalyst self ammonia generation, it's almost always smaller displacement engines around the 2 liter range. More displacement, more NOx emissions, and more precious metals required in those systems, to the point where it becomes prohibitively expensive versus SCR/Urea injection. I can't recall any of the 3.0 Liter and up sizes having ever been publicized as not requiring SCR with Urea/Adblue injection.

Neither does the 2007 V6 MB CDI meet 50 state (EPA and CARB) emissions requirements. It is a 45 US state (unless Maryland and a few others have recently adopted CARB emissions standards) only vehicle. Same story for the MB ML320 CDI without SCR/Adblue treatment.

Trucks in the 8500 GVW and up have managed due to less stringent EPA requirements, but that relaxed requirement is phased out by 2010 as well. The 07 Cummins with BlueTec 1 is the only truck that is reportedly able to meet 2010 emissions - at least on paper. I'm uncertain if it uses SCR or not.

Depending on how well NOx downstream treatment development progresses, we will either have quite a few diesel choices in 2010, or next to none.

_________________
2005 LTD CRD RB1 NAV/Htd Leather seats/Amsoil EA filters
SunCoast Mega Trans & Billet TC/PML pan/Aux cooler
Fuel cooler/Lift Pump/10um Pri/Racor R490 2um Sec Fuel Filters
IronMan Lift/Shocks/Provent/Moog ball joints/ V6 Airbox/Fan/Hayden
Cobalt Boost/EGT/Oil/Trans/Volt gauges/Aeroturbine 2525
Yeti Hot Tune/Odessey 65/Samco's/Michelin Defenders

Amen... Amen... Amen. I bought the CRD because it was a CRD and not because it was a Liberty. I really did not want a Liberty, nor did I think much of them at the time. Since I have bought it, the Liberty part has grown on me. It certainly rides better than my friends Cherokee, and better than a TJ. The looks have grown on me too. It looks good lifted. However, trying to lift the KJ is more trouble than it should be for anything that says "Jeep" on it. DCX obviously did not care about aftermarket modifications when they made it, or the Compass/Patriot for that matter.

I don't think a SFA Liberty KK is going to happen with a SFA 4-door JK already out there... as they would be too similar. I would just be happy with 4-door JK CRD Rubicon...

(or if they made a new KJ CRD (NOT THE KK) with a real IFS system that was built such that it was as easy to lift as a FJ and came a couple inches higher stock. )

If either the EPA does not modify its emission requirements for diesels in light-duty vehicles (under 8,500 GVW), and/or the manufacturers can not figure out how to meet them, the light duty truck market (including those SUV's) will probably be as good as dead in 5 years or so. Personally, I think what we now know as the "automobile age" is running on borrowed time now (or, more accurately, running out of the cheap fuel to sustain it), but even if fuel prices continue to trend upward only moderately, I think the truck/SUV market will die off without a major improvement in fuel economy. For these type of vehicles, the diesel represents one of the few hopes. Hybrids offer some promise, but a DIESEL hybrid might offer even more.

I also think the EPA regs are myopic--they only look at what comes out of the tailpipe, not all of the emissions that come from the whole production/refining/distribution/use process. I bet if they looked at the whole picture, diesels would be a cleaner choice, overall. But, it seems that our government--and Americans, in general--tend to have "stovepipe" vision. They never look at the whole picture. That is getting us into one heck of a lot of trouble. The Liberty CRD should have a been a blueprint for the future, not a "one-off" type design consigned to the scrap heap after two years.

Agreed, it seems in general americans cant seem to get past how "dirty" they think diesels are.....if you re-evaluate the emissions output per gallon of fuel used and not per mile driven that would be a fair comparison. As is its an apples and oranges comparison, if you look at it as emissions per btu, the diesel is being held to a higher standard.

_________________
http://www.Colorado4Wheel.com
"Its not about what you can DO with your Jeep, its about where you can GO with your Jeep."
Knowledgeable - But Caustic

At a press event held at its Tochigi technical center north of Tokyo, Honda announced plans to launch a diesel car in the US market by 2009. The car, probably a Honda Accord, would be Tier 2 Bin 5 emission compliant, thus qualifying for sale in all 50 states.

From:

http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2006/09honda.php

More on the tech on Honda's website:

http://world.honda.com/news/2006/c060925DieselEngine/

They may have gotten ahead of themselves in talking to the press last year. I have not read about Honda having trouble meeting the standards, but rather having second thoughts about bringing the infrastructure to support diesels to the US. The new Jetta's are supposed to meet 2007 standards without the use of urea injection (see http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/23/2008 ... in-the-us/)

The closest thing to the Liberty CRD coming in the near future is the the 2008 VW Taureg, which is supposed to get a CARB compliant 3.0 liter diesel for 2008 (along with a new diesel Jetta, Passat, and small SUV.) Likely the same motor used in the aborted Grand Cherokee CRD.

I have mixed feelings about the new clean air rules for diesels. On the one hand, diesel is the most realistic technology for getting C02 emissions from autos down in the short term. On the other, I have lived in cities with red-alert smog days (due largely to NOx) where asthmatics and elderly folks are confined indoors.

I don't think the new emissions rules will be the death of anything (though they may put a crimp in the posers driving the giant F350's that never tow anything heavier than a john boat). As long as there is a need for tow vehicles and work vans, there will be a way to make a buck off of diesels.

On the other hand, high fuel prices may be the death of diesel SUV's (and traditional SUV's in general). I agree that we are nearing the end of an era. The smart businesses are the ones looking ahead and investing in cleaner and more efficient technology. The not-so-smart ones are the guys bleeding money left and right, because their entire product line is based on the assumption that consumers do not care about the amount of $$ they spend at the pump.

If the new masters of Chrysler were smart, they would be looking for a strategic partner in diesel tech ASAP. Cummins has medium-sized diesels in the works, but a 4.0 liter doesn't offer all that much fuel efficiency advantage over a V6 gasser. The new 2008 Jetta's squeeze 240 fott pounds of torque out of a 2.0 liter diesel... bump that up to a 2.5 or 3.0 liter engine, stick it in Wrangler Unlimiteds, Nitro's, Libertys, and Dakotas, and and you would have a runaway sales hit.

Announcing a 50 state clean diesel for 2009 is far from meeting the standard already. A lot can happen in the next 2 years. Honda's president went so far as to say that their current Euro shipping diesel engine could not meet US EPA requirements and that they were working on it, but had not yet met them.

VW has also announced a 50 state clean diesel to sell in the US for 2008 and indications are that the only real hurdle to it happening is the EPA - dragging their feet again on the SCR final acceptance. Although they released an initial letter in March of 07, their next response was expected this summer. Then they announced a date on the rules of SCR engagement for the end of October 07, with no assurance that they won't continue this stalling until 2008. They have had access to production level SCR systems for over 2 years now and yet they continue to delay. Not on the absurd NOx emissions being met - it meets that - but on how to ensure the SCR with Adblue tank is kept filled. Until they do announce final ruling, manufactures do not know the exact requirements for Adblue warning/disablement systems - and cannot make exact purchase plans/final design decisions needed to build these vehicles. If there was ever a foot dragging, self serving, not-so-hidden agenda, this is a classic case from the EPA. They keep whining about the controls for warning, refilling and forcing the user to keep the Adblue tank full, but turn a blind eye to the millions of worn out, oil smoking gassers running on the highway today, with inoperative or disabled emission controls. No engine disablement requirements on new gasolene vehicles if the emissions equipment becomes disabled. Double standards. Time for EPA management house cleaning at the top.

I follow a lot of these announcements concerning diesels for the US - it's interesting to see how they change over time.



The smog effect due to NOx has been credibly disputed by scientists and is gaining momentum. The weekend effect says the EPA ruling is ineffective and in fact, may end up increasing smog. Rather than working on reducing known issuese, like greenhouse gases, and adopt a common sense approach to NOx until they actually know with certainty how to reduce smog, they continue with their NOx fixation. It's become a crusade with them rather than a common sense, effective approach to dealing with smog. With smog increasing every weekend in the basin area, concurrent with measured NOx levels decreasing, this selective science cannot be the basis for credible and effective emissions policy.

_________________
2005 LTD CRD RB1 NAV/Htd Leather seats/Amsoil EA filters
SunCoast Mega Trans & Billet TC/PML pan/Aux cooler
Fuel cooler/Lift Pump/10um Pri/Racor R490 2um Sec Fuel Filters
IronMan Lift/Shocks/Provent/Moog ball joints/ V6 Airbox/Fan/Hayden
Cobalt Boost/EGT/Oil/Trans/Volt gauges/Aeroturbine 2525
Yeti Hot Tune/Odessey 65/Samco's/Michelin Defenders

I can't agree with that at all. NOX is not in dispute as a smog causing agent, and one only has to wander over to countries without NOX regulations to see its effects. In fact, the Europe fixation on diesels with little emissions controls up through the 80's gave them some of the worst smog in the first world, and was why their emissions standards were seriously increased in the 90's to levels competitive with the US.

That said, I do agree that measuring by the gallon rather than by the mile driven is ridiculous. The US is clearly too restrictive on NOX, which is harming our ability to become more efficient in terms of fuel consumption. However I'd never want to return to the days of smog alerts that we had in many areas in the 70's. Clearly the regulations have worked, especially when one considers that we drive far more now than we did back then, but air quality is measurably better today.

_________________
2006 Jeep Liberty Sport CRD

This statement is wildly inaccurate! What happened in the last year when a leading scientist petitioned Congress to reexamine the NOx conclusions of the EPA, pointing out studies of weekend effect on smog? No dispute! Where have you been? I will leave it to you to do the real research and find the studies - I've posted them in the past. While I don't think you will (because you didn't before posting that statement above), they're out there, ranging from unanswered questions on the validity of one of the cited studies on cancer relationship to particulate matter to pm levels to NOx-VOC to ozone formation relationships. The former is not because they doubt the harmful effect of pm in human lungs, but because one of the early studies cited used a sample of miners, working underground, without adequate ventilation, with diesel engines of 1950's vintage, underground with concentrations of diesel smoke, rock dust, coal dust and other mining pm that were literally a thousand times higher than anything experienced in air breathing humans on the surface. Then the real kicker was revealed - over 90% of the miners with lung cancer in that study had been heavy cigarette or tobacco users for all of their adult lives and most since their early teens.

In spite of these other heavily influencing factors, that study was used as the basis for pm relationships to lung cancer. No attempt was performed to measure the effect of severe lung damage caused by smoking habits, or the relatively poor diet experienced by these miners. We know pm is bad, but to use studies like this, with contaminated data and no validated "norms" in the same environment is inexcusable. Talk about skewed results with other contaminating influences.

When the EPA was questioned about the California basin effect (I believe it was in late 05 or early 06), which directly contradicts their NOx to smog effect stance, their answer was "we don't think that's what's occurring." THINK? Where's the scientific, conclusive proof?. Much of their data comes from computer models, while real world data contradicts their position every weekend.

Look at this link on pages 40 - 45 and look at the relationship of NOx to smog - and the paradoxical effect that NOx is actually reducing smog formation when measured with VOC activity and cannot reduce smog until a 90% reduction is effected - a goal unobtainable in the next 8 to 10 years, the EPA's timeline for much of their emission compliance. Meanwhile, at the 50% level, reducing NOx is actually increasing smog, hence the paradox.
http://special.pacificresearch.org/pub/ ... o_2004.pdf

This is one link - there are many others - it just takes some effort to locate - but the data is out there. Do some research and see if the 300 billion dollar outflow for imported oil is worth the real expected NOx reduction mandated by current EPA rules on diesel emissions. If we could accelerate the adoption of diesel engine vehicles, cut fuel consumption by 25%, cut CO2 by 20% over the next 5 years, while putting NOx regulations at similar levels to Euro standards, it would provide a 25% imported fuel savings, reduce greenhouse gas, and provide a 5 year timeline to study real NOx levels rather than push a favored agenda.

Look at page 46 in the link for this statement:

"Regulators have been stoutly resisting the implications of the findings of the weekend effect. Admitting that NOx reduction would be detrimental to ozone control would be a major embarrassment for both EPA and CARB... CARB especially has been vigorously resisting the findings of independent researchers and offering hypothesis to explain the weekend effect...CARB's views have failed to pass the rigors of scientific peer review. The Journal of Air and Waste Management association(JAWMA) devoted a special section to the studies of the weekend effect...the Journal reviewers rejected CARB's submission." No dispute you say? This is only one example. Show me the research that backs up your claim of NOx not being in dispute as a smog causing agent. If it's your opinion say so, but don't attempt to pass it off as fact.

This isn't the only dispute of CARB and EPA findings. Do the research and you'll see the negative effect of politicians posing as EPA managment can have on national emissions policy, our health and financial well being.

_________________
2005 LTD CRD RB1 NAV/Htd Leather seats/Amsoil EA filters
SunCoast Mega Trans & Billet TC/PML pan/Aux cooler
Fuel cooler/Lift Pump/10um Pri/Racor R490 2um Sec Fuel Filters
IronMan Lift/Shocks/Provent/Moog ball joints/ V6 Airbox/Fan/Hayden
Cobalt Boost/EGT/Oil/Trans/Volt gauges/Aeroturbine 2525
Yeti Hot Tune/Odessey 65/Samco's/Michelin Defenders

CO2 is much more harmful. There was a story about the Southern Ice Cap and the fact that it is now fully saturated with CO2. The ice has been our CO2 "sponge" and is not able to "soak up" and more CO2.

The deal is we need to look at the BIGGER PICTURE. They get so myopic over certain things because they are "scare words or terms".

Lets make sure this doesn't turn into a pissing match. That would just add more "HOT AIR" to the environment

_________________
Founder of L.O.S.T.
2006 CRD Sport
Mods: GDE Hot Tune w/ 364#@2000rpm/Air Box /3" Str8 Exhaust/ASFIR Alum Skids/245-75R-16 Cooper STT PRO/OME LIFT w/Clevis & 4 Spring Isos/AirTabs/Rigid 10" S2 LED/4xGuard Ctr Matrix Bumper
Drag Strip:Reac=.1078_60ft=2.224_1/8=10.39@64.8mph_1/4+16.46@80.8mph

Pacific Research Institute is not a credible source for scientific information. Check the home page of their web site. They are a conservative think tank (nothing wrong with that, but their job is to advocate against government regulation). Just as I do not want health care information from Michael Moore, I don't want clean air info from folks with an axe to grind.

Anyway. I agree the EPA's regulation process is burdensome and confusing, and they need to get their act together. However, the NOx controls are there for a pretty good reason, and while you may disagree, everything I have read points to automakers like VW and Honda having technology to meet the new standards. Maybe there are headaches over the EPA's requirement on when to tell drivers to refill their Bluetec bottles, but that isn't the same as not being able to meet the standards affordably.

To bring it back full circle, I think the debate we are having reflects the state of affairs over diesels in the auto industry, and of any new diesel Jeep in particular. As with hybrid technology, US automakers have ignored the potential of fuel efficient diesels, and do not have any "in house" ability to meet the standards because they have not invested in the technology. Instead they debate whether the regs are needed, and wait for the EPA to water them down.

I would really love to buy a Wrangler with 30 mpg... but they only way that could happen is if Chrysler purchased their engines from a European or Japanese company. And that sucks.

Ah...just let that ice cap melt. I live in Tennessee and always wanted oceanfront property. LOL!


(just kidding guys!)

_________________
Chad Hargis
Nashville, TN
2008 Grand Cherokee CRD
2005 Liberty CRD *SOLD*

I agree, even if it's the EPA and CARB. The real tragedy is that while the special interest groups lobby for their favorite political position, our nation is bleeding money for imported oil that could be over time, diverted to domestic sourced energy. It's fine and dandy to debate an issue, if you're not dying while you decide on the kind of surgery you need.

_________________
2005 LTD CRD RB1 NAV/Htd Leather seats/Amsoil EA filters
SunCoast Mega Trans & Billet TC/PML pan/Aux cooler
Fuel cooler/Lift Pump/10um Pri/Racor R490 2um Sec Fuel Filters
IronMan Lift/Shocks/Provent/Moog ball joints/ V6 Airbox/Fan/Hayden
Cobalt Boost/EGT/Oil/Trans/Volt gauges/Aeroturbine 2525
Yeti Hot Tune/Odessey 65/Samco's/Michelin Defenders

The point made here was that the studies you cited were not credible. Once again, one only has to go to a nation without regulations on emissions to see what happens when NOX is not regulated. I would suggest Nairobi, Kenya, where everyone rides around on motorcycles without any sort of emissions equipment. Mileage is very high, but the air is smog loaded.

Studies that demonstrate lower NOX and higher smog are simply demonstrating that other factors can come into play, such as wind patterns that can trap contaminents inside of valleys. Corrolation is not causation. There is plenty of causitive evidence, regardless of what one scientist here or there says(there are hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide, pointing at one and going "See see!" really is meaningless).

Once again, I AM agreeing that current restrictions are poorly designed, penalizing cars that in the long haul may be not nearly as damaging to the environment. We need a total picture approach, which would end much of the ridiculousness regarding hybrids and much of the biofuel movement. But that would take long term thinking, and few politicians, much less citizens, are willing to think past next year.

_________________
2006 Jeep Liberty Sport CRD

Back on the original topic...

I think the Wrangler Unlimited should have been the Liberty instead. They're about the same size and everyone would have applauded Jeep for 'fixing' the Liberty.

I've seen a few of the Nitro/Liberties on the road, and if I'd wanted a 5/8th scale Commander, I'd think about buying one...

_________________
2005 CRD Limited Flame Red w/ Renegade rock rails & light bar, AirLift 1000. 225/75R16 MT/R's on cheap black steel wheels, dual MOPAR subwoofers, Ipod kit & seat covers, Samco hoses - totaled and gone. 2008 WK Laredo 3.0L diesel - AirLift 1000, wife won't let me mess with it much. 2013 JK Sahara on order.

I understood his point - I also understand my response to your original assertion, which you are avoiding by obfuscation, is that there is a very public and longstanding scientific controversy on NOx to smog relationship. That fact that a study disputing EPA/CARB methodologies exists eliminates all validity to your assertion of opinion. Attempts to arbitrarily dismiss it by labeling it either liberal or conservative only demonstrate your lack of any evidence to support your assertion.

I felt obligated to answer your online conversation rather than leave you hanging, but it would be better to move it to a pm if you feel the need to continue.

Best of luck to you.

_________________
2005 LTD CRD RB1 NAV/Htd Leather seats/Amsoil EA filters
SunCoast Mega Trans & Billet TC/PML pan/Aux cooler
Fuel cooler/Lift Pump/10um Pri/Racor R490 2um Sec Fuel Filters
IronMan Lift/Shocks/Provent/Moog ball joints/ V6 Airbox/Fan/Hayden
Cobalt Boost/EGT/Oil/Trans/Volt gauges/Aeroturbine 2525
Yeti Hot Tune/Odessey 65/Samco's/Michelin Defenders

Studies also exist that dispute the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. Does that mean the link is controversial and unproven?

I don't care what CARB and the EPA think. European clean air agencies have adopted stringent NOx standards as well. VW, Daimler, Honda, etc... didn't invent their new emissions catalysts meet the requirements of the US market.

Read some more on Honda's introduction of diesels to the US today. Apparently, the Accord Hybrid will be replaced by an Accord diesel, and a V6 diesel could be on the way for the Ridgeline truck-let.

http://hybridz.autoblog.com/2007/06/04/ ... to-diesel/

I was referring specifically to his assertion that no dispute over NOx to smog creation existed. Nuff said on that.

As to your assertion that various diesel manufacturers didn't have to develop technologies for the US emissions market, they specifically say otherwise. US EPA NOx regulations are the toughest in the world. If you compare the NOx requirements between EuroIV and US T2B5, you'll see a dramatic difference in allowable NOx. Pm can be largely met with higher in-cylinder burn temperatures and far less egr recirculation, but not with these NOx requirements. When the diesel burn temperature is optimal for power, economy and lowest pm emission, it also raises NOx. Lowering NOx increases pm, HC, and other emissions. So lowering NOx increases other harmful emissions and requires out of cylinder after-treatment, including pm burnoff with even more fuel usage that is downstream. This is why its critical to accurately determine how to effectively combat smog creation, before we lower fuel economy, increase the cost of emissions equipment, and then end up increasing NOx emissions for a decade, with more harmful health effects to add to wasted fuel economy.

It would help if you would actually do some research before posting these opinions. There is plenty of research out there with which to educate yourself. That is, if you really want to know.

_________________
2005 LTD CRD RB1 NAV/Htd Leather seats/Amsoil EA filters
SunCoast Mega Trans & Billet TC/PML pan/Aux cooler
Fuel cooler/Lift Pump/10um Pri/Racor R490 2um Sec Fuel Filters
IronMan Lift/Shocks/Provent/Moog ball joints/ V6 Airbox/Fan/Hayden
Cobalt Boost/EGT/Oil/Trans/Volt gauges/Aeroturbine 2525
Yeti Hot Tune/Odessey 65/Samco's/Michelin Defenders

Given the total #'s of diesels that VW, Daimler, and Honda sell in America, I think it would be an odd business model to develop entirely new engine designs strictly for American sales. Cheaper and more profitable to simply keep making old-fashioned engines for a European market with "weaker" NOx standards, and write the US off. But as you say, maybe I'm just not reading the right web sites.