I haven't driven the new M3 but like the looks much more than the previous generation M3, which always looked like a souped up teenager's car to me. And BMW V8 engines are always so nice to drive. So I'm surprised by your assessment. However, I think the M5 has definitely jumped the Shark. I much preferred the previous generation M5.
 
A car that seems to be much better than previous generations is the Corvette. I haven't liked Corvettes in decades but would take a new Corvette over many of the nicest European sports cars.

"What say you?"
 
I say nothing lasts forever. Even BMW has to realize that their cars won't always be the best thing on the road. Inevitably, there will always be something better....(look up Nissan GT-R)

Having had two E36 M3's (both four-door sedans), the thought of the M3 getting any plusher and more gadgety horrifies me. It's no longer a performance car, but rather a fast Lexus with handling.
 
The best indication of where BMW has gone wrong in my estimation is the realization that I enjoyed my E30 328i two-door a lot more than either of the M3's. And rather than having gone to the M3, I should have picked up my buddy's E28(?) M5 instead.
 
Forget all the electronic chechke, go back to making "the ultimate driving machine".

Damn BMW for never making an E46 sedan M3. I'd own it today and never again go car-shopping for myself. The e90 M3 is a big, bland boat.

I actually disagree with your assessment, Karl. Of all the M3's, the E36 was the least "special" in my opinion. Sure, the E36 has a great (nay....awesome) chassis, but the motor is nothing more than a bored-out 2.8L from the 328i of the same era. The E30, E46, and E90 all have amazing engines that are unlike anything in the pedestrian 3 series range. Now, if you were referring to the Euro E36, then you might have a point...

I don't know if I would say the M3 has "jumped the shark," but I will say that it's gotten big. Really big. Point of fact, when the Holden Monaros first came over here as Pontiac GTOs they had a lot in common with the performance of an e46 M3, at least in terms of out and out pace and acceleration, though of course the M3 smoked the GTO in terms of handling. Still the GTO is no slouch in that department and the engine is effortlessly tunable. I've got my eye on one with less than 8000 miles on it (the interior is a similar red to edmunds.com's long-term M3, oddly enough). When I was looking at the specs, its weight comes in at around 3750 lbs. The e92 M3, now packing a 400-ish horsepower V8, mind you, weighs in at 3600-ish pounds. When a "small" BMW weighs almost as much as a huuuuge musclecar, we've got problems, and by that I mean good problems. Whereas before, a GTO was sort of like a dull butcher's knife against the M3's ginsu, now they're pretty close in just about all tangible performance measurements. The M3 will still handle better than the GTO, but for about $40,000 more, I think I could put some better sway bars and stiffer suspension on my (future) GTO and I won't even notice too much difference. Maybe one day I'll have a new M3, but for now I'll stick with my e36, which, I agree with you, Karl, is the best of all.
 
I also want to point out that blueguydotcom knows just what I've been thinking. I want a new(er) M3 sedan. Why oh why didn't they make e46 as a sedan?!?! Jerks.
 
So that's why I'm getting the GTO.

You guys better get your M3’s before the new fuel rules start taking effect. The M3 is going to be a direct casualty of the new rules.
 
  BMW is in the worst position of any automaker when it comes to meeting the new rules, because the only car they have that help balance the numbers is the Mini. Even with the new diesels BMW is going to have a tough time hitting a 35mpg fleet average. Building golf karts on wheels is going to work for some automakers, but the luxury brands like BMW are not going to be able to do that.
 
The EU wants to raise the fuel rules over in Europe, and the Germans are so mad that they have made the idle threat of leaving the EU. The Germans are afraid that Mercedes and BMW are going to be put right out of business if they raise the mileage standards anymore.
 
I read that if those 2012 rules were in effect today on their present fleets, Mercedes & BMW would have been fined over $4billion dollars last year.

There is a lot of true about your statement. Many cars evolve from great to worst. Car manufacturers are driven by market request in general. Like, we do not have enough room in the back, no cruise control and some many electrical gizmos. They get loaded and bigger and you end up with bigger engines too to equalize the new load.

BMW - and the other Euro luxury makers - don't even meet the 27mpg average now. They quietly pay - or rather, they mark up their prices and buyers pay - the not meeting CAFE penalty tax and keep building what people want to buy. From 2000-2006, BMW paid about $90 million in total.
 
With the law as it currently stands, this is the obvious thing to do. The tax is $55 per mile per gallon below the target per vehicle.
 
If the standards increased from 27.5 to 35 mpg tomorrow, the additional penalty would be 7.5 * 55 = $412.50 per vehicle which frankly doesn't matter on a $40,000 luxury toy - it barely matters on a $20,000 family hauler.
 
The danger is that the party of socialist envy in Congress will notice this and do something radical to "fix" it, like increasing the tax from $55 a mile to $2,500 overnight.

I have very limited experience with M cars. I test drove a '99 e36 M convertible and my buddy has a '95 e36 M coupe. I really enjoyed the shifter and the handling was perfectly adequate (for a convertible). My take on cars is I enjoy balance without electronannies. All 3-series have had great balance. Since I have not driven the e9x, I cannot comment on it.
 
Karl, I didn't know you worked at Super Street. My car had a 4-page feature article in that magazine, albeit probably after you left (Sep 03).

Chevy, the 35 mpg isn't for well over a decade. And it's not like M buyers aren't willing to pay gas guzzler taxes.
 
That said, read up on BMw's efficient dynamics program. They've got some really nice stuff on their european models of BMWs and Minis. Eventually all of that tech will get here and it makes a substantial difference in MPGs.
 
I have faith that all the automakers will adapt and that we'll continue to see performance cars. If not, then the 90s and 2000s cars will become collector's items.
 
Here's to hoping the next M3 is 600 lbs lighter, uses the latest version of efficient dynamics and that they've ditched the V8 for something smaller, lighter and impressively torquey.

AUTHOR: mnorm1
DATE: 04/15/2008 09:29:40 AM
EMAIL: nlbjmayberry@tx.rr.com

"That said, read up on BMw's efficient dynamics program. They've got some really nice stuff on their european models of BMWs and Minis. Eventually all of that tech will get here and it makes a substantial difference in MPGs. "
 
Not enough to meet the 35mpg rules. The fines are going to be a lot heavier, and they are going to come out of the automakers pockets directly.
 
  At the New York auto show Bob Lutz says GM will start winding down v8 production in 2015. That's only seven years away.
 
You guys in California aren't going to be able to buy hardly anything when the next president lets CA's new rules (43mpg) go into effect.
Most of the automakers have said they are not even going to try to hit it. They are going to sell whatever cars they can in those states, and the rest of their fleet will be excluded from those states.

They'll manage. The only thing preventing it now: narrow-minded thinking. It's just like the car manu whined about catalytic converters. They'll cope and make adjustments.
 
The auto makers will hit it because they have no choice. The CA rules are in too many states to ignore. Those who do not adapt will perish. It's that simple.
 
They will achieve it. We've lived for 20 years without any pressure on automakers to improve efficiency. If a 5 series BMW diesel can get 40+ on the freeway then there's little reason to believe we won't see improvements by 2020.

Karl, I fully agree!
 
But I think it's more a result of car-building philosophy today than it is of incompetence by BMW. I don't know whether it's the pursuit of refinement, the pursuit of building cars that are all-thing-to-all-people, or the attempt to "broaden the audience/appeal" of cars, but it seems that cars in general have become too refined and multipurpose and the result of that is the diminishing of pure driving pleasure.
 
I haven't driven any of the M vehicles so I can't really talk about first-hand experience. But based on my own perception of things like the styling, and from what I've read from various auto magazines, I also think the E36 M3 was probably the best. In Africa we had the Euro E36 M3, which was high-revving and produced about 320 hp.
 
While I think the E46 M3 looks great (and not like a teenage car), I liked the understated nature of E36 M3 better, especially the 4-door model. It was virtually impossible to tell it apart from the 328i, save for the M3 badge and alloy wheels. I've always appreciated fast cars that don't make a loud statement!
[The E9x 3-series is nearly ugly so it's not a surprise the M3 doesn't look great either.]
 
The closest I've come to driving the latest M3 is driving the latest 335i (both manual and auto). I'm sure my experience with the 335i is pretty close to the M3, so let me list my observations:
 
1. I had immense fun driving the 335i, especially the manual. I was blown away by the acceleration. And unlike most recent cars, the 335i has great engine/exhaust sound that can be heard in the car. I never turned on the stereo during the test drives!.....With that engine note I didn't need it!
 
2. When the car wasn't accelerating, it was boring. 80 mph felt like 45 mph would in my Protege. And the blistering acceleration made things worse: before I could fully savour the acceleration I was already well over the speed limit! Acceleration aside, I reckon the only way to enjoy that car is to get a radar detector and do 120 mph at every opportunity and hope to not get caught by the police!
 
3. Although lightning fast (by my standards), it still felt too heavy. It felt a little too "solid and planted" for my liking.
 
4. I've always been underwhelmed by the styling of the current 3-series. The dashboard in particular is just too austere. If style is a priority, the 3-series/M3 just doesn't cut it. Have BMW looked at the CTS?
 
If BMW could somehow make the 335i/M3 lighter, less "planted" at high speed and more stylish, it would be a perfect car! I'm sure the E36 M3 was perfect in this sense! Don't get me wrong: I love the 335i......but I just feel it could be better.

If a 5 series diesel gets 40+mpg on the freeway that means it barley passes the new 35mpg combined rule, and that's the best they technology they have.
   
People in CA and the other CAFE states are going to drive Priuses, and the rest of the country are going to be driving different cars. Montana's governor has said that his state won't support the new rules, because his residents deserve to drive other cars besides tiny hybrids like the Prius.
 
The German government is fighting tooth and nail to stop the new fuel rules (43mpg), because they are worried that BMW might cease to exist. The threat is real. A combined 43mpg is insane. The second generation Prius barley hits that number.
 
12 years isn't that far away. Thats only about 3 genrations on new vehicles before the rules are in full effect. A performance company like BMW is going to be hard pressed to almost double their combined average in a 12 year time frame.

RE: Meeting tougher CAFE numbers - Why are so many unibody cars soooo porky, so heavy? Originally, they were supposed to be stiffer AND lighter than the cars they replaced. Are they full of extra bracing to match frame-on-body designs, or what? Is it really all the safety features? All the luxo-gadgets BMW, and others keep adding? Do those chips and lcd's really weigh so much? With engines routinely exceeding 1HP/cubic inch, too much of that efficiency is being sucked up hauling all that weight around. The drivetrains themselves seem to be pretty light. There have to be ways of dieting current models down without making them into go-Karts.

"They'll manage. The only thing preventing it now: narrow-minded thinking. It's just like the car manu whined about catalytic converters. They'll cope and make adjustments. "
 
Now THAT is narrowminded thinking. You cannot just go into a lab, work hard for a few months and come out with 300hp cars that get 43mpg. The laws of physics have been the same for quite some time. I see you buy into the politicians mantra of "they know how to do this but they are intentionally holding back technology for the sake of profitability". I expect that from ignorant politicians who know nothing about engineering, but not from a supposed car enthusiast who should know better. You and anyone else who thinks these new rules will have no affect on performance and cost are in fantasy land.
 
cars that keep getting worse with each redesign: Accord, Maxima, Pilot, RL, TSX, Avalon and Navigator.

"RE: Meeting tougher CAFE numbers - Why are so many unibody cars soooo porky, so heavy? Originally, they were supposed to be stiffer AND lighter than the cars they replaced. Are they full of extra bracing to match frame-on-body designs, or what? Is it really all the safety features? All the luxo-gadgets BMW, and others keep adding? Do those chips and lcd's really weigh so much?"
 
electronics are VERY dense. HAve you ever lifted a PC before? cars are full of wiring, circuit boards and other dense items. Not only ot cars have more features, they are more rigid than vehicles of 20 or 30 years ago. Most muscle cars were about the same weight of a midsize car today in spite of being longer and having heavy V8 engines. This is due to lack of rigidity and lack of safety features, luxury features, electronics and sound deadening.

I wouldn't say that the M3 has jumped the shark at all by your definition of "beginning that inexorable slide into pathetic-ness". It's a fabulous car. Different than the last one certainly, it seems to me the evolution has been gradual. I don't know enough about the marque to say exactly when it changed character. It's obvious that the 1-series has replaced what the 3-series used to be.
 
All I know is I'd rather have a Z4M coupe. The people who are most upset about the M3 losing is razor sharp character should be driving real sports cars and not sporty sedans.
 
===
 
To expand on that thought, when the first M3 came out, BMW didn't have any sports cars in the line-up. The M3 has evolved into a fast, yet very comfortable and luxurious smallish car. Why should it try to compete with the Z4? Don't be upset when a sedan can't hang with a GT-R, or a minivan looks boxy. The M3 is well rounded enough for most of us most of the time. If you must have the ultimate driving machine, get the right car for the right purpose in the first place.

Put that v8 in a 1-series and we'll talk!
 
* * *
 
Perhaps the more apropos question: When did the 3-series itself jump the shark?

The E36 is the only M3 that I have driven. It was a ball to drive and felt stronger than 240hp. It didn't have that 'carved from billet' feel though, probably because it was a convertable. It was a CPO 98 E36 M3 in great shape for $16K but I can't stand convertables, especially because this one was blue with a blue top and looked hideous. Someday...
  
Then again, as rkoe36 says, the GTO is a performance bargain. I have found CPO 05s for $19k.
  
As for CAFE standards I agree with aspade. The performance manufacturers will simply pass the cost on to the consumer. We already have to pay a premium for performance and if these laws pass we will have to pay more.

Many of you have referenced the "Euro" version of the E36 M3, and I think that's why I liked those modded E36s I drove in Miami so much. It was clear the platform and suspension were fully sorted on the stock mid-90s M3s, they just needed more power. The Euro version, and those modded versions, had more power (those supercharged cars were making approximately 350 hp) and they were a BLAST.
 
That's why I liked that generation -- the foundation was solid and it just needed more power, which was easily done by the aftermarket. Conversely, the newer, heavier M3s have powerful drivetrains but making them feel ultra-nimble is pretty much impossible.

1487: "electronics are VERY dense. HAve you ever lifted a PC before? cars are full of wiring, circuit boards and other dense items."
 
Are you kidding? Electronics don't weigh much of anything. The heavy items in a PC - if you call a 20 pound box heavy, by car standards 20 pounds is margin of error - are primarily the steel casing and subcasings around the 2 or 3 pounds of electronics. A plastic cased laptop with the same electronics and a LCD screen besides weighs maybe 4 pounds without a battery.
 
The massive weight gain going on is primarily adding structure, the better to crash into brick walls at 40mph. NVH damping material around the cabin is a distant runner up.
 
"Now THAT is narrowminded thinking. You cannot just go into a lab, work hard for a few months and come out with 300hp cars that get 43mpg. The laws of physics have been the same for quite some time. I see you buy into the politicians mantra of "they know how to do this but they are intentionally holding back technology for the sake of profitability". I expect that from ignorant politicians who know nothing about engineering, but not from a supposed car enthusiast who should know better."
 
Absolutely 100% correct. The "anything is possible if they'd think outside the box" fantasies are only possible when you don't know what you're talking about.

"The massive weight gain going on is primarily adding structure, the better to crash into brick walls at 40mph. NVH damping material around the cabin is a distant runner up. "
 
Plus larger wheels, brakes, tires and transmissions with more gears. And airbags, nav systems, motors for powered features in the car, etc.

1487- Probably the best example of a car line that has gotten consistently worse: the Sebring/Stratus/Avenger/Cirrus.

Worrywarts...at the worst the 2020 M3 is a 3000 lbs ecnomy car with a 250 hp diesel engine. It'll suck and you'll have to buy a craptastic 2008 e92 M3 to get the hardcore performance you crave.
 
If this is the worst thing you can portend for the future, it's not a scary world. Or maybe BMW is out of business...personally, I don't care if they're gone and I've owned and loved many BMW products. Regardless, the current crop of cars exist nowand you'll always have the option of buying our current muscle cars just as people could buy the 60s era muscle cars in the 70s and 80s yet they chose not to overwhelmingly.
 
Even now with all tech in the M cars, Karl and many others point to previous generations as the best options in the M world. Drive an M3 e30 and it's an insanely fun car. Sorry but I'll gladly take a lightened, version of the e30 M3 (2700 lbs) but with 2010 technology in the engine, brakes, suspension over the fatty current M3 (3600 lbs). Right now BMW has a 2.0 diesel that's got more power HP and torque than the e30 M3 and it gets over 40 mpg in a heavy 3 series?
 
http://automen.blogspot.com/2007/03/bmws-new-turbo-diesel-4-cylinders-400nm.html

What do those structural elements, window motors, etc. REALLY weigh? Only the engineers know for sure. It may be that some of the extra pounds are due to lazy design work, after all. What's for sure is that, until the current runup in gas prices, the answer to the question, "0-60 one second faster or another couple of MPG" has always been to go for the, arguably, unneeded zip.

>>>If a 5 series diesel gets 40+mpg on the freeway that means it barley passes the new 35mpg combined rule, and that's the best they technology they have.
 
The fallacy in your argument is that the 35mpg rule actually exists. Karl told us the truth about that here.
 
http://66.160.188.111/.eea1863
 
Actually only a couple of 40+ mpg cars will help beat the reality of 26.5 combined mpg.
 
As for the M3, I have no interest in owning one. Never have, probably never will. I do think that the entire 3 series has jumped the shark.
 
Has there ever been any other car than the Corvette ever to jump the shark and eventually come back batter than ever?

"The massive weight gain going on is primarily adding structure, the better to crash into brick walls at 40mph. NVH damping material around the cabin is a distant runner up. "
 
Not true. The C6 Corvette's chief engineer allowed 7% of the body mass to be dedicated to sound deadening, NVH suppression, etc. If a C6 weighs ~ 3200lbs, that's 224lbs dedicated to keeping the car refined. The car lost weight in other areas to break even with the C5.

technetium99: IMHO the corvette jumped the shark from 1968-1996(maybe 2004). Certainly a long time but having said that, the corvette is the only vehicle that I would like to own any year ever made, whether it jumped the shark or not.

I would say that the Honda Civic jumped the shark after the 1992-1995 model year. Not that they were (or are) terrible after that generation, but something was lost when they eliminated the double wishbone suspension, and started turning into Accords.
 
I agree that Accords are on the cusp of a Shark Jump. I think they are really good cars, I just don't think they are Accords anymore.
 
Subaru WRX's are in danger of doing a Shark jump now. They are still capable, but there character is definitely being diluted.
 
A classic Sharp Jump is the Ford Taurus, when they went crazy with the Ovals, and sacrificed the functionality, and "euroness" of the platform (Yes, when they were introduced in the mid-80's I would say they were sort of Audi-like and revolutionary).
 
Toyota Camry jumped the Shark with the 4th generation in 1997. They stopped being something special, Lexus-like cars for the middle class, and became just boring appliances. (Of course this did not hurt sales one-iota.

Hey now -- quit taking away my other cars for this series! :-)

chavis: "Not true. The C6 Corvette's chief engineer allowed 7% of the body mass to be dedicated to sound deadening, NVH suppression, etc. If a C6 weighs ~ 3200lbs, that's 224lbs dedicated to keeping the car refined. The car lost weight in other areas to break even with the C5."
 
Calling that a 224 pound gain is assuming the C5 had no NVH damping at all to begin with.

Fonzie jumped the shark on Happy Days after it had already experienced declines. The phrase most often refers to the stunts TV shows pull as a desperate attempt to reverse that decline. In that respect the V8, the "look at my carbon fiber" and the other geegaws on the E9x model most corresponds to stunts designed to reverse a declining trend, I think (although one could argue that the decline began post-E30 when the M3 ceased being an homologation special; too bad racing no longer improves the breed the way it used to).

"RE: Meeting tougher CAFE numbers - Why are so many unibody cars soooo porky, so heavy? Originally, they were supposed to be stiffer AND lighter than the cars they replaced. Are they full of extra bracing to match frame-on-body designs, or what? Is it really all the safety features? All the luxo-gadgets BMW, and others keep adding? Do those chips and lcd's really weigh so much? With engines routinely exceeding 1HP/cubic inch, too much of that efficiency is being sucked up hauling all that weight around. The drivetrains themselves seem to be pretty light. There have to be ways of dieting current models down without making them into go-Karts."
+1
 
"You cannot just go into a lab, work hard for a few months and come out with 300hp cars that get 43mpg. The laws of physics have been the same for quite some time."
 
Indeed the laws of physics have been the same for quite some time. Maybe we don't need 300hp, even for a fun car. We really wouldn't need 300hp if the cars weren't so big and heavy. And wait, what's that, if we reduce the size and weight the performance AND efficiency goes up?! How novel!
 
I'm gonna draw on history here as best as I can, not being nearly old enough to remember. If you like handling, look at the first time we implemented drastic CAFE standards. Sure it sucked at first, because we had these huge boats with no power as automakers struggled to meet emissions and efficiency standards. But then what happened eventually? We ended up with more appropriately sized and weighted cars that got terrific fuel economy. And they were almost as quick going straight (on average) as the gas guzzlers of yesteryear. I see round two coming, but with experience and much greater technology on our side.

If they're still that good, they probably cant even be described as having jumped the shark.

If we are comparing M3 across generations, is it a fair question to ask whether the 3-series itself is ready to leap over the Shark?
 
After all, the M just amplifies the character of the base series. I remember about 7 or 8 years ago talking with some friends about whether it was worth it to get a 325 or a 330. My thoughts immediately "the 330" of course. After much discussion (and beer), some pretty convincing arguments were that the added hp was nice, but the "soul" of the BMW was its handling, and the smoothness of the engine. There were plenty of places to go for raw power, but with either engine you got the "car as an extension of your body" sensation.
 
My sense is that the whole product line is moving away from that, for whatever reason.
 
 One thing I do wonder, is with ever increasing power, is some of the engineering discipline to keep extraneous weight and unneccessary additions and tweaking to the platform gone. I think an apt analogy may be what has happened with personnel computers. Back in the day, when processing power was 1/1000th of what it is now, and hardrives were still measured in MB, and RAM was precious, software code had to be lean and tight and elegant, Once there was copious power became available, bloat and sloppiness set in, using brute force to further undisciplined design.

"I would say that the Honda Civic jumped the shark after the 1992-1995 model year. Not that they were (or are) terrible after that generation, but something was lost when they eliminated the double wishbone suspension, and started turning into Accords. "
 
The 96-2000 Civics had double wishbone suspensions. The EK (96-00) Civics were revamped EG (92-95) Civics.
 
The 01-05 Civic completely jumped ship as that car was just un-Honda like as the bean counters were clearly present.
 
The current Civic I think has returned somewhat to its roots.

Maybe the 1 series is the new 3 series. If it is, it needs an updated version of the e46's 3.2 liter and we'll have a proper M car. Now that would be a hoot. Except I still can't afford one. Dang. That GTO looks better and better.

The weight on modern cars is all structural. You are never going to see cars drop very much weight if they want to meet today’s crash test standards. They need super rigid frames to pass frontal and side impact tests. You might see some weight loss, but it’s going to be minimal.
 
I’ll guarantee you would rather be in the new Challenger, rather than Karl’s Challenger if you were going to be t-boned by a guy going 40mph. Modern cars do save lives compared to the older cars.
 
I don’t think most of the cars built as little as 15 years ago would pass today’s crash tests.

Yet the Mini Cooper S and Miata offer sub 2700 lbs fun while passing government regs. The Clubman S creeps over the 2700 mark. the Mazda 3 rings in under 3k lbs too.
 
With effort and engineering prowess they can cut the weight on these modern cars too.
 
In 12 years a lot can change. An example:
1996 Honda Accord EX V6 - 170 HP, 165 tq, 19/25 mpg (note, this isn't 2008 - those numbers come up as 17/23 on the epa site).
 
2008 Honda Accord EX V6 - 268 HP, 248 tq, 19/29 mpg (note, these figures are 2008 epa)
 
So in 12 years Honda has added 100 hp and about 80 ft-lbs of torque and they've increased combined epa from 20 to 24, while increasing the car's weight by 300 lbs, and increasing in every dimension.
 
But weight (on purpose), the 2008 Accord 4 cylinder EX with automatic offers 200 HP and 162 ft-lbs of torque (more hp, less torque than the 12 year old model), while providing a 2008 epa of 21/31 (26 mpg combined) and a weight gain of 200 lbs.
 
So in 12 years Honda's put a smaller engine in the Accord that provides 5 mpg increases in fuel consumption and jumps in HP, while also offering more car.
 
But not much can change in 12 years...

Blueguydotcom,
 
The Mini Cooper is super fat compared to cars of the same class back in the 80’s. The mini cooper would weigh about 2,000lbs if it didn’t have to meet crash test standards.
 
A 2 door 1984 Chevette weighed about 1,900lbs, and the 4 door was about 2,100lbs.
 
You sound like this guy in the Detroit News forums that thinks they can make a smart car pull trailers like trucks do. He says they can do it if Mercedes spends the money, and lets their engineers "figure it out". Cars don't follow Moore's Law.

"Toyota Camry jumped the Shark with the 4th generation in 1997. They stopped being something special, Lexus-like cars for the middle class, and became just boring appliances. (Of course this did not hurt sales one-iota."
 
Thats assuming the camry was ever a great car. I dont think the Camry has gotten any worse because it was never anything special in the first place. Its always been mediocre in handling, power and styling. Its rep is built on reliability and nothing more. People buy the brand, they really dont care about the car itself.
 
"Yet the Mini Cooper S and Miata offer sub 2700 lbs fun while passing government regs. The Clubman S creeps over the 2700 mark. the Mazda 3 rings in under 3k lbs too. "
 
These are compacts- use common sense. Compacts are always going to be light compared to midsize cars and crossovers.
 
Your Honda example is pointless. You took an Accord with an unefficient I-4 and compared it to a 2008 Accord. The gains are impressive but you neglect to mention that the new Accord is utilizing all the tools in the current fuel savings arsenal including VVT and VCM. Those technologies are great but where do you go from here? You can deactivate more cylinders. You can't add MORE VVT to gain more efficiency. At this point what you are left with is adding DI, a diesel or a hybrid powertrain. DI is likely to get you 1mpg. A diesel will get you more but cost you acceleration and add cost and will not be popular amongst buyers. Honda has no plans to add a hybrid model to the Accord after the dismal sales of the last one. You cannot get 5-10mpg easily from today's cars because they already have tons of technology that enhance economy.
 
While the Accord may have posted nice gains in 12 years (primarily due to the poor mileage of the 1996 car) the industry overall has not done nearly as well. Fuel economy has stayed about the same for many years because cars are getting more luxurious and powerful.
 
"Indeed the laws of physics have been the same for quite some time. Maybe we don't need 300hp, even for a fun car. We really wouldn't need 300hp if the cars weren't so big and heavy. And wait, what's that, if we reduce the size and weight the performance AND efficiency goes up?! How novel! "
 
what are you talking about? The average family sedan today has 160-170hp and gets about 20/30 on the EPA cycle. Do not act like the average vehicle has 300hp when most Accord and Camrys are four cylinders. No one NEEDS a 300hp car but luxury and sports cars offer 300hp because family cars are available with 250+hp. With advances in DI and transmissions the average 300hp car today gets mileage that is only slightly worse than the average 250hp car. I believe the IS350 gets 19/28 with 306hp. The CTS gets 17/26 while the Malibu with only 252hp and 300lbs less weight gets 17/26. The Camry and Accord I-4 models only get 2mpg better mileage than their V6 counterparts so it's not like you gas consumption soars when you bump up to a V6 engine in 2008.
 
As for reducing size- thats up to each individual owner to do. While its nice to pretend that anyone who drives something larger than a Yaris is being selfish the reality is people need space for various reasons. I need to be able to transport a carseat and stroller AND a backseat passenger. That would not be possible with a subcompact or compact sedan. A stroller requires every inch of depth in my 15 cu ft trunk just to fit. When people talk about how well all need to downsize to compacts I wonder what those with 2 or 3 kids are supposed to do. Not everyone is a young single hipster with no family.

hondacura - Good call on the Civic. The '01 version was really crummy, as evinced by how good the preceeding and succeeding versions are. There's a distinct disconnect there.

If BMW made an M3 that was light and powered by a smaller motor no one would buy it. The M3 has to compete with the RS4 and AMG for image.
If BMW doesn't maintain that image, less will buy their volume cars. If less people buy their cars, BMW has no money. No money, no racing, no image.
Most of the BMW fanboys talk about the wonderfulness of BMWs of the past. If those were bought second-hand, BMW is then only making money from you if you go to them for service.
Deep down BMW is a company, with shareholders, that want money. The money is not in a 4 banger m3 with cloth seats getting dusted by other Germans and a Lexus packing V8s, even if it drives better. Remember, most purists can't afford the M3s of the world.
In 20 years, someone else will be bitching about how BMWs aren't pure like they were in 2008, just like they did in 98. Want pure and new, get a 128 or stop complaining. Thats the best you'll get.
I love the e36, I drool over the e46, and I'll dream of the day when I can afford to restore an e92 and tell my kids how cars aren't pure anymore.

"One thing I do wonder, is with ever increasing power, is some of the engineering discipline to keep extraneous weight and unneccessary additions and tweaking to the platform gone. I think an apt analogy may be what has happened with personnel computers. Back in the day, when processing power was 1/1000th of what it is now, and hardrives were still measured in MB, and RAM was precious, software code had to be lean and tight and elegant, Once there was copious power became available, bloat and sloppiness set in, using brute force to further undisciplined design."
I think that is great parallel to draw off of. I work in IT, and my current pet peeve is how ridiculously huge driver downloads are these days. You used to be able to fit any driver on a floppy, because you had to be able to, to get it onto the computer.
 
"what are you talking about? The average family sedan today has 160-170hp and gets about 20/30 on the EPA cycle. Do not act like the average vehicle has 300hp when most Accord and Camrys are four cylinders. No one NEEDS a 300hp car but luxury and sports cars offer 300hp because family cars are available with 250+hp. With advances in DI and transmissions the average 300hp car today gets mileage that is only slightly worse than the average 250hp car. I believe the IS350 gets 19/28 with 306hp. The CTS gets 17/26 while the Malibu with only 252hp and 300lbs less weight gets 17/26. The Camry and Accord I-4 models only get 2mpg better mileage than their V6 counterparts so it's not like you gas consumption soars when you bump up to a V6 engine in 2008."
What am I talking about?! You're the one suggesting that the government is asking auto manufacturers to produce "300hp cars that get 43mpg" Nice try 1487... I'm saying the answer to this chicken little issue is maybe back off the power from 300 by about hmm...half? If this move was combined with a serious effort to reduce weight and decrease drag, we could have more efficient cars that still have adequate (or better) acceleration.
 
Your comparison of V6 family sedans and entry level luxury cars with the uprated engines to family sedan 4 cylinders makes a very good point. Another pet peeve of mine actually. It's typical for a family sedan's V6 to have over 100 hp more than the I4, yet only score about 2 mpg worse, as you said. I don't think this is by accident. Think about it from a business perspective. They're throwing everything they can into making these V6s more powerful with a marginal fuel economy penalty, so they can up sell you into the V6 model. The 6 cylinder fuel economy/power ratio has been getting better and better in the past 10 years. 4 cylinders not so much. The reason is there hasn't been much incentive for the manufacturer to do so (in the US). As long as your car hits the magic 30 mpg mark, or close to it, everyone's happy. That applies to me as well to some degree. The other incentive for putting all the engineering into the V6 is that for many manufacturers the mid-sized sedan's optional V6 is their highest volume engine (because it exists also in their sporty cars, CUVs, SUVs, luxury brand, yes I'm thinking of Nissan), so they can enjoy maximum economy of scale with their R&D money. The new CAFE standards are going to create an incentive for more efficient 4 cylinders (and platforms).

Furthermore I would like to say that I like to drive ridiculously fast, yet I'm usually satisfied with the mere 145 hp my 2700 pound car generates. With the conservative weight, lack of power robbing torque converter, and proper wringing of the power plant, I effortlessly outrun (or am held back by more often) 95% of traffic without really trying. The only time I'm really in want of more power is when I'm trying to travel our highways at left lane Autobahn speeds. Wind resistance is a worthy opponent!

1487 -
 
Your Honda example is pointless. You took an Accord with an unefficient I-4 and compared it to a 2008 Accord.
 
No, i compared the 1996 Accord V6 to a 2008 V6 and a 2008 Inline 4. That 1996 V6 was the top line car of the Accord line-up in 96.
 
The gains are impressive but you neglect to mention that the new Accord is utilizing all the tools in the current fuel savings arsenal including VVT and VCM. Those technologies are great but where do you go from here? You can deactivate more cylinders. You can't add MORE VVT to gain more efficiency. At this point what you are left with is adding DI, a diesel or a hybrid powertrain. DI is likely to get you 1mpg. A diesel will get you more but cost you acceleration and add cost and will not be popular amongst buyers.
 
I'm sorry, I forgot you're a mechanical engineer and you have figured out all the efficiency that can be eeked from a Honda engine. That's why a 2008 2.4 liter Honda engine with 200 HP and 160_ ft-lbs of torque has more power and offers better efficiency than the 1996 Honda V6...because you've figured everything out. Right?
 
As for Diesel, Honda is releasing a 2.2 diesel in the USA soon. It's the same engine they're using in the Euro Accord for 09 and it's an impressive unit capable of well over 40 mpg freeway, and sporting more power than the 96 Accord V6 I showed you.
 
If we listened to you, then the manufacturers should pack it in now. They'll never hit the measely combined average of 26 mpgs. Not with only 12 years to go! There are no advancements occurring at all, right? VW, Subaru, Honda haven't recently released sensational new diesels. Surely, those engines are pinnacle of all engineers will ever achieve. We will never create better, lighter batteries that can be seamlessly integrated with a powertrain. Never. Simple fact that auto engineering has reached its zenith. No lighter, stronger plastics.
 
1487, contact the media and let them know it's all over. You've spotted the exact point we will cease to improve anything mechanically.

"Those technologies are great but where do you go from here?"
 
aVTEC?

Fuel economy has been a priority here for maybe 3 years. But in European markets where the government taxes gas at $6-8 a gallon it has been goal one for two decades.
 
If thousands of professional engineers on hundreds of projects with billions of dollars in funding have only made incremental and rapidly diminishing advances, what reason is there to think that US government fiat by lawyers without technical backgrounds is going to change that?
 
Solving one engineering problem in the past doesn't show that a totally different problem today is also solvable.
 
In 1908 planes could fly 30 or 40 miles per hour.
In 1958 planes could fly 1500 miles per hour.
By that logic the government should pass a law that planes today should fly 60,000 miles per hour. Those 580 knot Boeings are a conspiracy of complacent engineers and big oil!
 
Magic can do anything. Engineering can't. Confusing engineering and magic shows you don't understand either.

aspade,
 
Actually, they're spending resources improving diesels drastically. Outrside the US diesel is the cheaper and more accepted alternative. We've seen large jumps in diesel power and efficiency over the past two-three years. Recently MB and BMW have shown off variations of hybrid-diesel which exhibit exceptional mileage.
 
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/geneva/2008/bmwx5vision.html
 
"Sitting up front underneath the reworked X5's expansive hood is BMW's new twin-turbocharged common-rail injection, 2.0-liter inline-4 diesel engine. Equipped with the latest Bosch piezo injectors, the diesel produces 204 horsepower along with an impressive 295 pound-feet of torque at 2,000 rpm. The small electric motor provides 20 hp and 155 pound-feet of torque and is powered by electricity stored in two separate lithium-ion batteries sited in the space usually reserved for the spare wheel underneath the floor of the cargo bay...
 
...BMW claims the new package will achieve 36.2 mpg for its latest concept. This is dramatically better than the 29 mpg expected from an X5 with BMW's 225-hp 3.0-liter inline-6 diesel."
 
MB has a hybrid diesel e class that they claim will get 45 mpg and they're releasing an ML hybrid that will get 30 mpg.
 
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004731.html
 
S300 Bluetec Hybrid gets over 33 mpg and that's in a massive S class:
 
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/07/frankfurt-preview-mercedes-benz-s-300-bluetec-hybrid/
 
But yeah there are no advances and nobody in Europe has made any significant progress creating highly efficient cars in the recent future. Good grief...

Nobody said there are no advances left to be made. But all of the low hanging fruit is picked, whats left is increasingly marginal and expensive.
 
Marginal and expensive may well turn a 25 mpg car into a 30. But million dollar tech demonstrators aside, it won't turn it into a 43 mpg car.

Aspade,
 
http://66.160.188.111/.eea1863
 
"However, while 35 mpg makes a great sound bite from the floor of Congress, the actual, real-world mileage needed will be approximately 26.5 mpg. That's 24 percent better than today's requirement, but not the 40 percent jump all the politicians are crowing about."
 
But you guys are right, that's low hanging fruit. Sigh. Efficient diesels from Honda, BMW, VW and Subaru already beat these numbers and these diesels are in cars right now. But yet you're resistant.
 
I'm not sure why you're all so opposed to something that's happening incrementally over the next decade. I'm not sure why you all believe nothing will improve. Have any of you opposed to engine improvements driven a european diesel? I'm guessing the answer is a resounding no.
 
Do a google search on the 2009 honda accord diesel. Or 2008 Subaru diesel. The cars exist ...
 
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0801_subaru_boxer_turbodiesel_first_drive/specifications.html
 
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553#2
 
"The power figures are impressive. The boxer diesel produces 148 horsepower at 3,600 rpm and 258 pound-feet of torque at just 1,800 rpm. The engine is capable of 60.5 mpg. This compares with the 320d's turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-4 diesel that produces 174 hp and 271 lb-ft of torque, while the Honda Accord's turbocharged, 2.2-liter inline-4 diesel delivers 138 hp and 251 lb-ft of torque."
 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4235586.html
 
"If reports are correct, the Jetta should get upwards of 50 mpg, combined highway and city. "
 
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=122792
 
"The Jetta TDI will cost about $2,000 more than the standard Jetta, which starts at about $18,000. Volkswagen estimates the TDI will post city fuel economy "in the 40s" and highway economy "in the 50s." A 50-state legal Touareg is on its way soon."
Passat 2.0 TDI
http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/volkswagen/volkswagen-passat-2.0-s-tdi-cr-4dr.asp
 
Urban Fuel
34.9 mpg (29 USA)
 
Extra Urban
55.4 mpg (45 USA)
 
Combined
45.6 mpg (37.5 USA)
 
But it's too hard to get 26 mpg, let alone 35 combined.
 
We have not seen a diesel hybrid on the road yet but within the next 10 years, we will and when coupled with Li-Ion the results will be astounding. BMW, MB and others in europe are showing these cars right now and when they're ready for production we'll get numbers even more impressive. Low-hanging fruit...

"I'm sorry, I forgot you're a mechanical engineer and you have figured out all the efficiency that can be eeked from a Honda engine. That's why a 2008 2.4 liter Honda engine with 200 HP and 160_ ft-lbs of torque has more power and offers better efficiency than the 1996 Honda V6...because you've figured everything out. Right? "
 
That same engine barely gets better mileage than Honda's V6 with VCM which basically tells you there isnt much more they can do to wrong efficiency out of the 2.4L save adding DI. With all the tech on the Honda 2.4L the TSX only gets 20 or 21mpg in the city. It will not be easy to get that number to 30 considering all the bells and whistles it already has.
 
Your argument is the same as those lame politiicians. It is so ridiculous to assume that car companies have no interest in one upping one another when the market is so competitive. To say that this technology exists or is easily attainable but is being ignored by automakers is absolutely silly. We just saw the biggest gain in mileage in recent memory with hybrid synergy drive. You are unlikely to see any new tech that can do more than hybrid technology in the near future. A 30%-50% gain in mileag is HUGE but the problem is its not cheap and it compromises the packaging of the vehicle. There is no free lunch when it comes to fuel efficiency gains.
 
My bad about teh 1996 Honda- that mileage is still poor for a V6 with so little power and displacement. I thought Honda was better than that.
 
"As for Diesel, Honda is releasing a 2.2 diesel in the USA soon. It's the same engine they're using in the Euro Accord for 09 and it's an impressive unit capable of well over 40 mpg freeway, and sporting more power than the 96 Accord V6 I showed you. "
 
I know about the diesel. Diesels are not new technology, they have always been more efficient. What you dont get about CAFE is that its sales weighted. If people buy diesels in small numbers they will not do much to improve an automakers CAFE rating. You and I both know (OK you probably dont) that diesels are not going to be big sellers in the near future due to costs and perception. Furthermore, CA and other states want to enact stricter rules on emissions that will all but ban diesels from those states. Since you are a supporter of politicians who think they are smarter than engineers I want to know your stance on that. BMW, MB and Honda are going to great lengths to come up with 50 state legal diesels and the rules could be changing again which would make their efforts moot in CA and states that follow CA's twisted lead.
 
You are right, I am a mech. engineer. I'm guessing you are not by the way you assume all this stuff is easy. Maybe you should run for congress. You will fit right in.
 
BTW, you can post all the MPG figures you want for diesels that arent even sold here but the reality is most of those cars will be slow and pricey by American standards. If people dont buy them it will not make a difference in terms of CAFE. Considering the low value of the dollar you can rest assured any diesels imported from Europe or Japan (assuming they are 50 state legal) will come with a nice price premium.
 
BTW, C&D tested a $30k civic diesel in England and got only slightly better mileage than the gas only civic sold here. I don't know how they calculate mileage in Europe but it seems like the figures you are quoting with confidence are very optimistic. Also, if you dont care about performance you can always get great mileage by making small engines with more power. One reason (in addition to diesel fuel) that European cars get better mileage than American cars is that they drive smaller, weaker cars in Europe. If the average American were willing to settle for a family car with 100hp we sure as hell could see some significant mileage gains. Problem is, I don't think people over here are anxious to buy cars with that kind of power and 0-60 times of 11secs- even when gas is this high.

"You are right, I am a mech. engineer. "
 
Really? Or is this sarcasm that I'm not getting because of the whole "text" thing....

1487,
 
 If we have attained the highest efficiency and power possible, why continue to develop engines? Is there some research that proves all the manufacturers believe they've gone as fas as possible?
 
You're dismissing diesels, li-ion hybrids and anything else that doesn't provide maximum generic power but have you personally experienced a European Common Rail Diesel? Have you had any seat time in a 2.0 TDI?

"Really? Or is this sarcasm that I'm not getting because of the whole "text" thing...."
 
Really.
 
"If we have attained the highest efficiency and power possible, why continue to develop engines? Is there some research that proves all the manufacturers believe they've gone as fas as possible?
"
 
Stop taking the immature approach to rebutting posts you don't like and read what was stated by apade and myself. Neither of us said no further improvements were possible. You can keep rephrasing what we said for your own purposes OR you can deal with what we actually said: it is not going to be easy to get large mileage gains going forward because automakers have already utilitized a bevy of technologies just to get fuel efficiency where it is today. Many of the advancements we have today exist simply because there is the computing power available to do them. Engineers could think up solutions in the 70s and 80s that weren't feasible due ot paltry computing power (like cylinder deactivation) but those dreams came to fruition in the 90s and 2000s. That said, the advancements are just as much about increasing power without decreasing mileage as anything. We can get far more mileage out of our vehicles but NOT without compromises. I don't see why you and naive politicians can't grasp that simple concept. You are saying we can easily have our cake and eat it too when Europe is a perfect example of the type of compromises I am talking about. Since you frequent Europe and are an expert on ED I'm sure you know about the size and power levels of European cars. Their fleet doesn't look like our fleet AND they extensively use diesel and that is why they have far more high mileage vehicles than we do. It's not about Europeans have more engineering know how, its about the realities of their auto market. Diesels are loved and encouraged over there, space is tight and gas is far more expensive than it is here. THOSE FACTS are what determine the European vehicle mix, not superior engineering. We can get more power quickly as long as states relax their emissions rules to allow more affordable diesels here and people start settling for smalller, less powerful cars. Most of the top selling cars in Germany have less than 150hp according to an article I saw recently. Not only that, nearly every car on the list was a subcompact or compact. No crossovers, no large sedans, no pickups, etc.

"You're dismissing diesels, li-ion hybrids and anything else that doesn't provide maximum generic power but have you personally experienced a European Common Rail Diesel? Have you had any seat time in a 2.0 TDI?"
 
what are you talking about? When did I "dismiss" anything you mentioned? Diesels cost more and are not legal in some states. It's pretty simple. I never argued that diesels don't yield greater efficiency than gas engines. We all know that (I know its shocking that others have this knowledge) so you aren't telling me anything new. You keep talking diesels but are not talking about diesel fuel cost, emissions problems or lack of interest in the US market. You cannot improve CAFE averages with cars that dont sell. I would be shocked if Honda expects the Accord diesel to be more than 10-20% of volume in a best case scenario. The accord hybrid was essentially like a diesel in terms of efficiency gain vs gas counterpart and price premium. We all know how that turned out. The only way to avoid such realities is to offer the diesel models at a loss i.e. Prius but I don't think most automakers are willing to do that.

"Really."
 
Interesting to know. I'm a civil myself. Good stuff.

1487,
 
Diesels cost more and are not legal in some states. It's pretty simple.
 
And yet not true. That's the part I don't get. you're misrepresenting the laws consistently. Diesels are legal in all states. There is no law banning diesels in any state. But yet you repeat this idea that CA has banned diesels. You can sell a diesel in CA if you meet the air reqs or if it's used. Have any idea how expensive a diesel VW is? Go to Navada and AZ and you'll find they sell like crazy and at high rates to Californians. The 2009 diesels from VW, Honda, BMW and MB all meet the current reqs - hell Honda's car does it without any urea injectors. I can't predict the pace of sales but I know that gas is over $4 a gallon by my house. Who isn'te xpecting $5 a gallon by next April/May?
 
You cannot improve CAFE averages with cars that dont sell. I would be shocked if Honda expects the Accord diesel to be more than 10-20% of volume in a best case scenario.
 
The auto industry has 12 years. I don't think anyone expects a turn around instantly. This isn't supposed to change the USA tomorrow. But as gas continues its skyward pricing, the gap from diesel to leaded becomes smaller and smaller. Right now in CA it's a less than 20% jump from unleaded to diesel. This will get smaller as the years go by. As gas passes $6-7 a gallon the gap will seem meaningless compared to the returned fuel efficiency.
 
The accord hybrid was essentially like a diesel in terms of efficiency gain vs gas counterpart and price premium.
 
 The Accord Hybrid offered mild mileage improvements and performance gains. It was an attempt to lure people to hybrids with the promise of more power and a bit better MPGs. Toyota also tried this with the Highlander/RX. They wanted to offer "no compromise" hybrids using NIMH batteries - this isn't possible with NIMH but with Li-Ion we should see a better result from incorporating hybrids with gas/diesel engines.

"hondacura - Good call on the Civic. The '01 version was really crummy, as evinced by how good the preceeding and succeeding versions are. There's a distinct disconnect there."
 
Thanks! I read an article a few years back and Honda admitted the bean counters were WAAAAAAY much to involved in the R&D process in regards to the 01-05 Honda Civics. Honda actually apologized to its customers in that article.

bdc,
 
I know diesels arent banned, but current diesels are not emissions compliant as NEW cars in all 50 states. I dont think VW or Honda or MB is concerned about the used car market. They want to sell NEW diesels in CA and the other states that use CA's air standards. Yes, the new models from MB and Honda will be 50 state compliant but the technology required to make them as such will only add to the cost. Diesel engines are already more expensive than gas engines before you get into AdBlue or any other solutions that allow for 50 state compliance.
 
"Right now in CA it's a less than 20% jump from unleaded to diesel. This will get smaller as the years go by. As gas passes $6-7 a gallon the gap will seem meaningless compared to the returned fuel efficiency. "
 
You are contradicting yourself. If diesels take hold in American it will raise demand for diesel fuel which will drive up prices while concurrently reducing demand for gasoline which would help drive down gas prices. Most people consider paying $.60 more a gallon for diesel to be a bad idea. Most people do not like the idea of paying more upfront and more for gas in order to get a long term savings in fuel costs. Most folks who buy hybrids now acknowledge they don't make much sense financially.
 
The Accord hybrid had a V6 and compared to the V6 accord it's mileage was very good. It was a mild improvement over the much slower Accord four cylinder model. Under the old standards the last gen accord V6 was about 21/29 and the Hybrid was around 30/38 I believe. I'm sure HondaAcura can give us the correct figures.

E36 M3 FTW! Karl, you made my day! I drive a 99 M3 and love my car. In fact, here's my blog post on her birthday:
 
http://cparente.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/happy-birthday-m3/

You are contradicting yourself. If diesels take hold in American it will raise demand for diesel fuel which will drive up prices while concurrently reducing demand for gasoline which would help drive down gas prices
 
 Diesel is cheaper to produce. Only in this backwards country is diesel more expensive. The only reason diesel is priced higher than gas right now - the gas companies can extort it. Thankfully diesel owners aren't confined to using just Exxon and Mobil. There are alternatives now and the potential for new, renewable non-corn-based diesels is amazing. Algae-based diesel offers phenomenal potential.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/
 
Maybe it's pie in the sky but it offers hope.
  
The Accord diesel gets an average in the high 30s to mid 40s. This isn't a slight bump. This is a jump over the current engines.
 
You seem opposed to diesels but why?

"You seem opposed to diesels but why?"
 
I'm not opposed to diesels, I am trying to get you to join us in the real world. Your position (along with others) is that diesel engines are a panacea to our problems is full of holes. You haven't addressed any of the difficulties diesel faces in this country and you refuse to acknowlegde that US emissons rules are one major factor in diesels being such a nonfactor here. You also dont mention European tax breaks for diesel cars, tax breaks for diesel fuel, European fuel costs that force people to drive small engined cars, displacement taxes, etc. There are a LOT of reasons for diesels being successful in Europe but you act like its simply a matter of people flocking to them over gas engines because they are superior in every way.

1487,
 
I see all the roadblocks but right now there's no other technology that will offer the same massive advantages. Going forward normal gas engines do not show the same promise for economy and even the environment.
 
I guess I'm just exceedingly optimistic because my experiences abroad have taught me diesels today are superior to normal gas engines - without tax breaks or government assistance. When I see the ML320 CDI and ML350 selling for nearly the same amount, nearly the same performance and the 320 CDI offer's 30% better fuel economy, I can't fathom any person picking the 350 over the diesel alternative.
 
We will see how it turns out. For my part of the country, CA, there is no logic behind buying a normal gasoline car in 2009. The giant efficiency advantages, matched to minimum price gaps from premium unleaded to diesel make diesels extremely attractive here. We're talking about $500-700 a year in savings at current prices. That's a 3-4 year ROI assuming a $2000 premium for a diesel (which isn't true for MB's diesel cars).
 
I'm optimistic this will work. Eventually I hope to see algae oil or some other genius concept supplant crappy old dinosaur diesel too, negating the worry about environmental concerns and offering far cheaper, renewable fuel sources, doing the world one more giant favor by removing the usefulness of the middle east. I know pie in the sky...