Market inertia.
Diesels are all over Europe and American tourists don't even notice.
The difference is a whole bunch of chicken and egg problems, that influence price, availability, choice and support.
Diesels are all over Europe and American tourists don't even notice.
The difference is a whole bunch of chicken and egg problems, that influence price, availability, choice and support.
European governments introduce market disortions that favor diesels. They also allow high smog emission levels, which again distorts the market in favor of diesels.
Recently, there was a year in which there were no diesels at all on the American market, because no diesel at that time could meet the required smog-emission regulations. The trend has been: Americans care about clean air, and Europeans do not, and therefore the latter have been more willing to operate diesel cars.
But it doesn't explain why we allow all of our large trucks to use diesel, does it?
Do you think that's just a loophole big enough to drive a truck through?
Interestingly, I can't recall where I read this, but allegedly particles big enough to cause smog are easily filtered by the human body. Where as particles so small they don't cause smog tend to be absorbed more easily.
And so some clean air regulations might have actually made things worse.
- higher road tax for a diesel, in some countries 200% more than a gasoline car of the same weight - extra requirements such as factory installed particle filters on diesel exhausts - extra tax penalties on diesel fuel
Europeans care about clean air very much, and most European cities I've been to compare favourably with the American cities of similar size that I've been to. (Detroit, Los Angeles, New York vs say Paris, Madrid, Amsterdam and Berlin).
In former eastblock countries the situation is worse though.
As for the rest of your arguments, you should test drive a BMW 5 series diesel and we'll talk about power, handling and more of those items you mentioned.
And let's not even get started on reliability, diesels are in a completely different ball park when it comes to that. Here a diesel car that has 200k on the clock counts as 'just broken in', the same chassis with a petrol engine would count as being at 60..70% of its economic lifespan.
2009 X5 35d vs. 2004 X5 4.8is: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0902_2009_bmw_x... http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0504_2005_luxur...
35d 4.8is
hp: 265 355
lb/hp: 19.3 14.1
0-60: 6.7 5.9
1/4 mile: 15.1 14.3
60-0, ft: 128 114
Though the engine produces a stunning 425 lb-ft of torque at just 1750 rpm, the forward surge doesn't feel dramatic. [...] X5 owners shouldn't feel too cocky [...]
Press the pedal to overtake [...] and the engine note invades the cabin. [...]
We often hear tall tales of European diesels, stories of ridiculous fuel economy, supercar acceleration, and unmatched utility. [...] the truth isn't quite so dramatic
Topgear on those same cars, better data: "
All the bigger BMW engines are wonderful and the X5 boasts three of the best. You can go for a ‘base' 3.0i petrol(268bhp, 0-62mph in 8.1 and 130mph), the diesel version of the 3.0litre (232bhp, but because of the extra torque 0-62mph in the same 8.1 and the same 130mph top end), or go for the range-topping 4.8-litre V8 with 350bhp, 150mph and 0-62 in 6.5."
So, exactly the same performance for two 3.0 liter engines by a quality manufacturer, one diesel, one petrol.
And yes, if you increase the displacement the petrol engine will get more power but that is no longer a fair comparision.
Why? Are they both turbocharged? http://www.google.com/search?q=bmw+x5+35d+biturbo Do they both weigh the same and take up the same amount of room in the engine bay? Do they both cost the same?