The new MB Sprinter truck comes with a 2.1 diesel. 2.2 should be enough for taxi/limo service. Private owners will want more, but a lot of S-Classes are used for fleet service (and kept idling all day, as I mentioned earlier).

I wonder how long it can run the AC with the engine off. S-Classes are most often spotted in the wild idling around CEO hangouts, with the bored driver either sleeping, or poking his smart phone. There's no need to keep a 200+hp prime mover running if all you are doing is chilling a relatively small room.

"7 km using electricity only—about 70% of the route distance" Is that a typical route distance for a city bus in Europe? 7 km isn't much in North American urban sprawl.

Kelly, BMW was testing electric cars around the same time (they were demoed at the Munich Olympics). Citroen was working on ethanol fuel cells. In fact, most automakers and technical universities were working on gasoline alternatives. I'm not convinced that blaming GM is the correct answer. What about all the companies that did not release an EV1? Should they be applauded for giving-up earlier?

Again Harvey, the overall trend is downwards. That's been the case for over 60 years, irrespective of whether SUV sales were going up or down. If you are so keen to assign this 60 year trend to last year's sales figures and to your pet causes (apparently you are not a fan of people who drive Hondas, or any car bigger than yours), how do you explain the fact that these same fatality figures were also going down 10 years ago when SUV sales were going up? By your own logic, SUVs were our saviours, helping to bring down death rates! And 10 years before that, it was minivans... How do you also explain that fatalities are going down all over the world, even in jurisdictions where SUVs are gaining in popularity? The answer is that you don't. You picked some unrelated variables, and no matter how hard you try, no correlation will magically appear. Even your own figures are wrong. Big SUV sales in Quebec are down slightly, but small SUVs are booming relative to sedans. Does this mean that traffic fatalities are going up? Of course not. It just mean that potholes are getting bigger, and that families would rather traverse them in a small SUV than in a small sedan.

Harvey, As you must surely know(?), Quebec has the most urban population (% who live in cities) of all Canadian Provinces. "Urban" means smaller cars, lower average speeds, fewer road fatalities, and higher pedestrian fatalities. It's all common sense. You conclusions are nothing more than wishful thinking. Case in point: if small car drivers are so careful, how come they kill more pedestrians? That hardly seems very careful!

'How does "..possible to turn off the combustion engine about half the time when driving.." happen? ' The explanation is at the end of the quote: "when driving according to the official New European Driving Cycle." Logically, that specific cycle includes a substantial amount of "stop and go." In a perfect world, this driving pattern would be a fairly good match for typical European big-city driving. Flywheel technology won't be a boon in all cases (driving up the Alps, or down the Autobahn), but the stop/go case is common enough that many drivers could benefit.

Harvey, Fatalities per km travelled have gone down practically every year for the past 60. They were going down when SUVs were a growing segment, and they are going down still. They are also going down in countries where trucks and SUVs were never a significant part of the fleet. Your statistics tell us is that there's a global economic slump, and therefore people can't afford bigger cars. That's "good news" until you realize that the trend will reverse itself with the economy. BTW, the trend toward fewer road deaths and injuries will continue, regardless of automotive fashion. It's a multi-factor trend, but there will always be people who are willing to assign all of the credit to their pet cause (speed radars, graduated licensing, alcohol awareness, anti-lock brakes, high-strength steel, etc).

"frequently-replaced items such as the alternator, water pump, power steering pump, A/C compressor. (...) starter that require frequent replacement! (...) transmission service, repair, or replacement that will cost several thousands dollars." Roger, With all due respect, you are driving a lemon. I wouldn't have held on to that car as long as you. You should know that your experience is not typical of modern cars. Out of your entire list, my 12 year old car has only had a water pump replacement, and that wasn't expensive. By the way, electric cars also have water pumps that are used to heat and cool the batteries; not to mention AC and power steering (electric, as in all modern cars). I suspect that you may be overstating maintenance costs on gasoline cars, and understating them on electric cars in order to make your point. Is that really necessary?

Kelly, The Leaf is smaller than the average car in the US. If you choose to compare like with like, it's 550 lbs (20%) heavier than a same-size Nissan Versa. That's a huge amount for a sub-compact, and it means that the Leaf's brakes are working very hard. To give you an idea of how significant this is, you should know that the gross weight (fully laden) for the Versa is 3,389 lbs. That means that a Leaf with a 103 lbs driver is heavier than the legal limit for the same-platform Versa! That will put some stress on the brakes.

Kelly, Electric cars are comparatively heavier due to the weight of the battery pack(s). They also often use lighter-weight braking components which may not wear as well (the Prius uses aluminium brake components). Add to that the fact that regenerative braking only works within the charging capacity of the pack (full charge = no regenerative braking) and within the maximum allowable charging rate (which is typically lower than the discharging rate). For stability reasons, the non-driving axle also needs to brake. All of these factors contribute to the fact that brake wear on electric and hybrid cars is not necessarily reduced. Changes in battery chemistry will require new software at a minimum, and most likely new hardware (chargers, inverters, etc). I doubt that any manufacturer would bother with this when their main focus is to sell you a new car. Aftermarket and home-brew packs have serious safety concerns. You may not be able to insure a car that has a non-OEM pack.

Kelly, New batteries may be cheaper to produce. That doesn't mean that old batteries for discontinued cars will be cheaper at the retail level. Manufacturers have no incentive to re-engineer cars that were produced 10 years prior (so they can use newer battery tech). Your assumption about brake wear in cars that use regeneration has not been proven in real life. Maybe real life is correct. Just saying. Besides, brake jobs happen every 4-5 years if you use quality components. That's only a hundred or two a year in cost, which doesn't move payback around by a noticeable amount.

"An EV could drive 'like new' with just a 1/3rd the cost new battery" "EV regeneration nearly eliminates brake wear" Make any unreasonable assumptions? 1st gen Priuses and Insights are getting scrapped because battery replacements are too expensive. You're assuming that this situation will improve going forward, but it probably won't. Hybrid cars do not require any less brake maintenance than comparable non-hybrids. I'm sure we can all find very specific counter-examples but, overall, techs tell me that Priuses are due for new pads/rotors at around the same mileage as Corollas. The Prius parts are more expensive. Again, you assume that this will change going forward, but based on what?

" Auto makers can lower the prices for ICEV's more than EV, because they sell more parts for ICEV's that break down more often. The high reliability of EV means less profits from parts sales due to fewer subsequent parts sales." Modern cars rarely if ever have engine problems. If you think that the auto industry is fuelled by the profits from 4 spark plugs every 100,000 miles, you need to think again. Parts sales are mostly made-up of brakes, suspension, tires, electronics. 15 years of Prius experience have conclusively shown that hybrid cars are no easier on any of these components than non-hybrid cars. There is no reason to believe that all-electric cars will be any different (other than naive optimism, of course). If anything, manufacturers love full electrics because of the unavoidable failure of the battery. Take care of a gasoline car and it can last a lifetime. Take care of an electric car, and the battery will be worthless within a dozen years, forcing you to purchase a new car. This will effectively kill the used car market. Nobody will spend a dime on used electrics when they know that the $15,000 battery pack is nearly worn-out.

Dave, Understood. Start-stop is most effective in the city (obviously), and extended gear ratios are most effective on the open road, so they complement each other quite well. I'm sure that Ford and GM would use CVTs if they found them to be either cheaper or more effective. Chrysler is also using a planetary gear 9-speed in their new Cherokee, so there must be some advantage to this configuration.

Dave, Multi-gear transmissions are not incompatible with start-stop systems. The idea behind this kind of transmission is that you can keep the engine at the most efficient point in its power curve, based on the current torque demand. You can also have a lower 1st gear (which means that you rely less on wasteful torque converter slip), and a higher top gear. Modern transmissions last the life of the vehicle, so repair costs are immaterial. You do get the occasional turkey (previous-gen Honda Odyssey, for instance), but that's what Ford and GM are trying to avoid by combining resources.

I find it very entertaining that the very same people who usually rant about the externalities of nuclear power are prepared to drop all of their objections if a (manufacturer-sponsored) study shows that nuclear electricity can be cost-competitive with gasoline. Let's not extrapolate these numbers too much. The study is specific to France, where the grid is predominantly nuclear and (arguably) taxpayer-subsidized, and gasoline is heavily taxed. The numbers don't work the same in most countries.

Jus7tme, This new Eco Turbo 1.6 (170 hp) is significantly more powerful than the Ecotec 1.4 (138 hp) in the current Cruze. Perhaps GM will use the new engine in a future Cruze SS? Nothing wrong with that, but I would still expect the 1.4 to have the better fuel mileage.

HarveyD, You keep going back to your CANDU example for nuclear costs. That's irrelevant here. CANDU was already being taught as the perfect example of how NOT to run a nuclear program 30 years ago. It's a political boondoggle that should and could have been shut-down decades ago. The fact that there's a wrong way to do nuclear (CANDU) does not in any way imply that there isn't a right way. GreenCar analogy: the fact that a rapper spent over a million dollars souping-up a VW Beetle does not mean that the upcoming VW e-Up won't be a good car. One is an attempt to polish a 50 year old turd, and the other is a state-of-the-art solution to current transportation issues.

@BK4: "If you commute about 40 miles a day, you will save money" (with the Leaf). Indeed. The problem is that if you commute less than that, you won't save any money. If you commute more than that, you won't make it home on hot days, cold days, or days when you need to run an errand that takes you out of your way. The sweet spot is extremely small with this generation of electric cars. I ran the numbers for myself, and it would only work if temps never went much below freezing and if I never had to stray from my usual route (no dentist appointments, etc). My average commute is around 40 miles. I based my range estimates on what Leaf owners are reporting online.

Dollared, Thank you so much for the unsolicited personal attack. I think it really contributed to the overall reasoned and scientific debate around here. FYI, I don't drive an SUV. I drive a car that is much more economical than your Passat wagon (which itself is considerably more wasteful and inefficient than the Jeep product discussed in this article). It seems that you don't practice what you preach. I'm not surprised. People who lead with insults rarely follow-up with integrity and reasoning. I will let you have the last word. You are more than capable of digging your own grave.

Treehugger, You are still entangled in the morality play. You can't judge cars by their appearance any more. Case in point: a Subaru Outback, your example of a sensible non-SUV alternative to this Jeep, gets worse highway MPG! Are you willing to make objectively worse environmental choices, just for the sake of re-fighting the last war (the one where Sequoias and Tahoes were the only SUVs)? This is 2013, not 2003. You need to admit that the problem wasn't SUVs, it was their fuel consumption. There's nothing inherently wrong about an SUV that's good on gas. In fact, it's a good thing.

Will, You are operating under the assumption that the clear air under a vehicle counts as part of the cross-sectional area. It doesn't. Do an image search on "World Solar Challenge." You will see lots of vehicles that have way more ground clearance than this Jeep. Their designers know what you don't. Also, aggressive-looking designs don't weigh more. It's not a morality play, it's science. I think that a lot of people will need to realize that these new SUVs are completely different from GMC Tahoes and Toyota Sequoias. They are as economical as normal cars, because that's what they are.

Treehugger, My point was that this supposedly "bad" SUV gets similar mileage to a supposedly "good" wagon of similar carrying capacity. The notion that all SUVs are worse than non-SUVs is outdated. SUVs are just regular cars with a bit more ground clearance. We all know that they used to be based on truck platforms, but that was years ago. This new Jeep gets better highway mileage than a 4 cylinder Camry did 10 years ago, and yet nobody calls-out Camry drivers for their environmental choices.

Treehugger, Given the state of the road network in my corner of North America, we really do need these vehicles. A "normal" wagon wouldn't necessarily be much lighter, or aerodynamic. Ever notice how the sun-powered racers that compete across the Australian desert have huge ground clearance? They don't do it for off-road performance. Consider this: the non-diesel Jetta Wagon also gets 31MPG highway. Is this Jeep really that bad? Do cars have to look dull? Pre-empting the diesel debate: feel free to expose your kids to a proven carcinogen. It's your choice (until they're old enough to make their own choices). Just realize that not everyone shares your sense of priorities.