And the top 11 greenest cars are....

E92

.....NOT Hybrids! The Toyota Prius comes in at 12th, so that is still a lot better than I don't know how many cars, but 9 of the cars that are greener than the Prius actually use petrol and only petrol. The other 2 are diesel. Now to be fair, 2 of the cars in the list are really the same(Peugeot 107 and Citroen C1, which makes it all the more weird that the Toyota Aygo doesn't appear), so really its 11th then.

For more, click here

And here is where the website that the report should be found, though I can only get the preamble so far.

Owen

My previous car was the MINI Cooper D, and that's on the list. I find the performance of the little 1.0 litre petrol cars very impressive though!

fletch

This surprised me the most

7

Ford Ka 1.3 Duratec

given that it's an ancient engine

sesswhat

The Toyota Prius comes in at 12th

Which still makes it greener than any car I would actually want:)

prospect

The Panda 100hp

Fast
Cool
Green

Great, I'm getting one.

JHMEG

Green only cos they're so small. Try bring the kids down to visit granny and grand dad for the weekend and you will need 3 Smart Roadsters. One Prius is gonna be greener.

The VCD in Germany ranks the Honda Civic Hybrid as the greenest car.

Kali

JHMEG wrote:

Green only cos they're so small. Try bring the kids down to visit granny and grand dad for the weekend and you will need 3 Smart Roadsters. One Prius us gonna be greener.

Precisely. Different cars have different functions. Say a head of state wants to appear to be green and buys a Lexus 600h, I'd be well chuffed that at least they're making an effort and not pointing out that they should be cycling everywhere or buying one of these pathetic little yokes... they'd be laughed off the political circuit

colm_mcm

the Ford Ka's emissions are 147 g/km.
making the Suzuki Alto, Suzuki Swift, Toyota Aygo, Perodua Kelisa, Audi A2, Yaris D-4D, 207 HDI and many more cars better than it. I'd seriously question how accurate this survey is.

JHMEG

Kali wrote:

Precisely. Different cars have different functions. Say a head of state wants to appear to be green and buys a Lexus 600h, I'd be well chuffed that at least they're making an effort and not pointing out that they should be cycling everywhere or buying one of these pathetic little yokes... they'd be laughed off the political circuit

The OP is on his usual anti-hybrid run, but shur you can't compare 4 wheel mo-peds to proper cars!

zilog_jones

colm_mcm wrote:

the Ford Ka's emissions are 147 g/km.
making the Suzuki Alto, Suzuki Swift, Toyota Aygo, Perodua Kelisa, Audi A2, Yaris D-4D, 207 HDI and many more cars better than it. I'd seriously question how accurate this survey is.

Engine CO2 emissions aren't everything. This report seems to based on some form of life-cycle assessment of the cars, so it would take into consideration the resources and energy used by the car through everything from manufacturing to its end of life (recycling leads to CO2 emissions and waste too).

This definately explains why they're all small cars except for the Prius - the energy used in manufacturing is a very significant factor, and obviously small cars = less steel.

And to clarify with the Ford Ka - the Zetec Rocam or "Duratec 8V" engine currently in it is a simplified SOHC version of the Zetec-SE, i.e. the 16V DOHC engine introduced in the Mk. 4 Fiesta in '95. The crappy old Endura-E was dropped around 2003. So we have no more pushrods... or do Skoda still make theirs?

colm_mcm

So I am to believe that these guys assessed how much energy is needed to build every car on sale, and also how that energy is produced. They went to the factories and assessed where each particular part came from and what it was made from. They looked at the country the car was built in, and took into account how the workers in the factories traveled to work.

They went through all this and still managed to come up with

1) one car that isn't built any more,

2) 2 cars that are identical models in different positions

3) a league table that leaves out the Aygo, yet includes the C1 and 107

E92

Kali wrote:

Precisely. Different cars have different functions. Say a head of state wants to appear to be green and buys a Lexus 600h, I'd be well chuffed that at least they're making an effort and not pointing out that they should be cycling everywhere or buying one of these pathetic little yokes... they'd be laughed off the political circuit

Well actually if a CEO wants to appear to be green without going in a pony and trap, he/she should choose an Audi A8 2.8 and debadge it so nobody will know the difference. Why? Because it is cleaner than the Lexus. At 199 g/km of CO2 compared to the Hybrids 219 g/km.

Or if that doesn't float your boat, the BMW 730d produces 210 g/km of CO2, and the 730Ld(thats the Long Wheelbase version) produces 212 g/km.

So, I suppose the CEO should buy the Lexus if they're feeling green but don't want to sacrifice any comfort then, because Audi and BMW can do better without any Hybrids(and Audi can manage it on Petrol only).

colm_mcm

It'd want to be economical as 0-60 takes 8 seconds !

Anan1

E92 wrote:

Well actually if a CEO wants to appear to be green without going in a pony and trap, he/she should choose an Audi A8 2.8 and debadge it so nobody will know the difference.

I think this sentence needs another look.;)

E92

colm_mcm wrote:

It'd want to be economical as 0-60 takes 8 seconds !

Fortunately the BMW is faster, it does 0-100 in 7.8, plus all that diesel torque. I have no idea how fast the 600h is, because Lexus don't seem to know, but I suspect that it does the 0-100 dash a good bit quicker than either car. It does have a 5.0 V8 for a reason!

My point about Hybrids is that apart from the Lexus RX 400h, all of them can beaten by normal cars on fuel consumption and in some cases emissions too. And I don't mean a Smart car, I mean similar type cars, like in the case of the GS450h, which is dirtier than any 5 series bar the M5, 540i, and 550i.

No amount of twisting can change the fact that a Hybrid is nowhere near as kind to the enviornment as a car that runs on E85, which boasts a whopping 80% reduction in CO2 emissions, whereas according to BMW a Hybrid reduces CO2 emissions by 20% compared to the relevant non hybrid, and then there are diesels which can beat this as well.

Like the Bluemotion Polo,that has only 99 g/km of CO2.

I must say that that report, which I have yet to read has some very interesting and surprising statistics in it, like the fact that a 107 is greener than a Toyota Aygo(how this is true is beyond me as they are the same car built in the same place). I mean the Ford Ka is hardly that economical in the whole schme of things.

As for the hybrids, I'm not that surprised to be honest. There is just simply far more raw materials that are needed to put them together, and the issues of disposing of the batteries when the car has reached the end. There is the batteries, the acids, and the extra energy needed to build them. They weigh more, and quite simply, the more something weighs the more energy is needed and consequently more pollution is created.

What this report does show, is that it is not just low fuel consumption that is the key to good enviornmental credentials. The Ford Ka's performance is living proof of this fact. There are so many cars out there that are more efficient than it.

As for the economy(or lack thereof in some cases) and performance of hybrids in the real world, this has been debated to the ends of the earth on other threads in this forum, so therefore I see no reason to discuss that issue yet again.

And I do hope that this report used like for like comparisons, unlike the last report that questioned the enviornmental friendliness of Hybrid vehicles, where they said the Hummer drived 100,000 miles and the Prius drovbe 300k mls, and then the Prius was more enviornmentally damaging(and of course it was, it drove 3 times the distance) than the Hummer.

Otherwise, this report's validity is very much reduced.

E92

Anan1 wrote:

I think this sentence needs another look.;)

In what way;) ? Actually I know why you said it.

I had the de-bading in mind so that people wouldn't think that the CEO was a cheapskate and turning up in the entry level model:D .

E92

colm_mcm wrote:

the Ford Ka's emissions are 147 g/km.

And the BMW 520d's emissions are 136 g/km:eek: . All things considered, how can a dinky lightweight small engined Ford manage to produce more CO2 on average than a large BMW which has a 2 litre engine. I know the BMW is diesel, but I still don't see how there can be such a gap.

I don't know what to make of this report at all, I'm actually dying to see where they get the results from. I'm looking forward to seeing this report in full, whenever that might be.

zilog_jones

colm_mcm wrote:

So I am to believe that these guys assessed how much energy is needed to build every car on sale, and also how that energy is produced...

Well Life Cycle Assessments can vary in quality greatly and can never be truly comprehensive. It's by no means a perfect science, and I'd say in this case many corners were cut. Without reading the actual report (which they'll probably charge for if it's in a journal or something) we don't know what was actually assessed, or even which cars were assessed.

JHMEG

E92, you really shouldn't believe all you read in magazines. For example the 4d Saab 9-5 Biopower produces 146g of CO2 per km which is nothing other than average. The quoted 80% reduction in CO2 emissions is based on the assumption that the ethanol in the E85 was produced in a carbon neutral way. Currently the most common method of producing ethanol is fermentation which actually generates CO2.

As for diesels. CO2 is not the only emission from cars. Diesels may produce less CO2 pound-for-pound but are generally quite a bit more polluting that petrols and are more hazardous to human health. Indeed if you look at emissions control standards some car makers are striving to create diesels that are as clean as petrols. Now if petrol is the benchmark for emissions, it doesn't leave diesels looking too rosy does it?

As for raw materials. A Prius weighs 1325Kg (incl 50Kg for the battery), a Civic Hybrid weighs 1190Kg. It's pretty safe to say a 1.9 tonne BMW730d required a hell of a lot more raw materials.

As for the batteries which make up less than 4% of the mass of a Prius.. well the nickel costs about three times as much energy to extract from ore as aluminium does. And as it turns out the entire engine block in the 730d is made from aluminium. Isn't the entire A8 made form aluminium?

And we'll ignore the fact that lead acid batteries, which are in every car, contain lead.

E92

JHMEG wrote:

E92, you really shouldn't believe all you read in magazines. For example the 4d Saab 9-5 Biopower produces 146g of CO2 per km which is nothing other than average. The quoted 80% reduction in CO2 emissions is based on the assumption that the ethanol in the E85 was produced in a carbon neutral way. Currently the most common method of producing ethanol is fermentation which actually generates CO2.

Well I had heard of this problem to do with bioethanol, that it is not always as enviornmentally friendly as its claimed. It is also imported from Brazil I believe too for most of Europe up to now, so no question about it, that is not enviornmentally friendly.

However, AFAIK there is whats called 2nd generation biofuel coming soon, and Europe is gearing up to start producing its own biofuel(it already is being produced here in Ireland) in a fully enviornmentally friendly manner. So that problem will soon be gone.

JHMEG wrote:

As for diesels. CO2 is not the only emission from cars. Diesels may produce less CO2 pound-for-pound but are generally quite a bit more polluting that petrols and are more hazardous to human health. Indeed if you look at emissions control standards some car makers are striving to create diesels that are as clean as petrols. Now if petrol is the benchmark for emissions, it doesn't leave diesels looking too rosy does it?

Have to say I can't agree with you. Audi now have Euro 5 diesels already on sale here(A5 TDI), there is no sign of Euro 5 Petrols on the way from Audi.

Merc have been selling Euro 5 standard diesels since last year in the US.

There is no sign of Euro 5 Petrols on the way(apart from the Fiat 500, which will be the only car with an all Euro 5 engine lineup when it comes here), it seems to be only Euro 5 diesels that are coming at the moment. You don't need me to tell you what that means.

All modern diesels have or should have particulate filters, so that reduces the health risks significantly of diesels. That said, they are still worse than petrols for sooty particulates, but its not at all a big difference anymore. And they are marginally worse for Nitrous Oxide.

They are around 13% worse for CO2 emissions, which explains why the Prius which does 65.7 mpg pollutes 104 g/km of CO2, and the MINI cooper D, which also pollutes 104 g/km of CO2 yet does 72.4 mpg.

However as you know, they are around 30% more efficient on the mpg ratings than a(non hybrid) petrol, so even though they are worse than a petrol for the same amount of fuel used, they actually produce less CO2 than a petrol in reality(eg Avensis 1.8 39.2 mpg, 171 g/km CO2, Avensis 2.0 D-4D 51.4 mpg(31% better than the 1.8), 146 g/km CO2(17% better than 1.8).

Even Honda are joining in(and this is a company that used to hate diesels with an unbelievable passion, the founder of Honda once said that there would never be a diesel Hond) with the Euro 5 diesel Accord, and they will be offering that engine for the US Accord and the US C-RV too in 2009.

JHMEG wrote:

As for raw materials. A Prius weighs 1325Kg (incl 50Kg for the battery), a Civic Hybrid weighs 1190Kg. It's pretty safe to say a 1.9 tonne BMW730d required a hell of a lot more raw materials.

Indeed it is very safe to assume what you just said.
However, the Avensis petrol, which is a lot bigger than a Prius weighs 1245 kg.

Or to give a like for like comparison, Lexus GS300, kerb weight 1620 kg, GS450h(no data available from Lexis for 430) 1865 or 245kg more. See here

That is what I had in mind re Hybrids' weight.

Anan1

E92 wrote:

In what way;) ? Actually I know why you said it.

I had the de-bading in mind so that people wouldn't think that the CEO was a cheapskate and turning up in the entry level model:D .

But then they wouldn't appear to be green either!

JHMEG

E92 wrote:

However, AFAIK there is whats called 2nd generation biofuel coming soon, and Europe is gearing up to start producing its own biofuel(it already is being produced here in Ireland) in a fully enviornmentally friendly manner. So that problem will soon be gone.

All E85 here is sold by Maxol and is produced here, by the Carbery Group. I'm not 100% sure, but it is produced from whey, so it is most likely it is produced by fermentation. Seeing as no other oil company is on the verge of supplying E85, I think it'll stay this way for quite a while (and Maxol have just introduced E5 which almost guarantees Carbery a market).

E92 wrote:

Have to say I can't agree with you. Audi now have Euro 5 diesels already on sale here(A5 TDI), there is no sign of Euro 5 Petrols on the way from Audi.

Irrelevant as Euro 5 standard for petrol and diesel are *not* the same. And I'll quote:
"Emissions of the highly noxious pollutants known as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel vehicles are currently four to five times higher than for petrol vehicles. The Euro 5 Directive aims to make diesel cars "catch up" - although not completely"
If you want to read the whole thing it's here.

E92 wrote:

Even Honda are joining in(and this is a company that used to hate diesels with an unbelievable passion, the founder of Honda once said that there would never be a diesel Hond) with the Euro 5 diesel Accord, and they will be offering that engine for the US Accord and the US C-RV too in 2009.

Honda has to sell mass market cars to survive, and is especially interested in doing so in the US, their biggest market. It is most likely Honda will have the first diesel car to pass the CARB requirements, and therefore the first diesel car that can be sold in California. This will be a huge step forward for diesel engines, but Honda's method of doing do is different from other competitors, so it won't be a watershed for diesel (no doubt Honda have patented their process for producing ammonia in the catalytic converter itself).

E92 wrote:

Or to give a like for like comparison, Lexus GS300, kerb weight 1620 kg, GS450h(no data available from Lexis for 430) 1865 or 245kg more. See here

That is what I had in mind re Hybrids' weight.

The service life of both these cars is going to be at least 10 years, but probably more than 15. How will the couple of MPG difference fare out? (The hybrid is probably a bit quicker too, which isn't factored in)

E92

JHMEG wrote:

Irrelevant as Euro 5 standard for petrol and diesel are *not* the same. And I'll quote:
"Emissions of the highly noxious pollutants known as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel vehicles are currently four to five times higher than for petrol vehicles. The Euro 5 Directive aims to make diesel cars "catch up" - although not completely"
If you want to read the whole thing it's here.

Wow, I didn't know that. I suspect that I fell into the trap everyone else fell into and that is that Euro 5 and all these directives are easier for paraffin stoves.

In the US the emissions regulations are fuel neutral, and naturally I am of the view that they should be the same here. In fact I always assumed they were. The fact that the Euro 4 standard for NOx emissions on petrols is exactly the same as that for Euro 6 diesels is a bit unfair, surley?

I think you have to take a balanced view of it though. It is CO2 emissions that are the big problem, it is directly responsible for global warming. Diesels produce less of it. They are also better than petrols for CO emissions and Hydrocarbons(diesels produce 0 Hydrocarbons).

Petrols are better than paraffin stoves for Particulates(they produce 0 particulates) and Nitrous Oxide. These emissions have a negative impact on local air quality and can sometimes cause health risks such as cancers.

I still believe that diesels are better thougfh, in spite of the discrepancies mentioned quite correctly by you.

Ignoring CO2, it is swings and roundabouts. For every one a petrol is better at, the diesels is better at something else. On balance if a Euro 5 petrol and Euro 5 diesel both produce 140 g/km of CO2, I would probably say that the petrol is greener. That said, it depends on what your emphasis is. If you think that HC is the poblem, then you would instantly say diesel is greener. This of course is a problem, because like PM is bad for local air quality, but makes no difference whatsoever to global warming.

But including CO2, you just can't get away from the fact that overall they are a better choice for the enviornment, IMO. Anyway, a Euro 3 car is 20 times better(excluding CO2) for the enviornment than a car with no catalytic converter and a carb. The car industry ought to mention this more often, because they really have achieved so much in reducing other harmful emissions by such a huge amount.
Of course in reality, none of this matters, what fuel consumption we get in the real world determines precisely what our carbon footprint is.

And you don't need me to tell you how this is so dependant on so many factors.

JHMEG wrote:

Honda has to sell mass market cars to survive, and is especially interested in doing so in the US, their biggest market. It is most likely Honda will have the first diesel car to pass the CARB requirements, and therefore the first diesel car that can be sold in California. This will be a huge step forward for diesel engines, but Honda's method of doing do is different from other competitors, so it won't be a watershed for diesel (no doubt Honda have patented their process for producing ammonia in the catalytic converter itself).

Of course what EurActiv.com is saying is merely the maximum emissions permitted. There is nothing stopping the carmakers from doing better than those guidelines, and I'm sure they will.

So Merc's(and VAG will be using the technology too) Euro 5 Bluetec diesels could quite possibly be of the same emissions standard that they are for the US. I presume that they will be. That is definately a lot better than the max limits for Euro 5. It may not be Euro 6 standard, but it mightn't be far off.

As for Hondas patented system, I believe that BMW are going to be using a similar system very shortly for their US market 335d, which arrives on their shores next year.

THe Honda system is virtually Euro 6 standard, with a bit of tweaking, it will reach it.

Diesels are already sold in California. Merc's Bluetec standards pass Californias emissions tests, and Merc made a big point of this when they introduce the E320 CDI Bluetec.
They've been selling the car for I think a year now.
The other diesels they sell to the Yanks are not Bluetec and therefore don't meet Californias standards.

When BMW introduce diesels to the US, they too will be eligable for sale in all 50 states. Same goes for Honda. And when VAG bring in their latest dieselks for the US%, they too will be sellable in all 50 states.

The 2008 Jetta TDI will be sold in all 50 states.

Honda aren't bringing diesels to the US till 2009!

jozi

Here's whats one the other end of the scale of top 10 hybrids 22mpg!

I'm getting the feeling hybrids are like ipods, you just gotta have one to look trendy - even if it's an inferiour product compared to competitors.

Little bit out of line with the rest of the topic, sorry.

Pugsley2007

Landrover have produced some pretty interesting stuff on this. They would argue that if you have a 40 year old landrover being used everyday as a school bus in Africa it represents a much better return (in environmental terms) than anything on this list.

If we really want to stop global warming more drastic actions are needed than using for efficient cars (like not using them and using bikes instead). That said, if you are trying to minimise the environmental impact you have to weigh up your personal usage needs v what the car offers. I once had a big, heavy diesel that I needed to tow a trailer for work, and a caravan/horsebox at the weekends. It did about 50 K miles a year. Was that good or bad for the environment. Sure, but I could not have done it in a 1.0 diesel. So for popping to the shops or going to meetings in the city I used a Trek mountain bike.

JHMEG

E92 wrote:

In the US the emissions regulations are fuel neutral,

You can say without a doubt that if it passes the CARB's requirements then it's pretty damn clean. I suspect the Euro requirements for diesel are so poor because of lobbying from european diesel car makers.

E92 wrote:

I think you have to take a balanced view of it though. It is CO2 emissions that are the big problem, it is directly responsible for global warming. Diesels produce less of it.

That's not balanced! Traffic fumes, especially from diesel kill people. Bit like saying we can cure global warming but only if everyone takes up smoking.

E92 wrote:

Diesels are already sold in California. Merc's Bluetec standards pass Californias emissions tests, and Merc made a big point of this when they introduce the E320 CDI Bluetec.

Wrong. From MB's website:
"The 2008 E320 BLUETEC does not meet the emissions requirements of California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, or Vermont and is not available in these states."

Too dirty for California and 7 other states!

E92 wrote:

As for Hondas patented system, I believe that BMW are going to be using a similar system

If BMW use it it'll be because Honda have licensed it to them (won't be the first time BMW licensed something from Honda), but as for now Merc, VAG and BMW are all using piss, eh I mean urea.

maidhc

JHMEG wrote:

You can say without a doubt that if it passes the CARB's requirements then it's pretty damn clean. I suspect the Euro requirements for diesel are so poor because of lobbying from european diesel car makers.

They are poor because making diesel ultra clean is very possible, but makes them very fuel inefficient.. in a world of rapidly rising oil prices this is not exactly clever.

I don't see the problem with Adblue/urea/piss if it works.

Particulate filters in diesels solve the whole killing people bit!

You have to wonder about emissions tests that consider a 1.4 D4D Corolla more harmful to the environment than a Hemi...

JHMEG

maidhc wrote:

You have to wonder about emissions tests that consider a 1.4 D4D Corolla more harmful to the environment than a Hemi...

Heavy particulates I suspect.

E92

JHMEG wrote:

That's not balanced! Traffic fumes, especially from diesel kill people. Bit like saying we can cure global warming but only if everyone takes up smoking.

What you said is completely unfair there, you're referring me to an article which was published when Euro II emissions were still satisfactory!

I mean like way back in 2000! Like there was no such thing a DPFs back then. Euro II standards are ridiculously low compared to even Euro IV never mind Euro V. Diesels were still considered very dirty, and with good reason back then. I still remember seeing black smoke coming from the arse of new Euro II diesels!

I bet you don't see diesel fumes coming from a Euro 4 diesel(actually there isn't even that diesely small from the exhaust of a Euro 4 paraffin stove you get from older oil burners, even Euro III oil burners have a diesel whiff from the exhaust).

Being honest about the thing,what that article is saying is in automotive terms about as long ago as the Easter Rising. It is that outdated IMO.

Euro 4 solved the problem of PM from paraffin stoves, and Euro V will solve the problem of NOx from diesels. They will still produce more of them than their sister petrols sure, but they are nowhere near as bad as detractors of diesels make them out to be. Its like the difference between a petrol with no cat and with a cat. The new diesels have cleaned up their act that much.

JHMEG wrote:

Wrong. From MB's website:
"The 2008 E320 BLUETEC does not meet the emissions requirements of California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, or Vermont and is not available in these states."

Too dirty for California and 7 other states!

Hmmm when I looked at mbusa's website this morning, that wasn't there, or at least, my eyes failed to see it. Time for me to get my glasses checked:D (again:( ).

But my eyes did see the following from the same website:
The breakthrough BLUETEC® clean diesel technology in the E320 BLUETEC Sedan — winner of the 2007 World Green Car award — blends fuel efficiency and low noise to rival a hybrid without sacrificing power, while significantly reducing the soot and pollutants often associated with diesel engines via specialized filters and catalytic converters.


[/quote=JHMEG]If BMW use it it'll be because Honda have licensed it to them (won't be the first time BMW licensed something from Honda), but as for now Merc, VAG and BMW are all using piss, eh I mean urea.[/quote]

BMW originally were in cooperation with MB and VAG on this project for using AdBlue, which is the correct name for it, but pulled out of it. The three companies were supposed to be using it, until BMW pulled out. Now its just VAG and MB.

Essentailly Bluetec is injecting AdBlue into the engine. And contrary to what that article says, VW also call it Bluetec and not Bluemotion(Bluemotion refers to the weight saving and aerodynamic modifications available on certain VWs, Audi have the same thing but the have a little 'e' at the end of the engine badge).

BMW were meant to be going alone with whatever it was that they were going to do, and I guess what the end result is basically the Bluetec technology that VAG and MB are/will be using.

And just what did BMW licence from Honda ? Something important I hope. Or is it something to do with that time when BMW owned Rover, and Rover still used Honda items.

unkel

JHMEG wrote:

It is most likely Honda will have the first diesel car to pass the CARB requirements

Offering any bets, are you?

No diesel car has passed yet and none will this year. Many manufacturers claim they will pass next year. Let's wait until then, shall we?

E92

unkel wrote:

Offering any bets, are you?

No diesel car has passed yet and none will this year. Many manufacturers claim they will pass next year. Let's wait until then, shall we?

I wouldn't be offering any bets unkel . The 2008 Jetta TDI will be sold in California, and so will the BMW 335d for the Yanks.

See here and look for TDI. It says and I quote: In 2008, VW will offer the Jetta TDI in all 50 states.