"Anything diesel has dropped $5,000 in the past five months"

That's just a stupid comment and I don't believe it. Yeah I get it people don't want big vehicles with expensive fuel but if if the diesels have dropped 5k than the gas engines trucks must be free for the taking.:) How is the vehicle with more torque and better fuel economy at a disadvantage over the gas engine version? That's just stupid.

People buy diesels in big trucks to tow/work or they want them as a show off factor which makes them more valuable than there gas engine cousins pretty much always.

Now if the big three could get away from the penis wars and make the big diesels more fuel efficient instead of engaging in the escalating hp/torque war the advantage would be even more obvious.

I drive a UK spec Wrangler Unlimited which gives me combined mileage of about 30 mpg. My previous 4.0 Litre petrol Wrangler gave about 12 mpg.

At present it costs about £75 sterling to fill the tank; this is almost $150 US. However it would have cost the same amount to fill with petrol but the miles done would have been about half or less. No matter how you look at it deisel is a better option than petrol. The engine in my Wrangler is a 2.8 litre and does a great job. Really it is not necessary to have anything bigger. My wife drives a Land Rover Defender with a 2.5 litre deisel engine. This is a real workhorse used around the world and this is the only engine offered. It is entirely adequate. It is time our American cousins saw that big is not necessarily beautiful - at least where it comes to engines.

Diesel is not only cool but I think for 4 x 4s it is the way forward until a much better realistic alternative is developed.

Consumers typically have a very short view to the horizon. This story just exemplifies that. With VW working on a very soon in coming 60 MPG oil burner the future tech for diesel efficiency bodes very well. I just hope that the current speculative pressure on oil doesn't subvert technological development by quashing consumer faith in these engines without them getting a chance to prove the viability.

I think the article is more directed at the Suburban/Expedition/Ram Dually crowd than the Duramax, PowerStroke & Cummins 5.9's.

You couldn't pay me to take a V10 or 6 liter anything gas or diesel.

It's the big behemoths that are the problem, not the engine technology. There's going to be a whole Lotta Escalades going on the cheap soon LOL !

With the new crop of Clean Diesels making their way to the market, in particular, the upcoming Cummins 4.7(?)L V-6 and the GM 4.5L Duramax V-8, the large SUV's will be making 25 M.P.G. City, and probably close to 35 Highway.

What JEEP needs to do for the Wrangler is put in a 4.7L Diesel, hook it up to a Hybrid Hydraulic Transmission, and control it with a Mild Hybrid system to cut fuel waste when the vehicle is not moving.

The current E.P.A testbed (a late model Ford Explorer) using this type of setup is getting 45 m.p.g. combined city and highway.

I like this type of setup, because it is simpler, can recover more kinetic energy than a gas-electric setup, works better for larger suv's.

Most importantly, while mileage isn't at the 50-60 m.p.g. mark, SUV's can carry more cargo and passengers, and when carrying more than 5 passengers, are getting better mileage per passenger than a prius.

Plus, with more SUV's on the road that could benefit from this type of technology,what is better, a few specialized models of cars driving as Hybrids, or ALL Cars/SUV's and Trucks driving as some form of Hybrid.

That's interesting, considering in a recent Chrysler LLC consumer poll about what future fuel efficient engine choices Chrysler should offer, diesel was the clear winner.