TornadoRed said:
I think the problem evolves from the hassles that a manufacturer has to go through to get an engine EPA-certified. If it was easier, then the auto companies would offer more engine options. Very few companies offer more than one or two 4- or 6-cylinder engines... It is not just VW owners who wish they could get some of the other engines offered in Europe or Japan.
IF VWoA ever offers the Polo or other smaller model with the 1.4-liter TDI, then maybe that engine will be offered in the Rabbit and Jetta as well.
But if VWoA offered two TDI engines in the Rabbit and Jetta, 100hp and 140hp, and they both got exceptional fuel mileage with the 100hp engine only slightly better, then which one do you think would get 90% of the sales?
If it was easier to certify engines, then it wouldn't matter so much if some engines only get a small percentage of the sales. And if there were more models, then that small percentage would be result in a larger number of units.
Your logic is sound, but there are many glaring examples of the "redundant" engine choices: GM's 4.8L and 5.3L V8s...negligable differences either way. 90% the same engine, just like the 5.0L/5.7L pair before them. One cannot cost more than the other to make over a few pennies. And GM even adds a 6.0L in the mix as well. Ford, same deal: 4.6L and 5.4L V8s, just like the 5.0L/5.8L before them. Chrysler does the same thing: the old LH body cars had a 2.7L, 3.2L, and 3.5L V6s, with not a lot of differences between them from behind the wheel. Now the LX body cars have a 2.7L and 3.5L, and add in the 5.7L. Their minivans for years had a 4 cylinder base engine, but a choice of 3.0L, 3.3L, and 3.8L V6 engines, with the 3.3L and 3.8L being virtually identical.
It goes even further lately...the Ford Freestar minivan has a 3.9L V6 and a 4.2L V6, again both virtually identical.
Now I will be the first to admit that the "Local 3" car companies have not ever done much in recent history that would label them as prudent, but the point remains there are
some vehicles that do offer choices here similar to what Volkswagen offers outside the US. I would think a frugal performing smaller TDI in the A5 chassis for a reasonable price would give an option to those really looking for fuel economy above other things. It is in no way any cheaper to buy a $25k 40 MPG Jetta than to buy a $15k 37 MPG Corolla...odds are very good you'd never keep the car the 70 years or whatever it would take for the fuel savings to recoup the cost of the higher purchase price of the car.
Sadly the trend towards ever more powerful, more feature laden, and HEAVIER cars almost negates any big steps forward in economy-improving engine technology. I find it odd that the cheapest $10k Kia Rio, even with a slushbox...a true bottom-of-the-barrel rental turd, can zip anyone to triple digit speeds in less than 30 seconds.....but that same $10k cannot buy you a car that gets 70+ MPG, despite such cars existing elsewhere.
You're right, though, the idea of offering an A5 with a 90hp, 100hp, 110hp, 130hp, and 150hp engine does seem a little silly. That is why I'd suggest the 90hp and the 150hp, and keep the middle ones out. Seems like that would make a big enough distinction in both performance and fuel economy (and possible price) for people to make a choice and the manufacturer to be able to sell both.