European numbers on fuel economy and CO2 emissions are off - and for the sippiest models, way off. The EPA numbers are much more like the real-life fuel economy. Also, VW, like all the other car makers, equip the cars they make for the US market with THE largest engines they've got. These two effects together probably accounts for the 50% difference in your numbers for the Passat.

Remember, the Tesla S is not the only way to reduced emissions: smaller cars, or just smaller engines, will get you lower CO2 as well, WITH a smaller price tag - our cars have way too much power anyway. Sounds like a win-win for the consumer! surely the House Appropriations Committee would not want to be in the way of ordinary people saving at the dealership _and_ at the pump?

Mmmm your Corolla has a 1.8L engine? The 2012 US Corolla (1.8L) does 27/34mpg. The Japanese Corolla Axio (1.5L) claims* avg 47mpg for the CVT auto transmission (but the JC08 standard tends to overstate the MPG). In the UK, the sister model Toyota Auris** comes with a 1.4L diesel that claims 49mpg avg (47mpg in real life). This one packs a 151 lb-ft torque, more than the 128 lb-ft of the US Corolla - diesels do that.

*http://toyota.jp/corollaaxio/002_p_001/spec/spec/index.html [Go ahead, you can still pick out the km/L and the Nm in the specs]
** http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/frame_start.jsp?id=CC2-Auris-landing

My diesel Golf TDI does 40mpg (mostly puttering around town; 45mpg hwy), and that's the one with the larger engine; VW doesn't sell the more frugal Bluemotion editions here. The way to really win is to marry the turbodiesel and hybrid technologies. Throw in plug-in tech for a really good party.

Where is David Sirota coming from: anybody know? Just sayin': Everybody has their own reasons for their statements. I was recently told by an Audi dealer that (a) Audi doesn't make a manual A3 (LOL) and (b) I couldn't possibly get better mileage in a manual Audi A3 than an auto A3 (also patently not true) - but that might have been because he didn't have a manual A3 to sell me. http://www.cellomomcars.com/2012/04/review-2012-audi-a3-sportback.html

Manual is less expensive than auto by $1000-2000, and is still more fuel efficient in most makes and models. Besides, it's still called "standard" transmission in most of the world. My dad wanted an auto transmission (in the Netherlands) and had to wait 2 months.

I get your concern with safety: smaller / lighter cars do indeed fare worse in a collision with a larger / heavier car. HOWEVER: you don't necessarily have to go with a plastic bath tub on wheels. You can go with the same sturdy car you know and love, just outfitted with a smaller / smarter, more efficient engine.

My blog posts are really boring: they all say, Here is this car, it's cool in these ways, AND its maker is tossing us in the US the guzzliest version(s) with the hugest engines. Brands include such safety champions as Volvos, and such Detroiters as Ford.

We need to stop meekly accepting what they feed us, and start asking for the sippers they're now selling to our friends all over the rest of the planet.

Sorry, here's the link to the BBC report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17740356

"Lies, d--n lies, and statistics", right?
You might be interested in the tone in which the BBC remarked casually, in a report on an uptick in the average fuel efficiency in the UK: "The changing consumer behaviour is closely linked to rising fuel prices, as well as to tax and insurance costs, which are higher for thirsty and powerful cars that generally emit more CO2 than smaller models."

The European model has been that both the price of gas _and_ government incentives work together to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles. Translation: they tax sippers heavily, and guzzlers punitively. So the guzzlers in effect subsidize the sippers. It's how they are already at 130g/km.