Remember that I moved away from L.A. at the end of 2003.
I remember seeing the odd oil-burner from time to time, mostly in the '70s and '80s. (A friend of mine had an old – I think it was a '75 – Mercedes-Benz 240D back in the mid-to-late-'80s.) They were around, but not extremely common when I moved. (NB: This is in the Antelope Valley in the '70s and West L.A. and Orange County in the '80s-'03.) Up here they seem to be more common (now) than they did in SoCal (then).
My brother had the same car. We drove from St. Louis to Atlanta on one tank of gas, ~550 miles. On the way back we memorably stopped in a truck stop to put diesel in it, surrounded by truckers in line to pay hundreds of dollars while we pulled out a $20. 
His next car was an '89 Honda CR-X HF (High Fuel) that got a little better than 50 mpg, and it wasn’t even a diesel.
Ever since then I’ve held up 50-60 mpg as a benchmark against the newer hybrids, and consequently have never thought they got good enough gas mileage for me to consider them.
Sorry, I want new, not someone else’s old problem car. And there is no conversion to biodiesel other than putting it in your tank and after 2 or 3 tankfulls changing out the fuel filter.
I have been living with used cars most of my life, and for once I would actually like to own a brand new car, that nobody else has fucked with.
And thanks to the recent implosion of our finacial system, there probably aren’t any banks that have $350 million to lend them.
Can someone explain this section of the OP’s article for me?
What is the tax law they are quoting? If extremely fuel efficient diesel cars are made available, wouldn’t such a tax have politicians eager to score points by repealing it or modifying it so that econoboxes are exempt?
Does it strike anyone else as particularly shortsighted for Ford to build a engine manufacturing plant in England? I’m sure when they planned it the Dollar was much stronger, but the Pound has been strong for a very long time. What possible upside was there for them to establish that plant in the UK when they could have build it in many other countries for much cheaper. I’m sure many EU nations that adopted the Euro would have been much cheaper and a US plant would have be probably equally expensive as a UK one but would have probably been valuable from a political/jobs standpoint.
I have less than the basic understanding of it, but I’ll take a stab at it. There are basically two uses for diesel fuel: on-road and off-road. Off-road uses include tractors and generators and such. Since farm vehicles and machinery are not being used on roads, they do not have to pay road taxes (which I believe are included in gasoline). Diesel road vehicles do use the road, so they have to pay taxes. Off-road diesel fuel contains a dye that is easily detectable even in very minute quantities. If a trucker or driver is caught with, or having used, off-road fuel there is a substantial fine.
Ford is a multinational company. They have plants in such places as England for that domestic market, much like many Hondas are built in the U.S. for the U.S. market. It made sense to build cars for England in England. Automakers do not necessarily make the same models for every market. For example, the Ka is offered in England but not here. So the engines are being built there because that’s where they’re used.
According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know), Ford’s Dagenham base accounts for half of their worldwide diesel engine output. It’s not like they set up the factory from scratch just for the new Fiesta - that site has been in use by the company since before WW2. Note, also, that the remainder of the car is built and assembled elsewhere in Europe, and there’s no need to view the British market in isolation from the rest of the EU and beyond.