I personally don't see much to choose from. Let's see, I want a solid axle, oops only one on the U.S. market.
What you're saying is you are seeing more SUV's than ever, just not the ones made the way YOU want coming off the line. That's different.

Here is another down side in my view. Diesels used to have the very great advantage of simplicity of design which equated to very high reliability and low maintenance
Yes, but they're more expensive to make than gasoline engines.

Now I realize there isn't much that can be done about the price of fuel (supply & demand), but bio-diesel isn't going to save me at the pump, but at least some of the money stays here.
OK, now you want cheap gas. Boy, I'll agree with you there! But I disagree that you can see into the future and know the future price of bio-diesel. If farmers go soy-wild and plant tons of crops and it takes off, and the other half of America goes hybrid and fuel cell, gas may drop. In the 60's, no one predicted the 70's gas shocks. 70's gas-rationers never guessed the 80's glut of cheap gas. 90's equalized out, and 2000's we're squeezed again. In 2015, no one knows where we'll be.

AS far as the hybrids are concerned, added complexity = higher costs in manufacture, maintenance and repair.
You're reading different literature than me. Everything I read says it's just like diesel - higher up front costs, long term payoff. And the electric part is supposed to be more reliable, not less (although batteries require replacement). And if higher upfront cost for an engine was *really* a concern, you'd be 660ccGasBob. (Japan mini size; although over here you'd have to settle for a Samurai)

The reason they have to be classed as such is to skirt the EPA clean air regs...if the hardcore greenies had their way you wouldn't be able to purchase a full size suv. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
So you're agreeing--complaining that the greens are shutting down SUV's is incorrect. They may try, but it obviously hasn't happened.

That's great if it's affordable. I'm all for better efficiency, but at what price. A 6-7K hi-tech cutting edge super efficient diesel isn't worth a hoot if a $100.00 sensor brings the hole show to a stop. And I just don't want to need a second mortgage if something breaks.
An engine that's bigger, more powerful, but with less parts and cheaper--but more reliable. I'm keeping up.

Let's see if I have this right. In addition to the above engine, you want a dual axle ($$$), full manual mechanical vehicle with all factory and aftermarket 4x4 options on it ($$$) built custom for you, but sold mass market and below manufacturers cost, and I'm assuming you want high (for 4x4) MPG and it must run off of a miracle fuel that's inexpensive. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Sign me up for when vehicle #2 rolls off the assembly line!

Of course all of this is JMO <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/patriot.gif" alt="" />
I respect it, but disagree. You seem to be arguing against more capable vehicles coming on-line and less diesels, when I'm seeing evidence that after the 90's, it's picking up for performance and after the 60's and 70's, diesel is picking up.

Case in point: DuraMax just shipped their 500,000th diesel in North America. Market share from 3% to 25% in just one year. Overall diesel engine sales up.
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/press/2004/p_1012.html