# BMW needs to use it engineering ability to design cars that use less gas.



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

[COLOR=Green]BMW needs to use it engineering ability to design cars that use less gas.

My brother Honda mini van has a V6 engine that shuts down cylinders when at a low load highway speed; why can't my BMW V8 do that?

My BMW down shifts to fast such that the car will not roll to a stop. The trans should be programmed to stay in a higher gear unless its in sport mod.

Performance and fuel economy are not mutually exclusive and BMW should be leading the way. :thumbup:[/COLOR]


----------



## Watchdog (Jan 23, 2005)

I agree, cars are getting to be so fast that more power isn't necessarily what I want more of (of course it's always nice). I think better fuel economy interests me more.


----------



## Manu (Jul 21, 2005)

They already do, Bmw makes some of the finest diesel engines available...

My 530D uses about 7.2 liters on the highway, I reckon that's around 38-39 mpg...not bad at all....


----------



## Oomer (Apr 3, 2005)

That would be nice. Cylinder deactivation (or GM's displacement on demand) is an old technology first found in Mercedes, Caddies, and now re-introduced by GM, Dodge/Chrysler, and obviously...Honda. With cylinder deactivation, you can save roughly up to 20 to 30% in fuel economy by disabling cylinders when crusing, but then you start to introduce noisy harmonic vibrations...from when you have V6 running on 3 cylinders (an uneven combustion cycle). To counteract this, you have to add counter rotating balancing shafts (which adds rotational mass and reduces engine performance) to smooth out the V6 or V8, a sound dampening system or active noise cancellation technology...which adds more complexity and weight, and the throttle would have to be electronically controlled...so that when you step on the accelerator you won't have a lumpy ride from going from 3 cyclinders back to 6 cylinders. In the end, the gains are minimal...and BMW would have to spend more on R&D to implement all that technology...and make the cost of owning our Beamers even more.

James


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

Oomer said:


> That would be nice. Cylinder deactivation (or GM's displacement on demand) is an old technology first found in Mercedes, Caddies, and now re-introduced by GM, Dodge/Chrysler, and obviously...Honda. With cylinder deactivation, you can save roughly up to 20 to 30% in fuel economy by disabling cylinders when crusing, but then you start to introduce noisy harmonic vibrations...from when you have V6 running on 3 cylinders (an uneven combustion cycle). To counteract this, you have to add counter rotating balancing shafts (which adds rotational mass and reduces engine performance) to smooth out the V6 or V8, a sound dampening system or active noise cancellation technology...which adds more complexity and weight, and the throttle would have to be electronically controlled...so that when you step on the accelerator you won't have a lumpy ride from going from 3 cyclinders back to 6 cylinders. In the end, the gains are minimal...and BMW would have to spend more on R&D to implement all that technology...and make the cost of owning our Beamers even more.
> 
> James


James what are saying Honda can do it but it would cost to much for BMW to do it.
People used to think that emision control and computers were bad; with logich we still would be getting 10 miles to the gallon and producing tons of pollution. Do you still drive a 1975 BMW?


----------



## alpinewhite325i (Jan 20, 2002)

You can't be serious??

You're driving around in a performance oriented V8 SUV and you expect fuel efficiency?

I just don't get it.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*SUV does not mean bad fuel economy*

Yes I drive a V8 sav. It get about 19 mile to the gallon, not that much less than your 325I.

That does not mean BMW should make improvements.

The changes I sugested would have little or no impact on the driveablity.


----------



## mandrake203 (Sep 27, 2004)

alpinewhite325i said:


> You can't be serious??
> 
> You're driving around in a performance oriented V8 SUV and you expect fuel efficiency?
> 
> I just don't get it.


Yeah, I gotta agree.

Besides, compared to other manufacturers, BMW already does a pretty decent job regarding fuel economy. :dunno: And I'm certain it will be in BMW's best interest to stay somewhat competitive with their efficiency standards, as this is a huge issue for many consumers.


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

I think they are making good progress.

My 6 series gets about 19 city, 26 highway mpg. This is the same mileage my 330 E46 convertible got. So the 8 cyclinder with 325HP and the lighter materials ensure good performance while being mindful of fuel consumption.

A big part of fuel enconomy is government regulations. Unless the governent raises the fuel economy standards, manufacturers won't improve much. Not because they can't or won't but to remain competitive. If they voluntarily increased fuel enconomy and reduced performance, and their competitors did not, there would be a uneven playing field when selling cars.

The gains we see in fuel enconomy have always be modest in my view.

I thought we would all be driving electric cars by now. :dunno:



mandrake203 said:


> Yeah, I gotta agree.
> 
> Besides, compared to other manufacturers, BMW already does a pretty decent job regarding fuel economy. :dunno: And I'm certain it will be in BMW's best interest to stay somewhat competitive with their efficiency standards, as this is a huge issue for many consumers.


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

x54.4blue said:


> BMW needs to use it engineering ability to design cars that use less gas.
> 
> My brother Honda mini van has a V6 engine that shuts down cylinders when at a low load highway speed; why can't my BMW V8 do that?
> 
> ...


I disagree with you. BMW makes sporty cars, even its X cars. They could be made to perform exactly like Hondas but then . . . they would be Hondas! And then you wouldn't have a choice.


----------



## Sheepdg (Feb 13, 2005)

*Check Thyself Befor Entering*

You need to buy a Prius or alternative hybrid vehicle.  :dunno: I'm sure you'll find contentment with the FWD pull while still being sensitive to mother earth.

Some others may just want to tear ass leaving skidmarks on the planet! :rofl:

To each their own, but choose play in the right sandbox.

p.s. Boldface and large type uses excess energy. Save the planet, take your meds.


----------



## ktc (Jan 10, 2005)

*today...*

Did a small test today as I drove from Birmingham AL to Knoxville TN. Roughly 250 miles. Set the cruise control at approx 75mph most of the way on 6th gear. Ended up with 30.5mpg on 93 octane fuel. I used slightly less than half the tank (as per the indicator) for the trip.

Not bad!


----------



## supadan (Apr 17, 2003)

x54.4blue said:


> BMW needs to use it engineering ability to design cars that use less gas.
> 
> My brother Honda mini van has a V6 engine that shuts down cylinders when at a low load highway speed; why can't my BMW V8 do that?
> 
> ...


BMW already does a lot to save gas. Have you compared your 4.4 x5 against its competitors(mercedes,lexus,porsche,infiniti), it leads them all in gas mileage. Why would BMW waste time and money(assuming it requires this) on something that is already class leading and not even a major concern. First of all this is an expensive luxury car and I don't think most people are going to be overly concerned. Second it's an SUV/SAV so people buying this type of vehicle already know what to expect. How are you going to compare this with a Honda when it's not even in the same class. I think some people just expect too much out of BMW.


----------



## whiskey.org (Sep 9, 2005)

I think it would be more helpful to the world if you leaned how to type in a normal size font


BMW is as good or better than the competition in fuel mileage, I can get 30 MPG on the freeway in my 325 or Z4. 

If you gave a crap about fuel economy you wouldn't have bought that silly tank the X5


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> My brother Honda mini van has a V6 engine that shuts down cylinders when at a low load highway speed; why can't my BMW V8 do that?
> 
> My BMW down shifts to fast such that the car will not roll to a stop. The trans should be programmed to stay in a higher gear unless its in sport mod.
> 
> Performance and fuel economy are not mutually exclusive and BMW should be leading the way. :thumbup:


Why did you buy a 6,000-lb. vehicle if you were going for performance or fuel economy? :dunno:

Most automatics don't roll to a stop when in Drive because of the torque converter.

If you're driving an '04+ X5, you have the 4.4-liter V-8 featuring Valvetronic, which is a BMW innovation that gets you performance and better fuel economy. The short of it is it reduces pumping losses, the same thing shutting off cylinders reduces. BMW's solution would seem to avoid cylinder deactivation's problems, which are uneven cooling and balance issues (vibration).

An '04 X5 4.4 is EPA rated 16/22 mpg. Compare that to the previous generation V-8 getting 14/18. Compare that to the 3.0-liter M54 inline-6's 16/21 mpg (for X5 automatics). You're getting 90 more hp and comparable fuel economy than an engine that is 2/3 the displacement.

That Honda minivan is rated for 19/25 but weighs 1500 pounds less. What kind of magical non-compromise vehicle are you expecting??


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

chuck92103 said:


> A big part of fuel enconomy is government regulations. Unless the governent raises the fuel economy standards, manufacturers won't improve much. Not because they can't or won't but to remain competitive. If they voluntarily increased fuel enconomy and reduced performance, and their competitors did not, there would be a uneven playing field when selling cars.


That's what CAFE is (government regulation that sets increasing economy standards for a manufacturer's product fleet).

CAFE Summary (2005 scores are on page 7)


----------



## PotatoAddict (Nov 23, 2005)

chuck92103 said:


> ...The gains we see in fuel enconomy have always be modest in my view.
> 
> I thought we would all be driving electric cars by now. :dunno:


***fantasizes about a future with all-electric BMWs, including the all-new year 2025 BMW 3-series line up: 350*kW*i, 375*kW*i, and M3*kW****

Technical Data:

350*kW*i: 50 kilowatt NiMH Voltronic, 67 horsepower, 0-60 in 25 seconds, top speed 75 MPH
375*kW*i: 75 kilowatt NiMH Voltronic, 100 horsepower, 0-60 in 16 seconds, top speed 90 MPH
M3*kW*: 155 kilowatt Li-ION Voltronic, 234 horsepower, 0-60 in 7.2 seconds, top speed 145 MPH

Scary, huh?


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

PotatoAddict said:


> 350*kW*i: 50 kilowatt NiMH Voltronic, 67 horsepower, 0-60 in 25 seconds, top speed 75 MPH
> 375*kW*i: 75 kilowatt NiMH Voltronic, 100 horsepower, 0-60 in 16 seconds, top speed 90 MPH
> M3*kW*: 155 kilowatt Li-ION Voltronic, 234 horsepower, 0-60 in 7.2 seconds, top speed 145 MPH


A little Googling says electric traction motors are rated at continuous output, not peak output. One page says a 30-hp electric motor is roughly equivalent to a 50-hp gasoline motor. :dunno: Plus, don't forget the gobs of low-end torque.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Font problem fixed


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

One could argue that the Prius is just as bad on the environment. No it is not burning as much fuel. Just dumping 8 times as many lead and acid filled batteries into land fills as a regular car. :dunno:



Sheepdg said:


> You need to buy a Prius or alternative hybrid vehicle. :dunno: I'm sure you'll find contentment with the FWD pull while still being sensitive to mother earth.
> 
> Some others may just want to tear ass leaving skidmarks on the planet! :rofl:
> 
> ...


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

I read that most of the oil industry agrees we have approximately 100 years oof fossil fuel left. If this is true, knowing how our world works, I would not expect to see a predominance of electric vehicles for at least 30-50 more years.

So I will go to my grave with Vanna ( or is it Vanos?) oh yeah right, that is wheel of furtune  . :thumbup:



PotatoAddict said:


> ***fantasizes about a future with all-electric BMWs, including the all-new year 2025 BMW 3-series line up: 350*kW*i, 375*kW*i, and M3*kW****
> 
> Technical Data:
> 
> ...


----------



## MarcusSDCA (Jan 14, 2004)

Doesn't the new M5 run on 8 of it's 10 cyl for 'economy' driving?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

MARCUS330i said:


> Doesn't the new M5 run on 8 of it's 10 cyl for 'economy' driving?


Nope.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Valvetronic*

Interesting link

http://www.bmwworld.com/technology/valvetronic.htm


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

x54.4blue said:


> [COLOR=Green]BMW needs to use it engineering ability to design cars that use less gas.
> 
> My brother Honda mini van has a V6 engine that shuts down cylinders when at a low load highway speed; why can't my BMW V8 do that?



A car with a V8 tends to be a gas guzzler; for less consumption, you have a smaller engine. What kind of mileage does your brother's minivan's Honda's V6's engine get? Is it better than the 40+ mpg routinely available from a 320d or 530d (saloon, touring, you choose)?

A couple of US-style V8s have been introduced to the UK recently purporting to have "normal"-style fuel consumption. One car, the Pontiac GTO, has a 6 litre engine whose manufacturers (Holden, though the engine comes from GM Powertrain in the US) say the engine is so big that at low speeds its more parsimonious than an econobox redlining, apparently, to keep up with our traffic. It got 19 mpg on the touring cycle in one road test. The other, a Chrysler 300 V8, got 17 mpg, despite its trick shut-down technology. Neither, it seems, has yet to hit the sweet spot :dunno:


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*V8 & V6 same Mileage*

The V6 & V8 get about the same fuel economy. The V8 thanks to Valvetronic and a six speed transmission actually gets better mileage, Just proves my point that with good engineering you can get fuel economy and performance.
:thumbup:


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> The V6 & V8 get about the same fuel economy. The V8 thanks to Valvetronic and a six speed transmission actually gets better mileage, Just proves my point that with good engineering you can get fuel economy and performance.
> :thumbup:


First, it's an inline-6. (BMW doesn't make V-6s.)

And second...  :tsk: :loco:


----------



## SmoothCruise (Jul 23, 2005)

chuck92103 said:


> I read that most of the oil industry agrees we have approximately 100 years oof fossil fuel left. If this is true, knowing how our world works, I would not expect to see a predominance of electric vehicles for at least 30-50 more years.
> 
> So I will go to my grave with Vanna ( or is it Vanos?) oh yeah right, that is wheel of furtune  . :thumbup:


100 years isn't very far. And, when you think about in 100 years, just about everyone around you, everyone you see on the streets, everyone you know will be dead. It almost makes the 100 year 'deadline' out of touch.

But what makes this alarming is that it's not 100 years of oil at the current world output. It's 100 years of progressively more expensive gasoline, so yes, we will be feeling the crunch, and I would say, we would be feeling it within 5 years, if it's not already here. Those same oil industry experts have also said that Thanksgiving 2005 will be global peak oil. Meaning, from thanksgiving onward, every barrel taken out of the ground will be progressively more expensive to remove. I hope you celebrated with extra meaning.

Gee.... I sure hope they are wrong, but then again, wishful thinking never got me anywhere. (now that 6er looks like a really bad idea.)


----------



## SmoothCruise (Jul 23, 2005)

chuck92103 said:


> I think they are making good progress.
> 
> My 6 series gets about 19 city, 26 highway mpg. This is the same mileage my 330 E46 convertible got. So the 8 cyclinder with 325HP and the lighter materials ensure good performance while being mindful of fuel consumption.


You lucky dog!! You must be the first 6er owner ever to obtain the quoted figures. There was an extensive thread in the 6er group a long time ago where people were consistently getting less than the quoted figures.


----------



## mwette (Sep 16, 2002)

x54.4blue said:


> Interesting link
> 
> http://www.bmwworld.com/technology/valvetronic.htm


This what I was going to mention. I believe valvetronic is the alternative to 
shutting off cylinders. When you are driving on the highway your valvetronic
V8 will reduce it's gas intake by decreasing the intake valve stroke.


----------



## DeadFresh (May 25, 2004)

*Another*

Another interesting link directly related to the posters concerns

BMW Turbosteamer gets hot and goes (click here)


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

1996 BMW M3 I6 - 240 HP 20 mpg city 28 mpg highway
2006 BMW 330i I6 - 255 HP 20 mpg city 30 mpg highway


1996 Honda Accord I4 - 155 HP 25 mpg city 31 mpg highway
2006 Honda Accord I4 - 165 HP 26 mpg city 34 mpg highway

1996 Honda Accord V6 - 170 HP 19 mpg city 25 mpg highway
2006 Honda Accord V6 - 244 HP 21 mpg city 30 mpg highway

:dunno: what you are whining about


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

More Turbosteamer info that isn't in this thread...

http://www.mwerks.com/artman/publish/bmw_news/article_921.shtml


----------



## jrp (Nov 11, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> [BMW needs to use it engineering ability to design cars that use less gas.
> 
> My brother Honda mini van has a V6 engine that shuts down cylinders when at a low load highway speed; why can't my BMW V8 do that?
> 
> ...


I see where you're coming from (sorta)...however...if fuel economy is such a concern (along with a distaste for aggressive downshifts), then perhaps BMW's are not for you.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*What don't you see*

Just because I want fuel econmy does not mean I don't want a BMW.

The point I made with regard to downshifts is that the trans could act different in sports mode.

Guess your a cool BMW dude and think Fuel Econmy is not cool?


----------



## gojira-san (Mar 1, 2004)

IMHO BMW does a good job in balancing performance and fuel economy. I'm perfectly happy with the mileage of my E46. I get 24-25mpg around town and 30mpg on the highway. My GAM (Generic AsianMobile) which is AWD also gets 21-22 around town and 25-27mpg on the highway. 

The only way the GAM gets mileage approaching the 330 on the highway is to slow down to 55mph  The 330 gets 30mpg at speeds up to about 75mph; after that it decreases. Heck, I've gotten 26-27mpg on a trip in the 330 where I was travelling well in excess of the speed limits.


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

*BMW Should Use Its Engineering Ability to Design Hondas*
There. Now I feel better.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> The point I made with regard to downshifts is that the trans could act different in sports mode.


In D, the Steptronic starts in 2nd gear and stays in as high a gear as possible until you put your foot on the accelerator.

In S, the Steptronic might start in 1st or 2nd, it will hold gears longer, and it will downshift earlier.

What do you want? Your vehicle will never roll to a stop in D or S on level ground because it has a torque converter.


----------



## *Paul (Dec 13, 2005)

Oomer said:


> ... but then you start to introduce noisy harmonic vibrations...from when you have V6 running on 3 cylinders (an uneven combustion cycle). To counteract this, you have to add counter rotating balancing shafts (which adds rotational mass and reduces engine performance) to smooth out the V6 or V8...


That would be a neat trick given that torsional vibrations from uneven firing have nothing to do with the mechanical balance issues solved with balance shafts!

There is little that can be done to substantially improve the part-load economy of gasoline engines in their present form. Restricting intake air with either a throttle (or the equivalent valvetronic) to control engine power is relatively micky-mouse from an engineering point of view, and has been since the birth of the IC engine. The proper way to control power is to vary the size of the combustion chamber volume, not easy to implement in practice. Put your thinking caps on...
Cylinder deactivation obtains this to some extent, but there are still frictional losses from the unused cylinders.

Our '04 320D (2.0 turbodiesel) gets outstanding fuel economy (about 34 mpg US) and is dead smooth (with it's balance shafts, of course.) My Suzuki Grand Vitara 2.0 diesel 4WD gets nearly the same. The BMW is a blast to drive also as it has the M-suspension, wheels, and seats.

The problem in the US is not BMW's creativity but EPA/CARB policies. The cars exist, write to your congressman and get 'em in!

-Paul


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

*Paul said:


> That would be a neat trick given that torsional vibrations from uneven firing have nothing to do with the mechanical balance issues solved with balance shafts!
> 
> There is little that can be done to substantially improve the part-load economy of gasoline engines in their present form. Restricting intake air with either a throttle (or the equivalent valvetronic) to control engine power is relatively micky-mouse from an engineering point of view, and has been since the birth of the IC engine. The proper way to control power is to vary the size of the combustion chamber volume, not easy to implement in practice. Put your thinking caps on...
> Cylinder deactivation obtains this to some extent, but there are still frictional losses from the unused cylinders.
> ...


I agree. Personally, I think bio-diesel is the wave of the future. We have tehcnology, infrastructure and there's plenty of stuff that you can make biodiesel out of. Hybrids are a flash in the pan, IMO.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Big vs Small*

530XI

Weight

- Automatic transmission 3891 lbs

Fuel consumption

Automatic transmission - City/Highway 20/27 mpg

x5 4.4

Curb weight 4927 lbs 
Fuel economy, EPA est. mpg city/highway 3 16/22

I think weight impacts city fuel economy, but has less impact on highway. Its the air drag that impacts the x5 on the highway.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> 530XI
> I think weight impacts city fuel economy, but has less impact on highway. Its the air drag that impacts the x5 on the highway.


The 530xi and X5 4.4 have two different engines, I6 v. V8 which I think would account for the difference. But you're right for the if you're talking about highway driving on a flat terrain. Once you get up to 70 mph, it doesn't take much gas to maintain it. But if you're driving uphill (5-7% grade) at 65mph, watch your gas meter drop! But where I live, there is very little flat areas and traffic is bad that highway driving is city driving.

Also, the point I was making that fits into the theme of this thread is that BMW should have looked into ways to lighten the 2006 7 series rather than go with a bigger engine. You would have both increase in performance and fuel efficiency at the same time. Having said that I read a rumour that BMW is going in the direction of Jaguar for the 08/09 redesigned 7. The airline industry has always been looking to reduce weight , pollution, and fuel consumption and increase performance since its inception, I don't understand why all you people are so resistant to this idea. Is your stock portfolio limited to oil and steel industries?


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> Also, the point I was making that fits into the theme of this thread is that BMW should have looked into ways to lighten the 2006 7 series rather than go with a bigger engine. You would have both increase in performance and fuel efficiency at the same time. Having said that I read a rumour that BMW is going in the direction of Jaguar for the 08/09 redesigned 7. The airline industry has always been looking to reduce weight , pollution, and fuel consumption and increase performance since its inception, I don't understand why all you people are so resistant to this idea. Is your stock portfolio limited to oil and steel industries?


I don't think anyone in this thread thinks weight reduction is a bad idea or unnecessary. However, some people seem to think BMW didn't do any engineering for fuel efficiency or weight and just went with more power, which isn't true. The 7 is designed to cram as many luxury features and advanced electronics and driving aids and sound isolation for the luxury-minded buyer, hence the weight. The 7 was produced earlier than the new 5 and new 3, which have magnesium and aluminum construction to reduce weight and get 50-50. Your assessment that BMW didn't look into ways to lighten the 7 isn't backed with evidence. :dunno:

Comparing the 2002 745Li to the 2001 740iL, the 745 is bigger in every single dimension, has a wider power band, makes 40 more peak hp, a little more peak torque, has a 18" wheels versus 16" wheels, 6-speed AT versus 5-speed AT, iDrive, electronic suspension control, and so on and so on... for a penalty of 176 pounds, and still gets better mileage of 18/26 versus 17/23. That's impressive, if you ask me.

BMW knows the priorities of the market segment a vehicle competes in. The X5 is about height and size. The 7 is about safety, stability, impressing people (your words). Both are expensive. People who buy either are going to put those factors above weight. Then, BMW's final criteria is how does it handle? They then put whatever effort is necessary to get that handling, and that usually means weight distribution (see new 5 and new 3 construction). If they are concentrating on performance, they'll use lighter components and/or strip out stuff (see M3 CSL, M3 LTW, M6). Weight reduction isn't free when you want other things. Sure, they could go with aluminum and magnesium construction, but it's expensive to make and repair. See the recent articles about how new 6ers are getting written off as totalled because the lightened front frames are hard to repair.

Also, a mid-cycle redesign does not fundamentally change the way the vehicle is constructed.

My point: BMW cares about fuel efficiency, but fuel efficiency never takes precedence over the drive and the features a market segment desires.


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

FenPhen said:


> See the recent articles about how new 6ers are getting written off as totalled because the lightened front frames are hard to repair.


I agree with everything you say except this statement. An article a few months ago in the LA Times said that the front ends might be throw away items because they are so difficult to repair. Obviously, you got a little taken away with your argument and junked the entire car!


----------



## kurichan (May 1, 2004)

My 330i ZHP goes zero to sixty in the mid fives and gets 30 MPG highway, 24 MPG average for me (despite mostly non highway driving).

I'm impressed with BMW's ability to extract power and still achieve good gas mileage. It's an impressive balance that is a result of efficiency based on good fundamental engineering.


----------



## jrp (Nov 11, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> My point: BMW cares about fuel efficiency, but fuel efficiency never takes precedence over the drive and the features a market segment desires.


Very well said. Great post. :thumbup:


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

Malibubimmer said:


> I agree with everything you say except this statement. An article a few months ago in the LA Times said that the front ends might be throw away items because they are so difficult to repair. Obviously, you got a little taken away with your argument and junked the entire car!


Nope...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/wheel/la-hy-wheels19oct19,1,1629416.story?coll=la-news-local-wheel

_"We have found the insurers are unsure of what to do with a car, so they declare it a total loss," he said. "They weren't sure it would be safe, so they send it to the salvage yard."_

I'm not saying they should total the car, but it's definitely more expensive to repair a high-tech lightweight body. The point was just that it's impractical to lighten the entire car without making sacrifices elsewhere (manufacture/repair cost).


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> I don't think anyone in this thread thinks weight reduction is a bad idea or unnecessary. However, some people seem to think BMW didn't do any engineering for fuel efficiency or weight and just went with more power, which isn't true. The 7 is designed to cram as many luxury features and advanced electronics and driving aids and sound isolation for the luxury-minded buyer, hence the weight. The 7 was produced earlier than the new 5 and new 3, which have magnesium and aluminum construction to reduce weight and get 50-50. Your assessment that BMW didn't look into ways to lighten the 7 isn't backed with evidence. :dunno:


You obviously misread what I wrote. I was referring to the 06 mid-cycle. And how many engineering feats can you point out to reduce weight or fuel consumption in that mid-cycle?



FenPhen said:


> My point: BMW cares about fuel efficiency, but fuel efficiency never takes precedence over the drive and the features a market segment desires.


Anyone who's read any of your previous posts, which knocks people for buying BMW and expecting good fuel economy, would find that hard to believe coming from you. I don't need to point out to you that BMW is more fuel efficient than the Infiniti, Audi or MB competitors (02+ 7 series anyway), so what were you thinking when you wrote:



FenPhen said:


> No offense intended, but what is with people thinking they can have it all in a piece of machinery? Automobiles are inherently an exercise in compromise.


So put all your circular reasoning together, don't you think you *CAN* "have it all in a piece of machinery." I certainly think so. And your comments about the improvements in the 745 vs. the 740 seem to support this. I assume you're not playing devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of arguing, but do you really think that BMW is at a point where there can be no more increases in fuel economy without decreases in performance or features? The original poster was just putting forth or soliciting ideas to accomplish exactly that.

I don't think this thread was about making BMW go 100mpg, but rather have BMW put in technologies to reduce current gasoline consumption without penalties in performance or features. X54.4blue's point is that fuel economy and performance is not mutually exclusive and that BMW should be leading the way. And I agree!


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

FenPhen said:


> Nope...
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/wheel/la-hy-wheels19oct19,1,1629416.story?coll=la-news-local-wheel
> 
> _"We have found the insurers are unsure of what to do with a car, so they declare it a total loss," he said. "They weren't sure it would be safe, so they send it to the salvage yard."_
> ...


I stand corrected. But I think the quote is hyperbole, made up by the reporter, or accurately quoted from an encouraged exaggerater, to make a better story. Before an insurance company totals an $80,000 car, it is going to find a qualified body shop to straighten the front end and put on a new Euro cap/bumper assembly.

I think there is evidence for this conclusion in the following quote, which occurred earlier in the article:


> The technology is another step in a much broader auto industry trend that is making collision repairs ever more costly, a kinder way of saying manufacturers are building throw-away cars. It means that more cars are totaled when they have relatively modest damage, *particularly if they are more than five years old.*


 The quote at the end dealt with cars they didn't know what to do with. But earlier in the article the writer observed that special body shops could repair the cars. :dunno: Do we trust it as Gospel because it was in the Times?


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

Malibubimmer said:


> I stand corrected. But I think the quote is hyperbole, made up by the reporter, or accurately quoted from an encouraged exaggerater, to make a better story. Before an insurance company totals an $80,000 car, it is going to find a qualified body shop to straighten the front end and put on a new Euro cap/bumper assembly.


Agreed and the information in that story may be a bit dated as well. Maybe it was a filler piece. But as more and more body shops are trained to deal with differences in manufacturing materials, cost goes down. I remember before Jaguar released the aluminum 04 XJ8 into the US, they first began training bodyshops to repair and straighten out frames and repair dings and dents.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> You obviously misread what I wrote. I was referring to the 06 mid-cycle. And how many engineering feats can you point out to reduce weight or fuel consumption in that mid-cycle?


You said, "BMW should have looked into ways to lighten the 2006 7 series rather than go with a bigger engine." And in response, I said, "a mid-cycle redesign does not fundamentally change the way the vehicle is constructed." To reduce weight, you would need to put in different materials, relocate stuff to keep the 50-50 distribution, retest for safety regulations, and maybe significantly retool the production line. It's not practical to do weight reduction for mid-cycle refreshes because of development time/money.

The M3 CSL weighed 10% less, had 5% more peak power, and cost 40% more than the regular M3, and couldn't meet US safety standards. That's how hard it is to improve an already balanced design.



> Anyone who's read any of your previous posts, which knocks people for buying BMW and expecting good fuel economy, would find that hard to believe coming from you.


If you read my previous quotes, I don't knock anyone for buying BMW expecting good fuel economy. I love the fact my car is rated 20/30 and performs the way it does.

I would, and do, say that people shouldn't buy an SUV/SAV or a full-size sedan with V-8 engines expecting good fuel economy. If the V-8 gets good fuel economy, that's icing. If fuel economy was your first priority, you would not buy those types of vehicles. You even said your first priority is impressing clients. (Fuel economy was not a first priority for my "econobox" 3 either.)



> So put all your circular reasoning together, don't you think you *CAN* "have it all in a piece of machinery." I certainly think so. And your comments about the improvements in the 745 vs. the 740 seem to support this.


There's nothing circular about my reasoning. You can't expect to have it all in one piece of machinery. If that had been achieved, there wouldn't be so many types of technologies, models, and manufacturers.

I'll say it again: BMW's priorities are handling (suspension and brakes), performance (engine), styling, creature comforts and safety, fuel economy, and cost, probably in that order. What arguably makes BMW a better manufacturer than most others is that for any given model, they do very well in almost all those priorities simultaneously.

The 740iL/745Li comparision was to show BMW improved performance, fuel economy, and threw in more features and more size. I'm pointing out that what they did is already a significant achievement. You're saying you want _even more_ fuel economy on top of that without, I assume, sacrificing any of the 7's features.



> I assume you're not playing devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of arguing, but do you really think that BMW is at a point where there can be no more increases in fuel economy without decreases in performance or features?


I really think, at any given product's design stage, BMW offers the best fuel economy they can without decreasing performance/features nor increasing price.

Do you think BMW engineers are just holding back? :dunno:


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> The original poster was just putting forth or soliciting ideas to accomplish exactly that.
> 
> I don't think this thread was about making BMW go 100mpg, but rather have BMW put in technologies to reduce current gasoline consumption without penalties in performance or features. X54.4blue's point is that fuel economy and performance is not mutually exclusive and that BMW should be leading the way. And I agree!


The original post complains about the V-8's economy and implies BMW is _not_ putting engineering effort into fuel economy and that BMW is _not_ leading the way in improving fuel economy and performance simultaneously.

I (and others) replied that that's exactly what Valvetronic is: a technology that allows BMW to increase performance and economy at the same time. After reading the thread and reading about Valvetronic, the OP then seemed to be satisfied with the X5's economy and somehow concluded his/her point had been proven, even though nothing has actually changed with the vehicle.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> There's nothing circular about my reasoning. You can't expect to have it all in one piece of machinery. If that had been achieved, there wouldn't be so many types of technologies, models, and manufacturers.


Well this is what you wrote:



FenPhen said:


> The easiest way to gain better fuel economy without resorting to unproven technologies is to buy a smaller car, like a 5, which would save you 700 pounds.


You are wrong as I pointed out. In that case saving 700 pounds would not get me better fuel economy. Your circular reasoning was your suggestion to me to get a 5 series which weighs less than the 745. But, I then pointed out that at that time 2002, the 540 had worse fuel economy than the 745. Then you go on to tout the 745 vs. the 740.

And now...you are going back to saying that you can't expect to have it all in one piece of machinery. Do you even remember saying how wonderful the 745 is (bigger, more power, more torque, more features and better fuel economy to boot than the 740). Sure sounds like having it all to me. Round and round we go, where it ends, no one knows. :bigpimp:



FenPhen said:


> I would, and do, say that people shouldn't buy an SUV/SAV or a full-size sedan with V-8 engines expecting good fuel economy. If the V-8 gets good fuel economy, that's icing. If fuel economy was your first priority, you would not buy those types of vehicles. You even said your first priority is impressing clients. (Fuel economy was not a first priority for my "econobox" 3 either.)


First, I never said that my first priority with the 7 series was to impress clients. If that were my priority I would have failed with the 745Li. My clients are not necessarily impressed by the 745. There are other cars that suit that purpose and some of my international clients own those cars. My econobox reference was not to disparage you for having a 3 series. Rather, I would either offend my clients if I tried to squeeze them into a 3 or 5 series, or not be able to talk business in my "sometimes" mobile office.

I needed a car to take five full sized adults in comfort, that was sporty, and for my family needs. It also had to have a quiet cabin. And fuel economy and the environment were factors high on my list. Can you pick out another vehicle that had equivalent or better performance and fuel economy in 2002 that could transport 5 full size adults? Other minivans, SUVs, and other full size cars were carefully considered and rejected.

I, and many others (that I know)who drive "luxobarges" are often offended by some people's belief that we don't care or can afford to disregard fuel consumption or the environment. A colleague of mine drives a S500 and he gets the same crap from people all the time.

Besides, I never once advocated sacrificing performance for fuel economy. If you go back and re-read my original posts, it was directed towards weight reduction in furtherance of performance with "fuel economy" in parentheses. I wrote that thinking of a friend who had an 04 XJR that did 0-60 in 5.0 seconds and always taunted me to race. I think you are reading far too much into my assertions and that of the OP. You should go back and read it to see if you really disagree with it.

And if you think "a full-size sedan with V-8 engine" can't have good fuel economy go check out the XJ8 (18/28), which is not too far off from your 330. While I would never buy another Jaguar, it shows that it can be done. And I applaud them for that. Now BMW is heading toward that direction but I think they should be leading the pack, not following in Ford's footsteps. :tsk:


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> I (and others) replied that that's exactly what Valvetronic is: a technology that allows BMW to increase performance and economy at the same time. After reading the thread and reading about Valvetronic, the OP then seemed to be satisfied with the X5's economy and somehow concluded his/her point had been proven, even though nothing has actually changed with the vehicle.


Good...now how bout DI just like the 760 engine to increase performance and fuel economy further, so BMW can be the leader?


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

I'm a bit late to this party, but I am still shocked that an owner of a V8 X5 (arguably one of the worst BMW's in fuel economy) is complaining...  

My current fleet is an Infiniti G35 (18 mpg average), XC90 (15 mpg average), and 930 (12 mpg average). I'd welcome a BMW sedan to my fleet as it would get the best mileage!


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

iove75 said:


> Well this is what you wrote:
> And if you think "a full-size sedan with V-8 engine" can't have good fuel economy go check out the XJ8 (18/28), which is not too far off from your 330. While I would never buy another Jaguar, it shows that it can be done. And I applaud them for that. Now BMW is heading toward that direction but I think they should be leading the pack, not following in Ford's footsteps. :tsk:


Building a full-size, 300 bhp+ luxury sedan for the world's richest people but giving it the fuel economy of something costing a mere $40k may be why Jaguar is suffering, and BMW isn't . Half of the cars BMW sells are 3ers, and of them, well over half have 4-cylinder engines. If it wishes to improve its ecological credentials (and it does), BMW is better off concentrating on improving the fuel ecomony of its popular models since there are so many more of them. No-one seriously expects anything with a V8 engine to be economical (what would you compare it to?) but it does re-use technology developed in other areas (the four-pot Valvetronic was launched first) or even uses its top models as test beds for future volume use (DI in the 760i, for example).

The entire argument - is my 300+ bhp V8 truck more or less economical than a 300 bhp something with a V6 - is moot. BMW does use its technology to increase fuel efficiency - all manufacturers do, except perhaps Subaru - but for the primary benefit of engines in cars which aren't sold in the US (BMW makes nearly 20 types of gasoline and diesel engines, and the US gets only the top six).


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Oh, look at these numbers:

'06 Volvo XC90 4.4-liter V8 - 14-15 mpg (real world)
'06 BMW X5 4.4-liter V8 - 15-18 mpg (real world)

BMW is doing their homework!


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> Building a full-size, 300 bhp+ luxury sedan for the world's richest people but giving it the fuel economy of something costing a mere $40k may be why Jaguar is suffering, and BMW isn't . Half of the cars BMW sells are 3ers, and of them, well over half have 4-cylinder engines. If it wishes to improve its ecological credentials (and it does), BMW is better off concentrating on improving the fuel ecomony of its popular models since there are so many more of them. No-one seriously expects anything with a V8 engine to be economical (what would you compare it to?) but it does re-use technology developed in other areas (the four-pot Valvetronic was launched first) or even uses its top models as test beds for future volume use (DI in the 760i, for example).
> 
> The entire argument - is my 300+ bhp V8 truck more or less economical than a 300 bhp something with a V6 - is moot. BMW does use its technology to increase fuel efficiency - all manufacturers do, except perhaps Subaru - but for the primary benefit of engines in cars which aren't sold in the US (BMW makes nearly 20 types of gasoline and diesel engines, and the US gets only the top six).


The world's richest people don't buy the BMW 7 series, they go for the Maybach, Bentley, Rolls, etc. And I don't want to get into the Jaguar vs. BMW debate. Jaguar targets a different audience. I merely point out that weight reduction to increase performance and economy can be done and it is possible to have a full size sedan with V-8 and still have good fuel economy.

Also, you can add Infiniti as the manufacturer that may not use technology to increase economy, take a look at the M35/M45. You do make a good point about volume of 3 series vs. the others, but I do think people want more efficient engines no matter the size. 
I'm sure the original poster would love to see BMW adding DI into newer model 4.4 to make it more efficient and poweful.

Unless you have assets into the billions, a $65 fill up a week isn't fun and contrary to the other poster's opinion, for some downsizing their cars or trucks is not an option. A friend of mine is a contractor who drives a Ford Excursion to haul his workers and equipment around. He knew that gas mileage sucked going in, but is he foolish for hoping that Ford one day will come out with something more efficient? If we are at a point where we can eek out no more marginal increases in fuel economy, without a marginal decrease in performance(the optimum balance), then the OP should get flamed by people who drive 3 series.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> You are wrong as I pointed out. In that case saving 700 pounds would not get me better fuel economy. Your circular reasoning was your suggestion to me to get a 5 series which weighs less than the 745. But, I then pointed out that at that time 2002, the 540 had worse fuel economy than the 745. Then you go on to tout the 745 vs. the 740.


Jeez, there is nothing circular here.  :tsk:

You said, "the easiest way to gain better fuel economy without resorting to unproven technologies is to cut down its weight." I then suggested getting a 545i instead of a 745Li because it weighs 700 pounds less, and I assumed it got better mileage. You corrected me, and that's fine.

Now how does that fit into your argument? You want weight reduction because you think it would improve fuel economy. And now you've shown both of us that 700 pounds didn't make a big difference between the 5 and 7. So where does that leave us? :dunno: (I still agree with you that weight reduction would help fuel economy, but if anything's circular, it's that exchange right there.)

You know why the 2002 540i and 2001 740iL get worse mileage than the 745Li? They had the previous generation V-8 engine. BMW improved the mileage with a new Valvetronic engine introduced in the 745Li. They improved performance and fuel economy without weight reduction. This supports my point that BMW is _already putting effort into improving performance with economy_. Whether you're intending to or not, it sounds like you and the OP are implying BMW _isn't putting effort into improving performance and economy right now_. :dunno: When you say "X should do Y," doesn't that imply you think X isn't doing Y right now?



> And now...you are going back to saying that you can't expect to have it all in one piece of machinery. Do you even remember saying how wonderful the 745 is (bigger, more power, more torque, more features and better fuel economy to boot than the 740). Sure sounds like having it all to me.


Yep, I remember. Do you remember the part where I pointed out the 745Li gained 176 pounds over the 740iL? Doesn't sound like having it all to me. I brought up the E38/E66 comparison to show BMW _already improved performance and economy_, and to contrast with your wish that the 7 get _even more_ fuel economy _on top of_ the improvements listed. "Sure sounds like having it all to me." No it doesn't; you don't think the E66 has it all.

My other point is that they did that for a whole new model generation (2002). Your previous posts sound like you would expect weight reduction in the 2006 refresh. I'm saying refreshes don't usually see that kind of extensive change. Demand the next-gen 7 be more fuel efficient. I'll even support you. But if you demand a model refresh to offer better fuel economy through weight reduction, I would say that's less reasonable.



> I needed a car to take five full sized adults in comfort, that was sporty, and for my family needs. It also had to have a quiet cabin. And fuel economy and the environment were factors high on my list. Can you pick out another vehicle that had equivalent or better performance and fuel economy in 2002 that could transport 5 full size adults?


So then wasn't BMW leading in performance-with-fuel-economy in 2002? That's what I'm saying: they were already doing it.



> I, and many others (that I know)who drive "luxobarges" are often offended by some people's belief that we don't care or can afford to disregard fuel consumption or the environment. A colleague of mine drives a S500 and he gets the same crap from people all the time.


I have no problem with what you guys drive. I just think it's incongruous to complain about fuel consumption when you've chosen a vehicle that (a) is not designed with fuel economy as a high priority and (b) already led its competition in fuel economy when it was introduced.



> And if you think "a full-size sedan with V-8 engine" can't have good fuel economy go check out the XJ8 (18/28), which is not too far off from your 330. While I would never buy another Jaguar, it shows that it can be done. And I applaud them for that. Now BMW is heading toward that direction but I think they should be leading the pack, not following in Ford's footsteps. :tsk:


Yes, okay, we have the XJ8, introduced in 2004, weighs 3800 pounds, and gets 18/28. Compare that to the 745Li, introduced in 2002, weighs 4500 pounds, and gets 18/26. The 7 has more volume in the rear and trunk and has an adapting suspension and more features, whereas C&D says the XJ8 is relatively stripped of gadgetry. So there's the trade-off right there. Where's having it all? What are the reasons why you don't want the Jag now when the Jag shows it can done? Surely there's a trade-off.

The 2004 XJ8's all-aluminum frame contributes to its lighter weight over the 2002 BMW, but BMW's not going to develop that technology into a refresh. By the way, BMW uses an all-aluminum chassis and suspension in the 2004 5er. Your perception of leading and following should take into account what years models are developed.


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

: popcorn:


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

robg said:


> What was I incorrect about? Some modern GM cars w/ pushrod engines do, in fact, get over 30mpg on the highway (such as the Impala). :dunno:


 I didn't mean to imply that your statement was either right or wrong, just that you were the one who made it and not the OP.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> No, I didn't compare the 540i to anything, except to say it had the previous-gen V-8. I compared the 740iL to the 745Li and the 545i to the 745Li. ]


I should have been more clear. My assertion that weight reduction yields better gas mileage can be found by comparing the the 740 vs. the 540. It has same engine, but different weight and it was 1 mpg better. So to buttress this argument, "you compare the 740 to the 540." That's what I meant, sorry typed fast to get some shopping done.

As for the Al chassis, the sites you referenced are either wrong or could be chalked up to a difference of terminolgy (US vs. European). If chassis to them means suspension and subframes they would be correct. But the 7 series definitely has a steel frame and I suspect so does the 5. I have previously confirmed it with a feeler magnet on my 7. My 2004 5 series brochure, talks about a virtually all aluminum front end and suspension, but not frame. Correct me if I am mistaken, but doesn't chassis refer to the frame?
See this spec sheet for the 2004 5 series.

http://e60.doit.wisc.edu/presskit/us/5_Series_Specifications.pdf



FenPhen said:


> As for aluminum components, the 2006 7s have aluminum hoods, front fenders, and suspensions. The 6 also has aluminum doors. The current Valvetronic engines have aluminum blocks and cylinder heads. The 3's engines incorporate magnesium.


Actually, the 2002 7s have those things you mentioned. I hoped they would incorporate aluminum doors and other Mg components for the 2006 7s. I seriously doubt adding those things would require significant retooling of the assembly line. They had to retool for the new sheetmetal. Also, BMW has had DI since the 03 760Li, I would have loved to see it added across the production line. I would think Valvetronic and DI would be a solid performer.

Also, on the transmission issue, the new ZF transmission does have a lot more engine/transmission braking. While I have nothing but praise for it(being more fuel efficient, smooth and powerful), I found it "wierd" at first that I was stepping on the gas on gentle downhill grades. (It could be that they were programmed to do that (down shift as much as possible for performance sakes [on other cars with the same ZF transmission, I didn't notice it as much]) On previous autos that I have driven, it would roll forever and I could coast to a stop. I can't with the new ZF, unless I want to get rammed from behind from angry motorists. Would slipping it into neutral during downhill grade where one would normally have to give it some gas help fuel economy? what impact would it have on cars with AWD to slip into and back from neutral?


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> As for the Al chassis, the sites you referenced are either wrong or could be chalked up to a difference of terminolgy (US vs. European).


The two sites I linked are American and get their information from BMW NA press releases and media kits. Those articles were from before the 5's release, so there was probably an early press release that said all-aluminum chassis when BMW meant subframes/front-end, etc. :dunno:

Yeah, here:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24787&highlight=all-aluminum+chassis

The main reason I can think of that would explain why BMW didn't go all-aluminum is for weight distribution, which is one of BMW's hallmarks. The Jag is 53/47, but the 530i with the lighter inline-6 up front is 50.8/49.2. BMW puts all the effort into getting aluminum and magnesium up front in hoods, front fenders, engine components, chassis, and axle (1er) for weight distribution.

Basically, BMW will only lighten the car as much as they can lighten the front and keep the car balanced.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> Also, on the transmission issue, the new ZF transmission does have a lot more engine/transmission braking. While I have nothing but praise for it(being more fuel efficient, smooth and powerful), I found it "wierd" at first that I was stepping on the gas on gentle downhill grades.


Someone else posted about this before. It's a downhill grade feature, where the auto stays in a low gear so you have more control. Engine braking is safer than riding your brakes down a hill.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Downhill Braking*

My point is simple the trans has two mod's.

In normal mode I don't want or need downhill braking.

In sport mode it would be good to have.

Seems simple to me with no downgrade to the "sports" drivers in the group.

The result would be better fuel econmy and no loss to the sport driver.

But it seems that the real sports driver all drive 3M cars. :bigpimp:


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> My point is simple the trans has two mod's.
> 
> In normal mode I don't want or need downhill braking.
> 
> ...


In *Drive*, the Steptronic will move up to higher gears when you are just cruising and not accelerating. If you decide to take your foot off the gas pedal and coast, the transmission will start to downshift probably when you get down to like 1000 rpm. Why? Because there is no real engine braking difference between 6th, 5th, 4th, and 3rd gears when your engine speed is that low. Engine braking only has an effect when the resulting engine RPM is high. That's why you downshift to engine brake: to get the engine RPMs up high. You will not get any additional fuel economy coasting at 850 rpm in 6th gear versus 1000 rpm in 5th gear, okay? And, you will never coast to a complete stop on level ground with an automatic because it uses a torque converter.

In *Sport* mode, the transmission will downshift sooner if you coast, probably around 2,000 rpm. This is to keep the car responsive when you accelerate; no wait for the downshift. It also keeps your car in a more neutral attitude with engine braking, so you're not constantly riding your brakes. Automatic drivers are always riding on their brakes because their engine is not providing any braking because the transmission is in high gears.

When you're going down a hill, *you want engine braking*. It is safer. It keeps the vehicle in a neutral state by resisting gravity. When you actually need your brakes, they will be ready and available. Poor automatic drivers drag their brakes down a hill which builds up a lot of heat and makes the brakes ineffective for emergency stopping. This excessive heat will eventually lead to rotors/pads damage.

With regard to fuel economy, if you're going down a hill, you're not saving any gas by riding the brakes. As has been pointed out in other threads, if the engine is being driven by compression braking, it actually uses less fuel because it doesn't need to burn fuel to keep the engine turning.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

iove75 said:


> Also, I think the point is BMW should do more and being inte innovative leader by taking other technologies and applying down the line even to the heavier cars and SUV


Like Valvetronic, direct injection, six-speed automatic gearboxes that return the same economy as a manual (or better) and variable thermostats etc.? Already done. Weight loss is next, but only if _not_ doing it would lose sales because the top end of the market is sensitive to the price of gas (which is surely is not).


> They eventually will, but I'd much rather see BMW taking the innovative lead rather than lag several years behind other manufacturers.


Such as Jaguar, Audi etc? As you point out, Audi throws away the advantage partly because it then bolts pointless 4WD hardware into the car, pushing its weight back up, and doesn't use the technology in its big-volume models. An A6 Avant weighs 1,800 kg, for Pete's sake, almost as much as an X5. Jaguar uses aluminium for the XJ, merrily denying it to 90% of the rest of its customer base. BMW pioneers its own use of alloy in the 5er, and keeps the weight down of its 3er replacement whilst everybody else's goes up. More alloy is expected in the new 7.

If you want an excuse to be able to buy a fast car with a huge engine but feel good about it because it's bristling with fuel-saving technology, I don't see how it could get any better unless you buy into BMW's other fuel-saving devices, such as the diesel engine (oops!) which powers 35% of its overall output and returns fuel economy improvements which would blow any other gasoline-related technology into the weeds. You can futz about with weight-saving, and low-friction this, that an the other, or you could fit a 3-litre diesel with 370 lb-ft of torque and return 25 mpg in city traffic :dunno:.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

robg said:


> Yes, alhtough its interesting to note that many of GM's low tech pushrod engines get over 30mpg on the highway--even in big boats like the Impala. Despite Valvetronic, 24 valves, vanos, light weight consturction, somehow an old school pushrod has them beat in some ways.


Interesting. On long-term test with CAR and Autocar magazines (rather than on EU-headed notepaper) the three GM pushrod-powered HSVs - tweaked Pontiacs, to USians - struggled to better 17 mpg on a long-term mixed cycle, where a 535d got nearly _double_ that. Sure, the 535d burns oil, not spirit, but it has similar performance, it's of similar size, and costs similar money. I'm no tree-hugger - if I was I wouldn't be driving a BMW and considering a large car with a six-cylinder engine and 150 mph potential as a next purchase - but a 17 mpg touring figure borders on the objectionable.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> Like Valvetronic, direct injection, six-speed automatic gearboxes that return the same economy as a manual (or better) and variable thermostats etc.? Already done. Weight loss is next, but only if _not_ doing it would lose sales because the top end of the market is sensitive to the price of gas (which is surely is not).


I think the top end is more sensitive than you think. SUV sales in the US seem to be losing steam. Just a few months ago there was $5,000 trunk money on the X5 4.4. The technologies you rattled off is done in some model and not others. How much longer do you have to wait for DI? Well table DI aside for a second, when are we going to see valetronic in the X3 or X5 3.0?


andy_thomas said:


> Such as Jaguar, Audi etc? As you point out, Audi throws away the advantage partly because it then bolts pointless 4WD hardware into the car, pushing its weight back up, and doesn't use the technology in its big-volume models. An A6 Avant weighs 1,800 kg, for Pete's sake, almost as much as an X5. Jaguar uses aluminium for the XJ, merrily denying it to 90% of the rest of its customer base. BMW pioneers its own use of alloy in the 5er, and keeps the weight down of its 3er replacement whilst everybody else's goes up. More alloy is expected in the new 7.


So what's your point? Jaguar down in the toilet because the brits forgot how to make cars. They need the Germans and the US to bail them out. Audi needs Quattro, otherwise what else are they good for? Also, FYI the A8 is the only one with the Al frame. Those cars are very popular in the NE US and other places with poor weather. And the OP point is that technology that we see around us should be in a BMW unless it hurts performance. How much more does this point needs to be repeated? If you're saying that one technology is not possible due to penalties in performance or exhorbitant costs then that's a valid point and so flesh out the details. But if you're just saying that overall, BMW is better than Audi or Jaguar...well duh...  No is saying that they make better cars than BMW, but that nifty technology should have been in a BMW or BMW should be the first one to do so...



andy_thomas said:


> If you want an excuse to be able to buy a fast car with a huge engine but feel good about it because it's bristling with fuel-saving technology, I don't see how it could get any better unless you buy into BMW's other fuel-saving devices, such as the diesel engine (oops!) which powers 35% of its overall output and returns fuel economy improvements which would blow any other gasoline-related technology into the weeds. You can futz about with weight-saving, and low-friction this, that an the other, or you could fit a 3-litre diesel with 370 lb-ft of torque and return 25 mpg in city traffic :dunno:.


Go and fetch me one within 6 months. I'll pay you back I promise. They don't exist in my neck of the woods, at least not now.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> Someone else posted about this before. It's a downhill grade feature, where the auto stays in a low gear so you have more control. Engine braking is safer than riding your brakes down a hill.


But there's really no need for braking, at least during the slope and grades I'm talking about. e.g. Like 1% grade or less then it plateau out, I just want to keep rolling along. :rofl:


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Braking*

I drove the X5 tonight, I was going about 60 MPH, red light ahead pop in to N and long roll to the red light. If it was gear I would of had applied more pedal/ gas.

No reason to downshift level ground saftey not the issue!


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> when are we going to see valetronic in the X3 or X5 3.0?


My guess is 2007 for both. BMW is smart. They don't often blow their load all in one model year, and they have features up their sleeves to keep their models constantly in automotive press coverage. The X3 just had some cosmetic changes for '06. A logical move would be to take the 3.0-liter from the E90 and put it in there for a 2007 X3 review. The new X5 will debut in 2007, so they'll put the Valvetronic I-6 in there.



> And the OP point is that technology that we see around us should be in a BMW unless it hurts performance. How much more does this point needs to be repeated? If you're saying that one technology is not possible due to penalties in performance or exhorbitant costs then that's a valid point and so flesh out the details. But if you're just saying that overall, BMW is better than Audi or Jaguar...well duh...  No is saying that they make better cars than BMW, but that nifty technology should have been in a BMW or BMW should be the first one to do so...


Your expectations of a company are almost unrealistic. One company should not be expected to pioneer so many automotive technologies in parallel and release everything in every model.

An outsider sees one company has one technology and another company has one technology and then assumes a third company could bolt the two together and it'll all just work. Engineering doesn't work that way; it's not an exercise in addition.

Being first really doesn't matter. It's the whole package that matters, and for BMW, it's also the handling that matters. This is why car reviewers and enthusiasts love BMW.

I could give a flying crap that Honda invented VTEC before VANOS, or that Jaguar has an all-aluminum frame and BMW only has it in the front structure.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> I drove the X5 tonight, I was going about 60 MPH, red light ahead pop in to N and long roll to the red light. If it was gear I would of had applied more pedal/ gas.
> 
> No reason to downshift level ground saftey not the issue!


You're a fool. Sorry, but I think it's necessary to state that. :tsk: 

Anyone who knows how to drive properly will tell you not to coast in neutral, and it's illegal to coast in neutral. When you're in neutral, you have no ability to step on the accelerator when you need it to avoid something. When you're in neutral, you have no engine braking and your stopping distance increases. When you're in neutral, your engine is idling and if it stalls, you could lose power steering and brakes. Your X5's manual will very explictly say "do not coast with the transmission in Neutral" accompanied by a hazard icon.

When you're in neutral, your engine is *BURNING GAS* to maintain the idle, instead of letting your car's transmission keep the engine turning. If you were in gear, the fuel injectors would've cut fuel flow because it's not needed for the engine to turn.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> Your expectations of a company are almost unrealistic. One company should not be expected to pioneer so many automotive technologies in parallel and release everything in every model.
> 
> An outsider sees one company has one technology and another company has one technology and then assumes a third company could bolt the two together and it'll all just work. Engineering doesn't work that way; it's not an exercise in addition.
> 
> ...


I think you may be right on that end about being unrealistic. But the whole point is about what BMW should do. Also, BMW doesn't always engineer, pioneer, or invent technologies. Bosch developed the stability control systems thats used by BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc. BMW uses the same as servotronic steering on Audi. So sometimes it's a matter of putting these things together. Also, being first have numerous advantages other than bragging rights, namely patents which would help the company in the long run so they can develop/design even better cars! :thumbup:


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> You're a fool. Sorry, but I think it's necessary to state that. :tsk:


This isn't roadfly, no need to call people names.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> This isn't roadfly, no need to call people names.


*fool* _n._
1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

iove75 said:


> Active Steering on the BMW is the same as servotronic steering on Audi.


It's nothing like the same. Active steering is a completely different technology which performs a different task.

Also the 1986 E32 (BMW) featured Servotronic. I doubt Audi's flagship car did at the time.


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

andy_thomas said:


> It's nothing like the same. Active steering is a completely different technology which performs a different task.
> 
> Also the 1986 E32 (BMW) featured Servotronic. I doubt Audi's flagship car did at the time.


 :stupid:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

iove75 said:


> So what's your point?


That Jaguar's technology is great, but misplaced. Or, too expensive for volume production. 


> Jaguar down in the toilet because the brits forgot how to make cars.


Ford just bailed them out with another $2bn cash injection. Its cars look like they beong in the Ark, and all the juicy technology is in its £50k+ luxobarges. Ford has owner Jaguar since 1989 - that's 17 years. So - what? Americans forgot how to build good cars as well?


> And the OP point is that technology that we see around us should be in a BMW unless it hurts performance. How much more does this point needs to be repeated?


Until you start buying fuel-efficient BMWs instead of V8s which for some reason you (and the OP) don't think exist. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, then again perhaps not - like a lot of USians on here, I don't understand why you'd buy a two-ton, 330 bhp truck and then complain about the gas mileage. If you want economy _and_ a two-ton truck, buy a 3.0 diesel X5 and get 30 mpg on average, much less on the motorway. And if you can't, lobby your congressman to push for the appropriate diesel fuel to be sold.

About the only SUV capable of economy-car mileage but still featuring a big honking engine and stomping performance that any driver really _needs_ would be the hybrid Lexus. I like the idea of cars which recycle energy which would otherwise be lost, and need go nowhere near an electricity outlet. Now _this_ is one technology I would like to learn more about , and even see BMW utilise - since its hydrogen ideas don't seem to be getting anywhere fast.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Ass/FenPhen*

[You're a ass. Sorry, but I think it's necessary to state that. :tsk: 

ass1 ( P ) 
n. pl. ass·es (sz) 
A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person.

Sure sounds like it fits FenPhen :supdude:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ass


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> Hybrid cars are not about low cost ownership, they are about innovation; without innovation we do not continue to advance. Movie Stars drive Hybrid cars to make a social statement not because they have to.
> 
> Why is Honda and Toyota today's innovators, BMW should be part of today's innovation. Drivability and performance is a given its not NEW innovation.


Honda, Toyota, and BMW are not researching for the sake of innovation itself. In the end, they are trying to develop practical and profitable solutions for real problems.

For BMW, drivability and performance aren't givens; they are _musts_. They are what the company's entire brand is built upon (BMW = The Ultimate Driving Machine / The Joy of Driving, Mini = Let's Motor). That's why they haven't put out a hybrid, which sacrifices sustained performance (...for innovation's sake?), and they probably won't soon.

Honda and Toyota are not known for making performance vehicles. They are about decently comfortable and economical transport, and hybrids make sense for them. The Prius and Insight have been around since 1997 and 1999. Do they still count as "new innovation?"

Is the fact that BMW is pioneering a much more significant technology that promises much more benefits than gas/electric hybrids not leading in innovation?


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> Maybe because it's in the title of the post and x54.4blue, the OP, keeps posting about it? Are we not talking about designing cars that use less gas?


Yes, and the OP pointed out that fuel economy and performance is not mutually exclusive. And many others have suggested ways to accomplish this and their ideas were met with elitist static. More on this in a minute...



FenPhen said:


> I wouldn't know. I'm getting 22-23 mpg in mixed driving and a tank costs me around $35. :dunno:


I get about 18-21 in mixed driving and with premium at 2.75 x 20 gallons or so it comes out to about $55.00. I'm obviously exagerating about filling up every 4-5 days, it's more like 6 or 7, but I'd hate to find out what the X5 4.4 gets in real driving conditions.



FenPhen said:


> What does this have to do with the thread? Yes, a hybrid vehicle, with its conventional ICE, electric motor, batteries, regenerative braking, clutch packs, and CVT sounds like it would be much more reliable than a conventional ICE BMW...


The point was that BMW is not and should not be only about pure driving experience. If you combed though this board and roadfly, many have left BMW and gone to _____ (insert whatever car company here) despite BMW's superior handling. 
Fuel economy, lack of reliability and options, etc. detract from driving experience you speak of. 


FenPhen said:


> How is what I've been saying elitist?  (Me with my 3, you with your 7, the OP with his X5.)


What's elitist is the belief that BMW reigns supreme and no one should dare suggest otherwise, and if people like x54.4blue wants fuel economy they should go out and buy a Honda Civic. And if you're rich enough to buy a BMW, quit whining about gas prices. Now, I know you never said any of that, but that's the impression that I get when I read the reply posts here in this thread.

The OP was trying to "brain storm" ideas BMW can use to increase fuel economy without taxing performance and driving dynamics and almost immediately he was assailed with "What the hell were you thinking buying a ..." or along those lines.



FenPhen said:


> You guys wish/want BMW to offer a hybrid. I'm just explaining why they're in no hurry to do so. They'll market a hybrid only if they figure out how to negate the performance penalty, and the resulting product is profitable.


I'm not sure the OP or even myself want a hybrid per se, we just want BMW to continue to get better mileage than it does today. I don't care if it increased FE by 100%, 50%, or even 15%. While FE has increased with the advent of the new V6 engines, FE has decreased with the V-8 engines for obvious reasons. I would have liked to see DI + Valvetronic + overall weight reduction to increase FE and power without sacrificing driving dynamics. In fact, the latest issue of the Roundell talks about BMW using more Al and composite materials to keep weight down in the soon to be released cross-over vehicle.

And while there are many BMW purists (fanatics) out there that demands superior handling and power at the expense of FE, there are many more people out there, including BMW fans that would like to have its cake and eat it too.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*iove75 well put.*

iove75 you did a great job of explaining and reasoning but its seems like some BMW drives(like Phen) can not be reasoned with.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> iove75 you did a great job of explaining and reasoning but its seems like some BMW drives(like Phen) can not be reasoned with.


I just think that Phen and others believes that BMW makes a superior product, don't want to see BMW products dumbed down, and is offended for others to suggest otherwise. Part of it comes from the stigma that FE and performance are mutual exclusive. Japanese econoboxes in '80s was accomplished with a tiny motor and light weight chassis. But technology has changed all that (ala Valvetronic, VANOS) but the stigma continues.

Additionally, I don't see the logic that if you can afford to pay a premium for a luxury car (BMW), then you should be able to afford the gas that goes with it. Yes, I can afford to pay it but that doesn't mean I should or want to.

*Also, many of those who responded either didn't read or simply forgot the crux of your main argument that FE and performance are not mutually exclusive.*

BMW is no longer a niche car manufacturer. Their products must appeal to a broader audience for them to survive. We can see example of this by BMW's own conduct, they introduced the X5, the X3, and their upcoming minivan. Power, performance, and driving experience is not enough. BMW is big enough and has a large enough brain trust to ensure that BMW will drive like a BMW, but give us better mileage and less pollution at the same time. Even a modest increase in FE would contribute significantly to lessening our dependence on foreign oil, decreasing pollution, and put downward, demand driven pressure on gasoline prices. I think it is a win-win situation.

But BMW would not do that if it believes that potential customers don't car about FE. Japanese car makers have zealously honed in on FE in the 80s and 90s and look where they are now. I would prefer that BMW be in that position.


----------



## nopcbs (Sep 17, 2004)

*Huh?*

You get 19 mpg city or highway? City, I do not for a second believe because I was not born yesterday. Highway, I buy, but a 325i should be getting well over 30 mpg highway. (I get 31 mpg in my 330i zhp on highway and 20 mpg city.)

The Europeans are, in general, guilty of not paying huge attention to gas engine fuel economy because they get that from diesels everywhere, but in North America. In North America the EPA worries a lot about particulate emissions which diesels do a poor job with. (Visit any congested European city and you can see the soot in the air. U.S. cities may not have super clean air, but at least you can't see it.)

The Japanese and even U.S. car makers, have been much more serious about egtting better mileage out of gas engines. Toyota and Honda in particular with gas/electric hybrids.

However, the Europeans have started feeling the cold finger of fear with the recent big jump in gas prices with the result of such marraiges of convenience as the one of GM and BMW to develop hybrid technology.

Better late than never.



x54.4blue said:


> Yes I drive a V8 sav. It get about 19 mile to the gallon, not that much less than your 325I.
> 
> That does not mean BMW should make improvements.
> 
> The changes I sugested would have little or no impact on the driveablity.


----------



## grahambishop (Mar 27, 2005)

This was old technolgy compared to now, but how many of you remember the old "e" BMWs? Like the 525e I think and the 325e? The "e" was for economy and they were dogs. I agree technology had changed and fuel economy could be exciting I guess. I remember driving my brother's Prius and trying to see how well I could do in it. but for excitement? I'll go with my 645 Coupe and its 6 speed manual and not worry about the benzine penalty.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

nopcbs said:


> You get 19 mpg city or highway? City, I do not for a second believe because I was not born yesterday. Highway, I buy, but a 325i should be getting well over 30 mpg highway. (I get 31 mpg in my 330i zhp on highway and 20 mpg city.)
> 
> The Europeans are, in general, guilty of not paying huge attention to gas engine fuel economy because they get that from diesels everywhere, but in North America. In North America the EPA worries a lot about particulate emissions which diesels do a poor job with. (Visit any congested European city and you can see the soot in the air. U.S. cities may not have super clean air, but at least you can't see it.)


So if you can't see it, it's not there - right? 

A short while ago, after diesel particulate filters entered the mainstream (meaning all of those black bits stay in the exhaust), petrol technology was considered dead by many European manufacturers. Why futz around with expensive, heavy, inefficient hybrids when you can easily get 70+ mpg out of a small diesel?

Hybrid technology is still nascent as the vast majority of cars produced by the main European manufacturers are under 14 ft and 2800 lb. Batteries and a generic 3.5 litre V6 might be fine for a 4,000 lb truck, but don't suit the average Renault Clio or even VW Golf. Hybrid technology would be fine for larger cars with space for the technology, but owners of those sorts of cars tend to be wealthy and less sensitive to the price of fuel. The Honda IMA and Prius are reasonably popular, but much of consumption-reducing technology is nothing to do with the powertrain - how efficient would a conventional car be with the Prius' lightweight body panels, skinny tyres, tiny brakes etc.?

It remains to be seen whether the widespread use of particulate filters - which are not before their time - reduces the dirt problem, whilt having negligible impact on efficiency. Also, don't knock what the other manufacturers are doing - the French, for example, may have given up on petrol, but even VW has shown continuing commitment (177 bhp, 39 mpg and 170 g/km from a turbosupercharged 1.4, anyone?).


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> A short while ago, after diesel particulate filters entered the mainstream (meaning all of those black bits stay in the exhaust), petrol technology was considered dead by many European manufacturers. Why futz around with expensive, heavy, inefficient hybrids when you can easily get 70+ mpg out of a small diesel?


Good point, but diesels aren't popular here (yet). The North American market is huge especially with us "yanks" willing to accept a life term sentence of car payments (leasing). With people here acquiring new cars every three years, why wouldn't they futz around? [Please no discussions of the virtue or vices of leasing] Also, as the rest of the world knows, American tastes are hard to predict, why chance losing market shares if we don't warm up to diesel in a few years?

I'm also glad you mentioned particulate filters. I did a search and the EPA described it as a catalytic converter much like in gasoline engines, but didn't use the term "catalytic converter." Living on that side of the Atlantic, what are your thoughts on it? 
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/documents/bigdig_case_08.htm



andy_thomas said:


> The Honda IMA and Prius are reasonably popular, but much of consumption-reducing technology is nothing to do with the powertrain - how efficient would a conventional car be with the Prius' lightweight body panels, skinny tyres, tiny brakes etc.? ?).


I respectfully disagree. The Prius ability to get draw dropping mileage (EPA rated of course) is due to the fact that it can run solely off of a battery (charged by what would have been wasted energy) at low speeds. Weight, low rolling resistance tires and tiny brakes contribute just a fraction to FE. Having said that, Prius was designed from the tires up as a hybrid. The Honda Accord IMA seemed to be a last minute retrofit. But, it increases power and acceleration while decreasing fuel consumption. With only a few exceptions, there is little difference between the V-6 and Accord Hybrid ("HAH"). In fact, the HAH has wider tires to handle the extra power. Brakes and the chassis is the same. To offset the extra weight of battery and IMA motor, they made the hood out of Al and the intake manifolds out of Mg. They also stuck the heavy battery behind the passenger seat which helps to balance out the car (just a wee bit). The HAH is heavier by 100lbs than the V-6 model. The HAH has cylinder deactivation and shuts off completely at a stoplight to save gas. The V-6 Accord is rated 20/29 while the HAH is rated 30/38.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

iove75 said:


> Good point, but diesels aren't popular here (yet). The North American market is huge especially with us "yanks" willing to accept a life term sentence of car payments (leasing). With people here acquiring new cars every three years, why wouldn't they futz around? [Please no discussions of the virtue or vices of leasing] Also, as the rest of the world knows, American tastes are hard to predict, why chance losing market shares if we don't warm up to diesel in a few years?
> 
> I'm also glad you mentioned particulate filters. I did a search and the EPA described it as a catalytic converter much like in gasoline engines, but didn't use the term "catalytic converter." Living on that side of the Atlantic, what are your thoughts on it?


That they should have been introduced years ago ! A while back VW and BMW introduced what they called an equivalent to a catalytic converter for their diesel cars, but the exhaust still pumped out black soot when revved. Recently, BMW has been fitting these filters into the exhaust systems and using horizontal, as opposed to turned-down, tailpipes for diesels so equipped.

On a related note, a seminal moment for me was vacillating between a 318i and 320d on my next car purchase, then seeing an E46 320td and an Audi A3 race off the lights on the A10. Throttles slapped to the firewall, the smokescreen would have been enough for an entire army to advance. No thanks, not this time at least. I can, though, attest that a 535d given full (or most) beans off the lights produces no visible soot, and what little noise you do hear sounds like a mildly breathed-on M30 - up to about 5,000 rpm.


> I respectfully disagree. The Prius ability to get draw dropping mileage (EPA rated of course) is due to the fact that it can run solely off of a battery (charged by what would have been wasted energy) at low speeds.


I was thinking of the three-litre Lupo. It got 2.5 times the fuel economy of a 1.4 litre Lupo petrol of the same power rating. It also lost 150 kg (remarkable, really, when you consider that a Lupo only weighs 1,000 kg in the first place - imagine BMW pulling 250 kg out of a regular 3 series), and gained other economy-minded measures. Weight loss was carried out with aluminium, magnesium, thinner glass, lightweight Continentals on forged alloys, etc.

"Three litres" refers to the fuel economy of 3 l/100 km. that's 92 mpg in imperial, and almost all the engineering is entirely conventional. The only bits that weren't was the stop-start system that cuts the engine out when it's idling, and extremely high common-rail pump pressure.

This was in 1998. It's now 2006. I don't see a lot of progress with hybrids, except (and I'm playing the Devil's here) for providing a way for folks buying big, fast trucks to feel good about themselves. A 2006 Golf TDI will return 44 mpg on the urban cycle, or 67 mpg on the open road (Imp figures). Nor does it kick out black soot, which should make everyone feel good about themselves, not just the driver. I like the idea of a hybrid system providing an extra kick of power when you need it, but I'm not convinced its yet ready for the mainstream :dunno:.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> its seems like some BMW drives(like Phen) can not be reasoned with.


Yes, my posts here aren't based on reasoning, facts, citations, logic, nor a basic ability to actually read and respond to others' arguments. You've caught me. 



> If you combed though this board and roadfly, many have left BMW and gone to _____ (insert whatever car company here) despite BMW's superior handling.


The anecdotal evidence is not supported by sales figures. BMW NA posted another record sales year for 2005. Their closest sales rival is Lexus. Meanwhile, Mercedes is actually hurting and saw decline.

BMW automobiles : 197,833
BMW trucks: 68,367
MINI automobiles: 40,820

Lexus autmobiles: 151,226
Lexus trucks: 151,669
Since you mentioned leasing, BMW was named the best residual value luxury brand for the third year in a row by Automotive Lease Guide.



iove75 said:


> I would have liked to see DI + Valvetronic + overall weight reduction to increase FE and power without sacrificing driving dynamics.


You got Valvetronic, and you got weight reduction technologies being used in every new generation's introduction.

Here's the story on direct injection: gasoline DI is making advances as we speak. The DI you know is not without its disadvantages. During the ultra-lean burn cycle (the one that saves you mpg), a lot of NOx emissions are produced, and that requires more expensive cats to scrub the new pollution, and the system is sensitive to fuel sulfur levels. The 760i's V-12 (introduced in 2002) has direct injection, but forgoes the ultra-lean burn altogether. Direct injectors are also larger and more expensive, hence their introduction in a large engine in a large platform that has a high profit margin that can support the added cost.

In 2003, Bosch was making advances in direct injection technology, addressing those issues. In 2005, they made more advances, and their technology is being incorporated by BMW's development (2005) right now. Gasoline DI is a bit different from diesel DI, which is why it is taking time to mature. BMW's latest diesels (like the 2006 730d) already feature some of the advanced injectors mentioned in those Bosch articles.



> Also, many of those who responded either didn't read or simply forgot the crux of your main argument that FE and performance are not mutually exclusive.


BMW doesn't believe they're mutually exclusive at all. If anybody knows anything about balance in all things automotive, it's BMW, and they're constantly advertising their vehicle economics after they first get your attention with the drive. Again, the caveat I and others raise is that performance should not be sacrificed for fuel economy. BMW believes in this as well. Gas/electric hybrid technology does not fit with BMW yet (more on that below).



> BMW is no longer a niche car manufacturer. Their products must appeal to a broader audience for them to survive. We can see example of this by BMW's own conduct, they introduced the X5, the X3, and their upcoming minivan.


Disagree, although this may just be semantics. BMW is a niche-product manufacturer. They find a niche and they target it with a product for that niche. They do not try to make a platform appeal to people that aren't interested in that kind of platform. The X5 is a perfect example of not trying to appeal to the SUV image, but instead recognizing the performance/road SAV niche.

*BMW Is Already Doing It*

I said that earlier in this thread. In fact, I think that's the crux of the thread. One group says "BMW needs to do more for fuel economy! Why haven't they improved fuel economy more?" The other says "BMW is already doing it, without performance compromise." Rather than pull random ideas out of blue, here's some proof:
Green Car Congress
_Declaring that a few per cent less fuel consumption throughout an entire model range gives the public and society in general more than a significant improvement of fuel economy on just one niche model, BMW has stated that it will implement spray-guided direct injection on all its gasoline models in the future, as well as regenerative braking and stop/start functionality._​
And finally, *from BMW itself*: "Energy Efficiency is Essential in Motor Vehicles. At BMW, Dynamic Performance is Equally Essential." This press release covers everything we've talked about, like direct injection, the super-cap X3, and hydrogen. It shows that BMW is not working on a traditional hybrid, but instead is looking at the components and approaches that either yield efficiency or performance but _nothing that compromises performance_.

So there you have it: BMW is clearly slacking and not doing enough. And I'm just a fanboy.


----------



## Transbug (Nov 9, 2005)

Maybe you should buy a Honda for your everyday car? They're great cars known for fuel efficiency.

When you drive your X5, I say enjoy the Bimmer ride...the feel...the whole experience of driving such a magnificent machine. I can't complain about my 28 MPG hwy and 20+ city in my '02 530i S/P packages. I don't drive it everyday; however, even if I did I'll take those numbers and the rest of the experience I get whenever I do drive it.

I drive a '03 Toyota Tacoma ExtraCab, auto, CD, with the high profile design most of the time and get roughly the same gas mileage. However, the gas mileage is the only comparisons I can make if were so inclined to do so. I'm not because I didn't buy either for their fuel efficiency or lack thereof.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> The anecdotal evidence is not supported by sales figures.


There are lies, damned lies, and then your statistics. Take out the MINI and what do you get. The MINI is marketed towards a different audience and have different distribution channels. If you include the MINI, why don't you include Toyota + Lexus. Also, I'm sure you not denying that some models like the Z has gone down, while the latest Bangle redesigned 3 is helping sales, which by the way is both more FE and performance oriented. Then there is the $5,000 trunk money on the X5 to boost sales.



FenPhen said:


> Since you mentioned leasing, BMW was named the best residual value luxury brand for the third year in a row by Automotive Lease Guide.


The high residuals are only for certain models. Go look up the 02 745 or any station wagon models for kicks.



FenPhen said:


> You got Valvetronic, and you got weight reduction technologies being used in every new generation's introduction.


Don't feel like waiting 7 or 8 years for something better. Other manufacturers can introduce something mid-cycle or in shorter intervals. In fact, had the 06 offered more, I would have gotten it.



FenPhen said:


> Here's the story on direct injection: gasoline DI is making advances as we speak.


But even without the *most recent *advances, Audi managed to put a DI (although dumbed down because of Nox emissions) in the A6, *mid-cycle *A4, and the new A-3. In the A6, despite an increase of weight from the C5 model, it is more powerful and FE. DI, even if it is not being fully exploited due to emissions still have a positive effect on power and FE.

While I understand your arguments about the additional costs involved with DI, and that BMW can only afford to offer this technology on a high profit platform to absorb the cost, but that is also true with anything new. Be it Xenon lights, navigation, or valvetronic. They'll just tack it on to the price tag and we do pay a premium already no matter what model we buy. BMW knows a few things about productivity and it knows that productivity (learning by doing) will reduce the costs overall. After all Audi managed to do it, how difficult or costly can that be?

While BMW claims they don't like to rush into things, it sure sounds like their playing catch up after gas prices rise and people are complaining.



FenPhen said:


> This press release covers everything we've talked about, like direct injection, the super-cap X3, and hydrogen. It shows that BMW is not working on a traditional hybrid, but instead is looking at the components and approaches that either yield efficiency or performance but _nothing that compromises performance_.


Again, when has anyone suggested that BMW should compromise performance for FE. You repeat the same mantra over and over again. And I will too. *FE and performance are not mutually exclusive.*

I disagree with your other posts that BMW will not market a hybrid. From that article, it sure sounds like you will see a hybrid model soon. Yeah, there using a capacitor instead of a battery but that still is a hybrid (gas-electric) vehicle. While capacitor have the ability to provide more electrical power in shorter period of time, capacitors don't hold energy in it's field that well. So, if you let the car sit idle for a few days, the energy drops much faster than in a NiMH battery. But it's an interesting concept.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> There are lies, damned lies, and then your statistics. Take out the MINI and what do you get. The MINI is marketed towards a different audience and have different distribution channels. If you include the MINI, why don't you include Toyota + Lexus.


There are no statistical lies. That's why I didn't total the numbers, so you could interpret the numbers yourself. Without MINI, I see BMW automobiles outsell Lexus automobiles by a very wide margin (30%). MINI is included because it's a premium-performance brand and is part of BMW's targeting-a-niche strategy that I mentioned before. Different distribution channels? You mean on a BMW lot, delivered from the same BMW VDCs? Toyota is not a premium brand, and hell, the Corolla alone sold 241,290 units in the U.S.



> Also, I'm sure you not denying that some models like the Z has gone down, while the latest Bangle redesigned 3 is helping sales, which by the way is both more FE and performance oriented. Then there is the $5,000 trunk money on the X5 to boost sales.


You don't need to tell me that the 3 is about performance and economy. I own one for those reasons, but for the performance first, not because it gets 20/30 (which isn't great for a compact sedan).

Why are you picking on individual models for this thread anyway, particularly the small-market Z4? Is the SC430 selling like hotcakes? I see lots of RX330s (which cost the same as a 3), but what about the other Lexus SUVs that actually compete with the X5? Their sales are down, but X5 sales are up for 2005.

My point was not that BMW is better because it sells more, but just that people are not flocking away the way you describe. Are message board rants a better indicator than pure calendar year U.S. sales?



> The high residuals are only for certain models. Go look up the 02 745 or any station wagon models for kicks.


Again, I'm talking about the brands, cause that's what you were talking about. Are wagons in high demand? The 2002 7 had its technical problems, which are well known. And yet you went ahead and got a 2005(?) 745Li, presumably because the problems were addressed? "Three years in a row" means 2003-2005, so the '02 7 is irrelevant.



> Don't feel like waiting 7 or 8 years for something better. Other manufacturers can introduce something mid-cycle or in shorter intervals.


And yet, the competitors are not as financially healthy as BMW, with its long 7-year cycles. The competitors' products aren't as fun across the board either. Hmm, who's scrambling? (I don't have facts to back that up, but I've done enough research already, so go ahead and counter that with evidence. :dunno: )



> But even without the *most recent *advances, Audi managed to put a DI (although dumbed down because of Nox emissions) in the A6, *mid-cycle *A4, and the new A-3. In the A6, despite an increase of weight from the C5 model, it is more powerful and FE. DI, even if it is not being fully exploited due to emissions still have a positive effect on power and FE.


Yeah, but who cares? The BMW engines without the limited-DI get better mileage/performance per displacement than the Audi engines, and in a rear-wheel drive package. :dunno: DI just for the sake of DI?



> While I understand your arguments about the additional costs involved with DI, and that BMW can only afford to offer this technology on a high profit platform to absorb the cost, but that is also true with anything new. Be it Xenon lights, navigation, or valvetronic. They'll just tack it on to the price tag and we do pay a premium already no matter what model we buy. BMW knows a few things about productivity and it knows that productivity (learning by doing) will reduce the costs overall. After all Audi managed to do it, how difficult or costly can that be?


BMW has a track record of trickling features down because the top end (the 7) is less price-sensitive. If DI costs an extra $2,000, you can tuck that in the cost of a 760i pretty easily, but not in a 3. Why are there so many halogen-equipped 3s, even though $700-800 xenons have been around for the better part of a decade? As for DI, don't forget that it's fundamental to the engine, so it's not an option like xenons or nav, but a whole new trim.

BMW is outperforming Audi financially and in sales, so I don't see how we can look to Audi for guidance. In 2004, BMW had EUR 44 billion revenue compared to Audi's 24 billion, and about ~3.4 billion in profit compared to Audi's ~1.1 billion.



> While BMW claims they don't like to rush into things, it sure sounds like their playing catch up after gas prices rise and people are complaining.


BMW doesn't care about being first except in Motorsport, as they stated in that press release I linked earlier ("it's an axiom that first is often not best").



> Again, when has anyone suggested that BMW should compromise performance for FE. You repeat the same mantra over and over again. And I will too. *FE and performance are not mutually exclusive.*


Again, when has anyone stated performance and efficiency _are_ mutually exclusive? You repeat your own mantra, and I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm disagreeing with your suggestions and the x54.4blue's implication that BMW isn't doing enough. I'm offering sources that explain why the things you guys have suggested either compromise performance (Toyota's hybrid technology) or are not practical or profitable yet to deploy.

You guys write like BMW is slow to react or isn't innovating. I'm offering examples of how they are innovating and staying profitable. If they retooled their entire line every time a new technology came out, they'd be in the hole. This is why the '06 X5 still has the old 3.0-L engine, because the new one with Valvetronic will be saved for the '07 X5 debut. If they deployed every new technology they had for the sake of fuel economy, their prices would rise sharply, or the vehicles wouldn't function.

Full GDI, a.k.a. High Precision Injection won't be available in the U.S. until sulfur-free gas is widely available. And guess what, California's environmentalists already got the low-sulfur gas standard, which is 10% of the average concentration found in gas outside California.



> I disagree with your other posts that BMW will not market a hybrid. From that article, it sure sounds like you will see a hybrid model soon. Yeah, there using a capacitor instead of a battery but that still is a hybrid (gas-electric) vehicle. While capacitor have the ability to provide more electrical power in shorter period of time, capacitors don't hold energy in it's field that well. So, if you let the car sit idle for a few days, the energy drops much faster than in a NiMH battery. But it's an interesting concept.


When I said "hybrid" in the other posts, I'm referring to the efficient/power-reduced gas engine + battery-driven electric drive, as featured in the Prius and RX400h. I think BMW's approach is pretty exciting. The engine is not compromised, the capacitors are lightweight and can be distributed better on the chassis (such as the X3's side sills). The initial numbers were 10% better economy but 40% better standing-start acceleration. Not the same kind of hybrid as Toyota's.

I wouldn't expect the super caps to show up that soon though. No timeline is given, nor mention about how much the technology costs in its current state, or if super capacitors are safe in side impact (I can't imagine they are). The initial reports from September said BMW stated the hybrid X3 would not make it into production in that form. Possible dates would be in an X3 refresh for MY 2008, or more likely MY 2011 with the new X3 and the new X5's refresh. :dunno:


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> There are no statistical lies. That's why I didn't total the numbers, so you could interpret the numbers yourself. Without MINI, I see BMW automobiles outsell Lexus automobiles by a very wide margin (30%). MINI is included because it's a premium-performance brand and is part of BMW's targeting-a-niche strategy that I mentioned before. Different distribution channels? You mean on a BMW lot, delivered from the same BMW VDCs? Toyota is not a premium brand, and hell, the Corolla alone sold 241,290 units in the U.S.:


You have a particular fondness for semantics. You are saying that BMW who sells more cars than Lexus and almost as much as VW is a niche car maker??? I would hardly consider the MINI a premium-performance brand. Ever drove one? And I am talking about different network of dealers. I would consider it a higher end of a non-premium brand much like a top model Altima, not the base model. But if you take a look at the base model MINI, I doubt you would consider it a premium brand car.



FenPhen said:


> You don't need to tell me that the 3 is about performance and economy. I own one for those reasons, but for the performance first, not because it gets 20/30 (which isn't great for a compact sedan)


Oh really? I thought you of all people need to be constantly reminded that FE and performance are not mutually exclusive.



FenPhen said:


> The 2002 7 had its technical problems, which are well known. And yet you went ahead and got a 2005(?) 745Li, presumably because the problems were addressed? "Three years in a row" means 2003-2005, so the '02 7 is irrelevant.


FTR: I did not get 2005 7 series. Don't know where you got that from. I said I considered the refreshed 2006 7 series but was disappointed. FYI, the problems with the 7 series have not been addressed in 2006 refresh, please feel free to peruse the plethora of complaints on this board and roadfly.



FenPhen said:


> Again, I'm talking about the brands, cause that's what you were talking about.


And I'm pointing out that Brands itself is not helpful unless you own the particular model that has the high residual. And I did not say that there is a mass exodus of BMW owners. I merely point out that people are leaving BMW despite the europhia of "driving experience" you speak of. There are other considerations in choosing a car.



FenPhen said:


> And yet, the competitors are not as financially healthy as BMW, with its long 7-year cycles. The competitors' products aren't as fun across the board either. Hmm, who's scrambling? (I don't have facts to back that up, but I've done enough research already, so go ahead and counter that with evidence. :dunno: )
> 
> Yeah, but who cares? The BMW engines without the limited-DI get better mileage/performance per displacement than the Audi engines, and in a rear-wheel drive package. :dunno: DI just for the sake of DI?


This seems to undercut your argument. If BMW is so financially sound then they can absorb some of the initially costs that go into these vehicles. The reference to Audi is only that if they can do it, so can BMW. I'm not saying they are a superior product, just saying there are elements of it that I admire.

Also, the financial circumstances for any car manufacturer ebbs and flows with the times. If they are slow to act or react, there could be consequences. The example I previously gave was patents. For every Escape Hybrid Ford produces, dollars roll into Japanese banks. Innovation pays dividends.

No DI for DI sakes, but because it offers more power and FE. I guess your attitude is valvetronics for valvetronics sake? Lest I remind you that this thread is also about "leading the way."



FenPhen said:


> As for DI, don't forget that it's fundamental to the engine, so it's not an option like xenons or nav, but a whole new trim.


Good, then if it is spread across a product line, marginal costs for DI woulbe be less.



FenPhen said:


> I'm disagreeing with your suggestions and the x54.4blue's implication that BMW isn't doing enough. I'm offering sources that explain why the things you guys have suggested either compromise performance (Toyota's hybrid technology) or are not practical or profitable yet to deploy.


Good, I think we are getting to the heart of the matter. I think the OP and my implication is that it should do more. One only has to look to different manufacturers to show that others are doing more in this area (and I'm talking about putting concepts in production). You talk about profits...the Prius comes at a hefty price premium that many editors have pointed out that it is questionable whether consumers will recoup the initial costs. Yet, they are selling like hotcakes. People are willing to pay more. To turn your argument around, If you can afford a BMW, then you can afford to pay more for better technologies that get you better FE and performance.



FenPhen said:


> You guys write like BMW is slow to react or isn't innovating. I'm offering examples of how they are innovating and staying profitable. If they retooled their entire line every time a new technology came out, they'd be in the hole. This is why the '06 X5 still has the old 3.0-L engine, because the new one with Valvetronic will be saved for the '07 X5 debut. If they deployed every new technology they had for the sake of fuel economy, their prices would rise sharply, or the vehicles wouldn't function.


Well, if prices continue to go up from one MY to another, but the cars are virtually the same, don't you feel slighted? Again, I don't buy your chicken-little argument. The sky will not fall if they continue to pass along innovation down their products each year. We BMW drivers are not "price sensitive," and I suspect BMW would just pass some of that along.



FenPhen said:


> When I said "hybrid" in the other posts, I'm referring to the efficient/power-reduced gas engine + battery-driven electric drive, as featured in the Prius and RX400h. I think BMW's approach is pretty exciting. The engine is not compromised, the capacitors are lightweight and can be distributed better on the chassis (such as the X3's side sills). The initial numbers were 10% better economy but 40% better standing-start acceleration. Not the same kind of hybrid as Toyota's.


It's semantics, but if you don't like Toyota's synergy hybrid, then check out Honda's IMA. Those are totally different and achieves different goals. Not all hybrids are the same. And even with the super cap tech, that would still be considered a hybrid. The link you provided to the X3 hybrid says just that. And I take this statement, "While BMW stated the X3 Hybrid shown will not make it into production as we see it, you can be sure the systems developed here will show up in the future, " to mean that a hybrid system is coming, but not exactly what you see here. Kinda like spy shots of prototype body styles.

I also want to point out that the press released you linked proves that my initial suggestions (weight reduction + auto stop) could increase performance and decrease fuel economy. And yes, I do think BMW is slow to react. If you consider white paper as the criteria, then good for you. But I would much rather judge their efforts on what I see on the pavement.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> That they should have been introduced years ago ! A while back VW and BMW introduced what they called an equivalent to a catalytic converter for their diesel cars, but the exhaust still pumped out black soot when revved. Recently, BMW has been fitting these filters into the exhaust systems and using horizontal, as opposed to turned-down, tailpipes for diesels so equipped.
> 
> On a related note, a seminal moment for me was vacillating between a 318i and 320d on my next car purchase, then seeing an E46 320td and an Audi A3 race off the lights on the A10. Throttles slapped to the firewall, the smokescreen would have been enough for an entire army to advance. No thanks, not this time at least. I can, though, attest that a 535d given full (or most) beans off the lights produces no visible soot, and what little noise you do hear sounds like a mildly breathed-on M30 - up to about 5,000 rpm.


You certainly have the flare for the dramatics! Particulates aside, do European "new" generation diesels have that diesel smell like your idling in traffic behind a fleet of buses?


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> You have a particular fondness for semantics.


Yes, I like to use the right words that capture the correct meaning. So do you.



> You are saying that BMW who sells more cars than Lexus and almost as much as VW is a niche car maker??? I would hardly consider the MINI a premium-performance brand. Ever drove one? And I am talking about different network of dealers. I would consider it a higher end of a non-premium brand much like a top model Altima, not the base model. But if you take a look at the base model MINI, I doubt you would consider it a premium brand car.


Here's what I said: "[BMW finds] a niche and they target it with a product for that niche. They do not try to make a platform appeal to people that aren't interested in that kind of platform." This is not my own idea; it's covered well in _Driven_ by David Kiley.

BMW created the sport sedan market with the 2002, targeting a niche. They had convertibles in the 3er line, but they recognized the roadster niche and targeted it with the Z line, instead of trying to get roadster buyers into a compromised 3 cabrio. Same goes with the X5 crossover, the sports activity vehicle that emphasized good handling with a rwd bias. There's the 6, which isn't a broad-appeal car. And there are the Ms.

And the MINI. Yes, I've driven a Cooper S. Have you (and why does this matter)? Considering its size and practicality, are you paying a price premium? Yes. Does it have mass appeal? No. Does it emphasize handling performance? Yes. Is it a luxury car? No. It's an enthusiast's car.

A different network of dealers? The MINI dealerships I've seen are paired up with BMW dealerships, sharing lot space, facilities, and presumably management. MINI reports to BMW NA, and their sales figures are reported with the BMW Group. Whatever; this is off topic.



> Oh really? I thought you of all people need to be constantly reminded that FE and performance are not mutually exclusive.


And why did you think that? Is that because you're not following my responses to your points, "turning" my arguments around, and making incorrect characterizations of my positions? If you would kindly look at my very first post in this thread, you'll see I've been consistent in saying that BMW is already producing performance-with-economy improvements.



> If BMW is so financially sound then they can absorb some of the initially costs that go into these vehicles.


For what reason? BMW's profits go into research (the aforementioned press release), new models (new 7, Z4, new 5, X3, new 6, and new 3 all in the last 4 years), new production facilities (Leipzig, China).



> No DI for DI sakes, but because it offers more power and FE. I guess your attitude is valvetronics for valvetronics sake? Lest I remind you that this thread is also about "leading the way."


Yeah, my attitude is Valvetronic for Valvetronic's sake. ...wtf?  Sure, the OP wants BMW to lead the way, but BMW isn't going to lead the way blindly or put itself up front just so it can be up front. Honda put VTEC out before BMW put out VANOS. What difference did that make? None.



> Good, then if it is spread across a product line, marginal costs for DI woulbe be less.


And you would lose the investment you already put into developing the existing non-DI line of engines, spend time and money redeveloping the entire engine line, and then release them all at once. As I pointed out before, BMW's strategy has always been to stagger engine releases to keep their models fresh in the automotive press and in the consumer's mind.



> You talk about profits...the Prius comes at a hefty price premium that many editors have pointed out that it is questionable whether consumers will recoup the initial costs. Yet, they are selling like hotcakes. People are willing to pay more. To turn your argument around, If you can afford a BMW, then you can afford to pay more for better technologies that get you better FE and performance.


Toyota and Honda are still working on recouping their initial investment, selling their hybrids at a loss and with government subsidies since the late '90s. In the next few years, they are projected to become profitable. Meanwhile, the tax incentives for hybrids are running out because the sales numbers have pushed the incentives into phasing out, so they will get more expensive in the short term. Sure, Ford entered a licensing agreement with Toyota for hybrid technology, but they didn't sink the money and years Toyota did into the research.



> Again, I don't buy your chicken-little argument. The sky will not fall if they continue to pass along innovation down their products each year.


There you go again making up arguments for me. Here's one for you: the sky will not fall if BMW doesn't force direct injection into their products when they aren't ready to.



> We BMW drivers are not "price sensitive," and I suspect BMW would just pass some of that along.


Maybe 7er buyers aren't, but talk to people that buy 1ers, 3ers, 5ers. If you don't remember, BMW was getting a little worried that the stronger Euro would hurt U.S. sales because they had to bump prices by 1.something% in January 2004.



> I also want to point out that the press released you linked proves that my initial suggestions (weight reduction + auto stop) could increase performance and decrease fuel economy.


If you remember, I pointed out weight reduction way back when too, and then you showed me data that the heavier 7 gets the same mileage as the lighter 5. :dunno: Yes, weight reduction is good, in general, particularly for performance if it's done in the right places. As for auto stop, wow, that's genius: not burning fuel during idle could improve economy. The challenge with auto stop is the ignition. Starting and stopping a normal IC engine is hard on the components and burns more fuel. A gas/electric hybrid has the electric motor to start the engine. BMW's auto-start will likely only be available with the direct injection technology, because Bosch developed the GDI technology to ignite without the starter motor.



> And yes, I do think BMW is slow to react. If you consider white paper as the criteria, then good for you. But I would much rather judge their efforts on what I see on the pavement.


To use your own words, I consider the whole package. I judge efforts based on practical benefits that a competing product doesn't have. If you consider technology checkboxes as the criteria, then good for you. Audi has limited DI, and yet BMW's DI-less engines and vehicles get better performance and economy for the displacement. And hey, the A8 doesn't have DI yet. What's up with that?


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> Here's what I said: "[BMW finds] a niche and they target it with a product for that niche. They do not try to make a platform appeal to people that aren't interested in that kind of platform." This is not my own idea; it's covered well in _Driven_ by David Kiley.
> BMW created the sport sedan market with the 2002, targeting a niche. They had convertibles in the 3er line, but they recognized the roadster niche and targeted it with the Z line, instead of trying to get roadster buyers into a compromised 3 cabrio. Same goes with the X5 crossover, the sports activity vehicle that emphasized good handling with a rwd bias. There's the 6, which isn't a broad-appeal car. And there are the Ms.


This has been nothing but an exercise in sophistry. You can say the same thing about the Toyota Corolla. Toyota realized there is a compact car niche that emphasizes reliability, fuel economy, the ability to fit 4 people comfortably..and blah...blah..blah...



FenPhen said:


> And the MINI. Yes, I've driven a Cooper S. Have you (and why does this matter)? Considering its size and practicality, are you paying a price premium? Yes. Does it have mass appeal? No. Does it emphasize handling performance? Yes. Is it a luxury car? No. It's an enthusiast's car.


And paying a premium on a car makes that a premium car? Is that how you define products? But I digress as we are way off topic here.



FenPhen said:


> You'll see I've been consistent in saying that BMW is already producing performance-with-economy improvements.


That's not the point or is it? It's about doing more. If you tell me that the BMWs you see on the road today is the best there is, then it'll end this discussion. Heck, even BMW with that press release shows that they believe that improvements abound.



FenPhen said:


> Sure, the OP wants BMW to lead the way, but BMW isn't going to lead the way blindly or put itself up front just so it can be up front. Honda put VTEC out before BMW put out VANOS. What difference did that make? None.


Hmmmm...You sure about BMW not leading the way blindly and putting itself up front just to be front? How bout I-drive? But, I digress. Honda's innovation and rapid development of power and fuel economy technologies makes a difference. Look at where they are now. Their poised to topple the US car industry. I'm sure you would rather be holding Honda stock right now than Ford or GM.



FenPhen said:


> And you would lose the investment you already put into developing the existing non-DI line of engines, spend time and money redeveloping the entire engine line, and then release them all at once. As I pointed out before, BMW's strategy has always been to stagger engine releases to keep their models fresh in the automotive press and in the consumer's mind.


Did you not read what I said about marginal costs and price sensitivity? If you spread out the cost over a greater number of products, you have less costs per unit. BMW, being the great, all-mighty car maker that it is has market power and the ability to set prices. Also, by not releasing the redeveloped engine line, it could potentially hurt sales. A buyer that is thinking about the X3 may wait for the next year thinking it will have it then. Or decide not to get until it does. After all, you do pay a "premium" for it, don't you? I'd rather pay more to BMW (and reward them for innovations) than to Arab sheiks.

Lest you forget, BMW replaced the engine in the 5 series 2 years into the life cycle and presumably 2 years prior to a mid-cycle refresh. If they did it so soon, it can't be that costly. And BMW didn't charge much of a premium from the 2005 to 2006 model as prices rose across most, if not all their models.



FenPhen said:


> Toyota and Honda are still working on recouping their initial investment, selling their hybrids at a loss and with government subsidies since the late '90s. In the next few years, they are projected to become profitable. Meanwhile, the tax incentives for hybrids are running out because the sales numbers have pushed the incentives into phasing out, so they will get more expensive in the short term.


Toyota says its churning out a profit on the hybrids. :dunno: http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/12/pf/autos/autoshow_hybrids/ Also, the tax incentives have been softening for the past few years (i.e. the previous year was $2,500, 2005 was $2000), but sales are stronger than ever. I should point out that in 2006 the incentive will actually increase (for certain models and assuming you are the first 60,000 per manufacturer) as it is a tax credit rather than deduction.



FenPhen said:


> Sure, Ford entered a licensing agreement with Toyota for hybrid technology, but they didn't sink the money and years Toyota did into the research.


Well, duh...Isn't that obvious? Isn't that what royalties and patents are all about? Ford didn't sink money and time into R&D, but now they're sinking money in licensing fees. And Toyota sits back and collects a paycheck for the next few years. In fact, coming late to the game has disadvantages. For example, earlier in 2005, Ford couldn't crank out all the FEH they wanted as they were put on the waiting list for scarce hybrid parts as Toyota gave themselves priority.



FenPhen said:


> Maybe 7er buyers aren't, but talk to people that buy 1ers, 3ers, 5ers. If you don't remember, BMW was getting a little worried that the stronger Euro would hurt U.S. sales because they had to bump prices by 1.something% in January 2004.


Maybe you're right with 1ers and some 3ers, but come on, if you can afford a BMW you can always afford to pay more, especially for more power, right? And a funny thing happened since 1/04, the dollar grew stronger against the Euro. I suppose a price drop is in order right? Yeah right!



FenPhen said:


> If you remember, I pointed out weight reduction way back when too, and then you showed me data that the heavier 7 gets the same mileage as the lighter 5. :dunno: Yes, weight reduction is good, in general, particularly for performance if it's done in the right places. As for auto stop, wow, that's genius: not burning fuel during idle could improve economy. The challenge with auto stop is the ignition. Starting and stopping a normal IC engine is hard on the components and burns more fuel. A gas/electric hybrid has the electric motor to start the engine. BMW's auto-start will likely only be available with the direct injection technology, because Bosch developed the GDI technology to ignite without the starter motor.


I guess we came full circle haven't we. The heaver car gets better mileage because of advances in technology. These advances challenged the conventional thinking that FE and performance are mutual exclusive. All the more reason to adopt DI like BMW did in the 760 or Audi, VW, Mazda (I think), and Honda.
Here's a link to the Honda system in 11/03. http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4031127a/
Claimed that it's better than the Bosch system that is currently out there.



FenPhen said:


> I judge efforts based on practical benefits that a competing product doesn't have.


What?!? There's many "practical benefits" that other's have but not BMW. Rear backup camera, lane warning departure system, active radar that's tied into the safety system, real time traffic in navigation, B&O audio system, active noise cancellation, blind spot warning sytem...just to name a few.

While I agree with you that nothing out there handles itself like a BMW, that's not the only criteria. Other car makers are coming awfully close.



FenPhen said:


> Audi has limited DI, and yet BMW's DI-less engines and vehicles get better performance and economy for the displacement. And hey, the A8 doesn't have DI yet. What's up with that?


But BMWs would be even more powerful and efficient with DI. Then they could have increased power without taking a hit on FE as they did on the 550 and the 750. And if you compare the 3.1 FSI vs. 3.0 valvetronic engine, they have similar numbers on paper. If you're talking about the cars themselves, the torsen center differential adds weight to the front, and robs power and FE. No way around it if they use the Torsen. But I do like it better than the multiclutchplate AWD that BMW uses. And we'll save that discussion for a different thread. And with the A8, I'm almost certain they'll have a FSI engine sooner than the 750.:neener:


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> That's not the point or is it? It's about doing more.


The point is when is it enough? You can _always_ do more. BMW's sales success, critical success, emissions reduction, fleet economy, what they are working on near- and long-term, and ultimately the drive are good enough for me. :thumbup:



> Hmmmm...You sure about BMW not leading the way blindly and putting itself up front just to be front? How bout I-drive?


iDrive isn't an example of releasing technology prematurely just for the sake of saying "hey, we have this." It's a hardware controller coupled with a software interface, with controls and affordances similar to electronic devices like MP3 players, that is an attempt to manage all of a car's secondary systems. iDrive's problems have to do with human-computer interaction issues in a car environment, and is going through the same kind of evolution you see in cellphone and other portable electronics interface design. It needs work, but it's analogous to the glass cockpit in aircraft, and other manufacturers are starting to emulate.



> Honda's innovation and rapid development of power and fuel economy technologies makes a difference. Look at where they are now. Their poised to topple the US car industry. I'm sure you would rather be holding Honda stock right now than Ford or GM.


Absolutely, though Toyota is doing better than Honda. You can say the same about BMW. BMW's innovation and rapid development of power and fuel economy technologies make a difference. Look at where it is now. It has passed long-time rival Mercedes and is arguably the most admired car company in the world (from the perspective of other manufacturers' brass), and maintains a presence on best-engine lists and best-cars lists for many years at a time.



> Did you not read what I said about marginal costs and price sensitivity? If you spread out the cost over a greater number of products, you have less costs per unit.


If the technology is a commodity. But out of curiosity, let's look at the fuel injection price difference for currently-marketed BMW equipment. These are OEM parts prices:

```
2006 330i			$36,600 (MSRP)
I-6 Engine			$14,452.20
Injection Tube	1x	$180.79
Injection Valve	6x	$139.50
Fuel Hose		1x	$69.19

2006 750i			$71,800 (MSRP)
V-8 Engine			$22,208.40
Injection Tube	1x	$180.79
Injection Valve	8x	$139.50

2006 760i			$111,500 (MSRP)
V-12 Engine		$31,248.00
High-Pressure Pump	2x	$1,674.00
Valve Lifter	2x	$28.74
Control Unit (rmfd)	2x	$380.56
Injection Pipe	2x	$2,036.70
Pressure Sensor	2x	$172.98
Injection Valve	12x	$139.50
Double Holder	6x	$56.92
Fuel Pipe		1x	$917.91
Vent Tubing	1x	$194.18
Fuel Pipe		1x	$183.02
```
The I-6's system without injectors and fuel hose costs $180.79. The V-8's system without injectors costs $180.79. The V-12's system without injectors and fuel/vent stuff, and then cut in half like an I-6... $4,463.74. And it's limited DI, so the 15% fuel efficiency gain isn't there. Tacking on that extra $4300 to the 330i doesn't make sense. And BMW is doing the marginal cost thing by giving the 325i (MSRP $30,900) the same engine as the 330i. Incorporating those DI components into the 325i would make the engine+injection take up 53% of the MSRP. Do buyers at this price range want to pay that for a small bump in power? For that DI price, they could move up to a non-DI 330i and get the tuned power increase and stuff included in the trim.

I'm sure the economics of DI are coming down, and I agree with you that BMW will (and should) incorporate it across the line, but when the technology is mature and the sulfur issue has been addressed. (They say they will roll out DI in Europe, but not yet for the U.S.) I just don't buy your argument that BMW should have already incorporated it in their existing 2006 engines.



> Also, by not releasing the redeveloped engine line, it could potentially hurt sales. A buyer that is thinking about the X3 may wait for the next year thinking it will have it then. Or decide not to get until it does.


BMW has done this for almost every model year of every model, and it has brought them success. For example, the E46: 1999 sedan, 2000 coupe, 2001 new engines and M3, 2002 sedan face-lift, 2003 sedan performance package, 2004 coupe face-lift and performance package, 2005 M3 competition package. I've said it a couple times already: timely engine updates are part of the BMW marketing strategy, because an engine update prompts an automotive press review.



> Lest you forget, BMW replaced the engine in the 5 series 2 years into the life cycle and presumably 2 years prior to a mid-cycle refresh. If they did it so soon, it can't be that costly.


The 530i's M54 engine was first introduced in 2001. The 545i's engine was first introduced in 2002 (same engine as your 745Li). They were replaced by newer engines in 2006. BMW isn't going to replace the brand new engine designs after 1 year with direct injection versions. And (because I'm a fan), I'm going to give BMW the benefit of the doubt that they have valid engineering and/or business reasons to not yet incorporate DI into the latest V-8s and I-6s, given what they've learned from the V-12. They didn't put DI into the S85 engine used in the M5/M6 either, where performance is the focus, and price is insensitive.



> Toyota says its churning out a profit on the hybrids. :dunno: http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/12/pf/autos/autoshow_hybrids/


Let's see, Bob Lutz, former BMW guy, Berkeley MBA, now with GM... "From a strict business proposition, this is not where we would make an investment," said Lutz. "It's not clear that you'll ever be able to recapture the cost of a hybrid in the pricing. But what we forgot in the equation was the emotional aspect of it." He goes on to say that car buyers _like the thought_ of a green company, even if they aren't out for a green car. What has BMW done the last few years... water-based magnetically-applied paint, landfill methane power generation, CleanEnergy hydrogen program, VANOS and Valvetronic, low emissions, 13% carbon dioxide reduction in 2005, high CAFE numbers (fleet efficiency), cleaner diesels in Europe, X3 super-capacitor hybrid.

And holy moly... "People shopping for a luxury SUV don't have fuel efficiency or gasoline prices high on their list of concerns," said Toyota Motor spokesman Wade Hoyt. "If it was, they'd be shopping for something else."

Here's an Associated Press article where Nissan and GM both talk about selling hybrids at a loss:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1488530&ad=true&ad=true



> And a funny thing happened since 1/04, the dollar grew stronger against the Euro. I suppose a price drop is in order right?


Well let's see, the MSRP of a 2004 325i was, I believe, $29,400, and its engine costs $11,522.70. The MSRP of a 2006 325i is $30,600, and its engine costs $14,452.20. The 325i is the most price-sensitive model for BMW in the U.S., whether you believe it or not. Since that Euro-related price bump, there have either been new models or new equipment made standard or new engines, so there's BMW taking the investment hit you wanted it to absorb.



> Rear backup camera, lane warning departure system, active radar that's tied into the safety system, real time traffic in navigation, B&O audio system, active noise cancellation, blind spot warning sytem...just to name a few.


The only one of those I'd be interested in is real-time traffic in nav, but not really, since I decided I don't need nav, and I get full real-time traffic + video via computer at my origin point or I call the toll-free traffic update service.



> And if you compare the 3.1 FSI vs. 3.0 valvetronic engine, they have similar numbers on paper. If you're talking about the cars themselves, the torsen center differential adds weight to the front, and robs power and FE. No way around it if they use the Torsen.


Audi 3.1-L FSI (gas DI): 255 hp @ 6500, 243 ft-lbs @ 3250
BMW 3.0-L Valvetronic: 255 hp @ 6600, 220 ft-lbs @ 2750


A4 3.2, fwd + CVT, 3571 lbs, 21/29 mpg, 0-60 ?
330i, rwd + 6MT, 3417 lbs, 20/30 mpg, 0-60 6.1s
330i, rwd + 6AT, 3450 lbs, 21/29 mpg, 0-60 6.3s

A4 3.2, awd + 6MT, 3649 lbs, 17/27 mpg, 0-60 ?
330xi, awd + 6MT, 3627 lbs, 19/28 mpg, 0-60 6.3s
A4 3.2, awd + 6AT, 3649 lbs, 19/26 mpg, 0-60 6.7s
330xi, awd + 6AT, 3671 lbs, 20/27 mpg, 0-60 6.6s

A6 3.2, fwd + CVT, 3836 lbs, 21/29 mpg, 0-60 ?
530i, rwd + 6MT, 3472 lbs, 20/30 mpg, 0-60 6.4s
530i, rwd + 6AT, 3494 lbs, 21/29 mpg, 0-60 6.6s

A6 3.2, awd + 6AT, 4012 lbs, 19/27 mpg, 0-60 7.1s
530xi, awd + 6MT, 3638 lbs, 19/28 mpg, 0-60 6.6s
530xi, awd + 6AT, 3671 lbs, 20/27 mpg, 0-60 6.9s
The closest comparison there is the 330xi AT vs. A4 3.2 quattro AT, and it looks like Audi's direct injection implementation is not providing any real advantage over BMW. The BMW has less displacement, a little more weight, yet turns out better EPA mileage and 0-60 time. :dunno:


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> The point is when is it enough? You can _always_ do more. BMW's sales success, critical success, emissions reduction, fleet economy, what they are working on near- and long-term, and ultimately the drive are good enough for me. :thumbup:


It is never enough. Customers demand more and more toys and technology (that works) among other things. If you're happy driving your 2004 330i 20 years from now when other cars gets double the mileage and better performance then more power to you.



FenPhen said:


> iDrive isn't an example of releasing technology prematurely just for the sake of saying "hey, we have this."


I'd say it's premature when every iteration since then has a better (more friendly) interface from other car manufacturers. Believe it or not, I actually like idrive concept, just not BMW's execution. In fact, 2nd generation I-drive in the 5 series is worse than in my 7. It harder to set, program and recall stations IMO.



FenPhen said:


> Look at where it [BMW] is now. It has passed long-time rival Mercedes and is arguably the most admired car company in the world (from the perspective of other manufacturers' brass), and maintains a presence on best-engine lists and best-cars lists for many years at a time.


A large part of MB stumble is their reliability woes and I would argue (but to a much lesser extent) that they historically and currently raise performance at the expense of FE. Not fun to stand on the side of the road next to a stalled $90,000 car calling AAA.

But guess what? BMW reliability has gone down too. The reliability bug hit MB first. Time will only tell how it will affect BMW. On another note, check out this award based on polls from executives.http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Audi_News/article_1667.shtml Pretty impressive feat for a car with a dinosaur engine.



FenPhen said:


> If the technology is a commodity. But out of curiosity, let's look at the fuel injection price difference for currently-marketed BMW equipment. These are OEM parts prices:


*snip*
You also have a fondness for numbers that don't accurately reflect reality. Those are not BMW's cost. Those are the cost that BMW will charge you for replacement parts. Put it another way: did Audi charge (or absorb)a $4,400.00 (or there abouts) hit for the FSI (2005.5) vs. non-FSI (2005)?!? I don't think so. Maybe a better comparison would be to look at the price difference between non-FSI cars and FSI cars from Audi.



FenPhen said:


> I'm sure the economics of DI are coming down, and I agree with you that BMW will (and should) incorporate it across the line, but when the technology is mature and the sulfur issue has been addressed. (They say they will roll out DI in Europe, but not yet for the U.S.) I just don't buy your argument that BMW should have already incorporated it in their existing 2006 engines.
> 
> I've said it a couple times already: timely engine updates are part of the BMW marketing strategy, because an engine update prompts an automotive press review.


DI is nothing new. Audi put together a FSI engine in a R8 in the Le Mans in 2001 and won that race (and many others since) even with a heavy ass quattro. In My 2003, we saw a BMW DI engine. If they're not ready in 2006, what they hell were they doing releasing it in MY 2003. Even with DI-abridged version, it still has benefits. You can admit at least that can't you? But enough of that. Okay, what year will they be ready? how about 2007? Or 2010? I'm sure they'll release the DI right around the time Hyundai's DI system debuts.:rofl: Think about the press coverage that will generate!



FenPhen said:


> The 530i's M54 engine was first introduced in 2001. The 545i's engine was first introduced in 2002 (same engine as your 745Li). They were replaced by newer engines in 2006. BMW isn't going to replace the brand new engine designs after 1 year with direct injection versions. And (because I'm a fan), I'm going to give BMW the benefit of the doubt that they have valid engineering and/or business reasons to not yet incorporate DI into the latest V-8s and I-6s, given what they've learned from the V-12.


You're more like a fanatic. And what are you talking about replacing an engine after 1 year with a DI version? MY 2002 4.4 Valvetronic. The 760 DI system came out for MY2003..Let's see...refresh for 7 series in 2006. It would be either 4 years or 3 years depending on what you are talking about. Also, while gas prices are escalating in 2004+, I would have preferred weight reduction or DI (or anything) to boost both power and FE.

Chances are BMW didn't see high gas prices coming or ignored it. Since it takes years to go from paper to production to pavement, that would seem to explain why BMW simply increased bore and stroke to get a powerful engine to compete with the new S series in a time of rising gasoline prices. That press release you cited seems to be a PR campaign to assure people that BMW haven't forgotten about FE when gasoline prices is hitting $3.00. If they had been working on this sooner(and I'm talking about FE in general), they could have put it in the 7 and the X5. Then BMW wouldn't have to pay $5,000.00 in trunk money to get rid of the X5 4.4. While I'm a fan, I'm not a fanatic. I don't believe that BMW can do no wrong. They can screw up like any other company and then we'd be forced to drive a Lexus. :bawling:

And you miss my point. You claim that it is so costly to introduce new technology, costs to BMW in retooling, modifying assembly lines, etc., and not to expect significant changes until the next generation or a mid-cycle refresh, ... well 2 years after the intro of the 5 series, BMW puts in a new I-6 engine. According to your business model, BMW should have waited for the 2008 refresh of the 2012 redesign. Imagine all the costs that BMW would have to absorb or pass along! 

My point is while there are costs, it's a cost that manufacturers and consumers will pay to get a better product. BMW is no exception. Audi reworked the suspension front and back and put FSI in the A4 in 2005 when the A4 was just redesigned for 2002. Honda introduced the hybrid in the Accord a year before a mid-cycle refresh.



FenPhen said:


> Let's see, Bob Lutz, former BMW guy, Berkeley MBA, now with GM... "From a strict business proposition, this is not where we would make an investment," said Lutz.
> Here's an Associated Press article where Nissan and GM both talk about selling hybrids at a loss:


First of all you claimed that "Toyota and Honda are still working on recouping their initial investment, selling their hybrids at a loss and with government subsidies since the late '90s. " 
1. It's not unusual to take several years to recoup initial sunk costs. When BMW [or substitute drug companies, etc.] first made their products, did they recoup all of their initial investments the first year? 
2. They are not selling their hybrids at a loss. Your article says just that. They do make money on the cars.

Additionally, what exactly did you expect them [Nissan and/or GM] to say? "Yeah, we were late to the game because this gas price thing totally took us by suprise. We thought that Americans don't care about FE cause they buy these HUGE gas guzzling SUVs that line our pockets and make up for the low profit economy cars. And now, we have to pay royalties to offer technology the car buyers demand or be left behind."

Furthermore, Nissan (for sure) and GM aren't known for their steadfast dedication to FE. Again, Nissan and GM would have to sell hybrids at a loss because of the licenses they'd have to pay to Toyota. And can you figure out why they would even want to sell them at a loss? Maybe, just maybe because they would risk losing more in the long run. :dunno:



FenPhen said:


> And holy moly... "People shopping for a luxury SUV don't have fuel efficiency or gasoline prices high on their list of concerns," said Toyota Motor spokesman Wade Hoyt. "If it was, they'd be shopping for something else."


Is that why Lexus released the RX400h? They obviously spent all the R&D to be the first luxury SUV hybrid for nothing! What fools!

Check out the popularity of hybrids



FenPhen said:


> Audi 3.1-L FSI (gas DI): 255 hp @ 6500, 243 ft-lbs @ 3250
> BMW 3.0-L Valvetronic: 255 hp @ 6600, 220 ft-lbs @ 2750]


What did I tell you. Very similar numbers, nothing signficant.



FenPhen said:
 

> The closest comparison there is the 330xi AT vs. A4 3.2 quattro AT, and it looks like Audi's direct injection implementation is not providing any real advantage over BMW. The BMW has less displacement, a little more weight, yet turns out better EPA mileage and 0-60 time. :dunno:


Wait a sec...For 2006, the A4 3.2 quattro AT is rated 19/27 compared to BMW 20/27. Not much difference there. Both Audi and BMW claims the 0-60 is 6.6 seconds. R&T claims 6.5 for the Audi. Also there's no way the Audi is lighter, Audi's brochure lists the A4 at 3726. And while BMW prides itself on performance, I'm quite frankly surprised when I took a hard look at those numbers. But in the final analysis, the differences in numbers is not significant, but I would haved guessed a bigger difference in those numbers from BMW.

But again you miss my point; I never said the Audi engine was better than the BMW engine. I said that BMW would have a better engine if it incorporated DI with the valvetronic engine and that the current audi and bmw engines were comparable, but different in designs.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> It is never enough. Customers demand more and more toys and technology (that works) among other things.


Well in that case, I demand more from every company. They're all simply not doing enough. I don't even understand how some companies have rising stock prices, since they can't be doing enough.



> I'd say it's premature when every iteration since then has a better (more friendly) interface from other car manufacturers. Believe it or not, I actually like idrive concept, just not BMW's execution. In fact, 2nd generation I-drive in the 5 series is worse than in my 7. It harder to set, program and recall stations IMO.


That's what happens in HCI industries: when you're first out the gate, others will copy and try to improve. I've not used iDrive myself, but the reports I've read are that the 2006 5's iDrive is better than the 7's.



> But guess what? BMW reliability has gone down too. The reliability bug hit MB first. Time will only tell how it will affect BMW. On another note, check out this award based on polls from executives.http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Audi_News/article_1667.shtml Pretty impressive feat for a car with a dinosaur engine.


I haven't tracked BMW's reliability, but poking around here, it looks like the E46 and E39 either did well or improved over their cycles, and the E38 improved over its cycle. At least BMW still offers warranty and maintenance. And wow, the previous two generations of A4 are not looking good at all. :yikes:

As for the Impulse magazine award, guess who won the year before? The MB S-class. Pretty impressive feat for a company with reliability woes.



> You also have a fondness for numbers that don't accurately reflect reality. Those are not BMW's cost. Those are the cost that BMW will charge you for replacement parts.


Yes, you're right that those are OEM parts costs, and I don't have numbers for the cost-to-BMW to put in from the factory (who outside would?), but I included the whole engine OEM cost so you can at least see the cost ratios. The replacement cost for the I-6 alone compared to the replacement cost for [the I-6 minus fuel injection plus direct injection (one half of the V-12's equipment)] is a cost increase of 30%.



> Maybe a better comparison would be to look at the price difference between non-FSI cars and FSI cars from Audi.


Couldn't find any. There isn't a control example where you can compare an engine design without DI and an engine design with DI. Presumably, this is because DI requires some involved redesign of the engine, to manage things like how air and fuel mix at the cylinder head and other things mentioned in past articles I linked.



> DI is nothing new. Audi put together a FSI engine in a R8 in the Le Mans in 2001 and won that race (and many others since) even with a heavy ass quattro.


DI isn't new, but practical production gasoline DI is. If it weren't new, everyone would have it. Why didn't Toyota and Honda have it in production this past year? Putting DI in a race car doesn't show it's ready for mass adoption. (F1 has all the best automotive technology, so why isn't that stuff in production?)

MB had DI in the 1955 300SL. Mitsubishi brought it back in the late '90s and coined the GDI term. Those applications were either expensive or suffered from fuel quality. It's coming, for sure, but I don't see how BMW or anyone else can be faulted for not being able to get to market faster. Other technologies go through the same introduction cycle, like HDTV, 3G cell networks, or Bluetooth.



> You're more like a fanatic.


Is that a problem for you? If anything, this thread has revealed to me more what others are doing, what BMW's plans are, and the economics and timelines of the technologies involved. I'm liking what I'm seeing, but I guess you aren't. :dunno:



> And what are you talking about replacing an engine after 1 year with a DI version? MY 2002 4.4 Valvetronic. The 760 DI system came out for MY2003..Let's see...refresh for 7 series in 2006.


I'm saying they won't put out DI across the line for MY 2007, especially since they just put out the new 5.0-L and 3.0-L for MY 2006. Valvetronic was first introduced on the 4-cylinder engines popular in Europe (where efficiency is of higher concern) and the DI should be rolled out in those engines first. A previous article I linked, from August 2005, talks about how second-generation DI has improved, allowing for higher compression ratios without having to redesign the combustion chamber for GDI. This is probably the breakthrough BMW was waiting for to incorporate into their next engines.

The Audi version has an operating pressure of 30 to 110 bar, yielding a compression ratio of 12.5:1, and sounds like it has some serious combustion redesign. The August Bosch version is designed for 200 bar (over the old 120 bar limit) and can be tuned to existing combustion chamber design. They also say the new fuel pump is compatible with most fuels. BMW plans on developing a 4-cylinder with Peugeot for release soon (presumably to replace the original 1.8-L Valvetronic), though they still say Europe will get DI first.



> You claim that it is so costly to introduce new technology, costs to BMW in retooling, modifying assembly lines, etc., and not to expect significant changes until the next generation or a mid-cycle refresh, ... well 2 years after the intro of the 5 series, BMW puts in a new I-6 engine. According to your business model, BMW should have waited for the 2008 refresh of the 2012 redesign.


For non-M models, BMW engines are not tied to BMW cars, and they have their own cycle. My point is that BMW just released fresh 5.0-L and 3.0-L designs and they're not going to go redesign and retool for DI one year later. If you reread my posts, I've said engines are rolled out to keep things fresh; they do not have to coincide with the model timeline.

A BMW engine is usually introduced with one model but released into other models to keep interest up. It's an ace-in-the-hole. The 4.4 V-8 was available for the 2002 7, but they didn't put it in the 2003 E39 cause it was on the way out. Same for the current X5 (no new 3.0-L or 5.0-L engines). Two years into the E46 sedan and 1 year into the E46 coupe, the M54 was put introduced, prompting another round of reviews of the same car reviewed the two years before, and one year before the E46 sedan's face-lift. Timely engine releases are part of the marketing strategy, not blow-your-whole-load-at-once affairs.

I said don't expect significant changes to weight reduction until a next generation cycle.

I guess your point is Bosch and BMW should've made their DI advances two years ago and BMW should've rolled it into all engine designs for MY 2006? I wouldn't complain, but at the same time, I wish HDTV was rolled out and reached critical mass 3 years sooner like the experts had said would happen. Except, what difference would sooner-DI have played? Very little, in my opinion.



> Audi reworked the suspension front and back and put FSI in the A4 in 2005 when the A4 was just redesigned for 2002.


So what? You said yourself it's many things that make a great car, and many people here have said what makes BMW great is each of their cars does many things well. The E46 had MacPherson struts, a 1950s design traditionally considered to have not very good handling, and the E46 has great handling and stayed on top of the sports sedan pile for 7 years. No BMW in the U.S. for the last decade has a turbo or supercharger (ancient 1920s technology), and yet they come out on top of various reviews and comparisons.



> They are not selling their hybrids at a loss. Your article says just that. They do make money on the cars.


What did you expect Toyota to say? "Yeah, we've been selling the Prius since 1997 at a loss till 2004 and we're making profit now!" How much profit no one knows, but this article talks about the billions in investment and how Toyota might be able to absorb some of the losses in the Highlander and RX400h. (And why those models, because higher scale models are less price-sensitive and more profitable.)



> What did I tell you. Very similar numbers, nothing signficant.


So why the demand then for DI that's not ready for primetime?



> But in the final analysis, the differences in numbers is not significant, but I would haved guessed a bigger difference in those numbers from BMW.


I would've guessed a bigger (positive) difference in those numbers from Audi over BMW if their DI was so great.


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

Uneffingbelievable. The thread that will never die. Like HeLa cells.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> I've not used iDrive myself, but the reports I've read are that the 2006 5's iDrive is better than the 7's.


Well this is off topic but... try and set a radio station without the manual. I figured it out on mine, but couldn't on the 5 series loaner. And changing setup options is a PIA.



FenPhen said:


> Well in that case, I demand more from every company. They're all simply not doing enough. I don't even understand how some companies have rising stock prices, since they can't be doing enough.


Well who doesn't? Let me guess, you go out of your way to buy a B&W TV? Do you still have a rabbit ear antenna?



FenPhen said:


> I haven't tracked BMW's reliability, but poking around here, it looks like the E46 and E39 either did well or improved over their cycles, and the E38 improved over its cycle. At least BMW still offers warranty and maintenance. And wow, the previous two generations of A4 are not looking good at all. :yikes:


So what's your point? Audi and MB have reliability problems that affect their standing and sales? You want BMW to head down that same path?



FenPhen said:


> Yes, you're right that those are OEM parts costs, and I don't have numbers for the cost-to-BMW to put in from the factory (who outside would?), but I included the whole engine OEM cost so you can at least see the cost ratios. The replacement cost for the I-6 alone compared to the replacement cost for [the I-6 minus fuel injection plus direct injection (one half of the V-12's equipment)] is a cost increase of 30%.


When you use inaccurate figures, the conclusion based on those figures are inaccurate. While I agree that there are increased costs, I don't think they are that high. Also, if the costs were that high, Audi/VW with their financial situation would have passed on it and waited for generation 2. Audi obviously knows a thing or two about DI. In fact they sourced it from Bosch, same place where BMW is getting it from.



FenPhen said:


> Couldn't find any. There isn't a control example where you can compare an engine design without DI and an engine design with DI. Presumably, this is because DI requires some involved redesign of the engine, to manage things like how air and fuel mix at the cylinder head and other things mentioned in past articles I linked.


No...No..I'm talking about comparing difference between MSRP for the 05 A4 vs. the 05.5 A4 with FSI. The cost that they passed onto consumers is not that much higher than you think.



FenPhen said:


> DI isn't new, but practical production gasoline DI is. If it weren't new, everyone would have it. Why didn't Toyota and Honda have it in production this past year? Putting DI in a race car doesn't show it's ready for mass adoption. (F1 has all the best automotive technology, so why isn't that stuff in production?)


Well it shows that an engine can be produced and one that works way back in 2001. Winning Lemans that year and many years after that shows that the technology is there, it works, and it is has the endurance. It's not a flashy technology that blings and then craps out on you. The jury is still out on valvetronic's reliability over time.

In fact, Honda does have a DI, lean burn engine. That video I provided was from 2003. They put that engine in a van application, don't know when they'll introduce it in the US. I haven't researched Toyota as I'm not a fan of theirs. Besides, Honda and Toyota have better fuel economy than their most of their peers and performance is not priority one.

And you are right. Technology is constantly evolving. But, a manufacturer must be flexible in its product lines to remain ahead or to introduced fixes should problems occur. And BMW had lots of recent experiences with that from the new 7 and 5 (but to a lesser extent). And by learning by doing, they reduce costs (increase productivity).



> You're more like a fanatic. ?)





FenPhen said:


> Is that a problem for you? ?)


No but as you noted previously "Yes, I like to use the right words that capture the correct meaning. So do you." I think fanatic is a better descriptor. That's all.:angel:



FenPhen said:


> I'm saying they won't put out DI across the line for MY 2007, especially since they just put out the new 5.0-L and 3.0-L for MY 2006.


I know that. I'm saying that they should have been working on that sooner in time for the 2006 7 series refresh.



FenPhen said:


> A previous article I linked, from August 2005, talks about how second-generation DI has improved, allowing for higher compression ratios without having to redesign the combustion chamber for GDI. This is probably the breakthrough BMW was waiting for to incorporate into their next engines.


Stop the stamping presses! If they wait another 10 years, they'll be even more breakthroughs like a gasoline engine that diesels (no need for plugs). Then they'll save themselves the expenses and we, the price sensitive BMW fans, will save so much money. Joking aside, you may be right or they could have thought "why are we wasting time on this when we can just increase bore and stroke for like $2.00 per unit. Like what, gasoline prices is going to rise to $3-$4 bucks. I don't think so!"



FenPhen said:


> A BMW engine is usually introduced with one model but released into other models to keep interest up. It's an ace-in-the-hole. The 4.4 V-8 was available for the 2002 7, but they didn't put it in the 2003 E39 cause it was on the way out. Same for the current X5 (no new 3.0-L or 5.0-L engines). Two years into the E46 sedan and 1 year into the E46 coupe, the M54 was put introduced, prompting another round of reviews of the same car reviewed the two years before, and one year before the E46 sedan's face-lift.


Good it proves my point that these retooling costs that you cite should not be used as a blanket excuse for not incorporating technology. And I am not saying that BMW needs to put in every new innovation that pops up immediately. There is a balancing test, but that there was a missed opportunity for MY 2006 for the 7 and for the 5. In fact, increasing displacement had an additional sting: the gas guzzler tax on Manual and SMG on the 550. But then again, if you drive a 550i you can afford to pay it. 


FenPhen said:


> I guess your point is Bosch and BMW should've made their DI advances two years ago and BMW should've rolled it into all engine designs for MY 2006? I wouldn't complain, but at the same time, I wish HDTV was rolled out and reached critical mass 3 years sooner like the experts had said would happen. Except, what difference would sooner-DI have played? Very little, in my opinion.


Yes, that is my point. I guess a difference would be better press, stronger demand, better sales, more profits for BMW. The upshot for us as consumers, is that we get a more powerful car and one that consumes less fuel. Isn't that what we all have been duking out for 8 pages.



FenPhen said:


> So what? You said yourself it's many things that make a great car, and many people here have said what makes BMW great is each of their cars does many things well. The E46 had MacPherson struts, a 1950s design traditionally considered to have not very good handling, and the E46 has great handling and stayed on top of the sports sedan pile for 7 years. No BMW in the U.S. for the last decade has a turbo or supercharger (ancient 1920s technology), and yet they come out on top of various reviews and comparisons.


You're preaching to the choir. I just want a better car. I paid a ton of money for the car. I would have shelled more money for the 2006 but I didn't and one reason, among many, has to do with the thread. Sure, BMW has to prioritize, but in the end, I buy the car for me (and family).



FenPhen said:


> What did you expect Toyota to say? "Yeah, we've been selling the Prius since 1997 at a loss till 2004 and we're making profit now!" How much profit no one knows, but this article talks about the billions in investment and how Toyota might be able to absorb some of the losses in the Highlander and RX400h. (And why those models, because higher scale models are less price-sensitive and more profitable.)


That article is dated. But again, it's not unusual to take years to recoup initial costs. And I don't know exactly when Toyota started earned profits could have been sooner than 2005. And it would depend on what you are talking about. The author mentions his skepticism for profitability on Prius I. He cites the cost of the battery at being 1/4th of $20,000. Well that may be the oem retail price, but that is not what Toyota paid. And the price differential for the Lexus is comparable to that of the Toyota Highlander - roughly $3,000. See Edmunds.

And earning profits(not selling at a loss) and recouping investments are two different things. And yes, they are able to make greater profits by spreading it to the Lexus line due to decreases in marginal costs.

And if people do pay a premium, shouldn't they get something for it. Some years BMW and others raises prices without necessarily getting something extra. Prices rise all the time, it would be nice to get something more for it. I know I'm not getting a better quality gasoline now than I did 4 weeks ago when gasoline was 20 cents cheaper.



FenPhen said:


> So why the demand then for DI that's not ready for primetime?


It currently is. Even with DI-light, it still decreases emissions, improves performance and FE over Audi's previous normally aspirated V6 engine. Here's what the Bosch article from your links had to say, "Tight nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission standards have caused many to overlook GDI for the American market since these emissions are greatest when this technology is at its most fuel efficient; that is, during stratified charge running. *However, GDI also can be used to produce a homogenous air-fuel mixture that meets proposed U.S. emission standards, and yield a broader torque and power curve. Because the mixture is homogenous, the compression ratio can be increased without fear of detonation, and there is no need for a throttle valve in the intake air stream. This technology was used on both the Le Mans-winning Audi R8s and Bentley Speed 8s."*

Look at the results (sure the FSI is slightly bigger by .1 liters whoopee!), hp increased from 220 at 6300rpm to 255 at 6500rpm and torque up from 221 at 3200rpm to 243 at 3250rpm. Fuel economy went from 18/26 to 19/27 even though weight is up by 145lbs.

Putting Stigler's ecnomic capture theory aside on government regulation aside, I hope people _demand_ better technology and FE in general. BMW motivation is for profits. If there are no profits in FE because people don't demand it, car makers won't go too far out of its way to engineer it. And I know what you're going to argue here..."what about valvetronic?" BMW probably developed it to increase power sub 6000rpm primarily and the resulting FE was just bonus.



FenPhen said:


> I would've guessed a bigger (positive) difference in those numbers from Audi over BMW if their DI was so great.


I think it's great that two technology was used to do the same thing: improve performance and FE. Combine them and what do you get? Also, I don't need to point out that BMW prides itself on performance. Audi not so much, unless you're talking about the S4. And they have comparable numbers???:blah:


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

Malibubimmer said:


> Uneffingbelievable. The thread that will never die. Like HeLa cells.


I know. We'll start one titled "BMW needs to use its software engineering ability to design cars with I-drive that runs on Linux."


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> Wait a sec...For 2006, the A4 3.2 quattro AT is rated 19/27 compared to BMW 20/27.


19/26 is what it says on Audi's Web site for the A4 3.2 quattro AT. :dunno:



> I said that BMW would have a better engine if it incorporated DI with the valvetronic engine and that the current audi and bmw engines were comparable, but different in designs.


Quick addition: although BMW's new 4.8-L V-8 gets 17/25 mpg versus the previous 4.4-L V-8's 18/26 mpg, the new engine is cleaner, according to California standards. The new V-8 gets ULEV II emissions versus the old V-8's LEV I emissions. The DI V-12 is LEV I. The new I-6 is ULEV II.

Audi's 3.1-L FSI (DI) engine is LEV II. The previous non-DI Audi 3-liter was ULEV certified, so it looks like the DI-lite netted a little more mileage in exchange for more pollution.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/bymanuNF.shtml

ULEV II standard emits nearly 50% less hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide than LEV II. So even though the 750i loses 1 mpg over the 745i, pollution is lower, and BMW's new engines are putting out less pollution than the Audi 3.1-L FSI engine.

Edit: I'll get back to post 182 tomorrow, to Malibubimmer's delight.


----------



## davesafc (Jan 24, 2006)

ive got a 328i and its got an lpg conversion which means i get the same mpg but at 1/3 of the cost, so if you want a cheap to run bimmer then get a conversion.....i havnt noticed any difference in performance but apparentley its only 10%, and besices if its only on motorways it shouldnt bother you anyway.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

iove75 said:


> Wait a sec...For 2006, the A4 3.2 quattro AT is rated 19/27 compared to BMW 20/27.





FenPhen said:


> 19/26 is what it says on Audi's Web site for the A4 3.2 quattro AT. :dunno:


Notice I said 2006. Those numbers were revised by the EPA for 2006. It's now 19/27. Don't ask me why.:snooze:



FenPhen said:


> ULEV II standard emits nearly 50% less hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide than LEV II. So even though the 750i loses 1 mpg over the 745i, pollution is lower, and BMW's new engines are putting out less pollution than the Audi 3.1-L FSI engine.


I didn't say FSI beats Valvetronic in emissions. But it is coincidental that I saw on the news tonight a piece on global warming.
Take a look at the difference between A4 and the 330i, the BMW emits more greenhouse gases than the Audi. The 750Li gets the worse. _[edit: One other point. The 2002 745Li gets a LEV rating. (But, the 2006 still emit more greenhouse gases than 2002.) Wow! BMW can make improvements to their engine lines without absorbing or passing along huge costs. ]_Now what does this all mean? I'm not sure and I really don't care. :dunno: Unfortunately, my environmental fervor is shamefully tied to my wallet (mileage). (just as a footnote, hybrids get su-lev2 rating)



FenPhen said:


> Edit: I'll get back to post 182 tomorrow, to Malibubimmer's delight.


Sure beats discussions about oil change intervals, viscosity, synthetic vs. non-synthetic, and my favorite of all threads....(drum roll)......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Carfax please!


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

I think FenPhen and iove75 are (is?) the same guy and he is having a conversation with himself. :rofl: The bloviation is amazing.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> But it is coincidental that I saw on the news tonight a piece on global warming.


BMW reduced it's fleet carbon dioxide emissions by 13% in 2005. The other large automakers went up.



> Take a look at the difference between A4 and the 330i, the BMW emits more greenhouse gases than the Audi. The 750Li gets the worse.


The A4 you linked is the FWD CVT and the 330i you linked is the RWD AT. The A4 quattro AT (19/27 LEV II) is rated for 8.70 tons of CO2, the 330xi AT (20/27 ULEV II) is rated for 8.40 tons. The 750Li's 4.8-liter V-8 (ULEV II) has 2 more cylinders, 60% more displacement, and gobs more power and torque, so of course it's going to have higher greenhouse gas emissions (9.50 tons). Audi's (probably-old) 4.2-liter V-8 puts out 9.50-9.70 tons, depending on the car.



> The 2002 745Li gets a LEV rating. (But, the 2006 still emit more greenhouse gases than 2002.)


The 4.8-liter (ULEV II) is rated to put out 9.50 tons versus the 4.4-liter (LEV I) rating of 9.00 tons, or an increase of 5.5%. Meanwhile, peak power is up 10.8% and peak torque is up 9.1%, in exchange for combined mpg decrease of ~5%. I'd take my chances with CO2 (which has the potential to be scrubbed with various technologies). The other emissions that contribute to the LEV/ULEV/SULEV rating, like carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrous oxides, are sent to the catalytic converter to be combusted into carbon dioxide anyway.



> Wow! BMW can make improvements to their engine lines without absorbing or passing along huge costs.


Umm... the 4.8-liter did not add direct injection over the 4.4-liter, so I wouldn't expect a significant price increase. Also, the 4.4-liter was out for 4 model years before the 4.8-liter's introduction, so there was time to recoup the development costs of the 4.4. It probably didn't cost much to design the 4.8, since they just bumped up displacement and maybe refined the electronics. This is all consistent with what I've been saying. :dunno:


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> BMW reduced it's fleet carbon dioxide emissions by 13% in 2005. The other large automakers went up.


There you go again with your "statistical lies." Even your link shows that VW has the lowest average C02 rate. The majority of BMW sales are the econobox 3 series, if demand shifts to V-8 cars or the X5 4.4, you'll see similar shifts in emissions. This shows how easy it is to manipulate statisitics (much like the games automakers play with CAFE).



FenPhen said:


> The A4 you linked is the FWD CVT and the 330i you linked is the RWD AT. The A4 quattro AT (19/27 LEV II) is rated for 8.70 tons of CO2, the 330xi AT (20/27 ULEV II) is rated for 8.40 tons.


You are right I did compare the FWD A4 to the RWD 330i. Since neither Audi make a rwd A4, nor BMW makes a FWD 330i, did you want me to take a page out of your playbook and fudge some numbers to extrapolate an estimate?

And the difference between AWD models in CO2 emissions is only .3 tons of CO2 annually and is outweighed by a better AWD system. If BMW stuck a torsen onto the 3 series you can bet it would emit more emissions and get less mileage.



FenPhen said:


> The 750Li's 4.8-liter V-8 (ULEV II) has 2 more cylinders, 60% more displacement, and gobs more power and torque, so of course it's going to have higher greenhouse gas emissions (9.50 tons).
> 
> The 4.8-liter (ULEV II) is rated to put out 9.50 tons versus the 4.4-liter (LEV I) rating of 9.00 tons, or an increase of 5.5%. Meanwhile, peak power is up 10.8% and peak torque is up 9.1%, in exchange for combined mpg decrease of ~5%.


Ok, so you are proud that BMW went the MB way and increase power at the expense of mileage and emissions for a insignificant .1 seconds (BMW data) in acceleration? :rofl: Okay, okay, enough bloviating on emissions.:bigpimp:

[As an aside, many speculated that BMW went this route to better match the new S class in numbers namely hp and torque. It's nice to see two super power car makers lock horns in a horsepower rating arms race.]



FenPhen said:


> I'd take my chances with CO2 (which has the potential to be scrubbed with various technologies). The other emissions that contribute to the LEV/ULEV/SULEV rating, like carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrous oxides, are sent to the catalytic converter to be combusted into carbon dioxide anyway.


:nono: Unbelievable that you are so cruel and heartless. Billions of dollars of destroyed shore property will be destroyed and thousands of Sri Lankan children will drown because of you. Just joking! :neener: 


FenPhen said:


> Umm... the 4.8-liter did not add direct injection over the 4.4-liter, so I wouldn't expect a significant price increase. Also, the 4.4-liter was out for 4 model years before the 4.8-liter's introduction, so there was time to recoup the development costs of the 4.4. It probably didn't cost much to design the 4.8, since they just bumped up displacement and maybe refined the electronics. This is all consistent with what I've been saying. :dunno:


:banghead:


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

*B L. O V I A T I O N Blah Blah Blah*

The bloviation continues. Reminds me of a Woody Allen film - _Bananas_ - when he brutally cross-examined himself at a trial. :blah: :blah: :blah:


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> There you go again with your "statistical lies." Even your link shows that VW has the lowest average C02 rate. The majority of BMW sales are the econobox 3 series, if demand shifts to V-8 cars or the X5 4.4, you'll see similar shifts in emissions. This shows how easy it is to manipulate statisitics (much like the games automakers play with CAFE).


Statistics are only "manipulated" if you, as the reader, don't understand what's going on. The 2005 report says BMW reduced fleet-average carbon dioxide emissions by 13% from 1990 to 2003, even with the X5 "contributing more than 15% of sales, and while achieving a nearly fivefold increase in overall U.S. sales." And yes, I'm aware it says VW (including Audi) has the lowest fleet emissions. All I said was BMW has been reducing, in response to your mention of global warming while picking on BMW's latest V-8 and carbon dioxide emissions.



> You are right I did compare the FWD A4 to the RWD 330i. Since neither Audi make a rwd A4, nor BMW makes a FWD 330i, did you want me to take a page out of your playbook and fudge some numbers to extrapolate an estimate?
> 
> And the difference between AWD models in CO2 emissions is only .3 tons of CO2 annually and is outweighed by a better AWD system. If BMW stuck a torsen onto the 3 series you can bet it would emit more emissions and get less mileage.


Dude, please don't mischaracterize my arguments with words like "lies," "fudge," "playbook," without looking at your own argument.

You're talking about how a Torsen diff is less fuel efficient than BMW's multi-plate clutch to defend a small difference between the AWD A4 and AWD 330i, yet it's okay for you to compare a FWD/CVT powertrain versus a RWD/AT powertrain. Really, c'mon. Also, the EPA mileage rating is conducted in a lab on a dynamometer. Is it a fact that a Torsen diff system has more parasitic losses than a multi-plate clutch system when all wheels are spinning equally?

Looking through the carbon dioxide emissions ratings, it appears that for a given engine, the emissions estimate (in tons) for a vehicle is pretty much proportional to the mileage of the vehicle. With the AWD comparison, at least the mileage numbers are pretty close, and yeah, 0.3 tons difference is small (almost the same as far as I'm concerned), but one engine is certified ULEV II and the other is only LEV II.



> Ok, so you are proud that BMW went the MB way and increase power at the expense of mileage and emissions for a insignificant .1 seconds (BMW data) in acceleration?


Granted most 7 series buyers probably wouldn't care, but the engine improvement from the 4.4 to the 4.8 isn't insignificant. The power band has widened 200 rpm on both ends, torque is up 30 ft-lbs at the torque peak, and up 20 ft-lbs at the horsepower peaks. For the driver, that means more oomph everywhere and better acceleration. The expense you speak of is -1 mpg (-4.76%) and +0.5 tons (+5.56%) carbon dioxide (almost a perfect inverse relationship), but the gains are ULEV II (up to 50% less carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons, and nitrous oxides over LEV II, let alone LEV I), and the aforementioned performance.

Comparing the 750i to the 745i, C&D got 5.4s vs. 6.0s for 0-60mph, 13.9s @ 103mph vs. 14.6s @ 97mph for the quarter mile, 13.1s vs. 15.3s for 0-100mph, and 23.4s vs. 19.6s for 0-120mph. For the everyday driver, the 750i should provide more passing flexibility at any speed.

You'd rather have the 4.4-liter; I get it.



> As an aside, many speculated that BMW went this route to better match the new S class in numbers namely hp and torque. It's nice to see two super power car makers lock horns in a horsepower rating arms race.


Believe it or not, luxury flagship buyers like those numbers more than fuel economy and emissions. In any case, the 750i is outgunned by the S550 (4688 lbs, 382 hp @ 6000, 391 ft-lbs @ 2800), but stays close in acceleration. The MB gets 16/24 mpg.



> :nono: Unbelievable that you are so cruel and heartless. Billions of dollars of destroyed shore property will be destroyed and thousands of Sri Lankan children will drown because of you. Just joking! :neener:


Because of me? I drive a 330i, certified ULEV II, rated for 8.10 tons of carbon dioxide. What do you drive?


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

The Democrats should hire you to run a filibuster for them. Posting about nothing, over and over and over.


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> Statistics are only "manipulated" if you, as the reader, don't understand what's going on.


And you as the author are "manipulated" if you don't fully comprehend the variables and the formulas used to extrapolate the data. Fleet averages are based on sales and vary. And you really think X5 making up 15% is significant? And let's see, study was from 1990-2003, X5 introduced in 2000....hmmm.....I'd like to see stats from 2000-2005. 


FenPhen said:


> Dude, please don't mischaracterize my arguments with words like "lies," "fudge," "playbook," without looking at your own argument.


Oh please. This coming from a guy that pulls numbers out of his butt?!? You came up with a $4,463.74 as a price differential between the cost of DI and non-DI engine to BMW that doesn't even exist using inflated (oem parts) costs of parts that may or may not have been used had BMW built a DI V8 engine. 


FenPhen said:


> Is it a fact that a Torsen diff system has more parasitic losses than a multi-plate clutch system when all wheels are spinning equally?


Yes, Torsen makes all wheels spin equally by using mechanical worm gears to transfer torque. 


FenPhen said:


> Comparing the 750i to the 745i, C&D got 5.4s vs. 6.0s for 0-60mph, 13.9s @ 103mph vs. 14.6s @ 97mph for the quarter mile, 13.1s vs. 15.3s for 0-100mph, and 23.4s vs. 19.6s for 0-120mph. For the everyday driver, the 750i should provide more passing flexibility at any speed.
> You'd rather have the 4.4-liter; I get it.


*No you don't. * I want a car that performs better or equal, but with better fuel economy. And I knew you were going to mention the C&D article. Check out what Edmunds has to say about the 750. 0-60 is 6.4 not 5.4, [email protected] not [email protected] And the car has an extra 110lbs to carry around. BMW's own numbers show a .1 second difference.


FenPhen said:


> Because of me? I drive a 330i, certified ULEV II, rated for 8.10 tons of carbon dioxide. What do you drive?


At least I care and I want BMW to come up with something better. Isn't this the purpose of this thread?


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

iove75 said:


> Fleet averages are based on sales and vary. And you really think X5 making up 15% is significant? And let's see, study was from 1990-2003, X5 introduced in 2000....hmmm.....I'd like to see stats from 2000-2005.


Okay, so if you think 15% of sales is not significant, what are you implying about the 13% fleet reduction from 1990-2003? Don't forget that the X5's V-8s are used in the 5, 7, and later 6 series too.

As for 2000-2005, I would predict BMW's fleet carbon dioxide output is a decline (something <5%, since we're only talking 5 years), from all the Valvetronic engines introduced in this time. :dunno: I wonder how the other manufacturers fared from 2000-2005, since they all increased from 1990-2003?



> You came up with a $4,463.74 as a price differential between the cost of DI and non-DI engine to BMW that doesn't even exist using inflated (oem parts) costs of parts that may or may not have been used had BMW built a DI V8 engine.


You make it sound like I said something bad about your mother.  I showed you the numbers I found (the OEM parts prices) and showed you how I calculated the difference in prices for the injection systems. My mistake was I compared the price of the E46's navigation unit to the MSRP option price as a baseline, and in my haste, miscalculated the cost (missed an expensive component). So, I agree that comparing the OEM parts prices to the MSRP is not a reliable relationship.

However, the reason I listed all of the parts, with links, was so you could see how I came up with the numbers (and yet you overreact with accusations of lying). The literature has said the 2002 V-8, 2006 V-8, and 2002 V-12 are all built off the same family and closely related. And, the pricing on the fuel injectors themselves are all the same. You know what's involved with direct injection (high pressure, pumps, computer, etc.), and those parts are all there for the V-12, and you can see that there are doubled sets of everything for the two inline-6 banks that make up a V-12. Thus, I cut the quantities in half and came up with the $4300 difference between the new I-6's injection system and a half-V-12's direct injection system. Even if the OEM prices are higher than the factory-cost-to-BMW, you can at least see the increase of $180.79 to $4,463.74. Applying DI to the V-8 should be similar to the V-12 (four less cylinders, but you still have two banks and two fuel rails).

No matter what the actual monetary numbers, it's pretty clear that DI is going to boost the price of the engine by a significant amount. If you look at just the V-12 engine itself, the cost of the OEM replacement injection system makes up over 25% of the OEM replacement engine. In any case, the numbers are there for you to interpret, so you could try convincing me that a direct injection system isn't significantly more expensive than a conventional injection system. In an earlier post, I guessed a DI system would add $2,000 to the MSRP. That doesn't sound like a far-fetched premium. If you disagree, debate it, rather than whip out another "you're lying" reply.



> Yes, Torsen makes all wheels spin equally by using mechanical worm gears to transfer torque.


I don't think the loss of a Torsen AWD system is significant enough to hold back the FSI engine's EPA numbers, and the worm gears don't appear to be the high-reduction kind (we're just talking about diffs). The A4 2.0T FWD/MT is rated 23/34 mpg and the A4 2.0T quattro/MT is rated 22/31, a reduction of 1 city and 3 highway. The 2002 A4 1.8T FWD/MT is rated 22/31 mpg and the 2002 A4 1.8T quattro/MT is rated 21/29, a reduction of 1 city and 2 highway. The BMW's AWD (xDrive) reduces by 1 city and 2 highway.



> Check out what Edmunds has to say about the 750. 0-60 is 6.4 not 5.4, [email protected] not [email protected]


Edmunds says: "You would expect the new 750 to be about as quick as the old one, yet we only managed a best 0-to-60 sprint of 6.4 seconds, with the transmission in sport mode. The last 745i we tested did it in six seconds flat. We can't fully explain this except to say two different cars on two different days at two different test facilities don't always produce the test numbers you expect."​
They should retest side-by-side, with broken-in samples. The numbers I'm seeing via Google range from 5.4-5.7s for real-world 0-60. C&D's numbers are usually around 0.3s faster than BMW's quoted numbers, but the _difference_ between cars they test are usually consistent with other results. C&D says they correct for temperature, atmospheric pressure, and other conditions. Perhaps Edmunds does not, or they bought a slow outlier. :dunno:



> At least I care and I want BMW to come up with something better. Isn't this the purpose of this thread?


Yep. You post like I don't care about the environment, or that I'm against direct injection and hybrids, which isn't true. I like environmentally-friendly technologies, and was proud of the M54's efficiency in my car when I bought it. If you reread my posts, I like weight reduction, Valvetronic, (full) direct injection, clean diesels, hybrids (though not the prevalent battery kind for BMWs), and hydrogen. However, in this thread, I'm offering reasons why BMW has not adopted certain technologies yet.

Those reasons are usually cost and sometimes logistics/practicality. If sulfur and cost weren't an issue, everyone would use DI now. If particulate emissions standards weren't an issue, more European diesels would be marketed here. If cost weren't an issue, everyone would be using Torsen diffs (except BMW and xDrive).


----------



## Motown328 (Jun 4, 2003)

x54.4blue said:


> Fuel Economy is much more than a cost per gallon
> 
> It's about the environment and the US dependency on foreign supply.
> 
> ...


Drivability and performance is NOT a given. Take an Aveo or Camry. Drivability and performance? Hardly.

Secondly, the government's energy policy is complete crap. Pro-oil, pro-pollution, pro-business, pro-fossil fuels, pro-death. Like hell am I going to feel bad about not getting an extra 5 mpg on my car when the government is killing the Earth. Humankind needs a wake-up call.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*What is a Aveo?*

Don't know if anyone has driven a Aveo?

The Camry is a low priced mass market car, it is does that drive as nice as a BMW, but that has nothing to do with MPG


----------



## ChargedBMW (Aug 12, 2005)

My 01' 330i gets 34.5 MPG on average and I have a vortec blower pushing about 4psi at the manifold. I truly think that you can adjust your driving style to maximize fuel economy.

You can look at using alternative fuels such as E85, which after extensive research I have found it to be cheaper than gas and has a higher octane rating and burns cleaner. The only drawback is that if you live in a colder climate, starting can be a little more difficult and may require a heater to heat the ethanol, and you don't get the same fuel economy as with regular gasoline (about 10% less). The price differential should make up for the loss in economy.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Driving Style*

A Hybrid will help people that like to use the brakes.

I will take some of the loss power and regenerate the battery.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*4.4 V8*

It sucks a lot of gas in the city 12mpg.

On the highway it does better 20 mpg.

Hope the new x5 will have reduced weight Alum hood etc and Hybrid design.


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

x54.4blue said:


> It sucks a lot of gas in the city 12mpg.
> 
> On the highway it does better 20 mpg.
> 
> Hope the new x5 will have reduced weight Alum hood etc and Hybrid design.


You're just desperate to keep this thread alive. :tsk:


----------



## MarcusSDCA (Jan 14, 2004)

I agree with everyone and just want to be the 200th reply here.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*3 Loaner*

Took the Truck in for service and got a new 325 loaner.

What a nice car it drove great and got much better mpg.

Has anyone driven the four wheel drive version, maybe its the addtional drag of the four wheel drive system that stops the car from rolling into a light and uses so much power to start for a stop?


----------



## iove75 (Sep 10, 2004)

Just got my copy of Car and Driver and on page 9 had an article on BMW's steam hybrid. Couldn't find the article on the website... Let the bloviating begin again.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*consumer report*

Did everyone see that BMW is not on any of CR top car lists.

One more sign that BMW needs to wake up and make cars that use less gas!


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

I completely disagree.
Maybe you just need to get a car that uses less gas.
Your X5 4.4 is NOT a "car", BTW. It is a heavy SUV and still manages to get better mileage than V8 pickups in its weight class. Efficient for what it is, a 325hp (? not sure your model yr) V8 in a heavy vehicle geared to haul groceries and haul @ss.

The 3.0 liter 255hp gas engine is a marvel, IMHO.
Respectable, but not lighting 0-60, high cruising speed capable, good life, light weight.
And the models it goes into (3er & 5er in this country) are rated 20/30 - that is almost Civic territory - well the Si sporty model, not the economy model.
I doubt anyone would cross-shop a stripper Civic vs a X5 4.4, but I digress.

BTW, BMW makes stellar diesels and would love to import them to this country due to their success in Europe.
High 30s and into 40s mpg. Government entities like CARB, ect keep them out. Instead of riding BMW's case, and grumbling here, write your congressman.

At the end of the day you chose to buy/lease a $60K+ SUV with a big V8.
A few more $$$ a week in fuel should be negligible, not pleasant mind you, but not a budget buster considering.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*diesels*



mullman said:


> I completely disagree.
> Maybe you just need to get a car that uses less gas.
> Your X5 4.4 is NOT a "car", BTW. It is a heavy SUV and still manages to get better mileage than V8 pickups in its weight class. Efficient for what it is, a 325hp (? not sure your model yr) V8 in a heavy vehicle geared to haul groceries and haul @ss.
> 
> ...


1)Yes the cost of the fuel means little, I looked at the Lexus 400 Hybrid. It would of cost about $150 more a month to lease and the cost of fuel is less. This does not mean that Lexus can't drop the price once the demand filled. At the time they were selling the car at full sticker. BMW needs to get in the act before its too late.

2)Diesels, I really don't think its the answer. Diesels were good simple design before the age of computers. Using a computer with a diesel makes them burn a little cleaner but the real gains in MPG is Hybrid. At the end of the day they still don't run as nice as a gas engene.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

You said "the real gains in MPG is Hybrid."
Half-truth. The truth would be "the real gains in CITY MPG is Hybrid."

One or two months ago in Car & Driver they drove a Lexus RX400H and a gas version between Ann Arbor and NYC. The gas version actually got better mileage, and cost LESS to purchase upfront. Hybrids are a political game put on by the "feel-gooders".

Efficient direct injection diesels are a much better choice for the average person with 50/50 city/hwy than a hybrid. Pickup a copy of CAR (UK car mag) or Auto Motor und Sport (if you can read German) at any large bookstore and read about the diesel vehicles we do NOT see in the USA.

A BMW 535d compares very favorably to a 2005 545...

And your comment "BMW needs to get in the act before its too late." is almost laughable.
BMW has been at the forefront of Hydrogen for yrs even driving 7ers with V12 Hydrogen motors around the USA.
Hydrid is a junior high solution to a long term problem - a stopgap measure. BMW, Mercedes, & others are working ahead.
H20 comes out the tailpipe and no clostly batteries to replace on a regular basis. Yes, hydrogen does have its issues though.

Be serious, 20 year old Hydrid vehicles are going to be a NIGHTMARE for service shops and owners, not to mention DIYers.
Junkyards will be littered with cars that no one wants to spend the $$$ to put a new battery in it while my 40+ year old BMW bikes can run like the day they left Berlin with just a little TLC every now and then.

Next you say " At the end of the day they [diesel engines] still don't run as nice as a gas engene."
True if your last diesel experience was a 1984 VW Rabbit. Having driven modern diesels in Europe, I can assure you they are much different than the old clattering 300D my father had.



x54.4blue said:


> 2)Diesels, I really don't think its the answer. Diesels were good simple design before the age of computers. Using a computer with a diesel makes them burn a little cleaner but the real gains in MPG is Hybrid. At the end of the day they still don't run as nice as a gas engene.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Hybrid*

Yes Hybrids only help with city driving.

Most of my driving is around town, my X5 gets about 12 MPG.

Once on the Highway MPG goes up to 20 or 25 MPG if I drive at 60 (never do).

If I go the same 20 or 25 MPG I would have a huge gain in average mpg.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

Points well made.
Exactly why I am leaving a ML500 and returning to a BMW sedan.


You cannot be mad at BMW that a 5000+lb vehicle with a huge V8 gets poor mileage, get mad at physics. Hybrid'izing something that heavy to get decent performance would be a futile undertaking at best. The R400h competes more with the X3 than X5 anyway.
To that end if you could get a X3 3.0d would see high 20's-low 30s in town and high 30's-low 40's highway - but alas we cannot buy them here.


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*X3*

I do not think the X3 gets 20 mpg around town.

The new 3 loaner average about 20 MPG with 50% Highway and 50% city drving.

I really do think that Hybrid helps average MPG.

Hybrids saves the energy from stopping no other system does that.

Yes they weigh a little more but when you compare the same car with and without Hybrid the City MPG is much better and the Highway is all most the same. This means the weight gain is more than offset.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

I said a X3 3.0d

That is a "d" as in diesel. If you live in the USA, you cannot get it.
Less gas consumption than a the 2.0l gas engine, and quicker than the 3.0l gas engine

That's diesel!

Here is the datasheet

http://www.bmw.com/generic/de/de/products/automobiles/download/pdf/X3_GF_datasheet.pdf


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*x3 3.0D*



mullman said:


> I said a X3 3.0d
> 
> That is a "d" as in diesel. If you live in the USA, you cannot get it.
> Less gas consumption than a the 2.0l gas engine, and quicker than the 3.0l gas engine
> ...


I think a Hybrid like the Lexus 400R will out perform the X3D and get better MPG.

Please think about the savings gain by storing the energy used to stop.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

x54.4blue said:


> I think a Hybrid like the Lexus 400R will out perform the X3D and get better MPG.


Unlike some we have the privilege of seeing them tested regularly on home territory so that real-world comparisons can be made. They're about even in terms of performance and actual (as opposed to claimed) fuel economy. The Japanese hybrids have a poor reputation around here, as owners report economy figures inferior to equivalent cars with conventional diesel technology. Also, the Lexus' fuel economy on the extra-urban cycle is actually worse.

Furthermore the X3 3.0d's performance figures are at least as good as the Lexus's, and unlike the Lexus it can keep turning them in until the fuel tank is dry


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Andy did you drive them both?*



andy_thomas said:


> Unlike some we have the privilege of seeing them tested regularly on home territory so that real-world comparisons can be made. They're about even in terms of performance and actual (as opposed to claimed) fuel economy. The Japanese hybrids have a poor reputation around here, as owners report economy figures inferior to equivalent cars with conventional diesel technology. Also, the Lexus' fuel economy on the extra-urban cycle is actually worse.
> 
> Furthermore the X3 3.0d's performance figures are at least as good as the Lexus's, and unlike the Lexus it can keep turning them in until the fuel tank is dry


Andy did you actually drive both of them?

Has anyone driven both of them?


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Does anyone own A D Bmw?*

Does anyone own a BMW D

What kind of MPG do you get?


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

x54.4blue said:


> Does anyone own a BMW D
> 
> What kind of MPG do you get?


EDIT: Sorry, double-posted (bloody internet) and I can't find the delete button.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

x54.4blue said:


> Does anyone own a BMW D
> 
> What kind of MPG do you get?


By this do you mean diesel? There are several; on the UK boards most BMW owners report around 45 mpg for the 3er diesels, 5 mpg less for 5ers, 5 less than that for X5s. Knock another 5 off for automatic transmission.

BMW's smallest diesel excepting the MINI is the 118d, which is supposed to return 63 mpg on the ex-urban cycle. Unlike with some of their petrol-powered cars, it's usually quite easy to achieve figures close to the quoted figures. A 320d I drove a while back happily managed 55 mpg at a ~70 mph cruise back from the dealer.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

x54.4blue said:


> Andy did you actually drive both of them?
> 
> Has anyone driven both of them?


I have been a passenger in an X5 3.0d. The claim of 7.8 sec to 62 mph, which is 7.6 sec to 60 mph, is entirely believable. Coincidentally Lexus also claims 7.6 sec to 60 mph. (Also note that the Lexus can only achieve this sort of performance when its batteries are charged.)

I like the idea of regenerative hybrids although not the environmental impact, or very high cost, of manufacture and disposal. Re the posts about diesel, it would be hard for BMW to commit to a hybrid technology and achieve 40% greater on-the-spot fuel economy when it already sells several hundred thousand cars every year which do that already (the diesels).


----------



## x54.4blue (Sep 17, 2005)

*Hybrid Diesel*



andy_thomas said:


> By this do you mean diesel? There are several; on the UK boards most BMW owners report around 45 mpg for the 3er diesels, 5 mpg less for 5ers, 5 less than that for X5s. Knock another 5 off for automatic transmission.
> 
> BMW's smallest diesel excepting the MINI is the 118d, which is supposed to return 63 mpg on the ex-urban cycle. Unlike with some of their petrol-powered cars, it's usually quite easy to achieve figures close to the quoted figures. A 320d I drove a while back happily managed 55 mpg at a ~70 mph cruise back from the dealer.


It would seem that the Hybrid concept would also work for Diesels, what do you think?


----------



## rruiter (Feb 10, 2004)

x54.4blue said:


> [COLOR=Green]BMW needs to use it engineering ability to design cars that use less gas.
> 
> My brother Honda mini van has a V6 engine that shuts down cylinders when at a low load highway speed; why can***8217;t my BMW V8 do that?
> 
> ...


You are kidding, right ? IF you want to save money, buy a smaller car. I just dont' get it why people buy a $50K car and then complain about how much gas it uses.


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

Technology is technology. It has no intrinsic purpose; it just _is_.
While the initial application of gasoline/battery hybrid technology has been to reduce fuel consumption in motor vehicles, other uses will be developed as they are seen to fill a need or a desire. Basically, if a market is seen as existing the product *will* be made (unless prohibited by government).

As far as the Air/Hydrogen IC engine is concerned I wonder what happens to all the Nitrogen that is run through that engine. Are Nitrogen Oxides formed as they are in the Air/Gasoline IC engine?


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

Bob Clevenger said:


> While the initial application of gasoline/battery hybrid technology has been to reduce fuel consumption in motor vehicles, other uses will be developed as they are seen to fill a need or a desire. Basically, if a market is seen as existing the product *will* be made (unless prohibited by government).


This is exactly why BMW has not yet embraced the gas/battery hybrid, because the technology doesn't yet fulfill the need/desire/requirement for sustained performance. The X3 EfficientDynamics concept and the years of hydrogen research are examples of how BMW is looking for the technology that is most environmentally friendly without sacrificing sustained performance.



Bob Clevenger said:


> As far as the Air/Hydrogen IC engine is concerned I wonder what happens to all the Nitrogen that is run through that engine. Are Nitrogen Oxides formed as they are in the Air/Gasoline IC engine?


Yes, because the nitrogen in the air gets burned from the high combustion temperature like a conventional ICE. However, a hydrogen ICE produces no nitrogen oxides formed from the fuel itself, which accounts for 50% of NOx emissions in a conventional ICE.


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

FenPhen said:


> Yes, because the nitrogen in the air gets burned from the high combustion temperature like a conventional ICE. However, a hydrogen ICE produces no nitrogen oxides formed from the fuel itself, which accounts for 50% of NOx emissions in a conventional ICE.


Thanks for the links. They were very interesting.
I would question the 50% figure for NOx emissions as that was specifically said to be the case when combusting nitrogen-bearing _oil_ [emphasis mine] rather than when combusting refined gasoline. I wonder how much nitrogen there is in gasoline.:dunno:

I have always been suspicious of the claims that air/hydrogen ICEs produce only water --- it's nice to see that my recall of Chemistry 1a is better than I thought.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

Bob Clevenger said:


> I have always been suspicious of the claims that air/hydrogen ICEs produce only water --- it's nice to see that my recall of Chemistry 1a is better than I thought.


I went back and did some more digging. Apparently, if you just went with a naive approach and burned hydrogen in a conventional matter, you'll get more NOx production from burning air because of the higher temperatures. BMW engineers have already addressed this and BMW hydrogen combustion is reportedly well below the SULEV requirement for NOx emissions:
http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/stragegy.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=bmw+hydrogen+nox


----------



## LoneStarM3 (May 12, 2005)

x54.4blue said:


> [COLOR=Green]BMW needs to use it engineering ability to design cars that use less gas.
> 
> My brother Honda mini van has a V6 engine that shuts down cylinders when at a low load highway speed; why can't my BMW V8 do that?
> 
> ...


Everyone, including you, is entitled to their opinion, but you don't buy a BMW to get Honda mini van performance......

The new 3 series with the smaller engine gets 33 and will run circles around a Honda. (Not knocking Honda -- I have had two Accords and loved them. Great cars for what they are. But they AINT BMWs)

As for performance and economy, I just drove my M3 back from the Florida Keys to Dallas/Fort Worth area, mostly at 85+ (thank you V1) and averaged over 24 mpg.

M3 is a little weird, in that it gets better mileage at higher speeds. Most US cars are designed for our 1950's speed laws and mileage goes to hell at speed.


----------



## ProRail (May 31, 2006)

SmoothCruise said:


> You lucky dog!! You must be the first 6er owner ever to obtain the quoted figures. There was an extensive thread in the 6er group a long time ago where people were consistently getting less than the quoted figures.


Yes. The driver is the key. My 528 gets 35 mpg on long trips and 25 mpg locally. I suspect that's somewhat better than the EPA rating. You just have to look a little farther down the road and drive strategically.


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

Omigod. The stupid thread that won't die is back. The equivalent the Hella cells of cancer. Please, someone, please lock this piece of sh!t.


----------



## seanmc (Aug 26, 2006)

*Changed to LPg...*

:thumbup:

Big savings here

Especially on a car with a 2.8 litre engine

Only costs me £12 per week to cover 200 miles through town and country roads and I'm no slouch on the loud pedal.

Maybe BMW should offer more of this???

Great site by the way :angel:


----------

