# Pricing disparity: US v. BRD



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

DXK said:


> Looking at your own chart, it says 2.0 growth for US in 2007 and 2.8 for germany, no?
> Furthermore, it's not the absolute growth that the market is looking at, it's the RATE and potential of growth. Currently, financial market does not have a positive opinion of U.S. future. I have no idea if the market is right or wrong, but this is its current perception.
> I cannot tell you where I work, but this is how it is right now.
> The projected growth now for 2008 is a bit hight for U.S. than for EU, but market does not believe it, thus euro is still going higher. The whole thing will reverse once EU rates start going down to reflect slowing economy.
> Again, this is what the market currently believes


It does, at this particular point in time the forecasted 2007 is higher for Germany. But if you think that .8 greater growth rate of an economy that is both smaller and plagued with unacceptable rates of unemployment (by US standards) is something to be celebrated, especially while the US economy is under stress stimulated by the credit crunch then&#8230;:dunno:


----------



## DXK (Jun 1, 2007)

hugh1850 said:


> It does, at this particular point in time the forecasted 2007 is higher for Germany. But if you think that .8 greater growth rate of an economy that is both smaller and plagued with unacceptable rates of unemployment (by US standards) is something to be celebrated, especially while the US economy is under stress stimulated by the credit crunch then&#8230;:dunno:


I keep telling you and the prospect for future growth! Markets never look back they always look forward!
I am not bearish on America, I am just telling you what the markets are looking at.
EU stocks have more than tripples in last few years, the euro is at all time high up 150%
that's not a random event.
OK, I am done
Back to BMW
How do you like 535? I'll be picking one up at Minich soon


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

DXK said:


> again, not that simple: it's not the absolute number, it's the rate of growth. You know why Chinese stocks have trippled and everyone is going into China? Not because the standard of living there is higher than here, it's becasue the RATE of GROWTH and hence opportunity (return) for making money is higher.


China is an emerging market and subject to both risks and growth opportunities that are extrememly different than those of the US and Western Europe. This discussion is about quality of life of Germany vs. the US as stated in this BS post:

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2686270&postcount=9


----------



## debmwed (Jul 16, 2007)

+1 JSpira
My uncle and cousins in Germany (30yr+ BMW drivers) estimated that my 328xi (approximately 35k for an ED I did in August) would cost approximately 50k Euros...that's about 65k dollars! I also talked to an X5 owner (fairly rare in Germany) and they said a base version would be about 60k Euros and 70k with options. That puts the X5 in the 80k to 95k dollar range. 
Without doing too much math, the Germans are paying quite a premium any way you slice it; even if the dollar and euro were equal (remember those days?) and you then add the 19.6% tax, they're still paying more even beyond the MWSt. 
Made me feel like I got even more of a bargain than I originally thought!


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

DXK said:


> I keep telling you and the prospect for future growth! Markets never look back they always look forward!
> I am not bearish on America, I am just telling you what the markets are looking at.
> EU stocks have more than tripples in last few years, the euro is at all time high up 150%
> that's not a random event.
> ...


From the chart above, the projected future growth of the US is greater than Germany and the Euro Area for that matter.

I love my 535i, she doesn't have that beautiful 3.0l twin turbo that you will enjoy, but she does have a great big 6. Have a great trip to Munich.:thumbup:


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

debmwed said:


> +1 JSpira
> My uncle and cousins in Germany (30yr+ BMW drivers) estimated that my 328xi (approximately 35k for an ED I did in August) would cost approximately 50k Euros...that's about 65k dollars! I also talked to an X5 owner (fairly rare in Germany) and they said a base version would be about 60k Euros and 70k with options. That puts the X5 in the 80k to 95k dollar range.
> Without doing too much math, the Germans are paying quite a premium any way you slice it; even if the dollar and euro were equal (remember those days?) and you then add the 19.6% tax, they're still paying more even beyond the MWSt.
> Made me feel like I got even more of a bargain than I originally thought!


US prices are not cheaper due to exchange rate moves, it has more to do with a "volume discount".


----------



## DXK (Jun 1, 2007)

hugh1850 said:


> From the chart above, the projected future growth of the US is greater than Germany and the Euro Area for that matter.
> 
> I love my 535i, she doesn't have that beautiful 3.0l twin turbo that you will enjoy, but she does have a great big 6. Have a great trip to Munich.:thumbup:


Last point on the whole growth thing; just as a general observation: when one looks at the project growth in the newspaper for example, this is a reflection of forcast of economists - an academic excercise and it is seldom right and is always subject for adjustmets. The prices for debt, equity, or currency are determined by markets' expectations where people vote with their own money. That's a more accurate representation and a good indication where the economy is going


----------



## Me530 (Feb 17, 2005)

Didn't the interest rate go down mainly to help bail out the subprime bozos?


----------



## DXK (Jun 1, 2007)

*Prices*

The prices in U.S. are cheaper because manufacturers do not want to give up market shares; it's hard to gain it back.
The U.S. comsumer traditionally had the largest purchasing power in the world and therefore was very important in the company's market strategy. This is changing as western / eastern europe is growing richer and the developing world aquires more purchasing power. The american market will become less and less important.
Moreover, the europeans will soon be lowering those huge individual tax rates, the corporate tax rate in europe is lowere than here already.


----------



## debmwed (Jul 16, 2007)

hugh1850 said:


> US prices are not cheaper due to exchange rate moves, it has more to do with a "volume discount".


I'm aware of that. Just giving some anecdotal information. I also talked to Thomas at MADA about the price differences. He thought BMW was trying to get as many of their cars on the road (here in the US) as possible so as to "advertise" to the non-customers. Not sure I agree with his logic but that was his take on it.


----------



## am_ver (Jul 12, 2005)

I bet the same car would be more expensive if priced in the UK.


----------



## DXK (Jun 1, 2007)

am_ver said:


> I bet the same car would be more expensive if priced in the UK.


Currently, BMWs cost the list in the U.S. very often my a wide margin


----------



## am_ver (Jul 12, 2005)

DXK said:


> list


list = least?!!! :rofl::rofl:


----------



## adc (Apr 1, 2003)

DXK said:


> The prices in U.S. are cheaper because manufacturers do not want to give up market shares; it's hard to gain it back.


Only partially.

The price quoted by Jonathan of E 85k goes down to around E 69K if you deduct the VAT (as on the US website).

Another factor in the lower US price is simply volume: the US is BMW's biggest single market in the world - and it all goes through a single importing entity - BMWNA. As I understand it, each European country has it's own BMW subsidiary and they're all supposed to float by themselves. I could be wrong of course, but if I'm right that alone (volume) can easily explain the price disparity.

And lastly of course is the currency hedging that BMW employs. That means that their effective currency parity should be a lot closer to 1:1.

I'm also wondering if the Europeans don't have packages (such as the Premium Package, Sport Package etc.) - since that can also save money compared to ordering all options a-la-carte.


----------



## pharding (Mar 14, 2004)

DXK said:


> again, not that simple: it's not the absolute number, it's the rate of growth. You know why Chinese stocks have trippled and everyone is going into China? Not because the standard of living there is higher than here, it's becasue the RATE of GROWTH and hence opportunity (return) for making money is higher.


How about life expectancy as an important statistic? The US is 22nd in the world. How about obesity? The US probably leads there. How about contributions to global warming? The US leads the world per capita in terms the bad stuff that has been dumped into the atmosphere over the course of time. We also lead the world on a annual per capita basis for greenhouse gases. US cities are not built to foster good health of its citizens. The US faces serious challenges in the future that will hit us harder than German citizens.


----------



## DXK (Jun 1, 2007)

am_ver said:


> list = least?!!! :rofl::rofl:


Thanks for your contribution to the discussion


----------



## Kamdog (Apr 15, 2007)

pharding said:


> How about life expectancy as an important statistic? The US is 22nd in the world. How about obesity? The US probably leads there. How about contributions to global warming? The US leads the world per capita in terms the bad stuff that has been dumped into the atmosphere over the course of time. We also lead the world on a annual per capita basis for greenhouse gases. US cities are not built to foster good health of its citizens. The US faces serious challenges in the future that will hit us harder than German citizens.


Which is why we should get the bimmers cheaper . We need these fine automobiles to take our minds off of all that stuff.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

We rode a nice 2007 MB E 220 taxi today (Amsterdam). Driver told us he paid 70,000EUR for the car. :yikes:


----------



## BobbyEwing (Aug 8, 2007)

Germany is not one of the wealthiest nations in Europe. The big growth region is eastern europe, and it's up here in the north where the HDI is the highest. I think Sweden is fifth on the list, with Norway and Iceland at first and second.

Anyways, for comparison. I payed 550,000 skr for my car. That translates to about $85,000 (US). For a 335 E90...


----------



## Alfred G (Apr 1, 2007)

Andrew*Debbie said:


> We rode a nice 2007 MB E 220 taxi today (Amsterdam). Driver told us he paid 70,000EUR for the car. :yikes:


In some countries in the EU they have enormous luxury taxes on cars. e.g. in Denmark 100% on the first car, 160% the 2nd and 180% on the third car.



BobbyEwing said:


> Germany is not one of the wealthiest nations in Europe. The big growth region is eastern europe, and it's up here in the north where the HDI is the highest. I think Sweden is fifth on the list, with Norway and Iceland at first and second.


The average in Germany has been cut down significantly after the reunification because in East Germany the incomes are much lower.

e.g. the average income per inhabitant (incl. children) in Starnberg county (where I live)









was in the year 2002 35,300 Euro, in Oberspreewald-Lausitz county (100 km south of Berlin) it was 70% lower, 10,500 EUR


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

We love our trips to Germany, but enjoy getting back to the US where we have wide roads, great shopping, big houses (average German lives in 950 sf dwelling). I'll take our lower taxes and higher standard of living any day. Why is it necessary for so many discussions nowadays to take on a political tone? Like my neighbor who puts up peace sign lights on Christmas and Haloween. Discuss how the US is ruining the planet elsewhere. Senator Inhoe says it right: "global warming is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public".


----------



## DXK (Jun 1, 2007)

cobmw said:


> We love our trips to Germany, but enjoy getting back to the US where we have wide roads, great shopping, big houses (average German lives in 950 sf dwelling). I'll take our lower taxes and higher standard of living any day. Why is it necessary for so many discussions nowadays to take on a political tone? Like my neighbor who puts up peace sign lights on Christmas and Haloween. Discuss how the US is ruining the planet elsewhere. Senator Inhoe says it right: "global warming is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public".


Many apartments in Manhattan and in Boston are 950 sf but people love the fact that they live in the city. Size of the house does not determine happiness. As far as the global warming, I am sure that that Northwest Passage in Canada that's been frozen forever is turning into the shipping route is just a coincidence.
The politics is everywhere due to the fact that the country is highly polarized and nobody is trying to bring the people together.
In any case, the discussion was not really a political at least at my end; I was just trying to point out that the economy and the standard of living in other countries is growing higher and in America, at least currently, it is not for most people.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

I would be miserable in 950 sf in Manhattan or Munich. The problem with global warming is that it is characterized as a problem that man is causing. If there is warming (1 degree increase in the last 100 years of which 60% occured before 1960) it is not proven to be man-caused. And it's not proven to be bad for us. It's all hype by various groups after our wallet. Surprised so may fall for it. Performance cars will be the first victim to this fraud. I enjoy my fun cars too much to loose them for no reason other than the greed of those who would profit from a lie.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

Alfred G said:


> In some countries in the EU they have enormous luxury taxes on cars. e.g. in Denmark 100% on the first car, 160% the 2nd and 180% on the third car.


Debbie wondered if Taxi drivers get a tax break of some sort, since this is a business. In the US there are significant tax breaks for business vehicles.


----------



## Me530 (Feb 17, 2005)

DXK said:


> The politics is everywhere due to the fact that the country is highly polarized *and nobody is trying to bring the people together.*


Don't sell Jimmy Carter short!


----------



## Alfred G (Apr 1, 2007)

Andrew*Debbie said:


> Debbie wondered if Taxi drivers get a tax break of some sort, since this is a business. In the US there are significant tax breaks for business vehicles.


I don't know about Holland, but in Austria there are.

e.g. this hotel in Austria uses a strech-hummer-shuttle bus 









and can fully deduct it from tax since it's used for transporting people.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> I would be miserable in 950 sf in Manhattan or Munich.


Perhaps, but plenty of people do trade living space to live in Manhattan and they are not miserable. I went from a 2500 sf in the burbs to a 1200 sf apartment in Manhattan and I had to throw in an extra $200,0000 to do so ($250,000 including transaction costs). I am happy with the move (I need to eat out less though).


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

DXK said:


> Econ 101. Interst rates are determined by economic growth.


Not exactly. They are determine by the fixed income market or more specifically fixed income investors. Investors do take inflation into account when deciding how much yield they require. They also take liquidity and credit risk into account but seem to have a hard time judging that.

For example some Asian central banks are major investors in the U.S. Treasury bond market. They invest because they need to buy U.S. dollar assets to prevent their currencies climbing too high against the dollar. They have to park the dollars somewhere and the U.S. Treasury bonds are very liquid and very low risk.


----------



## DXK (Jun 1, 2007)

adgrant said:


> Not exactly. They are determine by the fixed income market or more specifically fixed income investors. Investors do take inflation into account when deciding how much yield they require. They also take liquidity and credit risk into account but seem to have a hard time judging that.
> 
> For example some Asian central banks are major investors in the U.S. Treasury bond market. They invest because they need to buy U.S. dollar assets to prevent their currencies climbing too high against the dollar. They have to park the dollars somewhere and the U.S. Treasury bonds are very liquid and very low risk.


I was simplifying the point since it's not an economic forum
What you said is more applicable to the long term rates. I was mostly talking about the short term rates and discount rate set by the fed. My point was that if $ keeps going lower, the inflation goes up, demand for $ goes down and the fed will have to raise rates to fight inflation to to make increase demand for U.S. debt


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

950 sf living is fine for those who want it. And that's my point. Everyone should be able to choose what they want be it a 6000 sf house or a 507 hp BMW. Time may come when there actually is a good reason to reduce our standard of living, but global warming is not that reason. I am so tired of people working the global warming sales pitch into everything they write - even on a BMW board. Heck the people on Bimmerfest like performance cars and I for one am sorry to see them slipping away for no reason.


----------



## adc (Apr 1, 2003)

cobmw said:


> I am so tired of people working the global warming sales pitch into everything they write - even on a BMW board. Heck the people on Bimmerfest like performance cars and I for one am sorry to see them slipping away for no reason.


Please, get a grip. Nobody is trying to *sell* you anything, there is no conspiracy. If anything, logic and common sense would indicate that the opponents of the global warming concept, namely big oil interests, have *something* to sell you: *OIL*.

Since you are absolutely without a doubt not an expert on global warming, it is merely an opinion that you express here. Your "no reason" comment is just that - your opinion, and plenty others seem to have an oppositing one. I hope you'll understand this, and quit the senseless arguing - you're not convincing anybody from "the other camp", just aggravating them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong to desire performance "with a conscience" - to want a well handling car that doesn't sip too much gas, or doesn't pollute too much, or whatever. Absolutely nothing wrong.

I'm just tired of people trying to dress-up their greed with fancy words...


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

I've heard that before. There is no more to argue. It's a done deal. You know what is best for me and you are going to see that I get it. The Sierra Club calls those scientists who dispute the global warming fraud "climate criminals". I'll go out on a limb and say that within 10 years there will be legislation outlawing the M5 as we know it today. Not specifically the car, but setting stupid environmental parameters that effectively make it impossible to build. Your ox is next.


----------



## pharding (Mar 14, 2004)

And your grandchildren as they are forced to live in northern Canada kids will thank you for your beliefs. Climate change is real.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Three problems with the climate change hysteria. First problem is so far there has only been minimal climate change. Dispute that? Lets see your numbers. Not anectodal stuff about polar bears not having enough ice, but actual numbers. We've had 1 degree of warming over the last 100 years. Al Gore's film showing huge effects from warming with disaster looming is a big lie. Second problem is that if we are entering a warming period there is no proof that man is contributing to it. C02 levels follow, not precede, warming episodes. Even Al Gore had to admit that. And the third problem is that if we are entering a period of [uncontrollable] warming who is to say that is a bad thing? The earth has been both warmer and colder in the past. Why this frantic need to control the earth's cycles?

You would ask how can I be so sure that we aren't causing an impending disaster? Where's my proof? You are the one who is supposed to have proof not me. You are the one ready to give permission for our government to tax energy at Europen levels. You are the one asking for restrictions on engine displacement (the only way to reduce CO2). You are the one asking for car downsizing even though every 100 pounds of reduced weight increases the chance of death 5% (500 pounds reduction means 25% more chance my kids get killed in an accident). You are the one ready to accept regulations on home size, applicance types, driving restrictions, and much, much more all to make you feel like you are doing something good.

Gloabal warming is actually a fraud being pushed by special interest groups. The government can't wait to tax your energy use. Scientists get grant money to prove that warming exists (think you can get grant money for a study to disprove warming?). The greens want more power and to stop US growth at any cost. Big business sees opportunity to sell products (solar, wind machines, carbon credits, etc). Policticans (at least some of them) want more power over your behavior. So many voices telling us we've got to do something. And so many people ready to believe without really thinking about what they are asking for.


----------



## adc (Apr 1, 2003)

cobmw said:


> You are the one asking for car downsizing even though every 100 pounds of reduced weight increases the chance of death 5% (500 pounds reduction means 25% more chance my kids get killed in an accident).


If you want safety for your kids, why don't you add 1000lbs of lead to your car? Heck, 2000lbs might be an even better idea, it means 100% better chance at survival. :thumbup:


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Do you dispute the studies that prove larger cars are safer? Not just in accidents with my Suburban, but also lower fatality rate in single car accidents where no other car is involved. Glad we've left that warming subject for a while. No way I'm going to convice true believers.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> Do you dispute the studies that prove larger cars are safer? Not just in accidents with my Suburban, but also lower fatality rate in single car accidents where no other car is involved. Glad we've left that warming subject for a while. No way I'm going to convice true believers.


This is off subject, but I have read reports that indicate large SUVs are no safer for their occupants than cars and more dangerous for everyone else.

I am not 100% convinced by global warming but I would like to see gas cost $4-$5 a gallon just to get some of those big SUVs off the road. Gas tax increases would be nice so our crumbling bridges and highways can be fixed. More money for mass transit would be nice too. BMW drivers would benefit because roads would be in better condition and less congested.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

I'm not suggesting that you choose a Suburban. But, I can't see why peolpe are so quick to deny me my choice to have one. I don't like the $90 bill to fill the tank. However, there are lots of times where it is the only sensible choice. How do I get my 5th grader and half-dozen of his friends along with all their gear to the paint ball park? Take two cars? How do I get the boat to the lake? Or the Jr Dragster trailer to a race? How do I haul all the garden stuff, furniture and junk that my wife always buys? Hire a truck? For day-to-day use I don't hesitate to take our 325is. But i don't feel the least bit guilty about using the Suburban when I need it (or feel like it). Choose the Prius if you like. Leave me alone to make my own choices.

As for the gas tax I think it's closer than you think. But I believe that you'll be disappointed if you think the money will be spent on bridges or anything related to improving transportation. Actually the tax may do some good. Places like SoCal are becoming gridlocked. A big, fat gas tax might keep people off the roads. More room for my Suburban.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

"No hybrids for me!"

Just read your sig. I rented a Toyota Prius last weekend and while it didn't offer much in the way of driving excitement (but no worse than a large SUV), it was quite impressive in most other ways. It has more interior space than my 3 series BMW but instead of the 20mpg-22-mpg my BMW would have used (an accident took out 2 lanes out of 3 so I spent a long time in traffic), I got 50mpg on the outbound trip and 55mpg on the inbound. I dove nearly 200 miles and put $8.51 of gas in the tank.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> I'm not suggesting that you choose a Suburban. But, I can't see why peolpe are so quick to deny me my choice to have one. I don't like the $90 bill to fill the tank. However, there are lots of times where it is the only sensible choice. How do I get my 5th grader and half-dozen of his friends along with all their gear to the paint ball park? Take two cars? How do I get the boat to the lake? Or the Jr Dragster trailer to a race? How do I haul all the garden stuff, furniture and junk that my wife always buys? Hire a truck? For day-to-day use I don't hesitate to take our 325is. But i don't feel the least bit guilty about using the Suburban when I need it (or feel like it). Choose the Prius if you like. Leave me alone to make my own choices.


I would think that 7 kids would require two vehicles anyway. The only thing you are doing that may require a large SUV is the towing, otherwise a minivan would do just fine. BTW I don't think hiring a truck or taking two cars is such a bad thing. Its probably cheaper than owing a dedicated vehicle or driving a large SUV all the time.

My big problem with SUVs is I think they make the roads unsafe for everybody and most of the time they are just driving around empty. Its not a problem when the few people who actually need them are driving them but the suburban soccer moms really should be driving something else. The largest car my parents owned when I was growing up was an Audi 100 (I think they called it the 5000 in the US) and they had three kids. I was not mentally scarred from the experience.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Back to a pressing issue - whether or not the energy politboro is going to allow me to keep my M5. Now that we have incontrovertible evidence of Global Warming (Academy Awards and Nobel Peace Prize, real facts nothwithstanding), will you be taking away my gas guzzling M5? And will you also then take away folks M3's and other BMW's with large displacement engines (all 8 cyclinder cars). They are making excessive amounts of C02.

I know you are not going to answer. But, we know what your answer is. " YES! But, it must be done slowly. Little steps won't anger the people as much as doing the dirty deed all at once. Give us a decade or two and your gas guzzling, environmental destroying monsters will just be a memory".


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

cobmw-

I definitely see your point. SUVs first, performance cars next.

But at the same time, I would argue man has an incredible track record of sheer ingenuity continually solving problems once thought un-solvable. 

Compare the performance/economy of a "Smokey & The Bandit" era Trans-Am to an M6.

I was just reading in the latest National Geographic about what Brazil has done with Cane-ethanol.
Between their internal oil production and cane production they are 100% self sufficient.

And cane-ethanol is cheaper, than fossil (not more like corn), and about 7x more efficient regarding energy balance to create.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Yes I know. When I drive behind some of the cars I loved from the 1960's I find the smell from their exhaust is awful. So today's cars are better even though the owner can't do anything under the hood. Technology has done wonders to create fun, fast, powerful cars. But, this warming nonsense is not about technology. It's about the greed of a self-serving, climate-scare industry who are going to take the enjoyment out of driving. And I fear there is no stoping them.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

cobmw said:


> Yes I know. When I drive behind some of the cars I loved from the 1960's I find the smell from their exhaust is awful. So today's cars are better even though the owner can't do anything under the hood. Technology has done wonders to create fun, fast, powerful cars. But, this warming nonsense is not about technology. It's about the greed of a self-serving, climate-scare industry who are going to take the enjoyment out of driving. And I fear there is no stoping them.


If you think your M5 is complicated to work on, fast forward 10-15 years and think about tinkering on a well used Prius :dunno:
Think Clymer and Haynes manuals will cover it? Parts at the local Autozone?


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

The Prius is a good example of the feel-good, do-good mentality. They are thick as flies in our town. But, since their fuel economy ratings were adjusted to become more truthful they really don't get much better mileage than a conventional, small displacement car. And if you consider the energy cost to manufacture the complicated drive system in the car it is not environmentally friendly at all. And it is not economical. Unless you were one of the first ones to buy, thereby getting the tax subsidized lower price, you will not get back the increased cost until you have driven about 100,000 miles. 

But, you've got to hand it to Toyota. What American manufacturer could have made such a complex, reliable car and marketed it so well? It's become the symbol of "living responsibly". I've noticed that they are driven mostly by women and older men.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

I agree with you cobmw regarding the Prius, but I do think over time there will be other, much better, alternatives. Hydrids are a backward or stop-gap move at best.

Sure in an open marketplace, we can vote with our dollars as we see fit.
But logically I cannot understand why I see so many 8 passenger monsters commuting to work with 1 person at the helm. Not that I am judging, it is not my dime, but it just seems wasteful.

But again this is from a guy who regularly has been known to ride vintage Vespas or BMWs to work.
Not that I am going out of my way to be carbon conscious, it is just more fun!


----------



## ProRail (May 31, 2006)

hugh1850 said:


> US prices are not cheaper due to exchange rate moves, it has more to do with a "volume discount".


..and market share.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

mullman

I have to admit you are right. I probably use the Suburban's load capability 2-3 times a week. The rest of the time I drive alone or with one passenger. It is wasteful. But, keeping so many cars in the garage/driveway is a hassle just so I'll always have the most efficient car for the task. How do I justify the M5? It will be driven with just one person most of the time and then just for fun. Won't put that many miles per year, but sure like to have it when I'm in the mood. Hate to loose it. Maybe the politboro will give me a mileage allowance to drive it a few times a year.


----------



## Lawrence 123 (Jun 9, 2007)

*The Grass is always greener*

well you know!


----------



## baloo (Nov 19, 2004)

cobmw said:


> My new state (CO) has liberal concealed carry laws. Works great. The bad guys aren't sure who is armed. Everywhere concealed carry has been legalized there has been a reduction is serious crime. How do you explain that?





cobmw said:


> They confiscated guns in Australia and armed robberies went up 44%


Well, you have to differentiate between local/temporary effects, relative advantages and the long-term situation.

Liberal gun laws are a double-edged sword. Yes, guns can deter crime, but on the other hand an abundance of guns also makes it easier for bad guys to get them. Criminals in the US can get guns cheaper and they're more likely to need them, because the chances of their victim being armed are greater. Basically a German crackhead robbing a convenience store will bring a knife, baseball bat or a gas pistol while the US crackhead will bring a real gun. I know where I'd rather be when the situation turns ugly.

As for your Colorado example, that's what I mean by "relative advantage". Do CO's gun laws actually prevent crime (read: turn career-criminals into Wal-Mart employees or burger flippers) or do they just relocate it? Because if the latter is the case it'll come back the moment the surrounding states catch up with CO's gun laws.

Don't get me wrong, confiscating legal guns is obviously not the answer because it doesn't affect the bad guys supply of guns until years later, but considering the crime stats more guns surely won't make the US a safer place either.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Then should we be thankful for the 2nd Amendment or look forward to Mrs. Clinton and her supreme court appointees subverting it?


----------



## baloo (Nov 19, 2004)

Who knows. Personally I think the US would be better off with less guns in terms of crime, but what's done is done and I don't know of any method to get rid of legal and illegal guns alike. That said, requiring gun owners to keep their weapons safe or locked away would probably be a good start to curb the supply of illegal guns.


----------



## Alfred G (Apr 1, 2007)

Back to the original topic - pricing disparity.

I just read an article in a German car magazine how more and more Germans are thinking of importing a car from the USA to profit from the low dollar.

Here 3 examples

BMW X5 4.8i US price $53,900 price for self import into Germany 54,500 EUR; German official price 70,000 EUR

Cadillac Escalade 6.2 V8 US price $55,600 price for self import into Germany 56,100EUR; German official price 70,300 EUR

Jeep Grand Cherokee 6.1 SRT-8 US-price $41,200; price for self import into Germany 42,500EUR; German official price 67,400EUR :yikes::yikes: *You save 37% by importing it yourself.*

_* (US-price plus fees, shipping, 10% customs duty +19% German VAT)_

Perhaps I might make my dream come true, travel to the US and import me something like this: :dunno:


----------



## JSpira (Oct 21, 2002)

Traum oder Albtraum?:dunno:



Alfred G said:


> Perhaps I might make my dream come true, travel to the US and import me something like this: :dunno:


----------



## john lance (Oct 15, 2005)

Alfred G said:


> Back to the original topic - pricing disparity.
> 
> I just read an article in a German car magazine how more and more Germans are thinking of importing a car from the USA to profit from the low dollar.
> 
> [/IMG]


Alfred G,
I am wanting to read that article but cannot locate it. Can you direct me to it more specifically. Thanks!


----------



## Alfred G (Apr 1, 2007)

john lance said:


> Alfred G,
> I am wanting to read that article but cannot locate it. Can you direct me to it more specifically. Thanks!


Couldn't find it either. I'm afraid they've only got it in their printed issue AutoBild #41/07. If you're in Mallorca or Austria right now, you should be able to buy it until Thursday. Otherwise I can scan and mail it to you.



JSpira said:


> Traum oder Albtraum?:dunno:


Traum! I love huge American cars. Below my 1st car (as an exchange student in TN. It was a 1975 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. 8.2 litre...) Bought it for $800, sold it after 1 year for $1250... :bigpimp:


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> The Prius is a good example of the feel-good, do-good mentality. They are thick as flies in our town. But, since their fuel economy ratings were adjusted to become more truthful they really don't get much better mileage than a conventional, small displacement car. And if you consider the energy cost to manufacture the complicated drive system in the car it is not environmentally friendly at all. And it is not economical. Unless you were one of the first ones to buy, thereby getting the tax subsidized lower price, you will not get back the increased cost until you have driven about 100,000 miles.


Actually they get much better mileage than any other midsize car on the market in the U.S. I rented one a couple of weeks ago for a 200 mile round trip out of Manhattan. A major accident shutdown two out of three northbound lanes of traffic on the way out and I was stuck in traffic for half an hour. The return was smoother but there was still plenty of traffic. For my outbound journey, my mileage was 49mpg for my return journey 55mpg. My 3 series wagon would have been lucky to get 22mpg in those driving conditions.

The Prius is definitely not a drivers car (handling is sloppy, steering dead, acceleration sluggish) but it does get fantastic gas mileage (assuming you drive it in a reasonable fashion). The only other car that comes close is the Honda Civic so called Hybrid.
Maintenance costs are apparently the same or lower than other similar sized Toyotas.

The tax subsidy is totally bogus and demonstrates what Congress really thinks about global warming. It phases out once a manufacturer has shipped a decent number of cars so the Hybrids that actually get good gas mileage no longer qualify and the Tax credit does not apply to AMT so if your paying AMT, tough luck. That said, if you drive 20,000 miles a year and most of your driving is on congested highways (e.g. Southern California) you can probably make the cost premium back in a 2-3 years.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

The Toyota website says the Prius gets 45mpg on the highway. The Mercedes E320 Blutec gets 37 mpg on the highway. I'd take the MB any day for safety, comfort and enjoyment over the cracker box Prius. The MB mileage is even more impressive considering that it weighs over 900 pounds more than the Prius. I'd much rather do battle with a Suburban, a bus or even a tree while inside the additional 900 pounds of car. In city driving the Prius wins. But, I don't want a single purpose car (city only).

My beef with the Prius is that it is being marketed and bought as some sort of socially responsible act. I don't see myself being socially irresponsible in any of my cars even those who get 10 mpg.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

cobmw said:


> The Toyota website says the Prius gets 45mpg on the highway. The Mercedes E320 Blutec gets 37 mpg on the highway. I'd take the MB any day for safety, comfort and enjoyment over the cracker box Prius. The MB mileage is even more impressive considering that it weighs over 900 pounds more than the Prius. I'd much rather do battle with a Suburban, a bus or even a tree while inside the additional 900 pounds of car. In city driving the Prius wins. But, I don't want a single purpose car (city only).
> 
> My beef with the Prius is that it is being marketed and bought as some sort of socially responsible act. I don't see myself being socially irresponsible in any of my cars even those who get 10 mpg.


Exactly.

Definitely E320, or maybe R320 if I needed the space over a Prius.
In 25+ years more than likely those MB models will still be doing daily duty, not sure about the Prius.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> The Toyota website says the Prius gets 45mpg on the highway. The Mercedes E320 Blutec gets 37 mpg on the highway. I'd take the MB any day for safety, comfort and enjoyment over the cracker box Prius. The MB mileage is even more impressive considering that it weighs over 900 pounds more than the Prius. I'd much rather do battle with a Suburban, a bus or even a tree while inside the additional 900 pounds of car. In city driving the Prius wins. But, I don't want a single purpose car (city only).
> 
> My beef with the Prius is that it is being marketed and bought as some sort of socially responsible act. I don't see myself being socially irresponsible in any of my cars even those who get 10 mpg.


The mpg numbers you are quoting are based on the EPA tests which do not always reflect reality. It really depends what kind of highway driving you do. I was able to get over 50mpg driving in the New York area. What I find most impressive about the Prius is it gets pretty much the same gas mileage in the city as it does on the highway.

The E320 may well be more comfortable (though the Prius was quite comfortable), safer (the Prius gets good safety ratings but the 320 is more solid) and even more enjoyable to drive (the Prius is no drivers car but then again neither is a diesel Merc) but it costs twice as much so I don't see it out selling the Prius anytime soon. I am not sure how I would feel driving a German taxi either.

BTW Since you are so concerned with crash protection you have presumably read the article in the New York Times "Side Protection Found Lacking in Some S.U.V.'s "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/automobiles/14CRASH.html?ref=automobiles

I have no plans to buy a Prius but I hope lots of other people do. Should make the air quite a bit cleaner and keep the cost of gas down.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

mullman said:


> In 25+ years more than likely those MB models will still be doing daily duty, not sure about the Prius.


Perhaps, though MB quality is not what it was and some Prius Taxis have over 250,000 miles on them with no problems.

Wouldn't make a difference to me though, I don't drive cars older than about 5 years or so.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

I don't study crash protection stats when buying a car. When I take the kids for a drive I do find myself more aware of what I am driving and do feel safer in the Suburban. I'm comfortable taking them in a 5 series BMW also. But not an econo box. Fact is that smaller cars are much more likely to kill you. How do people feel at ease driving their families on high speed highways in these things? In Germany you'll see lots of Smart Cars. Look like fun to drive at low speeds in city traffic. Hardly ever saw one on the autobahn. Germans have more sense than to take these on the highway.


----------



## dunderhi (Dec 10, 2006)

My brother-in-law purchased a Prius a couple of years ago. Unfortunately he drove through some deep water during a flash flood and shorted the car out. No kidding. It was declared totaled by his insurance company. He chose not to repeat the hybrid route with his next purchase.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Lucky he did not get electrocuted. There is high voltage in the car. But, I'd guess Toyota thought of that and has failsafe protection. 

Those who want to buy the things have my blessing (actually they don't need it). Just so they don't get on their high horse and fuss about my own choices. Wish the european diesels would get here sooner and give Toyota a run for their money. BMW, MB, Peugot, Fiat all have lots of diesels in europe. I don't recall seeing any Toyota diesels though. I probably would not buy one, but diesels might take away some of the mometum from making cars smaller.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

dunderhi said:


> My brother-in-law purchased a Prius a couple of years ago. Unfortunately he drove through some deep water during a flash flood and shorted the car out. No kidding. It was declared totaled by his insurance company. He chose not to repeat the hybrid route with his next purchase.


I have heard of something similar happening to a BMW 540 on one of the Bimmerfest forums. Car wan't totalled but the (expensive) engine was destroyed. Driving in deep water isn't a good thing to do in any car (might be ok in a large SUV though).


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> Those who want to buy the things have my blessing (actually they don't need it). Just so they don't get on their high horse and fuss about my own choices. Wish the european diesels would get here sooner and give Toyota a run for their money. BMW, MB, Peugot, Fiat all have lots of diesels in europe. I don't recall seeing any Toyota diesels though. I probably would not buy one, but diesels might take away some of the mometum from making cars smaller.


The problem with most diesels sold in Europe is they create too much pollution to be sold in California or the four other states that have adopted CA emmisions standards. A major advantage of Hybrids is they generate much less pollution in cities than non-hybrid cars.

BTW The current Prius is larger that the original Prius and probably larger than previous generations of Camary or 3 series BMW) so I am not sure why you think Toyota is leading the charge to smaller cars. If anything its BMW leading the charge with cars like the Mini Cooper and 1 series BMW.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

adgrant said:


> Perhaps, though MB quality is not what it was and some Prius Taxis have over 250,000 miles on them with no problems.


I agree on the current MB quality. The difference was in the 60s-very early 90's MB engineers would design and build a car, to last as long as possible, then send to accounting to tally the sales price. Today they, not unlike every other auto manf, make 3 sizes of cars, designed around 3 price points, with a certain lifespan.

I am going to need a link on those Prius taxis with 250K miles on the clock.
Was this government or Toyota sponsored?



adgrant said:


> Wouldn't make a difference to me though, I don't drive cars older than about 5 years or so.


Me either, I'm itching for something new usually at the 24 month mark, but usually do 36 mo leases.


----------



## gesoffen (Jun 18, 2004)

I've just latched on to this thread and while it has gotten WAY OT, i still find the discussions and debate to be interesting as I share points of view from both sides of this argument. It's also nice to see such a debate remain on the level and not degrade into a mud slinging contest.

A few points I'd like to add:

While I concede that the safety pundits won the battle years ago, it is a shame airbags, crash bars and other required systems have effectively made many fuel efficient, fun and multi-purpose vehicles unavailable to US buyers. For example, the VW Lupo and Audi A2 available in europe for a number of years had versions that would provide nearly 80 mpg highway.... without hybrid drive trains... and they're still relatively safe cars. Try that with your Prius. 
While I haven't followed up on it, I remember several months back that the big three were trying to squash a bill making its way through Capitol Hill that would allow some form or reciprocity between NCAAP and NHTSA standards for safety as well as EPA and EU pollution regulations. This had the potential to open the US market to many Euro only brands/models as long as they meet a certain level of NCAAP safety and the higher EU pollution regs. Great idea for consumers and citizens - bad idea for struggling US car makers. However, I'm sure we can all predict what has happened/will happen to this bill.

As an interesting side note, one of the Brit gearhead shows (FifthGear) did a semi-scientific crash test of an older Volvo (late 90's) wagon to a newer Renault compact. The objective was to investigate the "claim" that a size = safety. So they pitted an older full sized with a high safety rating (in its day) to a newer compact (maybe even sub-compact), also with a high safety rating. After the offset frontal collision, it was pretty clear that the newer compact car fared FAR better than the older Volvo - in fact the driver of the Volvo would likely have died and the driver off the Renault would likely have walked away. Moral is unless all other things are equal, size does not equal safety. So unless that Suburban is built to meet the same standards as passenger cars (which they are not), there is a good chance that a suburban is indeed not as safe as, say a Toyota Camary. Having said that, without any scientific evidence to guide me, if someone were to give me a choice of wrecking a Camary or a Suburban, I'd probably take the Suburban. BTW, if anyone is interested, its Season 12, Episode 2 of FifthGear and a torrent can be found at mininova.org

On another point: While I'm on the fence about global warming since I'm still not satisfied by the anecdotal evidence that the Al Gore's keep throwing out there, I have a hard time believing that humans aren't having an effect on our local and global environment. We're producing over 1/4 billion tons of garbage a year in the US alone. Millions of tons of plastics and other nonbiodegradeable consumer waste has ended up in our oceans - and to think that plastic wasn't really on the consumer economy until after WW2. We increase our dependency on fossil fuels daily, construct more roads, bigger houses, fertilze and water grass that wasn't really meant to grow in our front lawns, etc.. As individuals , we have a HUGE impact on our local environment and a small, but collectively large, impact on the global environment. Just putting a little bit of thought into everyday decisions (recycle more materials, bring your own plastic bags to the grocery store, walk or ride a bike instead of driving for that 1/4 mile trip, set your thermostat back a couple of degrees, etc) would make a significant difference in energy demand and land fill requirements.

I'm not a fan of SUVs or trucks but I completely understand they have a specialized purpose. Those greenies that vandalize Excursions and Suburbans should be targeting Miatas and the like too since MPG/per passenger is actually better in the SUVs (assuming they're driven near capacity). As a car loving gearhead, I 'd give up hope if legislation were enacted that restricted certain vehicles. However, I too would be happy to pay $6+/gallon in gasoline or endorse a CO2 tax if it gave consumers a reason to consider if they really need the Excursion versus a minivan for a people hauler or a BMW 7er over a Mini Cooper for a daily commuter. With fuel prices and tax structures the way they are now (and were in recent past), consumers have little reason to consider anything other than purchase price/feature content in their purchase decisions.


----------



## zoltrix (Mar 14, 2007)

gesoffen said:


> So unless that Suburban is built to meet the same standards as passenger cars (which they are not), there is a good chance that a suburban is indeed not as safe as, say a Toyota Camary. Having said that, without any scientific evidence to guide me, if someone were to give me a choice of wrecking a Camary or a Suburban, I'd probably take the Suburban.


In fact, THERE IS scientific evidence demonstrating exactly that. Large SUVs are far less safe than small cars. There was a very long article in the New Yorker 2 yrs ago, detailing this phenomenon. It mainly had to do with the fact that large SUVs are good for one thing only -- surviving a head on collision. But those collisions are rare and in a small car, you'd be able to simply swerve away.

The article is here:

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

it basically says that the Detroit Big 3 have bamboozled the public into believing that SUVs are safer, which is a lie.


----------



## gesoffen (Jun 18, 2004)

coontie said:


> In fact, THERE IS scientific evidence demonstrating exactly that. Large SUVs are far less safe than small cars. There was a very long article in the New Yorker 2 yrs ago, detailing this phenomenon. It mainly had to do with the fact that large SUVs are good for one thing only -- surviving a head on collision. But those collisions are rare and in a small car, you'd be able to simply swerve away.
> 
> The article is here:
> 
> ...


I had read that article and am in full agreement regarding Detroit's brain washing tactics. I especially like the part about how typical SUV buyers may be buying these things to account for personal short comings. Obviously there is a need for these types of vehicles in select groups but not nearly in the numbers they're selling now. How many Explorers have actually been used to tow a trailer or gone off-road (or otherwise really warrented the 4WD and high clearance) versus the number that were actually purchased - I'm sure only a tiny fraction of them. To most others, they're simply jacked up station wagons. However, in US automotive marketing speak, station wagon is a no-no.

What I was inferring by my above statement was that to the uninformed buyer, simple logic would encourage the purchase of a tank over a puddle jumper. These articles and other crash test info need to be better disseminated and targeted to inform buyers how one type of car (or car size class) fares when compared to something from a different category. That is what why I pointed out the episode of FifthGear as it was one of the rare examples of that info from a main stream media source (BBC). Of course, to get to American buyers, we need it from several main stream American news sources & consumer reports.

With NHTSA and IIHS performing these crash tests, for cost and logistics reasons, they give the results of say a Mini Cooper against a car of similar size and weight (barrier crashes).


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

mullman said:


> I am going to need a link on those Prius taxis with 250K miles on the clock.
> Was this government or Toyota sponsored?


Here you are. It was 400,000km which is just under 250,000 miles. Neither government or Toyota, Commercial taxicab operator.

"Over a 24-month period, the Prius had one-third less maintenance costs and there were no failures of the hybrid powertrain during 400,000 kilometers of driving. The lower maintenance costs coupled with a fuel savings of roughly 1,500 liters per month means that the Prius paid for itself in less than 24 months."

1,500 liters is about 400 gallons. At $3 a gallon gas prices that would come to gas savings of $14,400 a year.

http://www.dailytech.com/Cab Driver Passes 400000km Mark in Prius/article8046.htm


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

gesoffen said:


> While I concede that the safety pundits won the battle years ago, it is a shame airbags, crash bars and other required systems have effectively made many fuel efficient, fun and multi-purpose vehicles unavailable to US buyers. For example, the VW Lupo and Audi A2 available in europe for a number of years had versions that would provide nearly 80 mpg highway.... without hybrid drive trains... and they're still relatively safe cars. Try that with your Prius.


I don't drive a Prius, I drive a BMW. However, I couple of points about the A2.

1) Its very small, the Prius is a midsize car.

2) Most A2s were getting less than 50mpg combined and thats Imperial gallons not U.S. gallons so the much larger Prius actually gets better gas mileage.

3) You can't buy one in Europe either. They stopped building them because sales were so low. A total of only 175,000 were built.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

According to a study by Harvard University and the Brookings Institute reducing vehicle weight by 500 pounds increases crash fatalities by 14-27%. Cars weighing less than 2500 pounds account for two-and-a-half times as many fatalities as SUV's weighing 5000 pounds. Single car accidents account for 42% of highway deaths. 

So as a result of the global warming mania that the public is buying into we will see smaller cars and undoubedly many more highway deaths. But, we will be saved from all the horrible things that Nobel Prize recipient Al Gore portrays in his Academy Award winning movie (sarcasim intended).


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

gesoffen said:


> I've just latched on to this thread


Well said Brian, you made some excellent points :thumbup:


----------



## Tanning machine (Feb 21, 2002)

cobmw said:


> Cars weighing less than 2500 pounds account for two-and-a-half times as many fatalities as SUV's weighing 5000 pounds.


Be careful how you phrase that, because I suspect that relates to fatalities in the car itself. Sure, you're safer in the SUV, but that doesn't make others in other cars safer.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Killed by my Suburban? Unlikely. That's a myth that I suspect was started by the SUV-hating, global warming zealots. The same Harvard-Brookings study says that SUV collisions with passenger cars account for only 4% of traffic fatalities.

The warming believer in his econobox has less to fear from me in my Suburban than I have to fear from him. His belief in a myth will enable the many special interest groups that are anxious to profit off this fraud, along with our greedy politicans, to impose their will on me and reduce my standard of living. And for what? So Al Gore can make money off carbon credits?


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> The warming believer in his econobox has less to fear from me in my Suburban than I have to fear from him. His belief in a myth will enable the many special interest groups that are anxious to profit off this fraud, along with our greedy politicans, to impose their will on me and reduce my standard of living. And for what? So Al Gore can make money off carbon credits?


You don't have to beleive in global warming to think that everyone driving huge oversized SUVs getting less than 15mpg is a problem or that more people driving cars that get 50mpg is good for everybody. Vehicles that burn a lot of fuel create more smog than cars that burn less (Hybrids are particularly good in this respect because they don't idle their engines). The less oil the US uses, the less money it sends to the Middle East and the lower its trade deficit.

Oil reached a new high of $90 a barrel recently. If it stays near that level, expect gas prices to rise also. You may not have a problem wtih the idea of putting over a $100 of gas a week in your Suburban but not all Suburban drivers are wealthy enough not to care.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

You knew it was bound to happen sooner or later...










http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=37363&st=120


----------



## Me530 (Feb 17, 2005)

mullman said:


> You knew it was bound to happen sooner or later...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


: puke::flush: :angel:


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

I don't think that driving a car that gets 50 mpg is good for me (or anyone else). Are you going to decide that it's good for me? Who gets to choose what I drive? Trade imbalances, money going to Arabs, smog (cars are so much cleaner nowadays), dangerous SUV's, on-and-on - - it's all silliness to justify greenies forcing their beliefs on others. Drive whatever you like and let me do likewise.


----------



## gesoffen (Jun 18, 2004)

adgrant said:


> I don't drive a Prius, I drive a BMW. However, I couple of points about the A2.
> 
> 1) Its very small, the Prius is a midsize car.
> 
> ...


A couple of counterpoints:

1) True - although I think the A2 is considered the equivalent of a sub-compact in the states (not a mini as in the smart cars or similar). However, it can fit 4 adults in reasonable comfort
2) Most A2s were not the so called "3 litre" cars as those were a specially equipped model - low rolling resistance tires, high efficiency 1.2 litre diesel, auto stop/start, etc. I can't comment on the A2 3l but a sister car, the VW Lupo 3l did a "around the world" challenge and averaged almost 99 mpg. Granted, they were squeezing every last drop of diesel but still quite impressive on a production car. http://www.lupo80days.com/route_en.html
3) True, but perhaps the technology and market were ahead of their times. Eitherway, many of the efficient packaging details and availability of small cars, thrifty engines would work wonders for our oil demands. At least the Europeans had a real choice.


----------



## gesoffen (Jun 18, 2004)

cobmw said:


> I don't think that driving a car that gets 50 mpg is good for me (or anyone else). Are you going to decide that it's good for me? Who gets to choose what I drive? Trade imbalances, money going to Arabs, smog (cars are so much cleaner nowadays), dangerous SUV's, on-and-on - - it's all silliness to justify greenies forcing their beliefs on others. Drive whatever you like and let me do likewise.


I understand what your saying and I agree with the general principle that the consumer has his/her own best interests in mind. However, the way you word comes across rather crass. You make it sound as if you'd refuse to own a fuel efficient vehicle even if it met all your other needs (i.e. a Suburban or M5 that got 50mpg). Also, it sounds a bit like blind faith blaming all of this on the "greenies". Who else would you have to thank while living in your well insulated 5000+sqft home with high efficiency appliances that allow your to heat/cool your place for the bargain price of $250 a month. At today's energy prices with yesterdays building technology, that bill would be more than 3 times that. See what those "greenies" did to you when you weren't looking?

You have every right to drive what you want - that is the part that I agree whole heartedly with. I'm for letting the consumer market decide what cars to buy (not the Gov't). That's why I'm also for opening up that market to allow a lot of those European only cars.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

I paid an extra 20 grand to put energy efficent air conditioners in the building used by my company because it made economic sense over a reasonable timeframe (10years payback). I'd drive a Suburban if it would pull my trailer and still get better gas mileage. I'd even pay more for it if the investment has a reasonable return (other than saving the earth). 

On the other hand I just got my M5 from ED last Friday. I had the time of my life going thru a tank of gas over the weekend on pure, selfish fun. The sound, the accelleration, the handling in unreal. Gas mileage so far has been a lowly 10-12 mpg. Make an M5 with all the same sensations that gets better mileage and I'd consider it. But I do not think that's where we're headed. It looks to me like there are plenty of people on this forum (the ultimate driving machine forum of all the places) who would gladly give up all driving enjoyment for their silly beliefs - and force me to do the same.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> On the other hand I just got my M5 from ED last Friday. I had the time of my life going thru a tank of gas over the weekend on pure, selfish fun. The sound, the accelleration, the handling in unreal. Gas mileage so far has been a lowly 10-12 mpg. Make an M5 with all the same sensations that gets better mileage and I'd consider it. But I do not think that's where we're headed. It looks to me like there are plenty of people on this forum (the ultimate driving machine forum of all the places) who would gladly give up all driving enjoyment for their silly beliefs - and force me to do the same.


Well I wouldn't describe a Chevy Suburban as the ultimate driving machine. That said, no one on this forum is going to try to force you to give it up. You are probably going to pay a lot more to put gas in it over the next few years though.

I am sure that everyone on this forum would be happy to drive a M5, so no one on this forum will try to force you to give that up either. Unfortunately though, the M5 is at greater risk of disappearing fromt the market because it is built in Germany. The EU is expected to start putting pressure on their domestic auto manufactures to reduce carbon emissions in their fleet of cars. Unlike many of us they really do believe in global warming and not because of anything Al Gore said. I would take care of your M5, it may be a car collectors covet in a few years. Ironically though, gas prices have not increased so much in the Euro zone since oil is priced in dollars.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Many Germans do believe in warming. I understand that the media (TV and the press) is rather one-sided in Western Europe - much as it once was (and still largely is) here. They hear the warming demagogs and not much else.

You say no one on Bimmerfest will take away our performance cars (and SUV's). I disagree. Simply following along with this fraud will allow it to succeed. It is well on the way already. I believe it was Edmund Burke who said "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Has never been more true.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

cobmw said:


> Many Germans do believe in warming. I understand that the media (TV and the press) is rather one-sided in Western Europe - much as it once was (and still largely is) here. They hear the warming demagogs and not much else.
> 
> You say no one on Bimmerfest will take away our performance cars (and SUV's). I disagree. Simply following along with this fraud will allow it to succeed. It is well on the way already. I believe it was Edmund Burke who said "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Has never been more true.


This "fraud" has already succeeded in Europe where most of the worlds performance cars are designed and built. What we in the U.S. think about global warming is not going to influence decisions made by the EU.

Most of the worlds large gas guzzling SUVs are built and sold here of course. Sales of those are dropping as the cost of gas increases. Last time I mentioned the price of oil on this thread it had just broken $90 a barrel. Now it is at $92. Of course if Al Gore's friends end up running the country, an increase in the federal gas tax seems possible. It could perhaps help pay for our crumbling infrastructure and our military presence in the Middle East.


----------



## Jalli (Jan 10, 2005)

adgrant said:


> This "fraud" has already succeeded in Europe where most of the worlds performance cars are designed and built. What we in the U.S. think about global warming is not going to influence decisions made by the EU.
> 
> Most of the worlds large gas guzzling SUVs are built and sold here of course. Sales of those are dropping as the cost of gas increases. Last time I mentioned the price of oil on this thread it had just broken $90 a barrel. Now it is at $92. Of course if Al Gore's friends end up running the country, an increase in the federal gas tax seems possible. It could perhaps help pay for our crumbling infrastructure and our military presence in the Middle East.


That's not what we need help paying for, we need help paying for the welfare state that we have created. The New Deal lives on sixty+ years after it was supposed to die...
Combine that with stupid policies like the Earned Income Tax Credit, and we really are in trouble. Seems like the pols don't want to give up their bread and circuses yet though..

Balanced budget amendment, with a permanent debt cap (set much lower than it is now), would come close to solving a lot of problems.


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

Well said! Didn't know that universities allowed this kind of thinking nowadays. I'll have to steer my kids towards Cornell.


----------



## zoltrix (Mar 14, 2007)

Jalli said:


> Balanced budget amendment, with a permanent debt cap (set much lower than it is now), would come close to solving a lot of problems.


uh.. how about term limits? That alone would solve 90% of our problems.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

Jalli said:


> That's not what we need help paying for, we need help paying for the welfare state that we have created. The New Deal lives on sixty+ years after it was supposed to die...
> Combine that with stupid policies like the Earned Income Tax Credit, and we really are in trouble. Seems like the pols don't want to give up their bread and circuses yet though..
> 
> Balanced budget amendment, with a permanent debt cap (set much lower than it is now), would come close to solving a lot of problems.


The problem is the Republicans spend even more money that the Democrats. Bush has grown the size of the federal government instead of shrinking it as you might hope a Republican president would do.

BTW here is another anti SUV article for you from CNN

"Drivers unaware of rear blindspots accidentally backing over more small children, experts say.

NEW YORK (CNN) - One thing many SUV buyers like about their vehicles is the increased visibility. They feel like they can see farther down the road over the roofs of other cars. But that long-distance line of sight comes at a price that can be tragic.

What SUV drivers can't see is what's close behind them and, when backing out of a driveway or parking spot, that could be a person. In many cases, it's a small child.

More than 2,400 children are backed-up over every year in the United States. Of those, about 100 are killed. In most cases, those children are run over by a parent or other relative"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/tipsandadvice/11/03/backover


----------



## cobmw (Jun 22, 2006)

But the article does not say how many of the 100 were killed by SUV's. My new M5 has parking assist - gives a warning when nearing an object. I'd be against mandating these on all cars however. Cars are too complicated, heavy and expensive now.

My SUV may be the poster child for earth killing cars, but it will not be the only target of the global warming demagogs. All energy users are on their hit list. Do you think your 3 series BMW is going to get a free pass? How about the design for the new house you'd like to build? Perhaps you'd like to drive your car on your vacation, but you've used up the mileage allotment assigned to you by Mrs. Clinton's bureaucrats. Your fat is in this fire too! It may give you fuzzy, warm feelings to be saving the earth, but wait until you suffer the results - huge energy taxes, reduced living choices and an economy that is sinking under the weight of trying to control mother nature.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

I am neither a democrat nor do I believe that global warming, if it is indeed happening and is caused by human actions, can be prevented. I think Bush was right not to ratify the Kyoto treaty (it gives the Chinese a free pass). In any case the earth does not need saving. It will probably be around longer than the humans. Global warming may kill a few million (or billion) people, but it is not going to cause any long term harm to the earth. 

I am however disgusted by our Federal governments budget deficits. I don't run a budget deficit in my personal finances and I don't believe the government should either. Neither do I believe we should be spending the enormous sums of money we are spending to invade countries that don't present a credible threat to the U.S.

I am also disgusted at just how wasteful most Americans are. The Ford F-150 should not be the best selling vehicle in the U.S. (not that many people work in construction. There aren't enough resources to enable everyone in the world to live like we do. Given our huge trade and fiscal deficits, we can't afford to live like we do. Sooner or later it is all going to come crashing down.

BTW I would never buy a car that didn't have parking assist. It is much cheaper than a visit to the body shop.


----------



## pharding (Mar 14, 2004)

pharding said:


> How about life expectancy as an important statistic? The US is 22nd in the world. How about obesity? The US probably leads there. How about contributions to global warming? The US leads the world per capita in terms the bad stuff that has been dumped into the atmosphere over the course of time. We also lead the world on a annual per capita basis for greenhouse gases. US cities are not built to foster good health of its citizens. The US faces serious challenges in the future that will hit us harder than German citizens.


I amazed that the discussion here has been so focused on global warming which spun off of the my above thread. It is an incredibly important issue for our future.


----------

