The future direction of BMW
- Thread starter Gaygle
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I’ve just looked around on t’internet and it appears the EU produces 14% of MAN MADE world CO2 emissions, with the USA producing 20% and China producing 22.3%.
15% of EU emissions are cars. This means (correct me if i’m wrong :/) that us in the EU driving our cars contribute 0.93% to global world man made CO2 emissions.
So even if every single person in the EU stopped driving their cars tomorrow, the contribution that the EU made to CO2 emissions would fall from 14% to 13%. Realistically i think world CO2 emissions from EU cars will fall to around 0.85% (or 12% of EU CO2 emissions) if the EU get their way and everyone is driving a 3cyl diesel, which means EVERYTHING the EU has done (the scrappage scheme, forcing manufacturers to dump polluting models, handing out fines to countries/manufacturers that don’t reduce their emissions enough, taxing people more for high polluting vehicles etc etc) is likely to see something like a 0.08% drop in world man made CO2 emissions.
Which is absolutely **** all when you consider what China/USA produce and what Russia and India will start producing soon.
Great.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,111
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Whats the land area of those?
EU legislation emissions extend to cover actual pollutants so if you are concerned with air quality then its a totally different case.
Who cares about CO2 anyway. Fuel is expensive!
EU6 will put the notion of 3cyl diesels in everything a costly option for B segment cars due to the aftertreatment. Then direct injection petrols may also end up with particulate filter depending what they decide on for PM limits!
EU legislation emissions extend to cover actual pollutants so if you are concerned with air quality then its a totally different case.
Who cares about CO2 anyway. Fuel is expensive!
EU6 will put the notion of 3cyl diesels in everything a costly option for B segment cars due to the aftertreatment. Then direct injection petrols may also end up with particulate filter depending what they decide on for PM limits!
The problem with this is that many of the manufacturers are getting good at fudging the test rather than delivering genuinelly economical cars in the real world. Now I'm quite satisified that BMW's 6 cylinder petrol engine does provide genuinelly good fuel economy on long drives - though I still dont think the comical 50mpg extra urban figure is attainable - but around town I can't see 30mpg, they still seem to be low 20's.
But BMW have shown that a large capacity engine doesn't have to mean low fuel consumption! With the new 4 pot turbo's i should think they'll be expecting 45 mpg ish, which means that they've dropped 2 cylinders and 1000cc's to give 6mpg. BMW never would have done this if the EU hadn't been constantly hounding manufacturers to reduce their carbonz. Not to mention that there are already PLENTY of cars that have high MPG if that's what the customer wants/cares about. But the difference is, some customers don't care about this and will gladly pay the increased fuel price - however in the future, this won't be an option because we won't even get the choice. Why are Ferrari/McLaren etc cutting down their engine sizes, because their customers certainly won't care about fuel consumption. They're doing it because the EU says they must.
And as if roughly shown above, us reducing our CO2 emissions by 10% is going to make precisely FA difference to global CO2 emissions.
Now, i'm not versed in economics, but by introducing all of these stupid CO2 targets and caps, doesn't that stifle our economy? That means our economy's are suffering to cut down on our already small amount of CO2 emissions, when the USA and China can produce as much as they like without their economies having to suffer.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;18537149 said:
To be honest, i'm all but set on a 335i at the end of this year. I'm not one for panicking about silly things, but i really think that the prospect of me owning a 3 litre twin turbo 6 cylinder car in 2020+ is very unlikely due to the fact that they A) Won't be avaliable B) Will be too expensive even if they are avaliable. In other words, i think it might be one of my last opportunities to own something with character.
[TW]Fox;18537207 said:
I guess, but then it's all relative.
Last edited:
Who's talking about CO2? Not me, I'm saying it's in Europe's advantage (both our companies and our population) to have an increasingly efficient vehicle fleet. This reduces the impact of high prices. If the fleet efficiency increases by 20%, we can afford a 20% increase in the cost of fuel for example.
Remember Europe is a large net importer of fuel - the more efficient our vehicle fleet the less fuel we have to import, at great expense, from other parts of the world, and the less we are exposed to competition for that same fuel from other importers like China.
Perhaps i'm being naive, but isn't the affordibility of fuel decided by the end user? There are already thousands of fuel efficient cars out there, so why bother destroying the tiny minority that are not as fuel efficient? And anyway, why is it the EU's business what car i want to buy? Why do they get to say "nope, you can't buy this car because we want to safeguard against fuel rises" if i can afford to run the car of my choice just fine?
Wouldn't something like the EU saying "Ok, 75% of the engines in your line up must produce under X amount of CO2". The other 25% are fine to produce what they like since they won't sell as highly, won't be driven as much and cost more to buy."
Last edited:
I look at the macroscopic picture, Europe currently imports x million barrels of oil a year costing $y. This is a function of the vehicle fleet efficiency and total miles driven. For the sake of the European economy, it's better to increase the efficiency, than be forced to reduce miles driven.
Sure, some individuals might like to be profligate with their fuel use - and I'm sure some highly inefficient vehicles will remain in Europe for decades to come. But I agree with any policy that try to stop European money moving directly to the Middle East or Russia. It would be in our interest to keep money 'in house' than sent overseas.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,111
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Im a bit confused.
A) they are not saying no, they are just taxing you such that the decision is a little more uncomfortable.
B) yes affordability is decided by the customer... 'end user'?this is cars not IT. How many 330i BMWs were sold to provide some emperical data to your subjective points...
c) The EU says exactly as your last line reads, the 120g/km is an average and still a target at that. Getting Dorris and George into the low CO2 gives you more flexibility to how far you take your M cars. Dorris and George current dont know that their 'Ultimate Drive Machine' is RWD or FWD anyway due to the market penetration and volume growth BMW have enjoyed in the past decade.
Stop saying engines aswell, its cars. The total package. Of course that drive towards stuff like carbon fibre which requires large carbon based resources and cannot be recycled.
Europe is a automotive technology power house. Industry precedents are set here that others tend to follow. By the same notion should the EU also leave safety legislation alone?
From what I am hearing the 330i has bags more character than the 335i, which is basically like a diesel without the noise. I wasn't blown away by the one I drove but I was putting that down to the fact it was 1900kg. Need to find a Coupe to try.
I was all but set on a 335i as well. But the 330i just seems like a better all round package. It's also quite a lot lighter as well. And it's people who own 996's etc who are saying the 330i > 335i, rather than 330i purchase justification syndrome. Probably because nobody actually purchased a 330i in order to then suffer from PJS
I've not found a single owner yet!330i = 177bhp/tonne
335i = 190bhp/tonne
Well...they are, because they are giving an unrealistically low figure of 120g/km, which not even the smallest/most efficient cars of some ranges can achieve, means they are forcing companies to ditch their higher polluting range to get closer to this figure.
To put it another way, if i want to by a 3l I6 in 2020, they won't be taxing me for it - because they have already forced car manufacturers to stop making these cars - so in affect they are saying that i can't have one.
B) yes affordability is decided by the customer... 'end user'?this is cars not IT. How many 330i BMWs were sold to provide some emperical data to your subjective points...
End User is defined as someone who uses a product - in this instance petrol. Don't make me post up a Wikipedia article to prove me right
(also, i don't work in IT). But that's what i can't understand - why didn't the 330i do well? It is more efficient than Audi's 2l turbo, provides more power and is cheaper to tax, but i'm guessing the 2l turbo has far outsold the 330i. Going back, I think this lies with the fact people are idiots when it comes to cars and hear the word 3 litre and envisage themselves visiting the petrol station 3 times a day and doing 15mpg. No, the EU says 120g/km should be across the WHOLE range of cars. I'm suggesting this figure should be used across 75% of the range, with 25% not included within this average. That was my point - they CAN'T take things like the M cars further, because these M cars are included in the average. Instead, they should not be included in the average as they will sell in lower numbers.
But that's the point! The USA/China don't NEED to follow our example! They're free to do as they wish. If the USA and China did sign up to these emission agreements then yes, fine. But it seems like everyone in Europe is breaking their backs paying and sacrificing to achieve some dream world CO2 emission figure, whilst the rest of the world carries on like they always have.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,111
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Source?!
I can tell you now its an average. The Cygnet wouldnt exist otherwise and Aston would be packing up to relocate to China.
The fuel prices in the USA are climbing much faster than europe due to the taxation buffer we enjoy. They are going nuts for smaller engine cars and the CAFE limits of 2016 35mpg (US gallon) with the more realistic EPA methods gives evidence to that.
China also, as Ive mentioned have big tax implications on +2.0 although im not sure if thats a sale tax on imported products or a baseline.
Apologies, i meant to write "average" in there. Obviously all cars couldn't be 120g/km
Exactly, the USA want it to be 35mpg for passenger cars and 28mpg for 4x4's and pickups, by 2016 - which is far more realistic for the USA. I'm guessing that the average MPG of cars sold in the EU has been above 40mpg for the past 10 years. The EU originally wanted it to be 120g/km by 2010 in the Europe, and bare in mind that the most efficient engine in the smallest car BMW make is 118g/km (116d) which means they'd have to sell 74 116d's for every 750i (or 40 for every 330i) they sold to keep the EU happy. Which is insane. The EU are pushing too hard and, IMO, what's worse is the reasons behind it are poor at best.
Also, what happens to manufacturers of large/luxury vehicles? These companies will be getting punished far more than manufacturers whose best selling cars are little 1.2 hatchbacks.
I'm not sure on China's emissions policies, but would you consider it fair to say that China's emission policies are a distant second to their economy?
[TW]Fox;18537404 said:
I've read that the 330i is more revvy and is nicer to drive when you want to push on, because the 335i is more lazy in it's delivery. Having said that, the reviews on the 335i are all fantastic and the reviewers are full of praise for it.
[TW]Fox;18537404 said:I was all but set on a 335i as well. But the 330i just seems like a better all round package. It's also quite a lot lighter as well. And it's people who own 996's etc who are saying the 330i > 335i, rather than 330i purchase justification syndrome. Probably because nobody actually purchased a 330i in order to then suffer from PJS
330i = 177bhp/tonne
335i = 190bhp/tonne
The decision for me will be when i have driven both and i see which i prefer. At the moment its all numbers and differing peoples opinions. Does the e92 330i have sports suspension as standard like the e46 and e92 335i? Since i'll be looking at SE examples late 2011/early 2012, (budget will be about £14k max) this is an important thing.
I'm just going to forget about new cars for the moment because i find myself wanting one more and more, and i don't know why! I love my e46 and it does everything i need and more - and the longer i can hold onto it (hopefully 2.5 years when i come to change), the cheaper it will be to buy a replacement.
No, it doesn't have Sports Suspension as standard.
I assumed you'd be looking for an M Sport. Not sure I'd want to be scrabbling around for a 335i at the bottom of the market - you want one with low enough mileage to buy the BMW warranty and new enough to be able to maintain that warranty. Running one out of warranty is a recipe for disaster - they are not reliable cars at all. That said the N53 330i isn't exactly loads more reliable either.
Plus the Coupe didnt get the 272 bhp N53B30 until September 2007 anyway.
I assumed you'd be looking for an M Sport. Not sure I'd want to be scrabbling around for a 335i at the bottom of the market - you want one with low enough mileage to buy the BMW warranty and new enough to be able to maintain that warranty. Running one out of warranty is a recipe for disaster - they are not reliable cars at all. That said the N53 330i isn't exactly loads more reliable either.
Plus the Coupe didnt get the 272 bhp N53B30 until September 2007 anyway.
