The 1 series fuel efficiency

[bum944]

In my case, I have reason to believe global warming is real and caused largely by the burning of hydrocarbons and want to do my part to help. I also feel the U.S. should tax gas until it reaches $6/ga like most of the rest of the world to discourage the consumption of a toxic non-renewable resource with the added tax proceeds going toward our health care. As a result, as much as I love BMW gasoline inline 6's, I will not buy a 1-series unless it has a diesel. I'll wait until the '09 model year and if there isn't one, I'll go elsewhere.

[PACIFICONE2003]

bum944, as much as I like BMW, I agree with you. This nation needs to shift from their homes on wheels (SUV's) and wake up. Is global warming our fault? I don't know. I do know that our money that fills up our tanks creates power into some parts of the world that hates us. I am tired of people bitching and moaning about gas prices. It's the consumers own fault when they buy a Truck/SUV that get such shitty gas mileage. As for myself, disel or a hyrid in my only next choice. If BMW doesn't offer the 1er in a diesel, there will be options from others from Germany and Japan within the next two years.

[hector]

Originally Posted by spinzero

The only problem is that the rest of the US BMW car lineup do not offer fully tuned, DI N53.

Now you CAN still get the 260HP valvetronic engine in an X3, so there is still a little hope left for me.

true, they'd likely have to offer the d.i. n53 across the board. granted you could get the 260hp without it but i'm after the greater fuel efficiency.

[hector]

Originally Posted by bum944

In my case, I have reason to believe global warming is real and caused largely by the burning of hydrocarbons and want to do my part to help. I also feel the U.S. should tax gas until it reaches $6/ga like most of the rest of the world to discourage the consumption of a toxic non-renewable resource with the added tax proceeds going toward our health care. As a result, as much as I love BMW gasoline inline 6's, I will not buy a 1-series unless it has a diesel. I'll wait until the '09 model year and if there isn't one, I'll go elsewhere.

while i'm with you on the issue of consumption and wouldn't argue against higher fuel taxes as a means of achieving reduction, why should the tax revenue generated become a windfall for government? the proceeds should be returned to the taxpayer via a tax reduction of some sort such as reduced earned income or capital gains tax. after all the purpose would be behavior modification not to put more money into the pork barrel.

[Propagator]

Originally Posted by hector

true, they'd likely have to offer the d.i. n53 across the board. granted you could get the 260hp without it but i'm after the greater fuel efficiency.

I would prefer the DI over the Valvetronic any day, but if I can get a 260HP valvetronic in a 1, you won't see me complaining. :biggrin:

[hector]

Originally Posted by spinzero

I would prefer the DI over the Valvetronic any day, but if I can get a 260HP valvetronic in a 1, you won't see me complaining. :biggrin:

me neither.:smile:

[bum944]

Originally Posted by hector

while i'm with you on the issue of consumption and wouldn't argue against higher fuel taxes as a means of achieving reduction, why should the tax revenue generated become a windfall for government? the proceeds should be returned to the taxpayer via a tax reduction of some sort such as reduced earned income or capital gains tax. after all the purpose would be behavior modification not to put more money into the pork barrel.

My main point is that the only way the rest of the world has achieved reduction in consumption has been through taxation and I think that's the way to go. I'm thinking like $0.20/year for 10 years. What to do with the revenue I'm not sure. I do know that the past few generations of politicians have chosen to ignor the coming disaster which is our inability to pay for what was promised, social security and medicare/medicaid. If noting is done NOW, in 20 years the entire federal budget will be needed just for those entitlements, nothing left for education, the military or anything else. Most people don't understand the magnitude of the problem and the politicians like to push it off on the next generation as usual rather than face the music themselves. So, my idea of having the tax revenue go to our medical care is just a drop in the bucket compared to whats actually needed. I also think it would be appropriate as well to provide a tax break to lower income people who would be disproportionately affected by a gas tax.

[hector]

Originally Posted by bum944

My main point is that the only way the rest of the world has achieved reduction in consumption has been through taxation and I think that's the way to go. I'm thinking like $0.20/year for 10 years. What to do with the revenue I'm not sure. I do know that the past few generations of politicians have chosen to ignor the coming disaster which is our inability to pay for what was promised, social security and medicare/medicaid. If noting is done NOW, in 20 years the entire federal budget will be needed just for those entitlements, nothing left for education, the military or anything else. Most people don't understand the magnitude of the problem and the politicians like to push it off on the next generation as usual rather than face the music themselves. So, my idea of having the tax revenue go to our medical care is just a drop in the bucket compared to whats actually needed. I also think it would be appropriate as well to provide a tax break to lower income people who would be disproportionately affected by a gas tax.

i agree that a financial penalty i.e. taxation is probably the best and maybe only way to persuade Americans to change our gas-guzzling ways and that meeting the future obligations that you mention i.e. medicare, soc. sec., etc. is a daunting prospect but with all due respect i still reject the notion of any linkage of the revenue generated to governmental spending. i reiterate; if the purpose of the tax is reduced oil consumption with the attendant benefits of reduced hydrocarbon emissions, reduced trade imbalance particularly with hostile entities, enhanced national security, etc. why spend the money at all? the issue of meeting current and future obligations can be addressed at any time via other mechanisms including manipulation of the current tax code; increase the medicare tax for example. purpose should be consistent.

[brett8210]

Increasing Gas Taxes will not stop consumption. People will just pay it. Gasoline for many is a fixed cost. Driving gas prices through the roof without a Market adjustment will drive the economy into the toilet without the market being able to adjust. If gas prices rise, (as they are now) the profit generated from that allows for greater supply and more R&D into supplying more. Additionally other industries are given greater means to provide more technology to solve the problem. Taxes take the market's ability to adjust away. It is a simplistic short sided approach to a complex problem. The Market is the only vehicle to solve complex problems.

The solution is now and has always been R &D into better technology to solve the problem. Whether that problem be greater supply to alleviate price or greater MPG to address demand. GM right now has created Hybrid Tahoes and Suburbans to address the greatest setback with these models. Americans will not go back to driving subcompacts. At least those of us with families. So the politicians and the "greenies" can try to pass all the laws they want. And the rest of the Americans will be here to kick them out of office.

[hector]

[quote=brett8210;2651]Increasing Gas Taxes will not stop consumption. People will just pay it... quote]
so u think that demand for fuel is entirely inelastic:iono: .

[brett8210]

"so u think that demand for fuel is entirely inelastic:iono: ."

No, not completely, but at the very least it is a slow moving curve. For instance, in many areas of the country people's commute is without compromise. Further, family dynamics restricts how small a family can shrink their automobile. For all the rich individuals out there it is now stylish to have their Prius parked right next to their Bentley, but for the rest of the market that choice is not possible. Therefore, most individuals have to have at least one car that can maintain 2-3 kids and all their stuff.

Gone are the days when the kids could all sit in the back seat of a sedan. The Car seats that are required are huge. The strollers' are gigantic. No regular sedan with few exception could take on that task, without being only marginally better MPG than the SUV or Minivan. Additionally, any one buying a new car that is considering a car that gets less than 20 mpg, is already factoring in a large sum of money to pay for higher gas bills. If you increased the price of gas by a factor of 1/3 I doubt that cost benefit analysis would change much. If individuals want powerful cars, they will purchase powerful cars.

The best example of this is that 1/2 ton pick-ups have been the best selling cars by a WIDE margin in this country for over 30 years. This includes the early 80's when gas was the most expensive in our history. Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac were selling in record numbers in the early to mid 1980's. American's have a love affair with their cars and will compensate for higher gas prices before they will compromise on status, power, or lifestyle. Taxes don't have the power to marketly change that. Ironically the individuals that would be the most responsive to a potential gas tax, have already compensated by buying more fuel efficient cars.

Therefore, in order to improve MPG for all vehicles, we need to quit diluding ourselves into thinking a tax here or a regulation there will create a solution. Money, Research and Development is the only light at the end of this tunnel. Currently all of the automakers are falling all over themselves to create new technology to improve efficientcy. Do you think a tax will create additional motivation? Will new CAFE regulations improve the speed of hybrid tech when GM, Ford, Daimler, BMW, Toyota, etc. Are beating down the door of every available engineer to improve battery technology?

Higher Taxes only help stem demand when the market is not responding with higher technological investment. Such as in the 1990's. SUV's began to predominate because gas was at all time lows, and few auto companies were concerned with greater efficientcy. To the contrary, they were more concerned in developing greater power. But the time for higher taxes is gone. Right now gas is nearing the historical high for real dollars. Therefore, there is great demand of more efficent vehicles. Therefore, a tax will not create greater impetus, it will merely harm the current projects underway.

Even if the Government were to pay for R&D, why would we want them to? Why not let the current market pay the bill and let the new technology demonstrate the marketability without have to subsidize it. Throwing more money at a problem where the market is intensly focused merely makes us FEEL better, it does not solve problems.

[bum944]

American's have a love affair with their cars and will compensate for higher gas prices before they will compromise on status, power, or lifestyle. Taxes don't have the power to marketly change that. I beg to differ. Are you telling me that if gas was double what it is today, as it should be, people won't adapt to the real world? This is the elasticity issue again. Gas prices today have not even kept pace with inflation.

Currently all of the automakers are falling all over themselves to create new technology to improve efficientcy. Do you think a tax will create additional motivation? I do. It's called consumer demand. That is the market force in action. Will new CAFE regulations improve the speed of hybrid tech when GM, Ford, Daimler, BMW, Toyota, etc. Are beating down the door of every available engineer to improve battery technology? Fuel cells are one solution, probably not batteries. CAFE regulations are worthless as has already been demonstrated.

Higher Taxes only help stem demand when the market is not responding with higher technological investment. Demand for what? I think taxes will increase the demand for more fuel efficient transportation and companies will respond to that deamd in order to survive. Simple market forces at work. Such as in the 1990's. SUV's began to predominate because gas was at all time lows, and few auto companies were concerned with greater efficientcy. To the contrary, they were more concerned in developing greater power. But the time for higher taxes is gone. Why? Right now gas is nearing the historical high for real dollars. Therefore, there is great demand of more efficent vehicles. Therefore, a tax will not create greater impetus, it will merely harm the current projects underway. How's that? Higher taxes will create greater demand for fuel efficiency and/or create deamdn for alternative fuels.

Even if the Government were to pay for R&D, why would we want them to? Definitely not! Why not let the current market pay the bill and let the new technology demonstrate the marketability without have to subsidize it. Throwing more money at a problem where the market is intensly focused merely makes us FEEL better, it does not solve problems.[/quote]

I don't know how often people get outside the U.S. to see what everyone else is doing, but the rest of the world has coped just fine with gas prices that are least double ours. Technology alone will not solve these issues, they're too big. Despite our technology we're still contribute by far more greenhouse gases than anyone and that's because we burn more hydrocarbons even though our population is only 5% of the world total. So we need a solution that includes some sacrafice on many fronts including our overblown creature comforts.

[brett8210]

"Demand for what? I think taxes will increase the demand for more fuel efficient transportation and companies will respond to that deamd in order to survive. Simple market forces at work."

The market can only respond with greater research and development. The customer is already demanding better mpg. Taxes can not demonstrably increase this demand. The results aren't linear. Tahoe, Exployer, Hummer sales are marketly down. The market is doing it now. Increase taxes two fold and you will not able to get a two fold response. That is the whole point. Are American's going to abandon the suburbs and move back downtown? NO.

"How's that? Higher taxes will create greater demand for fuel efficiency and/or create deamdn for alternative fuels."

The DEMAND for higher efficent vehicles is happening all around us. Toyota has announced that the 2009 Prius will be able to get over 110 mpg in Japan, and that all of their vehicles will be hybrids by 2020. GM, BMW, and Daimler just introduced 2 stage hybrids to be used on their heavy duty trucks, SUV's and later cars. Where these in response to a TAX? If you are arguing that gas demand is elastic, I would agree. But my point is that gas is now predicted to be at an all time high. Therefore, you can't stretch the elasticity any further. American's will not stand for it. Any demand for better mpg is happening NOW without the tax. The demand curve, as any economist willl tell you, is not linear. It CURVES. Adding taxes now will only punish the poorest Americans. Those that can't afford to buy new cars or change lifestyles.

But you keep believing your simple solutions to complex problems. Higher Taxes = Greater efficientcy = Less Demand. Right! Well why did that not happen in the early 1980's. Why did we continue to see large cars and trucks selling the majority of autos? Because Americans will buy what the want. We are still a free country... Well until the greenies take over and HELP us all into what is GOOD for us.

"Despite our technology we're still contribute by far more greenhouse gases than anyone and that's because we burn more hydrocarbons even though our population is only 5% of the world total. So we need a solution that includes some sacrafice on many fronts including our overblown creature comforts."

I am not concerned about your "greenhouse gases." By the way you are emitting them right now as you read this. Pathetic. The fear based on these theories is theoretical at best, and we are seeing many scientists challege them with new studies showing a general warming trend on Mars, and Venus. How many Hummers are up there? So spare me your politics on that issue. The point of these posts are how to achieve higher mpg.

Oh by the way the sacrifices that you are demanding, even the most liberal studies show will only have neglible impact on any of the "climate." But lets just make that all the worse for all of us that live in the here and now by TAXING our poor and making life more difficult for the everyday American, when NO Study has indicated that it will result in 1. Better Vehicles, 2. Improved efficientcy, 3. Marketable change in demand.

[eMINI]

Originally Posted by brett8210

I am not concerned about your "greenhouse gases." By the way you are emitting them right now as you read this. Pathetic. The fear based on these theories is theoretical at best, and we are seeing many scientists challege them with new studies showing a general warming trend on Mars, and Venus. How many Hummers are up there? So spare me your politics on that issue. The point of these posts are how to achieve higher mpg.


Oh by the way the sacrifices that you are demanding, even the most liberal studies show will only have neglible impact on any of the "climate." But lets just make that all the worse for all of us that live in the here and now by TAXING our poor and making life more difficult for the everyday American, when NO Study has indicated that it will result in 1. Better Vehicles, 2. Improved efficientcy, 3. Marketable change in demand.

But... Al Gore got all those awards for his documentary... Are you saying that there is still scientific debate around Global Warming theories and that ugly Americans and fossil fuels are not the root of all evil? It has to be true; I saw it on TV.:wink:



My theory is that when we all feel enough guilt and self-hatred to:

1. impose punitive gasoline taxes on ourselves and others to correct the suffering imbalance that presently exists between Europe and the US
2. empower the fun police to complete the demonization of the internal cumbustion engine, driving it into extinction where it belongs

the global warming disaster will be averted, ushering in a new ice age that will endanger the planet and create historic demand for wooden matches.



Either that or, the giant herds of cows and sheep needed to sustain the meat-eating population of the world will continue to emit methane gas and outpace the coming ice age, saving the world. Of course sacrifices will have to be made for this to happen. We'll all be eating red meat then whether we want to or not. I'll have mine rare just to set a good example.

[hector]

Originally Posted by brett8210

"."

I am not concerned about your "greenhouse gases." By the way you are emitting them right now as you read this. Pathetic.

reading this response has caused me to hyperventilate FURTHER increasing my co2 emissions.:redface:

[BForbes]

Alright alright, this thread went waaaay deeper than I expected. Lets just hope that even the fastetst variant of the 1 series achieves 30+ on the highway. And that the smallest engine achieves near 30 for the city.

[bum944]

Originally Posted by brett8210

"Demand for what? I think taxes will increase the demand for more fuel efficient transportation and companies will respond to that deamd in order to survive. Simple market forces at work."

The market can only respond with greater research and development. The customer is already demanding better mpg. Taxes can not demonstrably increase this demand. The results aren't linear. Tahoe, Exployer, Hummer sales are marketly down. The market is doing it now. Increase taxes two fold and you will not able to get a two fold response. That is the whole point. Are American's going to abandon the suburbs and move back downtown? NO.

"How's that? Higher taxes will create greater demand for fuel efficiency and/or create deamdn for alternative fuels."

The DEMAND for higher efficent vehicles is happening all around us. Toyota has announced that the 2009 Prius will be able to get over 110 mpg in Japan, and that all of their vehicles will be hybrids by 2020. GM, BMW, and Daimler just introduced 2 stage hybrids to be used on their heavy duty trucks, SUV's and later cars. Where these in response to a TAX? If you are arguing that gas demand is elastic, I would agree. But my point is that gas is now predicted to be at an all time high. Therefore, you can't stretch the elasticity any further. American's will not stand for it. Any demand for better mpg is happening NOW without the tax. The demand curve, as any economist willl tell you, is not linear. It CURVES. Adding taxes now will only punish the poorest Americans. Those that can't afford to buy new cars or change lifestyles.

But you keep believing your simple solutions to complex problems. Higher Taxes = Greater efficientcy = Less Demand. Right! Well why did that not happen in the early 1980's. Why did we continue to see large cars and trucks selling the majority of autos? Because Americans will buy what the want. We are still a free country... Well until the greenies take over and HELP us all into what is GOOD for us.

"Despite our technology we're still contribute by far more greenhouse gases than anyone and that's because we burn more hydrocarbons even though our population is only 5% of the world total. So we need a solution that includes some sacrafice on many fronts including our overblown creature comforts."

I am not concerned about your "greenhouse gases." By the way you are emitting them right now as you read this. Pathetic. The fear based on these theories is theoretical at best, and we are seeing many scientists challege them with new studies showing a general warming trend on Mars, and Venus. How many Hummers are up there? So spare me your politics on that issue. The point of these posts are how to achieve higher mpg.

Oh by the way the sacrifices that you are demanding, even the most liberal studies show will only have neglible impact on any of the "climate." But lets just make that all the worse for all of us that live in the here and now by TAXING our poor and making life more difficult for the everyday American, when NO Study has indicated that it will result in 1. Better Vehicles, 2. Improved efficientcy, 3. Marketable change in demand.

You make a few valid points, but most of your comments are a reflection of where you're from.....Texas! Ok enough of this. The reason I'm in this thread is that I want an environmentally friendly BMW 1-series, not because I'm interested in the status quo. My ultimate garage would include a 60mpg 1-series diesel coupe w/6-speed and for the wifey, a 50mpg 1-series diesel convertible automatic. And for occasional use, a Z8 which I think is well undervalued these days.

[brett8210]

I solute your desire for diesel. I really do. I think it is a viable solution to the situation we are faced with.

I hope BMW can get their diesels to comply with YOUR emission regulations. Otherwise you may have to come buy your dream cars from us here in Texas.

LOL

[spudw]

I think we're at a point where the fuel-efficiency and the fun factor can coexist. So emphasis should be put on the former, but accomodations made for the latter.

I haven't been really enthused by exchanges on 300bhp+ engines because 1) not at all a practical requirement for my fun factor or lifestyle, and 2) runs counter to demand for more efficient engines.

I'd probably still opt for gas over deisel, provided the gas engines continue to improve on effiency. But I would consider a diesel engine were efficiency gains considerable, and not at the expense of the fun factor.

Climate change debate aside, efficiency for efficiency's sake is a good thing. We put so much emphasis on engine performance in terms of power, and that's natural because of the fun factor. But as an automotive enthusiast, I'd like to think that we can all get excited in almost equal measure, about engine technology that balances efficiency with healthy doses of power and tourque.

There are enough Bugatti Veyrons, overtuned Mustangs and M6s, etc. out there to show what engineers can do to produce power. But IMHO, the more impressive and challenging engineering task is to produce something great that balances converse objectives, like efficiency and power output.

[brett8210]

I couldn't agree more. That is why I personally enjoy cars like the Civic Si, the Mazdaspeed 3 and the BMW 3 (and now the 1). They are not the SRT-8 Charger, Challengers, Camaros, and Mustangs, but they provide more power and performance than we ever had when I was growing up in the late 70's and early 80's.

In the early 1980's a V8 Mustang had merely 140ish hp. The Cadillac V8 (one of the largest in production at the time) had only 180 hp. Performance was considered fast to have 0-60 times below 8 sec. and sub 6 was considered borderline supercar territory. We have come so far so fast with power delivery and efficientcy.

With all the talk of the 135i, what gets lost is that a potential 128i could have 230 hp in car weighing only 3000 lbs. will all the refinement of a BMW. This would fit my life just fine. Especially if I could get one for less than $30K. I get excited just thinking about it.

[hector]

[quote=spudwest;2698] We put so much emphasis on engine performance in terms of power, and that's natural because of the fun factor. But as an automotive enthusiast, I'd like to think that we can all get excited in almost equal measure, about engine technology that balances efficiency with healthy doses of power and tourque.
quote]
i saw an interesting piece on tv a while back about a guy who basically derived his driving pleasure from maximizing his fuel economy; essentially he would drive around eyes glued to the fuel-consumption meter, see how far he could go on a tank, etc. basically he made a game of it! i guess the point is that what is fun is in the mind, just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[brett8210]

"guy who basically derived his driving pleasure from maximizing his fuel economy"

He must be fun at parties. Sorry I couldn't resist