It’s thought some company bosses saw Volvo as a global brand complimentary to BMW that still has considerable scope for growth. While BMW will always emphasise driving pleasure, Volvo would add safety and environmental concerns to the mix.
That is a very interesting idea, but it would require from-scratch redesigns of just about all of Volvo's products. The little Volvos are all Mazda3 based, the S80 rides on Ford global architecture, and the next S60 is supposed to be based around the next gen Mazda6. Only the XC90 still uses a classic "Volvo built" architecture. Volvo's 5 cylinders and straight 6 are used in Ford and LR products.
I also don't think Ford wants to give them up, they are pretty much the only consistently profitable PAG brand.
I have no idea what you are referring to as "THAT." All I'm seeing is your attempt at degenerating the latest discussion into the tired old pattern of personal attacks. Tag, we should really stay on the facts. When I make a mistake, like I did with the typo on whether EPA or CARB regulation banned existing diesel passenger cars, I freely admit it. Doing that allows the intelligent conversation go on, intead of degenerating into another round of pointless personal insults. Frankly, throwing personal insults do not cover up for factual deficiency in one's argument; the effort is usually quite futile.
Brightness, What is the factual deficiency in the statement that diesel engines that meet 50-state remissions regulations are being developed for release in 2009 MY?
Frankly, your concern that sulphur may leach back into the diesel tanks is preposterous. Could it? Sure. In enough vloume to have any impact on a 1000 gallon tank? No.
Just so that we are clear on the 80/20 ULSD, most of the '20' is going to non-ULSD trains and shipping.
Again, do you really believe that all the press-releases are just a hoax? If so, why?
Frankly, throwing personal insults do not cover up for factual deficiency in one's argument; the effort is usually quite futile.
You make my point. How? Because I wasn't making any argument surrounding any post. I was supplying you with answers to your questions, and provided a link. That's not an argument. Heck, you started arguing, not me, and that is why I stepped out... and I will continue to do so if the same thing happens again.
I do not see that I made the error you suggested. I believe that I was only transferring information to you from the linked website. I reviewed my posts and did not find that I used the word "sold" where you claimed I used it. If I had used it where you suggested, it would have been a mistake. But, I could only find that I used the word "distribute" which was correctly representative of the material in the link. So, I was certainly willing and ready to admit any mistake if I had made one, but I couldn't find it. I have no reason to dodge any error, should I make one.
Also, I do not see that I made any personal insult. I did see that you said I was patronizing you, when I was merely providing you with information that you asked for. Quite honestly, if I could go back in time, I would not have provided you with any of the information or exchanged any posts with you. It wasn't worth it.
The little Volvos are all Mazda3 based, the S80 rides on Ford global architecture, and the next S60 is supposed to be based around the next gen Mazda6.
I think the real gem for Ford is not Volvo but its ownership interest in Mazda. Thank God for Mazda or where else would Ford be today with their new cars, especially the ones from Volvo and the soon to be new S60. The new non-Mazda Volvo S80 is not so impressive IMO. Desperation will be the only reason for Ford to sell their best family jewelery (Volvo). And desperation is in no short supply for Ford.
That is a very interesting idea, but it would require from-scratch redesigns of just about all of Volvo's products.
Just like the Mini I think it is a possibility that BMW will jointly engineer front wheel drive Volvo platforms with Peugot. And share BMW platforms with higher end Volvos like the S80 or X90. FWD mainstream vehicles that emphasizes safety and environmental friendliness is what BMW really needs but cannot offer with a BMW marque since that would dilute their reputation for performance cars.
What are the two hottest trends in the automotive industry today? Environmentalism and safety. And those are the two things that Volvo is most famous for.
This is mere speculation but interesting all the same.
The 3 and 5 series have been okay-but the X5, R Class and M Class have been quite disappointing from a reliability standpoint.
Many of the R Class reviews have been quite positive and it qualifies as a vehicle I would be interested in, but I have read quite a few horror stories and because of that, I cannot seriously put it on my list.
I have another year to go on my 545i and will be following BMW and MB SUVs/vans reliability stats./stories closely.
However, no matter what the stats. say, ya gotta be lucky! I have leased 3 BMW vehicles and had no problems with any of them. Who knows? :shades:
hpowders, how do you like your 545i? I am interesting in a V8 5-series in a few years (could it be a 555i by then? ) to replace my current IS350. I know the 535i is very nice but if I am going to get a 5er I am getting the best.
BTW, I think it's a very smart move to lease any BMW cars/SUVs regardless where does it make.
The "factual deficiency" comment was related to post#1472, where it was claimed that "Also, 80% doesn't mean that there can be a mix of fuel. It means that 80% of the distribution would be pure S15 (ULSD) by summer of 2006, which is already past." That is factually incorrect. Service stations are not under any obligation to sell ULSD at all. When they do not label a product ULSD, they can sell any per centage mix of ULSD and "regular" LSD :-) BTW, I'm only writing to answer your specific question. I do not wish to get into another round of pointless personal attacks with Tag.
What companies are "developing" and what becomes reality are two different things altogether. Not everything that gets "developed" become reality. MB's Bluetec, at 208hp, is certainly not powerful, and the 50-state legal part is not reality, and potentially far from reality with recent setback both in the legal field and technological front. No one knows if Audi is really going to make a diesl W12 California-legal.
Frankly, your concern that sulphur may leach back into the diesel tanks is preposterous. Could it? Sure. In enough vloume to have any impact on a 1000 gallon tank? No.
Really? The ULSD standard is 15ppm sulfer. At about 3kg per gallon for diesel fuel, 1000 gallon is only 3million grams. As little as 45 grams of sulfer is enough to ruin the day for the 1000 gallon tank. What are the potential sources of sulfer? How about 5000 gallons of gasoline sitting in the next underground compartment containing much much higher sulfer content? How about the gypsom (Carbon Suphate) that is one of the main ingredients of concrete cement used for bulding the underground tank to begin with?
Again, do you really believe that all the press-releases are just a hoax? If so, why?
Companies have been proclaiming electric cars and fuelcell car for decades. We still don't have any model that is relevant to most consumers' purchase decisions. It is important for a car company to stay technologically relevant, at least appear so. BMW went so far as to develop a 7 series car that can run on both gasoline and hydrogen, just to show that they are relevant to the alternative fuel chic . . . what are the chances that many private consumers buying that car can ever run the car on hydrogen? IMHO, the "clean diesel" is just a propaganda cover before the Euro's can catch up on hybrid technology.
As for the ULSD fuel and vehicle requirement. If it is ever successfully implemented, it would be the biggest body blow yet to the biodiesel movment. Any wonder why the big oil companies are very much behind the ULSD push? Using biodiesel made from small shops in a 2007 model or later diesel vehicle (or even stationary applications) may become a punishable civil offence.
I like the 545i. I just wish I could do the vehicle's engine some justice.
I have some minor complaints (as I have had with every vehicle I have owned or leased) such as: the brakes cannot be modulated to a nice smooth stop-always a bit of a jerk at the end and the steptronic transmission is not the happiest of campers in stop and go traffic, but once I am on the open road, it's easy to forget about those things.
I have the comfort seats and would never order another BMW without them. Super comfortable.
The 2008 5 Series should satisfy those who have issues with the current Bangled version-the new one is quite a handsome brute,IMHO,-although the interior looks the same as my car.
which is the better 1 in the long run,handling wise ,and specially for comfort. 3.0 or the 4.8?
I know its not true some friend told me thats why i want to make sure is it true that the 3.0 is faster than the 4.8 till the speed of 35mph because its lighter than the v8?
does any1 have any experience with both?
saw a black cl 63 amg next to it was strange also a black ml 63 amg was quite a match.
A 3.0 liter 6 is woefully inadequate in a vehicle as heavy as the X5 is and I can't see anybody being happy with it. I'm really surprised BMW offers it as it takes away all of the fun of driving this vehicle and creates quite a bit of driver frustration. I would never order the X5 without (at a minimum) the 4.8 liter V-8.
Even so, the BMW X5 does nothing for me with its ridiculously high step-up and lack of practical rear storage space. Except for the status, I see no reason for the purchase of this vehicle. I would much rather consider the much more practical and better-handling X3 and transfer the money saved to a life-time purchase of freshly roasted Kona beans arriving monthly.
It would be nice if BMW will see fit to come out with a powerful turbo-diesel engine really soon for the X5, for those who are interested in this vehicle.
No other class of vehicle screams "diesel" like the big, heavy SUV's, IMO.
The MB R Class comes in diesel guise with very respectible 21/28 mpg but, OMG, those reliability horror stories.
It seems to me that BMW has made greater strides in reliability improvement over the last few years than MB has.
These five points are quite clear: Of course, it is out of my hands if someone misunderstands their true meaning!! Here they are:
1. Refiners and importers nationwide must ensure that at least 80 percent of the volume of the highway diesel fuel they produce or import is ULSD-compliant by June 1, 2006. 2. Diesel fuel classified as ULSD must reach distribution and marketing points downstream from refineries (i.e., pipelines, distributors, terminals and transporters) by September 1, 2006 (July 15, 2006 in California). 3. ULSD fuel is expected to be available at many retail locations by October 15, 2006 (September 1, 2006 in California). 4. Diesel fuel classified as Low Sulfur Diesel fuel may still be sold at retail locations outside of California between October 15, 2006 and December 1, 2010. 5. The State of Alaska has received an extension of the highway fuel 15 ppm requirement.
In addition to this information, notice the website's chart directly below those facts. The chart clearly says that ALL highway fuel sold at retail outlets MUST be ULSD by December 1, 2010 throughout the entire nation, and by September 1, 2006 in California. That means that here in California, there is no "confusion" problem that some are worried about, because we are already past the date where there could be any possibility of confusion. It also means that it won't be long after the clean diesel vehicles are sold, that ALL retail of diesel fuel will be ULSD in the entire nation! (by 12/1/10).
So, the short "transition" period is relevant to someone only outside of California and only if they purchase their diesel vehicle before the 12/1/10 deadline. However, the law also requires that fuel sold as ULSD be clearly labeled as such. You don't have to take my word for it... read the law! Here's some more information from the website regarding this question:
Q. How will I know which pump is dispensing ULSD fuel?
A. Federal regulations require the labeling of all diesel fuel pumps to specify the type of fuel dispensed by each pump (except in California where all diesel fuel must be ULSD by June 1, 2006). Similar instrument panel and fuel inlet/fill cap labeling is being mandated for 2007 and later model year engines and vehicles that require ULSD fuel. Consumers are advised to check the pump labels and vehicle labels to ensure they are refueling with the proper diesel fuel consistent with their vehicle warranties. Click here for downloadable pump labels in TIF, JPG and EPS formats.
There's a saying that every town has at least one village idiot... but society can't regulate EVERYTHING to help the helpless. But in this case, even the idiots will be protected!... especially after 12/1/10.
So... if you haven't read over the information, it's here at your convenience. It is certainly very informative... and should NOT normally provoke a fear-response! LOL!
Hopefully, BMW will see fit to come out with a powerful turbo-diesel engine really soon for the X5.
Most likely we will be seeing diesels in BMW SUVs before we will be seeing them in their cars. Likewise with Audis. I read recently that the Q7 will be the first diesel Audi.
A 3.0 liter 6 is woefully inadequate in a vehicle as heavy as the X5 is and I can't see anybody being happy with it. I'm really surprised BMW offers it as it takes away all of the fun of driving this vehicle and creates quite a bit of driver frustration. I would never order the X5 without (at a minimum) the 4.8 liter V-8.
I agree. And that also goes for the V6 Porsche Cayenne and V6 Audi Q7. IMO all these SUVs should be sold in only two flavors: turbodiesel and V8 gassers.
In that case your happiness is contingent on a BMW urea bladder. All I hear about is Daimler's Blutec but so far I've heard no formal announcements about a BMW version of Blutec.
I know every single diesel pump in my neighborhood like the back of my hand. This knowledge of mine was earned by a quarter of a century of driving a diesel Benz. In fact you can personally thank me for the warmer global temperatures that we are experiencing today (not many Canadians are complaining)
I would love to drive a turbo-diesel X3. That would be a lot of fun. Hope it happens within the next 12 months!
Latest report = Fall of '08, as an '09 model.
However, the nearest ULSD pump is 18 miles away!
That might improve, but if not... that's mere moments away, considering the wonderful way you drive! And... it would be in a turbo-diesel... perfect excuse for an extra spin!
Well, that's great news concerning the X3. I could always get a 2-3 month extension of the 545i lease waiting for the turbo-diesel X3. Tagman, you have given me hope!
As for the ULSD fuel situation, I check weekly here and it hasn't changed in 6 months.
It's quite a catch-22. Stations won't make the ULSD readily available until they see folks like me purchasing the vehicles that require it and folks like me won't purchase such a vehicle until we see improved availability of the ULSD.
Quite honestly, it doesn't seem very encouraging and I regretfully must concede it would be a very good reason for BMW not to counter MB in this particular diesel technology.
Well, that's great news concerning the X3. I could always get a 2-3 month extension of the 545i lease waiting for the turbo-diesel X3. Tagman, you have given me hope!
And, as time gets closer, we'll start to get the genuine scoop instead of lots of early rumors and news leaks.
It's quite a catch-22.
I agree with that... mostly. But, I do believe that the oil companies generally don't want to miss out where they can make a buck, and as time goes they will be there to cash in. It's in their nature.
Here is some very old and stale news( March news) that has been recycled all over the automotive world except within this forum.
I guess you folks never heard of the new BMW CS concept? And if you did nobody found it worthy of any mention here within this so called luxury forum? The CS silence here is quite deafening but here's a photo anyways:
Here is some very old and stale news( March news) that has been recycled all over the automotive world except within this forum.
I guess you folks never heard of the new BMW CS concept? And if you did nobody found it worthy of any mention here within this so called luxury forum? The CS silence here is quite deafening but here's a photo anyways:
Gee, Dewey, we're all so sorry... Do we get slapped across the hands with a yardstick next? :P
BTW, it's freakin gorgeous!!!... Do you see a little similarity to the C-XF by any chance?
And if you did nobody found it worthy of any mention here within this so called luxury forum? The CS silence here is quite deafening but here's a photo anyways:
Any idea what this concept is going to end up as? Are we looking at the 2011 5 series or just a styling exercise? The C-XF is supposed to be very close to the actual XF production car, but its somewhat hard to get excited about a concept that you can't buy and won't be able to buy for years.
(Let's avoid inflamaory phrases such as "village idiot" and "fear response"; let's simply stick to facts.)
The following concerns are not answered:
1. Before December 1st, 2010, no service station outside California is required to carry pure ULSD. Most of them are still operating with "regular diesel" labelled pumps only. The economic reason is a simple one: having one grade of diesel fuel allows the station to buy whatever is cheaper, and avoid builing yet another underground tank (which will be obsolete by December 1st, 2010, as according to the law there will be only one grade of diesel to sell; so why bother with the capital expense).
2. After December 1st, 2010, even if the ULSD distribution law goes into effect nation-wide, the legal mandate is on production and service station purchase. Yes, they will have to buy ULSD only, but what comes out of their pumps may not meet ULSD standard at all. It's illegal to buy water and sell it as gasoline, and almost all gas stations ideed only buy "pure" gasoline. However, reality is that most gasoline we get at the pump contain as much as 5% water simply due to condensation and underground seepage. The same thing can happen with ULSD. With gasoline containing much higher sulfer content sitting only a porus sulfer-rich concrete wall away, what are the chances of ULSD staying ULS just sitting under ground?
3. Currently, a consumer error pumping gas into a diesel car would result in smoky burning for a tank's worth. Yes, it's embarassing, but the car will be quit intact after such an ordeal . . . an ordeal that most who have owned diesel car can relate, either due to a temporary lapse on their own part or that of friend and family borrowing the car. Such a lapse with ULSD-dependent diesel cars can kill the car due to the high sulfer content in gasoline.
4. Projected legal mandate and reality are not the same thing either. CARB mandated in 1990 that 2% of all car sold by major carmakers have to be ZEV by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003. So where are these hundreds of thousands of electric cars running around in California? Passing laws do not make reality; reality on the other hand has a way of modifying legal mandates to what is feasible.
Well, in that case, brightness, I'll give it one very last try, just for you! Here we go...
1. Before December 1st, 2010, no service station outside California is required to carry pure ULSD. Most of them are still operating with "regular diesel" labelled pumps only. The economic reason is a simple one: having one grade of diesel fuel allows the station to buy whatever is cheaper, and avoid builing yet another underground tank (which will be obsolete by December 1st, 2010, as according to the law there will be only one grade of diesel to sell; so why bother with the capital expense).
You don't know for a fact WHAT percentage of dealers are selling or will be selling ULSD any more than the rest of us... until 12/1/10. Since clean diesels that require S15 won't be sold in any real numbers well into the '09 model year, the "concern" that you have is very short-lived, because within just a number of quick months, the ULSD will be everywhere. It is also likely that many service stations will finish their conversions before the deadline. Afterall, it's not like the entire nation turns on a giant switch on that date of 12/1/10. Many stations will be ahead of the curve... its' only natural. Even if it were at the deadline, it's a very short period of "concern", as you express it.
2. After December 1st, 2010, even if the ULSD distribution law goes into effect nation-wide, the legal mandate is on production and service station purchase. Yes, they will have to buy ULSD only, but what comes out of their pumps may not meet ULSD standard at all. It's illegal to buy water and sell it as gasoline, and almost all gas stations ideed only buy "pure" gasoline. However, reality is that most gasoline we get at the pump contain as much as 5% water simply due to condensation and underground seepage. The same thing can happen with ULSD. With gasoline containing much higher sulfer content sitting only a porus sulfer-rich concrete wall away, what are the chances of ULSD staying ULS just sitting under ground?
Again, lots of worry over nothing we know of. Sure, we can live in fear of fuel being contaminated, but we have no evidence of ULSD being contaminated as yet in California, so from all early indications, there is no reason to be so fearful and "concerned". If problems arise, then THAT would be the time to show concern and the regulations would likely be tighened to take care of it.
3. Currently, a consumer error pumping gas into a diesel car would result in smoky burning for a tank's worth. Yes, it's embarassing, but the car will be quit intact after such an ordeal . . . an ordeal that most who have owned diesel car can relate, either due to a temporary lapse on their own part or that of friend and family borrowing the car. Such a lapse with ULSD-dependent diesel cars can kill the car due to the high sulfer content in gasoline.
Errors like you discuss are a tiny... no, miniscule fraction of real life. There are always some levels of risk with EVERY thing in life. That human error is something no one can argue against. There's always an absent-minded person that could do what you say... but policies are generally made surrounding the norms of situations, and safeguards can only go so far. The fuel labels will be clearly displayed on the pumps, and will also be displayed on the vehicle's fuel flap. Everyone in this world cannot have their hand held everywhere they go. Yes, there will always be human error. More people will crash their cars daily, due to human error. Should we outlaw cars next? Again, safeguards can only go so far.
4. Projected legal mandate and reality are not the same thing either. CARB mandated in 1990 that 2% of all car sold by major carmakers have to be ZEV by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003. So where are these hundreds of thousands of electric cars running around in California? Passing laws do not make reality; reality on the other hand has a way of modifying legal mandates to what is feasible.
Well, electric cars is a different story, but staying with the ULSD topic here, there are no issues in California with regards to the ULSD. Everywhere I have been and checked, it is just like it is supposed to be. Further, there have been no reports that I have become aware of to indicate that there is anything with regards to ULSD that has not gone according to plan. You are suggesting it is possible that the plan won't go exactly as it is supposed to? Well, again, I see no evidence to suggest that anything hasn't gone according to plan. But certainly you can be "concerned" about it if you want to. Frankly, I think we all will know how things pan out as we get closer to the deadline. But, as I've said, here in sunny California, everything seems AOK and on track so far with the ULSD program.
Now, I have addressed EVERY one of your "concerns", item by item... Do you think we can now give it a rest for a while?
Either of you can choose to "give it a rest for a while" - neither of you needs to wait for the other.
That said, I'm going to ask both of you to drop this subject right here. You're not going to convince each other by saying the same things over and over, no matter how you word them - and no matter what the subject is. You each continue to try to get the last word in every difference of opinion you have, and that's getting quite tiresome.
based on what I read the new CS is almost production ready. I dont know any formal dates yet but t it maybe on our roads sooner than we think. Under its hood will likely be a 6.0L V12 which is basically the M5 5.0L V10 with two extra cylinders.
The CS will be the highest end BMW and will be marketed as an 8 Series. The CS styling cues will influence its future lower end siblings (7,5,3 and 1 series).
Here's some details from BMW itself( their marketing propaganda rhetoric is almost as bad as those Lexus ones).
The MB CLS is definitely the big splash that has begun this trend of 4 door coupes. Although I do think BMW is getting a bit carried away with their X6 SUV Coupe.
Current BMW Series 5 looks like a sea-lion. This CS concept is a real shark. I like the design, even though it is a little exaggerate. You may expect the engine will level it :shades:
Curious to read what the BMW design sceptics around here would say...
What is a foregone conclusion is that most other auto marques will try to imitate the styling cues of the CS just as other auto marques have imitated Bangle's older designs.
As of today we already know that the 2012 Lexus LS and a 2013 MB S Class will look quite similar to those BMW CS pictures.
You can say that again. He was the catalyst for BMW's latest growth spurt. After he came on board, BMW sales took off.
I still marvel at the aggressive, sexy lines of my Bangle 545i (Ecco il Leone!) with its headlights reminiscent of the eyes of the Egyptian cat goddess, Bast.
You have to figure at least a V12 in the CS, which absolutely represents Chris Bangle at his very best!
Comments
That is a very interesting idea, but it would require from-scratch redesigns of just about all of Volvo's products. The little Volvos are all Mazda3 based, the S80 rides on Ford global architecture, and the next S60 is supposed to be based around the next gen Mazda6. Only the XC90 still uses a classic "Volvo built" architecture. Volvo's 5 cylinders and straight 6 are used in Ford and LR products.
I also don't think Ford wants to give them up, they are pretty much the only consistently profitable PAG brand.
What is the factual deficiency in the statement that diesel engines that meet 50-state remissions regulations are being developed for release in 2009 MY?
You seem intent in bluetec, but that is not the only approach being used.
Honda- http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_44/b4007079.htm
BMW- http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-28-200- 6/0004481721&EDATE=
Audi (w/Bluetec reference)- http://www.audiworld.com/news/06/la-auto-show-bluetec-press-conference/
Frankly, your concern that sulphur may leach back into the diesel tanks is preposterous. Could it? Sure. In enough vloume to have any impact on a 1000 gallon tank? No.
Just so that we are clear on the 80/20 ULSD, most of the '20' is going to non-ULSD trains and shipping.
Again, do you really believe that all the press-releases are just a hoax? If so, why?
Is the bmw X5 only build in south carolina world wide?
bmw is a german car and they don't built the x5 in germany anymore is this true???
i hope i get the reply this time
I'm pretty sure someone answered you, I just can't find their reply. I got my answers from the earlier poster.
You make my point. How? Because I wasn't making any argument surrounding any post. I was supplying you with answers to your questions, and provided a link. That's not an argument. Heck, you started arguing, not me, and that is why I stepped out... and I will continue to do so if the same thing happens again.
I do not see that I made the error you suggested. I believe that I was only transferring information to you from the linked website. I reviewed my posts and did not find that I used the word "sold" where you claimed I used it. If I had used it where you suggested, it would have been a mistake. But, I could only find that I used the word "distribute" which was correctly representative of the material in the link. So, I was certainly willing and ready to admit any mistake if I had made one, but I couldn't find it. I have no reason to dodge any error, should I make one.
Also, I do not see that I made any personal insult. I did see that you said I was patronizing you, when I was merely providing you with information that you asked for. Quite honestly, if I could go back in time, I would not have provided you with any of the information or exchanged any posts with you. It wasn't worth it.
TagMan
There was really a need for this??
I think the real gem for Ford is not Volvo but its ownership interest in Mazda. Thank God for Mazda or where else would Ford be today with their new cars, especially the ones from Volvo and the soon to be new S60. The new non-Mazda Volvo S80 is not so impressive IMO. Desperation will be the only reason for Ford to sell their best family jewelery (Volvo). And desperation is in no short supply for Ford.
That is a very interesting idea, but it would require from-scratch redesigns of just about all of Volvo's products.
Just like the Mini I think it is a possibility that BMW will jointly engineer front wheel drive Volvo platforms with Peugot. And share BMW platforms with higher end Volvos like the S80 or X90. FWD mainstream vehicles that emphasizes safety and environmental friendliness is what BMW really needs but cannot offer with a BMW marque since that would dilute their reputation for performance cars.
What are the two hottest trends in the automotive industry today? Environmentalism and safety. And those are the two things that Volvo is most famous for.
This is mere speculation but interesting all the same.
Next Week: My 7-day cure for Iraq!
It was a joke, honestly just a joke and since it has offended thee so greatly I have deleted my post.
As far as I know they never did build the X5 in Germany.
The R and M Class vehicles are built at MB's Alabama plant.
None of the above vehicles have been reliability standouts.
Coincidence or correlation? :confuse:
How about none of the German vehicles (that's including BMW, MB, Audi and VW) have been reliability standouts.
Many of the R Class reviews have been quite positive and it qualifies as a vehicle I would be interested in, but I have read quite a few horror stories and because of that, I cannot seriously put it on my list.
I have another year to go on my 545i and will be following BMW and MB SUVs/vans reliability stats./stories closely.
However, no matter what the stats. say, ya gotta be lucky!
I have leased 3 BMW vehicles and had no problems with any of them. Who knows? :shades:
BTW, I think it's a very smart move to lease any BMW cars/SUVs regardless where does it make.
The "factual deficiency" comment was related to post#1472, where it was claimed that "Also, 80% doesn't mean that there can be a mix of fuel. It means that 80% of the distribution would be pure S15 (ULSD) by summer of 2006, which is already past." That is factually incorrect. Service stations are not under any obligation to sell ULSD at all. When they do not label a product ULSD, they can sell any per centage mix of ULSD and "regular" LSD :-) BTW, I'm only writing to answer your specific question. I do not wish to get into another round of pointless personal attacks with Tag.
What companies are "developing" and what becomes reality are two different things altogether. Not everything that gets "developed" become reality. MB's Bluetec, at 208hp, is certainly not powerful, and the 50-state legal part is not reality, and potentially far from reality with recent setback both in the legal field and technological front. No one knows if Audi is really going to make a diesl W12 California-legal.
Frankly, your concern that sulphur may leach back into the diesel tanks is preposterous. Could it? Sure. In enough vloume to have any impact on a 1000 gallon tank? No.
Really? The ULSD standard is 15ppm sulfer. At about 3kg per gallon for diesel fuel, 1000 gallon is only 3million grams. As little as 45 grams of sulfer is enough to ruin the day for the 1000 gallon tank. What are the potential sources of sulfer? How about 5000 gallons of gasoline sitting in the next underground compartment containing much much higher sulfer content? How about the gypsom (Carbon Suphate) that is one of the main ingredients of concrete cement used for bulding the underground tank to begin with?
Again, do you really believe that all the press-releases are just a hoax? If so, why?
Companies have been proclaiming electric cars and fuelcell car for decades. We still don't have any model that is relevant to most consumers' purchase decisions. It is important for a car company to stay technologically relevant, at least appear so. BMW went so far as to develop a 7 series car that can run on both gasoline and hydrogen, just to show that they are relevant to the alternative fuel chic . . . what are the chances that many private consumers buying that car can ever run the car on hydrogen? IMHO, the "clean diesel" is just a propaganda cover before the Euro's can catch up on hybrid technology.
As for the ULSD fuel and vehicle requirement. If it is ever successfully implemented, it would be the biggest body blow yet to the biodiesel movment. Any wonder why the big oil companies are very much behind the ULSD push? Using biodiesel made from small shops in a 2007 model or later diesel vehicle (or even stationary applications) may become a punishable civil offence.
I have some minor complaints (as I have had with every vehicle I have owned or leased) such as: the brakes cannot be modulated to a nice smooth stop-always a bit of a jerk at the end and the steptronic transmission is not the happiest of campers in stop and go traffic, but once I am on the open road, it's easy to forget about those things.
I have the comfort seats and would never order another BMW without them. Super comfortable.
The 2008 5 Series should satisfy those who have issues with the current Bangled version-the new one is quite a handsome brute,IMHO,-although the interior looks the same as my car.
I do believe leasing BMW's is the way to go.
I know its not true some friend told me thats why i want to make sure is it true that the 3.0 is faster than the 4.8 till the speed of 35mph because its lighter than the v8?
does any1 have any experience with both?
saw a black cl 63 amg next to it was strange also a black ml 63 amg was quite a match.
Even so, the BMW X5 does nothing for me with its ridiculously high step-up and lack of practical rear storage space. Except for the status, I see no reason for the purchase of this vehicle. I would much rather consider the much more practical and better-handling X3 and transfer the money saved to a life-time purchase of freshly roasted Kona beans arriving monthly.
It would be nice if BMW will see fit to come out with a powerful turbo-diesel engine really soon for the X5, for those who are interested in this vehicle.
No other class of vehicle screams "diesel" like the big, heavy SUV's, IMO.
The MB R Class comes in diesel guise with very respectible 21/28 mpg but, OMG, those reliability horror stories.
It seems to me that BMW has made greater strides in reliability improvement over the last few years than MB has.
To make sure that EVERYONE understands the facts about the S15 (ULSD - Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) fuel, I will provide the link to the facts here again:
Clean Diesel Fuel Alliance
These five points are quite clear:
Of course, it is out of my hands if someone misunderstands their true meaning!! Here they are:
1. Refiners and importers nationwide must ensure that at least 80 percent of the volume of the highway diesel fuel they produce or import is ULSD-compliant by June 1, 2006.
2. Diesel fuel classified as ULSD must reach distribution and marketing points downstream from refineries (i.e., pipelines, distributors, terminals and transporters) by September 1, 2006 (July 15, 2006 in California).
3. ULSD fuel is expected to be available at many retail locations by October 15, 2006
(September 1, 2006 in California).
4. Diesel fuel classified as Low Sulfur Diesel fuel may still be sold at retail locations outside of California between October 15, 2006 and December 1, 2010.
5. The State of Alaska has received an extension of the highway fuel 15 ppm requirement.
In addition to this information, notice the website's chart directly below those facts. The chart clearly says that ALL highway fuel sold at retail outlets MUST be ULSD by December 1, 2010 throughout the entire nation, and by September 1, 2006 in California. That means that here in California, there is no "confusion" problem that some are worried about, because we are already past the date where there could be any possibility of confusion. It also means that it won't be long after the clean diesel vehicles are sold, that ALL retail of diesel fuel will be ULSD in the entire nation! (by 12/1/10).
So, the short "transition" period is relevant to someone only outside of California and only if they purchase their diesel vehicle before the 12/1/10 deadline. However, the law also requires that fuel sold as ULSD be clearly labeled as such. You don't have to take my word for it... read the law! Here's some more information from the website regarding this question:
Q. How will I know which pump is dispensing ULSD fuel?
A. Federal regulations require the labeling of all diesel fuel pumps to specify the type of fuel dispensed by each pump (except in California where all diesel fuel must be ULSD by June 1, 2006). Similar instrument panel and fuel inlet/fill cap labeling is being mandated for 2007 and later model year engines and vehicles that require ULSD fuel. Consumers are advised to check the pump labels and vehicle labels to ensure they are refueling with the proper diesel fuel consistent with their vehicle warranties. Click here for downloadable pump labels in TIF, JPG and EPS formats.
There's a saying that every town has at least one village idiot... but society can't regulate EVERYTHING to help the helpless. But in this case, even the idiots will be protected!... especially after 12/1/10.
So... if you haven't read over the information, it's here at your convenience. It is certainly very informative... and should NOT normally provoke a fear-response! LOL!
TagMan
Most likely we will be seeing diesels in BMW SUVs before we will be seeing them in their cars. Likewise with Audis. I read recently that the Q7 will be the first diesel Audi.
A 3.0 liter 6 is woefully inadequate in a vehicle as heavy as the X5 is and I can't see anybody being happy with it. I'm really surprised BMW offers it as it takes away all of the fun of driving this vehicle and creates quite a bit of driver frustration. I would never order the X5 without (at a minimum) the 4.8 liter V-8.
I agree. And that also goes for the V6 Porsche Cayenne and V6 Audi Q7. IMO all these SUVs should be sold in only two flavors: turbodiesel and V8 gassers.
However, the nearest ULSD pump is 18 miles away!
I know every single diesel pump in my neighborhood like the back of my hand. This knowledge of mine was earned by a quarter of a century of driving a diesel Benz. In fact you can personally thank me for the warmer global temperatures that we are experiencing today (not many Canadians are complaining)
Latest report = Fall of '08, as an '09 model.
However, the nearest ULSD pump is 18 miles away!
That might improve, but if not... that's mere moments away, considering the wonderful way you drive! And... it would be in a turbo-diesel... perfect excuse for an extra spin!
TagMan
As for the ULSD fuel situation, I check weekly here and it hasn't changed in 6 months.
It's quite a catch-22. Stations won't make the ULSD readily available until they see folks like me purchasing the vehicles that require it and folks like me won't purchase such a vehicle until we see improved availability of the ULSD.
Quite honestly, it doesn't seem very encouraging and I regretfully must concede it would be a very good reason for BMW not to counter MB in this particular diesel technology.
And, as time gets closer, we'll start to get the genuine scoop instead of lots of early rumors and news leaks.
It's quite a catch-22.
I agree with that... mostly. But, I do believe that the oil companies generally don't want to miss out where they can make a buck, and as time goes they will be there to cash in. It's in their nature.
TagMan
I guess you folks never heard of the new BMW CS concept?
And if you did nobody found it worthy of any mention here within this so called luxury forum? The CS silence here is quite deafening but here's a photo anyways:
I guess you folks never heard of the new BMW CS concept?
And if you did nobody found it worthy of any mention here within this so called luxury forum? The CS silence here is quite deafening but here's a photo anyways:
Gee, Dewey, we're all so sorry...
BTW, it's freakin gorgeous!!!... Do you see a little similarity to the C-XF by any chance?
TagMan
Any idea what this concept is going to end up as? Are we looking at the 2011 5 series or just a styling exercise? The C-XF is supposed to be very close to the actual XF production car, but its somewhat hard to get excited about a concept that you can't buy and won't be able to buy for years.
The following concerns are not answered:
1. Before December 1st, 2010, no service station outside California is required to carry pure ULSD. Most of them are still operating with "regular diesel" labelled pumps only. The economic reason is a simple one: having one grade of diesel fuel allows the station to buy whatever is cheaper, and avoid builing yet another underground tank (which will be obsolete by December 1st, 2010, as according to the law there will be only one grade of diesel to sell; so why bother with the capital expense).
2. After December 1st, 2010, even if the ULSD distribution law goes into effect nation-wide, the legal mandate is on production and service station purchase. Yes, they will have to buy ULSD only, but what comes out of their pumps may not meet ULSD standard at all. It's illegal to buy water and sell it as gasoline, and almost all gas stations ideed only buy "pure" gasoline. However, reality is that most gasoline we get at the pump contain as much as 5% water simply due to condensation and underground seepage. The same thing can happen with ULSD. With gasoline containing much higher sulfer content sitting only a porus sulfer-rich concrete wall away, what are the chances of ULSD staying ULS just sitting under ground?
3. Currently, a consumer error pumping gas into a diesel car would result in smoky burning for a tank's worth. Yes, it's embarassing, but the car will be quit intact after such an ordeal . . . an ordeal that most who have owned diesel car can relate, either due to a temporary lapse on their own part or that of friend and family borrowing the car. Such a lapse with ULSD-dependent diesel cars can kill the car due to the high sulfer content in gasoline.
4. Projected legal mandate and reality are not the same thing either. CARB mandated in 1990 that 2% of all car sold by major carmakers have to be ZEV by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003. So where are these hundreds of thousands of electric cars running around in California? Passing laws do not make reality; reality on the other hand has a way of modifying legal mandates to what is feasible.
Well, in that case, brightness, I'll give it one very last try, just for you! Here we go...
1. Before December 1st, 2010, no service station outside California is required to carry pure ULSD. Most of them are still operating with "regular diesel" labelled pumps only. The economic reason is a simple one: having one grade of diesel fuel allows the station to buy whatever is cheaper, and avoid builing yet another underground tank (which will be obsolete by December 1st, 2010, as according to the law there will be only one grade of diesel to sell; so why bother with the capital expense).
You don't know for a fact WHAT percentage of dealers are selling or will be selling ULSD any more than the rest of us... until 12/1/10. Since clean diesels that require S15 won't be sold in any real numbers well into the '09 model year, the "concern" that you have is very short-lived, because within just a number of quick months, the ULSD will be everywhere. It is also likely that many service stations will finish their conversions before the deadline. Afterall, it's not like the entire nation turns on a giant switch on that date of 12/1/10. Many stations will be ahead of the curve... its' only natural. Even if it were at the deadline, it's a very short period of "concern", as you express it.
2. After December 1st, 2010, even if the ULSD distribution law goes into effect nation-wide, the legal mandate is on production and service station purchase. Yes, they will have to buy ULSD only, but what comes out of their pumps may not meet ULSD standard at all. It's illegal to buy water and sell it as gasoline, and almost all gas stations ideed only buy "pure" gasoline. However, reality is that most gasoline we get at the pump contain as much as 5% water simply due to condensation and underground seepage. The same thing can happen with ULSD. With gasoline containing much higher sulfer content sitting only a porus sulfer-rich concrete wall away, what are the chances of ULSD staying ULS just sitting under ground?
Again, lots of worry over nothing we know of. Sure, we can live in fear of fuel being contaminated, but we have no evidence of ULSD being contaminated as yet in California, so from all early indications, there is no reason to be so fearful and "concerned". If problems arise, then THAT would be the time to show concern and the regulations would likely be tighened to take care of it.
3. Currently, a consumer error pumping gas into a diesel car would result in smoky burning for a tank's worth. Yes, it's embarassing, but the car will be quit intact after such an ordeal . . . an ordeal that most who have owned diesel car can relate, either due to a temporary lapse on their own part or that of friend and family borrowing the car. Such a lapse with ULSD-dependent diesel cars can kill the car due to the high sulfer content in gasoline.
Errors like you discuss are a tiny... no, miniscule fraction of real life. There are always some levels of risk with EVERY thing in life. That human error is something no one can argue against. There's always an absent-minded person that could do what you say... but policies are generally made surrounding the norms of situations, and safeguards can only go so far. The fuel labels will be clearly displayed on the pumps, and will also be displayed on the vehicle's fuel flap. Everyone in this world cannot have their hand held everywhere they go. Yes, there will always be human error. More people will crash their cars daily, due to human error. Should we outlaw cars next? Again, safeguards can only go so far.
4. Projected legal mandate and reality are not the same thing either. CARB mandated in 1990 that 2% of all car sold by major carmakers have to be ZEV by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003. So where are these hundreds of thousands of electric cars running around in California? Passing laws do not make reality; reality on the other hand has a way of modifying legal mandates to what is feasible.
Well, electric cars is a different story, but staying with the ULSD topic here, there are no issues in California with regards to the ULSD. Everywhere I have been and checked, it is just like it is supposed to be. Further, there have been no reports that I have become aware of to indicate that there is anything with regards to ULSD that has not gone according to plan. You are suggesting it is possible that the plan won't go exactly as it is supposed to? Well, again, I see no evidence to suggest that anything hasn't gone according to plan. But certainly you can be "concerned" about it if you want to. Frankly, I think we all will know how things pan out as we get closer to the deadline. But, as I've said, here in sunny California, everything seems AOK and on track so far with the ULSD program.
Now, I have addressed EVERY one of your "concerns", item by item... Do you think we can now give it a rest for a while?
TagMan
That said, I'm going to ask both of you to drop this subject right here. You're not going to convince each other by saying the same things over and over, no matter how you word them - and no matter what the subject is. You each continue to try to get the last word in every difference of opinion you have, and that's getting quite tiresome.
Leave this be, please.
Supposedly attempts to create genuine sports car performance with an ultra-luxurious interior in a 4 door coupe.
That has to be the lowest roof I have ever seen on a BMW vehicle. Looks like someone dropped a 200 pound weight on my 545i's roof!
One of the best-looking BMW's ever created, IMO.
If that baby's shape doesn't say aggressive speed, I don't know what does.
Perhaps the Porsche Panamera has made BMW a bit nervous?
OK, Pat.
TagMan
That's a good point. I can't help but wonder if the Mercedes CLS 4-door coupe/sedan (?) really started the whole thing to begin with?
The Bimmer is the best-looking of ALL of them, anyway... by FAR. (IMO)
TagMan
Howard, Lexusguy and Tagman,
based on what I read the new CS is almost production ready. I dont know any formal dates yet but t it maybe on our roads sooner than we think. Under its hood will likely be a 6.0L V12 which is basically the M5 5.0L V10 with two extra cylinders.
The CS will be the highest end BMW and will be marketed as an 8 Series. The CS styling cues will influence its future lower end siblings (7,5,3 and 1 series).
Here's some details from BMW itself( their marketing propaganda rhetoric is almost as bad as those Lexus ones).
link title
Well, that will help insure BMW's future! Terrific newer look.
TagMan
Bangle rules!
Regards,
Jose
TagMan
Curious to read what the BMW design sceptics around here would say...
Hint: Tagman owns a cabrio version of this car.
Hint: Best handling non-overt sports car is the same car that I currently own.
link title
That photo is giving me palpatations!
One of the most exciting, downright sexy vehicles I have ever seen!
I can't wait to see it in person!
What is a foregone conclusion is that most other auto marques will try to imitate the styling cues of the CS just as other auto marques have imitated Bangle's older designs.
As of today we already know that the 2012 Lexus LS and a 2013 MB S Class will look quite similar to those BMW CS pictures.
You can say that again. He was the catalyst for BMW's latest growth spurt. After he came on board, BMW sales took off.
I still marvel at the aggressive, sexy lines of my Bangle 545i (Ecco il Leone!) with its headlights reminiscent of the eyes of the Egyptian cat goddess, Bast.
You have to figure at least a V12 in the CS, which absolutely represents Chris Bangle at his very best!
Jose