BMW: U.S. may get turbo 4, depending on next President
BMW's North American CEO, Jim O'Donnel has ended the rumors of a new BMW four-cylinder engine option. It's true. And it sounds great. Not only will the new turbocharged engine outperform the current inline-six, it will get better fuel mileage and produce fewer emissions. Perfect! When is it coming? Could be soon for Europe. The United States, though, reportedly won't learn its fate until the upcoming Presidential election is complete. Um, sorry... what?
You're telling us all about this great new engine and how it's going to outperform the current engines, and then tell us that you'll only bring it here if the Feds force you to? That doesn't sound so good, especially for an automaker that is so proud of its "Most Sustainable" title. If the automaker has a good engine, we want it. It really is just that simple, and this includes those great diesels we've been taunted with.
[Source: BimmerFile]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Andy 12:22AM (9/12/2008)
If they aren't being any more specific, then they may be talking less of CAFE then simply of whether US policies cause oil prices to climb or fall which will then tell them whether the 4 is going to sell.
...which goes to show you, high oil prices bring good changes. Low oil prices bring more of the same.
Reply
CB 7:25AM (9/12/2008)
High oil prices are good?
You're probably the same people who criticize the oil companies for making money.....
Market prices are good. High commodity prices cause inflation.
Nick 2:24AM (9/12/2008)
Exactly, high oil prices bring good changes !
Looking at the engine though, I see a long belt driving multiple pullies. Belts are known energy wasters....I wonder how many mpg this motor could get if they were electrically driven instead.
Reply
Perry 2:52AM (9/12/2008)
Exactly the bmw engine should revert back to a 2.5 liter inline six. The company would be bastardized if they had to switch to four cylinders. Give america a 2.5 turbo with a electric IMA style electric motor and completely electronic accessories. The fuel economy would be the same but the sound and feel would be classic bmw.
Reply
1985 Gripen 2:46PM (9/12/2008)
Outside of the North American market BMW has been offering 4-cylinder cars for years. It's only the N.A. market that has only been offered the inline-6 as the base model.
There's a belief in the luxury/near-luxury car market that if you pay that much for a car you'd better be getting at least 6 cylinders for your money. This is a problem that has plagued the Saab 9-5 for years. It has a 2.3-liter turbocharged inline-4 that puts-out more torque (low-end grunt for great passing power) than the equivalent BMW 6, while achieving just shy of 30 mpg highway. But buyers shy-away from a USD40K+ car with "only" a four-banger under the hood.
knows why 9:56AM (9/12/2008)
I suppose it's hard for many to put all the legislative mumbo jumbo together. Perhaps this will shed some light.
There are 3 coming regs that will hammer the industry
- NHTSA CAFE
- EPA Greenhouse Gas
- California CO2 (AB1493)
The new Administration will decide the fate of what must be built and what everyone will drive based on granting of the California waiver for AB 1493, and numbers in an EPA GHG reg. CAFE is a done deal. The necessary changes to engine/vehicle combinations will either be severe, very severe, or "hope to be invented in time."
The best scenario for progress would be the convening of a focused stakeholders committee to sort out the targets and conflicts and deliver to Congress a single comprehensive "Enviro-gy" regulatory proposal that combines the needs of the environment with energy conservation. This "Enviro-gy" legislation would replace the 3 regs. above and extract the proper amount of pain and compromise for all stakeholders to achieve what the country needs.
This process worked well for the NLEV program directed by Christophe Tulou in the 1990's see
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/lev-nlev.htm
Reply
1985 Gripen 3:09PM (9/12/2008)
These are great points you make, but I believe no matter which Presidential candidate is elected they're likely to vote on the same side in environmental matters. McCain has been quoted in the past as saying that climate change is amongst his biggest worries. Also, in the last Republican debate (the one at the Reagan Library) each candidate was asked if he would grant California the waiver. McCain came-out in favor of granting the waiver (he had just been endorsed by Schwarzenegger that same day).
So no matter which of Obama or McCain is elected I think the result as to these issues will be the same. They are pretty much of the same mind in environmental matters, with minor exceptions.
Andy 9:17AM (9/13/2008)
"They are pretty much of the same mind in environmental matters, with minor exceptions."
So the chanting of "drill baby drill" at the Republican convention is what you consider a minor exception?
"The best scenario for progress would be the convening of a focused stakeholders committee"
When has a committee ever been the best scenario? Yikes. Balancing economy and efficiency is way too complex and nuanced to be handled by a single committee on behalf of over 300 million different Americans. This is why there just needs to noticable costs attached to non-green energy. CAFE just gets car companies busy at whining and lobbying. Market shifts like are happening now have them falling all over themselves to build efficient cars at a pace CAFE never dreamed.
Reply
regguy 12:44PM (9/15/2008)
Andy, you wrote:
"When has a committee ever been the best scenario? Yikes. Balancing economy and efficiency is way too complex and nuanced to be handled by a single committee on behalf of over 300 million different Americans."
Your shock is justified. The most severe emissions regs. in the world are decided by the California Air Resources Board. Their staffs' recommendations are frequently ignored. The ARB is a "committee" of about 4 ACTIVE members...none elected...all politcal appointees. Go to their website and read the transcripts of the meetings on AB 1493 to see who (board members) actually participate. Yikes indeed!
A stakeholder group I propose would make recommendations to Congress for the full legislative process of vetting, unlike the ARB process.
Which do you and others prefer, 4 members of a non-elected Board or a committee of 10 proven experts who then pass on recommendations for the legislative process under full scrutiny?
Reply