27 Votes

BMW: U.S. fuel economy plan is ‘not feasible’

damikco submitted on 7/13/2008 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 9:34:37 PM

37 user comments | Category: Spy News | Source: | SOURCE: www.motorauthority.com

Tag Link: bmw

Tough new CAFE standards in the U.

S. had a lukewarm reception when they were announced in April, with most carmakers reluctantly stating they would rise to the challenge. BMW has now come out against the current program, asking the government to develop an alternative system of requirements, because it will not be able to comply with the CAFE standards as they stand.

The proposed CAFE standards announced in April set industry average targets of 35.7mpg for cars and 28.6mpg for SUVs and pickup trucks by 2015. However, since the required economy figures for each manufacturer are calculated on the basis of the car’s ‘footprint’, or the area enclosed by its wheels.

That means BMW would have to meet a fleet-wide fuel economy figure of 37.7mpg by 2015, reports Automotive News. Between now and the final deadline, there will be a number of intermediate milestones to be met. BMW’s official comments on the CAFE standards state that as it stands, compliance will not be feasible. Comments from more automakers are expected soon, with the window for comments closing July 1.

Read Article

About the Author

User Comments

The only legal mandate CAFE standards have is to force automakers to meet a "MINIMUM FEASIBLE LEVEL" of mpg. Now these idiot politicians are trying to ABUSE THEIR POWER and exploit them to force automakers to meet a MAXIMUM feasible level, to benefit their own political agenda. CAFE standards are a total sham.
— randy33 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 10:14:40 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Not feasible? How so, BMW? I own an e92, and here is just a short list:

1. Ditch your lead acid battery and install li-ion battery, save 50 lbs.
2. Get the efficient dynamics program stateside already.
3. Ditch the sunroof. I don't use it and, to be honest, I don't know anyone who does. Give us two options: a panaramic roof (ala MB) or a solid roof. Save 50 lbs (65 with carbon fiber).
4. Use CRP for the hood and trunk. They aren't structural anyways. Save 50 lbs.
5. Make the exhaust system weigh less. Save 50 lbs.
6. Your engine is already stupid expensive. Tack on another $500 and ceramic coat the combustion chamber, cylinder head, exhaust main, turbo, and the exhaust. This will increase heat rejection and decrease the cooling load. Thus the radiator can be downsized. Save 25 lbs and a couple points on the coefficient of drag.
7. Put a bed pan on the underside of the car to make it more aerodynamic. Add 20lbs drop a couple of points from the coefficient of drag.
8. I don't really need automatic seats. Nor does anyone who drives this car. Give it lightweight bucket seats. Save 50 lbs.

Those simple changes add up to 255 lbs of saved weight. Rule of thumb is every 100lbs is 1%. Efficient dynamics is good for 5% fuel economy savings. The decrease in drag would probably be good for 5%. The new 7 speed will probably be good for 3%. Better thermal management would yield an additional 2%. Overall, ~17% increase in fuel economy.

If they want to make the next generation more fuel efficient still, stick with the above suggestions and:

1. Mount the transmission in the rear. This will allow for a car that is shorter overall (less material, therefore lighter).
2. Figure out a way to mount the engine transversely. Again shorter and therefore lighter.
3. In the N54, switch to a single turbo with VGT (ala 911 turbo) There is no way it would cost significantly more.
4. Offer a 1.6L turbo I4. No reason you can't squeeze 250hp/250NM out of it. More than enough with a 7spd dsg.
5. Narrow up those fender gaps.
6. Give us a REAL and EFFECTIVE rear diffuser to help improve aerodynamics.

The I4 version should easily average 40mpg with those changes and still be able to hit 60 in ~5.5. Not to mention it would probably handle better.

Class dismissed.
— GreenPlease (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 10:23:00 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

So what do you think is stopping them from doing all this?
— SHOWTIME (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 10:36:45 AM | | Votes: 3

I wonder if BMW is hiring
— mpwr (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 10:37:46 AM | | Votes: 0

You don't know anyone who uses their sunroof? Are you living in Alaska? Also ditching the electric seats really wouldn't be too smart a move for a premium car.
— HSCenterconsole (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 10:52:03 AM | | Votes: 1

1.) Sunroof is an option. Anyone who asked for it probably intends to use it. I use mine all of the time. You can opt for a car without a sunroof.

2.) Mounting an inline-6 engine transversely, then connecting it to a rear-mounted transaxle to power the rear wheels makes absolutely no sense. If they start mounting the engines transversely, they would probably need to make the drivetrain awd (BMW wouldn't do FWD), which would add weight and defeat your entire purpose.

3.) Since you know so gotdamn much, why don't you convert your E92 into the car you're talking about and show BMW how it's done? Are you an engineer?
— pushrod27 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 11:32:37 AM | | Votes: 6

That was a fantastic analysis, but wouldn't that require a full renovation of BMW's production and engineering team? The costs would be enormous and that would be pushed directly onto the consumer! I think you have great ideas, but the whole argument out of BMW is feasibility. There's no question that the technology exists, but corporate has to worry about profits. BMW knows that they can't go from being an upper middle luxury brand to the level of Bentley. Granted, this is all speculation, but BMW makes cars that are valued around 50 grand for a reason. I'm guessing with all of these changes, their cars would be well into the 6 figures for years! It takes time to bring down the cost of technology, which has proved painful for the automotive industry. With all of those changes, sales would plummit in reaction to prices many times what is offered now. I would love to get in our 5 series see 40 MPG on the dash, but that just isn't in the cards with todays market.

One a different note, I think if they added solar cells on the roof and hood, that could provide a supplemental source of energy
— Sarcastic1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 11:59:21 AM | | Votes: 1

GreenPlease, you got good idea, but afterdoing all this that is no longer a BMW, its a FORD
— pchera01 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 2:41:15 PM | | Votes: 3

'Offer a 1.6L turbo I4. No reason you can't squeeze 250hp/250NM out of it. More than enough with a 7spd dsg.'

There's a big reason why you can't - TURBO LAG. Plus a 1.6 tuned that much would get sucky mileage like a Lancer Evo or something.
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 9:07:35 PM | | Votes: 2

GreenPlease... All of that sounds good, but you have no clue as to what customers ask for or want when purchasing a new BMW by the suggestions that you make. Many of the comments that you make are based on your personal preferences and who you personally know. So you have made MANY erroneous assumptions. I'll give you one example. The sunroof.. more people want than don't. How do I know? I've been successfully selling them for about 7 years now. I could go on taking shots at many of your other assumptions, but I wonder how much good it would do. But I do applaud you for some of your comments and coming forth with them.
— camrex (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 7:07:50 PM | | Votes: 1

I'll use this space to reply to all above:

@Showtime- Probably corporate culture. Takes a while to make changes in the auto industry. Some of the changes I recommended, particularly the CRP hood and trunk, are probably in the pipeline for the e92 refresh. Its just too easy.

@HSCenterconsole- Actually I live in Florida. I was serious when I said I don't know anybody that uses their sunroof. I'm sure there are people that do but... I doubt a significant %.

@PushRod- 1. Can't opt out of the sunroof on the e92 in the U.S. I know. I tried. 2. Why not? You just need a set of gears at the engine. They wouldn't have to go AWD. Surely BMW can innovate around this. 3. Studying to be an ME. Family is well off but I think it would be a hard sell to chop my e92 to pieces.

@Sarcastic 1- everything I mentioned I feel is very feasible. Notice that there were two parts to my analysis. The first part is for changes to be made when the e92 gets a midlife face lift (~2 years or so). The second part is for when BMW goes to completely re-engineer the 3 coupe (2014 or so). None of the items I suggested, save for the ceramic coatings, are exotic and would probably add no more than 5% to the cost of the components they replace. Some items would be cost negative, such as the seats, hood, trunk, and exhaust.

While I agree with you that BMW is viewed as a premium car, I don't think that necessarily means luxury. When I bought my e92, I wasn't looking to get a massage while I drive. If I wanted that, I'd have looked at MB or Lexus. I wanted a drivers car. Power seats could always be an "option" whereas now it is a "mandatory option".

@AmazinBimmer- thanks

— GreenPlease (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:06:28 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

Well, their diesel engines will get that kind of gas mileage.
— 2ndbimmer (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 11:19:15 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Diesel has an advantage in terms of BTU/volume. Diesel is 130,500BTU/gallon while gasoline is 114,000BTU/gallon. I believe that this advantage will be accounted for in the new CAFE laws which means that actual CAFE will be determined on a BTU/mile basis which will then be converted into a miles/gallon gasoline metric.

The increase in fuel economy seen in modern diesels (e.g. 3.0L turbo diesel to 3.0L NA gasoline) is largely due to the increase in the BTU/gallon and its lack of throttling losses. The thermal efficiency advantage of a CI combustion regime is largely lost to all of the back pressure provided by the exhaust after treatment equipment.
— GreenPlease (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:14:08 PM | | Votes: 1

The BTU difference is only 14%, most diesels easily double that figure of better mpg compared to a similar gas engine.
— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 7/15/2008 12:39:22 AM | | Votes: 0

Poor Poor BMW....We know the real reason they can't do it.. They don't have the money to invest in it, since there Profit is not so good right now...

THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT!

Note to BMW: Stop offering leases for $300.00 on the 3-series.

We all know BMW has electrical issues per consumer reports, but when it's covered under lease-warranty who cares right? Well who pays for all those issues and employees Time and Labor, BMW does....

I hope BMW has a strategy.....I would hate to see them go come 2015
Because base on George Bush comments were: Meet the new CAFE standards or be EXTINCT!
— silver1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 11:27:32 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

go to hell. you're wrong on so many levels that i can't even go into the details. so just drop dead and go to hell.
— pushrod27 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 11:35:01 AM | | Votes: 2

I own a Lexus. I know how they achieve their fuel economy: the 5 speed transmission doesn't hold its gears for very long. Under normal driving conditions, the car runs through it's gears quickly to keep the engine revolutions around or below 2,000-3,000 rpm. I'm sure the new 8-speed is programmed the same way.

If you switch the transmission to 'power' mode, and/or step on the gas pedal very aggressively, you will see that fuel economy advantage dissapear quickly.

Lexus drivers tend not to be that aggressive, so they get the good fuel economy. I drive aggressively, and the Lexus 4.3 V8 definitely guzzles fuel when i do.
— pushrod27 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:09:09 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

Pushrod, thats not true on all lexus vehicles. I can imagine it would be however on a big V8. However you have to give up the power to acheive good results such as in an ES. Boring car to drive tho.
— 0to60 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 6:32:46 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

The LX570 and the GL320 Bluetec will have the exact same green polution rating. The GL320 Bluetec will likely have less of some of the emissions. The LX570 is no cleaner than the competition.
— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 7/15/2008 12:42:30 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Isn't Lexus the one that is losing more money right now. Last months sales figures were even worse than BMW's.

— SHOoff92 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 12:05:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

But there Profit margin is a lot more than what BMW is. Lexus is still making more money base on Profit Margin vs. BMW profit margin.
— silver1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:30:15 PM | | Votes: 0

Despite the larger amount of cars sold by BMW in 2007, Audi managed to be more profitable. An even more interesting aspect is that Audi accomplished this without having its own financing services. Some of the reason why BMW performed poorly in compare to Audi, lays in the fact that beside higher raw material prices, higher energy prices, our weak dollar, higher marketing expenses BMW, lots of money were invested in the Research & Development process and marketing of the Efficient Dynamics technology.

The reason why I wanted to explain some of the reasons why BMW has not been more profitable than Audi back in 2007, is the article posted in Autoweek by Guido Reinking. He also has some interesting points and I am just going to paste his article below.

There was a surprise in last year's results, though. Audi's profit margin topped BMW's. And Audi accomplished the feat without a financial arm of its own. Parent company Volkswagen handles the brand's leasing and financing.

BMW's comparatively bad showing demonstrates just how right CEO Norbert Reithofer has been in pursuing drastic cost reductions. Anyone who continually sells more cars without making more money is heading in the wrong direction.

BMW's results can be excused only partly by rising raw material prices. In the United States, BMW has become a victim of its own success. The weak dollar most hurts the import company selling the most in the United States.

But some of BMW's problems are homegrown. The 7 series has $2,500-$5,000 dealer incentives in the United States. BMW wouldn't need to support the vehicle if it were more attractive.

The U.S.-built X5 premium SUV scores well with U.S. customers and reportedly has 60 percent local content. But its expensive engines and transmissions still come from Europe and must be paid for with a weak dollar. So it hasn't had the effect on BMW coffers that the company was seeking.

In a perverse sense, Audi should be grateful to Ralph Weyler, its departed sales and marketing chief. Contrary to his clear mandate, Weyler only halfheartedly looked after the American market.

Weyler's inattention helped put Audi far behind Mercedes and BMW in U.S. sales. But as an unintended positive result, the dollar's weakness today is barely affecting the company.

That's certainly a silver lining. In fact, it makes one wonder if the folks at Audi might be secretly hoping for Americans to buy a record number of BMWs again this year, too.

[Source: Autoweek ]

— silver1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:37:37 PM | | Votes: 1

My point exactly.

Why look at the NA market just for "Join the camp" reasons ?

If it is not profitable. Ignore it.
— I95SPEEDINGTICKETS (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 4:01:08 PM | | Votes: 1

Silver1,

Profit Margin isn't anything a consumer should brag about. Why brag about paying more money for a car that costs less to build? That what profit margin is all about.

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 8:34:19 PM | | Votes: 2

Lower sales doesnt mean losing money.
— M35MT (View Profile)

Posted on 7/15/2008 5:00:12 PM | | Votes: 1

Pushrod BMW doesnt have the money? are you kidding me last I heard GM and FORD are losing their asses right now.
— jonmartin (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 2:58:10 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

can you read?

that other dumbass said that BMW doesn't have money. I told him to go to hell and die, because he's wrong.
— pushrod27 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:11:37 PM | | Votes: 2

BMW planning big layoff in 2008

We're so used to hearing that either GM, Ford or Chrysler will be laying off a chunk of its workforce that it demands a double-take when another automaker announces cuts. Today BMW has announced that it will cut thousands of jobs in 2008, with some outlets reporting up to 8,000 workers will get the axe. A spokesman for BMW revealed that most of the jobs lost would be in Germany and those leaving the company would predominantly be temporary workers. If the final number does reach 8,000 employees, that means BMW will shed 8% of its global workforce that currently stands at 108,000 employees. The layoffs are, of course, a cost-cutting measure to improve profits, which will likely be down in 2007 compared to the year before because BMW is spending more money than it expected on new models, new technology research and the raw cost of materials it needs to build its Ultimate Driving Machines. Though the news will be painful to hear for the workers that lose their jobs, it came as sweet music to the ears of investors who are currently pushing up the price of BMW shares.
— silver1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:39:15 PM | | Votes: -1

Due to these layoffs is probably why the all new upcoming 7-series-Mini-Cooper looks very boring...
— silver1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:39:57 PM | | Votes: -2

"pushrod27"

i didn't say BMW didn't have any money but there profit is down BIG TIME! Audi has surpass them now in Profit.

How in the hell BMW is going to make a BMW M6 with a 11mpg go to average 35mpg, when you margin profit is sinking at a rate that you cannot keep up with.
— silver1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 3:49:39 PM | | Votes: -1

Audi has higher profit margin due to the fact that it can share components/platforms with partners. Examples:

1. 2.0L TFSI engine shared with VW.
2. DSG shared with VW
3. A3 platform shared with VW
4. Probably a lot of other stuff shared with VW
5. V10 engine shared with Lamborghini

BMW has no such partners, with the exception of Renault on the mini 1.6L world engine.
— GreenPlease (View Profile)

Posted on 7/14/2008 8:19:14 PM | | Votes: 1

BMW does has a partner and that is Mini Cooper...
— silver1 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/15/2008 4:02:22 PM | | Votes: 1

Mini Cooper? Well THAT will fix Volkswagen!!!
— MadibaP (View Profile)

Posted on 7/16/2008 2:43:57 AM | | Votes: 1

boohoo!

All BMW needs to do is add an inch to every car's roofline and call it a Sports-Activity-"BLANK" to get around that stupid loophole.

Funny, the worse trucks do, the easier it will be for Toyota, GM, Ford to meet the new standards. The better BMW's cars do, the harder it will be for them.

Better cry a bit harder like they did in Europe to get the EU to ease the restriction a bit.
— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 7:08:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]

Email Me When Someone Replies To My Message

BMW: U.S. fuel economy plan is ‘not feasible’

About the Author

User Comments

Add your Comments

Submit an article

Photo Galleries

Cars

Autoshows

Latest Articles