[Jon Shafer]

Please cross-post this message to any forum you don't see it
in already. If you are a strong supporter of BMW products you should all call your Senators...

The future of our beloved products are at stake!

posted without permission...

=============================================

Original Author - Thomas O. McGurn
General Manager, Retail & Industry Relations

Retail & Industry Relations

Dealer Bulletin

CAFE Legislation

BMW strongly supports the industry-wide effort to defeat the Kerry-Hollings bill that will be considered by the United States Senate next week. The bill requires each manufacturer to achieve a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 35 miles per gallon for their combined passenger cars and light truck fleet. The industry has said this is an unrealistic standard. BMW cannot meet the standard and still provide the type of products our customers want. The fines the company would face for not meeting the standard would increase retail prices and cost of sales significantly while eroding dealership profitability. BMW consistently employs the best available technology to improve fuel efficiency. Between 1990 and today, BMW has increased the fuel economy of each and every model between 10 and 20% while maintaining desirable customer attributes such as performance, size and comfort. The Kerry-Hollings bill would effectively prevent BMW from building products that our customers want. BMW supports the industry position that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) should use existing regulatory authority to set fuel efficiency standards. NHTSA is required to consider factors such as technical feasibility, consumer choice, safety, jobs, and vehicle use when determining standards. Kerry-Hollings does not. It is critical that you call your United States Senators today and urge them to vote against the Kerry-Hollings bill. Ask them to support retaining the NHTSA's authority to set standards. It is expected that the bill will be debated and come to a vote during the week of February 25 when Congress returns from the current recess. Please act now. The switchboard number of the Senate is 202-224-3121.

 

[Spiderm0n]

I disagree 100%

Here is why: The car manufacturers will have 10 years to make these changes. If the first fuel standards were not created, imagine how low the MPG would be on cars today. A great example of what happens without fuel economy standards is the SUV. Since the SUV is considered a truck, it doesn't have to meet the standards for cars, and thus you see SUVs getting 10 MPG.

I am more then willing to pay for whatever it takes to push fuel standards up a bit. The car manufacturers have plenty of time to make these changes, and whatever it takes, it will be easier and cost less money than if we all have to drive electric cars because we exhausted the world's oil supply.

As a consumer, the best way we can show that we care about fuel economy (besides boycotting the current gas-hogging SUVs) is to contact your US senator and tell them you SUPPORT higher CAFE standards.

 

[Guest84]

The proposed Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (C.A.F.É.) mandates. In S.
517-being pushed by Democrat leader
Daschle-Democrat Senators John Kerry
and Fritz Hollings are leading the charge to
make every new vehicle in America get an
astronomical 35 miles per gallon. CAFÉ
mandates already add $2,750 to the cost of every new vehicle
sold in America.

Tom Daschle, what can I say? (Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend...)

 

[Kaz]

I'm with Spiderm0n here. Considering all the technologies that have become available in engine efficiency and related areas in the last 20 years, fuel economy of today's cars is abysmal. Automakers seem to make all sorts of excuses for this, but being an auto enthusiast and looking at all that's out there, I think its reprehensible that something cannot be done about fuel economy with, frankly, technologies that are available today.

I'm not placing all the blame on the carmakers, though. The public in this country needs to be made aware that even without regard to environmental, economic, or other socio-political issues, transportation efficiency is something that needs to be taken a little more seriously in this country.

 

[ff]

They intentionally set the goal way too high, knowing that it would never pass. The last thing the Gov. wants to do is reduce the current gas consumption. They take in far too much money in tax dollars from fuel sales to want a change like this.

If anything, they should be going after the biggest violators like Ford, GM, and Chrysler/Jeep. Let's limit sales of SUV's and senselessly huge trucks to those that actually need them. And no, soccer mom going shopping at the

 

[Guest84]

Re: I disagree 100%

I am more then willing to pay for whatever it takes to push fuel standards up a bit.

You are, but what about those who don't earn a good living, you feel that you should promote what you are willing to pay for others that are not as well off?

The car manufacturers have plenty of time to make these changes, and whatever it takes, it will be easier and cost less money than if we all have to drive electric cars because we exhausted the world's oil supply.

With all due respect, I'm not sure which college professor blinded you with misinformation, but they way the reserves are in the world today, and without knowing what reserves we still have lying in wait, we have 200 years worth of oil currently.

As a consumer, the best way we can show that we care about fuel economy (besides boycotting the current gas-hogging SUVs) is to contact your US senator and tell them you SUPPORT higher CAFE standards.

I disagree, the best way to support caring about fuel economy is by taking a look at alternate fuel sources, such as this bill that Bush pushed thru last fall:

Both the House and Senate are moving along bills to form a public-private
partnership that would develop recommendations for promoting hydrogen as
an energy source.

A study delivered to
lawmakers last month by
an independent mainland
consultant says Hawaii can
become a leader in the
hydrogen fuel cell industry.

Fuel cells can, depending
on how the energy is
produced, offer
pollution-free power
sources that are now used
in some resorts and office
buildings and are soon to
be introduced in commercially sold vehicles.

The bills approved by the House and Senate Energy committees would place
the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism in charge of
administering the partnership between the state, the counties, the federal
government, utilities and private companies.

The partnership would be charged with developing plans to promote
investment in hydrogen infrastructure, begin pilot projects to produce
hydrogen from geothermal and other sources on the Big Island, study how to
move hydrogen from the Big Island to the other islands and study whether
wind or other methods could be used to produce hydrogen.

The bills also provide appropriations to
carry out the plans, but leave the amounts
blank, pending further review.

The bills will next be up for a full vote by
each chamber.

 

[Spiderm0n]

Rip,

As far as the poor and cars, some of the most fuel efficient cars on the road today are among the cheapest as well. It will cost more money to make boat-sized SUVs gas efficient, not simple cars.

I never said when our oil reserves will run out (but they will someday), and I agree 100% that alternative energy sources should continue to be developed. But what is the harm in raising CAFE standards, and closing the loophole for SUVs? The is nothing "astronomical" about mandating 35 miles per gallon for a manufacturers fleet (not every car will not have to hit 35 mpg). They have a LONG time to implement this

Good lord, we put a man on the moon, have the technology to blow the world up 200X over, and the car manufacturers are crying because they can't develop new technologies for a modest improvement in MPG?

 

[Guest84]

Well, personally, I don't think you should tax the consumer to make this possible (Thats what your ultimately doing, the auto makers just push this cost onto the consumer, thus Tom Daschele and cronies "Tax and spend" policy). I'd rather see research and development projects for the future, rather than taxate the population. That's all I am saying.

 

[Guest84]

In order for the auto industry to comply with this, they would have to downsize ALL vehicles in power and size.
Most disturbing of all, this bill, if passed, would cause result all vehicles to be less safe.

A Harvard study found that CAFÉ vehicle-downsizing kills up to 3,900 people every year. (That's right: a Harvard study!) Imagine Americans trading in their current vehicles for smaller, less safe,
economy-size death-traps.

We must not allow these politicians to force us to sacrifice the safety of our families in exchange for more wasteful, self serving for a vote,government regulation.

 

[Spiderm0n]

In order for the auto industry to comply with this, they would have to downsize ALL vehicles in power and size.
Most disturbing of all, this bill, if passed, would cause result all vehicles to be less safe.

A Harvard study found that CAFÉ vehicle-downsizing kills up to 3,900 people every year. (That's right: a Harvard study!) Imagine Americans trading in their current vehicles for smaller, less safe,
economy-size death-traps.

That's quite a doomsday scenario! It does ignore some facts however. Everyone knows that you are safer in a car today then you were 25 years ago. Air bags alone have saved thousands of lives. Also, people in cars today would be more safe if there were less SUVs on the road. (would you rather get t-boned by a Geo Metro or a Ford Expedition?)

 

[Guest84]

And what about the 35% of the highway traffic that are Semi's? Are we safe from them?

 

[ff]

And what about the 35% of the highway traffic that are Semi's? Are we safe from them?

The heck with semi's. I'm scared of the latest wave of taxi drivers. Talk about piss-poor excuses for a driver's license...

 

[DaveN323i]

I agree with Spider here. Private industries look for the botton line. If they don't need to spend, they won't. Their priority is shareholder value.

This is not a conservative vs liberal issue. I don't care how much oil there is in the world but it is a finite resource. A lot of the problems that we are now involved in the middle east stem from our thirst for oil. The less dependent we are on this resource, the less grief we'll get for being involved in their politics.

During the heydays of the early 70s, car manufacturers complained that better emissions and better mileage could not be accomplished. But they were accomplished. People forget that a lot of times it is government mandates that push technology.

Any way. We know that this is the way things are done in America (and elsewhere). We negotiate by asking X amount and settle for Y amount.

...And I agree that SUVs should be held to the same standards as automobiles. For Chris sake, they are not trucks anymore.

 

[Guest84]

Then we can agree on one thing, we'd both like to be less dependent on middle east oil.

Lets start tapping our own oil sources up in the northern part of AK. We have a huge, untouched vast amounts of oil just ready to tap, but the tree huggers are stopping us...of course they feel its okay to drive their own cars with someone elses oil, but God-forbid they do it in their OWN country! (I smell hipocrasy)

I vote for spending money on highly potential Hydrogen-burning cars that DON'T emit green house gases, and stop dumping gov't regulations (such as this one)onto the consumer. The Automakers will naturally dump the cost of this onto you and I, they already HAVE done so.

 

[LeucX3]

I think (without any written proof) that this may be done if the gas companies would start selling the same type of diesel fuel that is sold in Europe. IF they started doing this, then more diesel engines would be offered in the US and fuel economy would instantly (relatively speaking) increase.

Automobile manufacturers are doing they're part, but they cant' be expected to do everything. ExxonMobil, Texaco, and Shell (to name a few) should also help out since they're making billions at the pump. Sure, it may cost some $$ up front by improving pumps and refinaries, but that's what gov't subsidies are for, no?

I am NOT saying that this is the only answer to the problem of fuel economy, but it seems as though it's a reasonable place to begin.

Sorry for the rant...

 

[DaveN323i]

I vote for spending money on highly potential Hydrogen-burning cars that DON'T emit green house gases, and stop dumping gov't regulations (such as this one)onto the consumer. The Automakers will naturally dump the cost of this onto you and I, they already HAVE done so.

I agree with the Hydrogen research. It is one of the cleanest fuel, and BMW is much farther afield in development than other manufacturers. It may mean a big change in infrastructure spending. But we did it before (when we got rid of the railroads and had paved roads instead).

As for Alaska, actually I don't think there is anything hypocritical. It is our own self interest to spend someone else's resources before we spend our own. I am sure those resources will be opened up someday.

You know, living in earthquake country, what I am afraid is seeing one of those Alaskan pipelines burst in a big earthquake. I am sure someone will tell me that technology can take care of that.

But back to the original post. Sorry Jon, but I would rather have a four cylinder valvetronic BMW if that means getting higher miles per gallon. Maybe this will be an incentive for BMW to make lighter and more nimble cars. Some of us are already complaining that the E46 is a pork.

 

[in_d_haus]

To compound the matter is the fact that the oil companies are working hard to squash the movement away from fossil fuels (Hydrogen, Electric) because they will lose $$$$$.

The auto makers are trapped in the middle of the government and fossil fuel producers.

My .02,
Haus

 

[Mr Paddle.Shift]

Hate to say this..but I disagree too.

Sure, BMW has increased the mileage overall. But it's just not enough. Having worked and researched on fuel cells before, I am a supporter of alternative fuel automobiles. If BMW were to sell an H2 powered E46, I want to be the one of the few on the order list.

Also, KCET recently aired a documentary about SUV's rollover issues. That program also discussed the Senator Bryan's bill about increasing MPG for the automobiles back in 1991 (I think that year it was). Of course, the automotive industry slammed it and claimed what Ripsnort mentioned about downsizing cars with better milage but a higher injurty rate. Rip, sorry to say this, but I am surprised a bit to hear that from a engineer. :eeps:

Increasing milage does not necessarily imply downsizing the car (thought politicians and lobbyists think otherwise). Automotive manufacturers should also invest more in R&D on engine efficiency. We have a lot of variables to play around when tuning the engine and with the applied technology of adaptive controls, and MEMS (soon-to-be known as the second Industrial Revolution), I am confident enough BMW can build better engines. :thumb:

PS: now who wants a copy of SAE's report on Spark-Ignition engine trends??

 

[Guest84]

Vince, I am just over all against BIGGER gov't. More regulations means bigger Gov't, and that, my friend, means more $$ out of your wallet.

 

[Mr Paddle.Shift]

Aye Rip, I mis-interpreted your statement. Pardon me...

Vince, I am just over all against BIGGER gov't. More regulations means bigger Gov't, and that, my friend, means more $$ out of your wallet.