BMW planning takeover bid for Volvo!! & greenie issues

larzyh wrote: Are we back to the whole "this car isn't a BMW because it is not made in Bayern in a factory with a BMW logo on it" debate? I consider the X3 a BMW (even the motorcycles produced by Cagiva, I consider BMW's) and the 2002 is, for me, in many ways the quintessential BMW. Larzyh.

I wasn't suggesting that, I was just pointing out that a car most people seem to think is a BMW classic was actually from a company they took over.

On the subject of bio fuels, there was a prog on BBC radio four some time ago that said of the rape seed stuff that if you needed one extra pass with a tractor for weed control or whatever, then the farmer would have used more diesel growing the crop than the crop would make.

I wouldn't be totally averse to a degree of state (EU) subsidisation to farmers growing fuel; we've been subsidising farmers in other areas producing less needed products like butter!

And I do think the BMW 2002 is a classic (BMW).

Larzyh.

flyingalexf68 wrote: That bio fuel is a scam.  Anyone can make an engine run on alcohol.

Why exactly is it a scam?

The fact that anyone can do it is a good thing surely.

how has a thread regarding BMW maybe buying ovlov out become an argument regarding the environment, i recommend that there should be a separate thread for this discussion and get back to BMW buying the old mans car disc

LOL, your first post says the thread is going off course and the environmental issues should be moved to a new thread. Your next one then adds to the environmental debate.

Now how's that for inconsistency

I think threads should be allowed to develop "organically" (notice the green connection), in whatever direction the contibutors deem appropriate...

 

Larzyh.

larzyh wrote: I think threads should be allowed to develop "organically" (notice the green connection), in whatever direction the contibutors deem appropriate...   Larzyh.

I get enough organic at home thanks very much

Nigel wrote: Don't forget the 1602 & 2002 weren't BMW's they were made by glass if I remember correctly.

I don't believe that is trictly true...

Firstly the company was Glas (not Glass)

The 02 were, indeed, built at the old Glas plant in Dingolfing...But they were a BMW design, based on the Nueue Classe 4-dr saloon floorpan suitably shortened.

But Dingolfing is currently the largest BMW production facility...Perhaps the Rolls Royce is really a Glas, too?

Hybrid cars have to be ugly in order to stand out. You cannot be nearly as smug and self-righteous if other people can't tell you're driving a hybrid.

I read in the Irish Times that the Toyota Prius has the highest satisfaction rate according to the JD Power's survey; SELF-SATISFACTION, more like it!

Larzyh.

Nigel wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote: Nigel wrote: ...that said of the rape seed stuff that if you needed one extra pass with a tractor for weed control or whatever, then the farmer would have used more diesel growing the crop than the crop would make. Which I don't belive for one minute. I'm interested as to why you don't think thats the case Peter, as even though we don't often see eye to eye, you talk sense sometimes lol. It was a serious program with no agenda one way or the other, it was on something like "your planet" or whatever, where some greenie types try to answer listeners questions regarding these issues, and the question was something like "why isn't there a bigger take up on bio diesel by governments ? " Its the same sort of thing as these energy efficient light bulbs, what is the actual carbon footprint ? Nobody seems to want to tell us, sure they use less energy, but how much more do they use to make, and more importantly, dispose of ?

The trouble with green issues IMO is that getting to the truth can be very difficult because they affect everyone so most people have a predjudice one way or another. Those who are impartial don't tend to get involved unfortunately. The same is true of most issues TBH, or at least those that make it into the political arena. As soon as politicans get involved it becomes almost impossible to remove the facts from all the political spin and manipulation.

There are several reasons why there might not have been a greater take up of Biofuels.

1) Bioethanol is very slightly acidic and a lot of car manufacturers will not provide waranties for cars running on fuel with >5% of it in. A significant number of petrol providers now ad up to 5% bioethanol to their petrol. It is very noticable that the ones that don't tend to be the larger comapnies like Shell and BP that currently make most of their money from crude oil and/or refining of it.

2) The land required to grow the crops to produce biofuels is in high demand especially in this country where land for new housing is given priority. Globally there is not enough land to grow enough crops to totally replace crude oil.

3) There are still a lot of influential people in this country who make a lot of money from crude oil.

...that said of the rape seed stuff that if you needed one extra pass with a tractor for weed control or whatever, then the farmer would have used more diesel growing the crop than the crop would make

My issue with this point is that it doesn't make a great deal of sense. Think about it. How much fuel does a farmer need to cultivate a field of crops that can be converted into bio fuel? I don't know how many mpg a tractor does and how often the farmer has to do a full pass of the field but from a financial standpoint it doesn't make a great deal of sense. the farmer has to pay for the fuel he uses and he will in turn get paid for the biofukle he produces. Now he isn't going to get paid more for the fuel he makes that ther stuff he buys since the only difference between the stuff he gets and what we buy is the Tax the chancellor takes. So If the difference between him making more or less oil than it takes to power his tractor is one pass then how is it worth anyones while to have him doing it? Don't forget that rapeseed oil is also used in cooking so is obviously a financial vaible crop in it's own right.

I could be wrong but the notion that it is a balance based on how many passes his tractor has to make sounds a little bit far fetched. I'm not saying the program was overtly biased  but most people have a slight bias in one direction or the other and farmers are known for being very veerment when it comes to telling us how tough their lot is. TV/the media likes bold, dramatic, sensational statements so it's not beyond the realm of possibillity that the case was overstated for the purpose of the programme.