635CSi wrote: I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this in Autocar! C'mon, how sweet would that be?? Volvo's safety knowhow combined with BMW's driving dynamics! It will be good for both of the brands because Volvos will be better to drive and BMW will have the next S40 to base the New, New, New MINI.

You do realise that if this happens your favourite car would always be a BMW

p.s. - not another MiNi - aren't two enough already?

o mi gawd, now every second thread will be about volvo.

dryle wrote: o mi gawd, now every second thread will be about volvo.

no about BovlMoWv

thepits wrote: dryle wrote: o mi gawd, now every second thread will be about volvo. no about BovlMoWv

is this a new language try saying it.

dryle wrote: is this a new language?

No it's GhsEiRdMeAwNs

635CSi wrote: thepits wrote: You do realise that if this happens your favourite car would always be a BMW   p.s. - not another MiNi - aren't two enough already? I don't care, I will be glad if it goes ahead! Ford are butchering Volvo as we speak.

And if ever a brand needed to be butchered....its ovlov, closely followed by saab !

Rhys wrote: dryle wrote: But the reports are also saying that they may be reluctant to takeover as they got their fingers burned. as they say once bitten twice shy Rover?

spot on there

taken from motoring authority

However, BMW would be treading very cautiously. Seven years ago it suffered the embarrassment of massive financial losses when its venture with the Rover Group fell though in 1994, a mistake it can’t afford to repeat.

ok it doesnt say reluctant, but if something like that happened to you then you you be willing for something like that to happen to you again. i would.

dryle wrote: Seven years ago it suffered the embarrassment of massive financial losses when its venture with the Rover Group fell though in 1994,

Great cars though - eh Nigel?

BMW would be better off going after Nanjing Automotive. They'd get their hands back on the 75! A real coup.

thepits wrote: dryle wrote: Seven years ago it suffered the embarrassment of massive financial losses when its venture with the Rover Group fell though in 1994, Great cars though - eh Nigel?

So far I'm very very pleased with my 1.8 litre 75 conn.

hmmm...BMW to BMVV namechange on the cards?

m3sport wrote: I have to say, and take all the bad back regarding the S40.  After driving it now for 5 weeks, I LIKE IT.  lol.  Its great really, I now realise it has great handeling unlike i said before, and is a good car all around.

hmmmmmm - I feel a ban coming on!

thepits wrote: m3sport wrote: I have to say, and take all the bad back regarding the S40.  After driving it now for 5 weeks, I LIKE IT.  lol.  Its great really, I now realise it has great handeling unlike i said before, and is a good car all around.  hmmmmmm - I feel a ban coming on!

You just keep your eye's peeled Simon, we don't want you being caught out by one of those fast Ford KA's

Nigel wrote: You just keep your eye's peeled Simon, we don't want you being caught out by one of those fast Ford KA's

or even an 'over?

p.s. you know what a KA convertable is called?

a KAC of course!

In exactly what way has the 1series diluted the BMW image? I think it fits fine as a small rear wheel drive, driver oriented, car much in the 2002 style. Maybe the Xseries on the other hand...

The last Compact (E46) had the exact same driving dynamics as other E46's.

Larzyh.

In that they have produced a cheaper car which will be accessible to more people i.e you reduce the exclusivity of the brand so making it less desirable to some people. I don't agree with that sentiment myself but doubtless some will.

The X type has done exactly the same for Jaguar, especially the 2.0 Diesel. 

BMW have alway produced reasonably priced cars, but with that certain "Driver's Car" ethos. The 1602 the E21 and the E30 were not particularly expensive cars. My issue with BMW is that it has become just another prestige brand. The 3series has become gradually larger and more expensive so the 1series makes sense in that context.

Larzyh.

Nostrils wrote: IIRC Ford own much if not all of volvo and its probably their way of finding more money to get them out of the hole they are in at the moment. The Ford Focus ST has the 5 cylinder Volvo engine which is why it sounds familiar to the older V70! Volvo have come a long way in modern times and are certainly catching up with the competition. BMW could be using Volvo to concentrate on newer combustion engines with so-called Bio fuels, the swedes are good at all this environmental stuff!!

ford own 50%.

with regard to the biofuels there is major concern that although they are "greener" to burn in the car the production produces more co2 and there is also a concern that the likes of corn crops are not meeting requirements which is pushing up prices, who will be able to afford them the motorist or the poor african. the production of palm oil produces 33million tonnes of co2 per acre of virgin land burned.

635CSi wrote: Nostrils wrote: IIRC Ford own much if not all of volvo and its probably their way of finding more money to get them out of the hole they are in at the moment. The Ford Focus ST has the 5 cylinder Volvo engine which is why it sounds familiar to the older V70! Volvo have come a long way in modern times and are certainly catching up with the competition. BMW could be using Volvo to concentrate on newer combustion engines with so-called Bio fuels, the swedes are good at all this environmental stuff!! It's amazing how the S40 T5 has the same chassis and the exact same engine as the Focus ST, but drives nothing like it!! Biofuels aren't really revolutionary but they definitely make more sense than hybrids. I'm not into them really though, you would need to be wearing slippers and grow your own clothes to drive one!

the biofuels produce more bhp than petrol. saab are producing a 300bhp 2 litre 100% biofuel engine. the production of hydrids and the disposal produces a hell of a lot more co2 than ordinary petrol engines.

As I see it, bio-fuel's main advantages are sustainability and the lessening dependancy on fossil fuel.

With regards to "poor africans", there never has been a shortage of food in the world and there probably never will be; the problem is inequitable distribution of resources and that is unlikely to change.

I am considering converting my car to run on bio fuel - get some farmers back to the land and stop lining the pockets of some very dubious regimes in the Middle East.

Larzyh.

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.

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.

we had a discussion on biofuels

http://www.bavarian-board.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=36748&KW=bio - http://www.bavarian-board.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=36748&am p;KW=bio

also biofuels fuel economy is less than petrol

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.

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.

here are a few links regarding UN concern on Biofuels.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003786.html - http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003786.html

http://ktar.com/?nid=35&sid=474194 - http://ktar.com/?nid=35&sid=474194

http://www.physorg.com/news97850502.html - http://www.physorg.com/news97850502.html

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12734 - http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12734

http://www.dieselforum.org/meet-clean-diesel/what-is-clean-diesel/what-is-biodiesel/ - http://www.dieselforum.org/meet-clean-diesel/what-is-clean-d iesel/what-is-biodiesel/

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.

Ah yes, the irreverant Mr Pink

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

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 ?

dryle wrote: ah because i knew noone would start a new thread on the whole green house gases issue. However i am willing to start a dedicated "green" thread if any one else is interested. No doubt certain "mods" will post up green pics for a laugh, not naming any1 but seems to like pink cars afaik

I think this thread is developing nicely ...... anything to get away from Volvo's is fine by me!  

mind you, saying that, why do 'hybrid-cars' have to be so ugly?

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.

I replaced the entire heating system at home with a new, efficient, well-insulated wood pellet system last year.

We have energy-saving lightbulbs everywhere, completely re-insulated the house incl wall injection. Recycle everything we can, compost the rest.

And part of my motivation for selling M3 was that with a 10yr old 180k 525TDS and lightweight 38mpg Elise, fuel usage is dramatically reduced. Also, the majority of energy consumption with a car is in manufacture and disposal - my 5 series is just getting more and more kind to the environment!  

But in the end, we fly abroad on hols, don't cycle enough, and still use more than we should. Still, ever little helps.

larzyh wrote: As I see it, bio-fuel's main advantages are sustainability and the lessening dependancy on fossil fuel. With regards to "poor africans", there never has been a shortage of food in the world and there probably never will be; the problem is inequitable distribution of resources and that is unlikely to change. I am considering converting my car to run on bio fuel - get some farmers back to the land and stop lining the pockets of some very dubious regimes in the Middle East. Larzyh.

There is now a shortage of corn, there have been riots in mexico because tortilla prices have risen by 60%, even the UN is stating that the change over to biofuels are a concern as fuel is now being manufactured from traditional food substances that there is going to be shortages, i agree with peter regarding not enough land mass for the crops to serve both food and fuel, if you start plundering the rainforests to make way for more crops this will start to have an even more negative effect on the environment as the rain forests produce over 50% of oxygen.

The way forward is hydrogen cell cars and to a certain extent hybrids but the overall carbon footprint must be examined.

It is not only motorists that must view this, builders must start examining their methods as cement production produces a huge amount of carbon dioxide.

T.J. wrote: I replaced the entire heating system at home with a new, efficient, well-insulated wood pellet system last year. And part of my motivation for selling M3 was that with a 10yr old 180k 525TDS and lightweight 38mpg Elise, fuel usage is dramatically reduced. Also, the majority of energy consumption with a car is in manufacture and disposal - my 5 series is just getting more and more kind to the environment!

Good for you TJ, that is the way to go, we were buying a house with OFCH and were going to change for a pellet burner, fell thru.

You can grow elephant grass its expensive to start €1k per acre but is seemingly vgood and grows well and fast. Dont know where you get it. There was an article in the Times magazine last year, i think a guy from SEI was growing it.

dryle wrote: OK apart from the car "green issue" what else do people do here to help mother nature.

I don't drive a DIEsel

flyingalexf68 wrote: 635CSi wrote: Haha!! I'm sorry alex but that technology BMW are flogging at the moment is at least 15 years old. Sure the Golf Mk III had it! Maybe it did. Doubt it though. It's also fairly easy to make an engine do 100mpg in a car. BUT, it's not easy to make this technology CLEAN. The cars still have to pass the latest emmissions regulations which is hard to do. So BMW are on to something with their new brake energy regeneration and automatic engine stop/start stuff.

was that not the engine just cutting out and having to restart it as i doubt that vw if they had that technology 15 yrs ago havent progressed with it.

BMW and Ford are stating that Hydrogen cars are still a good few years off yet, there was an article in the Engineers Journal regarding this.

MArtin,

With regard to turning off the heating in rooms when not in use is generally considered good however if the temp in those rooms fall enough then you will be losing heat to those rooms therefore in theory heating them.

The Current BR states that any new house over 100m2 should be zoned for energy efficiency ie living, sleeping and HWS. This can be achieved by the use of thermostatic zoning, honeywell make them, when i eventually move house i will be getting them.

Although some people see elec as a clean source of energy SEI has stated that CO2 emmissions for elec is 880g/kwhr and for gas is 180g/kwr (approx).

Petrol emmits just over 2kg Co2 per litre goning from some car details. So by being frugal when driving ie higher is doing more for the environment than you think.

I think the fact we're even having this debate is great. It wouldn't have happened 2yrs ago. There is a real groundswell of awareness.

The youth of today are so clued into energy issues, and I have every faith that humanitys resourcefulness and survival instinct will provide long-term solutions to what is a crisis. In my opinion though, we'll need a real proper crisis to provide the transformational step-change.

One question that is overlooked a bit in the driving aspect of the discussion is the CO2 cost of producing a new car.  I tend to drive cars that are at leat 5-6 years old when I buy them. 

• Would I actually help to save the planet by driving a newer cleaner car or add to its woes when there is a significant carbon footprint simply in its production? 
• For that reason am I actually doing more good by running the cars I do rather than asking a car company to build me a new one? 
• I do a relatively high mileage so how does this affect my argument? 
• What sort of a time period (or mileage) is required so that the relative reduction in carbon output from driving a cleaner car (compared to driving an older, more polluting car) outweighs the output from the production of the cleaner one?
• Has the car been designed to achieve the usable life necessary to achieve this?

I really don't know the answers to these questions but it does seem to me many of the "measures" being adopted to encourage us to reduce our footprint on the earth (whether its buying new cars, how we fuel them or heat our houses, etc.) are significantly flawed and support the notion of designed in obsolesence and the market economy principles more than sustainable ecology.  Worse again, when the measures to "encourage" us to be more green end up simply being cynical revenue raising opportunities for governments (for example a 10% increase in duties on fuels won't cause people to significantly alter their habits but will raise revenue where a 100% increase might alter habits but adversely affect revenue because it reduces consumption by a more significant degree) people will, correctly, be suspicious of the message.