BMW Jumps into US Diesel Market

geordi · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:57 pm

WTF does the transmission have to do with the emissions of the engine? That is the STUPIDEST excuse for "we just don't want to" or "we were bought off by big oil" that I've ever heard.

Next they will be saying "We have to delay introduction of this 100mpg diesel engine (The Lupo) for small vehicles, because the choice of TIRES affects the engine's emissions."

Yea.... BS. What's the REAL reason?

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:07 pm

Threeweight wrote:

I think the average person who plops $45k down on a new BMW will find a way to live with the hardship of taking their vehicle to the dealer for service every few months. I don't see too many blue haired socialites or country club golfers crawling around under their rigs, service manual in hand, doing their own maintenance on their brand new bimmer.

If the technology actually enters widespread use, you'll likely be able to buy the stuff at your local NAPA. You can buy variants of it at your local agricultural supply store right now.

Clean air rules are a fact of life. Folks are certainly entitled to express their dislike of them. Just a little silly to whine about them as much as some do, when vehicle manufacturers are bringing, cleaner, more efficient, and higher performance diesels to market while still meeting them.

That's exactly the point - with this type of system, only those well enough off to afford a $45K car and able to afford time off work to take it into the dealer every 5000 miles for an oil change will be able to afford a diesel option.

Somehow I doubt that the EPA will allow you the option of refilling the tank on your own, even if this stuff does become available at NAPA. As I said, unless the electronics are sophisticated enough to detect that the tank is filled with urea and not just topped off with tap water, what's to keep the owner from doing just that - avoiding the expense of taking the car to the dealer or having to buy urea in the first place?

The sensors/electronics necessary to tell the difference would add to the build cost, and result in increased price for the buyer or added cost to the OEM or both. Much simpler from the OEM's standpoint to just put in a plain jane level sensor and a tamper-proof sealed tank such that the owner has no choice but to bring it into the dealer for a refill. If they find the seal on the tank has been tampered with, you get your warranty voided and a hefty fine from the EPA at the same time.

Initially, the EPA didn't go along with the idea of urea injection, precisely for the reason I stated - what was to keep the owner from simply blowing off refilling the tank or just filling it with plain water, or finding another way of cheating the system. They wouldn't buy off on it until the OEM's could satisfy them they could design a cheat-proof system such that the owners would be forced to maintain the urea system and comply with EPA regs.

And of late, the direction taken by the OEM's has been toward sealed systems that the owner is unable to check on his own - ie, a sealed cap on the tranny fill tube - and has to take the vehicle into the shop to be checked. I don't find it far-fetched they would go the same direction with a urea system, especially with the added impetus of the EPA breathing down their necks.

Bottom line - I don't see the EPA letting owners operate on the honor system when it comes to refilling the urea tank on their own. Just look on this forum, with the SEGR and ORM - that should answer the question.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:17 pm

geordi wrote:

WTF does the transmission have to do with the emissions of the engine? That is the STUPIDEST excuse for "we just don't want to" or "we were bought off by big oil" that I've ever heard.

Next they will be saying "We have to delay introduction of this 100mpg diesel engine (The Lupo) for small vehicles, because the choice of TIRES affects the engine's emissions."

Yea.... BS. What's the REAL reason?

Emissions probably ARE the reason they put off the diesel option - with the results of the recent election, they're waiting to see if they get hammered with even more restrictive emissions requirements past 2010.

Honda wasn't the only OEM that suddenly got cold feet as to offering a diesel option once the election was over.

geordi · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:21 pm

I'm not disputing you that the potential of new regs would give a lot of OEMs cold feet, but for them to blame the transmission... Anyone who knows how to use a wrench would be able to discern that argument is pure BS. I'd have more respect if they just said that they were waiting to see if the political climate would necessitate any changes to the design.

BTW: OEMs have frequently pulled out the excuse calendar when they don't want to do something. On my Jetta TDI, I ACTUALLY had the dealer tell me that the factory radio failed because the BLACK COLOR of my car absorbed too much heat and cooked the electronics.

Uhm... Excuse me mr genius service guy? Could I get that is WRITING please? I'd like to talk to my attorney, the local news, and the Better Business Bureau about this. Or, you could just replace the thing for free.

For some reason, I never did get that excuse in writing. *shrug*
They did replace it, but the new one I was given was a refurb that had it's own problem. That was the third radio I had been given for that car.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:51 pm

That was Honda's PC way of saying as much - doublespeak so they didn't piss off anyone in the new admin by saying so in plain english.

bdptp73 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Funny thing is, I think Chrysler used the same excuse for not bringing the manual transmission CRD to the US market. I believe I read that on this board, or I could just be making s&*t up as I go along, but it's not like they didn't have the parts already. At least they brought the automatic for a couple of years

.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

I just find the amount bandwidth folks devote to conspiracy theories a little kooky. If the BMW costs too much for you, go buy a new Jetta TDI. If you wish to believe NASA and the EPA are in league with the UN to promote global warming as a conspiracy theory so they can ban diesel engines and force your daughter to marry a lame black muslim, you are certainly entitled. However, in the grand scheme of things worth getting your blood pressure up over, that seems a little silly. Especially since the basis for it is moot, as you can head down to the local car dealership and buy a shiny new diesel this very afternoon.

The official Honda line to the business community on the 2.2 TDI delay:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 3120081030

The cost of diesel fuel in the United States. Instead of the EPA, look to Exxon.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:37 am

Threeweight wrote:

I just find the amount bandwidth folks devote to conspiracy theories a little kooky. If the BMW costs too much for you, go buy a new Jetta TDI. If you wish to believe NASA and the EPA are in league with the UN to promote global warming as a conspiracy theory so they can ban diesel engines and force your daughter to marry a lame black muslim, you are certainly entitled. However, in the grand scheme of things worth getting your blood pressure up over, that seems a little silly. Especially since the basis for it is moot, as you can head down to the local car dealership and buy a shiny new diesel this very afternoon.

The official Honda line to the business community on the 2.2 TDI delay:

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 3120081030

The cost of diesel fuel in the United States. Instead of the EPA, look to Exxon.

With snide remarks and racial slurs like that, I'd almost believe that Reflex was back in town. And I don't see how they in any way contributed to the discussion.

Autoline Daily program by Siemens reported 4 weeks ago that Honda was canceling bringing the Acura TSX diesel to the US because it couldn't meet US emissions standards when equipped with an auto transmission.

And working for Freightliner for over 11 years, I don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see what some of the EPA's more asinine requirements have done to the Class 8 diesel truck market, or diesels in general.

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:21 pm

bdptp73 wrote:

The BMW has 50 more HP and 50 more ftlbs of torque than the GC with the same displacement. It will be interesting to see what the boys at Inmotion could do with this thing, 500 ftlbs maybe? :twisted:

That might be worth the 45K.

Ahh. The beauty of a straight six, with natural primary and secondary balance, deeper crank throw, and 30% fewer moving parts, it is capable of vastly more torque than a 4 banger, V6 or even 8 cylinder.

onthehunt · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:12 pm

Quote:

Ahh. The beauty of a straight six

In my opinion it should be a law. Deisel= straight-six.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:23 pm

nursecosmo wrote:

bdptp73 wrote:

The BMW has 50 more HP and 50 more ftlbs of torque than the GC with the same displacement. It will be interesting to see what the boys at Inmotion could do with this thing, 500 ftlbs maybe? :twisted:

That might be worth the 45K.

Ahh. The beauty of a straight six, with natural primary and secondary balance, deeper crank throw, and 30% fewer moving parts, it is capable of vastly more torque than a 4 banger, V6 or even 8 cylinder.

Years ago Detroit developed the V8 as a bean counter move and found that it was cheaper to produce than an inline four. The only problem inline sixes had was trying to run them off a single carburetor, of course, diesel and FI gassers don't have a problem.
BMW developed powerful inline sixes because the German Government taxed on engine displacement, not horse power. Thanks to the common rail and direct injection, the days of Indirect injection automotive diesel engines is becoming a page of history.
Another nice thing about the inline six is that it fits well under the long hood that is common with the high performance sports sedans BMW and some others are famous for. The V6 is a way to cram more cubes in a tight space, like the front of a Sprinter.

How much I would love to tell the EPA to go to 42,4391N by 83,98634W , just a little North West of Ann Arbor, MI.

BTW: My son bought his '99 BMW 530d for 8000 euros with 250K (Kilometers), it has the Generation 1 Common Rail and a predecessor of the 335d.

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:02 am

onthehunt wrote:

In my opinion it should be a law. Deisel= straight-six.

Unfortunately Americans have been sold on the idea that a V8 = more power. While true up to a certain point (most V8 engines have higher displacements), V8s will never be able to produce the same amount of HP from the same amount of fuel. Nor will they be able to have the same low end grunt (useful at the stop light as well as in mud holes 20 miles from civilization). If Jeep would team up with Cummins for a small displacement Turbo Diesel in a patriot or even better yet a Wrangler Unlimited (drool), I know what my next vehicle would be. I'm not knocking our little 4 banger, I'm just saying that a 2.8L I6 would have been better and we would all be getting >30 MPG in our mules.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:48 am

onthehunt wrote:

Quote:

Ahh. The beauty of a straight six

In my opinion it should be a law. Deisel= straight-six.

I'll second that motion. My other diesel, the '87 MB, is a 3.0 L inline six. This puppy was the fastest diesel production car in the world when it came out, top end of 125 mph straight from the factory. The one time I've really put my foot all the way to the floor, it finally shifted from 3rd to 4th at 75 mph and was still pulling like a banshee - at that point I decided discretion was the better part of valor. :wink:

Old fashioned indirect mechanical injection, ancient Garrett fixed vane T3 turbo that only puts out 14 psi max, no intercooler, but will knock down 33 to 35 mpg all day long whether driving to work or cruising on the interstate, and will pull like a mule and fly like a bat when you give it throttle. Old time diesel clatter at idle, but as smooth and quiet as any gas engine when it builds some revs.

I passed over a couple early 90's 300D's that were arguably in better shape as far as maintenance history, body, and interior - one even had actual leather interior and seats for 2 grand less - as they had the 2.5 L inline five - to get the '87 with the inline six.

The KJ hasn't been seeing many miles since I've gotten the MB into decent shape.

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:33 pm

retmil46 wrote:

onthehunt wrote:

Quote:

Ahh. The beauty of a straight six

In my opinion it should be a law. Deisel= straight-six.

I'll second that motion. My other diesel, the '87 MB, is a 3.0 L inline six. This puppy was the fastest diesel production car in the world when it came out, top end of 125 mph straight from the factory. The one time I've really put my foot all the way to the floor, it finally shifted from 3rd to 4th at 75 mph and was still pulling like a banshee - at that point I decided discretion was the better part of valor. :wink:

Old fashioned indirect mechanical injection, ancient Garrett fixed vane T3 turbo that only puts out 14 psi max, no intercooler, but will knock down 33 to 35 mpg all day long whether driving to work or cruising on the interstate, and will pull like a mule and fly like a bat when you give it throttle. Old time diesel clatter at idle, but as smooth and quiet as any gas engine when it builds some revs.

I passed over a couple early 90's 300D's that were arguably in better shape as far as maintenance history, body, and interior - one even had actual leather interior and seats for 2 grand less - as they had the 2.5 L inline five - to get the '87 with the inline six.

The KJ hasn't been seeing many miles since I've gotten the MB into decent shape.

That's a sweet ride. I passed one up a cherry one for $1500 last spring. Been kicking myself in the rear ever since. :cry:

mackruss · **Posted:** Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:00 pm

Just saw a test of the BMW on TV and this one will not be introduced to the South African Market cause our LSD of 50ppm is still too high.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:09 pm

retmil46 wrote:

onthehunt wrote:

Quote:

Ahh. The beauty of a straight six

In my opinion it should be a law. Deisel= straight-six.

I'll second that motion. My other diesel, the '87 MB, is a 3.0 L inline six. This puppy was the fastest diesel production car in the world when it came out, top end of 125 mph straight from the factory. The one time I've really put my foot all the way to the floor, it finally shifted from 3rd to 4th at 75 mph and was still pulling like a banshee - at that point I decided discretion was the better part of valor. :wink:

Old fashioned indirect mechanical injection, ancient Garrett fixed vane T3 turbo that only puts out 14 psi max, no intercooler, but will knock down 33 to 35 mpg all day long whether driving to work or cruising on the interstate, and will pull like a mule and fly like a bat when you give it throttle. Old time diesel clatter at idle, but as smooth and quiet as any gas engine when it builds some revs.

I passed over a couple early 90's 300D's that were arguably in better shape as far as maintenance history, body, and interior - one even had actual leather interior and seats for 2 grand less - as they had the 2.5 L inline five - to get the '87 with the inline six.

The KJ hasn't been seeing many miles since I've gotten the MB into decent shape.

'98 E300 Turbo Diesel

Its a nice highway car, easy 30MPG+ all the time. Had it about 6 months now and put about 10k miles on it.

racer1 · **Posted:** Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:33 pm

I haven't owned a BMW since the 90's BUT I believe all maintenance is included with there cars through the warranty period. I never really got the diesel thing I bought a gas one ton dually for towing because the numbers just don't work out. The cost of the option, the cost of diesel, and the similar mileage made the payback some 25 years for me. Have you ever seen a 25 year old Ford pick up. I live in Minnesota diesel is about $100 = more than gas.

Dave

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:49 pm

Sir Sam wrote:

'98 E300 Turbo Diesel
Its a nice highway car, easy 30MPG+ all the time. Had it about 6 months now and put about 10k miles on it.

Nice. Isn't that the turbo version of the OM606 inline six? Four valves per cylinder, where my old OM603 is still only 2 valves per cylinder.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:19 pm

retmil46 wrote:

Sir Sam wrote:

'98 E300 Turbo Diesel
Its a nice highway car, easy 30MPG+ all the time. Had it about 6 months now and put about 10k miles on it.

Nice. Isn't that the turbo version of the OM606 inline six? Four valves per cylinder, where my old OM603 is still only 2 valves per cylinder.

Yup, pretty nice package, I'm wondering what a VGT turbo off of a CRD would do for the engine. It definitely has more lag than the CRD, and you can tell its a generation or two older tech than the CRD.

I'm going to keep an eye out at my local auction, a 96 E320 wagon with no title and light front end damage sold for $1100 back over the summer.

I'm thinking W210 wagon with 4-matic and the OM606.

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

retmil46 wrote:

With snide remarks and racial slurs like that, I'd almost believe that Reflex was back in town. And I don't see how they in any way contributed to the discussion.

Autoline Daily program by Siemens reported 4 weeks ago that Honda was canceling bringing the Acura TSX diesel to the US because it couldn't meet US emissions standards when equipped with an auto transmission.

And working for Freightliner for over 11 years, I don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see what some of the EPA's more asinine requirements have done to the Class 8 diesel truck market, or diesels in general.

Apologies if it came across as overly snotty. I am just perplexed as to why a new manufacturer bringing a high performance diesel to market in the US leads folks to complain rather than celebrate, and then turn the discussion into a political argument over what bad things the new President and the EPA are going to do. I'm not the one who veered off down that tangent, and it is annoying to check in on a thread like this and see that it has quickly turned into another lame political rant.

Anyway, it was originally rumored that the 2.0 TDI in the new VWs would also require urea injection to meet 50 state emissions specs, but that is not the case (though the larger 3.0 used in the Mercedes 320's does). The NOx trap on the VW is good enough to meet 50 state specs. Road and Track has a review of the MB 320 from back in July that implies accessing the urea system to refill it is fairly straightforward:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp ... le_id=6917

Naturally, questions arise. Will the owner have to refill the 7-gallon tank with AdBlue, the brand name of Mercedes' chosen urea blend? Probably not, as it's refilled by the Mercedes dealer at 10,000-mile oil change intervals. As urea consumption is proportional to fuel usage, the ML owner who tows a boat often up steep grades might have to replenish the reservoir, but it's easily accessed beneath the cargo-area floor panel. Will the vehicle run when the reservoir is dry? Yes, for 20 start cycles of the engine. Attempt start No. 21 and nothing will happen, as a built-in electronic counter intervenes. There's no physical reason the engine won't run; it's a legal technicality to ensure low tailpipe emissions.

There is also an interesting blog post over on TheCarConnection blog about the urea injection system and how it actually works:

http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/blogs ... d-fiction/

The urea technology was actually developed to meet European clean air standards, not the EPA standards. Interesting reading on how the new Euro clean air regs are making heavy truck manufacturers there adopt urea technology as well.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle ... Id=7035003

BMW Jumps into US Diesel Market

Who is online