M5POST
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   M5POST - BMW M5 Forum > F10 M5 Forum > BMW M5 (F10) General Forum

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-29-2014, 03:58 PM   #89
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inge_F View Post
Yeah, I think its more or less commonly accepted as certain by now.



I`m sure its a great engine in a great car, but Lamborghini can lean on their mothership, (Audi->VAG-group) when it comes to emission regulations, and thus make them able as a part of the whole group, to produce a acceptable overall emission number for the fleet. I believe another forum member has explained this more closely in several posts already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPiM5 View Post
I think Lamborghini gets the same exemption as Ferrari does regarding fleet C02 emissions average since both companies produce very few cars compared to giants like VW and Toyota. Either way, I haven't exactly heard of any future planned Lamborghini model going Turbo. So that might say something about them.
Just like Porsche, Lamborghini is part of the VAG umbrella when it comes to Fleet Average Emissions.

http://www.ademloos.be/sites/default...Oct%202013.pdf

BMW has a disadvantage here since it only has BMW (incl MINI), BMW M and Rolls Royce under it's umbrella, or pool of manufacturers, to share the CO2 emissions between. That means EVERY brand in the pool has to do a significant part of the CO2 emission reduction. Over at VAG they can "afford" one of the brands to continue with higher CO2...

Here are some of my previous posts on the topic:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...4#post15512324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
Yeah, they don't make the M models simply as a means of meeting CO2 emission levels

In 2012 BMW had a EU fleet average of 138g/km.

If we look at the effect of both the M3/4 and M5 and assume they both sell 15.000 units a year, the effect of M cars starts to make a difference. And BMW needs to count all of their models in this calculation.

If we do the maths and include the M5 (forgetting the X5/6 M at the moment) and use the following CO2 numbers:

-133g/km for the 1,5M BMW models (assumption on 2014 FAE numbers)
-232g/km for the F10 M5,
-357g/km for the E60 M5,
-194g/km for the F8x M3/4 and
-263g/km for the E9x M3

FAE = (133*1.5M+xxx*30k)/(1.5M+30k) = xxx g/km

Example 1 - E60 M5 + E9x M3 impact on FAE CO2
FAE = (133*1.5M+357*15k+263*15k)/(1.5M+30k) = 136,47 g/km

Example 2 - F10 M5 + F8x M3/4 impact on FAE CO2
FAE = (133*1.5M+232*15k+194*15k)/(1.5M+30k) = 134,56 g/km

So, just counting the M3/4 and M5, we see a improvement of 1,91g/km on FAE CO2 emissions from the Exx generation M cars to the Fxx generation M cars. But we also see that even the "CO2 friendly" F10 M5 and F8x M3/4 increase BMW fleet average from 133 to 134,56g/km... So the M cars definitely make a difference in BMW's overall CO2 fleet average!

Pretty significant reduction by the Fxx gen M cars when they need to get below 130g/km by 2015, especially considering they only represent 30K vehicles out of 1.5M (or 2%) of BMW vehicles... Having the CO2 of the Exx gen M cars would be bad news for BMW in 2015...

So in that respect I don't necessarily agree that the M cars represent simply noise levels of CO2 reduction. It represents roughly 2g/km better FAE compared to the previous generation, but still represents a 1,5g/km increase in the total FAE. Without going FI on the M5 and M3/4 and staying at the same CO2 level as before on the M5 and M3/4 would mean a 3,47g/km increase in FAE... That is important when you're FAE is just above 130g/km one year before the deadline and a very real 95 Euro fine per gram over the limit per car sold...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
It seems simple in theory, but there are vital differences in how CO2 emission targets come into play here...

Porsche is part of a pool of 10 manufacturers under the VW umbrella. The pools combined CO2 emissions is what counts when the 130g/km of CO2 has to be met. In 2012 the VW pool had a combined CO2 of 120g/km, allready below the 130g/km level required for 2015.

BMW also has a pool, but only has BMW (incl. MINI), Rolls Royce and M GmbH in it's pool. In 2012 they had a combined CO2 of 124g/km, also below the 130g/km target for 2015.

However, M GmbH's average CO2 emissions was 231g/km in 2012 and they have set a target at 151g/km in order to meet their pool's requirements for future combined CO2 numbers of 90g/km (in 2020). Even the F8x at 199g/km exceeds that target...

AMG, in comparison, had a 2012 CO2 emission of just 177g/km and have the same target of 151g/km as M GmbH does. AMG is MUCH closer to meeting their CO2 requirements than M GmbH was back in 2012... (Quattro GmbH was at 219g/km and has a target of 147g/km).

If we look at Porsche's CO2 numbers, as a company and not as part of the VW pool, we will see that they had a 2012 CO2 emission of just 188g/km and has set a target of 153g/km. This tells us that Porsche allready has a combined corporate CO2 number that is LOWER than the best M GmbH car (the F8x at 199g/km).

M GmbH sold 6.375 cars in EU in 2012
Porsche sold 42.299 cars in EU in 2012

It's obviously easier for Porsche to make a few GT3's and such. They still only represent at VERY small percentage of total production numbers and make a small impact on corporate CO2 numbers.

BMW could also do a limited production NA version, but just a 500 production number would mean 8% of total production... And I'm not sure if Porsche makes as much as 8% (or 3.400) GT3's at 289g/km CO2 each year

If I'm not much mistaken the 997 GT3 sold about 1000 examples in the US over a two year period, and approximately the same in Europe. So 500 a year in Europe. 500 examples means 1,2% of total Porsche production. For M GmbH a limited edition model that makes a similarly small impact on total CO2 emissions as the GT3 does to Porsche would mean that they could only sell 76 cars per year in Europe (1,2% of 6.375).

It's hard to make a good business case for such a small production... And M GmbH has to meet their 151g/km target...

However, a NA engine and hybrid powertrain in addition (Porsche 918), that could be a VERY interesting scenario that creates LOW CO2 emissions and the best of both worlds


The above calculations are obviously just simplified versions of a quite complex legislation

Source on CO2 emissions:

http://www.ademloos.be/sites/default...Oct%202013.pdf
Appreciate 0
      10-30-2014, 03:54 AM   #90
Stash21
First Lieutenant
United Kingdom
37
Rep
351
Posts

Drives: 2019 M5C
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Wales.

iTrader: (0)

I don't know why they bother too much about all this co2. As a planet we are committed to burning all the fossil fuels until it is no longer economically viable. So it's just a timing issue.

So may as well crack on and have a na v12 in the next m5
Appreciate 0
      10-30-2014, 04:34 AM   #91
Aapparition90
Captain
Aapparition90's Avatar
Australia
193
Rep
806
Posts

Drives: 2016 lci m3 mw
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: sydney

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 bmw 328i  [0.00]
2012 bmw 328i  [0.00]
The new x5 and x6m have a carry over drive train with a little bit more torque than the m5/m6.. wouldnt suprise me if bmw put in another <4.0 tt v8 to escape the new chinese/euro tax threshold and focus on weight savings.I am hearing a lot of buzz about these electric driven turbochargers etc recently as well so that would make sense in the next m5.
Appreciate 0
      10-30-2014, 09:21 AM   #92
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stash21 View Post
I don't know why they bother too much about all this co2. As a planet we are committed to burning all the fossil fuels until it is no longer economically viable. So it's just a timing issue.

So may as well crack on and have a na v12 in the next m5
Hahahaha...

It makes a difference though if the fossile fuel makes a smaller impact from each car... If CO2 (and thereby fuel consumption) decreases, that leads to a extenuation of how long we will have fossile fuel available. Which is a good thing, right...

And, it is generally agreed in most of the world that man made CO2 emissions is a bad thing for the environment
Appreciate 0
      10-30-2014, 10:00 AM   #93
RPiM5
Major General
RPiM5's Avatar
2857
Rep
7,883
Posts

Drives: Mexico Blue F10 M5(Mika)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sunny San Diego

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
Just like Porsche, Lamborghini is part of the VAG umbrella when it comes to Fleet Average Emissions.

http://www.ademloos.be/sites/default...Oct%202013.pdf

BMW has a disadvantage here since it only has BMW (incl MINI), BMW M and Rolls Royce under it's umbrella, or pool of manufacturers, to share the CO2 emissions between. That means EVERY brand in the pool has to do a significant part of the CO2 emission reduction. Over at VAG they can "afford" one of the brands to continue with higher CO2...

Here are some of my previous posts on the topic:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...4#post15512324
Indeed and agreed brother.

But now we have BMW i. I would imagine that even a small number of sales, lets say about 20,000 i3's and i8's for the entire next years (2015) sales margins and the i Brand's extremely low C02 emissions would help to bring down BMW's overall average quite a lot. This should be very good for BMW compared to say Mercedes. Mercedes and Audi have no i Division. BWM should be pulling ahead within a year or two I think. BMW has set its self on a good direction to lower fleet C02 emissions. I'm personally all for it as long as the cars of the future don't have the joy and excitement of driving engineered out of them.

In 4 to 6 years time, we will being seeing cars with 8spd and 10spd DCTs. Battery technology will have doubled in usable range. The next gen Tesla model S will have a 500 mile range. The new Tesla 3 will have a 300 mile range and cost less than $40,000 USD. In addition we will have battery charging technology that will charge today's EV car batteries at least 50% faster, but probably more like 80% faster. The next generation i3 and new i4 will have a 200 mile range, double what it is now. The i9 will be in production and will be making a combined power rating of over 500hp. Not to mention that the world EV market will have at least quadrupled. The next Nissan GT-R will use a hybrid assist drivetrain like a LaFerrari. The next Audi R8 will be Twin Turbo. All Ferrari's will be Turbo Charged. And the next BMW M5 will be 400lbs lighter, make at least 600hp, will be at least twice as luxurious as today's F10 and will have an optional AWD.

The future is exciting for sure. Performance cars will not be in short supply either. They will be faster, more efficient and have far better technology than we can imagine today. The only scary part is the end of the naturally aspirated engine and the visceral feeling it can give as part of the driving experience. Some of that will be made up by artificial sound symposers inside of the cabin, just like we haven't heard a BMW i8 owner complain of the lack of engine note from inside of the cabin yet.
__________________


Appreciate 0
      10-30-2014, 10:20 AM   #94
stealth.pilot
Knight Commander
stealth.pilot's Avatar
United Kingdom
554
Rep
5,948
Posts

Drives: 2014 911 Turbo S
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Buckhead

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
FCA has announced it is fully spinning off Ferrari. 10% will be floated, and the remaining shares will be distributed to existing shareholders in accordance with their existing FCA shareholding.

This will mean that FCA will no longer control Ferrari.

If I was BMW, I would buy Ferrari. It will be a nice pairing with RR in the luxury segment, and it will allow BMW to gain a step up segment as well as an engineering base for perhaps a 911-beating line-up of $100-200k sports car platforms which can be marketed on both BMW and Ferrari brands.
__________________
2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580
2020 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450
Ordered: EQS580, BMW IX, Lucid Air Touring, Corvette Stingray
Appreciate 0
      10-30-2014, 11:20 AM   #95
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPiM5 View Post
Indeed and agreed brother.

But now we have BMW i. I would imagine that even a small number of sales, lets say about 20,000 i3's and i8's for the entire next years (2015) sales margins and the i Brand's extremely low C02 emissions would help to bring down BMW's overall average quite a lot. This should be very good for BMW compared to say Mercedes. Mercedes and Audi have no i Division. BWM should be pulling ahead within a year or two I think. BMW has set its self on a good direction to lower fleet C02 emissions. I'm personally all for it as long as the cars of the future don't have the joy and excitement of driving engineered out of them.

In 4 to 6 years time, we will being seeing cars with 8spd and 10spd DCTs. Battery technology will have doubled in usable range. The next gen Tesla model S will have a 500 mile range. The new Tesla 3 will have a 300 mile range and cost less than $40,000 USD. In addition we will have battery charging technology that will charge today's EV car batteries at least 50% faster, but probably more like 80% faster. The next generation i3 and new i4 will have a 200 mile range, double what it is now. The i9 will be in production and will be making a combined power rating of over 500hp. Not to mention that the world EV market will have at least quadrupled. The next Nissan GT-R will use a hybrid assist drivetrain like a LaFerrari. The next Audi R8 will be Twin Turbo. All Ferrari's will be Turbo Charged. And the next BMW M5 will be 400lbs lighter, make at least 600hp, will be at least twice as luxurious as today's F10 and will have an optional AWD.

The future is exciting for sure. Performance cars will not be in short supply either. They will be faster, more efficient and have far better technology than we can imagine today. The only scary part is the end of the naturally aspirated engine and the visceral feeling it can give as part of the driving experience. Some of that will be made up by artificial sound symposers inside of the cabin, just like we haven't heard a BMW i8 owner complain of the lack of engine note from inside of the cabin yet.
Appreciate 0
      10-30-2014, 11:29 AM   #96
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stealth.pilot View Post
FCA has announced it is fully spinning off Ferrari. 10% will be floated, and the remaining shares will be distributed to existing shareholders in accordance with their existing FCA shareholding.

This will mean that FCA will no longer control Ferrari.

If I was BMW, I would buy Ferrari. It will be a nice pairing with RR in the luxury segment, and it will allow BMW to gain a step up segment as well as an engineering base for perhaps a 911-beating line-up of $100-200k sports car platforms which can be marketed on both BMW and Ferrari brands.


And BMW already have Ferrari chief engineer Robert Fedeli...
Appreciate 0
      10-30-2014, 09:19 PM   #97
soooma
///MD
soooma's Avatar
United_States
1373
Rep
3,998
Posts

Drives: M5 F90
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NC

iTrader: (1)

Thanks foe sharing this
Enjoyed reading it asks reading the posts too
You are teaching me a lot guys
Appreciate 0
      10-31-2014, 02:54 AM   #98
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by soooma View Post
Thanks foe sharing this
Enjoyed reading it asks reading the posts too
You are teaching me a lot guys
Appreciate 0
      11-01-2014, 01:05 PM   #99
Blackraven
Captain
205
Rep
654
Posts

Drives: Toyota Corolla ALTIS
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Philippines

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
Hahahaha...

It makes a difference though if the fossile fuel makes a smaller impact from each car... If CO2 (and thereby fuel consumption) decreases, that leads to a extenuation of how long we will have fossile fuel available. Which is a good thing, right...

And, it is generally agreed in most of the world that man made CO2 emissions is a bad thing for the environment
Global warming is a myth.

It's just that the hippies want us to believe that. Unfortunately, the eco-terrorists seem to have brainwashed the politicians over at Brussels so they will keep on introducing newer and stricter Euro emission regulations every decade......so there is a possibility that there

Seriously, if these hippies have their way, then we will be forced to drive electric cars in the future.
Appreciate 0
      11-01-2014, 06:36 PM   #100
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackraven
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
Hahahaha...

It makes a difference though if the fossile fuel makes a smaller impact from each car... If CO2 (and thereby fuel consumption) decreases, that leads to a extenuation of how long we will have fossile fuel available. Which is a good thing, right...

And, it is generally agreed in most of the world that man made CO2 emissions is a bad thing for the environment
Global warming is a myth.

It's just that the hippies want us to believe that. Unfortunately, the eco-terrorists seem to have brainwashed the politicians over at Brussels so they will keep on introducing newer and stricter Euro emission regulations every decade......so there is a possibility that there

Seriously, if these hippies have their way, then we will be forced to drive electric cars in the future.
I know that there are a few scientists that dispute global warming and the effect of CO2. Quite a few of them have their research funded by oil related industry

You won't find a majority of scientists globally that disputes global warming though... This is not just "eco terrorists"...

I know there are different opinions on this and I guess no one really can say 100% sure what the cause for the increasing average temperature and glacier melting is. But it's a fact that the temp increases and the glaciers etc melt, resulting in a higher sea level...
Appreciate 0
      11-01-2014, 10:53 PM   #101
clar
Major
clar's Avatar
Singapore
142
Rep
1,440
Posts

Drives: M5
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Singapore

iTrader: (0)

If I remember correctly (there are too many articles on this), even some global warming scientists have started back tracking on their findings after many climate models have proven to be incorrect. Personally, I don't understand what's so bad about warming? It certainly beats having an ice age. Then again, some Einsteins have said warming leads to an ice age...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
I know that there are a few scientists that dispute global warming and the effect of CO2. Quite a few of them have their research funded by oil related industry

You won't find a majority of scientists globally that disputes global warming though... This is not just "eco terrorists"...

I know there are different opinions on this and I guess no one really can say 100% sure what the cause for the increasing average temperature and glacier melting is. But it's a fact that the temp increases and the glaciers etc melt, resulting in a higher sea level...
__________________
- Frozen Grey F10 M5 DCT
- Rosso Corsa 458 Speciale Sold
- Frozen Grey E92 M3 Sold
Appreciate 0
      11-02-2014, 03:21 AM   #102
Boss330
Major General
Boss330's Avatar
No_Country
1712
Rep
5,108
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by clar
If I remember correctly (there are too many articles on this), even some global warming scientists have started back tracking on their findings after many climate models have proven to be incorrect. Personally, I don't understand what's so bad about warming? It certainly beats having an ice age. Then again, some Einsteins have said warming leads to an ice age...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
I know that there are a few scientists that dispute global warming and the effect of CO2. Quite a few of them have their research funded by oil related industry

You won't find a majority of scientists globally that disputes global warming though... This is not just "eco terrorists"...

I know there are different opinions on this and I guess no one really can say 100% sure what the cause for the increasing average temperature and glacier melting is. But it's a fact that the temp increases and the glaciers etc melt, resulting in a higher sea level...
I think that one thing is 100% certain here, and that is that no one can be 100% certain

The bad thing about a warmer climate is the increase in sea level... This threatens many cities as well as entire countries with flooding... The glaciers are already decreasing at an alarming rate according to measurements (the "alarming rate" statement is probably debatable as well).
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 AM.




m5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST