[THEROK]

Let’s be honest. The M3/4 hasn’t sounded good since the M4 badge’s inception over a decade ago.

This thing looks awesome. There’s something fun about knowing you can annihilate any dino juice variant and they know they can’t do a damn thing about it. Churlish internet car forum types go tribal with a bunch of either or nonsense.

Enjoy both worlds. I am.

[OUGrad05]

If anyone is actually interested in some facts here you go:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...20petrol%20car.


https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...limate-change/


The above are great resources and help shed actual light on vehicle emissions, not just while driven but including production of said vehicles.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Sooooo, I support the tariffs, etc. that will/are intended to prioritize industry/manufactiring and growth IN AMERICA. How was any of that difficult to understand?

It’s easy to understand once you actually write it. I recommend that approach in the future.

By the way, you do realize that none of that is actually going to happen, right?

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

Sure enough. If you go by the AI blurb that comes up when you Google the price of U.S. gas without subsidies this is what comes up:

“AI Overview

The price of gasoline in the United States would likely be significantly higher without current subsidies, although estimates vary. One source suggests that without subsidies, gasoline would cost about $12.75 per gallon. Some experts, like those at the Center for Investigative Reporting, estimate the true cost of gasoline, including externalities like environmental damage, to be closer to $15 per gallon.” I’m sure you would be in favor of including those intangible factors that bring it up to $15.


But, then if you look at little further you find things like this from Oceana, an environmental organization which supports eliminating subsidies:

“OCEANA - Protecting the World's Oceans

Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: Eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry will raise gas prices.

FACT: Variations in gas prices are driven by the world market, and are not dependent on U.S. government policies. This includes the existing subsidies for the oil and gas industry according to multiple studies that have found that repealing oil and gas subsidies would have only a marginal impact on gas prices.. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alan Krueger estimated in 2009 that “eliminating [oil and gas subsidies] would have an insignificant effect on world oil prices.” Analysis by the think tank Resources for the Future arrived at a similar conclusion, finding that [b]eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would [...]

If you had purchased oil on the spot market in late March, 2020, you actually would have been paid to take excess oil off of their hands.

That piece of trivia out of the way, the fact remains that fossil fuels are heavily subsidized, but fossil oil companies don’t want you to pay attention to that fact.

[OUGrad05]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I previously posted:



Sooooo, I support the tariffs, etc. that will/are intended to prioritize industry/manufactiring and growth IN AMERICA. How was any of that difficult to understand?

Targeted tariffs with good industrial policy could help on the margins and in key areas, that's not what we have though.

As currently laid out the tariffs make it harder to manufacture here in the US.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by OUGrad05

Targeted tariffs with good industrial policy could help on the margins and in key areas, that's not what we have though.

As currently laid out the tariffs make it harder to manufacture here in the US.

I guess we will see. It’s all speculative. To some, the sky is falling. To others, not so much.


Let’s get back to BMW’s newest street UFO!

[stbradle]

Very cool design and something that would take getting accustomed to as part of the future of motoring

[msej449]

I’ve had my M235i Convertible since 2016 and still love it. It’s the last of a long chain of BMWs that I’ve owned since my first 325i Touring (in the avatar) complemented by a Lotus Elise 111s that I ran for five years. It’s also the last ICE car that I’ll buy.

When we went to replace our other local run-around we chose the model first, then the drivetrain. The EV version won, hands-down, by every metric. It had the fastest 0-60 in the range. Running cost per mile was 2.5¢ for the EV, versus 32¢/mile for the same model in petrol form. The maintenance contract was 50% less for the EV version versus the petrol. And the savings in fuel and servicing over 16 years equalled the purchase cost.

For us, the M235i has been pretty much one of the best comination of Grand Touring / holiday road trip / performance / daily drive cars we’ve owned. But even with the ZF8 sports box, paddles, LSD and that beautiful straight-six engine, the drivetrain doesn’t compare to my run-of-the-mill hatchback EV. Standing start/at any speed, put your foot on the gas and the acceleration is instant and linear.

About 55% of UK households have off-street parking, so there’s plenty of potential remaining for EVs to expand into that market. And with a cheap night electricity tariff, I now spend more per month on washing my car than fuelling it. And bear in mind we have no pro-EV subsidies or incentives of any sort here. 2024 new car sales were 20% EVs vs 52% ICEVs and vs 2023, that’s up 10% for EVs and down 10% for ICEV. People are simply swapping to EVs by choice, not coercion.

So for me, the video was interesting as an insight into what the next generation of mainstream performance road cars are going to look like. Which is EV-based. And for me, it appeals.

[OUGrad05]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

Sure enough. If you go by the AI blurb that comes up when you Google the price of U.S. gas without subsidies this is what comes up:

“AI Overview

The price of gasoline in the United States would likely be significantly higher without current subsidies, although estimates vary. One source suggests that without subsidies, gasoline would cost about $12.75 per gallon. Some experts, like those at the Center for Investigative Reporting, estimate the true cost of gasoline, including externalities like environmental damage, to be closer to $15 per gallon.” I’m sure you would be in favor of including those intangible factors that bring it up to $15.


But, then if you look at little further you find things like this from Oceana, an environmental organization which supports eliminating subsidies:

“OCEANA - Protecting the World's Oceans

Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: Eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry will raise gas prices.

FACT: Variations in gas prices are driven by the world market, and are not dependent on U.S. government policies. This includes the existing subsidies for the oil and gas industry according to multiple studies that have found that repealing oil and gas subsidies would have only a marginal impact on gas prices.. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alan Krueger estimated in 2009 that “eliminating [oil and gas subsidies] would have an insignificant effect on world oil prices.” Analysis by the think tank Resources for the Future arrived at a similar conclusion, finding that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would increase the world oil price by just 10 cents per barrel in 2030. This minimal increase in cost would translate to an extra expenditure of $2.17 per year on petroleum products for the average U.S. consumer. At the same time, the U.S. government – by eliminating unnecessary subsidies for oil and gas – would be saving on the order of $10 billion per year that could be invested in other national priorities like defense, transportation, or alternative energy. A Congressional Research Service report corroborates these findings. Gilbert Metcalf, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy at the U.S. Department of Treasury, also has said that removing U.S. tax subsidies for oil and companies will have an “imperceptible” effect on world oil supply.

The reason why eliminating subsidies would not raise gas prices is simple – the U.S. produces only a small portion of world oil, so any change in U.S. oil production would have an insignificant effect on the world oil market, which drives oil prices and therefore gasoline prices.”
https://usa.oceana.org/oil-gas-subsidies-myth-vs-fact/


As someone with a bachelor’s degree in economics this pretty accurately describes how I have seen the world oil market affect the price of fuel in the United States over the last thirty plus years. Our fuel prices are substantially more affected by the world oil market than by any policies affecting only the U.S. oil market.


Like most big EV proponents you are always very keen to point out all of the perceived advantages of EVs, but like most you also never talk about the environmental impacts of producing EVs; battery production and disposal and the electric motor production. It’s pretty universally accepted that today’s EVs need to be on the road for eight to ten years to offset the emissions produced during their production versus the emissions produced by building and operating an ICE vehicle.

Folks also don’t like to talk about the fact that 60% of electricity is still produced using fossil fuels. It’s so much more pleasant to pretend that electricity just magically appears and has no environmental effect on the environment and is totally “carbon neutral”. There hasn’t been a new nuclear power plant built in the United States in forty five years. In the last ten years three new nuclear reactors have gone into service at currently existing nuclear power plants. But the number of reactors has declined from a peak of 112 down to 94 today.

Oh, and now this little “side” issue that is starting to get people’s attention. The way heavy EVs eat through tires. An environmental impact of its own. I just got a new set of tires a couple of weeks ago at Discount Tire and there was a Tesla parked next to my car as the guy was doing the walk around on my car. I asked him if it is true about how they go through tires. He said it surely is. They replace tires on EVs significantly more frequently than on ICE cars.

I spent 15 years working in energy and doing a lot of FP&A and project analysis among other things. Specifically, I was in the oil and gas business. The $12/gallon is flat out wrong. If you take away tax incentives (excluding the Middle East with state owned companies because that gets messy) you'd have an increase in price/bbl (everything else being equal) that exceeds the 10 cents mentioned above. That variation would depend on basin of production, but in the aggregate it would be $10 or so. That's not insignificant but it's hardly earth shattering. Admittedly I couldn't get as detailed info in Europe (but there was a lot available) vs the US and Canada when I did all this analysis back in 2015 but it was hardly a mind numbing change as pushed by the left.

That $10 does not include the environmental costs which many want to include in the total cost of oil/gas production. That's not necessarily a wrong position to take, externalities are things markets don't handle well and O&G is FULL of these externalities. However, if we're going to do that, which I'm not opposed to, we need to do it with everything. That would and should include building wind turbines and solar panels. Carbon brief does a good job breaking these things out.

Fossil fuels are given a plethora of incentives though, some of them make sense, some of them do not.

We also generate a lot of electricity off fossil fuels because it's largely legacy. Natural gas with carbon capture is a great technology and pretty efficient, but solar and wind are also competitive now, especially solar. But we still need nat gas as backup and for some base load.

Randomly asking your neighbor who may not know jack shit about tires or cars if his car eats through tires because it's an EV doesn't really matter. He could have two different types of tires/ratings between cars and not even known it.

EVs do go through tires faster because they are heavier, that's true. But again it's not like you get half the life, you get about 15-20% less life. Most studies have it 5-20% faster degradation on EVs.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/automo...ar-out-faster/

https://www.sciencefriday.com/segmen...ires-wear-out/

There's a few that show it even faster at say 50% but those are older and didn't really legalize things. For example early studies mentioned the instant torque of EVs, this is absolutely harder on tires but a lot of the throttle tip in issues have been resolved and some if its just driver habits. In my experience I get about 15% less tire life on an equivalent tire. So kinda like the cost of a bbl of oil if incentives are removed, the impact isn't zero but it's not nearly as bad as people pretend it is when they want it to fit their agenda.

But you shouldn't ignore the tires, it's part of the cost and environmental trade off of driving an EV.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by TR930

Why can't they make the front and rear look good at the same time like the F80 M3?

Car is hideous
Just wait till they take that camouflage off

[msej449]

As an EV and ICEV owner, and reading feedback on an EV owners’ forum, I can tell you that the tyre issue is not significant. Or not any more significant than choice of tyre is generally - take a look at the innumerable threads on this forum around runflats vs goflats, summers vs all-seasons, separate winter wheels and tyres, and discussions around all the different brands and their individual strengths and weaknesses.

That 15% or so difference in wear may exist - although I haven’t noticed it in my currrent EV - but it sits alongside similar differences between brands, models and types of tyres that are quite independent of what car you have. The anti-EV lobby here in the UK have pretty much gone silent on this topic now that so many more people own EVs and find that it’s a non-issue. Just like the non-issue of EVs catching fire went away when the stats showed that an ICEV is 60x more likely to go up in flames, and that all the most recent major car park fires were down to ICEVs. And the non-issue of EVs making car park floors collapse under their weight went away because it simply isn’t happening and was never true in the first place.

In the UK, the sensationalist press has fewer and fewer EV headlines on which to clickbait around. About all they can do now is report that second-hand EV prices have ‘plummeted’ and new EVs have ‘catastrophic depreciation’. What this means is that - as anticipated - ICEV and EV used prices have equalised: partly because people aren’t paying sticker prices for many new models, and partly because businesses are now dropping lots of leased EVs onto the used market, and prices simply reflect that.

As it stands now, within the next 5-10 years, whether you own an EV or not won’t be an issue. You’ll choose the vehicle that best suits your use case. And here are least, I’d predict that the only issue left will be that many urban tax payers will be agitating for more charging facilities, complaining that they can’t get access to the overnight charging at cheap rates that people with off-street parking can. It’ll be ‘Why do I have to buy a petrol car just because I live in an apartment block, and my local taxes aren’t being spent on any charging facilities?’.

[odiesback]

Hmmm I will ask Klingmann in private what he really thinks whitout fear of losing his race seat with BMW.

[WhiteFox]

Looks great and actually finally a design that does not look forced like the M4.

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by odiesback

Hmmm I will ask Klingmann in private what he really thinks whitout fear of losing his race seat with BMW.

Nothing quite surprising about his findings. Just look at the headline post of the Taycan vs M5. M5 is slower 0-60, Qtr Mile, around the track, and is much less efficient to boot. The Taycan on the other hand turned a lap on par with a 992 GT3RS.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

If you had purchased oil on the spot market in late March, 2020, you actually would have been paid to take excess oil off of their hands.

That piece of trivia out of the way, the fact remains that fossil fuels are heavily subsidized, but fossil oil companies don’t want you to pay attention to that fact.

Okay, it's just not true though. These are data from the EIA August 2023 Report on US subsidies of US energy. These data show natural gas and liquid petroleum products were subsidized at $2B in 2022 (latest data) and renewable energy was subsidized at $15.6B.

Break down the $2B in fossil fuel subsidies that actually goes into gasoline production (as a mobility fuel) and divide it by the 136B gallons of gasoline used in the US in 2022, and the actual impact is less than 1-cent per gallon.

This is the raw data as reported by the Federal Government under the previous Administration (August 2023).

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Okay, it's just not true though. These are data from the EIA August 2023 Report on US subsidies of US energy. These data show Natura gas and liquid petroleum products were subsidized at $2B in 2022 (latest data) and renewable energy was subsidized at $15.6B.

Break down the $2B in fossil fuel subsidies that actually goes into gasoline production (as a mobility fuel) and divide it by the 136B gallons of gasoline used in the US in 2022, and the actual impact is less than 1-cent per gallon.

This is the raw data as reported by the Federal Government under the previous Administration (August 2023).

Wonder where all these other numbers to the contrary come from? Also, you have to remember, renewable energy takes a lot of new infrastructure, the petroleum facilities are mostly already intact, so of course starting a new industry will cost more in the beginning.

"The United States provides substantial subsidies to the oil and gas industry, estimated at around $20.5 billion annually. These subsidies take various forms, including tax breaks, low-interest loans, and failing to account for the true cost of fossil fuel pollution. Direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are estimated at $20 billion per year, with $15 billion from the federal government. "

"How Much Money Do Governments Provide to Support the Oil, Gas, and Coal Industries Internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high. Internationally, in 2022 governments provided an estimated USD 1.4 trillion in subsidies. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

This also does not include costs of fossil fuels related to climate disasters, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending and health impacts. When externalities are included, a study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found the costs to $7 trillion annually. This works out to a staggering $13 million per minute."

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

Wonder where all these other numbers to the contrary come from? Also, you have to remember, renewable energy takes a lot of new infrastructure, the petroleum facilities are mostly already intact, so of course starting a new industry will cost more in the beginning.

"The United States provides substantial subsidies to the oil and gas industry, estimated at around $20.5 billion annually. These subsidies take various forms, including tax breaks, low-interest loans, and failing to account for the true cost of fossil fuel pollution. Direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are estimated at $20 billion per year, with $15 billion from the federal government. "

"How Much Money Do Governments Provide to Support the Oil, Gas, and Coal Industries Internationally?
Total estimates are staggeringly high. Internationally, in 2022 governments provided an estimated USD 1.4 trillion in subsidies. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

This also does not include costs of fossil fuels related to climate disasters, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending and health impacts. When externalities are included, a study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found the costs to $7 trillion annually. This works out to a staggering $13 million per minute."

I just posted the data from the Federal Government regarding what it says it provides as subsidies to the petroleum industry. Grants, R&D, loans, tax relief, etc. Real dollars accounting.

If we start discussing theoretical monetized consequential impacts of environmental and health damages, and ugh, costs of military conflicts, well then the discussion becomes academic and unrealistic. Every human life has an environmental cost impact to the planet. A person living on the Earth needs to make his own assessment as to whether his life is worth the damage he causes the Earth and to his fellow mankind. That is a metaphysical discussion at best. People who worry about such things should consider an altruistic approach and recycle themselves and their offspring back to Mother Earth. Early.

Just simple math, but let's accept your premise for discussion purposes the subsidies are $20B. Divide $20B by 139.2B gallons (approx. annual US consumption) and that's just 14-cents per gallon increase. So why one would believe US gasoline is subsidized by nearly $9 per gallon just means no one does any analysis on what the eff they read on the internet (except me).

[Efthreeoh]

"Shall it not be validated by the internet, then therefore it cannot be true".

Dumass Googleheim's razor...

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by WhiteFox

Looks great and actually finally a design that does not look forced like the M4.

Is this a joke?

[G(80)zuss]

Nah I’m good.

[OUGrad05]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

You have to read all of the words. The guy doing the walk around of my car was a full time Discount Tire guy who deals with replacing tires all day long every day not a random neighbor.

Again, not an issue, I posted sources. As a car junkie, I know more about tires compared with literally every tire shop guy I've ever talked to. My point? I gave you sources with actual data, do they go through tires a little faster? yes! Is it 50% less tire life? no.

[Tejas1836]

EV tires wear about 20% faster, everything else being equal.
MY previous NSX rear tires every 6 months [~3K miles], front every year [~6K miles] but they stuck like bubble gum