BMW diesels for Cadillac?

Apparently GM is considering it:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6908206

Matt O.

Would be nice if BMW would bother to sell the things in the U.S. themselves.

I guess it clashes with the U.S. image.

Pity.

George

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently GM is considering it:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6908206
>
> Matt O.
>
>

GRL wrote:

> Would be nice if BMW would bother to sell the things in the U.S.
> themselves.
>
> I guess it clashes with the U.S. image.
>
> Pity.

Let GM do the test marketing I guess, without incurring the costs of
certification.

Matt O.

GM wants to sell them in Europe, where BMW already does, not in the US.

Autoweek got hold of a 5-series BMW diesel and tried it in Michigan
recently. They loved the thing's performance and it got fantastic mileage.

'Course we can't have it here because of an image problem that would cause
for BMW.


George Litwinski

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> GRL wrote:
>
> > Would be nice if BMW would bother to sell the things in the U.S.
> > themselves.
> >
> > I guess it clashes with the U.S. image.
> >
> > Pity.
>
> Let GM do the test marketing I guess, without incurring the costs of
> certification.
>
> Matt O.
>
>

In article >,
GRL > wrote:
> Would be nice if BMW would bother to sell the things in the U.S.
> themselves.

> I guess it clashes with the U.S. image.

Dunno why. In the UK, the 'new' 5 Series diesel is said by many to be the
pick of the 6 cylinder models - even ignoring the better fuel costs. And
the residual value of diesel BMWs is much better than petrol ones, so it
would seem the market agrees.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article >,
> GRL > wrote:
>
>>Would be nice if BMW would bother to sell the things in the U.S.
>>themselves.
>
>
>>I guess it clashes with the U.S. image.
>
>
> Dunno why. In the UK, the 'new' 5 Series diesel is said by many to be the
> pick of the 6 cylinder models - even ignoring the better fuel costs. And
> the residual value of diesel BMWs is much better than petrol ones, so it
> would seem the market agrees.
>

I think it is the really poor impression of Diesels that people got in
the US in the 70s, ironically mostly due to the **** poor engines
offered by GM (Oldsmobile.) Also BMW has something of a "performance"
image here and Diesels really don't fit that. Finally, Diesels rean't
that much cheaper to run here than gasoline engines, so there's no huge
push to convert.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Diesels ARE much cheaper to run. Car diesels in a mid-size car typically get
mid-20's mpg in the city cycle and approach 40 mpg in the highway cycle.
That is MUCH better than equivalent-power gas engines. Go look at the
numbers on the new MB diesel in their E-class vs. the gas six. The MB diesel
blows away the gas in all regards, including acceleration, and it costs the
same to buy.

The BMW diesel, I would guess, enjoys similar numbers vs. the gas sixes.

In the US, the BMW image is based on high-winding smooth gas sixes and that
clashes completely with what you get with a diesel. This is not to say that
the diesel is not fun to drive, tons of low end torque vs. a gas engine is a
lot of fun, after all.

George Litwinski
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > GRL > wrote:
> >
> >>Would be nice if BMW would bother to sell the things in the U.S.
> >>themselves.
> >
> >
> >>I guess it clashes with the U.S. image.
> >
> >
> > Dunno why. In the UK, the 'new' 5 Series diesel is said by many to be
the
> > pick of the 6 cylinder models - even ignoring the better fuel costs. And
> > the residual value of diesel BMWs is much better than petrol ones, so it
> > would seem the market agrees.
> >
>
> I think it is the really poor impression of Diesels that people got in
> the US in the 70s, ironically mostly due to the **** poor engines
> offered by GM (Oldsmobile.) Also BMW has something of a "performance"
> image here and Diesels really don't fit that. Finally, Diesels rean't
> that much cheaper to run here than gasoline engines, so there's no huge
> push to convert.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"GRL" > wrote in message
...

> Diesels ARE much cheaper to run.

Not if you consider principle cost part of the running cost. For
instance...in Great Britain the 535D carries a 16% premium over the 530i.
That $ 5,000.00 is a whole lot of fuel cost to make up in mileage
efficiency. In US terms, at current US diesel prices, it would take roughly
65,000 miles to ***break even*** compared to the 530i.

I imagine a similar premium for the diesel engine would make it's way to the
US.

> Car diesels in a mid-size car typically get
> mid-20's mpg in the city cycle and approach 40 mpg in the highway cycle.
> That is MUCH better than equivalent-power gas engines. Go look at the
> numbers on the new MB diesel in their E-class vs. the gas six. The MB
diesel
> blows away the gas in all regards, including acceleration, and it costs
the
> same to buy.

Mercedes is the exception in diesel cost being same as petrol. In the US,
outside of Mercedes, in every vehicle, from any make, in any form (SUV,
pickup, sedan etc) the diesel version costs significantly more. In fact it
may very well be that one reason BMW is not bring diesel to the US is
because the traditional spread between Mercedes cost and BMW costs
disappears when diesel cars are considered.

> The BMW diesel, I would guess, enjoys similar numbers vs. the gas sixes.

Not in price. Which for quite some time negates any fuel efficiency
advantage.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
> I think it is the really poor impression of Diesels that people got in
> the US in the 70s, ironically mostly due to the **** poor engines
> offered by GM (Oldsmobile.)

Diesels were pretty crude devices everywhere, until electronic injection
arrived.

> Also BMW has something of a "performance"
> image here and Diesels really don't fit that.

The point is that for most use, the modern diesel feels livelier. It's
only when you can rev a petrol engine that it starts to take over.

> Finally, Diesels rean't that much cheaper to run here than gasoline
> engines, so there's no huge push to convert.

In the UK, diesel is more expensive than petrol. But the better mileage -
especially in urban driving - makes it worth while. And with all fuel
prices on the up in the US - with little likelihood of them ever being
cheap again, the same arguments apply.

--
*Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> I think it is the really poor impression of Diesels that people got in
>> the US in the 70s, ironically mostly due to the **** poor engines
>> offered by GM (Oldsmobile.)
>
> Diesels were pretty crude devices everywhere, until electronic injection
> arrived.
>
>> Also BMW has something of a "performance"
>> image here and Diesels really don't fit that.
>
> The point is that for most use, the modern diesel feels livelier. It's
> only when you can rev a petrol engine that it starts to take over.
>
>> Finally, Diesels rean't that much cheaper to run here than gasoline
>> engines, so there's no huge push to convert.
>
> In the UK, diesel is more expensive than petrol. But the better mileage -
> especially in urban driving - makes it worth while. And with all fuel
> prices on the up in the US - with little likelihood of them ever being
> cheap again, the same arguments apply.
>
Just driven my 330dSE Auto on a 500 mile round trip from the north of
Scotland south and back, average speed 53mph, average consumption
43.1mpg(imperial). I am not frightened to use the available power and torque
(184bhp/280lb.ft) when it comes to overtaking, so don't say that diesels
can't be performance cars. I *used* to have that misconception.
Badger.