November 11, 2005

[Redwood]

-Not for U.S. Sale: 2006 BMW 130i M Sport
Something tells me the 3885lbs curb weight listed is a typo
-The Boss at BMW: Q&A With Helmut Panke
-Honda recalls 25,000 Civics over gas pedals
-GM's VP of Environment and Energy talks about the future
-Ford unveils mini-fleet of hybrid NY taxis
-Use of faster in-car data network could help revive by-wire technologies
-NHTSA turns down request for carbon monoxide detectors in vehicles
-2006 Volkswagen GTI Finally to U.S.
-Saab aims to raise its profile
-Anteros XTM shown at SEMA
-Students bid for Ferrari future

[McCall]

Re: November 11, 2005

-Not for U.S. Sale: 2006 BMW 130i M Sport
Something tells me the 3885lbs curb weight listed is a typo

Yea, I'm betting it's 2885. If so, what a great STU car!

[hancheyb]

Re: November 11, 2005

-Not for U.S. Sale: 2006 BMW 130i M Sport
Something tells me the 3885lbs curb weight listed is a typo

Yea, I'm betting it's 2885. If so, what a great STU car!

Hmm. I just went to the BMW UK website. It said 1450 (EU). I guess that is kg. Which is 3885.

[Teucci]

Re: November 11, 2005

-Not for U.S. Sale: 2006 BMW 130i M Sport
Something tells me the 3885lbs curb weight listed is a typo

Yea, I'm betting it's 2885. If so, what a great STU car!

Hmm. I just went to the BMW UK website. It said 1450 (EU). I guess that is kg. Which is 3885.

1450 kg is 3196 pounds.

Looking at the BMW data, the "EU" means the unladen weight is per "EU" standards. The footnote on the BMW website defines that as a 90% fuel load, 68kg driver and 7kg of luggage.

fuel capacity is 53 liters = 14 gallons. 90% of that is 12.6.. assume that you can autocross on 4 gallons. 8.6 gallons * 7 lb.gal = 60 pounds.

7 kg of luggage = 15 pounds.

68 kg driver = 150 pounds.

3196-60-15-150 = 2971 lbs.

Figure in stu trim with lighter seats, light exhaust, remove spare, light wheels.. 2850 seems reasonable.

It would be one potent STU car!

Where can I buy one!

[Paul]

Re: November 11, 2005

Site now shows... CURB WEIGHT: 3197 lbs

[Redwood]

Re: November 11, 2005

Site now shows... CURB WEIGHT: 3197 lbs

Probably from me emailing the webmaster earlier this morning asking why the 130 was listed as heavier than a 330 or 530

[C3]

Re: November 11, 2005

Wow, bought for 1.9 BILLION dollars, sold for 588 million. What a deal...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/bu...1cnd-auto.html

[Redwood]

Re: November 11, 2005

Wow, bought for 1.9 BILLION dollars, sold for 588 million. What a deal...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/bu...1cnd-auto.html

For those that don't want to register to read....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10002232/

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...uto-379321.htm

http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_daimler...take/index.htm

[C3]

Re: November 11, 2005

For those that don't want to register to read....

www.bugmenot.com

[Redwood]

Re: November 11, 2005

For those that don't want to register to read....

www.bugmenot.com

In the meantime, they already finished reading the other links.

[Fair!]

Re: November 11, 2005

Wow, bought for 1.9 BILLION dollars, sold for 588 million. What a deal...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/bu...1cnd-auto.html

Well... it isn't that simple. They had already sold off part of their initial $1.9B investment, totalling 37% stake in Mitsubishi... this was the remaining 12% sold for what we assume to be $588M (they would not disclose the amount). But... Mitsubishi has been a "financial drain" on DC since the beginning, so who knwos how many hundreds of Millions (or even ones of Billions?)in additional dollars that the failed venture cost DC?

I doubt it was as poor of an investment as GM's Fiat venture, but still...

It's funny that DC had an opportunity to buy Nissan before Renault did, and PASSED! Hahaha... but w/o Goshen to clean house, DC woulda prolly flubbed the Nissan takeover anyways. We (as car consumers) are probably better off with French (!?!) ownership of Nissan - just look at their cars lately! Freedom Nissans?

[Fair!]

Re: November 11, 2005

GM's VP of Environment and Energy talks about the future

Their main 2-part solution includes "bioethanol-based fuel systems", blah! Ford is singing the same tune. Ethanol fuel produced from corn has shown to take in more petroleum derived energy than it can replace. It's a lose-lose situation... for now.

If there was ample "HC-free" derived energy, like solar/wind/water power, then yes - ethanol could be produced to offset our diminishing oil reserves/increasing foreign oil dependencies... but right now it doesn't. We have less than a >1% hydrocarbon or nuclear fuel free electrical power supply. Its happy happy, joy joy smoke and mirrors.

Just bought a book on petroleum energy solutions written by an author from the ultra-conservative "Economist" magazine - can't wait to see his energy solutions. "Drill in Anwar!" Will see.

[C3]

Re: November 11, 2005

Gah, I misread that article about the sale terms. I see now. Either way, for Chrysler to be offloading something that big and expensive, it must really suck! Anyone know what defects Mitsu was found to have been hiding?