Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperjack
confused? not really.
all cars are a product of compromise between environmentalists , industrialists, the market and the government.
if a further compromise was made to keep a NA V8 M3 production number to a minimum to help keep the air a little cleaner, to keep a finite resource like oil from not dwindling further...whatever....i'm all for it. ( if that's the case, for sake of discussion.... i don't know the exact reason for BMW's move to discontinue the V8).
that doesn't mean i'm not going to get one of the last remaining V8s and enjoy them. as a matter of fact, mines not even a DD. so that's one less V8 out there that being used heavily. gives a little more room out there for those of you that do 
that doesn't mean i agree with everything an environmentalist group proposes either.
what the poster did above was call out a movement ....not a criticize a specific proposal. that i'm not down with.
i love driving my M3....hell, i just love driving in general. but, if air pollution got so bad that one of the only solutions was to give up my V8....so things would be better for my family, friends and community....IF that were the case? i'd do it in a heartbeat.
until then i'll be cruising right along......  |
I agree with you, generally, but building straw-men for the other side doesn't help either.
Since you asked, the low-MPG M engines (such as the M3's V8) are being phased out primarily due to impending Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations from the United States. These environmental regulations stipulate the average fuel economy required for all manufacturers selling cars within the US. They've existed for some time, but new EPA guidelines will raise the required average MPG substantially over the next several years.
Compliance with these particular regulatory strictures are why many manufacturers, including BMW, are phasing out high performance naturally-aspirated engines in favor of forced-induction models, if not electric/hybrid motors. (You'll note that the latest projections indicate the F82 M3 will actually have less crank horsepower than the E92 M3. This is a direct result of this trend.)
Not to turn this into a policy debate, but CAFE regulations are so far removed from any type of "clean air or water" protections, that only a dedicated ideologue could claim any reasonable "protection" results from the CAFE rules.
A pure carbon tax, for one example, would be FAR more effective in both preventing environmental damage, and preserving the high performance engines as well. (This is from an economic perspective.) Such a policy would be certainly "environmental" in its goals, but it also would be a significant policy departure from the current regime mandated by the EPA. It also would be a lot more effective, save more money, and let us keep our awesome engines.
The point is, environmentalists qua "people who like clean air and water" were not the people who phased out the M3 V8. A bunch of lawyers funded by green energy interests, qua "environmentalists", did that. There is a big difference. Not all "environmental" legislation protects air and water with equal effectiveness. In fact, there's substantial variation.
I just want to make sure people recognize nuances of the issue, on both sides.
