BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

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


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
European Auto Source
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-07-2007, 03:42 PM   #1
Boostedg35
Second Lieutenant
 
Boostedg35's Avatar
 
Drives: TTG35
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Utah-Iraq

Posts: 221
iTrader: (0)

Gas Guzzler tax (M3 MPG?)

"Vehicles that get at least 22.5 mpg (combined) don't have to pay the Gas Guzzler Tax. The Tax rate goes from $1,000 for vehicles that get at least 21.5 mpg (combined), but less than 22.5 mpg (combined) all the way up to $7,700 for vehicles that get less than 12.5 mpg (combined). "


where does the 2008 m3 fall into this tax?

what is the est MPG? Im trying to figure in all costs before ordering my M3 and would like to know if anyone else is taking this into consideration
Boostedg35 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-07-2007, 03:49 PM   #2
Boostedg35
Second Lieutenant
 
Boostedg35's Avatar
 
Drives: TTG35
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Utah-Iraq

Posts: 221
iTrader: (0)

edit.. so the catalogue i have states

URBAN = l/100km 17.9
extra-urban = l/100km 9.2
combined = l/100km 12.4

what does that equate to us specs?
Boostedg35 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-07-2007, 04:51 PM   #3
Leg
Captain
 
Drives: E92 M3 V8 Alpine White
Join Date: May 2007
Location: York, England

Posts: 844
iTrader: (0)

No idea but it is £400 a year in the UK. No idea why we get taxed so much, I mean, its the cows farting that causes global warming and you dont see massive taxes on Big Macs. Then again, I'm not convinced there is any cow in a big mac, well, not the edible bits anyway.
Leg is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-07-2007, 05:28 PM   #4
x5love
Captain
 
Drives: 08 E92 335i
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA

Posts: 693
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boostedg35 View Post
edit.. so the catalogue i have states

URBAN = l/100km 17.9
extra-urban = l/100km 9.2
combined = l/100km 12.4

what does that equate to us specs?
it converts to 19.96 combined mpg - hopefully they'll round it upt o 20.0 (so about $1500??)

the thing is that we won't get brake energy regeneration in the U.S. - so I'm afraid the MPG may actually be less than 20, making the tax EVEN higher and this car MORE expensive
x5love is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-07-2007, 11:44 PM   #5
replicat
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 40MPG
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southern California

Posts: 516
iTrader: (0)

The regeneration isnt for MPG..lol its only for a simple, mild power charge to relieve the alternator.

We'll be the same...if not better, thanks to more restrictive headers which will probably accompany the US model.
replicat is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-08-2007, 04:22 AM   #6
CSL-Fanatik
First Lieutenant
 
CSL-Fanatik's Avatar
 
Drives: e92 M3 DCT
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boulder

Posts: 383
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 BMW M3  [0.00]
2004 BMW M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicat View Post
The regeneration isnt for MPG..lol its only for a simple, mild power charge to relieve the alternator.

We'll be the same...if not better, thanks to more restrictive headers which will probably accompany the US model.
And what makes you think that charging batteries for electricity with the breaks instead of gas-powered electricity from the engine, does not make the MPG any better?

The BER clearly is a system developed by BMW efficient dynamics, which promotes sporty driving with LESS fuel consumption. You bet that this systems saves gas! And nto receiving it in the US will hurt the MPG

Last edited by CSL-Fanatik; 06-10-2007 at 03:26 AM.
CSL-Fanatik is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-08-2007, 06:22 AM   #7
Epacy
Reincarnated
 
Epacy's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL

Posts: 4,227
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicat View Post
The regeneration isnt for MPG..lol its only for a simple, mild power charge to relieve the alternator.

We'll be the same...if not better, thanks to more restrictive headers which will probably accompany the US model.
This post should be deleted. Not a single ounce of truth.

More restrictive headers equals better mpg??
__________________
Epacy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-08-2007, 03:33 PM   #8
replicat
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 40MPG
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southern California

Posts: 516
iTrader: (0)

I read this post with two freinds of mine that go to tech school with me and it was agreed that that the BER will not change MPG. AT ALL! PERIOD. Its for less robbing of HP.

Just my opinion, and yours is yours.

And Restrictive headers...now that I think about it..I dunno? Maybe im just an idiot..or maybe the fact that typically a more restrictive exhaust yields more MPG than one that doesn't have it...example stock USspec headers for M3 vs...EU spec headers.. C'mon think about...don't try to make me look stupid, I do cars for a living u piss-wad.

(Not to mention other things that aren't required for EU as opposed to US and CARB emissions, egr, evap. All those systems are alot more restrictive and give less power..which I usually see as more MPG.

My opinion so move on or F*ck off...
replicat is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-08-2007, 04:28 PM   #9
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,569
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
Gas guzzler tax

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boostedg35 View Post
edit.. so the catalogue i have states

URBAN = l/100km 17.9
extra-urban = l/100km 9.2
combined = l/100km 12.4

what does that equate to us specs?
You can't convert euro test numbers to US. The car will be tested using US EPA protocol. The combined is not just an average either, but a complex melding. No way to know until the testing is done. BMW, I believe, has promised better mileage than the E46 M3 achieved, which had a $1,300 guzzler tax. We'll see.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350

Last edited by GregW / Oregon; 06-08-2007 at 10:15 PM.
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-08-2007, 04:38 PM   #10
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,569
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicat View Post
I read this post with two freinds of mine that go to tech school with me and it was agreed that that the BER will not change MPG. AT ALL! PERIOD. Its for less robbing of HP.
This is what BMW says about the BER system:

"Intelligent energy management featuring Brake Energy Regeneration likewise serves to further enhance the efficiency of the V8 power unit in the new BMW M3. In this case the power required for the on-board network is generated specifically during overrun and during application of the brakes, serving to charge the car’s battery at exactly the right time without taking up any of the energy contained in the car’s fuel. As long as the engine is “pulling” the car, therefore, the alternator generally remains disengaged. Apart from particularly efficient generation of electric power, this also serves to provide more drive power and traction for supreme acceleration at all times."

I repeat, "serving to charge the car’s battery at exactly the right time without taking up any of the energy contained in the car’s fuel."

Alternators typically take engine power, therefore fuel, to run. If the alternator is powered primarily under deceleration and braking, then less fuel is consumed making electricity. So, I don't understand the rationale for your statement that it will not increase mileage. This is not about opinions, but facts. Better crank up your studying. And, lay off the insults, while you're at it; they serve no purpose and make you look bad.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350

Last edited by GregW / Oregon; 06-08-2007 at 10:21 PM.
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-08-2007, 04:43 PM   #11
Hans Delbruck
BMW & MB - friends in my garage
 
Hans Delbruck's Avatar
 
Drives: C63, 135i, 1959 BUICK
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Posts: 1,285
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leg View Post
No idea but it is £400 a year in the UK. No idea why we get taxed so much, I mean, its the cows farting that causes global warming and you dont see massive taxes on Big Macs. Then again, I'm not convinced there is any cow in a big mac, well, not the edible bits anyway.
Hans Delbruck is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-08-2007, 07:47 PM   #12
Garrett
Banned
 
Drives: 2004 330ci
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mich

Posts: 1,356
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by replicat View Post
I read this post with two freinds of mine that go to tech school with me and it was agreed that that the BER will not change MPG. AT ALL! PERIOD. Its for less robbing of HP.

Just my opinion, and yours is yours.

And Restrictive headers...now that I think about it..I dunno? Maybe im just an idiot..or maybe the fact that typically a more restrictive exhaust yields more MPG than one that doesn't have it...example stock USspec headers for M3 vs...EU spec headers.. C'mon think about...don't try to make me look stupid, I do cars for a living u piss-wad.

(Not to mention other things that aren't required for EU as opposed to US and CARB emissions, egr, evap. All those systems are alot more restrictive and give less power..which I usually see as more MPG.

My opinion so move on or F*ck off...
Garrett is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-09-2007, 04:39 PM   #13
replicat
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 40MPG
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southern California

Posts: 516
iTrader: (0)

LMAO, it goes on...I asked the BMW teacher at my school about that system, just out of curiosity...and he said that it would'nt improve MPG significantly to raise average MPG, vs. a car that is equipped with it.

"it was an idea designed to save the robbing of power during performance driving, so that people don't risk the bright idea, of underdriving the alternator with pulley kits"

"many E46 M3's came back withproblems that came of a result of aftermarket pulley's, that underdrive the cars charging system. Not always the brightest idea on a car, with more electronics than their home"

I am assuming that these people changed the pulley's back out and took the car back to the dealer and got work done under warrant. (Bastards)

Bottomline here is that it won't improve MPG (eg; 24mpg average vs 25mpg average) And thats all I stated.
replicat is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-09-2007, 05:04 PM   #14
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,569
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
BER system and fuel economy

Quote:
Originally Posted by replicat View Post
LMAO, it goes on...I asked the BMW teacher at my school about that system, just out of curiosity...and he said that it would'nt improve MPG significantly to raise average MPG, vs. a car that is equipped with it.

"it was an idea designed to save the robbing of power during performance driving, so that people don't risk the bright idea, of underdriving the alternator with pulley kits"

"many E46 M3's came back withproblems that came of a result of aftermarket pulley's, that underdrive the cars charging system. Not always the brightest idea on a car, with more electronics than their home"

I am assuming that these people changed the pulley's back out and took the car back to the dealer and got work done under warrant. (Bastards)
You and your teacher do not understand the system as it is described by BMW. This is new as far as I know; it's not the same as on current Ms where the AC compressor will disengage under hard acceleration. Did you actually read BMW's description? They say it will save fuel. So, either they are lying (hard to believe with the scrutiny this car will receive) or you are wrong. Nothing personal, I just don't think you are reading exactly the way it is designed to perform.

Bottomline here is that it won't improve MPG (eg; 24mpg average vs 25mpg average) And thats all I stated.
Did you actually read BMW's description and understand it? This is not like the system on current cars where the AC compressor will disnegage under hard acceleration. This is new, as far as I know. BMW says it will save fuel. Either they are lying (hard to believe given the scrutiny this car will receive from the press) or you are wrong. Nothing personal, I just don't think you are understanding the system I see described.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-09-2007, 09:35 PM   #15
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

BER and mpg

I'm sure BER will improve mpg, but very slightly. Also for the millionth time BMW chose a bad name, BER has NOTHING to do with the cars braking system. Here is my reasoning.

An alternator is a parasitic system. It converts (robs) crank power to electricity. The reduction of parasitic systems increases mpg. Just compare a very parasitic automatic tranny to a very efficient manual - which gets better mpg? BER is great becuase it fits perfectly with BMWs "efficient dynamics" effort. Things like DCT and BER get you both better mpg and more performance. That's why the car REALLY should have had direct injection as well (my pet peeve...).

Lastly, I think it is nothing but rumor that the US cars will not get BER. I heard something about the system requiring a totally new type of battery and getting it approved for some regulations could not be done in a timely fashion. I sure hope we get it. An alternator can consume between 5-10 hp. If we don't get BER it will impact not only our mpg but also our performance of US cars.

Some responses herein are not leaving me with a warm fuzzy feeling of confidence about BMW educators and technicians...

Last edited by swamp2; 06-10-2007 at 01:31 AM.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-09-2007, 10:01 PM   #16
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,569
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
BER

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I sure BER will improve mpg, but very slightly. Also for the millionth time BMW chose a bad name, BER has NOTHING to do with the cars braking system. Here is my reasoning.
I think you're right. From the little we know, it sounds like the alternator is charged anytime the car is in a deceleration mode, whether braking or not. It would be tough to capture braking energy without alternators directly tied to the wheels like hybrids have. I would guess on long trips at steady speed the alternator is going to have to cut in at some point.

Quote:
Lastly, I think it is nothing but rumor that the US cars will not get BER. I heard something about the system requiring a totally new type of battery and getting it approved for some regulations could not be done in a timely fashion. I sure hope we get it. An alternator can consume between 5-10 hp. If we don't get BER it will impact not only our mpg but also our performance of US cars.
I agree--US cars will have it. I can't imagine anything special this system demands of the battery, and even if so that's a small deal. And, fuel economy numbers in the US are important to BMW.

Quote:
Some responses herein are not leaving me with a warm fuzzy feeling of confidence about BMW educators and technicians...
I don't think the educators in question are related to BMW in any way. Sounds like a general technical school
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-10-2007, 02:55 AM   #17
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by replicat View Post
I read this post with two freinds of mine that go to tech school with me and it was agreed that that the BER will not change MPG. AT ALL! PERIOD. Its for less robbing of HP.

Just my opinion, and yours is yours.

And Restrictive headers...now that I think about it..I dunno? Maybe im just an idiot..or maybe the fact that typically a more restrictive exhaust yields more MPG than one that doesn't have it...example stock USspec headers for M3 vs...EU spec headers.. C'mon think about...don't try to make me look stupid, I do cars for a living u piss-wad.

(Not to mention other things that aren't required for EU as opposed to US and CARB emissions, egr, evap. All those systems are alot more restrictive and give less power..which I usually see as more MPG.

My opinion so move on or F*ck off...
Easy there. No need to get rough. And, you're still in school, so you haven't mastered anything although you have a point...

Let’s try to think through this rationally:

1) During regenerative breaking, some of the energy that would have been otherwise dissipated as heat will be used to charge the battery.
2) Assumption: Since the batteries will be well charged, the alternator, if designed to do so, will be offline for some time during regular driving FOLLOWING regenerative breaking. It should not matter if the alternator is offline during breaking as it would not make sense to break and burn fuel in the cylinders simultaneously. In other words, taking the alternator offline during breaking does not save any fuel.

Now we’ve done regenerative breaking, battery is charged up, alternator is offline, and we are sitting still immediately after coming to a stop. (You could also imagine you are kind of coasting at steady speed after decelerating, but the full stop example makes things more dramatic and explicit.) Let’s think of two scenarios:

3.A) We accelerate out of the full stop normally—meaning we don’t floor it. The full capacity of the engine is never utilized. Whatever energy that would be transferred from the shaft to the alternator to generate electricity and charge the battery is not expanded since the alternator is offline. In short, we save “some” energy, and therefore, fuel. Unless someone pulls out pen and paper and calculates everything to see if a significant amount of energy would be saved, we would be speculating. And, of course, that would all depend on what one means by significant.
3.B) We floor it, and use whatever the engine can generate. The engine burns all the fuel it can possibly burn. Whatever energy that would have been used to run the alternator is now available, and is used to accelerate. So we have “slightly” more power, and accelerate slightly faster than we would have if the alternator was still running. In other words, the energy freed up by putting the alternator offline is transformed to higher performance (and it is still expanded not saved). There is NO net energy savings, and mileage is not improved.

So, if my assumption is correct, the affect of regenerative breaking of this kind on fuel efficiency depends on how you drive. This is not the same type of regenerative breaking system used in a hybrid, where the energy stored during breaking always ends up being used to accelerate the car eventually, which results in net energy savings.

To your second point about restrictive headers. There probably is a possibility that a more restrictive header will indeed result in higher fuel efficiency. If the header restricts air flow into the cylinder, the ECU should inject less fuel in the cylinder. Therefore, the power output would decrease, and so would the fuel consumption. It would be like driving with an engine with a smaller displacement, or would it? I am not sure if it is that simple as the thermal efficiency of the engine might he affected as well due to combustion chamber dynamics. Volumetric efficiency would definitely decrease, but that might or might not affect fuel efficiency. Someone who knows more about combustion should comment.

Regards,
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-10-2007, 03:28 AM   #18
CSL-Fanatik
First Lieutenant
 
CSL-Fanatik's Avatar
 
Drives: e92 M3 DCT
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boulder

Posts: 383
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 BMW M3  [0.00]
2004 BMW M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
3.B) We floor it, and use whatever the engine can generate. The engine burns all the fuel it can possibly burn. Whatever energy that would have been used to run the alternator is now available, and is used to accelerate. So we have “slightly” more power, and accelerate slightly faster than we would have if the alternator was still running. In other words, the energy freed up by putting the alternator offline is transformed to higher performance (and it is still expanded not saved). There is NO net energy savings, and mileage is not improved.
Without knowing this for sure, as we are all guessing, I believe that you have made some critical errors in your thinking. We safe fuel because the alternator is not being powered when accelerating by the engine, instead by the battery. Even if we go full throttle, and as you stated the "saved" gas that we do not use for powering the electronics, is now used for acceleration. So, we accelerate as quickly as possible, meaning that we reach a higher speed quicker and go a greater distance. My point is, that even though the saved fuel is burned during an acceleration, we go a greater distance and accelerate quicker, thus the gasmileage improved.

To present the opposite, an engine without alternator, picture a scenario where all electronics use 10% of the power by the car. We now only have 90%, not all 100% to accelerate and reach a higher speed. This means we go a shorter distance at full throttle and burn more fuel to reach a certain speed than we would have, if we would have had 100%.

I hope someone understands the point I am trying to make.

Either way, BER does in fact save fuel.

BMW created Efficient Dynamics, because it is supposed to SAVE FUEL with greater power/greater performance cars at the same time!!
BER does exactly what Efficient Dynamics is all about: IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Best regards,

CSL
CSL-Fanatik is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-10-2007, 03:48 AM   #19
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSL-Fanatik View Post
Without knowing this for sure, as we are all guessing, I believe that you have made some critical errors in your thinking. We safe fuel because the alternator is not being powered when accelerating by the engine, instead by the battery. Even if we go full throttle, and as you stated the "saved" gas that we do not use for powering the electronics, is now used for acceleration. So, we accelerate as quickly as possible, meaning that we reach a higher speed quicker and go a greater distance. My point is, that even though the saved fuel is burned during an acceleration, we go a greater distance and accelerate quicker, thus the gasmileage improved.

To present the opposite, an engine without alternator, picture a scenario where all electronics use 10% of the power by the car. We now only have 90%, not all 100% to accelerate and reach a higher speed. This means we go a shorter distance at full throttle and burn more fuel to reach a certain speed than we would have, if we would have had 100%.

I hope someone understands the point I am trying to make.

Either way, BER does in fact save fuel.

BMW created Efficient Dynamics, because it is supposed to SAVE FUEL with greater power/greater performance cars at the same time!!
BER does exactly what Efficient Dynamics is all about: IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Best regards,

CSL
I understand what you are saying. Good point. But you are talking about a world where inefficiencies scale up linearly. In reality, that's not the case at all, and a car that accelerates slowly is much more efficient than a car that accelerates quickly in reaching the same velocity and in covering the same distance (one will cover the distance sooner than the other, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of efficiency). So, if you floor it with a BER car (scenario 3B), you could very well be operating with less overall efficiency than a non-BER car in scenario 3A.

Also, add to this the stop and go of daily driving. It is highly unlikely you will be going a longer distance because you accelerated faster. The chances are you have simply accelerated faster, only to hit the breaks a few seconds later because you are behind a car or at a light to lose your momentum, and nothing more.

Provided all driving is some kind of mixture/derivative of scenarios 3A and 3B, one will probably use less energy at the end of the day, but I don't know how much without calculating. My guess is that it would not be much though, and that's just a blind guess...Even if it is not "much", BER is still probably a good thing from an efficiency perspective, but one would have to weigh the gains against the costs. Apparently, BMW has done that, and decided gains exceed the costs for the Euro market, and not for the US market, which actually suggests that the gains are indeed not all that drastic. If we had $6 gas here as well, I'm sure the battery problem would have been worth solving.

Regards,

Last edited by lucid; 06-10-2007 at 09:57 AM.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-10-2007, 02:09 PM   #20
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,569
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Letís try to think through this rationally:

1) During regenerative breaking, some of the energy that would have been otherwise dissipated as heat will be used to charge the battery.
2) Assumption: Since the batteries will be well charged, the alternator, if designed to do so, will be offline for some time during regular driving FOLLOWING regenerative breaking. It should not matter if the alternator is offline during breaking as it would not make sense to break and burn fuel in the cylinders simultaneously. In other words, taking the alternator offline during breaking does not save any fuel.
Do you think BMW's system is truly regenerative? If so, what is the mechanism for this? Hybrids have motor/alternators at the wheel hubs that make it easy to produce power when they are not generating power. In alternator mode they provid some degree of braking. I have not seen anything in the detailed photos we have seen (including those in the M-Division headquarters) to suggest BMW is creating power directly from the wheels.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
GregW / Oregon is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-10-2007, 02:48 PM   #21
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

I first starting writing, "I doubt that the M3 will have anything in the wheels or brakes..." and then reread your post where you quoted BMW's system description, which clearly seems to imply that they will be opposing the motion of the wheels in some way to generate electricity when breaking, then I remembered why I wrote what I wrote in my initial post. As to the mechanism, I have no idea, but I still doubt that they would mess with the breaks, but how does one oppose wheel motion--especially when there is no drive shaft attached to it? Then one could think, maybe its the rear wheels, but I'm just speculating here. It would be interesting to find out how they implemented this.

Last edited by lucid; 06-10-2007 at 03:18 PM.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-10-2007, 03:00 PM   #22
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,748
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon View Post
Do you think BMW's system is truly regenerative? If so, what is the mechanism for this? Hybrids have motor/alternators at the wheel hubs that make it easy to produce power when they are not generating power. In alternator mode they provid some degree of braking. I have not seen anything in the detailed photos we have seen (including those in the M-Division headquarters) to suggest BMW is creating power directly from the wheels.
No, it's the engine that produces the power on the BMW system.

Best regards, south
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
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