By on January 26, 2014

ad_bmw_bavaria_bw_4d_1972

Let’s say you have $83,425 sitting around and you want to make the most economical choice possible besides, say, a Tesla, or a brace of Prius Plug-Ins augmented by suitcases of cash. Let’s also say that you’re the type of literal-minded decent human being who never once looked at the back of the mighty 750il and said, “Heh. Seventy-five oil. Heh.”

Well then, my good man, BMW has your car.

The new 740Ld is basically a 740Li, only with BMW’s 3.0-liter “TwinPower” turbo diesel straight-six. We’re expecting 255 hp and a robust 413 lb-ft of torque, likely making the “LD” a bit more sprightly in normal urban driving than the boosted gasoline six in the “Li”.

The vast majority of Siebeners in this country probably go out the door on $899/month leases and this diesel variant isn’t likely to change that pattern. One wonders just how cheerfully the typical demographic for this automobile will adjust to standing in filthy puddles of stagnant diesel fuel at truck stops during cross-country trips. Yes, wealthy people used to swallow the indignities of compression ignition in the 300TD era, but that was because Mercedes-Benz basically forced them to do so — and some percentage of them chose instead to risk the wrath of the Federal government to bring in horrifyingly underpowered W123 “230E” sedans. When significant numbers of people are willing to take a chance on their paid-in-cash Benzos being seized at the docks and thrown into the Atlantic Ocean, just to avoid the miseries of diesel fuel, that’s a pretty solid indicator that the quality-of-life issues associated with Rudolf’s Juice are significant.

In a future where the United States adopts a punitive CO2-emissions-based taxation policy for privately-owned automobiles, perhaps in President Hillary’s second term, this 740Ld will be a guaranteed winner. Until then, it will be a curiosity, driven by people who want to make a point.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

90 Comments on “BMW 740Ld To Debut In Chicago, Along With Some Sort Of Plea For Dealers To Not Call It The “LD”...”


  • avatar

    How times have changed. Reading the ad, the focus was engineering and not ‘decadence’. Now, though BMWs are still ratear stark inside, the exteriors have become all for show. Purposeful looking car in the ad. Shame that’s gone forever.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    Still standing in greasy puddles of Diesel Fuel while filling up my European 300TD……..

    I await seeing how good or bad this Bimmer will be , I love Beemers , Bimmers not so much , they typical Bimmer driver even less .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    mcs

    “One wonders just how cheerfully the typical demographic for this automobile will adjust to standing in filthy puddles of stagnant diesel fuel at truck stops during cross-country trips. Yes, wealthy people..”

    Just how wealthy are they if they can’t afford air fare and a rental car and are forced to use their car for a cross country trip?

    • 0 avatar
      -Nate

      Silly Boy ! .

      The entire _POINT_ is to drive whatever Auld Crate you have , as much as possible including across America often……

      -Nate

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit-Iron

      I am not in the tax bracket to consider any thing costing what the 7 series does, however I think that just like them, the distance I am willing to drive rather than fly has gone up dramatically since 9/11. Something about having to take my shoes off or involuntarily having nude pictures taken makes me very angry.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        In the higher brackets, there are the private jet sharing services. I think there’s one service now that even has ride sharing so you don’t have to rent the entire plane. I know a lot of people in the 7 Series and above demographic, and while the guys are usually willing to take a short road trip, the wives start complaining if it’s over an hour.

        Personally, I do like road trips, but would rather do it on a bike or with a convertible, not a boring luxo-barge.

        • 0 avatar

          It seems to me that people with vacation homes just a few hours away might prefer to drive. There are lots of affluent folks living in the Chicago and Detroit areas who have vacation homes in northern Michigan. While you can fly into Petoskey, Traverse City, Harbor Springs, or Charlevoix, even if you’re flying on a private plane, you still have to get to your departure airport and have ground transportation at your destination, so door-to-door you don’t really save much time.

          If it’s 300 miles or less, flying doesn’t really save time. It takes me 4 hours to drive to Chicago from here. When I fly, door to door it takes about 3 hours (for a flight that lasts less than an hour usually), and then I don’t have a car to get me around Chicago if I want to go someplace besides my hotel.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Ronnie-

            Lakeshore Express will take you from Oakland County International to Pellston Regional and you online have to get there 20-30 minutes before the flight. Its $110 each way. Or you could be like the guy down the beach from me up north and have a sea plane. He lives on a lake in Oakland County and flies his Cessna up north every weekend.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Most jet sharing services usually require a client to purchase a block of flying time per year, say 100-200 hours whether you use them or not. For that price, they’ll have a jet that meets your spec waiting when you want it.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        The nice thing about being a frequent flier is getting to skip all that. TSA PreCheck for the win!

        I have owned a bunch of diesel cars, I have yet to have to stand in a puddle of diesel fuel to refill the car. The diesel pump is a green nozzle right next to the one for gas at 95% of gas stations. And with the extra range of the diesel car, you aren’t filling up very often.

      • 0 avatar
        jd418197

        More angry than, say, dying? In any event, good – stay out of my security line.

        • 0 avatar
          Detroit-Iron

          How does taking my shoes off or having nude pictures taken prevent me from dying?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            For the record, the nudie machines (square with blue walls) are being phased out. Their replacements, the millimeter-wave machines (round with clear walls), just show detected objects as squares on a generic human-body outline.

            If you fly often, you can also get around the shoes requirement by joining TSA PreCheck. Definitely worth the money if you fly more than monthly.

        • 0 avatar
          darkwing

          “Officer, can I request the body scan *and* the patdown? I don’t want anything bad to happen.”

    • 0 avatar
      Wheatridger

      Exaggeration is an easy shortcut to a writing style, but this one doesn’t hold up in the real world.

      During ten years of TDI ownership, I don’t recall ever standing in a stagnant puddle of diesel fuel as I filled up. Yes, diesel isn’t volatile, so a thin sheen of it remained on some nozzle handles. Use a paper towel, preferably before you pick it up. And I only took the Stinkbug to truck stops for the incongruity of it, and because they had better snacks. You don’t want to be using those high-volume, large-diameter nozzles anyway on a car, anyway– every truck stop had some car-optimized pumps. Usually, I used the same gas stations as anybody else. Your region may vary, but here in Colorado, over half the gas stations also serve diesel.

      Perhaps you’re cribbing from Jeremy Clarkson, Jack. It’s all entertainment, I know, designed to draw debate.

      • 0 avatar
        Jack Baruth

        To the contrary, I’ve logged thousands of miles behind the wheel of diesel pickups, towing race cars everywhere from VIR to St. Louis. I’ve had to do dozens of fillups at truck stops in the middle of nowhere because there were no diesel pumps on the passenger side. Colorado is not the entire world.

        It’s possible that I made all the above up, although I certainly put up more than a couple of road tests of the above trucks. However, one historical fact that I can point to is this: In 2006, I won the Alternative Fuel class of the Cannonball One Lap Of America behind the wheel of a 2005 Mercedes E300 CDI. That entailed driving something like 3,700 miles around the country, in a hurry, using truck stops.

        When I got home from that event, I threw away my diesel-soaked shoes.

        • 0 avatar
          -Nate

          I’m in Los Angeles where many gas stations have diesel pumps , only a very few of them even bother to throw kitty litter over the constant spills from the lazy assed third world drivers filling up their near dead delivery rigs .

          Then of course carelessly throwing the nozzle back into the pump when finished ensures the whole front of the pump , nozzle included is soaking with diesel fuel 24/7 .

          It must be nice to live in an ivory tower in Colorado , me I buy disposable medical gloves by the box and keep a box in the trunk of each of my three diesel cars .

          -Nate

          • 0 avatar
            Wheatridger

            Well, with all our pot smokers, diesel is better. Those puddles won’t catch fire at a spark!

            Someone should do a map of diesel availability, state-by-state. It surprises me that the MIdwest doesn’t have enough diesel pickups in daily-driver duty, let along enough TDIs, to create a market that most branded stations and mini-marts won’t sell to.

            Sorry about your shoes, Jack. But there are already diesel-finding map apps that will make life easier. Didn’t you use them?

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Were you being serious about calling Colorado an ivory tower? It’s a liberal Idaho…..

            But that’s besides the point. Unless you go to one of the actual truck stops where drivers of big rigs are constantly coming and going the odds of a diesel soaked area are low. It isn’t volatile but it will ignite.

        • 0 avatar
          poggi

          60k miles on my 335d from IN, MI, NY, NJ, FL and states between, never had to fill up at a truck pump. Helps to fill before low fuel warning.

          • 0 avatar

            Agreed. BMW and VW also sell an adapter for truck diesel to the car sized filler. I bought one after having the “truck nozzle only” problem in Central Penn. In the NYC area, there is never any issue finding a diesel “car” pump.

            $10 well spent on amazon or ebay.

            I can’t say it is really any different, save the fact diesel fuel varies more than gas, pump to pump. I get diesel for “midgrade” price at the reasonable stations.

      • 0 avatar
        CobraJet

        I don’t drive a diesel, but I try to avoid any fuel pump that has combo gas and diesel hoses. Invariably the concrete is stained and soaked with diesel at these pumps causing me to track the oily mess into my car.

        • 0 avatar
          -Nate

          In truth I was being snarky about ” Ivory Tower ” ~ I’ve been to Colorado many ties and there’s a 50/50 % chance of there being an oily puddle in EVERY STATE , no kidding .

          Truck stops are the worse offenders of course but I do drive a Diesel every day unlike you so yes , I am serious , not kidding , neither was Jack .

          Correct about better snacks @ Truck Stops but also pi$$ covered toilets so it’s a wash most of the time .

          -Nate

  • avatar
    HerrKaLeun

    “In a future where the United States adopts a punitive CO2-emissions-based taxation policy for privately-owned automobiles, perhaps in President Hillary’s second term, this 740Ld will be a guaranteed winner.”

    A gallon diesel produces 13% more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline. So if CO2 is taxed properly, diesel tax should be 13% higher, making diesel fuel even less competitive than gasoline. So the opposite will be true.
    That of course only if lobbyists don’t create some loopholes and treat diesel as biodiesel or so, or give it some 100 mpg EV mileage stikcker…

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      Based on the way Europeans measure CO2 emissions for tax purposes, which is very similar to the way our EPA measures mileage, diesels fare MUCH better on the tests.

      • 0 avatar
        HerrKaLeun

        per mile driven if you include the better mielage (if it is much better at all). a gasoline hybrid likley fares better. But if you compare unit of fuel, diesel is worse.

        The European CO2 numbers are rigged ( they must have learned from the EPA). They assume a % of the fuel is biodiesel or ethanol and doesn’t produce net CO2. Which of course is BS. Since E10 is common, and B20, they also may have assumed 20% (CO2 free) biodiesel vs only 10% (CO2 free) ethanol in gasoline. Remember, Germany’s car industry has a strong lobby and I beleive these rigged rules were done because of Germany ( right before it turned out the Quandt Family that owns BMW donated a lot of Money to the CDU, Angela Merkel’s party).

        that doesn’t even take into account the way mileage is determined…. As soon as politics gets involved all logic disapperas and it is about lobbying and campaign donations….

        The same way EVs allegedly make CO2 from multiple other cars disappera according to CAFE rules.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @HerrKaLeun
          I think in the Euro region a Prius is ranked the 20th most efficient vehicle. There are a lot of diesel vehicles more efficient.

          The EPA uses horse power as well in determining emission standards in the US.

          Research is showing that diesel tech will become advanced enough to be competitive against EVs (using the current method of determining EV energy usage and pollution).

          I would like to see an article on TTAC looking into the simple issue like the quality of US diesel standards. Most of which just the fuel quality alone makes it difficult for manufacturers to meet emissions.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          This is a protip: Never argue something is ‘rigged’ unless you can cite it. It makes people turn off your argument and especially since this ‘rigging’ disproves your view.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You’re right, the hyperbole is a turnoff.

            But in this case, the discrepancies between European MPG reporting and real world results are well documented. Some examples:

            “a major survey of what cars are achieving on the road, by motoring website HonestJohn.co.uk, found that many drivers are getting less than three-quarters of the mpg they had expected.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jan/11/motorists-misled-fuel-consumption

            “A recent report by an independent research organisation, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), measured the discrepancy using several databases of real-world fuel consumption compiled by motorists across Europe. The ICCT analysis separates data by manufacturer and therefore makes it possible to compare the average performance of different car companies.

            “The worst offender is the German luxury car maker BMW. Its average gap between test and real-world emissions is 30%, while at the other end of the scale, Toyota’s gap is half this level (15%).”

            http://www.transportenvironment.org/news/makers-german-gas-guzzling-cars-cheat-fuel-economy-tests-more-all-others

            The testing rules in Europe are pretty lax, which allows for plenty of gaming. Despite all of the whining on the internet, the EPA test is actually a lot more accurate and harder to game, as it’s conducted in a laboratory setting. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than others.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        CO2 per mile and MPG are essentially the same thing. A car that travels more miles on a gallon of whatever is producing less CO2 per mile than one that consumes more, so diesel wins the C02 race by default.

        When the EPA determines MPG, it doesn’t measure the fuel that was depleted in the fuel tank, but the carbon emissions from the tailpipe.

        • 0 avatar
          HerrKaLeun

          Not really if different fuels have different carbon content per gallon of fuel.
          Diesel also has more energy per volume unit, so the better mileage only partially is casued by more efficient engine, but partially by higher energy content of the fuel (per gallon).

          This is the first time I hear EPA measure fuel consumption by tailpipe emission. First off, the EPA doesn’t really measure any mileage, it relies on manufacturer data. Second, since they provide mpg, why would they not just measure fuel consumed?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Diesel fuel contains about 14% more energy per unit of liquid measure. With a comparable diesel vehicle getting 20%+ better fuel economy, the diesel still emits a bit less CO2 net net, which is the same as saying that it is more fuel efficient.

            “First off, the EPA doesn’t really measure any mileage”

            Third parties follow EPA requirements when conducting the mileage tests.

            “why would they not just measure fuel consumed?”

            Because it’s an accurate way to do it. CO2 emissions and MPG are basically the same thing. It’s just an arithmetic formula.

  • avatar
    dartman

    Maybe its just a California thing, but most every gas station in NorCal has diesel pumps and they are no dirtier (or cleaner) than the gasoline pumps. I have had BMW diesel loaners that i would refill before returning and another nice surprise of the low sulfur diesel I found was the elimination of the need to wear gloves to avoid smelling like a truck stop. The only downside to the oil burners out here is the higher cost of the fuel and diesel option itself.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      In the Midwest, it’s not impossible to find diesel at a regular gas station. On the freeways, however, it’s common to see diesel only available on the “truck side”.

      • 0 avatar

        There are 6 gas stations within a mile of my house. When I reviewed the Audi A7 TDI and needed a splash of fuel before turning it back in, I had to go to four of them before I found a diesel pump. I live in a near suburb of Detroit. There is a fueling station on almost every major intersection around here. Only some of them offer diesel. I suppose that if I owned a diesel car, I’d get to know where the green handled pumps are around here, but at this point, driving a diesel passenger car still presents what I’d consider a minor inconvenience. Oh, and it does get on your hands.

        • 0 avatar
          dartman

          Detroit or Diesel; or both? Sorry I couldn’t help myself. Again I think its a California thing- particularly NorCal with the obsession against all things “environmentally dirty” (expected when virtually every business has a Prop 65 sticker on the door warning about carcinogens inside…)but the level of cleanliness of the stations compared to say Texas, where I am from and travel to regularly is night and day, generally speaking. Jack’s comment about Colorado not “being the world” also applies to NorCal. It is nice though.

          • 0 avatar
            Wheatridger

            Just for the sake of science, try to count the number of diesel pumps you pass in 300 miles of driving in your usual area. That’s as many pumps as you’ll have readily available while driving out the bottom half of a tank in a diesel car.

            With a 600-mile range, it should be easy to pick a station you like and fill up whenever you pass it with less than a half tank. But drive the whole range, and you save another way– by reduced exposure to the Twinkie Tax.

        • 0 avatar
          DC Bruce

          the “gas buddy” app for IOS is your friend.

    • 0 avatar
      imag

      I was wondering about that too. Is diesel not available at regular pumps elsewhere in the country? EDIT: Answered above.

      Regardless, it points to another positive of diesel mileage: you don’t have to go to the gas station as often in the first place. This seems like a reasonable car for the person who wants a boatload of torque underfoot but has no need to rocket around setting 0-60 times using a thirsty V8.

      • 0 avatar
        Wheeljack

        I can get over 400 miles of range out of my 1.4L Dart in town doing my daily commute, and over 500 miles when on a road trip. That’s good enough for me and I don’t have to smell like diesel fuel.

        Unfortunately, it looks like for 2014 models, they now reserve the bigger fuel tank exclusively for the Dart GT with the 2.4L engine…bummer.

  • avatar
    racer-esq.

    Is this supposed to read: “BMW 740Ld To Debut In Chicago, Along With Some Sort Of Plea For Dealers To Not Call It The ‘OLD’”?

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      No.

      “LD” has a few different meanings, depending on your demographic, none of them necessarily fit for polite company.

      • 0 avatar

        I used to work with toxic waste so at first I was thinking Lethal Dose, then I did a search and that abbreviation seems to be popular with advocates for the Learning Disabled, but after checking the Urban Dictionary it seems to me that particular acronym might appeal to at least some consumers. We are talking about people who drive BMWs, right? Frankly I’m surprised that no German manufacturers offer a BSD edition.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        I was not previously aware of “long dick”. I doubt BMW will mind that one.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        I’m evidently not in any of those demographics, as I have not a clue what you are on about with this one. Please enlighten me.

        • 0 avatar
          -Nate

          New BMW model ” 740Ld ”

          ” Ld ” meaning ‘ long Dick ‘ .

          I guess that’s better than cars called ” big dick ” in The Auto Trade for the guys who buy them to look macho .

          This is funny , really funny .

          I lean more here on TTAC than I have in any School .

          -Nate

  • avatar
    GoCougs

    Diesels are awful.

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    Wait a minute, is this story a re-run? It smells like one of the classics of the dark days of previous editors, who inevitably morphed into the grumbling godsons of Brock Yates. All the elements are there, er, here– the instant dismissal of a new model, a headline that imputes motive to strangers, exaggerated folk tales and 20-year old vague historical references, and finally a cheap, throwaway political slam straight from Faux News. C’mon, you certainly pride yourself in not shilling for the car companies. Why would you do it for the oil companies?

    • 0 avatar
      dartman

      JB’s a rabble-rouser. No one really knows where he stands on most of the political issues but he digs lighting up the hoopleheads. Jack is most definitely a “shill” for TTAC. As far as shilling for the auto manufacturers, the guy took a gig with R&T; for chrissakes, a publication that couldn’t sell pussy on troop ship.

      As to shilling for the oil companies, I don’t get it. Diesel is easier to refine, commands a premium price over gasoline so what’s not to love if you’re an oil company?

      • 0 avatar
        Wheatridger

        I’m referring to the hysteria over CO2 taxes, which will hurt only the value of the oil companies’ assets, since every carbon tax plan I’ve seen is made revenue-neutral to most taxpayers by offsetting consumer tax breaks.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Oil and its by products will be around for at least the next two hundred years into the future, and maybe this is Jack’s way to evoke comments from across the entire spectrum of readers.

          One trait all effective writers and prudent automotive journalists share is motivating readers to action.

          Even the greenweenie movement will eventually die down. But one thing is for sure, regardless of what fuel we choose to power our rides, it’s going to financially cost us dearly.

          Consider this, all those global warming advocates in the East, so fond of touting CO2 emissions as the root of all evil, are now freezing their asses off in the cold snap to the point where global warming has been delayed indefinitely on account of the bone-chilling cold.

          And they’re not using electricity to warm their castles.

          • 0 avatar
            Wheatridger

            And my friends in Alaska and the Alps are sweltering, California is drying out to a crisp, and Australia is enduring another hellish summer. What does that prove? Local observations are not proof of global trends, and weather is not climate.

            Good God, now I’m wasting time addressing something that is neither Truth or Cars…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “Good God, now I’m wasting time addressing something that is neither Truth or Cars…”

            “the hysteria over CO2 taxes”

            LOL! Why did you bring it up in the first place? Did you think the oil companies were not going to pass the added costs down to the consumers?

          • 0 avatar
            jco

            global warming doesn’t exclusively mean everything is always hotter all the time. in fact, people who generally don’t believe in and swallow media hype refer to it as climate change, a far more accurate assessment of the impact on our planet.

            it means more extreme weather and weather phenomena, including colder cold snaps, drier seasons in some places, etc.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            jco, climate is always in flux and changes. Back in the 1950s there was great consternation about climate change, but then the hype was Global Cooling. I am old enough to remember that nonsense.

            Back then, some ultra left liberal Democrat greenweenie fruitcake scientist advocated that soot be spread over the poles. Imagine the pollution had the world listened to that nut.

            I grew up in Huntington Beach, CA, 1947-1965, and Santa Ana conditions, drought and wildfires were an annual thing. No big deal.

            Gas cost 25-cents back then and we cruised aimlessly along Santa Monica Blvd and other haunts every Friday and Saturday nights, spewing black and blue smoke from the exhausts of our old cars, polluting and smogging up the surroundings.

            People concerned about CO2 should plant a tree. Two would be better yet.

          • 0 avatar

            @highdesertcat

            25 cents in 1955 is equivalent to $1.85 today. (Always inflation-adjust your dollars.)

            And by the way, some prominent conservatives are now advocating taxing carbon in a revenue neutral way. Google Energy & Enterprise Initiative.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            David Holzman, I’m an Independent and MY philosophy is “The More Choice, The Merrier” which in this context means the more choice we as consumers have, the better it is for us to decide what works best for each of us. Even diesel-powered passenger cars for those who want them.

            This includes whatever method of propulsion a buyer wants for his carriage, i.e. gasoline, diesel, natgas, lpg, cng, hydrogen, methane, hay, oats, coal or electric. I think there is a place for all of it, but make mine gasoline and let’s not subsidize them at taxpayer expense.

            I’m cool with anything and everything anyone wants to try or do as long as their ideology does not cost me money out of my pocket, as in paying directly or indirectly for carbon taxes that will be passed down by the oil and coal companies to all consumers.

            And the greenweenie philosophy is to force each and everyone of us to adhere to their misguided ideology, regardless of it being electricity generation, or carbon footprint, or energy independence, or a reduction in greenhouse gases.

            And as far as prominent Conservatives go, if they are politicians, taxing is just a way for them to part the constituents from their money so the politicians can pursue their pet projects at taxpayers’ expense.

          • 0 avatar
            CRConrad

            Deniers of anthropogenic climate change often try the Fox “News” trick of painting the controversy as a “He said, she said” debate with two at least roughly equal sides presenting diametrically opposed but equally valid viewpoints. What they either don’t know, or wont tell you, is that there is in fact an overwhelming consensus among scientists:

            http://climate365.tumblr.com/post/41276566160/each-year-four-international-science-institutions
            http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChartI/piechart.html
            http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChartII/piechartII.html
            http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change
            http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

            In this light, the deniers begin to look like alien abductees, Bigfoot spotter, and other such kooks.

            Here are some simple factual explanations of how climate change works:

            http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/
            http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
            http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-many-gigatons-of-co2/

            And finally, a couple of additional notes:
            http://xkcd.com/1321/
            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=594052457289159&set=a.288642971163444.84644.271492926211782

            HTH!

        • 0 avatar
          dartman

          How exactly will this hurt the the value of the oil companies assets? If it is “revenue neutral” to “most taxpayers” are you saying the tax burden is shifted to the oil company? Companies don’t pay taxes–people do. Taxes (and litigation) are just a cost of doing business for a company and are ultimately passed through to the customer; if the price becomes become too high to the customer then demand will fall as the customer cuts back on their use. Look at the tobacco industry, high taxes (and litigation) have done their part in discouraging smoking, but it certainly didn’t harm the tobacco companies as much as one would think, but a pack of cigarettes now cost $5 on the low end (KY) to $14.50 (NY).

          I am not a global warming skeptic, but let’s call a spade a spade; carbon tax plans are a economic means of discouraging use of fossil fuels to slow or stop the rate of global warming. To call them “revenue neutral” by telling people that only the big bad corporations and rich people will pay it is just pandering to the ignorant.

          • 0 avatar
            Wheatridger

            If you refund to the non-rich amount of new carbon taxes paid through compensating tax credits, you’ve made the large majority of fuel consumers whole again. But you’ve also influenced their (still free-market) choices towards more fuel-efficient vehicles, because consumers respond more to today’s price signals than the future tax offsets.

            Every serious US carbon tax proposal will contain this feature. No successful, electable politician wants to tank today’s economy in favor of future environmental benefits. They’re pragmatists, not idealists. And not all of them deserve your name-calling. I know for a fact how much my Democratic congressman loves his Audi allroad. He’s a car guy, too, like I am. We just aren’t ignoring the costs of fossil fuel, either.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Wheatridger, regardless of how it is handled, the cost to the consumer of the fuel is going to go up because the polluters will just pass the added costs down to the consumers.

          • 0 avatar
            dartman

            Ok Wheatridger I get it now. This is a wealth re-distribution scheme to encourage less use of fossil fuels to curtail global warming. A liberal two-fer, environmental and social benefits. Even the most ill-advised hooplehead can see through this three card monte game. How does said transfer occur when the rich flock to buy $100k (tax incentivized) electric vehicles? Do we move down a notch from rich to just “well-off”?

            As I said I am not against economic incentives to discourage waste of natural resources and possible harm to the environment, lets just be honest about it. Make the tax as progressive as possible so as not to harm those on the lowest rung, but not so aggressive as to cause macro-economic harm. Use the funds not for new “pet projects” (or God only know what)but for sorely needed infrastructure improvements, continued scientific research into climate change, alternative energy and current technology improvements.

            Full-disclosure: I am a life long (old white guy) democrat, voted for Obama twice. Go Hillary in 16

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Hasn’t Jack railed endlessly about the “Buff Books”? Now he has a paid gig for one?

        A man after my own heart really, not only am I for sale, but my price is quite reasonable.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      I am absolutely ready to shill for the oil companies. I want a CLS63 AMG and I want this year’s Kiton collection in 48L.

      I just cant’ figure out how to shill for them. Stating that I prefer gasoline to diesel probably isn’t going to do it. That would be like starting a campaign to get people to choose the Big Mac over the Quarter Pounder.

  • avatar
    HerrKaLeun

    I don’t understand why diesel pumps are supposed to be dirtier, are people in the US too stupid to fill up a car? In Europe with 50% of the cars being diesel, the diesel pump is like any gasoline pump – not dirtier, not cleaner. And having puddles of diesel means people or the pumps are too stupid to fill up a tank and apparently no gas station attendant ever cleans anything up.

    This seems more a cultural problem, than a problem one actually can blame on diesel.

    In general diesel availability in the US seems to be worse, and if one has to make detours or extra trips to get fuel, then this is an extra cost on both mileage and time that shoudl be included in economical calculations. The same way we take EV charging, LPG and CNG availability into account whne we decide on any of the non-gasoline propellants.

    Maybe one has to calculate: “10,000 miles driving with gasoline will cost me X, but 10,500 miles driving diesel/LPG/CNG will cost me Y inc. addl. wear” when fuel is not as readily available.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheatridger

      The difference is that diesel is less volatile, so spilled diesel evaporates very slowly. It’s sticky, and collects dirt. Diesel pumps need regular cleaning, and there is a deep culture of public sloppiness here, paired with an odd pickiness about toilet training issues. But diesel is always much more available than the alternative fuels and electricity.

      • 0 avatar
        HerrKaLeun

        But European Diesel is not more volatile. Really not sure how one spills that much in the US.

        • 0 avatar
          Manic

          To be fair, here in Europe there’s FOC thin one time use plastic glove dispensers in many gas stations next to the pump. I don’t think gas powered car users use these much. These are for diesel. And stations are not that shiny and clean, cleaning is sloppy here too.

          • 0 avatar
            CRConrad

            Really? Where in Europe do you have these plastic glove dispensers next to the pump?

            I’ve lived in Europe all my life — half a century, in a few weeks — and I’ve never seen that.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Wheatridger
        Sticky? Wow. It’s more viscous.

        As more diesel vehicles become available in the US the fuel retailers will improve the standard of diesel pump cleanliness.

        I’m a diesel fan, but some of your writings are entertaining.

  • avatar
    cartoon

    Nothing quite like getting to a friend’s $60-80,000 luxo cruiser and the entire interior smells of diesel fuel–presumably transferred from hands or feet onto steering wheel or carpet. Not exactly a luxury smell.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    Whenever I rented a big rig from Ryder to haul some serious freight, it always reeked of raw diesel inside the cab. It’s something you get used to. After awhile you don’t even notice but I would never choose a diesel engine for any of my passenger vehicles.

    It’s a false economy where you pay more up front for the costlier diesel engine and pay more for diesel fuel and urea while you are using it. I had a 220D while in Europe and my parents drove it all over Europe while they were visiting us for two years. But I don’t care to own another diesel passenger car. Not new. Not used.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Again, I have owned a number of diesel cars, this has NEVER been an issue, at all.

      The stench of fuel inside the cabs of rental trucks likely has to due with the state of (non) maintenance of those trucks. I’ve rented gas trucks that reeked of gas.

      You will spend more on windscreen wash than you will on urea.

      Given the choice, I would go for diesel on a non-performance car everytime.

      • 0 avatar
        Wheatridger

        Changing to lower-sulphur diesel makes a difference that oldtimers might not realize. Diesel doesn’t smell that bad anymore. If I got a little on my hand, it made a pretty good skin lotion.

        And EDCat, you must know it’s a looooong stretch to compare anything about a rental big rig and a new European luxury car… don’t you?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Wheatridger, I think there is a place for diesel passenger cars, if that’s what people want.

          But diesel is more oily that gasoline and does not evaporate as quickly from the ground when it is spilled at the pump.

          My experience has been that people track spilled diesel fuel into their vehicles. And that was especially true for the big rigs I rented because the nozzle pressure is so much higher than for gasoline, thus often resulting in spills when filling two 100-gallon tanks simultaneously a pump.

          BTW, don’t use diesel fuel as a skin lotion. All fuels are absorbed through the skin and wreak havoc with your liver. Take it from this old Flight Line sergeant. Wash spilled fuels from your skin!!! Serious business!

      • 0 avatar

        My brother and two friends have Jetta diesel wagons. Very nice cars. Engines have nice feel. No bad smells.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “Given the choice, I would go for diesel on a non-performance car everytime.”

        And if that works for you, go head on! But let’s not condemn the people who do not attach the same affection for diesel. Some don’t believe in diesels in passenger cars.

        There are people like me who attach a much greater affection for gasoline, and, in fact, are addicted to gasoline, and will pay whatever it costs in order to drive or gasoline-powered conveyance.

        Diesel is great for big rigs and in the HD series of pickup trucks that are used for towing and hauling. Most of my Traveling Elks Brethren use a Banks Turbo-Diesel in their HD Ford trucks because it is the best in its class, beating even the venerable Turbo Cummins of the RAM trucks, based on THEIR experiences.

        But the diesel-fuel infrastructure across much of the US caters only to big rigs. In fact, when I had to tank up a rented rig in Eloy, AZ, passenger cars were refused access to the diesel pumps if there were big rigs waiting to fill up.

        I think there is a place for diesels in passenger vehicles if people want to buy them, but I’ll choose gasoline if given the choice. Even if I have to step up to a 3/4-ton pickup truck, I’d choose gasoline.

        The cost of gas and mpg have never been a factor for consideration for me. Most Americans still choose gasoline, and they have an inherent and fundamental choice to buy whatever it is they want.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    “In a future where the United States adopts a punitive CO2-emissions-based taxation policy for privately-owned automobiles…”

    The point of CAFE is to avoid such things. This European-style future will not be coming to the United States.

    You can either tax consumption in order to discourage it, as is the case in much of the rest of the world, or else you can allow the auto industry to shoulder all of the responsibiity for making incremental improvements to fuel economy. Pick your poison.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheatridger

      I’d gladly take the Euro model, CO2 tax and all. It should give drivers free choice about how they economize, or choose to pay a greater price for not economizing. That actually seems like the more free market solution, don’t you think?

      Instead, we get thousands of pages of detailed regulations that lawyers can argue over, and an arbitrary, unnecessary gap between cars and light trucks that is leading towards two broad choices in the market: too big, or too small. Where’s my brown diesel wagon, anyhow?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The Europeans have both high fuel taxes AND their own version of CAFE, plus annual car fees that incorporate fuel economy/CO2 metrics that essentially make it undesirable to own a powerful but cheap car.

        That stuff would never fly in the US. The cheap old gas guzzler is not likely to survive under the European-style system, since the taxes remain high throughout the life of the vehicle. (Americans are accustomed to paying based upon value, with the fees declining as the car ages.)

      • 0 avatar
        Tom Szechy

        Think twice – the “official” way of measuring consumption on this side of the Atlantic (edit: Europe) is retarded, resulting in unusable data and nonsense.
        You simply cannot use the official consumption figures over here, in practice you can factor them by x1.5-2 (depending on model/engine size).

        So no, not a good idea.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    On reason Mercedes-Benz hung their fortunes on diesels in the US in the ’70s and early ’80s was because the primitive emissions controls in use reeked havoc on the driveability and power outputs of gasoline powered cars. While American luxury cars compensated with huge displacements until about 1980, Mercedes wasn’t about to stick 4.5 liter injected V8s in their midsized cars during a time of volatile oil prices. The diesels killed a couple birds with one stone. They responded smoothly and quickly to a prod on the accelerator. They had few emissions devices to introduce reliability issues. They used fuel very efficiently for the day. The various 3 liter turbo 5-cylinder models weren’t even appreciably slower than the strangled and downsized V8s in domestic luxury cars. I’m not sure what the original owner of my 240D automatic was thinking, having paid enough to buy something immediately enjoyable like an E12 528i for a taxicab that really only paid dividends late in its life. When I got it, it had rusted out and been replicated in Bondo but still only had 94,000 miles. On the other hand, I think 300D Turbo and 300SD purchases were fairly rational.

    • 0 avatar
      AustinOski

      “They responded smoothly and quickly to a prod on the accelerator.”

      That’s a good one.

      Okay, some did. I drove an ’82 300CD for a summer and it was okay. Nice on the autobahn. My girlfriend’s mom’s 300SDL . I’d get behind school buses at stop lights so people thought the bus was slowing traffic, not me. It was terrifyingly slow up to about 30.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I didn’t mean that the car actually accelerated at a high rate, merely that there was a perceptible change in engine note other than the stumbles and surges common to emissions-strangled carbureted engines of the day. Odd that the SDL was that slow though. I had a neighbor with a W126 300SD, and it wasn’t noticeably slow from the passenger seat.

      • 0 avatar
        -Nate

        They _ALL_ did and still do , unless of course you’re like the brain dead hippies in So. Cal. who turn the key and never consider a tune up , routine valve adjustment or Diesel Purge .

        Then yes , they’re dog slow and tend to smoke embarrassingly too .

        That’s the Owner/Driver’s fault , not the Mercedes’ .

        -Nate

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          Don’t forget the ever popular worn and out of adjustment throttle linkage.

          When I first got my ’79 300TD, the throttle linkage was so out of whack that full pedal was ~1/2 throttle. It was slooooooooooow. Rube Goldberg would have been proud of that setup, especially on an early car with the rod actuated transmission too.

          Even the non-turbo 5s are pretty spritely when all is in order. Helped by pretty short gearing, of course.

          • 0 avatar
            -Nate

            Funny you should mention that ~ the very first Diesel we bought was an ’82 240D Sedan with slushbox tranny , I bought it from a co – worker who’d bought it to do the ” Palmdale 500 ” daily commute ~ he said ” it’s crap ! won’t go over 55 MPH except on a dead flat and only 35 MPH through the canyons on the hills ! ” .

            So I looked at it , (pristine) and gave him $1,500 for it , 15 years later it’s still my favorite to haul SWMBO & three Foster boy to Las Vegas and back , after fixing the broken throttle it zips (? wheezes ?) right along @ 60 MPH giving me 36 MPG (!) on it’s totally worn out engine .

            Once or twice for sh*ts & grins I pinned the throttle to see how fast it actually goes , it runs out of steam with no wind , on a dead flat @ 83 MPH ~ pathetic *but* it’s also 60° F inside when I’m tooling across Death Valley so I’ll keep it .

            Both our other old Mercedes Diesels are five cylinder turbos and haul reasonable @$$ , my Coupe is a Rally Car but the Euro Spec. Wagon is much faster .

            If you take care of it , most vehicles are O.K. if not actually good .

            -Nate

    • 0 avatar
      CRConrad

      Wreaked. The cars may or may not have reeked of diesel fuel, but havoc is wreaked, not reeked.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I would much rather BMW come up with some sort of consistent nomenclature that accurately reflects a car’s engine size, instead of appeasing people who want the numbers to get larger even as the engines get smaller…which are the same people that wouldn’t like the “Ld” end suffix, even though it’s consistent with BMW’s current messed-up nomenclature. I don’t see a problem with 740Ld as it stands.

  • avatar
    AustinOski

    That ad brings back some sweet memories. My dad had a 3.0s that looked just like it. With a manual gearbox, of course. He later had a 3.0si (and others), but the 3.0s looked better with the smaller bumpers (and it wasn’t burgundy, like the si.

    I can still remember the smell of the leather…


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India