[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I just don't see the need for all the infrastructure buildup and cost etc when we have plenty of gas to last for hundreds of years. Maybe next century. But I do like the tech part.

I wouldn't mind, only because it keeps us less reliant on Canada and other regions for oil. Build the infrastructure in the US, and the plants to sustain the power in the US and that'd be a win/win for the US economy. We could take our own oil and then export it to other countries for even more cash.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

We will see if charge stations become widespread or not. I have yet to see one and I drive 50, 000 miles a year. As for being new tech, electric cars came before gas and we're dropped as less effective. Newer doesn't necessarily mean better. Right now gas is double the price it was when the current administration took office even though there is a hugh glut of excess gas. This is because they are on purpose keeping the price high to push people in ty o electric card, hybrids, etc. Let's see how many are sold when the next administration takes over and gas drops to $1.35 a gallon.

Yes, because the government can tell BP, Shell, Exxon, etc etc. what to set gas prices at and they're just DYING to lower prices again because they're tired of the record profits and margins.

Fact is, since oil is a non-renewable resource, this means that the cost of gas is based on not only current supply but future supply and demand, economically speaking. It's why when something such as war or major political shifts happen in oil rich regions...your gas prices jump. Or if you see a report by AAA that says they expect gasoline demand to drop over time, gas prices go down.

If you're wacky conspiracy theory was true, it would fail to explain the massive drop in gas prices over the past several weeks.

If you think gas will go back down to $1.35 or that the government can control gas prices, then...well I guess, again, you are from Florida....

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Yes, because the government can tell BP, Shell, Exxon, etc etc. what to set gas prices at and they're just DYING to lower prices again because they're tired of the record profits and margins.

Fact is, since oil is a non-renewable resource, this means that the cost of gas is based on not only current supply but future supply and demand, economically speaking. It's why when something such as war or major political shifts happen in oil rich regions...your gas prices jump. Or if you see a report by AAA that says they expect gasoline demand to drop over time, gas prices go down.

If you're wacky conspiracy theory was true, it would fail to explain the massive drop in gas prices over the past several weeks.

If you think gas will go back down to $1.35 or that the government can control gas prices, then...well I guess, again, you are from Florida....

One, I'm from NJ. Two, I went to a liberal ivy league school and studied engineering and economics,three, I'm a 20 yr financial professional dealing with all kinds of natural resources and environmental investments.

That said the "science" involved was provided by agenda driven European "scientists" who admitted to purposefully skewing their numbers. From these skewed figures other scientists based their work without checking the data. This is where all you global warming people stop looking because every quote is the majority of scientists agree. That was 15 years ago. Since then the original data has been debunked and now 95% say the original studies were wrong but it's gotten to a point driven by media and a liberal anti capitalistic agenda that this has been ignored. So if you believe in globs warming, my suggestion is to look at the full picture from the other side delivered by the other side instead of just hearing it from one side. I've looked at both. And yes, half the us population votes conservative, thinks Obama care sucks, etc. It ain't just Florida. The bottom line is you can skew data any way you want by picking specific time periods to push your agenda. So I've looked at 20 yrs, it's a cooling trend. 114 years, it's flat. Carbon emissions past 20 years? Up ridiculously. And before you try to say American cars are the cause, who's the top 2 users of oil? Not the USA. What's the biggest emitter of carbon in the US? Not man. Cows.
Who's raising oil prices? Not the oil companies. It's government regulations. Are oil companies one of the lowest amount of profit over cost of producing a product? Heck yeah. Does it suck BMW made a cool car but put a gerbil with a generator under the hood and no other options to cater to this bs? Definitely.

Hold on, let me drink my Kool aid. Ok. I can keep my doctor if I want to, Bengazi was because of a YouTube video, unemployment is under 7%, there's no inflation, $1.65 a gallon for gas under Bush was because he was a greedy oil guy, the world is safer now with our foreign policy, it's better to call the cops so they can investigate why you and your family was murdered than defend yourself with a gun, the border is secure, universities and public schools are impartial, everything is bushes fault, and,....oh yeah, global warming is real.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

One, I'm from NJ. Two, I went to a liberal ivy league school and studied engineering and economics,three, I'm a 20 yr financial professional dealing with all kinds of natural resources and environmental investments.

That said the "science" involved was provided by agenda driven European "scientists" who admitted to purposefully skewing their numbers. From these skewed figures other scientists based their work without checking the data. This is where all you global warming people stop looking because every quote is the majority of scientists agree. That was 15 years ago. Since then the original data has been debunked and now 95% say the original studies were wrong but it's gotten to a point driven by media and a liberal anti capitalistic agenda that this has been ignored. So if you believe in globs warming, my suggestion is to look at the full picture from the other side delivered by the other side instead of just hearing it from one side. I've looked at both. And yes, half the us population votes conservative, thinks Obama care sucks, etc. It ain't just Florida. The bottom line is you can skew data any way you want by picking specific time periods to push your agenda. So I've looked at 20 yrs, it's a cooling trend. 114 years, it's flat. Carbon emissions past 20 years? Up ridiculously. And before you try to say American cars are the cause, who's the top 2 users of oil? Not the USA. What's the biggest emitter of carbon in the US? Not man. Cows.

I never said American cars are the cause, in fact I said:

...the debate is how much (if any) humans contribute and how much is natural

So no need for strawman tactics. I actually thinks cars like the Hellcat and the Z06 are awesome. As well as any Cadillac with the letter V in it.

Who's raising oil prices? Not the oil companies. It's government regulations. Are oil companies one of the lowest amount of profit over cost of producing a product? Heck yeah. Does it suck BMW made a cool car but put a gerbil with a generator under the hood and no other options to cater to this bs? Definitely.

Not saying that's not possible, but do you have any specific regulations that would cause gas to increase? If anything I've seen overall demand for gas over the past 20 years or so declining partially due to the increase in CAFE requirements which would cause gas, all else equal, to decline at the expensive of more expensive cars. If anything the trend I've seen is government regulation over time making cars more expensive...as well as heavier...and in some instances uglier.

I still think the i8 is a pretty cool car for what it's worth and like I said, if you disagree, BMW will gladly sell you something with an ///M badge on it. It's not the end of the world here. I don't know why you'd be so irritated with consumers having MORE options than they did before.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

I find the i8 to be absolutely awful looking and its performance is terrible, especially when you factor in price. It's gotten trounced by the 911 in every comparo theyve done with it, and in the latest, even a base boxster which costs 60K was able to beat it on Hoeckenheim. An S or GTS would embarass it for half the price.
IMO, impressive hybrid technology at its pinnacle is the 918 spyder and then the P1, and LaFerrari.

[Fundguy1]

It bothers me about the more choices comment because they poured all this research and cool new tech into something that's a waste without a real power plant option. As for regulations yes, the federal government shutting downfederal lands to energy companies. This in turn cut off a huge supply so prices went way up. When they hit a certain level, fracking became economically viable and that's where the supply comes from now. Obama stopped energy companies from tapping into 32% of the world's oil reserves, natural gas, and coal. Open up these areas, allow for drilling in the Gulf by US oil rigs and not just foreign rigs, etc and we'd be at a buck a gallon again.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

I find the i8 to be absolutely awful looking and its performance is terrible, especially when you factor in price. It's gotten trounced by the 911 in every comparo theyve done with it, and in the latest, even a base boxster which costs 60K was able to beat it on Hoeckenheim. An S or GTS would embarass it for half the price.
IMO, impressive hybrid technology at its pinnacle is the 918 spyder and then the P1, and LaFerrari.

I do like some of these hybrids because they actually use the tech to give the car balls, not save the butterflies.

[aas5]

How many of you guys here have actually seen the i8 in real life? Feels like very few. You should go out and take a look before you make statements based on pictures and comparos in the magazines. I thought it was ugly before I saw one in Vienna last May. The car looks very cool.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I do like some of these hybrids because they actually use the tech to give the car balls, not save the butterflies.

These cars are also significantly more expensive.

It just looks like BMW wanted it to not be as rare as those super hybrids and offer a car that's as fast as an M5 and costs only slightly more.

Still can't rationalize why they built the i3 though. Maybe they had interns who were bored or something.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by aas5

How many of you guys here have actually seen the i8 in real life? Feels like very few. You should go out and take a look before you make statements based on pictures and comparos in the magazines. I thought it was ugly before I saw one in Vienna last May. The car looks very cool.

Who cares about how it looks. I'd buy a crate if it accelerated and handled well.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

These cars are also significantly more expensive.

It just looks like BMW wanted it to not be as rare as those super hybrids and offer a car that's as fast as an M5 and costs only slightly more.

Still can't rationalize why they built the i3 though. Maybe they had interns who were bored or something.

For me if it's supposed to be a sports car and it's over $100k and can't do 0-60 in under 4 seconds it's pointless.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

For me if it's supposed to be a sports car and it's over $100k and can't do 0-60 in under 4 seconds it's pointless.

Fair enough...what about 3.8 seconds?

http://kinja.roadandtrack.com/the-20...ers-1568706908

There's other professional reviews that agree that the car is capable of below 4 second 0-60 times but I know the R&T test actually timed it. Not sure why BMW goes so conservative on many of their performance metrics.

[snaimpally]

Its just you. The i8 is a great proof of the concept that a hybrid can look nice, have great acceleration and handling, and get excellent gas mileage. Its the anti-Prius. Its expensive now but the technology will trickle down to other, cheaper models. That is how technology works - the expensive models get the newest technologies and as the manufacturer finds way to make it cheaper, the technology starts showing up in less expensive models.

You want to think global warming is a hoax, etc., fine. But from a purely utilitarian standpoint, look at the cost of gas. Do you think it will get more expensive or less expensive in the future? If more people drive hybrids, will we lessen our dependence on oil?

So yeah, its just you.

[snaimpally]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Obama stopped energy companies from tapping into 32% of the world's oil reserves, natural gas, and coal.

Not true. I suggest you stop believing everything you hear on Fox news.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by snaimpally

Its just you. The i8 is a great proof of the concept that a hybrid can look nice, have great acceleration and handling, and get excellent gas mileage. Its the anti-Prius. Its expensive now but the technology will trickle down to other, cheaper models. That is how technology works - the expensive models get the newest technologies and as the manufacturer finds way to make it cheaper, the technology starts showing up in less expensive models.

You want to think global warming is a hoax, etc., fine. But from a purely utilitarian standpoint, look at the cost of gas. Do you think it will get more expensive or less expensive in the future? If more people drive hybrids, will we lessen our dependence on oil?

So yeah, its just you.

I think gas will be considerably less expensive in the near future, like 2 years. There's no reason for it to have doubled in the last 2 yrs except the government meddling. As to the trickle down, sure. But put the same stuff in the 5,6,7 series. Why not make this a new 850 with a hybrid option. And last, bmw says 4.5 0-60. I'll go with their numbers until they're out in mass doing better. I doubt they will.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

One, I'm from NJ. Two, I went to a liberal ivy league school and studied engineering and economics,three, I'm a 20 yr financial professional dealing with all kinds of natural resources and environmental investments.

That said the "science" involved was provided by agenda driven European "scientists" who admitted to purposefully skewing their numbers. From these skewed figures other scientists based their work without checking the data. This is where all you global warming people stop looking because every quote is the majority of scientists agree. That was 15 years ago. Since then the original data has been debunked and now 95% say the original studies were wrong but it's gotten to a point driven by media and a liberal anti capitalistic agenda that this has been ignored. So if you believe in globs warming, my suggestion is to look at the full picture from the other side delivered by the other side instead of just hearing it from one side. I've looked at both. And yes, half the us population votes conservative, thinks Obama care sucks, etc. It ain't just Florida. The bottom line is you can skew data any way you want by picking specific time periods to push your agenda. So I've looked at 20 yrs, it's a cooling trend. 114 years, it's flat. Carbon emissions past 20 years? Up ridiculously. And before you try to say American cars are the cause, who's the top 2 users of oil? Not the USA. What's the biggest emitter of carbon in the US? Not man. Cows.
Who's raising oil prices? Not the oil companies. It's government regulations. Are oil companies one of the lowest amount of profit over cost of producing a product? Heck yeah. Does it suck BMW made a cool car but put a gerbil with a generator under the hood and no other options to cater to this bs? Definitely.

Hold on, let me drink my Kool aid. Ok. I can keep my doctor if I want to, Bengazi was because of a YouTube video, unemployment is under 7%, there's no inflation, $1.65 a gallon for gas under Bush was because he was a greedy oil guy, the world is safer now with our foreign policy, it's better to call the cops so they can investigate why you and your family was murdered than defend yourself with a gun, the border is secure, universities and public schools are impartial, everything is bushes fault, and,....oh yeah, global warming is real.

no wonder americans are the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I think gas will be considerably less expensive in the near future, like 2 years. There's no reason for it to have doubled in the last 2 yrs except the government meddling..

for an alleged finance professional you sure don't seem to know much at all. how the fuck will gas become less expensive? economies like china, india, brazil, etc are only gonna get bigger and bigger. the global population is increasing and along with it more and more cars are on the road. that means demand for oil will keep increasing. meanwhile supplies are limited. most of the clean easy to get oil is almost done. much of out future oil supply will come from tar sands and other sources that are more expensive to exploit. oil prices will only keep going up, unless we wean ourselves off oil and use alternative energy sources, and drive those hybrid and electric cars you hate so much.

then again maybe oil supplies are infinite, and all this stuff about oil being a nonrenewable resource is just a big conspiracy by those lefty socialist pinko europeans to increase taxes and force us to drive around in slow electric golf karts instead.

[Kiwi]

It's so great to see we have some sane people here. Global Warming is BS, i3 & i8 are expensive waste of time and money.

[Meeni]

100,000+ world scientists, from 100 different countries, funded through 100 governments, thousands of private corporations, scientists, the same people that brought to you hippie's favorites like the nuclear power plant and the genetically modified crops. All part of a conspiration in which nobody wins money, but it's because they are -all- crypto communists. Yep. Makes sense. Not crazy. Had your pills today?

[antennahead]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

One, I'm from NJ. Two, I went to a liberal ivy league school and studied engineering and economics,three, I'm a 20 yr financial professional dealing with all kinds of natural resources and environmental investments.

That said the "science" involved was provided by agenda driven European "scientists" who admitted to purposefully skewing their numbers. From these skewed figures other scientists based their work without checking the data. This is where all you global warming people stop looking because every quote is the majority of scientists agree. That was 15 years ago. Since then the original data has been debunked and now 95% say the original studies were wrong but it's gotten to a point driven by media and a liberal anti capitalistic agenda that this has been ignored. So if you believe in globs warming, my suggestion is to look at the full picture from the other side delivered by the other side instead of just hearing it from one side. I've looked at both. And yes, half the us population votes conservative, thinks Obama care sucks, etc. It ain't just Florida. The bottom line is you can skew data any way you want by picking specific time periods to push your agenda. So I've looked at 20 yrs, it's a cooling trend. 114 years, it's flat. Carbon emissions past 20 years? Up ridiculously. And before you try to say American cars are the cause, who's the top 2 users of oil? Not the USA. What's the biggest emitter of carbon in the US? Not man. Cows.
Who's raising oil prices? Not the oil companies. It's government regulations. Are oil companies one of the lowest amount of profit over cost of producing a product? Heck yeah. Does it suck BMW made a cool car but put a gerbil with a generator under the hood and no other options to cater to this bs? Definitely.

Hold on, let me drink my Kool aid. Ok. I can keep my doctor if I want to, Bengazi was because of a YouTube video, unemployment is under 7%, there's no inflation, $1.65 a gallon for gas under Bush was because he was a greedy oil guy, the world is safer now with our foreign policy, it's better to call the cops so they can investigate why you and your family was murdered than defend yourself with a gun, the border is secure, universities and public schools are impartial, everything is bushes fault, and,....oh yeah, global warming is real.

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

IMO, impressive hybrid technology at its pinnacle is the 918 spyder and then the P1, and LaFerrari.

True, but you're talking about cars with MSRPs of $845K, $1.15M, and $3.2M. The i8 hovers around M6 pricing, which of course is infinitely more accessible than the three cars you referenced.

I think the i8 is a huge win.

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by Kyle B

True, but you're talking about cars with MSRPs of $845K, $1.15M, and $3.2M. The i8 hovers around M6 pricing, which of course is infinitely more accessible than the three cars you referenced.

I think the i8 is a huge win.

I agree its more accessible, but look at the reality.

Porsche is only making 918 of them, BMW will likely sell thousands and thousands of i8s (5,000? 10,000?), so the costs will be spread over many more cars.

Furthermore, if you take into account things like the motor and the much more advanced tech it has over the i8 the price starts to show. I would bet the engine alone is worth 50-60K (minimally in the 918) while the BMW motor is only worth maybe 10K (flat crank v8 from the RSR Spyder vs a run of the mill 3 cylinder which is nothing special). Go into things like the hybrid tech which the 918 is far far more advance, the drivetrain etc you can see where the cost is coming from spread over such a small production.

Again, the 918 as many have said is THE car that will push supercars forward into the future. The i8 is not anything of the sort.