[Casper]

Originally Posted by shoptb

So do yourself a favor. Go investigate where most of the road salt comes from that we use to clear the roads in the North East during winter. You'll find that it comes from a vein of salt that runs from Western New York State to basically Chicago. The vein of salt is from an ancient sea that was on that part of the earth around 100 million years ago. That vein of salt, where they mine the salt from is over 2,000 feet BELOW Lake Erie. In fact the mine shaft goes horizontally from Cleveland 2 miles under lake Erie. So if global warming is so much caused by humans, please explain to me how a shallow sea evaporate and left a 60-foot thick vein of salt 300 miles long 2,000 feet under the earth’s crust, which just so happens to have a 900 foot deep lake on top of it that was formed from the melting of the LAST ice age 10,000 years ago.

Take a trip to the Bad Lands in South Dakota. There you’ll find evidence of a shallow sea from the fossilized sea life in the rocks.

Do you think human induced global warming and the resultant climate change had something to do with these to geological facts? Please. Pretty graph though.

[Michael Schott]

Originally Posted by Casper

So do yourself a favor. Go investigate where most of the road salt comes from that we use to clear the roads in the North East during winter. You'll find that it comes from a vein of salt that runs from Western New York State to basically Chicago. The vein of salt is from an ancient sea that was on that part of the earth around 100 million years ago. That vein of salt, where they mine the salt from is over 2,000 feet BELOW Lake Erie. In fact the mine shaft goes horizontally from Cleveland 2 miles under lake Erie. So if global warming is so much caused by humans, please explain to me how a shallow sea evaporate and left a 60-foot thick vein of salt 300 miles long 2,000 feet under the earth’s crust, which just so happens to have a 900 foot deep lake on top of it that was formed from the melting of the LAST ice age 10,000 years ago.

Take a trip to the Bad Lands in South Dakota. There you’ll find evidence of a shallow sea from the fossilized sea life in the rocks.

Do you think human induced global warming and the resultant climate change had something to do with these to geological facts? Please. Pretty graph though.

That's your argument to disprove global warming? Of course climates have changed over time. No one disputes this. You can try to discredit the huge majority of scientists that have proven man made global warming exists but you are ignoring real science when you do so.

[shoptb]

Originally Posted by Casper

So do yourself a favor. Go investigate where most of the road salt comes from that we use to clear the roads in the North East during winter. You'll find that it comes from a vein of salt that runs from Western New York State to basically Chicago. The vein of salt is from an ancient sea that was on that part of the earth around 100 million years ago. That vein of salt, where they mine the salt from is over 2,000 feet BELOW Lake Erie. In fact the mine shaft goes horizontally from Cleveland 2 miles under lake Erie. So if global warming is so much caused by humans, please explain to me how a shallow sea evaporate and left a 60-foot thick vein of salt 300 miles long 2,000 feet under the earthÂ’s crust, which just so happens to have a 900 foot deep lake on top of it that was formed from the melting of the LAST ice age 10,000 years ago.

Take a trip to the Bad Lands in South Dakota. There youÂ’ll find evidence of a shallow sea from the fossilized sea life in the rocks.

Do you think human induced global warming and the resultant climate change had something to do with these to geological facts? Please. Pretty graph though.

I don't think anyone is saying that climate change is --only caused-- by humans.

[Elk]

There is no dispute among scientists as to the reality of anthropogenic global warming. The only argument is among lay people - who rely on their political leanings and bias to come to their conclusions. It is amusing how one can predict an individual's political party based on whether they "believe" in anthropogenic causes.

Let's leave this particular issue alone and stop pooling lay ignorance.

My opinion: If dinosaurs were kind enough to die for me, I have a moral duty to burn as much fossil fuel as I can.

I can also handle pushing a little button if I want ASS off. The tiny bit of exercise if also good for me.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

That's your argument to disprove global warming? Of course climates have changed over time. No one disputes this. You can try to discredit the huge majority of scientists that have proven man made global warming exists but you are ignoring real science when you do so.

No, it's my argument to disprove that there is undeniable scientific evidence based on recent temperature measurements and storm activity that humans are going to cause a catastrophic change in the climate. You actually think that humans after burning a somewhat large amount of carbon-based fuels in the past 500 years (which doesn't even equal the amount of carbon added to the atmosphere a few volcanoes spew in a few weeks) is going to cause climate change on the order of drying up a shallow sea an burying it in 2,000 feet of earth, then dig out a lake on top of it.

Go ahead. Believe it.

[micknugget]

Originally Posted by Casper

No, it's my argument to disprove that there is undeniable scientific evidence based on recent temperature measurements and storm activity that humans are going to cause a catastrophic change in the climate. You actually think that humans after burning a somewhat large amount of carbon-based fuels in the past 500 years (which doesn't even equal the amount of carbon added to the atmosphere a few volcanoes spew in a few weeks) is going to cause climate change on the order of drying up a shallow sea an burying it in 2,000 feet of earth, then dig out a lake on top of it.

Go ahead. Believe it.

If you are not going to actually read posts or cannot understand what people wrote, please don't respond. You are making yourself look like an idiot.

You have misquoted or misinterpreted what I and others have posted. It's starting to look as if you are doing it intentionally. I never said that A.S.S. would save the planet but you stated that was what I said and then made fun of me. I said that A.S.S. would not hurt and that it may have some benefit and that people should be free to choose if they want to use it.

Then you claim that somebody said "that humans are going to cause a catastrophic change in the climate". Nobody said that but there you go making things up again.

Your claim is that we don't have enough data to even prove that global warming exists. We have over 100 years of data and when you have limited data you make educated and prudent assumptions to reach some sort of position.

Is the planet warming? YES
As the planet warms, do storms get more severe? YES
Is it a natural cycle where humans have little or no impact? UNKNOWN
Is it prudent to try to preserve our resources? YES
Is it prudent to try to limit emissions? YES

A.S.S. is a button for a reason. If you are worried about global warming, you don't press it. If you aren't worried about global warming, you press it. It's there so that YOU can make your choice.

[nexusonemeover]

this thread is hilarious.... BMW doesnt really care about global warming... they care about money. Without ASS set to be active on each start, they wouldn't get their CAFE credit, and thats it. <== huge resounding period

[Casper]

Originally Posted by micknugget

If you are not going to actually read posts or cannot understand what people wrote, please don't respond. You are making yourself look like an idiot.

You have misquoted or misinterpreted what I and others have posted. It's starting to look as if you are doing it intentionally. I never said that A.S.S. would save the planet but you stated that was what I said and then made fun of me. I said that A.S.S. would not hurt and that it may have some benefit and that people should be free to choose if they want to use it.

Then you claim that somebody said "that humans are going to cause a catastrophic change in the climate". Nobody said that but there you go making things up again.

Your claim is that we don't have enough data to even prove that global warming exists. We have over 100 years of data and when you have limited data you make educated and prudent assumptions to reach some sort of position.

Is the planet warming? YES - Agree
As the planet warms, do storms get more severe? YES - Agree
Is it a natural cycle where humans have little or no impact? UNKNOWN - Agree 100%
Is it prudent to try to preserve our resources? YES - Agree
Is it prudent to try to limit emissions? YES - Agree

A.S.S. is a button for a reason. If you are worried about global warming, you don't press it. If you aren't worried about global warming, you press it. It's there so that YOU can make your choice.

So I checked all my posts on this thread, I don't see where I actually addressed any of your posts directly. I think Justa 3 made fun of you, but not me. I've been addressing the global warming issue in general, but also trying to offer counter arguments to M. Schott, shoptb, feanor. I agree with several things you have said (see above). I did say "catastrophic climate change" because most people who religiously believe in anthropogenic global warming believe that (Al Gore being one of them - even though he buys a house in a prospective flood plain if his predictions come true). If you believe you need to act now to prevent global warming for the sake of “our children” what else can be the conclusion. The definition of catastrophic in this sense means the climate will change for our children in such a way that it will be bad for them. Where you and I differ is I believe claiming anthropogenic global warming exists based on a few 100 years of temperature and storm data (when only the last maybe 50 – 75 years of the data can be claimed to be truly accurate in accordance with the scientific method) is bad science. Looking at the last 100 years of climate conditions when the climate is over 4 billion years old and making a statement humans are changing the planet’s climate (in a bad way) is not proper use of scientific principles. BTW, I was a science major in college (physics) so I’m not talking out my ass about understanding the scientific method, and my side interest of study was geology.

Regardless, the point I’ve been trying to make is this: Governments believe in man-made global warming> they feel the need to pass environmental regulations to “save the planet”> they pass fuel efficiency law to make it happen> the law gets interpreted by BMW (and other car makers) as a need to develop the start/stop system> the start/stop system is only actively defeatible (i.e. not actively enabled by those who care to join in the “save the planet” campaign)> I state it is a form of social engineering.

I believe people should have freedom of choice, if that’s such a bad political point of view then maybe I should move to a different country. If the start/stop system is switchable then the owner should have the choice to leave it on by default, or leave it off by default. If it is so important to have the system to achieve the fuel mileage required by law, then make it non-switchable so it’s not a choice.

And just one last point. I find it funny that anyone who drives a car can even claim to care about global warming. If you truly cared about it, you'd not be driving a car in the first place, especially not a BMW (a company that has been the most-fined of all the car manufacturers for not meeting USA CAFE regulations).

I'll stop beating the dead horse...

[micknugget]

Originally Posted by Casper

And just one last point. I find it funny that anyone who drives a car can even claim to care about global warming. If you truly cared about it, you'd not be driving a car in the first place, especially not a BMW (a company that has been the most-fined of all the car manufacturers for not meeting USA CAFE regulations).

You are acting as if there are two extremes and no grey area in between. Realistically, breathing causes carbon dioxide (a main greenhouse gas) so we should all stop breathing? Again, if you read my posts you would see that I commented that we shouldn't be forced to ride bicycles or drive a Prius. We don't need to take extreme courses of action but we do need to be aware of the situation and take steps to conserve our resources and decrease emissions. That's why I said that A.S.S. is a good thing but so is the right to shut it off. It's use should be promoted but not mandatory, which is why you can turn it off.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by micknugget

You are acting as if there are two extremes and no grey area in between. Realistically, breathing causes carbon dioxide (a main greenhouse gas) so we should all stop breathing? Again, if you read my posts you would see that I commented that we shouldn't be forced to ride bicycles or drive a Prius. We don't need to take extreme courses of action but we do need to be aware of the situation and take steps to conserve our resources and decrease emissions. That's why I said that A.S.S. is a good thing but so is the right to shut it off. It's use should be promoted but not mandatory, which is why you can turn it off.

Well, what is the gray area when it comes to man-made global warming? If it is caused by the creation of CO2, then isn't the complete ban of CO2 the best answer? If reducing CO2 is "insurance" against global warming, isn't that the best insurance against the creating the end-state of global warming where it affects our children, to ban CO2 completely? Why is just a reduction in the creation of CO2 the best answer? Who gets to decide the level? What is the level based on? Because we are spewing so much CO2 into the atmosphere, eventually the earth is going to warm to a point where the climate changes beyond the status quo and our ancestors will be affected. When will that be? Is it going to be our great great great great great great grandchildren, or just our great great great grandchildren? If someone comes up with what the ideal level of CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere without increasing global warming then eventually the number of humans and other animals, along with cars, factories, power plants, etc. will get to the point that even with a CO2 emissions requirement of nearly 0% it will still not be enough to maintain the “proper” level. So what to we do then, start killing people and animals, and shutting off electricity (old people will then freeze to death)?

The point of all these stupid questions (before you call me an idiot again) is that no one can determine and decide these things with absolute surety. The EPA just declared CO2 a pollutant in 2010, so your act of breathing means you are contributing to the problem, so logically you should stop breathing. Which makes my point; the fear of man increasing the affects of global warming has resulted in a law that really makes breathing illegal. It's stupid.

[micknugget]

Originally Posted by Casper

Well, what is the gray area when it comes to man-made global warming? If it is caused by the creation of CO2, then isn't the complete ban of CO2 the best answer? If reducing CO2 is "insurance" against global warming, isn't that the best insurance against the creating the end-state of global warming where it affects our children, to ban CO2 completely? Why is just a reduction in the creation of CO2 the best answer? Who gets to decide the level? What is the level based on? Because we are spewing so much CO2 into the atmosphere, eventually the earth is going to warm to a point where the climate changes beyond the status quo and our ancestors will be affected. When will that be? Is it going to be our great great great great great great grandchildren, or just our great great great grandchildren? If someone comes up with what the ideal level of CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere without increasing global warming then eventually the number of humans and other animals, along with cars, factories, power plants, etc. will get to the point that even with a CO2 emissions requirement of nearly 0% it will still not be enough to maintain the “proper” level. So what to we do then, start killing people and animals, and shutting off electricity (old people will then freeze to death)?

The point of all these stupid questions (before you call me an idiot again) is that no one can determine and decide these things with absolute surety. The EPA just declared CO2 a pollutant in 2010, so your act of breathing means you are contributing to the problem, so logically you should stop breathing. Which makes my point; the fear of man increasing the affects of global warming has resulted in a law that really makes breathing illegal. It's stupid.

There you go being extreme again. Your argument is that you either do nothing about CO2 emissions or you stop them completely. That's like saying that you can only turn your heater on high or not at all. The grey are is prudence. That consists of taking steps to try to limit CO2. Explain to me how on earth (literally) that is a bad thing. The "grey area" is the uncertainty and as for who regulates it, that is up to Governments and scientists and those who are trying to make the right decisions based on the information at hand. In all of your arguments, you have never stated while being cautious and careful is a bad thing. You can drive thru a red like in the middle of the country in the middle of the night and there is a 99.9+% chance that nothing will happen yet most people will slow down or even stop. It is the prudent thing to do and even you have to admit that IF humans are contributing significantly to global warming (which there is a chance depending on your opinion 20%, 10% or even 5%) the harm would effect everyone. Just like you buy insurance in case of loss, things like A.S.S. are at least an attempt....just in case. It's a very small price to pay.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by micknugget

There you go being extreme again. Your argument is that you either do nothing about CO2 emissions or you stop them completely. That's like saying that you can only turn your heater on high or not at all. The grey are is prudence. That consists of taking steps to try to limit CO2. Explain to me how on earth (literally) that is a bad thing. The "grey area" is the uncertainty and as for who regulates it, that is up to Governments and scientists and those who are trying to make the right decisions based on the information at hand. In all of your arguments, you have never stated while being cautious and careful is a bad thing. You can drive thru a red like in the middle of the country in the middle of the night and there is a 99.9+% chance that nothing will happen yet most people will slow down or even stop. It is the prudent thing to do and even you have to admit that IF humans are contributing significantly to global warming (which there is a chance depending on your opinion 20%, 10% or even 5%) the harm would effect everyone. Just like you buy insurance in case of loss, things like A.S.S. are at least an attempt....just in case. It's a very small price to pay.

In the interest of saving the planet and reducing my carbon foot print I'll keep this short and it will be my last post on the thread.

The US Government has been passing legislation for almost 40 years now to reduce CO2 emissions. They originally did it to prudently combat smog in L.A. It worked; the air is much clearer and better to breath. Today's engines put out very little CO2 as compared to those in 1970. You'd think with such great results the Government would call it good and move on to something else. Nope, 40 years later it's on a quest to save the planet; same issue, just a bigger problem to solve.

The "problem", however, is a moving target. The greenhouse effect is necessary to sustain life on the planet. The greenhouse effect stabilizes the Earth's temperature. The planet heats and cools on cycles that are millions of years in duration and inconsistent in severity, so trying to regulate the emission of CO2 (just one of several major greenhouse gasses) to adjust the Earth's atmosphere based on a few decades of data really just makes for a good joke. Government-funded scientists need to eat too, so what happens when they "solve" the problem. Here's an idea; let's create an issue that if it comes true will have an effect thousands of years from now, when none of us will be here to take any shit if we were wrong. And then let's just make the problem part of a bigger, naturally occurring, temperature regulating process so that we can never really tell if the changes we suggest have any effect.

Call it prudence all you want. I'm all for conserving natural resources and minimizing pollution (the two BMWs I own have the smallest and most fuel efficient engines offered in the series). In 20 years when the Government starts regulating how much you can drive (not just how much CO2 your car emits) then just remember this thread.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by Just a 3

So many quotes, I don't know which ones to respond to.
1) All studies are unsubstantiated - just like most Global Warming studies, as far as it is man made
2) This car has a 33mpg highway rating with a 2.0L engine - what exactly does ASS help it achieve?
3) BMW owners do care for not causing additional pollution, but as you conveniently misunderstand/ignore my posts, its hard to make you understand that most BMW owners are not greenies who would give the pleasure of driving up to cater to as yet unproven man made global warming theories.

I missed this when writing my previous post.

1. What do you need for a study to be “substantiated” in your opinion?
2. I don’t know “exactly” what it helps to achieve in the specific scenario of the US fuel economy tests. The only way to find that out would be to run those exact same tests with ASS on and with ASS off.
3. Where exactly did I say that BMW drivers are greenies who would give up the pleasure of driving because of global warming? And you talk about me “conveniently” misunderstanding your posts! I’m not giving up the pleasure of driving either. But I am choosing a 320D instead of a 328i, partly because of my concerns about climate change – I’m not sure I can justify to myself that the extra pleasure of the 328i is worth the 30% increase in fuel consumption and both the cost to my wallet, as well as the cost to the planet, that would entail. As for ASS, that takes no pleasure away from driving for me because it only kicks in when I’m stopped, and thus not driving.

Originally Posted by Casper

I know you said you don’t want to say anything else on the matter, and I said that I didn’t want to get involved myself in a debate on anthropogenic climate change, but that debate has become interesting now that it’s moved beyond meaningless rhetoric and into intelligent discussion and exchange of facts so I’ve been wanting to add to this thread for a couple of days but haven’t had time. I appreciate though that these things often descend into a battle of who can have the last word and I’m not responding with that intention, just to question things you’ve said that I don’t understand. If you don’t respond then I won’t consider it to be because you’re conceding the argument.

Originally Posted by Casper

...
Take a trip to the Bad Lands in South Dakota. There you’ll find evidence of a shallow sea from the fossilized sea life in the rocks.

Do you think human induced global warming and the resultant climate change had something to do with these to geological facts? Please. Pretty graph though.

I really don’t see the relevance of this.

It sounds like you’re saying that because climate change happened in the past when humans weren’t around, that it’s impossible that humans are responsible for it happening now.

Noone is saying that climate change was never been caused by humans. Of course the climate changed before humans were arrived, it would be a very strange planet if it didn’t!

Originally Posted by Casper

Looking at the last 100 years of climate conditions when the climate is over 4 billion years old and making a statement humans are changing the planet’s climate (in a bad way) is not proper use of scientific principles.

Why?

We can now model pre-historic climates going back millions of years thanks to geological evidence. As you say, a century is a geological fraction of a blink of an eye but this is precisely the point: it’s a huge coincidence that the climate has begun to change more rapidly than previously just when humans began burning fossil fuels.

Even if there wasn’t a huge amount of other evidence, the likelihood of accelerated natural climate change coinciding so precisely with people burning CO2 is surely tiny. When you combine with the known properties of greenhouse gases – ie that they absorb infrared heat more readily than the oxygen and nitrogen that make up most of the atmosphere, and that the sun’s heat which arrives as shorter wavelengths is then mostly re-emitted from the earth's surface as infrared – then the circumstantial evidence becomes pretty strong. And although that is indeed just circumstantial evidence, it's still a stronger argument to me than the points you’ve made so far, which I fail to see the relevance of.

What I would like to know is what evidence would persuade you that climate change is being driven by human activity. You say that 100 years of evidence isn’t enough. How much would be then? 500 years? 1000 years? It sounds to me like you wouldn’t accept the idea until AFTER the climate has changed and the consequences you dismiss as apocalyptic have already occurred.


My personal view is that while we should eek out every efficiency we can from fossil fuels the only way we have a hope of avoiding serious climate change is by adopting nuclear power in a massive way. Unfortunately though there are too many ideologically extremist environmentalists for that to happen and besides, it’s a whole different debate.

[mfear]

this is a global warming thread now?!

[BMWark]

Originally Posted by Micleg

Yes, but me and my kids are sharing the earth with you. What's the point in Europeans driving cars with small engines to save fuel if you think you have the right to do the opposite? I think doing unnecessary and stupid things should be avoided so I can live with the fact that I have to press a button on every trip where I don't want the engine to turn off too often.

I don't have a problem with that at all.

[darksilkx1]

I dropped in to see if there was a solution to turn off the auto off feature by default. I guess not. Looks like this has turned into a debate between the Foxnews and CNN crowds.

[Mrcarcrazy]

Originally Posted by shoptb

One can "fix" it right now if you want to educate yourself on coding your BMW. Or you can mess around with the wiring via aftermarket tools, as you suggested. Either route will be unsupported by BMW and you will have to deal with the service/warranty repercussions of such actions. It's all up to the individual owner!

My BMW doesn't have this problem

Anywho... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

[shoptb]

Originally Posted by Mrcarcrazy

My BMW doesn't have this problem

Anywho... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act

It all depends on how much of a stickler your dealer is, and how much of trouble you want to deal with. Basically, if you've got an after-market alteration to coding/wiring/etc, you're going to have to prove every time that you come in that it wasn't your modification that caused the problem that you're seeking remedy for. BMW has responded in many cases that prior to inspecting a vehicle for warranty-related items, all "modifications" to software/wiring can be requested to be removed. I had an 'EAS' modification, which my dealer insisted that I remove prior to them looking at an issue related to the HPFP. It was highly irritating.

"The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance."

[Fraggy]

Originally Posted by nexusonemeover

this thread is hilarious.... BMW doesnt really care about global warming... they care about money. Without ASS set to be active on each start, they wouldn't get their CAFE credit, and thats it. &lt;== huge resounding period

Best post of this thread!!!

[Mrcarcrazy]

Originally Posted by shoptb

It all depends on how much of a stickler your dealer is, and how much of trouble you want to deal with. Basically, if you've got an after-market alteration to coding/wiring/etc, you're going to have to prove every time that you come in that it wasn't your modification that caused the problem that you're seeking remedy for. BMW has responded in many cases that prior to inspecting a vehicle for warranty-related items, all "modifications" to software/wiring can be requested to be removed. I had an 'EAS' modification, which my dealer insisted that I remove prior to them looking at an issue related to the HPFP. It was highly irritating.

"The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance."

:fp: They have the burden of proof....not you.... (your quote says this....but you don't pull this from it?)

But in reality, you have to be slightly insane, or friends w/ the service manager to not remove mods which might put you in that predicamint when taking it to the DLR for service.

I realize that not all dealers are "mod friendly" and will try to screw you...But this BMW owner theory that anything you do to your car will void its warranty is absolutely fed by people repeating the same BS which has no legal grounds. Legally, they cannot void your warranty without providing evidence that the modification caused/led to the failure. Having said that my F30 will stay stock....to which the next logical question is "well, mr smartypants, why is that?" and my answer is equally as obvious. "I'll get every option I want from the factory, and I'll leave it alone as not to cause any issues....not due to fears of warranty, but fears of hassle of having a broken daily driver. (my wife is not a fan of commuting in the Elise)"

[shoptb]

Originally Posted by Mrcarcrazy

:fp: They have the burden of proof....not you.... (your quote says this....but you don't pull this from it?)

But in reality, you have to be slightly insane, or friends w/ the service manager to not remove mods which might put you in that predicamint when taking it to the DLR for service.

I realize that not all dealers are "mod friendly" and will try to screw you...But this BMW owner theory that anything you do to your car will void its warranty is absolutely fed by people repeating the same BS which has no legal grounds. Legally, they cannot void your warranty without providing evidence that the modification caused/led to the failure. Having said that my F30 will stay stock....to which the next logical question is "well, mr smartypants, why is that?" and my answer is equally as obvious. "I'll get every option I want from the factory, and I'll leave it alone as not to cause any issues....not due to fears of warranty, but fears of hassle of having a broken daily driver. (my wife is not a fan of commuting in the Elise)"

I'm not disagreeing with you on legal grounds ... I think you're right on the money. I'm disagreeing with you on the grounds of how dealers have acted in reality. Sure, can you go through the hassle of threatening your dealer with legal action? Absolutely. Legal complexities are always a matter of time, money, and patience. Would I ever want to take my car there again for service afterwards? Hell no.

If we were talking about something like a Jeep Wrangler, I'd feel comfortable that you could pretty much mod anything that you want without issue. Prior to my E92, I figured that BMW would treat mods pretty much like any other car manufacturer....not really paying it much mind. However, this car (and its dealers) has to be the most mod-unfriendly vehicle on the planet when it comes to anything electrical. Pretty much anything throws an error, and especially when you're talking about things relative to recoding/rewiring...you have to be extremely careful not to arouse suspicion.

For example, when I took the car in to have the HPFP software flash, they wouldn't touch it because it was throwing an error due to the Xenon fog lamps. I had to go home, remove the Xenon fog lamps, so that the computer wasn't showing any errors, and then they would admit it for service. Clearly, Xenon fog lamps don't have anything to do with HPFP, but their wording was "You've changed something, and we're afraid that we will damage the car by doing anything until you've corrected your modification". Sure, it was easy to argue that a fog lamp isn't going to affect a high-performance fuel pump, but when you to the dealer that they're required to provide service and the dealer says "nope, not gonna touch it", you're left with two options. 1) Remove the mod, and take it back for service, or 2) hire an attorney, pay him a retainer, draft letters, spend thousands of dollars, to what end....to prove a point that you're right and they're wrong?

EDIT: I realize that this is kind of moving this thread in another direction....apologize for that :P

[Fraggy]

I am very much opposed to autostart stop, and electric steering, I do believe that we should try to conserve resources and lower emissions wherever possible.

I also believe that there are other ways to achieve the gains made by autostart stop and electric steering that BMW has chosen to ignore, possibly for marketing reasons, and partially perhaps out of laziness.

Instead of a 2.0L turbo, it could be a 1.9L turbo, and maybe raise the boost a little bit, and that might equal to 3% gain of auto start stop without interfering with the refinement of the vehicle. And yes the car shuttering to a stop and shuttering to a start at every friggin stop sign, destroys the refinement of a premium automobile.