2013 Used Turbo 4.4l V8 32v Automatic Rwd Sedan Navigation Bang & Olufsen Sound on 2040-cars
Houston, Texas, United States
BMW M5 for Sale
2013 bmw m5 loaded with options low miles low reserve(US $79,000.00)
Smg heads-up navigation sunroof satellite(US $39,990.00)
1988 m5 with s54 motor from e46 m3 -
2006 bmw m5 base sedan 4-door 5.0l
2010 bmw m5 dinan upgrades(US $58,000.00)
Base manual 4.4l nav cd 12 speakers am/fm radio mp3 decoder radio data system(US $78,989.00)
Auto Services in Texas
Woodway Car Center ★★★★★
Woods Paint & Body ★★★★★
Wilson Paint & Body Shop ★★★★★
WHITAKERS Auto Body & Paint ★★★★★
Westerly Tire & Automotive Inc ★★★★★
VIP Engine Installation ★★★★★
Auto blog
BMW performance engineering boss wants an M7
Mon, 16 Dec 2013Audi has the S8, Mercedes has the S63 AMG and Jaguar has the XJR, but BMW has always held that an M7 wasn't justified, leaving its associated Alpina line to tackle that market with the B7 (pictured). The chief engineer at the M division, however, feels otherwise.
Speaking to Autocar, the BMW M development chief Albert Biermann indicated that he would like to see the M division do a performance version of the 7 Series to compete with the above-mentioned models, but that there are no current plans in place to do so. Neither did he specify what kind of engine it would have, or if it would be badged, for that matter, as an M7 or an M Performance model.
The latter is the approach which the M division is reportedly taking with performance versions of BMW crossovers beyond the X5 M and X6 M, such as the X3 and upcoming X4. The division is also said to be developing a performance-tuned xDrive system to compete with AMG's new all-wheel-drive models, as well as a potential M3 GT to join the new M3 sedan and M4 coupe with a slantback bodystyle.
10 automakers sued over keyless ignitions
Thu, Aug 27 2015Keyless ignition has rapidly proliferated throughout the auto industry to become a fairly normal feature on new cars. It's supposed to offer the convenience of keeping the fob in your pocket and just pressing a button to drive away. However, ten major automakers are now being sued in US District Court over claims that the system is dangerous, Reuters reports. The suit alleges that people are forgetting to shut off the engine, and the lack of an idle timer is the cause for 13 deaths by carbon monoxide poisoning and multiple injuries. The suit currently includes 28 plaintiffs, according to Reuters, but the lawyers are asking for class-action status to potentially add many more. The case goes after a major swath of the industry, including BMW, Daimler, FCA, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen, plus their related brands like Acura, Infiniti, Mini, and Lexus. In all, over five million vehicles are affected. The assertion here is that people walk away from their vehicle without shutting it off because they believe the engine shuts off automatically. If parked in a garage, carbon monoxide can build up, leading to poisoning. The lawyers claim automakers know this is a problem and also cite 27 complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the issue, according to Reuters. The plaintiffs are asking for an automatic shut-off and damages from the companies. These concerns have come up before, though. Toyota previously faced a lawsuit over a carbon monoxide death after a woman accidentally left her Lexus running. Also earlier this year, GM recalled 64,186 examples of the 2011-2013 Chevrolet Volt because owners weren't shutting them off. The problem resulted in two injuries, and the company released a software update to limit the idling time.
Did BMW drag its feet on Mini recall?
Mon, Sep 28 2015The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is opening an investigation into BMW's reporting of a recall for 30,456 examples of the 2014-2015 Mini Cooper Hardtop, Cooper S, and the 2015 John Cooper Works. According to the government, "it appears from a review of NHTSA's databases that BMW may have failed to submit recall communications to NHTSA in a timely manner." The automaker issued the recall in July because crash tests showed the models didn't meet side impact requirements for passengers in the back seat. While there were no reported injuries at the time, the company decided to install energy-absorbing material in the space between the rear interior panels and the exterior. However, NHTSA has decided to investigate whether this campaign should have started much earlier, given the evidence the company had. According to the government's report, the Cooper Hardtop failed side-impact tests in 2014, although one of these tests was five-miles-per-hour faster than the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The agency claims: "In January 2015 BMW verbally committed that it would conduct a service campaign to add padding to the rear side panels of MY 2015 Mini 2 Door Hardtop Cooper models. However, BMW did not initiate the service campaign and failed to inform NHTSA of its failure to do so." A subsequent crash test of an example with this fix showed it to make the vehicle compliant with the rules. Mini spokesperson Mariella Kapsaskis told Autoblog: "Regarding the NHTSA audit query, BMW Group is evaluating the request and will respond to NHTSA as appropriate." INVESTIGATION Subject : BMW Reporting & Timely Recall Execution Date Investigation Opened: SEP 24, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: AQ15004 Component(s): STRUCTURE All Products Associated with this Investigation Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) MINI COOPER 2014-2015 MINI COOPER S 2014-2015 MINI JOHN COOPER WORKS 2015 Details Manufacturer: BMW of North America, LLC SUMMARY: NHTSA is opening this AQ to better understand and evaluate BMW's process(es) for its notification procedures and for timely and efficient execution of its safety recall campaigns. In mid-2014, NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) had side impact moving deformable barrier (MDB) tests performed on two model year (MY) 2014 Mini 2 Door Hardtop Coopers. These two tests were performed at a speed 5 mph higher than required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214, Side impact protection.
