This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For the first reference ( http://www.7-forum.com/modelle/e32/sonderausstattung.php) there is an advert [1] that consumes most of my screen upon rollover. On my old iBook, things ground to a halt; I don't expect everyone to have modern computers. Perhaps there is a better source out there for the various flavours of the E32 7 Series. Also, I do not understand why the rest of my edit was reverted. Lavenderbunny 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
what does the "L" stand for on 7 series. i knows its something german meaning long —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.182.144.2 ( talk) 22:58, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
The L stands for Longwheel base. 71.202.3.21 ( talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It was produced from 1987 to 1994. Article says it started in '86 and ended in '94.
"The E32 itself was replaced by the E38 in 1994,"
E38 production started in 1995. Paulmer2003 ( talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Also wrong engine years, just bought a '90 728i, came here looking for more info, Google and www.rockauto.com both confirm the 2.8L not even mentioned in the article here, Google has it at 190 HP and 29 MPG hwy. -Kate Ransom — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
63.248.25.25 (
talk)
01:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Using an E32 with after-market front indicators (white instead of orange) ? Should be an original stock photo for the wikipedia. -- Alexey Topol ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
DONE SHAMAN 23:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the 767 concept should be mentioned on this page.
http://jalopnik.com/5665577/bmws-767-the-golden-fish-that-got-away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.26.142 ( talk) 15:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
DONE SHAMAN 23:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
How Could it cost that when the Euro wasn't introduced until after the car was made? Is that an equivalent? If so at what converion and from what original currency? ( Morcus ( talk) 05:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
-- Jojhnjoy ( talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It is nice to have a production section within the prose, however a good percentage of readers glance at the infobox first and foremost, missing that lower section. They will miss it very easily.
It is not Wikipedia standard for the automotive infobox, to not be allowed to include production months+years and instead, in a separate section
[2]. Over 80% of Automotive articles with production sections included have months within them, but not the full date included as stated by
User: Stepho-wrs.
Three users having a discussion among themselves (and not making it become standard via the linked page), does not exactly dictate how article inboxes are configured across Wikipedia, since it is not even listed here
[3]. Quite the opposite in fact. A much deeper discussion, with a widespread panel of users and not just a few out of many, would be a more proper form of consensus being firmly established.
A dispute resolution might end up needing to be opened, on the premise that this is not even the standard across this site anyway and is being pushed regardless of that, proving to be disruptive.
Carmaker1 (
talk)
06:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mr.Choppers. It is good to see that we are both in agreement that WP:CARUNITS is the applicable policy here. Your edit summary says "check the sources", however the sources include kW ratings, therefore the then-obsolete Pferdstarke (PS) ratings are not required to verify the references. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I suppose horsepower, unlike Pferdestärke, is a legal unit in the United States. Besides that, car enthusiasts have been doing, let's call them "interesting" things that we should not base articles upon. The same is true for car manufacturer model names(!), which are completely arbitrary: An Audi 60 has a 55 PS engine, whereas an Audi A6 55 TFSI has a 250 kW engine. Pferdestärke is an obsolete unit from the technical unit system that goes alongside several other obsolete units, all based upon a weird force-mass-weight confusion system. Surprisingly, I have barely seen anybody use kilopondmetres for torque, kiloponds per square centimetre for pressure, or kiloponds for drawbar pull in the past 20 years or so (for their modern(!) vehicles). If we actually use Pferdestärke for source reasons, we should stick to the technical unit system (because it becomes difficult to put into comparision if left without anything that fits). Now the interesting things are the concepts I have come across – for instance, people refer to their engine torque as Newton (without anything else, as if it was a force), nobody seems to be knowing what the product of torque and crankshaft angular velocity is, (drawbar) pull is given in tons, and motorbike enthusiasts tie their motorbikes to dynos and state power figures with two or even three digits behind the decimal seperator. I believe that Pferdestärke goes along with all of these, because there are emotional reasons for using it. That is why car manufacturers and car magazines stick to it despite that it is obvious why it makes little sense to do so. Now what car manufacturers (and car magazines) actually do when stating Pferdestärke is take the power ratings and divide by 0.73549875. Modern cars are not rated in Pferdestärke, because it is obsolete. Modern German cars typically have power ratings such as 75 kW, 100 kW, 110 kW, 140 kW, 200 kW, 250 kW, etc. for insurance and tax reasons. And if we take a look into any serious car engineering book (or any engineering book in general) that is not primarily targeted at the US market, we see that verything in these books is SI; nobody uses Pferdestärke as their primary unit. And this has been the case for the past 40 to 50 years. We should stick to reliable sources per WP:RS and not to enthusiast ratings. Best regards, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 10:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not wish to change anything here, but this reminds me of watercraft engines that typically come with power ratings with a precision that is far away from what is to be called precision (e.g. 12,000 kW rather than 12,036 kW). I typically solve this problem by converting large horsepowe numbers into natural number megawatt numbers. But in case of the E32? Well, maybe sticking to the 300 figure is a good idea to prevent confused people from fixing attempts… best regards, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 23:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For the first reference ( http://www.7-forum.com/modelle/e32/sonderausstattung.php) there is an advert [1] that consumes most of my screen upon rollover. On my old iBook, things ground to a halt; I don't expect everyone to have modern computers. Perhaps there is a better source out there for the various flavours of the E32 7 Series. Also, I do not understand why the rest of my edit was reverted. Lavenderbunny 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
what does the "L" stand for on 7 series. i knows its something german meaning long —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.182.144.2 ( talk) 22:58, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
The L stands for Longwheel base. 71.202.3.21 ( talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It was produced from 1987 to 1994. Article says it started in '86 and ended in '94.
"The E32 itself was replaced by the E38 in 1994,"
E38 production started in 1995. Paulmer2003 ( talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Also wrong engine years, just bought a '90 728i, came here looking for more info, Google and www.rockauto.com both confirm the 2.8L not even mentioned in the article here, Google has it at 190 HP and 29 MPG hwy. -Kate Ransom — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
63.248.25.25 (
talk)
01:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Using an E32 with after-market front indicators (white instead of orange) ? Should be an original stock photo for the wikipedia. -- Alexey Topol ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
DONE SHAMAN 23:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the 767 concept should be mentioned on this page.
http://jalopnik.com/5665577/bmws-767-the-golden-fish-that-got-away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.26.142 ( talk) 15:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
DONE SHAMAN 23:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
How Could it cost that when the Euro wasn't introduced until after the car was made? Is that an equivalent? If so at what converion and from what original currency? ( Morcus ( talk) 05:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
-- Jojhnjoy ( talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It is nice to have a production section within the prose, however a good percentage of readers glance at the infobox first and foremost, missing that lower section. They will miss it very easily.
It is not Wikipedia standard for the automotive infobox, to not be allowed to include production months+years and instead, in a separate section
[2]. Over 80% of Automotive articles with production sections included have months within them, but not the full date included as stated by
User: Stepho-wrs.
Three users having a discussion among themselves (and not making it become standard via the linked page), does not exactly dictate how article inboxes are configured across Wikipedia, since it is not even listed here
[3]. Quite the opposite in fact. A much deeper discussion, with a widespread panel of users and not just a few out of many, would be a more proper form of consensus being firmly established.
A dispute resolution might end up needing to be opened, on the premise that this is not even the standard across this site anyway and is being pushed regardless of that, proving to be disruptive.
Carmaker1 (
talk)
06:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mr.Choppers. It is good to see that we are both in agreement that WP:CARUNITS is the applicable policy here. Your edit summary says "check the sources", however the sources include kW ratings, therefore the then-obsolete Pferdstarke (PS) ratings are not required to verify the references. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I suppose horsepower, unlike Pferdestärke, is a legal unit in the United States. Besides that, car enthusiasts have been doing, let's call them "interesting" things that we should not base articles upon. The same is true for car manufacturer model names(!), which are completely arbitrary: An Audi 60 has a 55 PS engine, whereas an Audi A6 55 TFSI has a 250 kW engine. Pferdestärke is an obsolete unit from the technical unit system that goes alongside several other obsolete units, all based upon a weird force-mass-weight confusion system. Surprisingly, I have barely seen anybody use kilopondmetres for torque, kiloponds per square centimetre for pressure, or kiloponds for drawbar pull in the past 20 years or so (for their modern(!) vehicles). If we actually use Pferdestärke for source reasons, we should stick to the technical unit system (because it becomes difficult to put into comparision if left without anything that fits). Now the interesting things are the concepts I have come across – for instance, people refer to their engine torque as Newton (without anything else, as if it was a force), nobody seems to be knowing what the product of torque and crankshaft angular velocity is, (drawbar) pull is given in tons, and motorbike enthusiasts tie their motorbikes to dynos and state power figures with two or even three digits behind the decimal seperator. I believe that Pferdestärke goes along with all of these, because there are emotional reasons for using it. That is why car manufacturers and car magazines stick to it despite that it is obvious why it makes little sense to do so. Now what car manufacturers (and car magazines) actually do when stating Pferdestärke is take the power ratings and divide by 0.73549875. Modern cars are not rated in Pferdestärke, because it is obsolete. Modern German cars typically have power ratings such as 75 kW, 100 kW, 110 kW, 140 kW, 200 kW, 250 kW, etc. for insurance and tax reasons. And if we take a look into any serious car engineering book (or any engineering book in general) that is not primarily targeted at the US market, we see that verything in these books is SI; nobody uses Pferdestärke as their primary unit. And this has been the case for the past 40 to 50 years. We should stick to reliable sources per WP:RS and not to enthusiast ratings. Best regards, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 10:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not wish to change anything here, but this reminds me of watercraft engines that typically come with power ratings with a precision that is far away from what is to be called precision (e.g. 12,000 kW rather than 12,036 kW). I typically solve this problem by converting large horsepowe numbers into natural number megawatt numbers. But in case of the E32? Well, maybe sticking to the 300 figure is a good idea to prevent confused people from fixing attempts… best regards, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 23:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)