![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It's bothersome having to wait for BMW AG to figure out how they are going to market the E90-based coupe. Will it be the "4" or still be a "3"? Many people claim to know, but until BMW actually says it, and spits the vehicle out for the automotive press, it's just conjecture. So I've altered the supposed "///M4" paragraph to reflect this. Thoughts? -- Sirimiri 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, while it's conjecture, it has no place on Wikipedia: I wouldn't even bother mentioning possible names. Roddyp 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, 2005 Frankfurt Motor Show has now passed without announcement AFAIK, and the only thing I see with a named source implies the E90 M3 won't launch (at least in the US) until Mid 2008. http://www.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=5901&categoryId= Roddyp 12:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Here's a recent M3/M4 entry: http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/72/bmw-m-news-m3-m5-touring-and-m6-csl I upped the hp in the entry to 425 -- I've seen 400, 425, and 450, so I just picked the middle one. "The M3 E90 is confirmed for 2007, with its 4.0 V8 (425 hp) derived from the M5/M6 V10". I don't know how accurate this is, but is is recent. And in german :-) Morcheeba
Is this the original or is the wiki article the original? BabuBhatt 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
umm the article seems to be only mentioning about the E36 M3 CSL. from what I've seen, there is an E46 based CSL too. will someone please clarify :) Dstan 09:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost 100% certain that there are more M3 CSL's made than stated in the article. I've seen 3 in Glasgow, UK and I doubt we own 1/40th of CSLs ever made. And they defo were not all delivered to the US. Anyway, far be it from me to amend someone elses article but I think you should take a look into this. Gart 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is incredibly biased, and uses lots of statements that appear to be someones personal opinion. Also some of the facts and figures are questionable (all M3 CSLs were delivered to the USA?! I don't think so.). TiHead 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, this is one of those articles that is constantly being edited with junk along the lines of "everyone agrees that...". WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT EVERYONE AGREES! TiHead 16:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Can someone fix up the CSL article? I'm a new Wikipedian, and even to me it's obvious that the section on the CSL seems only to focus on the USA. There are CSLs in the UK and rest of Europe too.
Not a single reference for the whole page. This needs looking into. -- Gavinio 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
User RN318 added a large photo and associated description into the article. I don't think the article needs to discuss a specific vehicle in such detail and have such a large photo of it. Any thoughts? -- Daniel J. Leivick 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This article states that the M3 will be priced over $100,000 in the US. That make no sense, whomever wrote that is definitively an Idiot. That would make it the flagship vehicle for BMW, exceeding both the M5 and M6 in MSRP. The person who figured that price plugged the UK price and then went through a currency exchange simulator and got a seriously wrong number. I would encourage no one to put definitive answers on this page without checking it. That price is absurd. I really doubt the new M3 will be twice as expensive as the E46 variant. -- Samfisch 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it me or are the links at the bottom beginning to border on spam? Especially with the long "informational sidebars" about each link? Opinions? -- Sirimiri 22:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
alrite, this section can be much better.. theres a lotta new stuff on the new m3 that can be put in there... a picture for example... check out this site for starters [1]. i mean, just look at the rs4's article. come onnnn, everyone knows the new m3s gnna pwn the rs4. Sadartha 15:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bmw e46 tuning 29 small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
sorry im just new to wikipedia trying to get everything down, carry on with your conversations Imuhbeachbum 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)perry Imuhbeachbum 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the correct information concerning the E36 M3 compact today. I already did that some weeks ago, but user Hu12 deleted the changes i made, although all the information is 100% correct and can be verified on different sites on the internet. I included a foot note now, referring to the magazine where the said car is tested. I also edited the E46 M3 Competition Package section, since there was noted thet it was only available in the US and UK, which is incorrect (the Competition Package was available on almost every market). -- GillesAmez ( talk) 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this statement correct? As far as I am aware there was no E30 M3 Touring model and there was no E36 M3 compact model.
Whilst the E36 compact is not considered by many as a true 3 series BMW it is still badged as either a 318 ti or 325 ti. This makes the above statement false and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.44.229.201 ( talk) 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
the lancer evo, or wrx, or skyline gtr r34 are in no way similar to the bmw e46 m3. whoever wrote that is a dumb shit becasue first of all those aforementioned cars are all AWD (all wheel drive) and are AWESOME. not overpriced german made automobiles.
BMW > all else
msc for life
can you try to be a little less bigoted and offensive please?
ricer is offensive.
calling someone a "dumb shit" is offensive.
and stating that german cars are superior offends me, because of that statements stupdity.
while the lancer evolution and subaru STi are based on WRC cars and are very different, the Skyline R34 GTR is very similar to a BMW E46 M3, they are both coupes derived from sporting saloons, they are both straight 6 engined cars. The main differences between the two are that due to its turbo charged engine, and 4WD, the Skyline has far more potential for tuning and racing.
I realise that using English is hard for you, why dont you stick to Yahoo chat, myspace or playing CS, where you can type "pwnt" and "OMGLOL" to your hearts content. Sennen goroshi 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please verify the M3 GTR's horsepower #'s? Everywhere else on the Internet other than this Wikipedia article states that the Race version of the GTR has 400 hp and that the Street version has 350 hp. Aaronmarks ( talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
444 in race version, its 493 off the shelf for the P engine that powers it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This article has too many lists. While the information is sometime valid, it makes that page difficult to read and overly long. If there aren't any valid objections I am going to trim this page down significantly. Daniel J. Leivick 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the top speed figures for this particular model, can anyone validate them? I've seen numerous sites that report it as roughly 137-140MPH as top speed. beastx 12:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)beastx
I think there should be an article completely about the M3 GTR. If someone could create it, it would be wonderful. Ez5698 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The new E92 M3 GTR will have the S85 V10 engine fitted to it, producing over 507 bhp. However, speculation exists that it might be a superiorly tuned V8. The E46 M3 GTR borrowed the M5 engine from the E39 series and produced 400 bhp.-- Samfisch 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If we can create an entire article on a single BMW engine, I think the GTR could have enough information to deserve its own article (which I'd be willing to help create). The dedicated article could have info on the engine, owners, drivers, race history, "where are they now", etc. Does anyone have a link to any information regarding the engine in this car? I suspect it is actually the engine that became the BMW S65, and was not a torn down version of the BMW S85 as most suspect. Michael.brito ( talk) 00:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what is this article? Would it be better to have info on each individual models M3 on its corresponding page and leave this for a brief summary + special models? Or should the articles on the models be a brief summary and then link here? Right now we seem to be crossing over quite a bit of information and to be honest, it's quite a mess. Additional input would be welcomed. Matty ( talk) 23:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
this section needs to be updated. larry koch is no longer m-brand manager (i added "then" to his title to indicate such), but the GT4 is no longer being considered for US sale. someone please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtailpipes ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Does someone have a picture of an E46 M3 that is stock? The highly modified M3 in that picture is not representative of the E46, and IMO it makes the E46 look like a tricked-out ricer version of an M3. -- Nick2253 ( talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have added a picture of my own standard E46 M3 convertible. The car was the same as it left the factory (it's now been sold on to make way for my 911) but it should help solve your issue. Any problems then please don't hesitate to rectify. Sebhaque ( talk) 00:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The electronically limited top speed for several of the models of the car is listed as 249 km/h. This is wrong. The source says 155 mph, but as the M3 is a german car and they use the metric system in Germany this is converted from its offisial top speed of 250 km/h. When converting from km/h to mph and back to km/h you get 250km/h = 155mph = 249km/h. I tried correcting this by using 250 km/h as the basis for calculation, but the I got 160 mph, and that is just wrong, so I discarded my edit without saving it. PerDaniel ( talk) 12:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
BMW returned to DTM with their M3 (E92) in 2012. And BMW even won the drivers', teams', and manufacturers' titles in the first year they returned to DTM since M3 E30. So there is no reason that there shouldn't be a subject of M3 E92 DTM. Leonardo.Duan ( talk) 10:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/pressclub/p/pcgl/pressDetail.html?title=bmw-m-celebrates-dtm-triumph-with-bmw-m3-dtm-champion-edition-model&outputChannelId=6&id=T0134757EN&left_menu_item=node__2248. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 1292simon ( talk) 12:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been noticing repeated edits in the performance section of the E9x M3. Some keep changing it to the "actual" tested 0-60 times, while others are changing it to the "official" times, the ones that BMW published in their specification. I think we should stick to the published performance numbers by BMW unless we are referring to a specific model tested or a specific record/time by a specific transmission type or model type (e.g. coupe, convertible, sedan, etc). The tests performed by 3rd parties are especially useful when the official times are conservative or quite different from the actual performance.
We should clearly state, for example: Official 0-60mph time: 4.5s. Then afterwards we can say: Tested 0-60mph time: 3.9s (as tested by Car and Driver magazine [reference here] with 2011 E92 with DCT).
As of right now, please leave any performance numbers, especially if they are properly and correctly referenced unless you know for sure it is wrong (e.g. you work for the magazine and you know they made a mistake). Also, if you would like to make the official performance more obvious, feel free to add it near the beginning to make it clear, and please explain that it is the OFFICIAL time. But don't just change performance data from 3rd party tests because they are really useful. Especially because there is such a big variation of performance compared to BMW's official times, even for the same car but with different transmissions.
What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegzeit ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Its interesting Wiki doesn't mention that campaigning of this car in DTM which is why it was homologated int he first place ... not for ALMS. Although opening a market in the US was always part of the plan, the big picture was to topple the German rivals Mercedes Benz and Audi - which it did very successfully! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.148.69.210 ( talk) 05:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the information for F80 M3 need to be updated. I am going to add picture and more information to the F80 M3 section. Any thoughts? -- Tianyu10 ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
According to bmwmregistry.com, the E9X M3 had no less than 27(!!) special editions. The GTS and CRT were the only ones with significant mechanical upgrades.
The other 25 were created in conjunction with BMW Individual (BMW M GmbH and BMW Individual are located at the same address). Only 5 of the 25 editions were official editions by BMW M to be sold in multiple markets. The 20 remaining editions were nation/market specific, among those were the Lime Rock Park Edition.
Given these facts, the Wikipedia article should be edited, adding the 4 global editions in addition to DTM Champion Edition, and add another sub level of the nations specific ones, including the US only Lime Rock Park. That means "4.X National special editions" with "4.X.1 Lime Rock Park Edition" etc. etc. Or perhaps all nation specific models should just be summed up in one section, separating them with paragraphs, not unique links from the 'Contents' menu.
Thoughts on this? What to include, and how?
Source: http://www.bmwmregistry.com/model_faq.php?id=50#6 (click the 'E90 + E92 + E93 M3 "National" Special Editions' bar to expand information on nation specific models).
PS! So far I just added "US specific model" to the first sentence about the LRP edition. 1000mm ( talk) 17:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The performance section of the E46 M3 seems to be very cluttered with no "defined" figures as such - it's understandable to split the Euro/US models for figures, but is it necessary to include the Autocar test under the US M3, which somehow with a slightly lower bhp/torque figure, not to mention top speed, manages to be a full 0.4 seconds quicker than the EU model in the cabrio variant, and 0.3 seconds faster in coupé variant?
In addition, citation 11 does not exist. Sebhaque ( talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is something very wrong with the claims for unlimited top speed of the Euro model. 5 bhp extra in Euro model will not give 21.38mph higher top speed, maybe 1mph more. It would need close to 500bhp to do 190mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyshack ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have trouble believing that the only "Racing History" available for the E36 M3 is that it participated in some Winter Rally in Canada. Whatever happened to all the homologation versions they produced, and the numerous self-built race cars that must been built? Surely a least one or two other M3's have been seen on a race track, on occasion, at certain points since the 1990's? .45Colt 20:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anybody know how many turbos the F30 has? http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/269830/new_m3_leads_m_car_boom.html from 2012 said it will have three (one electric) but this has been challenged at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Turbocharged_petrol_engines&diff=627604009&oldid=624199018 . Stepho talk 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"The BMW M3 is one of the stars of the film, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, proving to be the car in multiple car chase scenes as well as crazy stunts." As a sentence it's repetitive, but further why is this even included? Anything about Mission Impossible movies can go into their respective articles, not in an article about a car. 2602:301:7711:D8E0:FDCC:55DB:DB64:5424 ( talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think they only made one, and the release was a joke, but it was all official bmw work. can i put it here? http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/04/01/live-photos-and-videos-bmw-m3-pickup/ Zachlita ( talk) 21:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BMW M3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on BMW M3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
"The BMW M3 remains the only car ever to have earned more titles than the Porsche 911 in motorsport" This seems to be completely unsourced, I tried to find a source for this but failed. It also does not define what kind of "Motorsport titles" they are comparing, for instance if it was "The BMW M3 remains the only car ever to have won the 24 Hours Nürburgring more times than the Porsche 911" That would be easy to check, at the moment it not possible to check, The way it is worded now makes no distinction as to what level of motorsport it is referring to, based on the wording now winning your class at a local autocross event might necessitate an update. I would like to make this section much more specific and would like some imput on how best to reword it/whether or not you want it to be deleted altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.186.52 ( talk) 04:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on BMW M3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bmw-motorsport.com/ms_en/content/download/3097/96401/version/4/file/BMW_M3GT4_Specsheet.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Most parts of this page cite SMG as electrohydraulic manual transmission (as does the page for electrohydraulic transmission itself), but the name literally means "sequential manual gearbox", which would lead most to believe that it is a sequential manual transmission. Is there a reason for this oddity? Latitude23n ( talk) 16:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Casual readers who are not car buffs will come to this article wanting specs on the most recent models.. instead this article starts with the 1980s. I suggest you go in reverse chonological order starting with the most recent models. 71.139.53.239 08:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree. It's much more natural to go chronologically. If you open a book on history, physics or biology you go from the past to the present and you append to the latest chapter. In this specific case, it makes sense to see how E30 evolved into E36 and then E46 and so on. Going backwards is complete nonsense.
ICE77 ( talk) 03:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I own a 1999 BMW E36 M3 3.2L coupé BG93 Estoril and I am trying to understand how many have been built. I did some research and I found this forum where I found some interesting information on production: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=418105. I turns out the number is 509. I am now trying to determine what's the column for my specific exterior/interior combination. The interior is light grey. Would it be column 1, 5, 6 or some other column? I assume it's column 5 but I want to confirm. I figured the VIN can tell but it does not. Does anybody know how to tell?
ICE77 ( talk) 05:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The data on E36 M3 production is inconsistent. The box with the yellow E36 M3 says 71242 for 1992-1999. The box at the bottom has 71242 for 1985-2013. Clearly, that cannot happen and the numbers are inconsistent. They need to be fixed.
ICE77 ( talk) 04:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is about the BMW M3 and it does not cover other E36 models so any number in addition to the M3 models is unnecessary, inconsistent and off topic.
ICE77 ( talk) 00:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
You cannot have the same number (71242) for two time ranges (1992-1999 and 1985-2013). It's impossible.
ICE77 ( talk) 10:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
E36 date ranges & manufacture | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | number | |||||||||||||||
1985-1991 | 0 | |||||||||||||||
1992-1999 | 71242 | |||||||||||||||
2000-2013 | 0 | |||||||||||||||
Total | 71242 |
Now that makes sense! If that's the case then the title for the table should be restricted to 1985-2011 and have an extra line with the years to be more specific and less general:
Global production numbers for 1985-2011 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Version | E30 (1985-1992) | E36 (1992-1999) [1] | E46 (2002-2006) [2] | E9x (2007-2011) [3] | ||||||||||||
Sedan | 12,603 | 9,674 | ||||||||||||||
Coupe | 18,843 [4] | 46,525 | 56,133 | 40,092 | ||||||||||||
Convertible | 786 [5] | 12,114 | 29,633 | 16,219 | ||||||||||||
Sum | 19,629 | 71,242 | 85,766 | 65,985 |
F80 could probably be added as well. Thanks for the information!
ICE77 ( talk) 17:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The infobox says M3 is presently in production, but the F80 section says production ended in 2018. Is there an M3 still in production please? John a s ( talk) 13:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Adding two lines and incorrect model year about a car which doesn't exist yet in production or conception form is not notable. Please stop adding that. If anyone is aggrieved, come to this discussion. U1 quattro TALK 02:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, give this a read. Got it from a policy here:
In this case. The knowledge about the subject is not acceptable as it has not been introduced in production form. Deal with it. U1 quattro TALK 03:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
BMW M has directly confirmed it, and details about it. "What merits the inclusion of this information about a car which doesn't exist?" accurate non speculative information directly from representatives of the company. I don't see how you can think that journalists asking questions to representatives of a company somehow don't count, it stops being speculation when it's confirmed by the head of a division. Toasted Meter ( talk) 06:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay. But the car still hasn't been announced yet which still makes it questionable. There is also no timeline of its introduction either. Same was the case with the Chevrolet Corvette C8. You can see the discussion on the Chevrolet Corvette (C7) talk page. U1 quattro TALK 05:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I think U1Quattro is right in his intepretation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. We have 3 references from non-BMW sources. Only one of them (bmwblog) actually reports something from a BMW official. "Last week, the boss of BMW M division, Markus Flasch, confirmed that the next G80 M3 will be powered by the same twin-turbo six-cylinder engine as the X3 M and X4 M crossovers ... Drivetrain-wise, think about the M5’s all-wheel drive system – we are able to put it in the M3 as well,” Flasch said. “It’ll be very similar. But we will also do rear-wheel drive cars, purer ones too and a manual stick shift." The magazine articles I discount immediately as speculation - they see a camouflaged car and then say anything that sells magazines. Bmwblog isn't much better but at least it has a sound bite from a high-up BMW official. But even this is about company plans for something a year away. Companies have been known to change many things about a car in the last year. Will they change their mind about the engine? Will they change their mind about all-wheel-drive vs RWD or auto vs manual? Will the date be on time, or earlier, or later, or cancelled altogether. All open ended questions. Quite possibly the car may be sold exactly as represented here but we don't know that yet. Stepho talk 09:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Here we have a 6,000 word article, and a protracted dispute (2,000 words and counting...) over a mere 39 words. There's a ton of good sources that verify that it's not a rumor or speculation. The existence of the car is verifiable, the details of it are verifiable, etc. I would have no problem if this 6,000 word article didn't mention the 2020 M3 until the release date is closer, or even waited until it actually goes on sale. It doesn't seem to be all that important. On the other hand, ITS 39 --- THIRTY NINE -- WORDS!!! Seriously. WP:CRYSTAL very clearly does not apply. So if someone wants a sentence or two on next year's car, SO WHAT???
This is not the hill anybody should want to die on. It's WP:LAME-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I was very much opposed to including mention of Elon Musk's hyperbolic claims for the performance of the future Tesla Roadster. Those were extraordinary claims, they were self-serving, with no independent verification, and several reliable sources who were skeptical. Even then, there's nothing wrong with saying Tesla planned to make the car. I only wanted to stay away from speculative performance claims.
There's the bottom line: we're not talking about the future. We're talking about the past. We are describing a past event that has been verified by reliable sources, and disputed by none. That event is this "Markus Flasch, head of BMW's M division, confirmed multiple engine and transmission details about the 2020 M3 to Car magazine in an interview." [2] [3] It is not speculation or rumor that Markus Flash said it. So change the wording from "An M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to be released in 2020.[136] All-wheel drive (xDrive) will be optional on the G80 M3,[137] marking the first time that an M3 has not used a rear-wheel drive layout." to "Head of BMW's M division Markus Flash said that an M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to be released in 2020.[136] Flash said it will have all-wheel drive (xDrive) will be optional blah blah blah". It's not that hard to do this. Stuff like this Could The New BMW M3 Have More Than 510 Horsepower?, Will it go 186 mph, will it have ejection seats and will a laser cannon be option? Are non-encyclopedic speculation. It's good we leave that out until we get better verification. But the stupid question "can BMW make such a car at all?" is not a stretch. And regardless, it's a verifiable fact that a BMW executive said they will. So we can confidently say that BMW said it.
Please get some perspective. Fight over something worth fighting over. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I would ignore all the BS Dennis said about this topic first of all. Now, what is the problem with you two about having to actually WAIT about the car? You both stressed WP:CRYSTALBALL in your defense and yet that's been proven it doesn't support this inclusion of information. 1292simon I didn't deny that the M3 wouldn't have AWD, you're just twisting things around and wasting everyone's time here instead of accepting that whatever you were trying to add is not supported by any policy. U1 quattro TALK 03:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
If analogous case studies mean nothing to you, then let's learn by example. Consider the numerous Featured Articles that devote some space to future, anticipated, or even speculative content. Virus#Applications devotes space to future technology, with 2.2% of the article's word count given to Materials science and nanotechnology, far more than the 0.65% of BMW M3 here. BAE Systems gives similar weight to an announced business deal that hadn't even received regulatory approval. The FA Renewable energy in Scotland has not just a small percentage, but arguably half its content, to unproven, yet-to-be-implemented, not even announced plans, for technology and processes like wave power, tidal power, carbon offsets, carbon sequestration, and more. If this tortured (obviously incorrect) interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL were policy, Renewable energy in Scotland would be gutted, not promoted to FA. The list goes on. Consider the FAs Shuttle–Mir program#Phases Two and Three: ISS (1998–2024) or Alzheimer's disease#Research directions or City of Manchester Stadium#Stadium expansion or Boeing 777#777X, to cite a few more comparable cases. Featured Articles represent large scale collaboration with the most experienced editors, who have subjected content to intense scrutiny and overcome all objections, and are judged to be fully within policy and guidelines, even in the most minor ways. Any time we're not certain what the broad consensus is on the interpretation of a policy like WP:CRYSTAL, we can look to the very loud and clear message we get form the existence of so many FAs that do indeed mention planned or anticipated future events. Rumor and speculation can be a problem, but mentioning the 2020 M3 is in no way prohibited. Policy does not say what you think it says. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You're just wrong about Renewable energy in Scotland. This is no clear, defined, confirmed government policy on carbon sequestration, or tidal power or wave power. Those things are vapor. We cover them because reliable sources cover them. Just like reliable sources cover the new M3.
We can accommodate your objections by omitting any extraordinary claims or unverified superlatives about performance, value, economy, technology, etc.
Renewable energy in Scotland is a featured article full of speculative content. It's one of many examples that prove Wikipedia's community consensus is that WP:CRYSTAL does not forbid well-sourced discussion of unrealized future plans or options. You tried to bat that away with a false claim, and when that didn't work, you pretend you never cared to begin with. I still care because it's still a FA and it still illustrates what the policy consensus is.
If you want to show me a BS claim that is problematic, fine. Show me. But that's not what you carried on an edit war over. You deleted the mere mention of a completely vanilla, dog-bites-man announcement that BMW is going to make an all wheel drive car. That's it. No BS. No mention of any 2,000 horsepower boasts. It's dishonest and a blatant straw man fallacy to pretend that's what this is about.
There isn't really a problem in waiting, other than it sets a disruptive precedent. If we followed this misguided practice, we'd have even more busywork running around removing harmless product announcements from several thousand car articles. We have to track down and delete BLP violations, copyright violations, rumors sourced to social media, hoaxes. Problems that justify removal, as defined by editing policy. It's a lot of work. But do we have to delete well-sourced, unsurprising, uncontroversial, ordinary announcements? No. And once again, since you keep ignoring it: the statement by Flasch is a fact, not speculation. It is a past event, not future. We know he said it. Write it with in-text attribution, and it's totally fine.
You keep asking why we must keep it. But you never explain why we must remove it. What is the benefit? What is the harm in keeping it? Every time you try to answer that question, you shift to irrelevant straw men, claims of unprecedented horsepower and superlatives. And we have to remind you for the tenth time that nobody wants to add that here. This right here. [ These words. Not some other words. [ These. Where is the BS? Where is the hyperbole? Where is the rumor? There isn't any, which is why you should have let this go and let us all do something that matters. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 07:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a debate about whether announcements of future vehicles is worthwhile to put on WP or not.
This RFC is asking:
This discussion is meant to apply to the automobile project as a whole, not just to this M3 discussion that started it. Stepho talk 00:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
My first attempt at the RFC wasn't brief enough, so I have shortened it. Details stripped are now here:
See discussions at:
The M3 discussion has 3 references for magazine speculation about the BMW G80 M3, one of which includes a BMW division boss mentioning plans for the engine, drive train and approximate release date. Some editors claim that WP:CRYSTALBALL says to avoid anything that is not concrete fact (allowing that company plans often change). Other editors claim that WP:CRYSTALBALL is only relevant to entire articles and does not apply at sections within articles. Some editor claim that anything said by a company representative can be related here (with disagreement about how much the 'planned' status should be highlighted to the reader).
For some fictitious examples for how much to highlight the changeable nature:
Notices were posted at the 3 discussions mentioned above and also at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Stepho talk 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag and the next timestamp after that) is too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so is not shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. This also means that it will not be publicised via
WP:FRS. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
short articles that consist of only product announcement information are not appropriatepart and mention of merging indicate. Clause 1 applies to events; while the release of a car is an "event", the article is about an object, and the article already exists. There are examples given in WP:CRYSTAL of future things that have articles, so that's evidence enough that being in the future doesn't disqualify information out of hand; I don't think that guideline really comes into play here.
To clarify it down to automotive articles, I think that the most simple litmus test for my stance on the subject would be this: if a new generation is slated for production per the manufacturer, it merits a brief mention in the article for that model. If it's a brand-new model, an article should not be created until the production version of the vehicle has been officially unveiled (e.g. at an auto show). -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Questions like "How about for magazine speculation?" are irrelevant. Speculation by unreliable sources is forbidden by WP:SPS and WP:V. Even if this WikiProject affirmed that "magazine speculation" was allowed, those policies and guidelines would overrule project-level consensus. If a source is a respected expert and is considered reliable, then a pejorative like "magazine speculation" doesn't apply. In either case, WP:RS has us covered.
WP:CRYSTAL doesn't help us at all. If someone had created a new article on the 2020 M3, that policy would tell us to delete and redirect here. Yet supposedly the very same policy says speculation and rumor belong nowhere on Wikipedia? The contradiction there needs to be resolved at the policy level, not here. It's a recognized flaw in the text of WP:CRYSTAL.
The fact that FAs about TV series, such as Adventure Time, Sesame Street, The Simpsons don't simply describe the most recent season without any mention of plans to make another season of shows in the future is yet another example of proof that Wikipedia consensus does not forbid mention that this car model will have a new version coming out, even if the text at WP:CRYSTAL is confusing and contradictory. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It rather sickens me to see how hard it is to keep a mere 39 words about a conventional car to be released in less than a year, while way back in 2017 nobody was able to stop the creation of a whole separate article on the future product Tesla Roadster (2020), WP:CRYSTAL be damned. Elon Musk's track record of unfulfiled promises be damned. Three+ years early, against all my protests, we breathlessly repeated all of the totally unverifiable claims of the future car's hyperbolic performance. Maybe it's just a good example of how incoherent the WP:CRYSTAL policy is, that both can happen in the same Wikipedia, with the same exact wording of the crystal ball policy. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"In China, the FAW-VW-built Magotan will also be replaced by a long-wheelbase version of the Passat B7. The new model will be exclusive to the Chinese market, and at least 100 mm longer than the European B7."
I do not understand why this is such a problem. The old language was fine and there are multiple sources for the usage of 'GT2' as an accepted term. The argument that DriveTribe is not a valid reference is absurd. It's founded by well-known auto journalists who have edited established magazines and run 2 very popular auto shows (Top Gear, The Grand Tour) for decades. If their content is not valid, I do not know whose would be. You may disagree with them, but it's valid supporting evidence. Also, U1Quattro's revisions include no reasons beyond 'damage repair' and there's no damage. PVarjak ( talk) 21:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It's bothersome having to wait for BMW AG to figure out how they are going to market the E90-based coupe. Will it be the "4" or still be a "3"? Many people claim to know, but until BMW actually says it, and spits the vehicle out for the automotive press, it's just conjecture. So I've altered the supposed "///M4" paragraph to reflect this. Thoughts? -- Sirimiri 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, while it's conjecture, it has no place on Wikipedia: I wouldn't even bother mentioning possible names. Roddyp 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, 2005 Frankfurt Motor Show has now passed without announcement AFAIK, and the only thing I see with a named source implies the E90 M3 won't launch (at least in the US) until Mid 2008. http://www.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=5901&categoryId= Roddyp 12:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Here's a recent M3/M4 entry: http://www.eurocarblog.com/post/72/bmw-m-news-m3-m5-touring-and-m6-csl I upped the hp in the entry to 425 -- I've seen 400, 425, and 450, so I just picked the middle one. "The M3 E90 is confirmed for 2007, with its 4.0 V8 (425 hp) derived from the M5/M6 V10". I don't know how accurate this is, but is is recent. And in german :-) Morcheeba
Is this the original or is the wiki article the original? BabuBhatt 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
umm the article seems to be only mentioning about the E36 M3 CSL. from what I've seen, there is an E46 based CSL too. will someone please clarify :) Dstan 09:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost 100% certain that there are more M3 CSL's made than stated in the article. I've seen 3 in Glasgow, UK and I doubt we own 1/40th of CSLs ever made. And they defo were not all delivered to the US. Anyway, far be it from me to amend someone elses article but I think you should take a look into this. Gart 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is incredibly biased, and uses lots of statements that appear to be someones personal opinion. Also some of the facts and figures are questionable (all M3 CSLs were delivered to the USA?! I don't think so.). TiHead 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, this is one of those articles that is constantly being edited with junk along the lines of "everyone agrees that...". WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT EVERYONE AGREES! TiHead 16:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Can someone fix up the CSL article? I'm a new Wikipedian, and even to me it's obvious that the section on the CSL seems only to focus on the USA. There are CSLs in the UK and rest of Europe too.
Not a single reference for the whole page. This needs looking into. -- Gavinio 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
User RN318 added a large photo and associated description into the article. I don't think the article needs to discuss a specific vehicle in such detail and have such a large photo of it. Any thoughts? -- Daniel J. Leivick 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This article states that the M3 will be priced over $100,000 in the US. That make no sense, whomever wrote that is definitively an Idiot. That would make it the flagship vehicle for BMW, exceeding both the M5 and M6 in MSRP. The person who figured that price plugged the UK price and then went through a currency exchange simulator and got a seriously wrong number. I would encourage no one to put definitive answers on this page without checking it. That price is absurd. I really doubt the new M3 will be twice as expensive as the E46 variant. -- Samfisch 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it me or are the links at the bottom beginning to border on spam? Especially with the long "informational sidebars" about each link? Opinions? -- Sirimiri 22:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
alrite, this section can be much better.. theres a lotta new stuff on the new m3 that can be put in there... a picture for example... check out this site for starters [1]. i mean, just look at the rs4's article. come onnnn, everyone knows the new m3s gnna pwn the rs4. Sadartha 15:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bmw e46 tuning 29 small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
sorry im just new to wikipedia trying to get everything down, carry on with your conversations Imuhbeachbum 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)perry Imuhbeachbum 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the correct information concerning the E36 M3 compact today. I already did that some weeks ago, but user Hu12 deleted the changes i made, although all the information is 100% correct and can be verified on different sites on the internet. I included a foot note now, referring to the magazine where the said car is tested. I also edited the E46 M3 Competition Package section, since there was noted thet it was only available in the US and UK, which is incorrect (the Competition Package was available on almost every market). -- GillesAmez ( talk) 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this statement correct? As far as I am aware there was no E30 M3 Touring model and there was no E36 M3 compact model.
Whilst the E36 compact is not considered by many as a true 3 series BMW it is still badged as either a 318 ti or 325 ti. This makes the above statement false and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.44.229.201 ( talk) 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
the lancer evo, or wrx, or skyline gtr r34 are in no way similar to the bmw e46 m3. whoever wrote that is a dumb shit becasue first of all those aforementioned cars are all AWD (all wheel drive) and are AWESOME. not overpriced german made automobiles.
BMW > all else
msc for life
can you try to be a little less bigoted and offensive please?
ricer is offensive.
calling someone a "dumb shit" is offensive.
and stating that german cars are superior offends me, because of that statements stupdity.
while the lancer evolution and subaru STi are based on WRC cars and are very different, the Skyline R34 GTR is very similar to a BMW E46 M3, they are both coupes derived from sporting saloons, they are both straight 6 engined cars. The main differences between the two are that due to its turbo charged engine, and 4WD, the Skyline has far more potential for tuning and racing.
I realise that using English is hard for you, why dont you stick to Yahoo chat, myspace or playing CS, where you can type "pwnt" and "OMGLOL" to your hearts content. Sennen goroshi 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please verify the M3 GTR's horsepower #'s? Everywhere else on the Internet other than this Wikipedia article states that the Race version of the GTR has 400 hp and that the Street version has 350 hp. Aaronmarks ( talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
444 in race version, its 493 off the shelf for the P engine that powers it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This article has too many lists. While the information is sometime valid, it makes that page difficult to read and overly long. If there aren't any valid objections I am going to trim this page down significantly. Daniel J. Leivick 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the top speed figures for this particular model, can anyone validate them? I've seen numerous sites that report it as roughly 137-140MPH as top speed. beastx 12:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)beastx
I think there should be an article completely about the M3 GTR. If someone could create it, it would be wonderful. Ez5698 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The new E92 M3 GTR will have the S85 V10 engine fitted to it, producing over 507 bhp. However, speculation exists that it might be a superiorly tuned V8. The E46 M3 GTR borrowed the M5 engine from the E39 series and produced 400 bhp.-- Samfisch 13:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If we can create an entire article on a single BMW engine, I think the GTR could have enough information to deserve its own article (which I'd be willing to help create). The dedicated article could have info on the engine, owners, drivers, race history, "where are they now", etc. Does anyone have a link to any information regarding the engine in this car? I suspect it is actually the engine that became the BMW S65, and was not a torn down version of the BMW S85 as most suspect. Michael.brito ( talk) 00:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what is this article? Would it be better to have info on each individual models M3 on its corresponding page and leave this for a brief summary + special models? Or should the articles on the models be a brief summary and then link here? Right now we seem to be crossing over quite a bit of information and to be honest, it's quite a mess. Additional input would be welcomed. Matty ( talk) 23:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
this section needs to be updated. larry koch is no longer m-brand manager (i added "then" to his title to indicate such), but the GT4 is no longer being considered for US sale. someone please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtailpipes ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Does someone have a picture of an E46 M3 that is stock? The highly modified M3 in that picture is not representative of the E46, and IMO it makes the E46 look like a tricked-out ricer version of an M3. -- Nick2253 ( talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have added a picture of my own standard E46 M3 convertible. The car was the same as it left the factory (it's now been sold on to make way for my 911) but it should help solve your issue. Any problems then please don't hesitate to rectify. Sebhaque ( talk) 00:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The electronically limited top speed for several of the models of the car is listed as 249 km/h. This is wrong. The source says 155 mph, but as the M3 is a german car and they use the metric system in Germany this is converted from its offisial top speed of 250 km/h. When converting from km/h to mph and back to km/h you get 250km/h = 155mph = 249km/h. I tried correcting this by using 250 km/h as the basis for calculation, but the I got 160 mph, and that is just wrong, so I discarded my edit without saving it. PerDaniel ( talk) 12:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
BMW returned to DTM with their M3 (E92) in 2012. And BMW even won the drivers', teams', and manufacturers' titles in the first year they returned to DTM since M3 E30. So there is no reason that there shouldn't be a subject of M3 E92 DTM. Leonardo.Duan ( talk) 10:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/pressclub/p/pcgl/pressDetail.html?title=bmw-m-celebrates-dtm-triumph-with-bmw-m3-dtm-champion-edition-model&outputChannelId=6&id=T0134757EN&left_menu_item=node__2248. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 1292simon ( talk) 12:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been noticing repeated edits in the performance section of the E9x M3. Some keep changing it to the "actual" tested 0-60 times, while others are changing it to the "official" times, the ones that BMW published in their specification. I think we should stick to the published performance numbers by BMW unless we are referring to a specific model tested or a specific record/time by a specific transmission type or model type (e.g. coupe, convertible, sedan, etc). The tests performed by 3rd parties are especially useful when the official times are conservative or quite different from the actual performance.
We should clearly state, for example: Official 0-60mph time: 4.5s. Then afterwards we can say: Tested 0-60mph time: 3.9s (as tested by Car and Driver magazine [reference here] with 2011 E92 with DCT).
As of right now, please leave any performance numbers, especially if they are properly and correctly referenced unless you know for sure it is wrong (e.g. you work for the magazine and you know they made a mistake). Also, if you would like to make the official performance more obvious, feel free to add it near the beginning to make it clear, and please explain that it is the OFFICIAL time. But don't just change performance data from 3rd party tests because they are really useful. Especially because there is such a big variation of performance compared to BMW's official times, even for the same car but with different transmissions.
What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegzeit ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Its interesting Wiki doesn't mention that campaigning of this car in DTM which is why it was homologated int he first place ... not for ALMS. Although opening a market in the US was always part of the plan, the big picture was to topple the German rivals Mercedes Benz and Audi - which it did very successfully! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.148.69.210 ( talk) 05:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the information for F80 M3 need to be updated. I am going to add picture and more information to the F80 M3 section. Any thoughts? -- Tianyu10 ( talk) 18:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
According to bmwmregistry.com, the E9X M3 had no less than 27(!!) special editions. The GTS and CRT were the only ones with significant mechanical upgrades.
The other 25 were created in conjunction with BMW Individual (BMW M GmbH and BMW Individual are located at the same address). Only 5 of the 25 editions were official editions by BMW M to be sold in multiple markets. The 20 remaining editions were nation/market specific, among those were the Lime Rock Park Edition.
Given these facts, the Wikipedia article should be edited, adding the 4 global editions in addition to DTM Champion Edition, and add another sub level of the nations specific ones, including the US only Lime Rock Park. That means "4.X National special editions" with "4.X.1 Lime Rock Park Edition" etc. etc. Or perhaps all nation specific models should just be summed up in one section, separating them with paragraphs, not unique links from the 'Contents' menu.
Thoughts on this? What to include, and how?
Source: http://www.bmwmregistry.com/model_faq.php?id=50#6 (click the 'E90 + E92 + E93 M3 "National" Special Editions' bar to expand information on nation specific models).
PS! So far I just added "US specific model" to the first sentence about the LRP edition. 1000mm ( talk) 17:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The performance section of the E46 M3 seems to be very cluttered with no "defined" figures as such - it's understandable to split the Euro/US models for figures, but is it necessary to include the Autocar test under the US M3, which somehow with a slightly lower bhp/torque figure, not to mention top speed, manages to be a full 0.4 seconds quicker than the EU model in the cabrio variant, and 0.3 seconds faster in coupé variant?
In addition, citation 11 does not exist. Sebhaque ( talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is something very wrong with the claims for unlimited top speed of the Euro model. 5 bhp extra in Euro model will not give 21.38mph higher top speed, maybe 1mph more. It would need close to 500bhp to do 190mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyshack ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have trouble believing that the only "Racing History" available for the E36 M3 is that it participated in some Winter Rally in Canada. Whatever happened to all the homologation versions they produced, and the numerous self-built race cars that must been built? Surely a least one or two other M3's have been seen on a race track, on occasion, at certain points since the 1990's? .45Colt 20:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anybody know how many turbos the F30 has? http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/269830/new_m3_leads_m_car_boom.html from 2012 said it will have three (one electric) but this has been challenged at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Turbocharged_petrol_engines&diff=627604009&oldid=624199018 . Stepho talk 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"The BMW M3 is one of the stars of the film, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, proving to be the car in multiple car chase scenes as well as crazy stunts." As a sentence it's repetitive, but further why is this even included? Anything about Mission Impossible movies can go into their respective articles, not in an article about a car. 2602:301:7711:D8E0:FDCC:55DB:DB64:5424 ( talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think they only made one, and the release was a joke, but it was all official bmw work. can i put it here? http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/04/01/live-photos-and-videos-bmw-m3-pickup/ Zachlita ( talk) 21:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BMW M3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on BMW M3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
"The BMW M3 remains the only car ever to have earned more titles than the Porsche 911 in motorsport" This seems to be completely unsourced, I tried to find a source for this but failed. It also does not define what kind of "Motorsport titles" they are comparing, for instance if it was "The BMW M3 remains the only car ever to have won the 24 Hours Nürburgring more times than the Porsche 911" That would be easy to check, at the moment it not possible to check, The way it is worded now makes no distinction as to what level of motorsport it is referring to, based on the wording now winning your class at a local autocross event might necessitate an update. I would like to make this section much more specific and would like some imput on how best to reword it/whether or not you want it to be deleted altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.186.52 ( talk) 04:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on BMW M3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.bmw-motorsport.com/ms_en/content/download/3097/96401/version/4/file/BMW_M3GT4_Specsheet.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Most parts of this page cite SMG as electrohydraulic manual transmission (as does the page for electrohydraulic transmission itself), but the name literally means "sequential manual gearbox", which would lead most to believe that it is a sequential manual transmission. Is there a reason for this oddity? Latitude23n ( talk) 16:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Casual readers who are not car buffs will come to this article wanting specs on the most recent models.. instead this article starts with the 1980s. I suggest you go in reverse chonological order starting with the most recent models. 71.139.53.239 08:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree. It's much more natural to go chronologically. If you open a book on history, physics or biology you go from the past to the present and you append to the latest chapter. In this specific case, it makes sense to see how E30 evolved into E36 and then E46 and so on. Going backwards is complete nonsense.
ICE77 ( talk) 03:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I own a 1999 BMW E36 M3 3.2L coupé BG93 Estoril and I am trying to understand how many have been built. I did some research and I found this forum where I found some interesting information on production: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=418105. I turns out the number is 509. I am now trying to determine what's the column for my specific exterior/interior combination. The interior is light grey. Would it be column 1, 5, 6 or some other column? I assume it's column 5 but I want to confirm. I figured the VIN can tell but it does not. Does anybody know how to tell?
ICE77 ( talk) 05:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The data on E36 M3 production is inconsistent. The box with the yellow E36 M3 says 71242 for 1992-1999. The box at the bottom has 71242 for 1985-2013. Clearly, that cannot happen and the numbers are inconsistent. They need to be fixed.
ICE77 ( talk) 04:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This article is about the BMW M3 and it does not cover other E36 models so any number in addition to the M3 models is unnecessary, inconsistent and off topic.
ICE77 ( talk) 00:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
You cannot have the same number (71242) for two time ranges (1992-1999 and 1985-2013). It's impossible.
ICE77 ( talk) 10:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
E36 date ranges & manufacture | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | number | |||||||||||||||
1985-1991 | 0 | |||||||||||||||
1992-1999 | 71242 | |||||||||||||||
2000-2013 | 0 | |||||||||||||||
Total | 71242 |
Now that makes sense! If that's the case then the title for the table should be restricted to 1985-2011 and have an extra line with the years to be more specific and less general:
Global production numbers for 1985-2011 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Version | E30 (1985-1992) | E36 (1992-1999) [1] | E46 (2002-2006) [2] | E9x (2007-2011) [3] | ||||||||||||
Sedan | 12,603 | 9,674 | ||||||||||||||
Coupe | 18,843 [4] | 46,525 | 56,133 | 40,092 | ||||||||||||
Convertible | 786 [5] | 12,114 | 29,633 | 16,219 | ||||||||||||
Sum | 19,629 | 71,242 | 85,766 | 65,985 |
F80 could probably be added as well. Thanks for the information!
ICE77 ( talk) 17:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The infobox says M3 is presently in production, but the F80 section says production ended in 2018. Is there an M3 still in production please? John a s ( talk) 13:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Adding two lines and incorrect model year about a car which doesn't exist yet in production or conception form is not notable. Please stop adding that. If anyone is aggrieved, come to this discussion. U1 quattro TALK 02:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, give this a read. Got it from a policy here:
In this case. The knowledge about the subject is not acceptable as it has not been introduced in production form. Deal with it. U1 quattro TALK 03:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
BMW M has directly confirmed it, and details about it. "What merits the inclusion of this information about a car which doesn't exist?" accurate non speculative information directly from representatives of the company. I don't see how you can think that journalists asking questions to representatives of a company somehow don't count, it stops being speculation when it's confirmed by the head of a division. Toasted Meter ( talk) 06:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay. But the car still hasn't been announced yet which still makes it questionable. There is also no timeline of its introduction either. Same was the case with the Chevrolet Corvette C8. You can see the discussion on the Chevrolet Corvette (C7) talk page. U1 quattro TALK 05:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I think U1Quattro is right in his intepretation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. We have 3 references from non-BMW sources. Only one of them (bmwblog) actually reports something from a BMW official. "Last week, the boss of BMW M division, Markus Flasch, confirmed that the next G80 M3 will be powered by the same twin-turbo six-cylinder engine as the X3 M and X4 M crossovers ... Drivetrain-wise, think about the M5’s all-wheel drive system – we are able to put it in the M3 as well,” Flasch said. “It’ll be very similar. But we will also do rear-wheel drive cars, purer ones too and a manual stick shift." The magazine articles I discount immediately as speculation - they see a camouflaged car and then say anything that sells magazines. Bmwblog isn't much better but at least it has a sound bite from a high-up BMW official. But even this is about company plans for something a year away. Companies have been known to change many things about a car in the last year. Will they change their mind about the engine? Will they change their mind about all-wheel-drive vs RWD or auto vs manual? Will the date be on time, or earlier, or later, or cancelled altogether. All open ended questions. Quite possibly the car may be sold exactly as represented here but we don't know that yet. Stepho talk 09:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Here we have a 6,000 word article, and a protracted dispute (2,000 words and counting...) over a mere 39 words. There's a ton of good sources that verify that it's not a rumor or speculation. The existence of the car is verifiable, the details of it are verifiable, etc. I would have no problem if this 6,000 word article didn't mention the 2020 M3 until the release date is closer, or even waited until it actually goes on sale. It doesn't seem to be all that important. On the other hand, ITS 39 --- THIRTY NINE -- WORDS!!! Seriously. WP:CRYSTAL very clearly does not apply. So if someone wants a sentence or two on next year's car, SO WHAT???
This is not the hill anybody should want to die on. It's WP:LAME-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I was very much opposed to including mention of Elon Musk's hyperbolic claims for the performance of the future Tesla Roadster. Those were extraordinary claims, they were self-serving, with no independent verification, and several reliable sources who were skeptical. Even then, there's nothing wrong with saying Tesla planned to make the car. I only wanted to stay away from speculative performance claims.
There's the bottom line: we're not talking about the future. We're talking about the past. We are describing a past event that has been verified by reliable sources, and disputed by none. That event is this "Markus Flasch, head of BMW's M division, confirmed multiple engine and transmission details about the 2020 M3 to Car magazine in an interview." [2] [3] It is not speculation or rumor that Markus Flash said it. So change the wording from "An M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to be released in 2020.[136] All-wheel drive (xDrive) will be optional on the G80 M3,[137] marking the first time that an M3 has not used a rear-wheel drive layout." to "Head of BMW's M division Markus Flash said that an M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to be released in 2020.[136] Flash said it will have all-wheel drive (xDrive) will be optional blah blah blah". It's not that hard to do this. Stuff like this Could The New BMW M3 Have More Than 510 Horsepower?, Will it go 186 mph, will it have ejection seats and will a laser cannon be option? Are non-encyclopedic speculation. It's good we leave that out until we get better verification. But the stupid question "can BMW make such a car at all?" is not a stretch. And regardless, it's a verifiable fact that a BMW executive said they will. So we can confidently say that BMW said it.
Please get some perspective. Fight over something worth fighting over. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I would ignore all the BS Dennis said about this topic first of all. Now, what is the problem with you two about having to actually WAIT about the car? You both stressed WP:CRYSTALBALL in your defense and yet that's been proven it doesn't support this inclusion of information. 1292simon I didn't deny that the M3 wouldn't have AWD, you're just twisting things around and wasting everyone's time here instead of accepting that whatever you were trying to add is not supported by any policy. U1 quattro TALK 03:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
If analogous case studies mean nothing to you, then let's learn by example. Consider the numerous Featured Articles that devote some space to future, anticipated, or even speculative content. Virus#Applications devotes space to future technology, with 2.2% of the article's word count given to Materials science and nanotechnology, far more than the 0.65% of BMW M3 here. BAE Systems gives similar weight to an announced business deal that hadn't even received regulatory approval. The FA Renewable energy in Scotland has not just a small percentage, but arguably half its content, to unproven, yet-to-be-implemented, not even announced plans, for technology and processes like wave power, tidal power, carbon offsets, carbon sequestration, and more. If this tortured (obviously incorrect) interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL were policy, Renewable energy in Scotland would be gutted, not promoted to FA. The list goes on. Consider the FAs Shuttle–Mir program#Phases Two and Three: ISS (1998–2024) or Alzheimer's disease#Research directions or City of Manchester Stadium#Stadium expansion or Boeing 777#777X, to cite a few more comparable cases. Featured Articles represent large scale collaboration with the most experienced editors, who have subjected content to intense scrutiny and overcome all objections, and are judged to be fully within policy and guidelines, even in the most minor ways. Any time we're not certain what the broad consensus is on the interpretation of a policy like WP:CRYSTAL, we can look to the very loud and clear message we get form the existence of so many FAs that do indeed mention planned or anticipated future events. Rumor and speculation can be a problem, but mentioning the 2020 M3 is in no way prohibited. Policy does not say what you think it says. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You're just wrong about Renewable energy in Scotland. This is no clear, defined, confirmed government policy on carbon sequestration, or tidal power or wave power. Those things are vapor. We cover them because reliable sources cover them. Just like reliable sources cover the new M3.
We can accommodate your objections by omitting any extraordinary claims or unverified superlatives about performance, value, economy, technology, etc.
Renewable energy in Scotland is a featured article full of speculative content. It's one of many examples that prove Wikipedia's community consensus is that WP:CRYSTAL does not forbid well-sourced discussion of unrealized future plans or options. You tried to bat that away with a false claim, and when that didn't work, you pretend you never cared to begin with. I still care because it's still a FA and it still illustrates what the policy consensus is.
If you want to show me a BS claim that is problematic, fine. Show me. But that's not what you carried on an edit war over. You deleted the mere mention of a completely vanilla, dog-bites-man announcement that BMW is going to make an all wheel drive car. That's it. No BS. No mention of any 2,000 horsepower boasts. It's dishonest and a blatant straw man fallacy to pretend that's what this is about.
There isn't really a problem in waiting, other than it sets a disruptive precedent. If we followed this misguided practice, we'd have even more busywork running around removing harmless product announcements from several thousand car articles. We have to track down and delete BLP violations, copyright violations, rumors sourced to social media, hoaxes. Problems that justify removal, as defined by editing policy. It's a lot of work. But do we have to delete well-sourced, unsurprising, uncontroversial, ordinary announcements? No. And once again, since you keep ignoring it: the statement by Flasch is a fact, not speculation. It is a past event, not future. We know he said it. Write it with in-text attribution, and it's totally fine.
You keep asking why we must keep it. But you never explain why we must remove it. What is the benefit? What is the harm in keeping it? Every time you try to answer that question, you shift to irrelevant straw men, claims of unprecedented horsepower and superlatives. And we have to remind you for the tenth time that nobody wants to add that here. This right here. [ These words. Not some other words. [ These. Where is the BS? Where is the hyperbole? Where is the rumor? There isn't any, which is why you should have let this go and let us all do something that matters. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 07:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a debate about whether announcements of future vehicles is worthwhile to put on WP or not.
This RFC is asking:
This discussion is meant to apply to the automobile project as a whole, not just to this M3 discussion that started it. Stepho talk 00:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
My first attempt at the RFC wasn't brief enough, so I have shortened it. Details stripped are now here:
See discussions at:
The M3 discussion has 3 references for magazine speculation about the BMW G80 M3, one of which includes a BMW division boss mentioning plans for the engine, drive train and approximate release date. Some editors claim that WP:CRYSTALBALL says to avoid anything that is not concrete fact (allowing that company plans often change). Other editors claim that WP:CRYSTALBALL is only relevant to entire articles and does not apply at sections within articles. Some editor claim that anything said by a company representative can be related here (with disagreement about how much the 'planned' status should be highlighted to the reader).
For some fictitious examples for how much to highlight the changeable nature:
Notices were posted at the 3 discussions mentioned above and also at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Stepho talk 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag and the next timestamp after that) is too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so is not shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. This also means that it will not be publicised via
WP:FRS. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
short articles that consist of only product announcement information are not appropriatepart and mention of merging indicate. Clause 1 applies to events; while the release of a car is an "event", the article is about an object, and the article already exists. There are examples given in WP:CRYSTAL of future things that have articles, so that's evidence enough that being in the future doesn't disqualify information out of hand; I don't think that guideline really comes into play here.
To clarify it down to automotive articles, I think that the most simple litmus test for my stance on the subject would be this: if a new generation is slated for production per the manufacturer, it merits a brief mention in the article for that model. If it's a brand-new model, an article should not be created until the production version of the vehicle has been officially unveiled (e.g. at an auto show). -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Questions like "How about for magazine speculation?" are irrelevant. Speculation by unreliable sources is forbidden by WP:SPS and WP:V. Even if this WikiProject affirmed that "magazine speculation" was allowed, those policies and guidelines would overrule project-level consensus. If a source is a respected expert and is considered reliable, then a pejorative like "magazine speculation" doesn't apply. In either case, WP:RS has us covered.
WP:CRYSTAL doesn't help us at all. If someone had created a new article on the 2020 M3, that policy would tell us to delete and redirect here. Yet supposedly the very same policy says speculation and rumor belong nowhere on Wikipedia? The contradiction there needs to be resolved at the policy level, not here. It's a recognized flaw in the text of WP:CRYSTAL.
The fact that FAs about TV series, such as Adventure Time, Sesame Street, The Simpsons don't simply describe the most recent season without any mention of plans to make another season of shows in the future is yet another example of proof that Wikipedia consensus does not forbid mention that this car model will have a new version coming out, even if the text at WP:CRYSTAL is confusing and contradictory. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It rather sickens me to see how hard it is to keep a mere 39 words about a conventional car to be released in less than a year, while way back in 2017 nobody was able to stop the creation of a whole separate article on the future product Tesla Roadster (2020), WP:CRYSTAL be damned. Elon Musk's track record of unfulfiled promises be damned. Three+ years early, against all my protests, we breathlessly repeated all of the totally unverifiable claims of the future car's hyperbolic performance. Maybe it's just a good example of how incoherent the WP:CRYSTAL policy is, that both can happen in the same Wikipedia, with the same exact wording of the crystal ball policy. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"In China, the FAW-VW-built Magotan will also be replaced by a long-wheelbase version of the Passat B7. The new model will be exclusive to the Chinese market, and at least 100 mm longer than the European B7."
I do not understand why this is such a problem. The old language was fine and there are multiple sources for the usage of 'GT2' as an accepted term. The argument that DriveTribe is not a valid reference is absurd. It's founded by well-known auto journalists who have edited established magazines and run 2 very popular auto shows (Top Gear, The Grand Tour) for decades. If their content is not valid, I do not know whose would be. You may disagree with them, but it's valid supporting evidence. Also, U1Quattro's revisions include no reasons beyond 'damage repair' and there's no damage. PVarjak ( talk) 21:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)