Talk:BMW 3 Series (E90)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Displacement discrepancy[edit]

i think that you got the displacements wrong for the E90 sedan, BMW is using the same sized engine for both the 325i and the 330i, but is changing the intake geometry in the 330i in order to produce more HP

The above statement is wrong. The 325i has 2497 cm3, while the 330i has 2996 cm3. I corrected the specs for the 330d, added the 316i and x-models. All info taken from www.bmw.no (official norwegian BMW website). Rwdf 18:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rwdf, please note that both North American 325/330 models use the N52B30. The 325i uses a detuned version, but both engines displace 3.0L. This continues with the 328i/xi, which also uses the N52B30 in North America. I have changed the article where necessary to reflect this. Fuscob 01:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BMW 2006 E-90 325i/xi models, use 3.0l I6 engines (N52B30). The table lists 2.5l, changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.220.121 (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussions below, this article is flagged for a rewrite and I think some of the technical information should be removed because the cars are marketed across many countries with several local variations. Escaper7 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedan versus Saloon[edit]

Since BMWs are commonplace in Europe and the USA, and are a German owned company, it's necessary to explain the terms, sedan, saloon, station wagon and so on. The terms station wagon and sedan are more generally Americanisms. In Europe, BMW sedans are clearly marketed as saloons, so I've added a line to explain the difference in language, and clarify the current models available, rather than keep changing them from one to the other which has been the case on this page.--Escaper7 06:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Coupe[edit]

I'm not sure the changes to the forthcoming coupe models are correct. BMW ditched its 2.8 litre engine in 2000 when the 330 (2996cc)or 3 litre engine was launched. I can't see how they would then bring out a new 2.8 litre engine delivering 300bhp when the existing 330 saloons/sedan deliver 258bhp. The main page needs a little attention.--Escaper7 11:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new 328i is the current 3.0 L I6, with different power output (230 hp). It will only be available on the North american market as far as I know. --Gurklurk 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Body Styles[edit]

This entry seems to subject to pointless deletions. Why take out the the explanations of terms such as touring, and station wagon, saloon and sedan etc? The terms may be interchangeable in the US and Europe, but they are NOT obvious to someone in the UK who has never heard of the term sedan and are specialist terms so worthy of inclusion. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to add to the knowledge base, not to keep removing CORRECT information.--Escaper7 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why those terms should be explained in this particular article. Why not put it in a more obvious place? The main article about BMW for example, since those terms apply to more models than just the E90. -- Gurklurk 13:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't just a page about the E90, there are references to E91 and E92 models (some in bold and some not). A reader interested in a particular model, is likely to look at the page relating to that model not the corporate page with paragraph after paragraph about history etc. There's too much conflicting information on this page. For example a 3.5 litre engine would hardly have a capacity of 2996 cc (nearer to 3 litres), while a 3.0 litre engine is shown as 2993 cc. The body styles should be explained for two reasons: 1. The BMW brand is available worldwide but marketed in different terms. 2. Several combinations of body style and engine are available. As stated previously, the average British motorist would have no idea what a station wagon is. If the whole article is going to be written using Americanisms, there should be some explanation of their English or European equivalents. The latest generation of 3 series cars is constantly evolving, but this article has become over complicated.--Escaper7 13:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

316i model lines should be deleted[edit]

I am pretty sure a 316i model does not exist of the E90. I cannot find any reference to one on either the German, Dutch, Belgium or UK BMW website to any such model.

The prior E46 did have a 316i model, but it seems that with the E90 that was dropped..

Ok, perhaps I was wrong... After also going through the Norwegian, Swedish, Finish, Danish, Luxembourgh, French, Swiss, Austrian and Italian websites I found that the only one to list a 316i is the Norwegian BMW website.

So right now it seems the 316i is exclusive to Norway, and then only in the Sedan (E90) version. Unless it is a mistake on the Norwegian website, and they just forgot to update it from the E46 to the E90, which also seems rather strange.

The 316 model is also available in Turkey. [1]Angelnose 12:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More terminology[edit]

BMWs are not exclusively European, therefore this entire article does not need to solely focus on litres and other metric measurements, as well as exclusively using the word "petrol." -Ridethefire3211 03:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

I've all but given up editing this article because it's falling over itself with technical information that is different according to where in the world the car is marketed. If the article is called BMW E90, then the Wiki style book says it should be in bold in the first sentence i.e: BMW E90 then as BMW 3 Series or similar (see my comments above). But there are then long info boxes on the other models E91 etc. The point is, how useful is this article to a reader who knows nothing about the car? I find it all a bit bewildering, and incidentally am the owner of a European 330M Sport Saloon, bought in March and have owned all of the previous four generations. Escaper7 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. This article is in a very poor state at the moment and is VERY haphazard.
  • The lead-in paragraph starts well but then loses focus.
  • There is far too much "level of detail":
    • IMHO ALL the different model derivatives/UK/US/whatever could be covered better by simply giving a summary/"arm's length" treatment instead of getting bogged down in the technical details and country specific info. Anyway, there are so many markets the car is sold in, are we going to cover it country by country?
    • Do we really want to discuss production numbers at different factories in an encyclopedia article?
    • Do we really want to compare specific model variants? (i.e. old 318i vs new 320i etc)
    • Do we really want to compare every single attribute that has changed (weight, power, torque) in such excruciating detail?
  • The coupe section's pictures could be better placed, smaller and less obtrusive.
  • Having three infoboxes clutters up the page and there is NO explanation given about the E91, E92 platform etc.
  • The layout of the article (especially with those darn infoboxes cluttering up the space) could do with a major overhaul.

At this stage I'd recommend nuking the article and starting a from-the-ground-up rewrite, with the proper "arm's length" distance required/expected of an encyclopedia. Incremental changes won't help, the aticle has substantial problems and a rewrite is the quickest way to fix it. Zunaid 12:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged for the clean up taskforce for some months - no-one has been assigned to it yet. I agree with your points above and suggest the following to be done in this article.
  • What's the article about? The BMW E90 that's its title, so the infoboxes on other models should be moved to separate pages: BMW E91 and so on. That will overall improve the bizarre page scheme of this article.
  • There are also articles on the BMW 3 Series, and corporate BMW - fine
  • "E46 comparison" Misleading section, E46 is hardly a globally used term - could be re-written as "Improvements to model" for non-BMW owner readers. Besides there's loads more to say about this car, why start looking backwards at the previous model so early in article?
  • Some of the information from the sales brochures/websites should be used to describe some of the interesting features: can be fitted with a Bluetooth device for seamless phone operation, run flat tyres (sorry I'm British, so for me they are tyres), six speed auto transmission
  • I'd remove the tables - specifically for the misleading E93 - which doesn't exist yet
  • I do admire the efforts of eds to create articles on specific engines but I'm not sure how useful that is - deleting that section could wipe out several other articles, is that a good thing?
  • Clearer explanation of the Coupe section (surely that's an E93) why are we now headlining it as a Coupe? - see earlier headings: E46 etc
  • The M Sport Sedan/Saloon IS an E90 - I know I own one. I'll try and get a picture to show the different styling at some point
  • "References" would probably be clearer than notes - in any case they need correctly formatting, and I'll make a start on that, and for an article of this technical level, surely there's more than two references???
  • Indpependent info on crash testing etc can be found from exteranl sites broadening this article, making it more interesting. Escaper7 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas all of them, especially making the comparison section not-so-prominent. The hardest thing is going to be the layout and arrangement of sections, and trying not to disrupt the "flow" of the article (not that there is much flow at all at the moment), hence my suggestion of a complete rewrite. I'm gonna work on this in my spare time over a few days, will see what I come up with. I think it may be possible to integrate the E91 info etc into this article as a brief section on the various body style derivatives with illustrative pictures (and of course getting rid of the infoboxes). Having three separate articles on different body styles of the same car is overkill. It should also be mentioned immediately in the lead-in paragraph, and possibly we should create redirect pages from those titles to here (although maybe they aren't such plausible search terms). Some reviews and info would be good too. (Just on a side note, I've edited on Honda S2000, Mazda RX-8 and Nissan 350Z, cars with maybe a handful of model derivatives. I'm starting to appreciate how hard it must be to conglomerate the sheer quantity of info that an entire model range presents.) Zunaid 14:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all ok, except... the article is clearly called BMW E90 - that's always been my problem with this. Name it BMW 3 Series, and see what happens: that already exists. I appreciate the E91 etc are derivatives of the same model - keep them all on one page fine - but then it does need a new title. That's the problem, Wiki articles are not always directed at the individual with no knowledge of a subject. Off the top of my head it could be moved to BMW 3 Series (2005), previous generations could also be moved, then one gets a consistent naming convnetion that includes the helpful info on when the generation of car was first produced rather than the menaingless model code, used primarily for sale purposes and spares etc. The codes could be explained in the context of one article then (see below). Escaper7 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of years we could use model generations e.g. BMW 3 Series (5th generation). For one, you'd know exactly which model, sequentially, you're talking about, and for two, it's a world car so the same year can correspond to different models in different countries. I actually don't see the problem with leaving the title as is. The article on BMW 3 Series should make it clear how the models are designated. This, in addition to the infobox BMW below every BMW article allows the reader to navigate (somewhat) intuitively between articles. Yes, I realise lumping them all under E90 is technically incorrect, but it seems the expedient thing to do as the others are merely derivatives. The casual reader will be guided here by the 3 Series article and the infobox (which correctly lumps all the designations as one model), so would be fore-warned that E91 and other derivatives are contained in this article. (I just thought of a maybe-not-so-analagous example: Honda F20C engine, which has a subsection on the F22C1, which was a derivative and didn't need its own article.) Zunaid 16:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title of the article is absolutely crucial and I hope more people join this debate. As I've said before, having owned four generations of 3 Series - I can't remember the BMW code or numbering system of any of them except the most recent. It's not really that important, but encyclopeadia articls must be aimed at a general audience and the title shouldn't be loaded with very specific detail. BMW E90 is meaningless - it conveys no date, no model style, doesn't determine a year of manufacture and is inconsistent as the number jumps across the entire BMW range - but if you don't know about BMW you don't know that. I like your effort to find a solution - I'm not critiscising that but... BMW 3 Series (5th generation) equally doesn't impart any more useful information. Working with numbers is very important so: is five generations a lot? Not in the history of the world, but perhaps it is is to a motor manufacturer??? I like BMW 3 series (2005) - BMW have helped with its logical model range: 1,3, 5 series etc but how do we clarify that? BMW E90 (from 2005) might be the solution - but then I stand by my interpretation of Wikilogic which is: if it's called BMW E90 (from 2005) or (2005) there should be NO detail about the other E variants - yes mention them but no factboxes. Many readers will go straight to these and be immediately confused, possibly misled. I think until there's a consensus on the title there's no point moving on to the other text. Sorry for the long entry. Escaper7 07:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More from me on article titles: Having had a look at some of the other articles in particular BMW, where there's a complete list of E generations of car, I think it's going to be impossible to change the title as the E numbering shceme is consistent across Wikipedia. That leaves the issue of separating E91 and so on - at present they link to the E90 page. I still think there should be one major theme per article, so the other 3 series evolutions should have their own pages. Escaper7 07:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, this is starting to give me a headache! I strongly disagree with you that we should have separate articles for the E90, E91, E92 and E93. They are all the same car, just with different body styles. Writing separate articles on each is IMHO overkill and would anyway contain lots of overlap. My view is that all the rest should redirect to E90, and the lead-in sentence of this article should be along the lines of either:

  1. The BMW E90, E91, E92 and E93 represent the fifth generation of BMW's 3 Series range of compact executive saloons (E90), station wagons (E91), coupes (E92) and something else I can't remember (E93).
  2. The BMW E90 is the fifth generation of BMW's 3 Series range of compact executive saloons. The car is also available in other body styles (designated by different chassis codes), namely as a station wagon (E91), coupe (E92) and something else i can't remember (E93).

I think/hope this kills all the birds with one stone. To me at least it seems the best compromise. The use of redirects is correct and legitimate, and immediately gets the redear to the correct article, where the very first sentence makes it clear what the article is about. And obviously the article would have ONLY ONE infobox. What do you think? Zunaid 08:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far that's fine, then there's the problem of sedan vs saloon, station wagon vs touring, coupe vs cabriolet, and whether we're writing in English or American English and metric vs imperial measurements. I've raised many of these points throughout this discussion page, which was surprisingly empty until I started asking questions. I do think there should be a consistent encyclopaedic style, but many of the BMW intros (I've looked at a few today) look like they are written in robot speak to allow the rapid inclusion of Wikilinks: terms like luxury saloon, BMW and so on. I think Wiki articles are not supposed to link to a string of other articles - in other words the article becomes a series of connected links, rather than simple descriptive text... I think you identified that as a 'problem with flow'. Escaper7 10:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One day I'll get around to writing a WP:FLOW guideline ;) Flow is actually hard to define, you know good flow when you read it, and you can immediately tell when an article does not flow logically. As for American vs Commonwealth english, I think several factors count towards the commonwealth usage:

  1. The parent company is based in Germany, which AFAIK uses commonwealth english rather than American. (i.e. "local usage should dominate")
  2. This is a world car, and by far most of the markets it is sold in speak commonwealth english. (i.e. "the majority of countries' local usage should dominate")
  3. Unless the U.S. is actually THE biggest market for the car (and by quite some distance), there isn't really much utility in using American terms.
  4. In terms of units, it depends on the source, but I would assume the majority of sources available would quote SI. Hence SI first, with British and US imperial in brackets. I actually shy away from doing conversions myself; kW, PS and US and UK hp are particularly difficult buggers to nail down, so I tend to just quote SI units and let others fight it out.

Okay so we've reached some sort of compromise, let's get down to the editing itself. I'm gonna create a section below for just posting references (weblinks) so that we don't have to duplicate efforts to track them down. Zunaid 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the English needs to be changed to American English. How much traffic comes from the United States vs other countries?

With regard to the company being in Germany... great point. There is a German Wikipedia. I'm not going to make any changes, but I think it's worth considering. The language is going to be confusing to most site visitors. A saloon is a place where cowboys drink whiskey, not a car they haul their kids around in. :)

References[edit]

Post references (weblinks) to reliable sources in this section to use for the article rewrite. Keep all discussion in the above section please. Don't bother to sign and date, but do provide a brief description of the link you've posted. Reliable sources would be things like: Official BMW websites, Official BMW specs and press releases, reviews in well-respected magazines and newspapers, other editorial stories in well-respected magazines and newspapers. Do not post links to forums, blogs, owners' clubs etc as these are unlikely to be considered reliable.

  1. Link 1. description 1
  2. etc
  3. etc

328i is not faster than 330ci[edit]

I checked the official performance figures for both. 0-100km for manual 328i is 6.6 sec (7.2 for auto) 0-100km for manual 330ci is 6.5 sec (7.0) Their Top speed should be similar.

Rewrite area[edit]

Is there a reason why we can't have a BMW E90 sandbox article so we can try to improve this offline? How does that work on a major rewrite? That would allow us to edit a page offline, although I'm not sure if that's the correct approach for Wiki. Escaper7 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be at BMW E90/Sandbox. The only issue with doing it this way is that when we'd want to replace the existing article it would require an admin to do a history merge between the sandbox version and the current article in order to maintain the attribution history, which is a requirement of the GFDL. Apparently this a quite a significant pain to do. Zunaid 16:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wiki articles[edit]

Check these out: E-codes BMW Escaper7 08:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging E92[edit]

There is a silly page E92 that isnt being updated, I suggest what can be gleened from it should be merged in to this article. skyskraper 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Feeling seems to be E92 forms part of this article (as per discussions above). Escaper7 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge E92 information is already part of this article, and I fail to see the need for a separate article for the coupe. Someone needs to clean up the coupe section a little bit (see pictures). Fuscob 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats what im getting at. The page for E92 is not necessary considering the coverage on the E90 page and the fact that the models are fundamentally the same. One thing that does bug me about the E90 page however is the engines section. It's clearly divided (and not entirely accurate) between two markets. Yet i think you will find that the figures offered for "North-America" and "Europe" are far from being accurate and far from being consistent across markets, and thats without looking past "North-America" and "Europe" skyskraper 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge However, the reason I came to the E90 article today was because I spotted an E92 coupe--it is significantly different from the four-door and five-door (station wagon) versions. As the article notes, the body itself has different dimensions from its sedan brother, and it most obviously has radically different taillights. At first, I honestly didn't know what model I was looking at when I spotted one. The substantial differences between the coupe and sedan should be clearly noted, as usually a coupe is simply a two-door version of the standard four-door model. --69.242.193.68 00:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC) KeplerNiko[reply]
  • Merge A separate article is not needed. Janadore 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged (in fact there wasn't anything to merge).--BSI 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

320si Homologation car[edit]

The "body styles and models" section of the article is intended to specify the various body styles in the E90 family. Since the E91/E92/E93 are not considered different cars, their descriptions are included in this article. The sub-section regarding the 320si homologation car is too specific to be included in "body styles and models." I have created a separate heading entitled "Special edition" for the text. Fuscob 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging BMW E93 Convertible[edit]

It should be merged with BMW E90. Janadore 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entry level vehicle[edit]

If this is an "entry level vehicle", what's the 1-series? Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1-Series is not a sedan. It is a hatchback, BMW refers the 3-Series is the entry level for all its sedan. So, BMW 1-Series cannot put in the entry level vehicle. C H J L Discuss 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Why don't we move this article to BMW E90/E91/E92/E93? I guess it is the suitable title for this article, because it contains about those 4 platforms of BMW. C H J L Discuss 09:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


4 Cylinder and 6 Cylinder models[edit]

On the E30, E36 and E46 the 320 model always had a 6 cylinder engine and was the start of the 6 Cylinder engined cars in the range. For the E90 series the 6 Cylinder engine only appears on the 323 or higher variants. Is this worth a mention? A lot of people who I know aren't fans of the 4 cylinder engine and don't consider it to be a proper BMW engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.164.209 (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

330i has 268HP SAE, not 272HP[edit]

The horsepower number quoted for the direct injection 330i is wrong. It is 200kW, which is 272 metric HP (source = check BMW's website, like the configurator on www.bmw.de). That means 268 HP as measured in the US. So the chart should say: 268 bhp (200 kW; 272 PS). The torque number is correct. I'll make the change to the page, but thought I'd explain here why I'm doing so.BK DC (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BMW 3 Series (E90/E91/E92/E93). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits approved. Thanks Cyberbot. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BMW 3 Series (E90). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BMW 3 Series (E90). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BMW 3 Series (E90). 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development[edit]

Hi, if anyone can find any reliable information on development of the E90 chassis and model line from between 1999 to 2004 (for sedan), plus that of the other variants and LCIs through 2010, that would be wonderful. My goal is to have the development backstory, for every vehicle model on Wikipedia for informative purposes. I ask this to ensure that, none of us is doing original research WP: OR or introducing false information into articles. Compared to Japanese brands, it should be fairly easier, considering that there is firm emphasis on discussing product history inside-out by German automakers and an astounding level of confident transparency in discussing background information on models, generation to generation. The key is just finding all the archived information.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Design Freeze[edit]

I am a bit confused regarding development of the E90 sedan, as usually BMW requires about 6-8 months to go from approving a final exterior design for a new model in full-size clay (irregular dimensions, fit) to completing design freeze (99% production design, save for minor detailing). BMW had strictly adhered to a 30-month period between styling freeze and Job #1, as seen with the E65 7-Series and E85 Z4. For the E90, they claim development started around 1999, but was halted in favour of the E81 1-Series (design freeze 2001). In late 2001, E90 development resumed with design competition.
Sometime in early 2002, a final design by designer Joji Nagashima had to have been approved by (then) sole BMW design director Christopher Edward Bangle and the BMW Group executive board. BMW officially stated "The (E90) exterior was ready to be signed off in late 2002, prototypes were built and sent to testing in 2003". Judging by standard BMW operating procedure at that time, this doesn't make sense. The E90 went into production as scheduled in December 2004, so that pushes it in advance towards a June 2002 design freeze. What doesn't make sense to me, is the fact that 6 months + 30 months, = 36 months, so the E90 exterior body would have needed approval by December 2001. I cannot see how BMW managed that and I have to question the source I was provided. The only plausibility, is that BMW shortened development of the car by 3 months. Comparatively, the F30 design approval was on March 2, 2009 and sales began just under 36 months later. Anyone that cares to chime in, I welcome it. (The link provided isn't the original source, it is from a BMW book.)--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real OEM[edit]

It is an interesting site to say the least, because it provides some very, very obscure dates on chassis codes that don't even correlate with BMW production runs. Instead, as with E60, it lists start dates in late 2001 and months of production in 2002.

For E65, I have even seen February and March 2000 listed as production dates. E65 design was frozen in January 1999 and was first caught testing on camera in Feb/March 2000. Before that, E38 based mules were seen during 1999. It was no where near production in early 2000 nor E60 in late 2001. Those were simply prototypes being listed.

@1292simon:, I know it is very hard to find deep and reliable information on past BMWs, because of many WP:PAYWALLs on archives and literature, as well as defunct websites, but I begrudgingly have to admit, I can't rely on Realoem as a good source of information on BMW Job 1 dates.

On prototypes? It's an interesting puzzle to sift through, in helpfully supplementing BMW historical timelines on development. But it would be WP:OR and speculation on development, without full context.

Real OEM somehow seems to go by, prototype builds of a model line being built, as there are G20s with Job 1 dayes in 2017. As well as G11 LCI in 2017. We both know that isn't true, but they coincidentally match first spy shots of each respective vehicle.

If you don't believe me, go and check. You'll be very shocked at what they list on some cars, as they definitely are including initial test builds of what BMW calls IEX prototypes and PPP test vehicles.

The production section is not supposed to include pilot builds, but solely SOP or Job 1 to EOP. Carmaker1 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RealOEM definitely has preproduction stuff, it's based on BMW's EKT. A good example of this is when it leaked the Supra because BMW included it by accident. It's probably fine for end dates. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. This is an example of why I'm not a fan of listing months when sources don't clearly state series production, pre-production, etc. By the way, it looks like the article is missing refs for the start of production of the E91, E92 and E93. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input @Toasted Meter:, as I recall that now from before. Glad all 3 of us are on the same page and I think maybe I need to condense the initial prose regarding dates, so that 1292simon's Production section is given primary importance. (idealized 3 or more days ago) Carmaker1 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pferdstarke units[edit]

Hello Mr.Choppers, Regarding the unexplained reverts of yours, I believe that my edit is in accordance with WP:CARUNITS. The engines section does not include any references providing only Pferdstarke (PS) ratings, therefore there is no supporting evidence that this then-obsolete unit is required. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that only PS be used. Metric horsepower remains commonly used across the world.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A vague claim (without any supporting references) of "remains commonly used across the world" does not take precedence over WP:CARUNITS#Power and torque.

As per my initial argument when creating this Talk Page discussion, the then-obsolete Pferdstarke unit is not required to validate the references here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite disappointing that you ignored the ongoing discussion here and reverted the edit. Even according to your preferred version of the policy, the E90 generation is not "older vehicles" in the context of the adoption of SI units in its home market. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_3_Series_(E90)&oldid=1206345959"