Talk:BMW M3/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

M4 talk

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

Original source

Is this the original or is the wiki article the original? BabuBhatt 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

E46 M3 CSL

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)

M3 CSL

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)

If you're referring to the E36, no, the numbers are as correct as possible. (BTW, the E36 CSL was only imported to the USA, so chances of you seeing that car in Glasgow is remarkably slim...) --BarnacleKB 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

All E36 M3 CSLs (model year 1995) were delivered to the USA. All E46 M3 CSLs (about model year 2001) were delivered everywhere but North America. --BarnacleKB 01:01, 4 August 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)

Ti, can you point to the examples that are upsetting you? I can't argue with or against you, unless I know what you refer to. --BarnacleKB 01:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

M3 CSL

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.

The reason that the E36 CSL section only focuses on the USA is because the E36 CSL was only imported to the USA. However, the E46 CSL was sold everywhere but North America. --BarnacleKB 01:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

References?

Not a single reference for the whole page. This needs looking into. --Gavinio 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New photo

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)

M3 pricing

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)

Indeed. Brits get screwed on car prices because of the VAT. You can't simply plug UK prices into a currency converter to get US prices. Just look at the UK vs. US prices of the regular 3-series, for example. The British version is enormously more expensive. If the UK price is listed as £50,625, I'd be willing to bet the US price will be near to around US$55,000. In the meantime, I'm deleting this US price figure until someone can come up with something useful and cite it. RobertM525 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

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)

I certainly think that the two that reference new paddles and a brake pedal are definitely spam and vote for their removal. BarnacleKB 04:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur and am removing the two BarnacleKB mentioned. Dave Messina 00:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my "spam" I didn't realize what was going on until i got a message about it. Still new to wikipedia and all. Anyway, I realize that any site with ads is deemed as a "commercial site" and won't post mine there anymore. Furthermore i have removed another one from the extgernal links page because it had ads, just as mine did, however these ads were tricking users as if they were articles on the site. They were located at the bottom of the page. Sorry for any troubles and please forgive me. I will try and update this page without using links in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.249.154 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for cleaning up the other link. One problem with the link you inserted was that it simply scrapped content from other official sources. Feel free to link to official sources when you update any details. References to official sources are great - external links, not so much. Nposs 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing and thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.249.154 (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Rewrite E92 M3

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bmw e46 tuning 29 small.jpg

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)

M3 talk

sorry im just new to wikipedia trying to get everything down, carry on with your conversations Imuhbeachbum 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)perryImuhbeachbum 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BMW E36 M3 compact

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)

The first M3 was based on the 1986s E30 range, and there has been an M version of every 3-Series since?

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.

It is correct that there was no official E30 M3 touring model. The only E30 M3 versions were the 2-door version and the cabriolet. Even the Baur Cabriolet option was not available for the M3 (since that would not have been compatible with the less steep rear window that is typical for the M3, compared with the normal E30 M3.
However, the statement that there was no E36 M3 compact is not true. The model was never commercialized, but there is at least one official E36 M3 compact (now added to the article).--GillesAmez (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

Statement is correct. 3 compact is a 3 series. BMW determines what cars are what series, not snobby Wikipedians. 24.123.235.43 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The correct internal chassis code for the E36 compact is E36/5 (E36/4 being the saloon, E36/2 being the coupe, E36/2C being the cabriolet, E36/3 being the touring, E36/7 being the Z3 roadster and E36/8 being the Z3 coupe).
Moreover, the models stated by 'unsigned', are incorrect. Yes, there was a E36 318ti compact, but no E36 325ti compact. The E36 compact model with six cylinder petrol engine was named 323ti, although it had the 2.5-litre engine (but all 2.5-litre engines were named 2.3 at that time, for two reasons: 1) it created psychological distance from the 2.8-litre models at the time, and 2) the 170 DIN-hp 2.5-litre engines (as in the 323ti) had less power than the previous 2.5-litre 24 valve engines (delivering 192 DIN-hp), and BMW estimated that the customer would react negatively to a power decrease (192 DIN-hp to 170 DIN-hp) of a model evolution, hence the fictional rename to 2.3
There was a 325ti compact, but that was the top of the line model of the E46 compact series.--GillesAmez (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Evo

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)

S2000 powerplant has reliability on the S54. I own several S54s =[ Anyway, Hp sells cars Tq wins races, the S2000 hasnt sufficient Tq. Sorry Honda drivers.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

E46 GTR horsepower

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)

Too many lists

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 would start with the lists of "appearance/performance modifications" for all the model variants. Deon Steyn 06:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because you think there are too many lists doesn't mean you should entirely remove historically significant models. While I disagree with removing information from what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I feel a good compromise has now been reached. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.243.115.234 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
It is not because I think there were too many list, it was out of sync with the rest of cars pages. I tried to incorporate some of the relevant info into paragraphs rather then lists. Do not accuse users of vandalism when this is clearly not the case, every edit I make is good faith. Daniel J. Leivick 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"appearance/performance modifications" stop editing threads that you dont get what its about. Performance is the only thing anyone cars about in and M3 car vs a 3. Do yourself a favor and dont touch this. I already had to add back in all the E46 data that some teabagger deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

E36 M3

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

Ridiculous. That's the top speed of the E36 328i. The M3 had +95-129 bhp and many performance-tuned components over the E36 328i. At 286-320 bhp (different years) and a lighter weight vs. the 343 bhp E46 M3, had about the same top speed. Aadieu (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: I have personally taken a stock 1997 328i to 130, and that wasn't exactly the limit- it was simply on one short empty strip of freeway at 3 in the morning, and I slowed down when I saw turns and cars. I just didn't want to be a risky driver. +129 bhp and less weight on the same model does NOT make for +7 mph max speed. What you are talking about is a 'governor' (electronic speed limiter, may differ for various jurisdictions and model years). Aadieu (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Gearing gents, there is that too. An E46M3 is at quite at home at 140mph, thats all I have experienced. =} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

M3 GTR

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)

it is quite a different car, but I don't think there's enough stuff to go into a separate article.. and this article isn't that long anyways

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)

"The E46 M3 GTR borrowed the M5 engine from the E39 series and produced 400 bhp." Um no it absolutely did not use the S62. The GTR used a protype 4.0L V8. The GTR engine also produced ~440 Hp and the shelf engine was ~480HP. The P60B40 article is started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Article restructure

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)

E92 M3 GT4 info is old

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)

E46 Picture

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)

Wrong top speed: Fixed

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)

It seems convert only use 2 significant digits as standard. This surprised me. It is however possible to use |sigfig=3 to specify that it shall use 3 significant digits. Using 250 km/h (155 mph) gives the correct pair of numbers "250 km/h (155 mph)", but thay are in the opposite order from what used to be. Is this an acceptable solution? PerDaniel (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I managed to fix the problem by adding |disp=5, which round the value to the closest multiple of 5. I don't like to use crude methods like that, but it was the only way I found. PerDaniel (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

M3 DTM

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)

I agree, it should be a new section under E90/92/93 M3 - Racing - E92 M3 DTM. Unfortunately, I don't posess enough information of my own about the DTM races and the race car to write this on my own... 1000mm (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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)

Information restored, now by writing the sentences manually, not copying the press release! As large parts of the text contains a summary of special options and equipment, the description will naturally resemble the press release when it comes to mentioning these facts - just as all other paragraphs of this article describing the differences between the standard M3 and the special editions.
You welcome! :-) 1000mm (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! 1292simon (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fights" over performance numbers

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)

BMW E46 M3 GTR

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 was looking for some information on that but I couldn't find a lot of informative and reliable sources. If you could find some I could add it to the article or you could do it yourself ~ Zirguezi 20:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The E46 BMW did not compete in the DTM at all, so I've no idea how it could be claimed as having competed succuessfully. --Falcadore (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

More information about F80 M3

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)

E90/92/93 M3, national special editions

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)

Performance discrepancies, E46 M3

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)

"Racing History"

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)

F30 turbo(s)

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/w/index.php?title=Turbocharged_petrol_engines&diff=627604009&oldid=624199018 .  Stepho  talk  00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Language/Content Concerns

"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)

M3 pickup

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)

External links modified I

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified II

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: 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) 11:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

More Motorsport Titles Than The 911?

"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)

BMW M3 is a touring car. Porsche 911 is a GT. It's like comparing the records of the New York Jets and Real Madrid. --Falcadore (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified III

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:

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) 04:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

SMG

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)

BMW calls it a "SMG" but that is a marketing term, it is not an true sequential manual transmission it's based on a conventional non sequential manual (the Getrag 420G), here at wikipedia we can not rename it and rectify BMWs error in calling it something it isn't but we can describe it accurately. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This article should begin with the current year model

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 agree, but im not the person to do it cuz im pretty new to wiki
I have to disagree, every other car article goes in chronological order. Reversing it would be highly confusing. If anyone wants info on the E46 they can easily scroll down. Besides there is a picture of the E46 at the top. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If keeping true to Wikipedia form wasn't a good enough reason, I really doubt that "casual readers who are not car buffs" would actually be looking for "specs," no matter for what model. Shawn D. 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverse or forward chrono is fine. I think reverse makes sense. More people look at wiki for the E9X than the E30 M is my guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapfeaster (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 January 2010 (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)

Production numbers by exterior/interior color

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)

E36 M3 global production numbers inconsistency

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)

The table at the bottom sums the total number made of each generation, not the total number of M3s ever made. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:46, 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)

When I say "each generation" I meen each generation of M3, the numbers only include the M3. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:52, 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)

You can have the same number if no vehicles were produced outside of the subset date range of 1992-1999, which is the case here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:44, 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)

The table shows a condensed overview of past production. Now, the table has been deleted and the numbers are obscurily buried in different places in the body text, removing the overview. The section numbers could stay, but the overview should remain as well. TGCP (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The History Of BMW M3". 16 October 2015. Archived from the original on 27 December 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "BMW M Registry - FAQ E46 M3". www.bmwmregistry.com. Archived from the original on 7 July 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "BMW M Registry - FAQ E90 + E92 + E93 M3". www.bmwmregistry.com. Archived from the original on 22 October 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "bmw m registry - faq E30 M3". www.bmwmregistry.com. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "bmw m registry - faq E30 M3 'Convertible'". www.bmwmregistry.com. Retrieved 4 August 2017.

2019 production model?

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)

Hi John. The M3 is currently not being produced, since the BMW 3 Series (G20) version has not yet been introduced. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! The G20 article didn't mention the M3 so I added it in. John a s (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks for adding that to the G20 article, and extra brownie points for providing a reference! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The M3 based on the G20 3 Series has not been introduced yet so it shouldn't be included in this article. That would count as a speculative edit.U1 quattro TALK 11:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello U1Quattro. The M3 has been announced 1, so it isn't speculative. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Unveil hasn't taken place, it's due at the Frankfurt Motor Show so won't be long before its added here.U1 quattro TALK 07:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

G80 M3

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)

Hi U1Quattro. Official sources have provided details on the model and I believe it is notable, so IMHO it should stay in the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I missed this, if you look at WP:CRYSTALBALL "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic" that is just what we are doing, we have a some verifiable information (motor, power, AWD/RWD, gearboxes). In the magazine article that is the basis of the Car article it also says 2020. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
According to WP:CRYSTALBALL the event that is being added should have been occurred in order for it to be added in the article which in this case is the unveil of the car which has not taken place yet. CAR magazine is only speculating a 2020 model year launch which hasn't taken place yet. So they are wrong in that respect. I don't know why this is being re added again and again when the car isn't even introduced yet or is available for purchase.U1 quattro TALK 13:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Toasted Meter that the text complies with WP:CRYSTALBALL. BMW have confirmed various details of the model, and the text is supported by sources. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." We have verifiable details and when it is announced it will certainly be on this page. CRYSTALBALL is not a blanket prohibition on talking about unannounced products, all it demands is that it be verifiable. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Whats the big deal in waiting about unveil of the car and then adding info about it? This is an informative article, not a place for automotive journalism and reporting. Adding information about a car which doesn't exist in reality is something I'm against.U1 quattro TALK 02:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that the arguments for censoring this information from Wikipedia are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than any Wiki policy. PS the model is being commonly referred to as the G80, so the quotation marks here are unnecessary. 1292simon (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you know how a consesous works 1292simon you have failed to reach that and keep adding the same info to that page. Also, I started the discussion. You have no right to change headings.U1 quattro TALK 19:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, neither of those claims are supported by Wiki policy. 1292simon (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
They are supported by WP:CRYSTALBALL.U1 quattro TALK 03:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, give this a read. Got it from a policy here:

  • "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere."
  • "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

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)

Also what is the merit that this information should be included here? The car hasn't been introduced, all we have seen are camouflaged prototypes testing around, media outlets are claiming "according to our 'sources' inside BMW" and some ugly renderings of the car. These doesn't merit it to be included out here.U1 quattro TALK 04:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
There is an interview with the boss of BMW M where some details are confirmed, this is as far from "according to our 'sources'" as it can get.
And you removed the material to begin with, if you claim there is no consensus why must we stick with your preferred version? As opposed to what was on the page before you removed it? You have found zero other editors who agree with you, along with two editors who disagree, where are you drawing the authority to revert to your preferred version? Certainly not from this discussion. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This was branded as "The M3 is announced" in the previous thread. In reality, it's a magazine getting answers to their questions. What merits the inclusion of this information about a car which doesn't exist? Nothing. So far what you have presented know your defense has points that don't agree with the inclusion of this.U1 quattro TALK 13:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Where are YOU drawing the authority to add the disputed content? I haven't seen that.U1 quattro TALK 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi U1Quattro. Thanks for providing the Wiki policy about article inclusions. I beg to differ that it means that any product which is not yet for sale cannot be accepted knowledge. There are many legitimate examples of future events/products on Wiki, within the bounds of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also, if you have no policy supporting that this is "your" thread and therefore you decide it's name, please stop adding the quotation marks. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Lets have a look at those examples 1292simon.U1 quattro TALK 17:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Apple electric car project, an article about a project that has never been officially acknowledged by the company. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, it is not "a magazine getting answers to their questions" as you claim. Information has been provided by official sources. Cheers 1292simon (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It is exactly what I claim. The magazine was asking the head of BMW M about the M3 model which was being speculated by them.U1 quattro TALK 05:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Toasted Meter that project was inadvertently confirmed by Apple. Further proof was leaked details and the employee getting arrested along with the acquisition of multiple companies. It is unrelated to this debate.U1 quattro TALK 05:47, 30 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)

You are the only editor here who seems to have this angle on unannounced stuff with details available, on the C8 no one agreed with you, and in the end it was called the C8, and did succeed the C7. That discussion only proves that you have this opinion, not that it's some fundamental rule.
As yet no other editors agree with you, and you don't have any actual policy backing up your position, I don't think you are in much of a position to mandate your version. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
On the C8 page, a reviewer stepped in and forced stopped the other editor to restore his version. That was enough. I didn't had to obtain his consensus about the matter. I'm still waiting for you and the other editor to show me the examples about car pages which aren't in existence in real life besides that apple thing. I have already showed you the relevant quotes from WP:CRYSTALBALL which back up what I'm doing. As for the C8, it was better to have the company say that it was called C8 and that it succeeded the C7 rather than the automotive press say it based on speculation. If you read the discussion, the editor was constantly mulling about the red "8" in the date written on a test mule which wasn't enough to warrant his claims.U1 quattro TALK 16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of WP:CRYSTALBALL is wrong, apparently no one on this talk page interprets it in agreement with you, have you considered posting on the project talk and seeing if you can form a consensus between more editors than yourself? Toasted Meter (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I will have to do that since reporting about future events which haven't occurred yet are becoming more common.U1 quattro TALK 06:54, 4 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)

The Article in Car magazine is based on an interview with Markus Flasch, I think BMWBlog is reporting on that. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
As I have said, it's better to wait until the car is introduced. It's better than reporting about something which can be changed by the company. We are not here for automotive reporting or to sell information to readers.U1 quattro TALK 15:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTCRYSTAL is inapplicable to this case, since nobody has nominated the entire article for deletion. The relevant guidance comes from WP:CONPOL, mostly WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. See my comments over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Reporting about automobiles based on mere confirmation.

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)

Yes its 39 words and those are not notable. What part/details of the car is confirmed? A simple Google Search reveals such headlines "Dyno run of the X3 M Competition reveals the BMW M3 could've 500 horsepower", "Render suggests how the new BMW M3 could look like", "BMW M3 could debut later in 2019, a Frankfurt Auto show reveal most likely", "The BMW M3 could share it's engine with the X3 and X4 M Competition" You call that confirmation? We don't have any unveil date or production date yet and this G80 M3 is branded as a 2020 model year car when that model year has already started. I don't know why everyone is getting on their high horses instead of actually WAITING for the car to be unveiled. There is no problem in waiting. Just like editors waited for the Corvette C8 to be unveiled. But the impatience here to get in the spot light is simply ridiculous. About this CRYSTALBALL thing, you should ask Toasted Meter as they are the one to bring that in at the first place.U1 quattro TALK 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Not all coverage is speculative, an interview with the CEO of BMW M where he confirms aspects of the car is not speculative. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is confirmed. I woudn't make the interview as a base to add this information to the article. As Stepho has said, the company can change those specs. Porsche Motorsports head was also interviewed about the GT2 RS yet it was only added to the Porsche 991 page and Porsche 911 GT2 page when it was actually unveiled. Same was the case with the F90 M5.U1 quattro TALK 17:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Some of you keep saying that the facts are confirmed and verified. The facts have not been confirmed at all - only the plans have been confirmed. And plans are always subject to change. Practically every engineering project that I have worked on (including automobile projects) has changed significantly over a year. Both dates and features are a wish list that cold, hard reality often overrides.
WP:CRYSTALL definitely does apply. Some clauses say that an article should not be created and you have latched onto those clauses. But other clauses just talk about topics without specifying whether it is an entire article or just part of an article. The relevant part of CRYSTALBALL is "1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". Which is to say that whatever facts we put in must clearly say that this is speculation (even when coming from company officials) and subject to change. CRYSTALBALL also links to WP:NFF as an example, which says "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." From this, the most I would put into the article is that Flasch has confirmed that there are company plans to release a G20 M3 with the same engine as the X3 M and X4 M crossovers and use the bmwblog reference. The emphasis here is on the word "plans". I would prefer that we say nothing at all (because it is so vague) but if editors insist on feeding the rumour mill then that is the most we can say.
Dennis, this is not lame. If we were talking about one entry in one article then I might be included to agree. But it's a point that comes up time and again in many car articles. The magazines feed the rumour mill because it sells magazines - it's human nature to try to see what next year will bring. Then some editors add these speculations, plans, hopes and dreams to articles as though they were facts. And then these "facts" are often contradicted when the future rolls around. WP deals in facts. Speculation should be minimised and clearly called out as speculation if it remains. So we're really using this article to thrash out the automobile projects stance on future product announcements.  Stepho  talk  20:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It is supremely, pathetically lame. It's speculation to say man will colonize mars within this century. It's never happened before, and there's a host of reasons why it might be impossible. Even if it were possible, it's enormously difficult, and there are many other things we might put resources into. To say it will happen is irresponsible speculation. To say BMW will make a 2020 M3? Let's see. Is it possible? Has BMW ever built a car before? Yes, they've achieved that. It's not like saying Apple Computer will build car. Sure they *could* but the never have. Has BMW ever built a sporty sedan? Yes, many times. Does the anticipated 2020 M3 levitate? Teleport? Run on seaweed? No, no, and no. Nothing we're saying here is extraordinary, or surprising. It's like saying Disney is going to make another Frozen movie. They've made animated movies many times before. It's what they do. Totally in their wheelhouse. It's what they're good at. And something else: What do our sources say about it? Many experts say it's not possible to colonize Mars. Many argue Apple isn't capable of really building a car. Many say they never would even if they could. Do any experts say BMW would never build a sporty sedan? No. Do any experts say BMW couldn't possibly built a 2020 M3? No. Do any say that the features and performance mentioned here are impossible? No. Zero controversy.

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)

That's a lot of words about something you think is "pathetically lame".
Not quite sure what the tangential hyperbole about Mars is about. I'll ignore that as a distraction.
Nobody has claimed that BMW couldn't make such a car. Only that we are not sure about the date and the exact features of the production car. Car companies often change both of these, so the claims made so far aren't really binding.
Among your points you said that we only need to say that Flasch made certain claims. I would prefer to remove them altogether but I can live with them as long as they are highlighted as merely claims. Agreed?  Stepho  talk  23:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The text sticks closely to the WP:RS and avoids things like conjecture about horsepower figures, therefore I agree with Toaster Meter and Dennis Bratland that it be included. U1Quattro, would you like to place a wager that- less than a year from the launch date and having been announced by the M Division boss- the M3 won't be available with AWD?! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that text would work nicely. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:19, 5 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)

You attempted to say that CRYSTALBALL prohibited it with this sentence "According to WP:CRYSTALBALL the event that is being added should have been occurred in order for it to be added in the article which in this case is the unveil of the car which has not taken place yet." and this one "They are supported by WP:CRYSTALBALL", you got the policy massively wrong. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
As you can see, other editors agree that I interpreted the policy just right. You both on the other hand, are bending it in your own favour.U1 quattro TALK 05:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think dismissive quips like Stepho-wrs's "Not quite sure what the tangential hyperbole about Mars is about. I'll ignore that as a distraction." go a long way to explaining why you're falling into name calling and insults like "BS" instead of making valid arguments. The "tangents" and "distractions" about Mars are illustrations and examples that you could take advantage of to illuminate the point. Ignore them, and you'll be scratching your head wondering why nobody is "getting it".

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 do realise that these articles are way different than the aautomotive sector right? We are talking about an automobile here which is subject to change in the future. The editors are impatient to add two lines to about it just because they think it's notable when it is not. No one wants to wait but to get in the spot light because they added the content about an upcoming automobile to warrant themselves as a valued contributor. In the end, the things you have mentioned are very different to what is at dispute here so naturally it would be called BS and simply be ignored. Coming to the renewable energy example, we have a detailed plan about how the government wants to implement such a project but in the case of this M3 model, we don't know when it would be introduced, what engine or what transmissions would it have. It might be introduced in 2020 and be called the 2021 M3. Who knows? We only have vague confirmation about the car that is subject to change along with stupid rumours like "Dyno results of the X3 M Competition suggest that the new M3 can have 500 horsepower." so in no way such information which has only vague confirmation and rumours which make no sense in the present time should be allowed on wiki. What we all should do is to wait until the automobile is announced so complete information is added about the automobile. Rather than incomplete and conflicting information. U1 quattro TALK 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Nobody has proposed adding anything about "Dyno results of the X3 M Competition suggest that the new M3 can have 500 horsepower" to the article. Up where my comments were pointedly disregarded and ignored, I specifically called that out as the kind of thing we should not include. We agree. The text you edit warred over says nothing beyond BMW announcing plans to make the car, and that it will have AWD. And once again, it is a fact, a past event, that Markus Flasch said all this. If it doesn't happen, Flasch will still have said it.

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.


And what I'm saying that we should actually wait for the M3 to be unveiled rather than adding conflicting information. I'm not here to argue about this renewable energy plan Scotland will implement. That is something way beyond my interest. There are a lot of BS claims that automobile manufacturers make which are covered by automotive press. Does that mean we include them to articles? I don't think so. Just like we shouldn't include the claim that the Devel Sixteen has a power output of 2,000 + horsepower and that it's the fastest production car just because the company's exects said so. No one Actualy ares what the head of Porsche RennSport division had to say about the Porsche 911 GT2 RS until it was unveiled so I don't know what is the problem in actually waiting for the M3 to be unveiled.U1 quattro TALK 06:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't write a falsehood like "we have a detailed plan about how the government wants to implement such a project" and then walk it back with "I'm not here to argue about this!" If you were wrong, say you were wrong. If your falsehood hadn't been called out, you wouldn't be saying it was beyond your interest. This disingenuous behavior is wasting everyone's time.

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)

I'll admit that I was wrong about that renewable energy thing. Because primarily I didn't take the time to read it because it's simply not what I'm interested in. There, happy now? For the superlative part, I was trying to give an example of claims that automobile manufacturers make. If that triggers you, I can't do anything. Yes I do have a problem with adding content about a car which doesn't even exist yet. We SHOULDN'T report about it and keep our mouth shut. The automotive press is screaming about it on top of their lungs? Let them scream. When the car is finally unveiled, then add information about it. That isn't something hard to do but people still won't get off their high horses about it. We have been trying to explain that what Flasch said in the past is subject to change in the future. Should we report false things and make a fool out of ourselves just like what happened with the Casio F-91W page?U1 quattro TALK 11:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
And the text actually contradicts with the sources. The text says "due to be released in 2020" while the sources hint to a Frankfurt Auto Show reveal which has been long gone.U1 quattro TALK 11:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC about announcements of future vehicles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is a poorly-framed comment request. It contains multiple questions — it should have only one. As such, closing it is problematic. While there does seem to be overwhelming consensus against speculation, there also seems to be tentative consensus that, under extraordinary circumstances of especial newsworthiness and especially strong secondary sources, this can be overridden. But attempting to codify the particulars behind these rare exceptions, was ill-advised and ultimately harmed the poignancy and cohesiveness of this comment request. El_C 11:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a debate about whether announcements of future vehicles is worthwhile to put on WP or not.

This RFC is asking:

  1. Should announcements by company representatives for near future vehicles be reported on WP?
    How about for magazine speculation?
  2. If allowed, how much detail should be reported?
  3. How much should we highlight the changeable nature of the forecast?
  4. Does WP:CRYSTALBALL apply to sections within articles? See clauses 1 and 5.

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:

  1. "Company representative Joe Bloggs said that it will have a 300 hp engine and be released in July 2020"
  2. "Company representative Joe Bloggs said that the company plans for it to have a 300 hp engine and be released in July 2020"
  3. "It will have a 300 hp engine and be released in July 2020". All with the supporting reference(s). Underlining only for this discussion, not meant to be in the article text.

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)

  • Nope. No such reporting should be allowed. We aren't reporters that are trying to sell information to the public. If something is planned and the company execs are murmuring about it we should let them do that. We should only add information to the article when the said thing which is the basis of rumours is actually introduced. That way, we would avoid adding conflicting information that continues to spew up in the rumour mill made by the press. U1 quattro TALK 04:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Stepho-wrs, what is your brief and neutral statement? As it stands, the RfC statement (the part between the {{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)
    I have shortened it and put the details just below the first signature. Is there anything I need to do or will it automatically go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology and WP:FRS? Is the size limit published anywhere. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you That worked. The limit is somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 bytes but is not known precisely - Legobot has rejected some statements that are definitely shorter than others that it handled correctly. But brevity is a virtue - we want WP:RFC/A to show summaries, as attention-getters; too much on there and people skip right past. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No It is no surprise that a major company will produce a new model and the whole point of NOTCRYSTAL is that only things that have happened (or are "certain" to happen and be notable such as the next Olympic Games) should be in articles. Rumors and announcements of intention belong in magazines, not an encyclopedia. Use WP:IAR for exceptions such as a hypothetical announcement by NASA that they intend releasing a car in 18 months that will have certain major technical advances—claimed advances that are significant and documented. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Johnuniq: Which question is your "No" regarding? Toasted Meter (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Multi-question RfCs are undesirable. My no is to answer the main point of this, namely Q1. That makes Q2 and Q3 not applicable. Q4 needs clarification, however it is off-topic for this page because the talk page of an article on a car cannot influence how the WP:NOT policy works. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Responses:
  • Q1a: If a new generation of an existing model, yes, assuming the manufacturer has definitively stated at least an intention to produce it. This could be either directly or through another publication, e.g. the Detroit Free Press reporting information that a manufacturer provided them. If a new model entirely, no, not until the production version has been officially unveiled because until that point there simply isn't enough information to establish a new article.
  • Q1b: No. Just because a commentator is speculating on something doesn't necessarily mean it has the slightest basis in reality. There have been instances in recent years where an automaker has renewed the trademark on a discontinued nameplate, stoking a flurry of speculation that the car is due for a triumphant return, only for nothing to come of it.
  • Q2: Only as much as the manufacturer provides. If Acme Motors states that the Model 10 will be redesigned in 2022, then that should be included; if RandomCarBlog.com finds some spy shots of something and says it's the redesigned car, I don't think that's worthy of inclusion. If the manufacturer says it'll have a V6, that's usable, but if a magazine says "it will probably have their 2.5 liter engine" it's just the author's speculation and not encyclopedic.
  • Q3: We should use terms like "expected" or "planned" or similar, which I think is sufficiently clear.
  • Q4: In the grand scheme of things, it could at least to an extent. However, Clause 5 appears to definitively apply to standalone articles, as the short articles that consist of only product announcement information are not appropriate part 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)

  • I don't think this RfC will have a clear outcome, since it doesn't conform to the standards for an RfC. But my answer to all four questions is covered by the policy WP:WEIGHT. If we think a source is good enough that we cited it for other facts in the article, then we should trust that source's judgement to determine how significant a fact is. If they give a lot of coverage to a future announcement, then we should give proportionate coverage.

    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)

  • CRYSTAL is about speculation. New car models are planned years in advance, although the actual details of the finally released version tend to change. The situation is similar to a film already at the stage of principal photography (which we do include, and in fact include them as separate articles) --it will almost always but not quite always be released once so much money has been spent, though the actual content is sometimes not determined until the last moment) In both cases, they're covered by all major journalists in the gfield. It'sappropriate content,. It can betterto sourced to a journalist than a press release, but even so, it should say that its basedo n information from the company. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Major journalists, rather than say newsblogs, also give us cues as to where we should put discussion of the future. If the next M3 is designed, planned, tooled up and ready to appear in showrooms within months, it makes sense to mention it on the M3 article. Dodge Tomahawk cites several experts saying the point of this futuristic exercise is to make a statement about the company, that they embrace risk taking and bold vision. Often speculative future products get attention because of how that speculation reflects on the company or person who is speculating. Discussion of the "Musk electric jet" in good sources is almost always in the context of describing the character and personality of Elon Musk, hence the place to mention it is on the article Elon Musk, not Tesla Motors or any other company, which have no designs, tooling or preparation to actually produce this product. Like the Dyson Sphere, the Musk Electric Jet is pure speculation. But with proper context and attribution, mention of it is encyclopedic.

    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)

  • Short answer: NO Even formal company statements of intent are not generally of encyclopaedic interest. Enthusiasts might like to speculate, but that is not our job. We are not a company organ titillating enthusiasts' anticipations. Until the model hits the market, with firm specifications and firm prices and firm details of delivery, and everything else that amounts to more than wishful thinking and more than smoke and mirrors, it is has no place in WP. JonRichfield (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Formal company statements of intent are widely accepted in Wikipedia's best content. We created and kept Tesla Roadster (2020) based entirely on a theatrical Tesla press conference back in 2017 (an three ring circus event that included literal smoke, literal mirrors, and more than a little wishful thinking). Another example of why this strict approach is far out of line with widespread consensus is the WP:Featured Article Spider-Man (2018 video game), promoted to FA less than a month ago on September 18, 2019. It includes this "Insomniac has refused to confirm a sequel to Spider-Man but Intihar said the developers wanted the audience debating what they might do." The source is two posts[4][5] at the newsblog io9. The prediction, "speculation and rumor" [sic] about their future plans or lack therof for a sequel, is based on an interview with Sony creative director Bryan Intihar. Intihar and his comments on his company's future products is an exact analogy to Markus Flasch and his public comments on his company's future products. The quality of the sourcing is the same. Spider-Man (2018 video game) isn't a special case. There are endless similar examples, and it shows Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedic doesn't support WikiProject Autombiles adopted this strict rule against telling readers that a company has said they will or won't continue a model next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Bratland (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Dennis Bratland please refrain from posting unsigned comments and refrain from unnecessary arguments. You have voted in this RfC so please let others vote instead of attempting to change their opinion. When this RfC comes to a conclusion, the results of this will apply to that article you pointed out as well, prompting to its deletion.U1 quattro TALK 04:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Missing sig fixed. Guess what? It happens. FYI: it's much easier to use {{Unsigned}} as directed. Saves a lot of time. RE: Your other opinions and advice: No. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Probably. I think it's worth including company statements about near-future releases, but we have to be careful of WP:UNDUE. If it can be easily worked into the article, a statement like "In late 2019, BMW announced they were working on a fully electric model, with an intention to bring the vehicle to market in late 2020" is totally reasonable, and I don't think comes anywhere near WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 13:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No, No, No, and No. 1: No, this is not a venue for advertising. 2: No detail allowed - present actual facts and not future expectations. 3: No, avoid caveats by avoiding forecasting. 4: No, not seeing something about sections in clauses 1 and 5. Make any argument for an exception on specific case based with specifics, but as general principle just no. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No It should not, that is trivial speculation HAL333 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Sort of announcements themselves are likely fine if properly sourced to something other than a primary source. Speculation shouldn't be included unless the speculation itself is newsworthy, which will be rare, but not impossible. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, with caution. Other significant products are discussed before their release, so I see no need to exclude car models. To avoid rampant speculation, the content should be sourced from reputable outlets and be for definitive statements only. For example, "the G80 M3 will be available with all-wheel drive" is worthy, however "the G80 M3 could have up to 800 horsepower" is not. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was asked to perhaps help in closing this rfc, but I feel that I have waaayy too much past involvement with most editors here and with the topic itself. I will, instead, add another opinions. First of all, I am very impressed with the level of discussion - everyone is succinct, clear, and pleasant. I expected to face a horrible mess but everyone is truly acting like grownups. Amazing, barnstars to all.
As for the rfc, I think that for new products, inclusion within the article is only merited if the new version represents a significant shift. No need to mention that there will be a twelfth generation Toyota Camry, unless it's going to become an amphibian or something. Now, the M3 shifting to all electric deserves mention, but no need to add much else. Remember that all of this future crap is going to still be there in the article years from now, because the sorts of editors that love adding such material move on to the next shiny thing and leave the crystal gazing where it is. Here is an example from 2010, still present in the VW Passat article:

"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."

This makes our articles look outdated and crufty. Perhaps adding text about future models ought to require a commitment to remove or update said text once the date or the event has passed? Strong penalties for violators should minimize crystalballing.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

E36 M3 Imola Individual (GT2)

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)

Did you read WP:RS? DriveTribe is a site for user generated content, those auto journalists do not exercise editorial control over what "Jack Mason" (some guy no one has ever heard of) writes. This is specifically prohibited by WP:USERGENERATED. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The previous language was not fine. It looked like it came out of a brochure. Please refrain from using such language.U1 quattro TALK 03:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_M3/Archive_1&oldid=972084501"