Talk:BMW 3 Series (E46)

Need more Info
M3 CSL: The 0-100 time on this car can't be right... someone please find out what the real 0-100 time is for this car since I doubt that it is no faster than a normal euro M3. Although, I do see how it could be possible that the SMG-only CSL is equal in acceleration to a properly drive 6-speed Euro M3. Someone please move from speculation to fact though.

M3 GTR: There is 0 info on this car even though it is probably the most exciting model produced. We need info on the separate Street and Race versions of the car and their exact production dates. Also, what is the engine code that they used and did they have the same power ratings every year because I have found tons of varying information on the internet. Also, I have seen many sites say that the GTR does 0-60 in 3.3 seconds but is this the race or street version? Aaronmarks (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to the GTR, you should take a look at the main BMW M3 page which goes into some detail regarding this vehicle. We need to avoid duplicating content which I think may already be occurring. --Leivick (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took your advice and linked back to the main M3 article's respective sections for all of the special M3 special models and I moved the pictures to the top of the "special models" section so that the layout looks better with the decrease in the length of each section. Aaronmarks (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

General Article Cleanup 2008-08-26
I changed the 0-100 km/h times on some of the cars which appeared to be using the US 0-60 mph times. For the US versions of the cars, I figured their 0-100 km/h times by multiplying their average tested 0-60 times by 1.035. I also separated out the M3 (US) from the M3 (EUR) since they have slightly different performance specs.


 * You should use the actual times, not calculated --&mdash; Typ932 T  19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by actual times? Taking the average tested times from the major magazines which only vary by a tenth of a second and then figuring out the unit conversion to km from miles and calculating for the delay can be calculated exactly to the tenth of a second.

Their were some mistakes and confusing words in the ZHP specs lists so I did my best to correct these. I also separated out the ZHP section into Performance, Suspension, and Aesthetics so that it would be easier to read. I added a picture as well since their was previously no picture.

I also separated the 330 Clubsport (EUR) from the ZHP (US) since they are really different cars. Someone should create a separate list of everything the Clubsport package includes in its new section.

I also created the M3 CSL section and added pictures of it and the M3 ZCP (US). The M3 CSL text is a direct quote from the M3 article. Someone please correct it if it isn't okay to copy and paste text between Wikipedia articles. Aaronmarks (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Update
Just did some updates and minor corrections to the article. 12 April 2007 (GMT)

ZHP
I have removed some content about the ZHP package and links that were promoting personal websites, leaving the most important details, to make the article more encylopedic. Fuscob 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

General info and ZHP updates
I added general information at the top about the 10best with links to those respected wiki pages. I also added specific package details back to the ZHP section as I felt it was necessary to emphasize the specific order code since it is the most significant of packages, and similarly hard to identify for a non-enthusiast. - ncw

Older
This is not a BMW discussion forum, it is only for discussion of this Wikipedia article about the BMW E46 3-series. You might want to try a BMW community such as Bimmerforums. Also, please sign all comments with four tildes so that other Wikipedians may know who left them. Thank you, Fuscob 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA/FA
I'm currently trying to get this article to either GA or FA status and am asking for help for anyone interested, possibly in the more tedious tasks of describing each models engines and rewording the changes between model years of the platforms (it's available in the history at the moment). It'd be helpful if everything was fully cited but if not i'd be more than happy to go through and tweak and cite (FYI I never realised but citing every sentence is about the most time consuming part of writing a good article). I doubt this page is watched by many people but if anyone has some free time, every little change helps. Thanks, Matty (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to pitch in and help if I can get some time Aaronmarks (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i've got a list of stuff that needs doing before the article is even finished being written, if anyone completes anything just strike it out. Matty (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The model nomenclature section needs to be started, finshed, and cited.
 * The models section needs to be finished, the 320d has lots of possible cites (its just a matter of writing the section) but i'm having trouble finding much on the 330d
 * The North American option sections need to be cited (and written), i can't find anything that meets WP:RS that mentions anything outside of the ZHP/ZCP. The Canadian luxury package has absolutely no mentioning outside of forums either which is a problem.
 * The SULEV section needs more than one citation so it can be expanded further
 * The gallery section needs to be removed
 * The article needs to consistently use British English
 * The design section needs to be expanded.
 * The engine tables need to be put into each individual model designation
 * There needs to be a cited section on the current subframe lawsuit and the swirl flap problems on the turbodiesels and the 320d's turbo failures.
 * The TOC is too big but i'm struggling to see a way to reduce that unless we remove a bunch of subheadings.
 * The regular M3 needs info on it. I'm thinking that the actual chassis article (the E46) should be the main article for the E46 M3 and the M3 article just be a sort of guidance article (like the BMW 3 series article as opposed to the E46 article).

The real problem with writing these sections is that there are no reliable sources to back anything up. It was by a stroke of luck that I even remembered that DesignWorksUSA helped build the E46. There really isn't much available to use and it's making it a pain to write. Writing first citing second isn't ideal but it might have to be done that way. The only section I feel at the moment is really finished is the CSL section. Thanks guys. Matty (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on BMW 3 Series (E46). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120912023452/http://www.bmweducation.co.uk/downloads/online-resources/FastFacts_April08.pdf to http://www.bmweducation.co.uk/downloads/online-resources/fastfacts_april08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907133315/http://www.designworksusa.com:80/design/carsbikes/BMW3Series/index.html to http://www.designworksusa.com/design/carsbikes/BMW3Series/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831144900/http://www.edmunds.com:80/insideline/do/Features/articleId=66153 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=66153
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708074941/http://www.bmw-planet.com/lib/M56sulev.pdf to http://www.bmw-planet.com/lib/M56sulev.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1999/286100/bmw_318d.html
 * Added tag to http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1999/286100/bmw_318d.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908143658/http://www.bmw.co.za:80/innovations/weight/overview.asp to http://www.bmw.co.za/innovations/weight/overview.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on BMW 3 Series (E46). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722001005/http://www.bag-eg.com/ to http://www.bag-eg.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030608051801/http://www.avtotor.ru/bmw/ to http://www.avtotor.ru/bmw/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908143658/http://www.bmw.co.za:80/innovations/weight/overview.asp to http://www.bmw.co.za/innovations/weight/overview.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

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

"For a complete overview of the 3 Series" intro
Hi Sabbatino. I don't think there's anything specific about this E46 article that would make cause it to show up when people are trying to find the 3 Series overview. Also, there is a link to the 3 Series overview in the first line. So I think the "For a complete overview..." link is unnecessary. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Information within article
I am a bit concerned with how sources detail their information regarding the development process of an automobile, as it's rather all over the place. A major problem I am having, is where in not only the E46 article, but that of other BMW articles, I had highlighted what was described by industry sources, as "development periods". The E46 was claimed to have taken a short 24 months until SOP. This doesn't make sense to me. Why? BMW said that they require about 6 months to build a prototype from styling approval. The Dezember 9 1995 edition of Autobild, already showed the E46 itself being tested in full regalia. This doesn't even account for when that photo was taken, as it was barely published in early December 1995. What I am trying to establish is, does BMW regard SOP as? When the actual pilot production starts (before actual production), many months (little under 1 year) or when actual production of Job 1? In 1997, BMW began construction of pilot production E46 sedans. A Spanish magazine on February 7, 1998, claimed that 33 months had passed since the design was approved in (May) 1995. Still the context is a little confusing, as I still need a concrete Job 1 date for the E46. To be seeing an E46 prototype of that degree in December 1995, I cannot help but wonder if it was developed much earlier. Similarly, the E53 X5 was claimed to be have been finalized 35 months before "Job 1" (which was September 1999), but I have photos from a June 1996 edition of Autobild, showing the definitive X5 already testing and clad in camouflage. That is actually 39-40 months and actually follows spy shots from 1995 of the raised E34 Touring body testing in Bad Homburg/Munich (E53 mule). I believe the E53 design was completed in 1995, based on this. E46 designer Erik Goplen's resume shows that he became a BMW employee in February 1996, which connects to the rest of the range being designed between 1996 and 1998 (incl M3). I feel that there is a disconnect with my research in this area, in which other industry sources contradict each other. Trade publications like Automotive News, Wards Automotive, and etc are extremely confusing, even if helpful. However between design patent filings (filed very early), early evidence of advanced prototypes testing (Autobild), and internal photos, some of the claims for "development period" don't really make sense to me. Much of these things, are left too much "between the lines" by sources, in which I am concerned it might hurt the article's quality. Even for the original CDW27 Ford Mondeo of 1993, a publication claimed in 2002 that it took 60 months to develop from freeze to Job 1 versus the incumbent CD132 Mondeo at 24 months. The CDW27 Mondeo design was barely approved in May 1990, with production start in November 1992. Sixty months earlier in 1987, the design was far from finished. Sources are reputable, but not always reliable or things are being lost in translation between the OEMs and journalists. Hope that this talk section is readable, but for now (due to X-mas business), I will have provide my many links later for the "contradictions" and revisit completing this discussion later.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Representative image
I don't see anything wrong with using the image of the E46 Coupé. There is no rule which states that the image of the saloon is to be used. U1Quattro (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with using a photo of the Coupé, you can't cover 100 percent of the body styles in the infobox photo, that's why the page has other images. If we demand that the most popular variant must be used I can only see that leading to edit wars and the the potential to devolve into petty squabbling over colors and facelifts. And if someone does think this is a good idea, edit summaries are not the place to make what is effectively a change to project conventions. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing against the coupe, but the sedan was the highest selling body style, so I think that should be used as the lead image. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * To add, please read the concepts of WP:CARPIX, we should be using the E46 as the lead image – Its the main image, should be used the article. -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any rule in WP:CARPIX which states that the most popular/best seller variant should be used as a representative image. So there is no convention to use the saloon as the representative image. U1Quattro (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:WPAC states under model code that "...the fifth generation BMW 3 Series has different model codes for each body style: sedan (E90), wagon (E91), coupe (E92), and convertible (E93). The most common or prominent version should be given precedence. In the case of the fifth generation BMW 3 Series, the sedan (E90) is given priority, and the article is resultantly titled "BMW 3 Series (E90)". This is because the sedan was the first version to be released, and also because the sedan sold in higher volumes than the others..." So if this is the main article name, then it would be logicial to replace the top infobox with the E90. Won't it make any sense mate? -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That is true, however WP:CARPIX does say "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other." which seems to directly contradict an expansive reading of WP:WPAC relating to titles. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Transmissions Listed in Article are incorrect
Hey folks, This article could use some help in the transmission section. The S5D 320Z transmission is made by ZF, not Getrag. The 6 speed from the M3 is a Getrag 420G: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getrag_420G_transmission I don't know what the actual correct breakdown of transmissions is, but I know that these are not correct. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.190.183 (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)