Talk:BMW 7 Series (E32)

Advertisement on linked source
For the first reference (http://www.7-forum.com/modelle/e32/sonderausstattung.php) there is an advert that consumes most of my screen upon rollover. On my old iBook, things ground to a halt; I don't expect everyone to have modern computers. Perhaps there is a better source out there for the various flavours of the E32 7 Series. Also, I do not understand why the rest of my edit was reverted. Lavenderbunny 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I use firefox as well, and do not get that advert, or any other intrusive ads. Maybe it's spyware related? Regardless, that web page is still a highly usable source because it has the full options list with prices etc. If you know a better source, please add it. Rpvdk 06:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

'L' badging
what does the "L" stand for on 7 series. i knows its something german meaning long —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

The L stands for Longwheel base. 71.202.3.21 (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong years listed
It was produced from 1987 to 1994. Article says it started in '86 and ended in '94.

"The E32 itself was replaced by the E38 in 1994,"

E38 production started in 1995. Paulmer2003 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. E38 production started at some point in 1994, probably in summer. Don't confuse the "model year" with the actual production date. E32 production started in late 1985, November or December 1985, and continued when the E38 was already in production (only E32 730i, with M30B30 engine) ! -- Alexey Topol (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also wrong engine years, just bought a '90 728i, came here looking for more info, Google and www.rockauto.com both confirm the 2.8L not even mentioned in the article here, Google has it at 190 HP and 29 MPG hwy. -Kate Ransom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.25.25 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo
Using an E32 with after-market front indicators (white instead of orange) ? Should be an original stock photo for the wikipedia. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DONE SHAMAN 23:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BMW 767 'Goldfish' Concept.
I think the 767 concept should be mentioned on this page.

http://jalopnik.com/5665577/bmws-767-the-golden-fish-that-got-away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.26.142 (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DONE SHAMAN 23:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Highline costing more than €10,000
How Could it cost that when the Euro wasn't introduced until after the car was made? Is that an equivalent? If so at what converion and from what original currency? (Morcus (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC))

Recent changes

 * The first BMW to have electronic stability control was the E38. The E32 came with an anti lock brake system and traction control system. Compare here, page 27, the "ASC+T" is not mentioned there.
 * Corrected the power output of the M70: It produces 220 kW which equals 300 DIN-PS; even though the 1:1 translation of DIN-PS (Pferdesträke) would be horsepower, 1 DIN-PS does not equal 1 bhp.
 * Corrected the power output of the M30B30: The 730i KAT produces 135 kW only. See [here, page 5.
 * The West-German Currency was just called "DM", also the Euro price tag does not make sense here.
 * The Goldfish-prototype was never meant to be called "767iL", the source "auto, motor & sport" does not say that. Added further information.

--Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Vs Prose
It is nice to have a production section within the prose, however a good percentage of readers glance at the infobox first and foremost, missing that lower section. They will miss it very easily.

It is not Wikipedia standard for the automotive infobox, to not be allowed to include production months+years and instead, in a separate section. Over 80% of Automotive articles with production sections included have months within them, but not the full date included as stated by User: Stepho-wrs. Three users having a discussion among themselves (and not making it become standard via the linked page), does not exactly dictate how article inboxes are configured across Wikipedia, since it is not even listed here. Quite the opposite in fact. A much deeper discussion, with a widespread panel of users and not just a few out of many, would be a more proper form of consensus being firmly established. A dispute resolution might end up needing to be opened, on the premise that this is not even the standard across this site anyway and is being pushed regardless of that, proving to be disruptive. Carmaker1 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Discussion is at Talk:BMW 5 Series (G30).  Stepho  talk 08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you.--Carmaker1 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Pferdstarke ratings
Hello Mr.Choppers. It is good to see that we are both in agreement that WP:CARUNITS is the applicable policy here. Your edit summary says "check the sources", however the sources include kW ratings, therefore the then-obsolete Pferdstarke (PS) ratings are not required to verify the references. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Metric horsepower remains not obsolete today, so no need to think it was in the 1980s. See Talk:BMW 6 Series (E24).  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ever since 1970, SI has been standard in West Germany (see Ausführungsverordnung zum Gesetz über Einheiten im Meßwesen vom 26. Juni 1970, §51 Absatz 2 Ziffer 5, veröffentlicht im Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil l (1970) Nr. 62, p. 985), and since 1978, it has been the only permissible unit system (thus, PS has been obsolete since 1978). I am surprised what makes you believe that "Metric horsepower remains not obsolete today". It is cumbersome to use and difficult to understand. I suppose that certain petrol heads have stuck to it for nostalgic reasons, but that doesn't really matter for Wikipedia. Reliable sources (and all primary sources) regarding motor vehicles have been using SI (because it has been mandatory to do so) since ca. 1972. Only older sources that were not required to use SI (because it wasn't mandated by law) often use the technical unit system. However, these sources are from the 1970s and earlier. In this particular case, the sources are clearly using SI – whatever there is in parenthesis doesn't really matter, they could be putting there whatever they want. By the way, WP:CARUNITS is an interesting policy because it says "We use the standard International System of Units (SI) describing automobiles, and will generally follow the SI writing style" and then completely deviates from the "SI writing style". But that is a different story. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No matter the legal situation, people across the world still use horsepower. Mercedes used horsepower in their model names (407D etc) into the 1990s. German car magazines use PS as the primary or the secondary unit (especially when describing youngtimers and classics) and so did the manufacturers until recently. It is absolutely incorrect to state that "only certain petrolheads" use hp. The BMW 750i has 300 horsepower because it is an impressive number: not including this goes against all sources and causes unnecessary confusion.
 * There is absolutely no cost or negative effect of following the WP:CARUNITS guidelines and including metric hp, a unit clearly with a strong link to the cars as per every single source. In addition to respecting the sources, it also eliminates the never ending confusion as people shuffle power figures back and forth since imperial hp outputs are so similar to metric hp.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As an indication of horsepower still being used, see ja:BMW・7シリーズ, de:BMW E32, it:BMW E32, es:BMW E32, sv:BMW E32, ru:BMW E32. In all of these languages, horsepower is either used exclusively or in conjunction with kW. (those are the ones I checked, I cannot find any language which uses exclusively kW) And, no, English language WP is not exclusively for English speakers.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Other Wikipedias have different rules that do not necessarily apply here. We use the principle of reliable sources. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You stated that metric hp is obsolete, I proved to you that it is not, by the fact that every language I can find uses it to describe the E32. I am not discussing rules or legal details, just making it abundantly clear that metric hp is still relevant, particularly when discussing youngtimers and older cars.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Johannes that the policies of English-language Wikipedia do not support the inclusion of metric horsepower in this article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose horsepower, unlike Pferdestärke, is a legal unit in the United States. Besides that, car enthusiasts have been doing, let's call them "interesting" things that we should not base articles upon. The same is true for car manufacturer model names(!), which are completely arbitrary: An Audi 60 has a 55 PS engine, whereas an Audi A6 55 TFSI has a 250 kW engine. Pferdestärke is an obsolete unit from the technical unit system that goes alongside several other obsolete units, all based upon a weird force-mass-weight confusion system. Surprisingly, I have barely seen anybody use kilopondmetres for torque, kiloponds per square centimetre for pressure, or kiloponds for drawbar pull in the past 20 years or so (for their modern(!) vehicles). If we actually use Pferdestärke for source reasons, we should stick to the technical unit system (because it becomes difficult to put into comparision if left without anything that fits). Now the interesting things are the concepts I have come across – for instance, people refer to their engine torque as Newton (without anything else, as if it was a force), nobody seems to be knowing what the product of torque and crankshaft angular velocity is, (drawbar) pull is given in tons, and motorbike enthusiasts tie their motorbikes to dynos and state power figures with two or even three digits behind the decimal seperator. I believe that Pferdestärke goes along with all of these, because there are emotional reasons for using it. That is why car manufacturers and car magazines stick to it despite that it is obvious why it makes little sense to do so. Now what car manufacturers (and car magazines) actually do when stating Pferdestärke is take the power ratings and divide by 0.73549875. Modern cars are not rated in Pferdestärke, because it is obsolete. Modern German cars typically have power ratings such as 75 kW, 100 kW, 110 kW, 140 kW, 200 kW, 250 kW, etc. for insurance and tax reasons. And if we take a look into any serious car engineering book (or any engineering book in general) that is not primarily targeted at the US market, we see that verything in these books is SI; nobody uses Pferdestärke as their primary unit. And this has been the case for the past 40 to 50 years. We should stick to reliable sources per WP:RS and not to enthusiast ratings. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Johannes, you prove all my points yourself. WP is not just for engineers, it is for the general public as well. As car magazines use PS/cv/hk/ch it makes sense to include them. As for kpm/kgm, no one feels the need to argue for including this unit precisely because it is obsolete - i.e., no one uses it. As long as people (across the world) keep using horsepower, metric or imperial, it is not obsolete. Even if you don't like PS, it does zero harm to include it when at all relevant, and it limits the confusion as people will keep changing 296hp to 300hp for the BMW 750i. BMW chose to specify this magical number in PS, whereas, as you say, modern cars tend to have pretty kW numbers.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I argue that obsolesence is not determined by whether or not something is still in use. In my experience, most people have no idea what power is and how this concept works. For these people, it does not matter which unit of power you give them, they will not understand any unit. Car magazines include PS because their readers are typically car enthusiasts with an emotional connection to the unit PS. Since this connection exists, it would be a daft not to include PS. Scientific literature on the other hand doesn't necessarily need to entertain the reader and is thus better in this regard. You have made a good example for the PS conversion problem. The BMW M70 engine in the 750i is rated 220 kW, which is equivalent to 299 PS if natural numbers are used – this figure is not that nice to look at, so BMW says it's "300 PS". They could have also called this 22,500 kp·m·s&minus;1 or 224 p or 209 BTU/s. This is a bit difficult to explain, but basically it's just marketing. The car is rated 220 kW, it is sold as such, however, it is advertised as xyz PS. Of course car manufacturers can do this, but it means nothing. Car magazines can copy this marketing, but it means nothing. Maybe there is a difference between the US and EU markets regarding rated power and advertised power? But this discussion is going abroad. Basically, my point is that obsolesence doesn't depend upon common usage of a thing. In this case, Pferdestärke has been obsolete since the 1970s, and car magazines, enthusiasts and manufacturers have stuck to it for emotional and marketing reasons. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From Wiktionary: OBSOLETE: (of words, equipment, etc.) No longer in use. Also, I am unsure what makes you think 220kW is the primary number. Der Spiegel only mentions 300PS (this being evidence of the cultural significance of this number, hitherto only reached by Porsche's 930 amongst German manufacturers), while this reference opts to call it 220.5kW/300PS. BMW is anyhow notoriously unreliable with their conversions, referring to the E30 BMW 316i as having 73kW/100PS (which doesn't add up) and simply multiplying the kgm numbers by ten to get Nm in the early 1970s. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick point, is there any evidence of recurring problems with this article, due to "people will keep changing 296hp to 300hp"?


 * Well, Wikitionary is a dictionary. I mean, surely, obsolesence can be defined as "no longer in use", but I suppose everybody knows of obsolete technologies/things that are still in use – for instance, paraffin lamps: in certain regions of this world, electricity is not exactly abundant which forces people to use this obsolete technology. But that's just my point of view. Either way, in Germany, the legislature has decided in 1970 that PS shall be obsolete. This is why in Germany, motor vehicles only have kilowatt ratings. Any other ratings are – as I have tried to explain – "advertised" power. Sources who copy this either have no idea how this all works, or they do it on purpose. We on the other hand should only stick to "rated" power figures, because they, unlike advertised power figures, allow comparing two models (since rated figures have the least amount of arbitrariness). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And PS is still in use amongst people and sources who discuss cars, you said so yourself. Since the cars are often advertised using their horsepower ratings, and since most sources that discuss these cars use horsepower (metric), it should be included. Just to make it clear, in discussing an E32 I believe we should write " 138 kW " to output 138 kW. I am not advocating for removing kW or even moving it to second place, I am saying include PS because this is a meaningful number. Including it costs nothing, whereas omitting it has a price:
 * As for the absence of PS causing confusion, this and the following three edits show this editor trying to get the template to output 200 metric hp. Also, here JL6er changed the kW reading to an incorrect 213kW to get the output to read 286hp, as the M635CSi produces 286PS. Here I undid a similar long standing error, as the M3 has 343PS. Here you yourself added wholly incorrect data, writing that the S54B32 has 256kW to get 343hp as the output (should be 252kW/343PS). Pretty sure this and the following edits from last week are also attempts to get the correct PS output. There are hundreds more cases, god only knows how many have been missed (your messing up of the S54B32 remained for nine years and metastasized into several other articles) - these are just the BMW related cases that I could remember off the top of my head.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources and not on car enthusiast discussions or car manufacturer advertisements. At least, it ought to be this way. I have just recently seen how an editor changed the input for the convert template from 220 kW to 220.4 kW with the rounding to natural numbers option enabled so that the template converts 220 kW into 300 PS instead of 299 PS. A creative solution! I'm out; best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I cannot think of a better way to convey 220kW/300PS. Please tell me if you do, though. And I assure you that Auto Motor Und Sport and Der Stern and BMW's own published figures are totally acceptable sources and in no way limited to some sort of troglodyte car fan circles.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not wish to change anything here, but this reminds me of watercraft engines that typically come with power ratings with a precision that is far away from what is to be called precision (e.g. 12,000 kW rather than 12,036 kW). I typically solve this problem by converting large horsepowe numbers into natural number megawatt numbers. But in case of the E32? Well, maybe sticking to the 300 figure is a good idea to prevent confused people from fixing attempts… best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if it we didn't have to include imperial horsepower we could just set the rounding to -1, but 220 kW is the worst of all worlds. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)