Talk:BMW M30

Re: the 250 000 mile comment

that section needs some citation. I believe it but people such as domestic lovers might deny this. Id like it to be fact instead of theory. the mile number itself isnt really what gets me id just like to see that whole paragraph cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snipedmyself (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

broken link?

References link #1 appears to be broken. Here is an alternate link: http://wardsauto.com/news-amp-analysis/10-best-engines-20th-century 67.246.132.128 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Rating by Wards

Hello, read the reference given to this information (note 2). The Reference talks about newer BMW-engines from 2007. Please give the correct reference/link. Regards --Wikisympathisant (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello Mr.choppers. Regarding your claim in the edit summary that my edit "introduced a large number of errors", I have taken care to ensure that the power conversions were done accurately. However if any mistakes have snuck in, please let me know and I am happy to correct them. I must say, having my whole edit blanket reverted like this does feel like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I disagree with your claim that my edit "restored unreliable references", do you believe that the official BMW archives are not a reliable source for the factory power figures?

Regarding the displacements in the infobox, the MOS states that it "summarizes key features of the page's subject", therefore I think it should summarise the range of displacements rather than listing them all. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSPRIMARY. "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Both sources include PS and kW in any case. This is a German engine, developed in Germany, pre-SI. Dependable sources use metric hp, unless they happen to concern specific markets such as US-spec cars which have their own outputs. I do agree that we should include imperial hp as well as metric hp, as this will clarify why various sources give different values for the same engines.

As for your notion of removing all kinds of information from the infoboxes, I suggest you look at other automobile project articles and adopt the style which is universally used. See some good articles too, like Ford Pinto.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a question about this very old edit of yours - you added a reference to Oswald, stating that the 635 CSi produces 163kW. I doubt this, but I do not own the book, could you please verify it? Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for picking up the error with the 635CSi power figure, it seems that Oswald had somehow given it an extra kilowatt!

  Could you please read and take care to follow WP:Reverting? Because despite my above request, you have still reverted changes of mine that are unrelated to the discussion. And again, could you please clarify you claim that my edit "restored unreliable references", do you believe that the official BMW archives are not a reliable source for the factory power figures?

  IMHO it is confusing to the reader that the specs table jumps between different units. Given that the M40 was produced for 4 years out of 27 in pre-SI conditions, I beg to differ that Pferdstarke is "is closely linked with the vehicle".

  Regarding the infoboxes, is their a Wiki policy (noting that Infobox documentation is not policy) stating that every single displacement should be listed? If not, I believe that WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, and whether every single variant is a "key feature of the page's subject" will vary between engines.

  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you be so kind so as to provide the quote of Oswald's? Like literally, character for character? I would be very interested to see what unit(s) he uses.

You are weaving together useful additions with edits that are contentious and combative. Please stop doing that. Unless you do, I will have to assume that you are doing it on purpose. You will notice I have showed good faith by going through the trouble of restoring several sections of your edits already. As for sources, please read WP:RSPRIMARY. Secondary sources are more dependable, and in any case, I added yours back as well. Furthermore, both sources (as do all dependable sources) use kW as well as PS.e

Cubic inches: there is no need to include them. "Cubic inches (display as cu in) can be used to express the displacement of engines originally engineered, designated, and marketed in cubic inches, such as pre-1980s American and pre-1974 Australian engines."

The infobox is currently the only place where the various engine dimensions are available at one look. A table would be better, but you are keeping me too busy to create one.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

BMW 725

This article, as well as BMW 7 Series (E23), both make reference to a carburetted 725 having been built between 1977 and 1979. The reference given is "Autoveolution: BMW 7 Series (E23) 1977 - 1986"., which is mainly a content aggregator and not fantastically reliable. It also makes no mention of 1977-1979; not sure where that originated. "BMW Switzerland"., meanwhile, in a very detail rich, very clear article, only makes mention of the 725i and makes it clear that it was introduced in 1981. The E23's German entry also does not include a 725, but I guess it is possible that there was also some kind of export-only model that I haven't heard of. Unless a reliable source proving the existence of this car is discovered, however, I will remove the 725 from here and at the 7 series article.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)