This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

At a glance specifications of all current BMW cars on the market.

Blog related to BMW cars Drive BMWs

How do you think about a link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:BMW ?

Can you include a reference to the BMW 1600GT in a link. This car can be found in the history archives at BMW and was significiantly changed by BMW from the Glas 1700GT using the 1600ti engine, transmission,1600 touring lights and independant rear suspension. The car did not sell well but is still part of the history of the company.

---

The 8 series is a 90s car, not an 80s car. The 6 series did not end production until 1989. The 8 series was not introduced until 1990.

---

X5: BMW's first SUV, this vehicle has all the dynamic qualities expected of a BMW, and set new expectations for SUV design

Is there any evidence to back this up? The X5 is highly limited soft-roader. It is a poor vehicle both on and off road, and is sold purely on its image. Even BMW admit the vehicle should be driven carefully due its poor handling. From the company who built the M5 and recently sold Land Rover, this is a poor cash in. akaDruid 15:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. The X5 is poor off-road, better on-road and reliability is below average. YCCHAN 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Have any of you driven the X5? Besides your opinions on reliability and handling, I don't see any proof for your statements that the X5 doesn't off-road or handle well. fm.illuminatus

"competing against the Porsche Cayenne and Range Rover. The Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Volkswagen Touareg and Audi Q7 fall in the same category, but at a lower prestige"

The market competition stated for the X5 is wrong. Its pricing does not allow it to compete with the Range Rover and the Porsche Cayenne. Its competition factoring price is the Audi Q7, Mercedes-Benz ML-Class, and Range Rover Sport. The new 7 seat X5 destined to be the model replacement now competes with the Mercedes 7 seat GL Class instead of the 5 seat ML Class. Agreed the VW is undercutting the prestige due to pricing.

Here in the UK, the word "Beemer" is commonly used about the cars; I've virtually never seen "Bimmer" here. Loganberry 14:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Same goes in Australia. - Vague | Rant 02:20, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like it's regional, clearly. In the US, that distinction goes back to the mid 70s, at least. I'll clarify it. -- Baylink 21:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

if no one actually calls them "bimmers" why is that still there? and "beemer" is "technically" the bikes(!?) geez, who wrote that?

How is "Bimmer" pronunced? I've always read it but assumed it's pronunced just like "Beemer". So I thought there's only a written distinction.

In the US we spell it Bimmer and pronounce it Beam-er, so it was probably someone from the US that wrote that. I do not think we have a distinction for the bikes. Another interesting note, Beamer in German (pronounced the same way) actually means digital projector and has nothing to do with the car at all.

In the US, at least the BMW enthusiasts, spell it Bimmer, *and* pronounce it Bim-mer. In the US too, a car is a Bimmer, while a bike is a Beamer - BMW enthusiasts will confirm this. Look at the Boston BMW Car club of america, for instance, at: http://www.boston-bmwcca.org/reference/bimmer-beemer.aspx CrazyVas 13:01, Jan 7, 2006 (UTC)

That may be the case with enthusiasts, but I've lived in the US (actually in Boston, where the link is from) and Australia and both countries said Beemer in my experience. I suggest rewriting this section to say "some enthusiasts in the US refer to the cars strictly as Bimmers and the motorcycles as Beemers". This lets them have their say in the article and reflects the truth a lot better.

The truth is that the above link's explanation is absolutely correct, minus the insult to Californian pronunciation of it. Bimmer is for cars and Beemer is for motorcycles. Bimmer is pronounced BIM-mer (rhymes with "simmer"). End of story. There's no two ways about it. The only thing there is to it is that there are only a limited number of people who know the proper usage, spelling, and pronunciation of Bimmer. What no one really knows is how the incorrect version for the cars (Beemer) spread like a wild fire to the masses. Like the article says, the word Beemer is widely misused by the movie industry (not to mention other major outlets, i.e. music) and that reaches a lot of people. That's all it takes, folks! And because of that, I think there is no "regionality" to it either, it's just said wrong in other countries too for the same reason it is in the US. As someone said above, the majority of UK people call the cars Beemers just like the majority (key word) of US people do; because they heard it in a movie, or their friends heard it somewhere and told them, and so on and so on. These people are non-enthusiasts by definition, and didn't bother to check up on it way back when, and so here we are today with the majority of people, being non-enthusiasts, using it incorrectly. By definition, an enthusiast SHOULD know its Bimmer (rhyming with simmer), and thus it should read "most enthusiasts...", not "some enthusiasts..." It's nearly all of them, or they aren't an enthusiast by definition because they don't know about the cars! The masses say Beemer for the car because they aren't enthusiasts. It's that simple. Also, from above: "In the US we spell it Bimmer and pronounce it Beam-er, so it was probably someone from the US that wrote that." I'm in the US and I don't call them Beamers or Beemers. I spell it Bimmer, and I say it BIM-mer. Furthermore, I'm in California, and not all of us say it wrong. There are a few trying to get the word out. The article says it perfectly: the word is actually Bimmer, pronounced BIM-mer, AND it mentions that the masses say it wrong. Both sides are covered. - Wilhelm Screamer 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should just do some research and add it myself, but nowhere in the article is the BMW Bavaria mentioned. This model was the immediate predecessor to the 5-series, and was seen at the time (mid 70s) as combining the features of the 3.0 CS and another model I've forgotten, at a much cheaper price. My dad had one, but being a toddler at the time my memory's a little fuzzy, and he wouldn't even let me drive it.

TJSwoboda 19:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The history section could stand to be expanded *substantially*. -- Baylink 21:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I live in Australia and I refer to my BMW car as a bimmer, not beemer as they are the bikes.

The Bavaria was a beautiful piece of engineering!-- Uforik 09:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

the BMW 2002tii was an orphaned page. It should probably be linked to from this or another relavent page. Please someone with more knowledge on this subject add it where appropriate. BAxelrod 03:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've linked it from the BMW New Class page and put it in the BMW Vehicles category, which is probably all it needs to be linked from. The main BMW article has an odd layout (the cars are listed inline on the page instead of on a List of BMW Vehicles subpage) and there really isn't room to discuss derivations of the 2002 in the section on the page now. Nevertheless, the 2002tii page still needs a whole ton of work, and I'm really not the person to take care of it. -- Milkmandan 04:08, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I also added a toplink to BMW New Class. This is what we've often done for special versions of a car. -- SFoskett 12:23, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that the BMW model pages are becoming increasingly disorganized. When I first started diving into these pages (around six months ago), there weren't any platform pages and even the M3 page didn't exist. In the last few months, however, we've got so much content that I'm very afraid that it's going to start falling in on itself.

The biggest problem that I see is data duplication. There is quite signification information about the M5 at both the BMW M5 page and the BMW E34 page (luckily, the E28, E39, and E60 pages are all stubs). Having this information in these different places is likely to cause a big problem in the future as data is added asymetrically.

Honestly, this probably isn't a really big deal right now, but if the growth in the last six months can be used as an indicator, then we're in for some messy merges in the future if this isn't cleaned up pronto.

I suggest 1) the development of a BMW model description policy, and 2) the distribution of this policy across the talk pages of the BMW model line. I suspect that the details of the policy will be controversial, but that putting those details across all the pages will not.

How reasonable does this seem? Am I overreacting? Is there support for organizing how BMW models will be discussed in individual pages? -- Milkmandan 06:06, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying, and I think I do, then I support it. We need to agree how to spread information between the main model pages (e.g BMW 5-Series), the 'platform' subpages (eg. BMW E60), and 'special' model pages like BMW M5. I'd be happy to help discuss how to do this.

Regarding the duplication on BMW M5 and E34, that's my fault. When the M5 stub was created it only mentioned the existence of the E60 model so I just copied the info from BMW E34.

I don't think there is any need to get in a panic though. This is Wikipedia, so if something goes wrong, we just revert it. At worst we'll have to merge a few pages. SamH| Talk 10:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the Series Generations list necessary on this page? Given that the model pages all link to the individual generations ( BMW 5-Series links to BMW E60 etc.), I don't think it is. SamH| Talk 17:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article Hummer H2 is currently nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote for this article there if you are interested in contributing.-- Fenice 12:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Qoute from http://www.bmw.com/com/en/index_narrowband.html?content=/com/en/insights/history/overview.html

Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW) is founded on 7th March 1916 and incorporates Otto-Werke. BMW acquires the BFW plant in 1922, but Bayerische Motoren Werke continues to date its foundation from the founding of BFW.

But the article states that BMW was found in 1913. And what about names?

The foundation date of 1916 is accurate. I have changed the article to reflect what BMW corroborates. Qwazywabbit 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the BMW archives in Munich the propeller theory is just that - a theory, and it's wrong. The colours blue and white are just the colors of Bavaria.

Yes, this is a myth due to advertising that used the logo as a propeller, causing people to think that was the meaning or origin of the logo, rather than clever imagery. I've added a link that investigates this and rephrased. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to remove any reference to the Range Rover.

The Range Rover is a model of Land Rover and has always been

"Land Rover" was the carmaker. "Range Rover" was merely a model in their lineup of vehicles.

The implication that Range Rover is a "brand" that BMW "acquired" is just wrong. You could just as easily say BMW acquired the "Discovery." Any objections to correcting this?

• None, well put!

Wrong...Range Rover was a Product of the Rover Car Company Solihull, as was Land Rover.

Revision 14:43, November 2, 2005 changed the title of BMW from "(an abbreviation for Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, or in English, Bavarian Motor Works)" to its current "(an abbreviation for Bayern Munich Weisen AG, or in English, Bayern Munich Factory)." A Google search for "Bayern Munich Weisen" gives one result: The Wikipedia page. Same with "Bayern Munich Factory". Google searches for the older versions provide results aplenty. Have I found some subtle and insidious vandalism? -- BorgHunter (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly reverted; if I turn out to be wrong (which I very much doubt), it can be changed back. -- BorgHunter (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Wise choice, that was definitely vandalism. Weisen is sometimes used to describe a festival, so that was like saying Munich Oktoberfest.

In North California, BMW stands for "Basic Marin Wheels". Marin, just North of San Francisco and West of Napa Valley (wine country), is an affluent area where sports cars are popular.

Are you sure that the English translation of "Bayerische Motoren Werke" is "Bavarian Motor Works"? I'm German and I'd translate it as "Bavarian Motors Factories". A "Werk" can be a "work", like Goethes "Faust" but in this case "Werke" are "factories".

Its Bavarian Motor Works in English. Period. YCCHAN 06:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes you that sure? Do you speak German? Or is there an "official" translation from BMW anywhere?

I think the translation to "Bavarian Motor Works" was done by someone who doesn't speak German and just used babelfish or something like that.

I think I see what the problem is here. In British English, "works" (plural construction, usually singular in meaning) is used to mean the same thing as "factory" in American English.

Tex 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to add a section about BMW's success with buring hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. Like the fuel cell the only exhaust is water, but the technology is available today. This is a really interesting concept that no other automaker is working on right now, but it makes a lot of sense. The cars can even be run on regular gasoline when you are too far from a hydrogen station to fill up, which will make the transition easier before hydrogen stations are commonplace.

These pages overlap and contradict each other in places. A bit of coordination is needed.

That looks like a lot of bullshit to me... If not, it's not an ounce encyclopedic. / Grillo 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

All comments regarding "Beemer", "Bimmer", "Nicknames" u.s.w. should be moved to a sub-page as they are regional, national, linguistic etc. and not universal facts! Nicknames and slang and so on are interesting but belong on a seperate page as in some locations compared to other locations contradictions occur. Your "Beemer" is my "Be-em-vay", my "Be-em-vay" is your "Bimmer".

Looks like lots of it was added recently, but it's over many edits, and I can't find it all. -- Rory 0 96 02:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Something key that all auto-related articles are missing on Wikipedia are the prices of the vehicles.

Of course the prices vary by options or even country, however, a "Base price" is almost always available from the manufacturer, and how hard would it be to staple that on in the article, with a price for each country? BMW for instance has the prices for each car in each country sold on its website.

Now of course all cars will not have original base line prices, but just because we cannot get that information for an older car, does that mean newer ones should not have it?

Wikipedia is a free-information site, and any consumer (or not even someone interested in buying the car) might use Wiki for the purpose of honest information in researching a vehicle, and therefor would most likely love a price.- Scryer_360

call a dealer for a price, not an encyclopedia Qwazywabbit 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What's imho missing is a section detailing that BMW's design filosofy revolves around RWD drivetrains, with a few exceptions (X series, both the suv and the 330xd type cars) & the fact that they have never had a FWD car in production. This site may prove usefull as well: http://www.corollaperformance.com/TechInfo/RWD.html

true

its not they are focused on rwd so much as they believe fwd is "the work of the devil" (according to bbc's top gear anyway). personally i think they're right (with the exception of classic minis)-- Santahul 19:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

it's true, all bmw's are rwd (except the awd ones).. bmw's are SPORT orientated machines, thus they need rwd.. fwd just won't do it

agreed with all above... bmw is the master of 'sport-sedans' or 'sport-saloons' as they may be known. An exception worth noting however is the Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S, which are made by BMW and are front wheel drive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.82.163 ( talk) 09:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Is this true? -Paul- 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. They are definitely the world's largest independent premium carmaker, but largest overall, I'm not sure. Lord Bodak 17:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be the case, but a source for this should be provided. Escaper7 11:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to be a strong candidate for semi-protection. Based on the history of edits, there is a lot of vandalism especially from unregistered users and new users. YCCHAN 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if anyone has more to share about BMW's origins, that would make the initial section of the article more interesting. Essentially the Allies did not allow BMW to produce aircraft engines after WWII. I feel the whole pre/post-WWII history is somewhat slighted on the main page. Thoughts?

Luft '46

I have done some extensive research and rewrote the origins for BMW. I will be adding additional articles on the founders themselves. Qwazywabbit 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

THe article needs a section about Wiesmann, another German car company whose roadsters utilize BMW hardware (for example, the MF 3 uses M3 hardware) -- HashiriyaGDB 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The removed text: BMWs are a source of jokes such as

Q: What's the difference between a slug an a BMW?

A: On the slug the slime is on the outside.

I wonder why it was removed. We have simmilar sections for other brands, for instance AvtoVAZ. // Liftarn

because avtoVAZ is a joke and BMW isn't. That joke sucks anyway.

Both are jokes (obviously) and humour is so subjective anyway so your personal opinion regarding if it sucks or not is irrelevant. // Liftarn

ahahahah you sir, are too naive.

And you sir, are a troll. // Liftarn

thats original.

I think that someone ought to add a bit of info about the BMW iDrive, or at the very least, a link to it. Anybody want to find where this ought to go in the article (I have no idea which section in belongs under).

I came across the... not well made Meaning of the sign B.M.W article and set to rewrite it only to find it speedy deleted (a correct decision when looking at its old layout) as I attempted to submit it. So here's what I wrote (including source), feel free to merge with the BMW article.

The BMW logo was designed in 1917 when BMW had aquired the Rapp Motorenwerke GmbH, leaning on the design of the old Rapp logo. Needing a logo for advertising the new engine/car production it was decided to borrow from the old Rapp logo, which featured a double lined ring containing the company name between the rings, and inside the inne ring the head of a black horse. BMW imitated the double ring logo, now containing the letters BMW, and decided to use the space of the inner ring to include a homage to Bavaria. Fearing potential legal issues of directly using the Bavarian emblem (it was prohibited to integrate state emblems in logos) within their logo, the designer decided to use a variant called "quartered by blue and white" (technically a reversion of Bavaria's white & blue colours), leading to the now used logo.

The first comment of the logo resembling plane propellers was only discovered as of 1929, but when it had been discovered it soon became a popular myth that this had been the logo's initial origin, as BMW found the additional meaning quite fitting.

Sources Die Entstehung des BMW Logos – Historie und Mythos (German)

The symbol of BMW is the barvarian flag.

The 8 series is referenced as being a model to replace the 6 series, which is not true. Even in the article of the BMW 8 Series this is stated. -- Cirilobeto 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the tagline of "a company of ideas" is not their new tagline - this was a misnomer perpetuated by an automotive blog.

---

Mr. York, BMW is not dropping the tagline, “The Ultimate Driving Machine.” Unfortunately, an article in Advertising Age which was completely unfounded states that BMW is dropping the tagline. To say that I am utterly disappointed in the writer’s complete lack of fact checking would be an understatement.

In short, the tagline is alive and well and cherished by the company. We would be fools to drop it.

Regards,

Patrick McKenna

Manager, Marketing Communications BMW of North America

In other parts of the world, they instead use the slogan "Sheer Driving Pleasure" (just look at the top right of BMW.com). I was going to add this but couldn't think of how to word it, maybe somebody else could add it. -- Santahul 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I read BMW's revenue in 2005 was €456.56 billion (US$585 billion). This would make the company the largest automotive manufacturer in the world with sales exceeding those of General Motors, Toyota and Ford combined.

This kind of information in the article's front page makes one question the credibility of the whole article and its readership.

Watch for multiple edit vandalism making it tricky to rv Escaper7 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-users should not be allowed to edit this page imo. YCCHAN 07:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed some vandalism in the article's introduction just now. I removed it. -- Mphilp 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

noticing more vandalism, will change what i see. Maybe there could be some kind of lock on this page. Nitrous231 23:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks a bit non-NPOV to me, doesn't really add to the article other than lengthening it, adds spam links and isn't really written in an encyclopaedic style. It should be re-written or maybe even removed. Any thoughts? Escaper7 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the majority of it has no reason to be in an encyclopædia, although the Bimmerfest section should probably be retained as it links to a related article. Morrad 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please enough! Would anyone seriously look up an encyclopaedia to find out a company/car's nickname? This article is seriously weighty, with a ridiculously long list. Can't it be restricted to a handful? And why does no-one enter the discussion no this page about the overall look of this article which should help readers? Any thoughts? Escaper7 10:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agreed so i removed the section. If theres any objections feel free to rv. 82.11.255.21 23:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is such a comprehensive article so poorly sourced? Two references cited throughout? Escaper7 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason that the [ upcoming V5] isn't mentioned on this page?