Talk:BMW 3 Series (E21)

Untitled

Lotta hyperbole and what appears to be opinion in this one. all models did not come with disc brakes all round. the 318i produced only 95 bhp.

I've rewritten the article. Feedback is welcome. Orsini 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag removal

As there's been no comment after the article was rewritten, I am removing the NPOV tags. If editors see a POV problem with the article now, please add it back. Orsini 09:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Assembly

WTH? The E21 wasn't ever built in Leipzig, Cairo, Kaliningrad etc. Kar98 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello Mr/Mrs IP Address. The purpose of the infobox is to "quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format". I believe that this version covers these points in a more compact format. Items which have subtleties requiring explanation (such as curb weight and assembly/CKD locations) are best left to the body of the article IMHO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The trimming is not very ideal in my opinion. Dimensions are usually given in Millimetres, metres are very uncommon; the height of the vehicle is of interest. I don't quite understand why you have decided to remove it. Also, the gearbox options don't really hurt anyone. I'd say that things such as sparkplug types, alternator models and other minor things shouldn't be listed in the infobox. But layout, gearbox options and vehicle height are definitely supposed to be there. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason I prefer metres for the units is that for an at-a-glance summary I don't think it is appropriate to specify the size of an object that is approx 4.5 metres long to the nearest millimetre or tenth of an inch. The height was omitted because ride height often varies between models (sometimes even between the same model sold in different countries), so I think that stating it as a single number is misleading. Similarly for the transmissions, where the standard and optional transmissions varied between models, I think it is best to leave it to the body of the article to explain it properly. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

But nobody uses metres without a milli-prefix for describing length, width and height of motor vehicles. Virtually every tech spec sheet will give you a millimetre figure. I reckon that is because millimetres are compliant with the standard used for technical drawings. Not only the ride height, but also the width may vary. Even the length may vary. Why didn't you decide to omit them too? And there are also many similarities regarding engines. And production may have been from 1981 to 1987 in the x plant, but may have continued in the y plant until 1990. If we'd continue that thought, we could just omit the entire infobox; perish the thought. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh, those are good points about the height and transmission. One small point about the transmissions: I think it is better to have the infobox say "3 speed manual, 4 speed automatic" etc, rather than cluttering it up with model numbers.

Personally I think the concept of looking at 1 mm size differences is absurd, but I take your point about it being the common format. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, gearbox model numbers do not have to be included in the infobox. I get your point regarding millimetres, but keep in mind that modern manufacturing tools allow millimetre precision. Some cars (for instance the Trabant 601) have body panels that were aligned by experienced workers using just a band saw. No robots, no other tools, not even a ruler. This is why all Trabants have ridiculous panel gaps. For those cars millimetre figures are not really that useful. But today, the tolerances are so low, that millimetre figures are not just approximate, but precise figures. I mean, would you be fine with poor tolerances if you'd spend 10 Mio. Ft on a car? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That is very interesting about the Travant being assembed without any form of measurement. Perhaps it would be helpful if the Trabant article could include tolerances for the length etc! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not only true for the Trabant, but also for many other cars made in former Socialist countries. But that was not a big deal at the time, as cars were solely considered to be means of transport. I am not sure where to find any such tolerances, or if something even exists. I will check on the Dacia in the Garage, its tolerances are not the best either, despite being the "premium" TLX model. Btw, this video shows how the Trabant body panels were cut. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Trabant production video, that is fascinating. (I was just being tongue-in-cheek with the comment about the tolerance for the length being needed!). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't tell that you were being tongue-in-cheek, because that suggestion of yours is actually not unreasonable. I mean, despite the "unusual production methods", they somehow had to build something that was somehow within a certain specification. I don't know whether or not you have ever seen a Trabant in real life; its panel gaps are huge compared to modern vehicles, but definitely smaller than one who just heard about this car's poor quality might expect. Hence I am pretty sure that tolerances really existed and telling the reader about tolerances for the body panels would possibly be a useful thing to do. I mean, again: In modern plants, robots build the body panels, Trabant body panels were baked and then cut by hand using a band saw. But this is going way too far off topic. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Production Date & Removing of User Contributions

Why was the information I added to this article on 26 December 2017 removed so casually on February 23, 2019 by @1292simon:? I would like to know a reason, because I was commended for adding it to this article, yet it was removed without my knowledge after I spent so many hours scrubbing through a BMW German language archive database to find such an artifact. It can very much be taken as an insult to have something you provided a citation for and worked very hard to find/source for verifiability, being removed almost without any regard. That is a waste of my time and effort, so it can be naturally infuriating. And if a mistake, not even even restored these 14 months until I noticed.

Providing months of production start is allowed within Wikipedia articles, so no user should be single-handedly defining what shouldn't be there because they simply don't care for it. Again, month and year is allowed, so anyone removing that again would easily be violating guidelines and essentially disruptive editing/edit warring. You have possibly alluded to months being "excessive" before, but I'm telling you now, that it's permitted and leave it as it stands. Going forward we should not be having any of these issues, outside of vandalism via unregistered users. I provided a citation from BMW the manufacturer & intellectual property holder, so everyone needs to respect that and stop deleting such submissions if this is supposed to be a collective. Nothing suggests this to be bad information. Hopefully this was a mistake, meaning be more careful and not delete just anything within an article. Signed, Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to try the dispute resolution process. That is how editors who disagree can resolve their differences and collaborate effectively.

All of the arguments you're making are equally true for them as for you. Yes, it's allowed to add months. Yet it's also allowed to remove them. It's false to say it was removed without your knowledge: you have a watchlist and are capable of using it. Calling it an insult is false. Everyone has as much right to edit as you. We could just as well call your edit an insult to the other editor. As long as nobody is violating the WP:3RR, it's fine, as far as it goes. As far as wasting your time, see WP:NOTMANDATORY. Your contributions to Wikipedia are owned by Wikipedia; You donated them freely. After you click publish changes, you relinquish ownership, and complaining about what happens to Wikipedia's property after you have donated it is invalid. And if it was valid, the other person could simply make the same argument towards you. Such irrelevant claims resolve nothing.

You said "anyone removing that again would easily be s violating guidelines and essentially disruptive editing/edit warring." Please cite which guideline is being violated. Once again, others have just as much right to remove content as you have to add it. You need to find a valid augment to justify keeping your version.

Accusing other editors of acting "without regard", "casually", "without my knowledge", etc, is baseless, irrelevant, and violates the WP:AGF policy. Please focus on content, not the contributor.

Again, see dispute resolution for how to deal with such a content dispute, and please use talk pages for only relevant information, without resorting to commenting on other editors. Stop accusing other editors of being out to get you. Everyone is sick of hearing that from you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In continually WP:Wikihounding me, I must point out removing sourced, verifiable (w/o contradictons), and thoroughly supported content (per guidelines), constitutes disruptive editing. Your subjective opinion on that, thus does not matter. Perhaps you should read through my prior discussions with Simon, since you fancy monitoring my edit history? I am going to chat with User:El_C, as this is enough. Signed Dr. James N.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The cites and dates were not removed from the page, they were moved to the production section. I think that is absolutely fine, infoboxes are not meant to cover things to the highest level of detail and should have their claims repeated with inline citations elsewhere. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither were the dates removed, nor were they complete in the first place; I have added the missing month. Searching the BMW Group Archive took literally two minutes, and all I did was click on "Search", "Quicksearch", typed in "3er (E21)", clicked on "Product" and the only result was this one, I doubt that this can take hours to find; and yes, this is all in English. Also, there was already a reference linking to the 3er saloon page [1] in the article. I suggest we all calm down now. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Trim displacement

The 318 and 318i were a 1773cc (not 1766). If someone could change that that would be good 92.29.153.2 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

See reference to the contrary.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The M10 used in the 318 and 318i E21 has a 89 mm bore and a 71 mm stroke:

${\frac {(89\,mm\cdot 2^{-1})^{2}\cdot \pi \cdot 71\,mm\cdot 4}{1,000}}\approx 1,767\,cm^{3}$

Considering that nobody used a modern-computer-precise approximation of Pi back in the 1970s, we may assume that 1766 cm³ is correct. 1773 cm³ can only be obtained by using different bore or stroke; the typical approximation of Pi in German automobile displacement figures (Pi=3.12) yields ≈1755 cm³, which, however, was only relevant for road vehicle tax.

The 1773 cm³ variant of the M10 engine ended production after the 1968 retooling of BMW's engine plant in July/August 1968. It has a 84 mm bore and a 80 mm stroke, and was never used in the 02 or any subsequent 3er or 5er. As far as I'm concerned, the 84 by 80 mm M10 was only used in the 'Neue Klasse' BMW 1800 saloon. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)