Was on the highway today and saw a car-carrier full of new BMWs. Could have sworn the SUVs on it had badges that said "///M401" and "///M601" (it was a bit of a distance, so couldn't see it well).
What in the world is going on with BMW nomenclature these days? The smaller one basically looked like an X3 during the quick glance I saw it.
M 4.0i
ah, i not 1. Should have known.
but I'll stay with the "WTF is up with BMW's naming these days?" According to the BMW site, the M40i is a 3.0L engine....
In reply to irish44j :
It's aggravating... I assume some marketing department short-circuited when the turbos came along and the cars would have all had *gasp* smaller numbers!
Ransom said:In reply to irish44j :
It's aggravating... I assume some marketing department short-circuited when the turbos came along and the cars would have all had *gasp* smaller numbers!
I mean, the easy answer is just to keep the displacement and add a T or TURBO behind it.
M30i TURBO sounds way cooler than M40i :)
Seems to work for Porsche.
Then again, I still think putting ///M badges on SUVs is a travesty. Can't wait til minivans make a comeback someday and BMW has an M///van :)
The number has never quite been displacement anyways. Now it's the "Performance Index" or something like that. I mean, my 318 was really a 1.9L and a same year 323 was a 2.5L. What really ticked me off in the BMW naming was making a 4 series and 6 series 4 door. That ain't right.
buzzboy said:The number has never quite been displacement anyways. Now it's the "Performance Index" or something like that. I mean, my 318 was really a 1.9L and a same year 323 was a 2.5L. What really ticked me off in the BMW naming was making a 4 series and 6 series 4 door. That ain't right.
The "performance index" started way back in '83 with the original 745i Turbo. It was still a 3.5L M30, but with the turbo, was supposed to mimic the performance of a larger 4.5L engine.
The E30 318 was still a 1.8. The 323 was the "economy" version of the 3 series vs the 328 with had the 2.8L M52.
irish44j said:Then again, I still think putting ///M badges on SUVs is a travesty. Can't wait til minivans make a comeback someday and BMW has an M///van :)
I wish there was an ///M van or equivalent. I need a minivan, I don't buy in to the stupid SUV/CUV craze, and I want to go fast. I bought a Sienna, which at the time was the fastest new van out there at 296hp. It would be great with another 100hp and bigger brakes.
Tyler H said:I wish there was an ///M van or equivalent. I need a minivan, I don't buy in to the stupid SUV/CUV craze, and I want to go fast. I bought a Sienna, which at the time was the fastest new van out there at 296hp. It would be great with another 100hp and bigger brakes.
For the nearest equivalent of a ///M van, see one of the most famous recent build threads.
irish44j said:I mean, the easy answer is just to keep the displacement and add a T or TURBO behind it.
M30i TURBO sounds way cooler than M40i :)
It would be much better to instead have it be the BMW X3-M30-mTurboxDrive40M M. The more M's the better.
BMW has lost their way which is a shame.
Wasnt the 4 series made to be the 2 door variant of the 3 series? And then they made a 4 door 4 series... huh? And then there’s the hatchback/sportback GT things...
I’ll stop now.
spandak said:BMW has lost their way which is a shame.
Just like Porsche and Mercedes. If building ridiculous high powered SUV's gives them the profit margins to keep developing awesome stuff like the M2 Competition, GT4, or various AMG cars..........I'm all for it.
It's not like BMW building an X5M, makes the M4 a turd or something. My 135i has a bunch of M badges on it, since all the 135s were technically "M Package" cars. I can't remember hearing anyone complain about that.
buzzboy said:What really ticked me off in the BMW naming was making a 4 series and 6 series 4 door. That ain't right.
For something that doesn't affect me in any real existential way, that seriously pisses me off too.
My boss bought an Audi A5 sportback. Yeah, it has 4 doors. WTF, Germans?!
z31maniac said:buzzboy said:The number has never quite been displacement anyways. Now it's the "Performance Index" or something like that. I mean, my 318 was really a 1.9L and a same year 323 was a 2.5L. What really ticked me off in the BMW naming was making a 4 series and 6 series 4 door. That ain't right.
The "performance index" started way back in '83 with the original 745i Turbo. It was still a 3.5L M30, but with the turbo, was supposed to mimic the performance of a larger 4.5L engine.
The E30 318 was still a 1.8. The 323 was the "economy" version of the 3 series vs the 328 with had the 2.8L M52.
The e30 325e was 2.7l
rothwem said:irish44j said:I mean, the easy answer is just to keep the displacement and add a T or TURBO behind it.
M30i TURBO sounds way cooler than M40i :)
It would be much better to instead have it be the BMW X3-M30-mTurboxDrive40M M. The more M's the better.
careful, BMW might see this post and actually do it.
And the 745i from the 80s was really 3.4l+turbo... so it isn't new.
m4ff3w said:The e30 325e was 2.7l
And that same engine in an E28 was called a 528e.
m4ff3w said:z31maniac said:buzzboy said:The number has never quite been displacement anyways. Now it's the "Performance Index" or something like that. I mean, my 318 was really a 1.9L and a same year 323 was a 2.5L. What really ticked me off in the BMW naming was making a 4 series and 6 series 4 door. That ain't right.
The "performance index" started way back in '83 with the original 745i Turbo. It was still a 3.5L M30, but with the turbo, was supposed to mimic the performance of a larger 4.5L engine.
The E30 318 was still a 1.8. The 323 was the "economy" version of the 3 series vs the 328 with had the 2.8L M52.
The e30 325e was 2.7l
Yep, the eta engine was designed for economy, low compression, short can, weak valve springs with a very low redline.
The cheap stroker has always been the '88 e motor and plop an i head on it.
z31maniac said:m4ff3w said:z31maniac said:buzzboy said:The number has never quite been displacement anyways. Now it's the "Performance Index" or something like that. I mean, my 318 was really a 1.9L and a same year 323 was a 2.5L. What really ticked me off in the BMW naming was making a 4 series and 6 series 4 door. That ain't right.
The "performance index" started way back in '83 with the original 745i Turbo. It was still a 3.5L M30, but with the turbo, was supposed to mimic the performance of a larger 4.5L engine.
The E30 318 was still a 1.8. The 323 was the "economy" version of the 3 series vs the 328 with had the 2.8L M52.
The e30 325e was 2.7l
Yep, the eta engine was designed for economy, low compression, short can, weak valve springs with a very low redline.
The cheap stroker has always been the '88 e motor and plop an i head on it.
Boy could you pile the miles on those eta engines, though, and get 30 mpg+ doing it. I swapped mine out at 365K miles only because someone gave me a fresh 80K mile motor out of a wreck. Great, albeit slow, motors.
irish44j said:ah, i not 1. Should have known.
but I'll stay with the "WTF is up with BMW's naming these days?" According to the BMW site, the M40i is a 3.0L engine....
And the -28 is a 2 liter turbo, the -35 is a 3 liter turbo....
Still don't understand what is going on with 2/3/4/5... In my mind the normal cars are odds and the swoopy 2 door is the next even number. (6er was a swoopy 5er, 8er was a swoopy 7er)
You'll need to log in to post.
