Talk:BMW Z3

Untitled

Does anyone have any production information on the 2.3L engine offered from 1997-2000? The table on z3roadster.com suggests that the "2.3" tag was used on the models equipped with the 2.5L engine. Does anyone have any other information on this? --Milkmandan 00:54, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct and the original author is incorrect. The 2.3 was in name only - the engine was still 2.5L. In other markets (such as Australia), a 2.0L 6-cylinder replaced the 1.9L in 1999, and in 2001, it was replaced with a 2.2L. The 2.5L Z3 was never sold here. Davez621 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Brain hurt

"Due to marketing, BMW wanted to differentiate the 2.8 L engine from the 2.5 L engine, so it was badged it 2.3 just like the 3-Series 323i, which also has a 2.5 L engine."

My brain is having trouble parsing that. I think it's saying the 2.5L is badged "2.3" on the car, but it's got the words in the wrong order or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a Mercedes 280 which had a 3.5 engine, or a 450 SE with a 6.9 ... and the Mercedes 190 Diesel had a 2.0 engine, but this was never displayed prominently to avoid trouble with W124 buyers. So what? --84.141.24.153 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable Owners

Wtf are these prats? Removed a few but seriously? Drive the badge people...196.207.32.36 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On film and television

Also in Need For Speed 4 (High Stakes). Probably in a few other games too, Gran Turismo series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.63.190 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKiernan (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

---

BMW Z3 (E36/7) → BMW Z3 – WP:COMMONNAME NE Ent 16:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support I own one. While the BMW gearheads may call it an "E36" or "E36 with M52," pretty much every one else will say Z3. NE Ent 16:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Safety car

Does anyone have info on the MotoGP safety car? I think it is referring to this car. But the description for it here makes no mention of the MotoGP history, which you'd think would be a key selling point for the car. Also, it says the car is vinyl wrapped, which is unlikely for a safety car in 1999. Are there any other references of a Z3 being used at MotoGP in 1999-2000 (the Z8 took over in 2001)? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a cite and re added it. I also found a video[1] of it in use in 2000 at the british GP. I also found sources for the use of some other M cars in MotoGP and was wondering what you think about adding this to their respective articles? 96.54.57.109 (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Good work finding those sources.
If there are sources for other MotoGP safety cars, personally I think it's fine to add them to the articles. 1292simon (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Main Images for BMW Z3

• 
  My images
• 
  My images
• 
  His images
• 
  His images

@96.54.57.109 In the past you been involved in many dispute with other users over edits and you got a edit war warning on your talk page. I made this Talk page to prevent a edit war which would result a administrator gets involved. I'm also getting others opinion from members of the WikiProject Automobiles.

IP 96.54.57.109 and I have different opinion for the main images for the BMW Z3. I prefer the images I took myself because it well cropped but not too extreme, good lighting, and a clean example but 96.54.57.109 thinks that the front image "has overexposed headlights, cracked paint on the bumper and a black spot near the badge" and rear image is "unevenly lit" and have "distracting backgrounds"

My thoughts with the images he uses are both uncropped, not centred and has way more background then mine especially his rear image where it has other cars and people while my just has patch of buildings where it was parked and the front image he used is nice but it uncropped. I also checked my images, and it does have a tiny black spot near the badge but that can be removed very easily and did saw a barely invisible cracked paint on the bumper. The front he uses is nice but it doesn't properly represent the cars we see on the road. I agree there a level of detail that needed for a picture to be used on a article but his example for detail is too excessive and unnecessary, barely anyone will take notices. --Vauxford (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The point of a header image is not to represent an average vehicle, it is to represent the vehicle as it came from the factory, if an image of a vehicle in better condition exists we should use it. Not being able to make out the headlight due to glare/overexposure is a Major issue. As to the header image I would support cropping off the top 25/30 percent, the second image is in my opinion enhanced by the top being down (a plus when illustrating that it is a roadster), it also flows nicely with the photo of the coupe with both being on grass, yes there are vehicles at the periphery of the image and it too could use a crop, however the image you propose to substitute it with has one car and a house in the background and the ugliest wheels BMW has ever made (subjectively), neither photo is great but balancing factors I think the original wins. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. prior edit warring does not make my opinions invalid. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are vital because others may agree on the same points as mine or yours. Now I'm not a pro at debate but if a majority of people agreed with a user images of choice over the other user that help ensure which image fit best. Otherwise you can't tell if it a bias choice or not. I will let the existing image stay on but I want to see other opinions but if the case where others prefer my images over yours, it safe for me to use mine instead, that what I want to find out. --Vauxford (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c)

Seeing as I'm kind of involved, I'll add my opinion: I think the original images (blue and red) are better. The red image is far superior, with an excellent level of contrast of the red car against a green background - there is no way the focus (no pun intended) of the image can be mistaken for anything other than the car. The blue image needs to be cropped to get rid of the massive dead space above it, but is still better than the proposed new images.

There's nothing "wrong" with the proposed images, they're just not better than the originals. The main reason I',m not keen on them is that they're kind of bland. Silver car against a nondescript background - they just don't stand out as the best example of the car.

(FWIW I also think the wheels are ugly - but they're not the worst I've ever seen.[2]) Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't take appearance as a priority unless it the picture itself. You may think the hubcaps are ugly but those what the manufacturer provided for that trim and that image you posted as a example are appears to be aftermarkets, I find pictures of cars using aftermarket parts on a Wiki page unacceptable as it doesn't represent the original vehicle. I admit the lighting is sorta messed due it being sunny when I took it. Also it be interesting to see what other members from the WikiProject Automobile think as well as people in general. --Vauxford (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the joke on the external image I posted. And can you indent your replies please? Ta. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

These are also strong contenders [3] they look like someone nicked them from an alien spaceship. Also in MOS:IRELEV it says "Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities." and I can see no reason that should not apply to the automotive field. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you can't, I meant that others would have more experience doing this sorta thing. --Vauxford (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel that the blue is better than the silver, but should be cropped. The red one isn't very useful, silver is better. But there are lots of other Z3 pictures also available in the Commons. I like this one, for instance.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Main Images for BMW Z3 (31st March 2019)

• 
  My images
• 
  Toasted's image
• 
  New proposed image

So a few weeks back I decide to redone a photo which was involved in a discussion two years, back when I wasn't that experienced and my shots were a little rough around the edges. Overall at the time two people disagree that my image should be used while one user, Mr.choppers said otherwise. Now I redone the photo from scratch, I fixed the angle, done it up nicely and less tighter crop. It has far less distracting elements in it and original all round with quite underrated hubcaps which I find interesting then the overused M Sport alloys, it also matches the rear shot as well and the coupe picture wheel wise. Toasted thinks that a tiny, background distraction-filled image should be better and uses that 2 year old discussion as a justified reason to keep it as that. I simply want new people to evalutate which image looks better for the infobox to end this dispute between me and toasted. --Vauxford (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You might note that "Mr.choppers said otherwise" about the rear photo. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Toasted Meter We will see, all I'm saying not everybody objected the pictures and since I made a new edit to both pictures, people could change their mind about it. --Vauxford (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Toasted Meter How about the third image, I forgot I took this one and it was taken with my DSLR while the other one was taken with my lower spec bridge camera. There a car behind it but that no difference in comparison of distraction with yours. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The third one is way better, wheels are a bit dirty but other than that it's very good. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you pushing for your images to be displayed in the main infobox again? You can upload your work to commons but not enforce your images in articles. If your images are good, editors will pick and use them. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Coupe body style description

Hello U1Quattro. Regarding your partial revert here, could you please provide a source showing that the Z3 was marketed by BMW as a shooting brake? 1292simon (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The design is not a true coupe design and that's why this is stated. It gave the chance to the critiques for calling the Z3 Coupé and clownshoe and a Breadvan. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This excerpt from shooting brake answers your question and the definition would also help.

Several other cars have been described by journalists as shooting brakes, including the 1998 BMW Z3 Coupé (and associated M Coupé model) U¹ _quattro TALK 09:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi U1Quattro. Wikipedia is not WP:RS. "Shooting brake" is subjective term, therefore the article should stick with how the manufacturer described the car. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Manufacturer sources are also not considered to be reliable per WP:RS as they contain intricate marketing terms. So your view is not correct. U¹ _quattro TALK 11:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi U1Quattro. It is not true that manufacturers are excluded from being WP:RS as a blanket rule, for example see WP:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware that press releases are allowed. If you are able to bring a press release which called the Z3 a Coupe, it can be considered. As a marketing term, it is not reliable. U¹ _quattro TALK 16:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hahaha, thanks Toasted Meter. I think that might be a sufficient amount of sources! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Going to pick the second source since that seems more reasonable. I'm bowing out now.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox trimming

1292simon you were warned in a previous discussion by an admin not to change the infobox before obtaining a consensus of your preferred version. Stop with these changes and if you disagree, start an RfC about it if you want to go through with these changes. Otherwise, leave the infobox be and stop violating the warning. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC infobox

This RfC discussion has been started to allow users to decide between two versions of the infobox. Template:Infobox automobile already gives a clear guideline about the use of the infobox template. This discussion has been started per this WP:AN3 decision.

The relevant diffs are as follows:

• 1292simon's version
• U1Quattro's version

Comments in this regard would be highly appreciated. I would not participate in this RfC due to being involved in this long standing content dispute. U¹ _quattro TALK 08:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This does not come close to complying with the RFC guidelines, did you read the bit that said they should be neutral? Toasted Meter (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That is much improved. When it comes to the topic they are similar enough I don't have strong feelings on it, I think the more summarized one is a bit better but it's not a big deal. Sticking to the instructions on the info box page is fine, I don't support sticking to the example infobox as you have advocated in past. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Could you provide a reason why you think the summarised one is better? That would be helpful. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bit more compact, and all the engines being individually seems a bit inefficient. But I would not revert either one. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1292simon's version - Assembly is short and to the point, Engines are compact, His version also shows predecessors and successors which is helpful, I notice U1's version includes designer whereas Simon's version doesn't so imho that should be included imho. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Shouldn't we follow the guidelines at Template:Infobox automobile while using the infobox? It lists each engine separately and includes fields such as "designer" which has been removed in the second version. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The existence of a field should not mandate its use. The fact that an example exists that lists each engine separately does not make that a rule. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Surely that doesn't but the guideline is there about how to use the infobox. If a field is being removed there must be a reason for its removal. If we see good articles on automobiles, they have used maximum infobox fields and in the way as displayed on the template page.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If the removal is disputed it should be resolved by consensus on that page. If you want to say "this is how it is done", you need a much stronger consensus then some example on the infobox page that may never have been discussed. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a part of that consensus. I might start one at the Automobile project page so that we don't see disruptions related to infoboxes in the future. Also Davey2010, predecessor and successor were there before 1292simon edited the infobox.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is from the infobox template page. I think this serves as an instruction and a guideline. I haven't seen any example that supports adding engines like Simon did.

The engine field lists an engine's displacement, the engine name/code in italics, the cylinder arrangement and cylinder count, and then in parentheses, the type of forced induction (if applicable) and fuel type. Engine outputs and other data should be excluded. For fuel type, the terms "gasoline" (American English) or "petrol" (British English) should be used depending upon the spelling convention of the article.

The displacement should be written in liters (L) or cubic centimeters (cc) unless the engine was originally engineered, designated, and marketed in cubic inches.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It does not say that you can't format things in the way 1292simon did, it leaves it to local consensus. The fight between leaving things to editors judgement and local consensus against prescriptive rules that standardize on one way to do things will never be solved, all you can do is attempt to find consensus. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi U1Quattro. The preference in the discussion above was for my version. Could you please adhere to this and not revert several of my changes again (as you did here)? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)