Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about BMW 3 Series (E36). 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.

Archive 1

Accuracy

someone has vandalized the page, it states that the e36 was sold from 456 BC to 1999. I am not a wikipedian someone change that please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.133.249 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the owners manual of my 1995 318i some of the information on the page is wrong. Im no expert on editing though, so i will refrain from editing

I agree with this ^^^ on my '97 318i, the engine is a 1.9L DOHC with 138hp, it seems that a lot of the engine specifications are wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.140.155 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

^^with regards to your '97 318i 1.9L DOHC producing 138hp, US 318i models were fitted with the M42/M44 engines, as the M40/M43 was thought too slow for the US market. Maybe there should be some reference to the US 318i in the tables.

Years

I'm not an expert, but seeing as a goal is to keep Wikipedia international, shouldn't the year of production reflect that?

Text dump

I copied the relevant section from the BMW 3 Series article, because it seemed to contain information not mentioned here. There may be some redundancies, so please feel free to edit/cleanup. Cheers, FashionNugget (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The E36 experienced enormous success in the market. It laid strong foundations for the success that the BMW E46 experienced in subsequent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.50.13.193 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Info Box Picture

The info box picture, while stunning, includes a car that has been modified and no longer has factory-original wheels. I suggest this photo be replaced with one that represents the car as it was shipped from the factory. 24.130.22.48 (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The above comment is incorrect. The wheels are OEM BMW Style 32 as available as a dealer-fit option for brand new E36 models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.224.14 (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Non US models.

Why? would it not make sense to be 'International models' as its a german car? Changing it now (86.25.248.209 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

OBD I versus OBD II models

Good page, but I am wondering if there should be some mention of the switch, halfway through the production run, from the OBD I models to OBD II (On Board Diagnostics, versions I and II).

OBD II was the impetus for the swicth to the 2.8 liter engine from the 2.5 and the 1.9 from the 1.8 (and the introduction of the 323 model with the 2.5 liter six). The cars also incorporated a number of other changes as well. From the exterior, the most noticable difference is the lower body molding is painted body color, instead of black (or dark grey) on the earlier cars.

I think with the cabrios, the OBD II saw the introduction of the full auto top as well.

Although a number of OBD I body and interior parts fit the OBD II cars, they really are different beasts when you get into the mechanicals. Hardly anything swaps electrically or in the engine compartment between OBD I and OBD II.

Perhaps it is not a big deal, but it helps put the 1996 engine changes in context.

Joe Patent (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

VANOS

The engines fitted with VANOS were given a unique designation. The VANOS equipped M50 was known as the M50TU-B25. I personally think that this should be reflected in the tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.89.25 (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

dimensions

what are the exact dimensions of the inside of the E36 coupe ? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.199.146 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BMW 3 Series (E36). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

E36 Designer

It seems that earlier this year, a user by the name User:Laipii came and re-edited a lot of the design section. The person that did this, must be no other thanPinky Lai who worked for numerous companies as a designer and is responsible for the E36 design concept back in 1986-87. For some reason, when he left BMW in January 1989, it affected credit for the body design upon launch in late 1990 and most sources do not formally list him, but that of Boyke Boyer or Joji Nagashima (arrived at BMW in 1988).---Carmaker1 (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi Vauxford. The images "1994-96 BMW 320i sedan (Australia).jpg" or "BMW e36c (cropped).jpg" show a car in better condition and with a less busy background than "1992 BMW 320i (15538594776) (cropped).jpg". Therefore I think they are a better choice for the lead image. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The current image is fine and won't be changed, If you continue to change it I'll have the article protected so no one can edit it. –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that three editors (including me) have recently preferred a different image, just saying that it is fine isn't enough. Also, why do think this warrants protecting the article so that no-one can edit it? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010. Again you have reverted my edit without providing a reason, which goes against WP:CONS. Please see the reasons above for why I think the other images are more appropriate. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

1292simon Just because you said "three editors (including me) have recently preferred a different image" doesn't mean we had reached a consensus. This basically a RfC and because nobody else except you is saying that there should be a different image, the previous one stay. --Vauxford (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please send me a link to the RfC? I didn't realise there was one.

Wikipedia doesn't solve disagreements by counting votes, and it seems that no-one has given any reason why the pic of the red car is better. Also, I find it quite disrespectful that everyone ignored my attempt to create a Talk Page discussion, until the picture was changed in the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

this image is very reflective on the front left and then on the right it's too dark,

this image is the near same - reflective on the bonnet and darkish on the right, The blacked out numberplate is also poor,

Ofcourse I have faults with Vauxfords image however when replacing images here they should always be better than the one their replacing which unfortunately yours aren't. –Davey2010^Talk 10:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010 Just to clarify, this isn't my own photo. --Vauxford (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vauxford, Sorry I should've been more clearer but yeah I know :), I was just saying as a whole your red image IMHO had fault but I considered yours the best and that when replacing images they should be better than the red one :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davey, Thanks for the explanation. I don't think the shadowing is a point of difference, because the red photo has the same shadowing across the bonnet and windscreen as the grey photo. And even in the darker areas of the green photo, the body lines can still be seen, so I believe it is within Wikipedia guidelines. The blurred numberplate is not distracting and there is nothing mentioned in the guidelines about it. I'm not saying they are perfect, but I think they are more appropriate than the red photo (the green photo is good enough for lead image on the German wiki page...). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Simon, Personally I disagree with your last sentiment but we'll have to agree to disagree, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 11:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davey. The "last sentiment" is based on the red car being in poorer condition, an uncommon model and having a busy background. Those are things covered by the guidelines, so I don't think it's a question of opinion. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why you seem to be referring to the sedan being an uncommon model, they made 1,552,663 of them, more than all the other body styles combined. This should not really matter, and if you ask me the gray one is my favorite. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The grey one could of been good if it weren't for the small resolution and the poorly blanked reg plate. I don't see any problem with the red one other then it shows it age, my honest advice that you should take the CARPIX guideline with a pinch of salt, there numerous problems and conflict with the document and has caused problems in the past which goes back way before I joined Wikipedia and users on here still don't seem to understand that CARPIX is NOT a official policy that you have to abide to. --Vauxford (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The red car is by far the best illustration for this article, showing the car's shape without lots of shadows, weird angles, or other distractions. Sure, it's not glamorous, but that is of no import as Wikipedia is neither a fan page nor an advertising site. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see that no-one else prefers the grey or green photos. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi 1292simon,i agree with you.I just discover this discussion and also approuve your idea against the awful red car photo...Yes,it is certain that wikipedia mustn't be a glamorous place or an advert place for a car model.Neverthless,this red car photo is deeply impertinent,due to the rust and the worn-out rocker panels.As an anonymous wiki user,i won't let this unacceptable image represent the BMW E36.Salute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.43.10.244 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It shows the shape of the car. Feel free to change it to a better quality illustration of the E36, but the Aussie photo is much worse. There must be a thousand photos of E36s out there with a free license. Now please stop this constant fruitless reverting. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr.choppers This IP has been blocked due to edit warring, especially when they stated they would continue using an IP account to edit war on the article. --Vauxford (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford IPs are plentiful... I just wanted to make clear that no one is in love with that particular photo, it could easily be replaced if something better comes along. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr.choppers! Thank you for your intervention."No one is in love with that particular photo",no one indeed,except Vauxford...for un-understandable reasons.o_O About replace it if something better comes along,as you said,you can count on me! Salute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.43.136.128 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)