BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
OneEighty
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-26-2007, 09:30 PM   #111
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

^^ Thanks Swamp. I do see the figures to be dead on with the second results(40,000miles). But if you look at the first figures(new), it is the same difference that your getting with the IS-F results. Around 0.4 secs. Since your calculation with the program is giving you around 4.7 or 4.8 with the ISF, it is possible that it could be off by 0.3 to 0.4. In other words, 4.2 might not be as imposssible as you may think, but 4.4 is probably more realistic and logical. Not to say that this proves anything. But it does show some kind of consistency.

Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec / 4.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.2 sec / 12.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph 20.1 sec / 21.2 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph 5.2 sec / 5.5 sec
Standing 1/4-mile 13.1 sec / 13.4 sec
@ 107 mph @ 105 mph

Appreciate 0
      10-26-2007, 10:18 PM   #112
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Cont.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
^^ Thanks Swamp. I do see the figures to be dead on with the second results(40,000miles). But if you look at the first figures(new), it is the same difference that your getting with the IS-F results. Around 0.4 secs. Since your calculation with the program is giving you around 4.7 or 4.8 with the ISF, it is possible that it could be off by 0.3 to 0.4. In other words, 4.2 might not be as imposssible as you may think, but 4.4 is probably more realistic and logical. Not to say that this proves anything. But it does show some kind of consistency.
No they are not dead on with the 40k mile result, only for 0-60 perhaps. How is 4.7-4.2=.4? Oh well that is not so important...

It is more the deltas (differences) comparing 100, 150, 1/4mi that got me concerned. 0-60 is more difficult to predict than other speeds because it is slow enough that the relative error on launch can be large compared to the total time. Again using my improved numbers with the updated transmission figures (optimistic figures, perhaps even non physical, I remind you...)

spec, C.T., C&D, delta
0-60...4.7...4.2...0.5
0-100...10.7...9.8...0.9
0-150...25.9...24.7...1.2
1/4mi...13.1...12.7...0.4

These are more off and off consistently. Notice how some of the differences with the M3 were + and some -. Typical of a good simulation vs. test. More like average (delta) = 0. Here the error is always in the same direction C7D test always better than simulation.

The other reason why 4.2 is so suprising is again the AWD RS4 should best the IS-F here and I think 4.2 is the best number I have ever seen (again maybe and outlier) for the RS4.
Appreciate 0
      10-27-2007, 11:35 AM   #113
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
No they are not dead on with the 40k mile result, only for 0-60 perhaps. How is 4.7-4.2=.4? Oh well that is not so important...

It is more the deltas (differences) comparing 100, 150, 1/4mi that got me concerned. 0-60 is more difficult to predict than other speeds because it is slow enough that the relative error on launch can be large compared to the total time. Again using my improved numbers with the updated transmission figures (optimistic figures, perhaps even non physical, I remind you...)

spec, C.T., C&D, delta
0-60...4.7...4.2...0.5
0-100...10.7...9.8...0.9
0-150...25.9...24.7...1.2
1/4mi...13.1...12.7...0.4

These are more off and off consistently. Notice how some of the differences with the M3 were + and some -. Typical of a good simulation vs. test. More like average (delta) = 0. Here the error is always in the same direction C7D test always better than simulation.

The other reason why 4.2 is so suprising is again the AWD RS4 should best the IS-F here and I think 4.2 is the best number I have ever seen (again maybe and outlier) for the RS4.

Actually they are dead on with the 40,000 miles, they are not dead on with the brand new figures. You're right 4.7-4.2 is not 0.4, that's why i said around 0.4(0.3,0.4,0.5). My point is, your figures with e46 M3 to 60 @4.5 and you Cartest results of 4.84 is a diifference of 0.34, and that's acceptable. Should'nt the 4.7 and 4.2 difference of 0.5 on the ISF results be acceptable as well? In other words, there is a margin of error. I don't think it's necessarily an exact science. In terms of the RS4, remember it is close to 200lbs heavier.


spec: C&D/40k/CarTest
0-60= 4.5/ 4.8/ 4.84
0-100= 11.2/ 12.0/ 11.91
1/4mile = 13.1/ 13.4/ 13.5
Appreciate 0
      10-27-2007, 11:48 AM   #114
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Here's the other logic that i'm going with. If the IS350 has been recorder with o-60 times of 4.9, 5.1, and 5.0. It'll be more shocking that the IS-F will only do 4.7 with 110hp more. The same logic goes with the 335i that has been recorded to post 0-60 times of 4.9 and 5.1. so the e92 M3 should be able to do much better and it has at 4.4 secs.
Appreciate 0
      10-27-2007, 01:52 PM   #115
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Repeating

@#113: Repeating my most important point...

Quote:
Notice how some of the differences with the M3 were + and some -. Typical of a good simulation vs. test. More like average (delta) = 0. Here [comparing C&D IS-F results to simulation] the error is always in the same direction, C&D test always better than simulation.
Appreciate 0
      10-27-2007, 02:55 PM   #116
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
@#113: Repeating my most important point...
So you agree. What do you think of post #114?
Appreciate 0
      10-27-2007, 10:35 PM   #117
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Cont.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
So you agree. What do you think of post #114?
You can make points along those lines but determining the change in time with change in peak hp from one car to another is not so easy. Sort of a statistical correlation as well. The M3 has now been recorded at 4.3s 0-60 by C&D but I am not sure it will even get much better than that. It is simply traction limited at these speeds as most cars with a similar much power to weight ratio. M-DCT will absoultely help but it will only help in 0-60 if they get the launch control software perfect (and hopefully offer it in the US as well). Again my comments about the AWD RS4 are appropriate - faster than similar cars by quite a bit in the lower speeds but losing out at higher speeds due to high drive train losses.
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 05:40 AM   #118
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
159
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Here's the other logic that i'm going with. If the IS350 has been recorder with o-60 times of 4.9, 5.1, and 5.0. It'll be more shocking that the IS-F will only do 4.7 with 110hp more. The same logic goes with the 335i that has been recorded to post 0-60 times of 4.9 and 5.1. so the e92 M3 should be able to do much better and it has at 4.4 secs.
Extra power does not always equal huge improvements, especially when you are only driving the rear wheels, traction is the problem, getting the power down is usually harder with more power.

As for the posted by the 335i, am I not correct in thinking that it has been dyno-ed at 360hp and similar ft/lbs of torque, which is a lot more than it's quoted output. I will be over the moon if my M3 can post a 4.7s 0-100km/h and doubt in my hands this will be possible.
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 10:17 AM   #119
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Extra power does not always equal huge improvements, especially when you are only driving the rear wheels, traction is the problem, getting the power down is usually harder with more power.

As for the posted by the 335i, am I not correct in thinking that it has been dyno-ed at 360hp and similar ft/lbs of torque, which is a lot more than it's quoted output. I will be over the moon if my M3 can post a 4.7s 0-100km/h and doubt in my hands this will be possible.
360hp on the dyno! I've never seen or heard that before. I've seen as high as 290+, but that's it. Yes the e46 M3 has recorded 4.5 to 4.9 0-60 times.
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 10:26 AM   #120
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

I'm talking about these points that i made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
You can make points along those lines but determining the change in time with change in peak hp from one car to another is not so easy. Sort of a statistical correlation as well. The M3 has now been recorded at 4.3s 0-60 by C&D but I am not sure it will even get much better than that. It is simply traction limited at these speeds as most cars with a similar much power to weight ratio. M-DCT will absoultely help but it will only help in 0-60 if they get the launch control software perfect (and hopefully offer it in the US as well). Again my comments about the AWD RS4 are appropriate - faster than similar cars by quite a bit in the lower speeds but losing out at higher speeds due to high drive train losses.

Actually they are dead on with the 40,000 miles, they are not dead on with the brand new figures. You're right 4.7-4.2 is not 0.4, that's why i said around 0.4(0.3,0.4,0.5). My point is, your figures with e46 M3 to 60 @4.5 and you Cartest results of 4.84 is a diifference of 0.34, and that's acceptable. Should'nt the 4.7 and 4.2 difference of 0.5 on the ISF results be acceptable as well? In other words, there is a margin of error. I don't think it's necessarily an exact science. In terms of the RS4, remember it is close to 200lbs heavier.


spec: C&D/40k/CarTest
0-60= 4.5/ 4.8/ 4.84
0-100= 11.2/ 12.0/ 11.91
1/4mile = 13.1/ 13.4/ 13.5
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 10:42 AM   #121
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
159
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
360hp on the dyno! I've never seen or heard that before. I've seen as high as 290+, but that's it. Yes the e46 M3 has recorded 4.5 to 4.9 0-60 times.
Sorry mate I should have made myself clearer, you are correct the high 290hp was the figure but when calculated back to engine power at the crank the power is closer to 360hp and not the 306hp quoted.

Sorry for the misleading remark.
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 01:30 PM   #122
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Big picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
My point is, your figures with e46 M3 to 60 @4.5 and you Cartest results of 4.84 is a diifference of 0.34, and that's acceptable. Should'nt the 4.7 and 4.2 difference of 0.5 on the ISF results be acceptable as well? In other words, there is a margin of error. I don't think it's necessarily an exact science. In terms of the RS4, remember it is close to 200lbs heavier.
No one single data point really makes or breaks the simulation vs. test comparison. It is the over/under predictions of the entire set as well as the size of those overs/unders. You seem obsessed with the 0-60 time. That is not the point. Finally, for the vast majority of the time, CarTest is not out by .5 seconds 0-60.

P.S. I think it is time you bought the sotware and had some fun. I guarantee you will learn a lot and enjoy it! However, as you can see on my posts here about the M-DCT times it can sometimes be very trick/subtle to get a good prediction. Some engineering background is a very good idea but certainly not required. Cheers.
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 01:33 PM   #123
enigma
Captain
6
Rep
689
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3 and Elise
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Land of the Microchip

iTrader: (0)

0-100 is a much better way to look at acceleration than 0-60. With the power levels of todays cars the launch is becoming the most important factor in 0-60 and 1/4 times.
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 01:49 PM   #124
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
No one single data point really makes or breaks the simulation vs. test comparison. It is the over/under predictions of the entire set as well as the size of those overs/unders. You seem obsessed with the 0-60 time. That is not the point. Finally, for the vast majority of the time, CarTest is not out by .5 seconds 0-60.

P.S. I think it is time you bought the sotware and had some fun. I guarantee you will learn a lot and enjoy it! However, as you can see on my posts here about the M-DCT times it can sometimes be very trick/subtle to get a good prediction. Some engineering background is a very good idea but certainly not required. Cheers.

THAT'S WHY I HIGHLIGHTED ALL THREE DATA POINTS TO BEGIN WITH. EVEN IN MY ORIGINAL POST IT WAS ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED. AND I DID'NT NEED ENGINEERING BACKGROUND. BTW, I HAD A FEELING YOU WHERE OF SOME ENGINEERING BACKGROUND, YOU REMIND ME OF MY COUSIN AND UNCLE. HERE IT IS AGAIN, NOT JUST 0-60 BUT 0-100 AND 1/4 MILE AS WELL. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE NOW.
spec: C&D/40k/CarTest
0-60= 4.5/ 4.8/ 4.84
0-100= 11.2/ 12.0/ 11.91
1/4mile = 13.1/ 13.4/ 13.5
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 01:57 PM   #125
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Sure

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
THAT'S WHY I HIGHLIGHTED ALL THREE DATA POINTS TO BEGIN WITH. EVEN IN MY ORIGINAL POST IT WAS ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED. AND I DID'NT NEED ENGINEERING BACKGROUND. BTW, I HAD A FEELING YOU WHERE OF SOME ENGINEERING BACKGROUND, YOU REMIND ME OF MY COUSIN AND UNCLE. HERE IT IS AGAIN, NOT JUST 0-60 BUT 0-100 AND 1/4 MILE AS WELL. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE NOW.
spec: C&D/40k/CarTest
0-60= 4.5/ 4.8/ 4.84
0-100= 11.2/ 12.0/ 11.91
1/4mile = 13.1/ 13.4/ 13.5
Sure the M3 simulation vs. 40k mile test are very close, still not dead on.

My comments are aimed at the complete set of IS-F results from C&D vs. simulation, not the E46 M3. You keep focusing on the 0-60 difference between C&D and simulation for the IS-F.
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 02:20 PM   #126
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Sure the M3 simulation vs. 40k mile test are very close, still not dead on.

My comments are aimed at the complete set of IS-F results from C&D vs. simulation, not the E46 M3. You keep focusing on the 0-60 difference between C&D and simulation for the IS-F.
Lol! You are cracking me up. The highlighted ones are not the 40k and they are certainly not dead on. Which is what i'm talking about.

spec: C&D/-CarTest
0-60= 4.5/ - 4.84
0-100= 11.2/ - 11.91
1/4mile = 13.1/ - 13.5
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 05:22 PM   #127
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Me too

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Lol! You are cracking me up. The highlighted ones are not the 40k and they are certainly not dead on. Which is what i'm talking about.

spec: C&D/-CarTest
0-60= 4.5/ - 4.84
0-100= 11.2/ - 11.91
1/4mile = 13.1/ - 13.5
Look, let's try to keep this non offensive. You have already gone down that path once and I took the high road and ran some simulations for you to help you learn and understand.

You are the one who claimed the 40k M3 test results vs. simulation were "dead on".

Quote:
Actually they are dead on with the 40,000 miles
They are not. Furthermore I realize you are pointing out the larger errors between the new test results vs. simulation. I am not worried about those larger differences.

Let me try to summarize as clearly as I can.

CarTest vs. E46 M3 results range from good to excellent, qualitatively. Deltas (differences) between the two for both new and 40k miles cars vary from under prediction to over prediction. CarTest vs. IS-F results show qualitatively and quantitatively worse agreement with CarTest. The noteable features are the the C&D results are universally faster than simulation and quantitativelty the deltas are larger than with the E46 M3 case (as well as with the deltas for most other vehicles). Finally, 0-100 and higher results should in general be easier to predict with simulation as well as rolling starts and in gear accelerations from speeds with little or no wheelspin.

Again, I think I am done beating the dead horse here. You have everything; the tests, the simulations, my opinions and endless commentary. Get the software and have some fun. If you maintain a decent attitude I just might help you get good quality results, with justifiable changes when you find you can not. Now have the last word, pleeeease...
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2007, 07:49 PM   #128
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

What!

Okay, let's not start another war. The only reason i'm doing still doing this is because you and i have been pretty civilized about it, relatively. You responded with this, and you said that it is right on the money, it's highlighted. I responded yes it is, but only with the 40k figures and it is. BUt i said it is not with the "new" figures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp2
OK since you asked, I will humor you. There is no reason not to share the capabilities or validation of a software tool I like and call accurate.

Using the exact figures in your post and making only the following minor changes to the default CarTest parameters: weight - to match the measured curb weight (software includes options and defaults for driver weight and gas weight and they did not match the number you posted for this particular car), shift times - default is .5 s a more realistic figure for a good driver in a MT is .3 s. Conclusions:

-0-60: right on the money or within 3/10th however you like to call it
-0-100: within 7/10th or 1/10th
-1/4mi: within 1/10th to 4/10ths on ET
-1/4mi: trap within 1.5 - 3.5 mph

I think this is very typical of what one car get with CarTest. Do you notice how much closer this is comparing simulation to one actual test than the case we argued about for pages. I suspect that some tests do show better numbers and others worse for the E46 M3. My conclusion from this exercise is that both the reported figures for the car, the inputs to CarTest, the actual test itself and the simulation outputs are "consistent". There is no glaring/obvious problem with any of the pieces of the puzzle.
And then i responded with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357
^^ Thanks Swamp. I do see the figures to be dead on with the second results(40,000miles). But if you look at the first figures(new), it is the same difference that your getting with the IS-F results. Around 0.4 secs. Since your calculation with the program is giving you around 4.7 or 4.8 with the ISF, it is possible that it could be off by 0.3 to 0.4. In other words, 4.2 might not be as imposssible as you may think, but 4.4 is probably more realistic and logical. Not to say that this proves anything. But it does show some kind of consistency.
Swamp, they are dead on with the 40k figures. Look at your figures and look at the 40k figures.

40k:
0-60= 4.8
0-100= 12.0
1/4mile= 13.4

Look at your figures:


But they are way off with the "new" figures.
"New figures"
0-60= 4.5
0-100= 11.2
1/4mile= 13.1


Anyway, like you said, we've beaten this topic way too much already. You're done and i'm done. Your bottom line is, the figure that you got originally for the IS-F of, and i'm just using this one as an example, 0-60 of 5.1, for you is realistic. Okay! Even though the IS350 have been recorded with the same results and even better ones. Enjoy your "Cartest", i'll stick with the more conventional reliable real world test and results. Please, somebody lock this thread.
Appreciate 0
      10-29-2007, 12:24 PM   #129
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
159
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
The IS350 has posted better than 5.1s but who said more power equals quicker 0-60mph times, the fact still remains that trying to get an extra 100+hp to the road surface with only two wheels doing the driving is harder and when you add the factor that only 46% of the weigh is now over these wheels (less than the IS350) it's amazing it's posting 4.8s at all. A better time to check out is 0-100 or 0-150mph and see how the IS-F is performing compared to the M3 and others, if by these speeds the thing is close then Lexus has done a good job with the engine and transmission.

Now the chassis, that's a different story and deserves another thread all on it's own.
Appreciate 0
      10-29-2007, 03:29 PM   #130
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
The IS350 has posted better than 5.1s but who said more power equals quicker 0-60mph times, the fact still remains that trying to get an extra 100+hp to the road surface with only two wheels doing the driving is harder and when you add the factor that only 46% of the weigh is now over these wheels (less than the IS350) it's amazing it's posting 4.8s at all. A better time to check out is 0-100 or 0-150mph and see how the IS-F is performing compared to the M3 and others, if by these speeds the thing is close then Lexus has done a good job with the engine and transmission.

Now the chassis, that's a different story and deserves another thread all on it's own.
Good point, what's the use of all that power if you can't get it on the pavement. But logic would say that 100+hp should make it quicker. And so far, the 0-60 times that has been recorded are 4.2, 4.6, 4.6, and 4.8. Three out of those four didn't really have a problem launching the car except for the slowest one at 4.8 who admitted that they could've taken off 0.2 in their test. Which is Edmunds by the way. The other testers where C&D, Motor Trend and Automobilemag. Handling wise, all three magazines where impress and surprised. BUt i'm sure it's still not up to par with BMW's M3.
Appreciate 0
      10-29-2007, 03:31 PM   #131
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
22
Rep
1,330
Posts

 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

iTrader: (3)

This discussion is a big part of the reason why 0-60 is such a dated measure. Use 1/4th times and speeds instead.
Appreciate 0
      10-29-2007, 05:57 PM   #132
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
159
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
The only reason why 0-60mph is so dated is the fact the cars we are talking about, namely the M3, C63, RS4 and now the IS-F are so powerful that they are covering the 100mph mark in the same time it takes a normal saloon/hatchback to complete the 0-60mph discipline.

It's all relevant really.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST