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) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
GT Haus
View Poll Results: Are you going to Stick with the M division or go another route
Stick with the M division 135 73.77%
Leave the M for another brand 48 26.23%
Voters: 183. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-29-2009, 04:22 PM   #89
ihyln
Banned
 
Drives: M3post sucks
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: M3post sucks

Posts: 3,385
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
2002 530i  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to ihyln
Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
I don't think anyone is getting my point here, I don't see any reason for having a high revving family car. Away for the track the need for a ultra high-revving engine is nil, and that's what any engine revving north of 8000rpm actually is. You only experience those extra 1000rpm (if BMW make their next M3 rev to 7000rpm that is) for a very brief time and only really get their full benefit in gears above 3rd where the gearing allows the revs to build at a slower rate.

I just don't see a problem with less revs, look at the amount of sportscar and supercars that have/are and will run lower revving turbo-charged units instead of N/A, even the latest new kid on the block the Noble M600 is running a 4.4 Yamaha bi-turbo with a peak revs of around 7K max, so normal public opinion doesn't imply that high revs is a necessity. My problem is that I do not feel the X5/6M engine is anywhere near good enough to lift the boot of the M5/6, well not in it's current form that is. They need a power band to mimic that of the RS6, I know it's an Audi but it gives you an extended power band instead of peaking close on 1000rpm prior to the rev limiter. Drive an RS6 and you get that feeling of the power continuing right to the limiter, unlike the norm where most turbo unit have did their best work long before that point.

If BMW can match or better still best the power curve of the RS6 with both their M5/6 and M3 then I doubt anyone here will be complaining that they miss those extra 1000rpms or so.

The brain is a wonder tool and it's amazing how quick you adapt to the narrower rev band (yeah even the brain of the BMW M driver ), though in reality the only real noticable difference is that the revs build slightly slower with probably in-gear peak speeds stay pretty much the same.
Hello, you do not get the point of these cars in general. Calling everyone else's logic faulty is hilarious. Oh and the X6M tops out at 6700RPM so that's more than a "1000 RPM" that people will notice. Anyway, nice try.
ihyln is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2009, 04:38 PM   #90
Griz
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 BMW Escort Type M
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago

Posts: 498
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by penny31 View Post
With the M division announcing that
the next gen m3 will be twin turbo already turns down everything for which M stands for.
I guess they already screwed that one up when they turbocharged the M1 race car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penny31 View Post
Also with the whole x6 m and x5 m being turbo'd I feel like we have reached the point where exclusivity of the "M" brand is come down.
Thousands of new M3s are put on the roads each year and by no means is it an exotic car. I would hardly consider this an exclusive group. One should buy this car because of what it provides and what it can do - I could care less about exclusivity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penny31 View Post
This just be my last M unless the M division does right and stops selling out.
If there's a car that you think you'll be happier with, then go for it.
Griz is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2009, 06:30 PM   #91
Murderface
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 2008 E90 M3
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston, TX

Posts: 30
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ihyln View Post
If you had any clue about BMW's history and the "M1" you'd know it is reserved for their mid engine supercar. The 1 series will never be the M1 and the only likely tag it will bear is the tii.

You do realize that simpson's avatar is supposed to be smart, right?
I believe he said "1 Series M", which is what BMW said an M-developed 1 Series would be called if it came out. No one is suggesting that they're trying to build a supercar out of the 1 Series. The M1 concept, however, does borrow the 3 cylinder diesel from the 1 Series.
Murderface is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2009, 10:19 PM   #92
1
Captain
 
Drives: 991TTs
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 976
iTrader: (0)

anyone contemplating to stop buying M cars just because they will have turbos in their motors needs to get a life
1 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2009, 10:50 PM   #93
SlammedR8
Brigadier General
 
SlammedR8's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Audi R8 V10 +2013 Audi S4
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto

Posts: 4,936
iTrader: (2)

Send a message via MSN to SlammedR8
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 View Post
anyone contemplating to stop buying M cars just because they will have turbos in their motors needs to get a life


not to mention, so many people are getting so "IN TO" this discussion.

ITS F***ING 5-6 YEARS AWAY!!!!!! GET A LIFE!
__________________
SlammedR8 is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 11:00 AM   #94
UltimateBMW
Brigadier General
 
UltimateBMW's Avatar
 
Drives: MP4
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South

Posts: 3,287
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by slammedm3 View Post


not to mention, so many people are getting so "IN TO" this discussion.

ITS F***ING 5-6 YEARS AWAY!!!!!! GET A LIFE!
Your post seems quite self conflicting. You point out that poeple are passionate about this topic as if to discredit them, then flagrantly tell them to get a life.

I think it should be obvious that this topic matters to some poeple. There is nothing wrong with looking towards the horizon. I always get a kick from people making posts that knock discussion or attempt to belittle a topic. If you don't like the discussion, kindly remove yourself from these forums. Your input most likely will not be missed.

Back on topic, In addition to just having both the M3 and M5 go FI, and with the next M coupe suggested as being the 1-series with a FI 4banger, what has me more disheartened is that they aren't even keeping any of the cars in the M line-up as NA. There is no nod to their previously awesome engines, its just going to be the same car in 3 different sizes. I believe true diversity would result in M division bringing at least 1 car to market with a high rev'ing naturally aspirated engine. I feel they are just being quite hasty in sweeping every car them make over into the turbo'd department.
__________________
UltimateBMW is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 11:25 AM   #95
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: IB/PS M-DCT E93 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,562
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBMW View Post
I feel they are just being quite hasty in sweeping every car them make over into the turbo'd department.
That would be great, but BMW has made it pretty clear that they intend to infuse their newly minted set of "Efficient Dynamics" ideals into the core of every product. There is nothing wrong with efficient, clean vehicles of course - even hig performance ones. And I personally maintain my belief that it is possible to build efficient, regulations-compliant natuarlly apsirated motors.

However, the reality is that these types of motors simply do not readily evoke efficiency among consumers, especially with many other manufacturers also jumping on the "small displacement turbo" bandwagon. I think that BMW's marketing folks - not governmental regulations - have had the biggest hand in killing their high-revving natuarlly aspirated vehicles. It just doesn't work with their new marketing line, which I will add is still vaporware in the US at least (no start/refire when coming to a stop, for example, like they have on European models).

As I mentioned before (either earlier in this thread, or perhaps one of the nine other similar ones) I think that GM will continue on with the V8 Corvette and I will add that Ford will also continue on with the V8 powered Mustang. At least for the next decade - and probably longer. Both have put a ton of R&D into efficient V8s, not least because their bread-and-butter vehicles - pickup trucks - will require them for years to come due to the headstrong demographic to which they cater. At the same time both are also leading the way in turbo charged and direct injected smaller displacement engines as well. So there is room for both. Just not at BMW.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 01:47 PM   #96
330CIZHP
Major
 
Drives: BMW 330 CI ZHP
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Posts: 1,211
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBMW View Post
Back on topic, In addition to just having both the M3 and M5 go FI, and with the next M coupe suggested as being the 1-series with a FI 4banger, what has me more disheartened is that they aren't even keeping any of the cars in the M line-up as NA. There is no nod to their previously awesome engines, its just going to be the same car in 3 different sizes. I believe true diversity would result in M division bringing at least 1 car to market with a high rev'ing naturally aspirated engine. I feel they are just being quite hasty in sweeping every car them make over into the turbo'd department.
Agreed. Considering the same motor from X5 M and X6 M has been confirmed to be the next engine in the upcoming M5 and possibly M6, the character of the powertrain in the M5 will almost be identical to that of the X5 M and X6 M.

BTW, the re-defining of M cars has already begun so no it is not 5 - 6 years away.

Again, I would reiterate I have real life experience with the X6 M of watching it being pushed and it is just about the most disgusting thing BMW could have done with the M car. The engine and exhaust note had no character whatsoever.
__________________
""A great sounding, responsive, high-revving, naturally aspirated engine is part of the DNA of a thoroughbred sports car. No two ways about it."

- Lamborghini on turbocharging
330CIZHP is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 01:49 PM   #97
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,747
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 330CIZHP View Post
Agreed. Considering the same motor from X5 M and X6 M has been confirmed to be the next engine in the upcoming M5 and possibly M6, the character of the powertrain in the M5 will almost be identical to that of the X5 M and X6 M.
That's only true in case BMW decides against KERS at short notice. I'd like to remind of this little fact being able to change everything about a car's character.


Best regards,
south
__________________
Those forums...WHY NOT?


JOIN THE 6MT CLUB GROUP
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 02:04 PM   #98
330CIZHP
Major
 
Drives: BMW 330 CI ZHP
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Posts: 1,211
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
That's only true in case BMW decides against KERS at short notice. I'd like to remind of this little fact being able to change everything about a car's character.


Best regards,
south
I read that BMW has decided to not put KERS since it was dropped due to issues while BMW had not yet ditched the F1 program out of concern for the environment.

What will be the benefit of it anyway?
__________________
""A great sounding, responsive, high-revving, naturally aspirated engine is part of the DNA of a thoroughbred sports car. No two ways about it."

- Lamborghini on turbocharging
330CIZHP is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 02:07 PM   #99
SlammedR8
Brigadier General
 
SlammedR8's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Audi R8 V10 +2013 Audi S4
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto

Posts: 4,936
iTrader: (2)

Send a message via MSN to SlammedR8
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBMW View Post
Your post seems quite self conflicting. You point out that poeple are passionate about this topic as if to discredit them, then flagrantly tell them to get a life.

WHAT?

How does my post seem to be self conflicting? Your example of what Im doing makes no sense at all.
__________________
SlammedR8 is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 02:12 PM   #100
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: IB/PS M-DCT E93 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,562
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
That's only true in case BMW decides against KERS at short notice. I'd like to remind of this little fact being able to change everything about a car's character.
Even with KERS though, its still going to be a version of the S63 (maybe with a new number of its own) V8, right south. I admit the KERS is intriguing, but in the end its just another way of getting power, right? I mean, it's not like it could transform the turbo V8 into a high revving V10.
__________________
2008 Interlagos Blue E93 M3 - FOR SALE - Engine failure at 95k miles.
Best offer takes it: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...1#post16279561
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 02:18 PM   #101
elp_jc
Brigadier General
 
Drives: .
Join Date: May 2008
Location: .

Posts: 4,910
iTrader: (0)

I have a few questions for engine experts. Let's assume 2 engines, one FI and one high-revving (relatively small) NA, provide identical performance on the same car (outputs will never be the same, since FI provides better torque and NA higher HP), and weigh the same. Let's assume a 3.0L TTV6 and a 4.2L V8 (pretty much what Audi did with the S4). And let's assume both cars will always be driven identically (accelerate identically, cruise identically, etc) and weigh the same. I think all of those assumptions are pretty close to real, but comment on any of them if needed. My questions are:

1. Would the FI engine yield better fuel mileage, like auto manufacturers lead consumers to believe? I think it's about the same.
2. Would the FI engine yield a better carbon footprint? If they consume the same fuel, probably the same too.
3. Is my assumption of equal weight correct? I think it'd be equal since a TT engine has to be beefier than NA, plus the weight of the TT hardware.
4. Is the FI engine cheaper to build? I think so, but could be wrong.

So far, the only clear advantage of FI over NA is slightly better packaging, no? How about cost? Trying to see the rationale of going in that direction. Maybe I'm wrong on some of my assumptions .

A larger, lower revving engine comparable to the high-revving one, like a 5.0L V8, obviously adds weight on the engine and on the car, since it has to be larger to house the larger engine, so that arrangement is probably on the way out of 'mainstream' cars (like the ISF and AMG 6.3s) IMO. All comments welcome.

Last edited by elp_jc; 09-30-2009 at 03:51 PM.
elp_jc is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 02:38 PM   #102
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: IB/PS M-DCT E93 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,562
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by elp_jc View Post
1. Would the FI engine yield better fuel mileage, like auto manufacturers lead consumers to believe? I don't think so.
Doesn't the new S4 get a lot better mileage than the old B7, as well as the B8 S5? I think it does, at least as far as EPA numbers go. Now, if both are driven hard, will the numbers be closer? Not sure - they might very well be. Unfortunately the automakers are a slave to the EPA though and all that matters is how the car performs in their tests.

Quote:
A larger, lower revving engine comparable to the high-revving one, like a 5.0L V8, obviously adds weight on the engine and on the car, since it has to be larger to house the larger engine, so that arrangement is on the way out of 'mainstream' cars IMO. All comments welcome.
That's not necessarily true. Displacement is the measure of the volume of the cylinder (the part that is swept by the piston, anyway) when the crank is at BDC. So, for example, you could destroke a motor from 4L to 3L and save little to no weight, or you could stroke it from 4L to 5L and gain none as well. Same thing with bore changes. You remove metal from the block, and add some to the piston, its basically a wash, or even favors the larger bore slightly.

Now, it is true that in general the bore center dimension effects the length of the V8 engine and deck height effects its height and width. So not all V8s are the same size of course. But the point is that you cannot generally assume that the larger displacement motor will be the larger physically sized motor. This is especially true when you consider head design also. GMs pushrod V8s are very compact for example.
__________________
2008 Interlagos Blue E93 M3 - FOR SALE - Engine failure at 95k miles.
Best offer takes it: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...1#post16279561
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 02:41 PM   #103
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,747
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 330CIZHP View Post
I read that BMW has decided to not put KERS since it was dropped due to issues while BMW had not yet ditched the F1 program out of concern for the environment.

What will be the benefit of it anyway?
I'm only aware of reports that BMW has decided no to use KERS in the next M3 due to costs. Unless I have missed something they didn't rule it out for the M5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
Even with KERS though, its still going to be a version of the S63 (maybe with a new number of its own) V8, right south. I admit the KERS is intriguing, but in the end its just another way of getting power, right? I mean, it's not like it could transform the turbo V8 into a high revving V10.
It somewhat does. The main differences between a turbo engine and a high revving NA engine are throttle response and red line. You're right that it does nothing about the latter, but the instant response of an electric engine can do wonders about the total response time. Done the right way KERS can mask the turbo lag and make you feel like driving an NA engine.


Best regards,
south
__________________
Those forums...WHY NOT?


JOIN THE 6MT CLUB GROUP
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 02:56 PM   #104
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,747
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by elp_jc View Post
I have a few questions for engine experts. Let's assume 2 engines, one FI and one high-revving (relatively small) NA, provide identical performance on the same car (outputs will never be the same, since FI provides better torque, but FI will have higher torque and NA higher HP), and weigh the same. Let's assume a 3.0L TTV6 and a 4.2L V8 (pretty much what Audi did with the S4). And let's assume both cars will always be driven identically (accelerate identically, cruise identically, etc) and weigh the same. I think all of those assumptions are pretty close to real, but comment on any of them if needed. My questions are:

1. Would the FI engine yield better fuel mileage, like auto manufacturers lead consumers to believe? I don't think so.
That depends on the way the cars are driven. TT engines only offer better fuel mileage under part throttle and rather low revvs. The higher you revv (and the more you're on the accelerator), the less the advantage of TT engines. EPA and European fuel consumption standards are performed in a range TT engines do have advantages, so these figures are always better for smaller TT engines.
Quote:
2. Would the FI engine yield a better carbon footprint?
Carbon footprint is directly related to fuel consumption. So it doesn't matter on its own, an engine consuming less fuel has a better footprint.
Quote:
3. Is my assumption of equal weight correct? I think it'd be equal since a TT engine has to be beefier than NA, plus the weight of the TT hardware.
I don't think there's a general answer to this.

Quote:
4. Is the FI engine cheaper to build? I think so, but could be wrong.
Speaking of engines in general, FI engines are more expensive both in development and production. Speaking of ///M engines, I think that's still true, but the difference is less than usual.


Best regards,
south
__________________
Those forums...WHY NOT?


JOIN THE 6MT CLUB GROUP
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 03:52 PM   #105
UltimateBMW
Brigadier General
 
UltimateBMW's Avatar
 
Drives: MP4
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South

Posts: 3,287
iTrader: (0)

South,

Have you ever driven a car with KERS? I personally haven't, was looking to get an idea of what it's like. It's implementation in F1 is so limited (1x 6s burst per lap?) its hard to notice when they use it.
__________________
UltimateBMW is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 04:35 PM   #106
arr0gant
Lieutenant
 
arr0gant's Avatar
 
Drives: 1996 911 Carrera Cab
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. Louis

Posts: 517
iTrader: (0)

Look at what Porsche has done. They started with a '99 911 with an NA 3.4 at 295BHP and now are at 3.8 with 385BHP and 435BHP respectively on the GT3. They have stuck with and continued to develop and improve on the same NA, flat6 block.

M division had a masterpiece with the 3.2 liter I6 putting out 330BHP. Had they continued along the same path, they would have an NA, 6 cylinder 3.6 or 3.8 liter putting out around 400BHP.

Instead they cut corners by using (the no doubt marvelous) 4.0 V8, but now they have to back track and go back to the 6 and simply throw Turbo's on it.

I don't like the smell of this, at all....
__________________

1996 911 Carrera Cabriolet

2006 Porsche Cayman S, 2004 M3 Vert, 2008 BMW M3 Sedan, 2001 911 Turbo, 2002 Porsche 911 C4S, 2004 Cadillac CTS-V, Porsche Boxster S
arr0gant is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 04:48 PM   #107
gr8000
Major
 
gr8000's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3 - DCT
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Athens, Greece

Posts: 1,170
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to gr8000
Quote:
Originally Posted by arr0gant View Post
Instead they cut corners by using (the no doubt marvelous) 4.0 V8...
In what sense have they cut corners with the 4lt V8?
gr8000 is offline   Greece
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 04:52 PM   #108
arr0gant
Lieutenant
 
arr0gant's Avatar
 
Drives: 1996 911 Carrera Cab
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. Louis

Posts: 517
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gr8000 View Post
In what sense have they cut corners with the 4lt V8?
It's simple, my brother. Instead of continuing to develop and bore out the I6, they cut corners by cutting 2 cylinders off the m5's V10 and slapped it in the M3.

I'm not saying it's not an amazing engine, it is. But, now they have to backtrack and have no real new development on the I6. I don't know about you, but I'd like the new M3 to be an N.A. 3.6 liter I6 with 400BHP that reds at around 9000!!

By contrast, can you imagine if the 997 911 was a V8, then they decided to go backwards, back to a flat6 and throw some turbo's on it so it had the power we expect since we had the 420 in the V8??

HELL NO!! This is where BMW M screwed up, and we're just supposed to accept that, as doing things the "right" way? I don't think so.
__________________

1996 911 Carrera Cabriolet

2006 Porsche Cayman S, 2004 M3 Vert, 2008 BMW M3 Sedan, 2001 911 Turbo, 2002 Porsche 911 C4S, 2004 Cadillac CTS-V, Porsche Boxster S
arr0gant is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-30-2009, 04:57 PM   #109
330CIZHP
Major
 
Drives: BMW 330 CI ZHP
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Posts: 1,211
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by arr0gant View Post
It's simple, my brother. Instead of continuing to develop and bore out the I6, they cut corners by cutting 2 cylinders off the m5's V10 and slapped it in the M3.
The 3.2 Liter S54 is already bored out to the maximum with atleast the 8000 rpm redline. There is nothing they could do with this engine especially without sacrificing the 8400 rpm redline they were looking for. It was past its technological prime and also heavy due to block iron construction.

The 5.0 Liter V10 was the best engine to make as a basis for the development of the V8, which they did. However, I really believe they should have put direct injection in it (though it makes the car difficult to modify like the RS4 and IS-F have no aftermarket performance parts) and extracted more peak torque at high rpms of around 315 - 317 ft-lbs@5000 rpm (and hence more horsepower over 6000 rpm) and then it pretty much as perfect as it could be.
330CIZHP is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2009, 04:35 AM   #110
bigjae1976
Takes threads off topic...daily
 
bigjae1976's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 E90 M3 Individual
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posts: 5,256
iTrader: (12)

Garage List
2004 BMW M3  [4.50]
2011 BMW E90 M3  [5.00]
2013 BMW 328i  [5.00]
I thought the story behind the S65 was that BMW made the S85 for F1 but then F1 mandated V8s. So BMW made the S65.
__________________


Sponsored by Momentum BMW #593...We Bleed BMW BLUE!
bigjae1976 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
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 05:05 AM.




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