Jump to content

Talk:BMW 1 Series (E87)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism Section

[edit]

The criticism section is very poor. There is obviously some kind of edit war here with two biased opinions. There are a lot of opinions in this section, none of which have been cited. Please provide citations for all 'opinions' in this section. --DavidChief 12:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any of that section can be substantiated because most of it is opinion of owners, perhaps even thirdhand opinions and not NPOV. Furthermore it is Euro-centric. I support removing this section unless references from recognized sources can be found. Robogun 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not good at editing wiki's but here are two Jeremy Clarkson sources:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article401596.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article3103294.ece --Selflove (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources from one reviewer? Sorry to be painfully obvious, but there are other reviewers on the planet. It looks like it mirrors the remarks that were said here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ITlbw97TSg
And please justify the "other reviewers" remark.--68.58.248.149 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Release

[edit]

There have been no press releases by BMW stating that the car would be coming to the US. There are only rumors at this time. Please wait until an official press release to include that information in this article. Kether83 08:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any talk of it now? One should include that it's not available in the US if this is the case. Kevinthenerd 23:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 info

[edit]

http://www.carfolio.com/?article=183 technical specs, and the 3 door rumored in the article itself.

M1

[edit]

The article claims BMW have affirmed the return of the M1 name (and an associated model), but the linked citation is only a particular motoring magazine's conjecture with no apparent gravitas from BMW. Weasley one 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expected Performance

[edit]

I have no Wikipedia experience to speak of, so I figure it's better to ask here rather than edit the article. Numerous publications have anticipated far better performance from the 306hp 135i than is reported in this article. BMW is notoriously over-conservative in their published numbers, but even simple logic should suggest a lighter 135i with the same drivetrain will outperform a 335i coupe. Is it appropriate to comment on both the expected higher performance, as well as the fact that this will make the 135i an extremely attractive (even unparalleled) purchase option to buyers who want a mixture of performance and a luxurious name? For example: the 135i will very likely offer strait-line performance very close to that of an Evo X, at a roughly equal price, which also puts it at a higher performance point and lower cost-of-entry than its likely competitor: the Infiniti G37 Coupe. User:Sonrise089 3:31, 19 July 2007 (EST)

As long as you adhere to Wikipedia's overarching principle of maintaining neutral point of view, I think this is an appropriate edit. As Wikipedians are fond of say, [[WP::BB|be bold]] and make edits that you think will improve the quality of the article. I think it may be too far to bring in the latter comparisons that the 135i may be superior to cars of other manufacturers, it would be fine to state something mentioning BMW's generally conservative estimates and the 135i ought to be faster than it's identically-engined but heavier 335i brethren. --dinomite 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Facts

[edit]

I think this section is redundant. It simply restates info from the short paragraph directly above. If no one has any objections I will remove them tomorrow. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. No article should have a "Quick Facts" section. The facts should be integrated into the whole article. -Vossanova o< 14:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake some people actually don't spend half their life reading a dictionary to find out what all these confusing things means. That was the purpose of the "quick facts" section. So just go off and concur to something else.

First, no personal attacks, please. Second, you may have noticed there are hardly any other articles with a "Quick Facts" section because it goes against agreed style conventions. An overview of the article belongs in a lead section, as a paragraph, which this article already has. A "quick facts" section just encourages an unorganized "laundry list" of information and trivia, which we try to avoid here. It may seem a little strict, but that's how Wikipedia works. --Vossanova o< 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, that wasn't a personal attack. Second, keep the Quick Facts please - it quickly summarises what this whole article is about in less than 50 words, which is pretty good if you ask me. And third, there are a few more pages that do have the Quick Facts section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.179.166 (talk • contribs)

There really isn't anything to argue about. First why should we have a quick facts section that takes up similar page space as a lead and rehashes identical info? There seems to be some problem with big word in the lead, but I can't find them, of course if there are any unclear portions they should be fixed. Second WP:LEAD is an accepted style convention and I don't see any reason to go against it here. This is a lot of —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs)
In my opinion, your Quick Facts section does NOT sum up the article. It lists a few arbitrary facts. To me it's more like a "did you know?" section - trivia. The introductory paragraph however DOES sum up the article. Thus, we do not need to add another section. There's no need to be more concise than one paragraph, and bullet points and non-paragraph form are frowned upon in non-list articles. Many editors here feel the same, and I have not yet seen a non-anonymous user who agrees with having your Quick Facts section. If we cannot resolve this edit war, we'll need to get an arbitrator involved. --Vossanova o< 14:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anyone can bring a coherent argument for keeping these sections to the table I don't think there is any chance they will stay. Repeatedly adding them without discussing will eventually lead to a block. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here from the RFC. Not a close question. Clearly violative of Wikipedia procedures, and entirely redundant of WP:LEAD. Anything sufficiently notable to be in "Quick Facts" should be in the lead paragraph. THF 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separately: which "Wikiproject" is acting so disruptively? Sounds like something that needs to be shut down. THF 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject BMW and Mercedes-Benz --Vossanova o< 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dump it. Not only is it redundant and unnecessary, it is very inaccurate. Keep in mind, I was invited to join that particular project thinking we would have a consensus prior to revision. Obviously that is not the case. Therefore, it is necessary to either get the project to adhere to Wiki procedures or disband that project altogether.Qwazywabbit 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend calling it to the attention of WP:AN/I if there isn't an administrator readily available who can take action. I leave that to someone else, as I see that others have already taken notice and probably have more info than I do to make a persuasive report. THF 17:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beamer drivers have special needs regarding a short attention span and understanding of what is important in an automobile or an article about one. They need this help, seriously. Maybe some day with some integration programme they get to buy a proper car and then we can delete this quite superfluous article about yet another very meaningless little product.80.171.135.3 (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture of modified car

[edit]

Why is the primary picture in the top left a modified car... Shouldn't it be a stock car (no front aerodynamics, no silly aftermarket wheels, etc).. Rootstyle 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tho I don't think those wheels are silly (I like BBS rims), I agree with you and thus I am going to replace the picture.--BSI 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Article For US Version

[edit]

This article is highly focused on the European hatchback, and not the US styled coupe, I believe a new article is in order. Hi, check out the new US Version article here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/BMW_1_Series_%28US_Version%29 --Laxplayer630 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the coupe (and convertible) is going to be sold in Europe too, no? --Vossanova o< 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it will be. I have no idea why we need a new article for the 1 series.QwazywabbitMsg me 14:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely no need to for a separate article for two cars with the same name that are mechanically identical. Just make a new section for the coupe. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing Controversy?

[edit]

There has been much chatter online about the pricing of the 1 series. In the US its $34,000 to start (barely priced lower than a 3 series when well equipped), but that means it should be roughly 17,000 British Pounds. Yet, in Britian, its priced in the 30s again! Considering they are all built in Germany, it makes no sense than the 1 series be priced so low in the US, and so expensive in Britian.

Should we mention this?

Signed by Scryer_360, back from his several months vacation and still not invigorated enough to officially sign in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.162.191 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta make it right hand drive for you guys in Britain, that's why it's more expensive. --Laxplayer630 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience vehicle prices in the UK are often much higher then in the US. In general the price of a vehicle in the UK in British Pounds is usually equal to the price of the same vehicle in the US in dollars. For example the Nissan 350Z costs about 25k Pounds in the UK and cost about 27K dollars in the US. I don't really have any idea why this is, but in anycase we would need to source the fact that this is actually a controversy before we mention it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prices don't fluctuate with the exchange rate. If the dollar is worth 1 pound one year and half a pound the next, that doesn't mean the price of all goods in the UK will drop in half. It means it will cost twice as much for an American to go over to the UK and purchase a car there. Likewise, it means a British person can go over to the US and buy a car much cheaper. But in their native countries, the buying power of Americans in the US and British in the UK is roughly the same. --Vossanova o< 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats almost right, compared to wages cars are more expensive in the UK but by nowhere near as much as it apears. I've no idea why this is, it used to be because cars were better rust proofed i europe but I don't think thats as true now. It's nothing to do with LHD RHD because cars designed in RHD are still more expensive here in real terms than the US (And for that matter most of europe) to get a car converted Privately cost only about £2000. It isn't specific to this car sos shouldn't be here.(86.31.188.36 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rumoured Origins... Seriously?

[edit]

Once source, a fairly vague fan site... let's chop this out!842U (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section you refer to points out that it is a rumour, but does not accept it as fact. On the contrary, there is a citation for a denial from BMW. The section itself is informative, and may in fact be used to dispel such a myth. Ng.j (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on BMW 1 Series (E87). 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) 11:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BMW 1 Series (E87). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_1_Series_(E87)&oldid=1197472030"