Talk:BMW 3 Series (E30)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BMW 3 Series (E30) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 months

Start of development

As a design engineer that has worked for Jaguar Land Rover in the recent past (still very much bound by signed NDA), I must say that even I don't know everything other OEMs do regarding development techniques. Despite that, I am somewhat informed on many of these processes and want to share that knowledge with the world and other users. Regarding the E30, if we recall, its predecessor-E21 entered production in June 1975. I strongly disagree with notion that the E30 development began in 1978. Someone is misreading between the lines. Actually, the final design was coincidentally set in 1978, after an estimated 2 years of styling efforts. This is typically how long BMW spends on styling between competing designers. I actually have highlighted that fact worldwide, in different online/offline forums of discussion, as development actually began in July 1976 instead. In the source regarding Luthe, I am very convinced someone has very much misread the context of the text regarding Luthe and the E30, especially how 1976 and 1977 had no mention on that page regarding the E30. BMW could not and would not have invested just 4 years into such an important, time-consuming and demanding project, such as the E30 was. Within 12 months of E21 launch, they got to work on this car. Claus Luthe's "attention" to this car in 1978 particularly, was actually because the final design had just been decided on, as per this 1978 clay model. I have spy shots of both W201 190 and E30 from the 1979 and 1980 period in my private collection. At that point, you have a frozen design when prototypes are spotted in public. BMW has said once, that the E36 took 42 months to engineer and it was 48 months for the E30. This was starting from rolling back dates from SOP to styling approval. Pinky Lai's E36 design was approved in 1987, even if the design has been quoted as frozen in 1988. 48 months prior to November 1982 (launch), is ironically November 1978. The E30 design was frozen in 1979 and testing that year. Pilot production began in December 1981. It really needs to be discussed, as that isn't fully accurate, unless solely looking at it from the moment, where BMW engineers were handed the final body by Luthe's design department and then got to work on engineering it, running through all steps up to 1982 introduction.--Carmaker1 (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anddd, I have been proven correct by this link. Don't really make these things up obviously, despite nitpicking of my contributions.--Carmaker1 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)--Carmaker1 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carmaker1. I agree that a four year development period is highly unlikely, so I support removing those unreferenced sentences. If references with specific dates can't be found, I think it would be ok to say something like: "BMW development periods at the time were typically 6-8 years,*reference* indicating that the E30 development began around 1976". Just a suggestions. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure. I guess that works for the article.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

323i power output

For the Euro market and the UK the power output was designated as 139bhp for the first ones and then 150bhp for the later ones. As the owner of one of the first UK registered cars, there is a report of my car in the Motor magazine containing all the details of the 12,000 mile road test. This ran from May 1983 to May 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5FB2:9A00:CA1:2B6A:CCE5:4A10 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, that is much appreciated. Maybe the specs from the website used as a reference were for a country where the engine was slightly detuned to meet local standards. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is actually a classic PS bhp mixup, looking at the brochures, 1982 one says "DIN kW (pk) 102 (139)" and 1984 one says "110 DIN kW (150 PS)". I think this was likely an error by some publication or the media person who gave the publication the numbers. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, the old PS/bhp mix-up strikes again! Thanks, I have put it back to 102 kW and 110 kW. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

1984 318i.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Shuffle

There are constant changes to the main photo here - I have restored a picture I took in Portugal a few times, but I don't want to be reinstating my own photo constantly because it can seem petty and self-promoting. Below are the various recent photos people have selected to be the main photo and the problems with them; perhaps we can all agree on one and leave it be for a while.

1: Faded door, missing hubcap, generally shabby
2: Not cool enough for some? Too dark, perhaps?
3: This one only needs cropping
4: Too much of a frontal for my liking, but works
5: Early 1990s E30 four-door saloon, mostly factory original; background not too busy; factory-original aerodynamically optimised wheels

Please add more options to the gallery if you are so inclined. I will recuse myself from voting. I suggest using a photo of either a two-door or a four-door (Touring and Convertible are perhaps a bit unusual), not an M3 and not an early federalized car with giant bumpers. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page.

1. is very pixelated and quite noisy if zoomed in; the vehicle looks like some dodgy motor.
2. depicts a nice car, but the image is not sharp at all.
3. shows a nice car and the image is decent, however, it is quite a low-resolution photograph. Would do for an infobox picture though.
4. needs more focal length!
5. a picture I suggest, because I think that none of the four options 1–4 is nice enough.

Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My vote goes to photo no. 5 - it's a calm photo, good perspective, no wrong accessories, subdued yet powerful almost - just like BMW still was in those days. Erremm (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]