Talk:BMW 5 Series (E12)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 2013[edit]

bout the Iran part of the story, yes these cars produced in South Africa and shipped to Iran during the period of 1977 - 1979. I had a 1978 model in Iran and some of them are still running there and there are more than 1000'a of them shipped to Iran.


E12 assembly location :

I don't think there is any BMW assemble in China before the late 90s. At that time, China was very poor and almost no person can afford a car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhin (talkcontribs) 21:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Models section:

The first 3 models and 4 power outputs give hp as the main figure with kW in brackets, from then on kW is the main figure with hp in brackets. Any chance this could be made all the same by someone or is there a reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.185.28 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's well accepted that the M535i used an M90 engine, not the M30 listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.254.34 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Source 12[edit]

@1292simon: Please see source 12. Check the article history for the pages that contain the technical data, I added them but you decided to remove them. (You moved the page numbers within the article and I didn't see that since I expected them to be in the references section.) Then compare the technical data given by the source with the information in the article. Thank you. Since you obviously need help: German engineers used kilopondmetres and DIN-PS until 1978. Therefore the data given by the source is given in technical units. Note that the conversion to SI-units done by BMW is useless, they decided that 1 kp·m equals 10 N·m which is wrong. Also, mkp and kp·m are the same. Feel free to ask further questions. I hope that you find and correct the mistakes. Best regards. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove any references, please stop your baseless accusations against other editors. I am sorry that my edit accidentally caused an incorrect conversion of the torque units. This has now been fixed. 1292simon (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@1292simon: I am sorry for the false accusation, I didn't see that you moved the pages to a different place in the article. I am not used to the template:refpage since I used to defining the source in the bibliography section and adding references including the pages like this: <ref>The big book of mechanical engineering, p. 123</ref>. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Overconfident?[edit]

RESOLVED:
  • Independent tests of whp, i.e. effective horsepower, are a helpful addition to claimed or rated power given by manufacturers
  • Precise terminology is necessary, but using jargon exclusively makes articles inaccessible to some readers
  • Further objections should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles in a neutral question format (see RfC) which can be formally closed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gearheads always take claimed power with a grain of salt. But the tables we present here are so obsessively precise that they give the impression that the numbers are Gospel, not marketing claims backed up by hand waving and lots of fine print. CARUNITS and MCNUM don't address this, but in most motorcycling articles we add (claimed) after the factory's figures for power, torque, weight, fuel economy, top speed and acceleration (if we include them at all) and we prefer independent dyno tests of actual wheel horsepower, not glossing over the discrepancies between different publications, and often leaving the claimed numbers out altogether in favor of third party tests, for example in Suzuki Hayabusa or Yamaha YZF-R1#Specifications.

For now we might have to make do with what we have, but in principle, can we make it a goal to find independent tests of engine output, and de-emphasize the picayune vagaries of manufacturer claims, and call the reader's attention to why the numbers shouldn't be entirely believed[1][2]? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
The figures are not "obsessively precise", they are just as precise as every other figure based on reliable sources. Well, you might have the impression that ne numbers are Gospel, I assume that the common reader would just see normal figures there. You have to keep in mind the situation back in the 1970s in Germany. The figures are based on the DIN 70020 and 70030, they are not marketing claims but very precise figures. It does not depend on hand waving or fine print; the way power, torque, fuel economy etc. figures are determined is defined precisely and you could hardly cheat. The problem with independent tests is that they are often less precise and reproducible than data based on the DIN 70020. Let's choose power output. It depends on many factors, for instance, fuel quality. Vehicles with Otto engines have a knock sensor, if it detects fuel with a low octane number, the engine characteristics are changed and usually, the engine produces less torque and therefore power. Fuel is different everywhere. Even small differences can have an impact on power output. In the next example, we have a motorcycle engine: It has a torque of 95.5 N m at 10,000 min−1. That gives 100 kW. If we reduce the torque by just 1 %, the engine power output is only 99 kW. Now, let's take a tractor engine. Torque is 800 N m at 2100 min−1, makes 176 kW. Reducing the torque by just 1 % reduces the power output to 174 kW. This shows that only tiny changes and differences can have an impact. There is not one true power output. For having something we can compare, we should stick to the data based on the DIN 70020 in this case. It has nothing to do with a picayune vagary of manufacturers. BMW didn't have any other option than determining the figures based on the DIN. The problem you showed here is that vehicles for the motor press are often better than the vehicles available for the public. But that does not change the power figure for the vehicles available for the public. Also, it does not mean that vehicles have less performance than they should. Maybe this is different for American vehicles since the way power is determined is different. But in this case, just stick to the figures by BMW. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop with this crap about how scrupulous Germans are. I love going to Germany and I think Germans are wonderful. But enough with the stereotypes. A particular trait I appreciate about real-life, non-stereotypical, non-cardboard-cutout Germans is that so many of them are open and honest about their normal human foibles, and don't think they're better than anybody else. These stereotypes insult and dehumanize them most of all. And any decent engineer knows that if you want to build the ultimate driving machine, the first thing you need is to throw hubris right out the window.

Germany isn't the only country that regulates car advertising. Pretty much every country officially tells car makers not to exaggerate, and at times they enforce the law strictly, other times not so much. DIN isn't the only standard. SAE publishes standards too, and of course Ford and GM would never intentionally deviate from proper engineering standards. Perish the thought!

Look, marketers lie. They equivocate. They find ways to toe the line. The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. I already posted a link to a known case of BMW Motorrad lying about horsepower, and another link to VW misleading car testers. We won't even talk about the Volkswagen emissions scandal because everybody does it.

Manufacturer claims are fine. They're useful information. But they should be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone knows that. Independent testing published by reputable sources is better than self-published claims. This is elementary Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources. Nothing I'm saying here is new or different then our usual practice on any Wikipedia article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop with this crap about what I allegedly said. Just because I know German, it doesn't mean that I am from Germany or prefer German or whatever. I don't mind whether you like Germans or not at this point and what engineers are supposed to throw out of their windows, for this discussion, it is unimportant. Also, please stop making absurd demands of me, I cannot perish thoughts I don't have.

You cannot really compare DIN to SAE. For DIN 70020 power, everything has to be set up properly while for SAE power, the engine may be modified. Of course the real power output differs from the SAE power figure. My personal experience is that 1 SAE-hp ≈ ​23 DIN-kW while 1 DIN-PS ≈ ​34 DIN-kW. but if this is mentioned properly, it is not cheating. Albert Einstein once said "Zeit ist das, was man an der Uhr abliest", approximately: Time is the number on the clock. Or in this case: Power output is the number in the data sheet. We need to tell the reader how the power was determinded, for instance "DIN"-PS or "Rated power (DIN 70020)". Power output in kW depends on the DIN 70020 usually and therefore it is not specifically mentioned. If we would start citing external sources that tell the "real" power output, there is no comparision possible. Random external testers might test differently. You even mentioned real wheel power output. That is different from DIN 70020 power output. But it is not a norm. Since minor differences in torque can have an impact on power output, it will always be slightly different. There is no "real" power output. Also, external sources often copy the manufacturer data but they tend to make mistakes. Citing the manufacturer is more accurate. I agree that manufacturer claims data is fine. And this grain of salt can be evaded by informing the reader about the way the power was determined. I explained why I would not consider external testing useful. BMW-Motorrad did not lie to the customer about the power output, they gave the testers a vehicle with a modified engine that had a higher power output. It is the responsibility of the testers to consider that the test vehicle differs from what you could purchase. That test vehicles for the motor press differ from what everyone can purchse is not a secret. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say you are German. I said you are stereotyping Germans. You're doing it now, pulling out of your ass this assertion that anything the SAE does is of course inferior to the DIN. When you see phrase that strikes you as odd, consider that you have just met an English idiom, and you should spend a half second googling it before going off on a tangent because you misunderstood.

Anyway. I already cited sources that show that companies can and do fudge or outright lie about vehicle performance. I pointed to an article that cites more sources that say claimed performance, while worth noting and comparing to a point, in most cases isn't the most trustworthy number. You're unable to imagine how one might get away with cheating or just fudging a purportedly DIN 70020 compliant claim. I can. ("Fudge" means avoiding the truth without implicating yourself in anything dishonest or immoral, btw.)

There's no action needed on this article now, unless anyone by chance somehow succeeds in finding published dyno tests of the old 5 series cars. If that happens by chance, we will happily add the information to the article. If you want to dispute it, or cast aspersion on that data in the article, I have every confidence you will cite impeccable sources that support your opinion that BMW's advertised claims are the most reliable. Sources that caution against too much confidence in manufacturer claims are not hard to come by.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. So if there some future dispute about these facts the sources can be compared. Hopefully we'll all have better uses for our time.

If you want, please go improve Vehicular metrics or dynamometer or horsepower or any of those articles that help readers navigate this confusing subject. Since we both agree with Einstein, that this is 'just a number', not TRUTH, why are we even talking about this?

I expressed some opinions that you are free to ignore, and then asked only one thing vaguely relevent to other Wikipedia editor's work: "can we make it a goal to find independent tests of engine output"? That's what set you off. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You did not say that I am German, but I just wanted to point that out. I am not sterotyping Germans. I did not invent anything. It is a fact that the SAE norm allowed the modification of an engine to get better results when testing power output. DIN 70020 did not allow that. Maybe you should read this. I know what perish the thought means and that it is irony. Couldn't you imagine that I cannot perish thoughts I don't have might be irony as well that fits yours? Thank you though for informing me about idoms.

I already cited sources that show that companies can and do fudge or outright lie about vehicle performance. No, you did not. You cited a source that explains that press vehicles are possibly better than what you could purchase. The second indicates that the BMW R1200GS press bike has a different engine tuning than the series production model a normal customer could purchase: ″On the screen popped up a graph of power and torque curves, with lines for what looked like three bikes. And there were, sort of… "These are the curves for the Tiger Explorer, and here are the curves for the customer BMW R1200GS. And here, just above those, are the curves for the R1200GS press bikes…" (...) In fact the main point was to show the superiority of the Triumph's power over the GS's - these were both comfortably above the German bikes'. But inevitably attention also focussed on the difference between the press bike's curve, with more peak power and less torque (as many journalists seem to prefer) than the showroom model.″ Aha. So it is a marketing trick by Triumph. Telling the press that the BMW press bikes have a different torque curve than the normal models. Something motor vehicle journalists should know. That does not show that [BMW] can and (...) outright lie[s] about vehicle performance. Instead, it shows that Triumph try their best in terms of marketing and that BMW changed the torque curve for a press bike. Reading this helped me a lot. Trust me.

It is not that I could not imagine how one cheats, however, they all cheated the same way and if everybody cheats, no one does.

If there is no action needed, why did you even start this here? Wouldn't this be the better place?

Sources that caution against too much confidence in manufacturer claims are not hard to come by. Yes, I clicked on some of these links and they seem to deal with an American problem. For instance, this source explains the problem of premium fuel used to get better results back in the past. The DIN told you which kind of fuel you had to use. Now these problems might have been fixed with the SAE standards, however, for such old vehicles as this 5er-BMW, it is true that the DIN ratings are much more accurate and reliable than SAE ratings from the same time.

Well, I think we should add the note "rated power (DIN 70020)", I hope you don't disagree. On the other hand, I don't think we should make it a goal to find independent tests since I consider them less accurate and reproducible than for instance the DIN 70020 based tests. Maybe we should move this to the Wikiproject Automobiles talkpage. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That interpretation of the R1200GS story is quite an impressive twisting of facts to suit one's agenda! Dennis, I guess Jojhnjoy's (factually incorrect) attack on the SAE standard is no surprise, given his history of anti-American opinions.

Anyway, regarding the original topic of this section, I'd like to have an each-way bet... "All power and torque figures are manufacturer claims" (ie the current revision) is worth stating, to put the data into context. But I don't believe that casting doubt on the accuracy of these figures is justified, unless there is solid evidence suggesting that the manufacturer claims are untrue. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not factually incorrect. I wrote: The figures (...) based on the DIN 70020 (...) are (...) very precise figures. (...) the way power (...) figures are determined is defined precisely (...). Also: For DIN 70020 power, everything has to be set up properly while for SAE power, the engine may be modified. Later: The DIN told you which kind of fuel you had to use. Now these problems might have been fixed with the SAE standards, however, for such old vehicles as this 5er-BMW, it is true that the DIN ratings are much more accurate and reliable than SAE ratings from the same time.

What I linked above: ″As you might imagine, the standards of DIN 70020 are specific and very strict. Unlike the SAE gross standards (...) the DIN standard requires power to be measured with standard intake, exhaust, and accessory systems in place. DIN horsepower ratings, therefore, are comparable to the modern SAE net rating system (...) SAE gross numbers sometimes bore very little relationship to actual output.

What Dennis linked above: ″A manufacturer could (...) accurately say its engine will run satisfactorily on regular gas, yet perform the horsepower test on a higher-octane blend, knowing it will automatically take advantage of that fuel to produce slightly more power.″ --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No matter how elaborate and strict the testing standard, the car maker can still sell a different product to the public than the one they test. This is why the R1200GS scam was a scam: they weren't interested in fooling journalists. No money in that. Fooling the journalists was a means to fool the public. Cater to the moto writers' tastes with a bike tuned to their liking, and they will write positive reviews, saying the engine does all the good things in all the good ways. The buyer is then deceived by reviews that are more positive than the would have been. Outright power isn't that important in motorcycles; you can go 200 mph or do 0-60 in 2.5s on a $10,000 bike with a couple mods. The reason buyers pay for a $20,000 BMW R1200GS (besides pretending they're Ian McGregor on their commute to the Amazon campus) is that it's supposed to be so refined. Power and driving modes that decrease power to adapt to conditions like rain are everywhere now. The Jekyll-and-Hyde gambit is fundamentally behind most of this kind of fudging or cheating. Defeat devices let the same car be one thing in testing and another in driving. You can fudge by performing a very strict DIN test by blueprinting, balancing, and tuning your test model to perfection, while the mass produced product has much looser tolerances. This is what Consumer Reports was highlighting: showing journalists a better-finished car so that they will write more positive reviews, in order to deceive the buyer. This is why Consumer Reports is the only US magazine that doesn't test the free loan cars that manufacturer provide, along with travel, hotel and per diem in exotic locations to curry favor. CR just walks into a random dealership and buys a car incognito, and tests that one. Motorcycle Consumer News accepts no advertising, but they do rely on manufacturer test bikes.

At the root of this is the practice of using self-testing by vehicle manufacturers for emissions compliance as well as power testing, whether it's SAE or DIN standard. With no oversight, with subjects testing themselves, anything is possible, no matter how strict the standard. People who consider themselves honorable and ethical rationalize cheating because they believe everyone else is doing it too and it would be "unfair" if they didn't cheat. The little tit-for-tat between BMW and Triumph in Kevin Ash's story shines a little light on that. That Jojhnjoy rationalizes the R1200GS deception as "not an outright lie". And the rationalization that "all cheated the same way and if everybody cheats, no one does." Tell that to VW. Tell that to Lance Armstrong. Armstrong's defenders sometimes argue that he should keep his championships because he was the champion at cheating, that is, cycle racing is a contest over who can cheat the best. People like Donald Trump are so immersed in this kind of thinking they don't even know when they're lying and when they're telling the truth.

I don't mean to promote total cynicism in any Wikipedia article, but we should try to get readers to understand the whole picture. The tone of our articles should be much less strident than my tone in this comments. But still, follow the money, and understand everyone's motivations. The way testing, and motivations, have changed since the 70s, as Jojhnjoy pointed out, and other decades, is important to talk about too. There was a time when muscle car power outputs were understated.

All this stuff belongs in articles like vehicular metrics, motorcycle testing and measurement, dynamometer, or horsepower, not BMW 5 Series (E12) , especially since if it was discussed too much in this article it would make it look like BMW was doing something others don't to, or that the 5-series power figures are less reliable than all the other cars. We should mostly frame commentary about the flaws of testing as opinions by experts, using in-text attribution (as described in WP:BIASED)in addition to footnotes to describe what has been said about how and why published figures may be unreliable. Jojhnjoy's point of view is important, and these articles should include the opinions of those who think cheating is not cheating because everyone does it. My reply to that is that if that attitude is honorable, then you shouldn't be shy about talking about it.

As far as BMW 5 Series (E12), if the BMW claims really are reliable, then independent dyno tests of wheel horsepower should vindicate that. So we should all agree that adding those sources to the article is a good idea. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well BMW could do that, but where is the evidence for that? Fooling the motor journalists doesn't automatically fool the public. A good motor journalist knows that a vehicle they get for free from the manufacturer just for testing is usually as good as possible and possibly better than what is sold to the public. It is the job of the motor vehicle journalist to mention this. And as far as I have noticed, they do mention that quite often. Also, as you showed, sometimes they test vehicles they didn't get for free. This means that the tests wouldn't be "wrong" always. Also, the reason for a purchase is not relevant here since we just present facts.

Of course a manufacturer could claim their vehicle has power x. As long as there is no evidence that the manufacturer claim for a specific model is false, we could treat the manufacturer claim as valid information. We could talk about manufacturers cheating over and over, though this leads to original research. I think this entire cheating problem should be mentioned at a different place, you mentioned some articles. For this article I guess we should replace "Power" and "Torque" with "Rated power/torque (DIN 70020)" since this would explain what power figures we get there. (Any objection?)

I disagree on the point with the real wheel power output. I mentioned some reasons why I don't consider external testing useful above (reproducibility, minimal differences could result in different power, unknown test circumstances, tests are not available for every model) but something specific about real wheel power output: You have to keep in mind that the rated power usually means engine flywheel power. Not real wheel power. But a car with an automatic gearbox also has a torque converter, gears and a differential. All these components "eat" some of the power so the real wheel power is always less than the rated power. And some vehicles have manual transmissions. For the sake of comparability, I do not recommend adding real wheel power output to articles. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: the DIN standard is better than SAE because SAE excludes parasitic losses from accessories, alternators, pumps and so on. Got it. However! Let's just totally forget about driveline losses, even though the transmissions, driveshafts, universal joints, and differentials eat up far more than the accessories. Exclude it from articles even when have the data in hand! That so makes sense!

Which is to say, no, it makes no sense at all, and one suspects you're putting us on. Please say you're joking.

When you find everyone is lining up to oppose your proposals, you can rationalize it by imagining that every last editor is blindly prejudiced. You can blame nescire ad non esse. But what is the common denominator? It's this hypocrisy, moving the goalposts, always a double standard. You deny this hypocrisy, but other editors see it. We all see it.

If you want to mention ""Rated power/torque (DIN 70020)" or whatever to these statistics, go ahead. It's not harmful, as long as it's not obtrusive. But it is jargon, so it should be kept out of the way and not replace plain English text and headings. Do not remove notes saying it is manufacturer claimed performance. Do not remove wheel horsepower, or any other test data from reputable, independent publications, in any article. The idea that we would exclude such data from an article is absurd, and unheard of. The only time you see tested wheel hp missing from a car or motorcycle article is that the editor didn't happen to have it at hand. Nobody deletes it because testing is imperfect.

Or because it's not available for every model! Seriously? If you actually believed a word of that, you would want to delete all DIN power ratings -- because DIN testing isn't available for every model! There isn't a uniform set of data covering all models over all time periods. We will never have truly comparable data for everything, but you know very well we won't let that us stop us from giving as much detail as we do happen have case by case. This goes without saying.

When cars only came with two kinds of transmissions, you could use rules of thumb to guess the losses of an automatic compared to the manual. But with today's vehicles, you're comparing models with CVTs vs hydraulic automatics, or dual clutch transmissions and other new designs that perform as well or better than a manual. Some models today record faster accelerations and better fuel economy with the automatic than a manual on the same car. The only thing that gives you insight into any of these differences is wheel horsepower.

I don't expect a word of this to sink in, but I'm very confident that nearly 100% of the community will more or less agree with me. Sadly I expect this issue is going to have to be put through a wasteful RfC at the Automobiles Project that will predictably result in support for including all data that meets the RS standard. And then, sadly, I expect you will pettifog the text of that result, claiming somehow it means whatever you wish it to mean. And so back again to another dispute forum, until you're stopped.

Have you really edited Wikipedia in this manner for, what? Three years? Four years? I can't understand how you could have gotten away with it for so long. Has this whole thing been one big joke? A troll of some kind? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind which standard is better. But the question is what data do we have at hand? "Real wheel power". Okay. But what is that? How is it defined? How is it measured? Comparability? Reproducibility? What about bare engine models? They don't have wheels (except the flywheel). I have never seen "wheel horsepower" in any article. I have never heard about that. I have never read about that. And I don't think that adding it to every article would make sense since only native English speakers would know what it means since the word horsepower translates to what the unit symbol PS is used for, lacking approxiamtely 10.25 W. (This is a different story though.) Well, DIN is not available for every model, but it is a widely used standard, the auto motor und sport test cycle is not. How would I compare it to the Auto Bild test cycle? ″There isn't a uniform set of data covering all models over all time periods. We will never have truly comparable data for everything, (...)″ Yes indeed! So we should go with what we have. ″When cars only came with two kinds of transmissions, you could use rules of thumb to guess the losses of an automatic compared to the manual.″ → WP:NOR. ″But with today's vehicles, you're comparing models with CVTs vs hydraulic automatics, or dual clutch transmissions and other new designs that perform as well or better than a manual. Some models today record faster accelerations and better fuel economy with the automatic than a manual on the same car.″ → True. ″The only thing that gives you insight into any of these differences is wheel horsepower.″ → Well if the drivetrain doesn't eat the power anymore, why don't we compare the flywheel power then? I would support external tests that test the engine power according to DIN 70020 or SAE or whatever standard. However, have you ever found any external test like that? ″I can't understand how you could have gotten away with it for so long.″ → Not relevant here. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Dennis specifically requested "It's not harmful, as long as it's not obtrusive. But it is jargon, so it should be kept out of the way and not replace plain English text and headings", yet you still went ahead and put it the headings, without any further discussion. Very frustrating. I agree with Dennis that it should not be obtrusive, so I will now move it to the sentence about manufacturer claims. 1292simon (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, putting it where I put it is the normal procedure. What would one consider obtrusive in this case? What did I replace? I changed "power" to "Rated power (DIN 70020)". Well replacing "power" with "DIN 70020" wouldn't be useful. But brackets are not obtrusive in my opinion. I did not replace "power" but added (DIN 70020) to "power". So? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
"Well if the drivetrain doesn't eat the power anymore, why don't we compare the flywheel power then?" Because not all cars have automatics that are equal to manual transmissions. Some still have less efficient hydraulic transmissions with torque converters. Others have CVTs that have different levels of power losses. And some newer automatics are not just equal to manuals, but better. How much better? the only way to know is if we test wheel horsepower. And even if none of that was true, and all modern cars had identical power losses, you couldn't compare older models with newer ones. Tracing historical trends is more encyclopedic than a new car buyer's guide, and so the most encyclopedic purpose of this is to chart the improvements in technology that decreased parasitic losses.

Rules of thumb for typical power losses of conventional transmissions of the 1960s-1990s have reliable sources for them, so if we wished to mention them, we could.[13][14][15] That is not original research. Even if we didn't, you hope that the reader will mentally subtract 10% to 15% from all the rated figures they see for a car of this era. How do knowledgeable people acquire this rule of thumb. Because somebody printed wheel horsepower somewhere and it enlightened them. Just as we should do.

None of that addresses the fact that not all cars are created equal. Engineering, low tolerances, and quality assurance makes a better machine, resulting in lower parasitic losses compared to a car built to a lower standard. Seeing only rated power masks these differences.

I have never seen "wheel horsepower" in any article. Whatever dude. Never heard of such a thing. Anyway.

"What about bare engine models?" Wow! Score a point! Excellent observation. I have no reply and must bow to your superior reasoning on this point. Here I was, ready to scour the automotive press for published wheel horsepower on, what? Crate engines, I guess? All those engines without the car they have on the BMW showroom floor? Boy, I would have felt silly trying to find wheel horsepower for a bare engine. I have to thank you for that one.

This is a total waste of time to discuss any further. Jojhnjoy, you don't have to change your mind. Keep believing whatever you want. But if you find any articles with dyno test data that cites a reliable source, do not remove it. Consensus is to keep it. No more ignoring consensus. That has to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I hope that you understand me: I don't want to remove any such figures. However, it is my opinion that I don't consider such figures useful. My reasons are: 1. I don't think that the term wheel horsepower really fits. It is too car specific. (With a dyno the engine power is determined sufficiently enough, at least für the German TÜV. They don't measure wheel horsepower, they measure engine power.) What about tractors, chainsaws, boats, bare engines, etc? you cannot put them on a dyno. The engine power output of tractors is determined by attaching the power take-off shaft to a retarder dynamometer. (For instance, a K-700 engine has a max. torque of approximately 1 kN m at 1100/min. It would break s standard dyno.) 2. Only English speaking people use horsepower. Usually, Europeans use kW or DIN-PS instead. 3. You cannot compare the external tests of tester A with those of tester B, how would you want to ensure that they use the exact same test? Do they use the same test conditions? (DIN even determines the air pressure for the test.) 4. Only small differences in torque can result in a 2000 W difference in power: (Given torque and frequency: | | Makes ≈ 176 kW. Now insert these, but reduce the torque by 1 %: ) 5. How do you want to ensure, that the test results are comparable? For hundreds of engines the technical data is given according to DIN. You could compare a lawn mower engine to a tractor engine. With external tests, this comparability and reproducibility is lost. The tester says it has 100 wheel horsepower. How much wheel horsepower does a lawnmower have? How would you want to measure that? How would you compare that? How would you compare a Дрýжба 4 with a Stihl MS 230? It is not possible. 6. Consider engine wear! (The last time we measured the engine power of the Porsche, it made ca. 14 kW. The factory claim is 18.4 kW. (1.6 l Straight-2 Porsche engine.) Did Porsche lie about power output? No. The compression of the first cylinder is just not as good as it was when it came out of the factory. The operating hour meter is at 20,320 hours now, (the first digit does not work and it should show a 2 instead of a 0,) I guess this explains why the engine has worn out even though it is extremely robust. Also, which rotational frequency would you test? According to the manual, the rated frequency is 2000/min. But it is a swirl chamber injected engine... Without modifying anything, by just pulling on the gas lever a bit, the engine would also make 2500/min. Which makes it more powerful. When I was a small lad, I couldn't press the clutch pedal. So I put the Porsche into second gear and pulled the starter knob since the starter motor has enough power to both crank the engine and move the tractor when it is in 2nd gear. To make the tractor faster, I just set the injection pump to the maximum possible amount by pulling on the gas lever. I bet it didn't stop at 2000/min since sometimes the exhaust clouds were a bit blue.) How would you want to ensure that the tested car doesn't have a worn out engine? Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"I don't think that the term wheel horsepower really fits." Nobody cares. Seriously. Nobody gives a rusty flying fuck whether you think the normal conventional terms "fit" or not. We edit based on what our sources tell us, not what WE THINK is better. What we think is "original research". Wheel horsepower is the usual convention, simple as that. Or whp, or rwhp.[16] or even fwhp[17]. Too car specific? Where are we? We are at Talk:BMW 5 Series (E12). The E12 is a CAR. Jesus. If you catch me writing "wheel horsepower" an article about a submarine, you be sure and call me out on that. The broader term effective horsepower exists, if we were talking about chainsaws or helicopters, which we're not.[18] Why even bring them up except as a troll?

Tractors? No, sorry, wrong again. Tractors, as with everything else, can be tested for crankshaft, gross, net, wheel, or effective horsepower -- aw well as the term drawbar horsepower related to towing.[19]. The reasons for asking what a tractor's wheel horsepower are the same as asking what a BMW E12's wheel or effective horsepower is. But this is not an article about tractors. Please stop this bullshit.

Only English speaking people use horsepower." THIS IS ENGLISH FUCKING WIKIPEDIA GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD. YOU DON'T NEED TO KEEP FUCKING REMINDING US THAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE OTHER FUCKING WORDS FOR THINGS. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DIFFERENT FUCKING LANGUAGE. Over at de.wikipedia.org or ru.wikipedia.org or whatever they will most certainly use whatever terms are conventional for them.

Do you think I should go to French Wikipedia interject into every discussion that Americans won't know what they're talking about if they only use French words? I shouldn't, because that would be stupid, and they'd show me the door toot sweet.

I have no more patience left for this disingenuous time wasting bullshit. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is blatant trolling, or what we call 'disruptive editing'. I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.

I think I speak for everyone when I say further replies from you on this subject are not welcome. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.