Talk:BMW N54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Performance section[edit]

I propose that the Comparison with 6 cylinder and V8 engines sections are removed, since they just turn into unencyclopedic "mine's bigger than yours" fanboy debates. Comparing specific outputs of turbocharged engines against naturally-aspirated engines is misleading, as is using acceleration times of cars with different masses and gearing to "prove" which engine is "superior". I suggest this content is best saved for car forums, not wikipedia. 1292simon (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Several different journalists did take all the different factors into consideration when testing, so I am keeping them. (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the differences in the weight of the different cars was accounted for when the journalists did the efficiency and acceleration tests. (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The journalists were comparing the cars, not the engines. Except for the comments about smoothness and higher revving, the references do not support the claims. Also, could you please stop deleting the "citation needed" tags without actually providing any citations? Also, please describe your objection to renaming "problems" to the more descriptive title of "HPFP problems"? 1292simon (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The journalists were comparing the engines, giving the host cars, and that is the part mentioned in this article. When discussing six cylinder engines, there was no point in mentioning a V6 engine from a Toyota Camry as it is a different application and category, the journalists made a point of making sure everything was as similar as possible in their comparisons (too prohibitly expensive rip out the G37's engine and place it in the 335i) Touranushertz (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The article currently has a section comparing the engine to rival manufacturer's engines. Can this section be removed? 1292simon (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be removed because - this type of section only encourages pissing competitions between fanboys of each brand (which is appropriate for car forums, but not wikipedia) - when based on displacement, comparisons between forced-induction and turbocharged engines are misleading - it is misleading to make assumptions about an engine's performance based on comparisons between different cars. For example, the gearing, vehicle mass and other factors can have significant effects on a car's acceleration, fuel economy, noise and smoothness. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the articles went into depth to try to compare the engines, taking into account all of these other factors. Speaking of different cars, of course they could not replace the Audi S4's engine with the BMW 335i's, but Insideline did take the different weight and dimensions of the vehicles into account when doing an acceleration test.

As far as I'm concerned, there aren't any attacks by fanboys, whatsoever. Touranushertz (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between noting a cause for inaccuracy and being able to actually overcome this cause. The magazine articles merely did the former. This makes it misleading to use apply their conclusions to the engines rather than the vehicle as a whole.
I would call the previous text (which tried to claim that a 3.0L turbo BMW engine is superior to a 3.7L N/A Nissan engine because it makes more power despite the smaller displacement) as misleading and unnecessary fanboy content which Wikipedia could do without. 1292simon (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Journalists aren`t fanboys. I`ll remove the superiority text but that it is.Touranushertz (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
You say that, yet you again blindly reverted my whole edit, which meant you restored all the "superiority text". Can you please be more willing to collaborate and stop blindly reverting big edits? I put an RfC on this issue, hopefully other editors will chime in soon about the issue, because it seems we're at a stalemate. 1292simon (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you stop your wholesale reverts. It is not "superiority text" if there are acceleration test results to back it up.Touranushertz (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Automotive articles should not feature comparisons between different makes. The V8 section started off with two peacock words so it got the boot automatically. Greglocock (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd trim it down drastically. I'm not seeing the value of most of it, nor have I seen anything like it on any other pages. Beyond that, it's obviously POV in favor of the sixes. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep it quite pointless to compare engines in different cars. -->Typ932 T·C 05:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I tracked the 6-cylinder comparison and verified the refs. Maybe a bit more detail than necessary but otherwise it looks solid. The 8-cylinder comparison goes off into the weeds and needs to be edited or removed. I don't think that concern about pissing contests is a good reason to remove the material. The fact that journalists are doing these sorts of comparisons indicates that they're useful and notable and should be included. -—Kvng 04:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so why should the automotive project change policy for this engine? You may have noticed that car magazines are stuffed to the gills with comparisons between cars, but we don't include them in wiki. Greglocock (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was a policy. This was not mentioned in the discussion here. If all automotive comparisons are verboten then this should be a simple decision. I'm not a member of the automotive project. I just dropped in in response to the RfC. There was concern that a comparison of cars was not applicable to a comparison of engines. That doesn't seem to be the case here. -—Kvng 18:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It has to be noted that there were no actual tests between BMW cars with the same engines (i.e. the 335i versus the M3), however there was plenty detailed comparisons between BMW cars and other marques.Touranushertz (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


Winning Engine of the Year is a significant claim, which would need supporting references. Touranushertz, please do not remove the tags (yet again) without providing a reference. 1292simon (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Added in the reference [1].Touranushertz (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


The claims about M54/N52 origins would need to be supported by references. The text has been edited to more closely represent the references. 1292simon (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest leaving in the claim but with a reference tag.Touranushertz (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:verify, I believe this text needs to be supported by references. A cn tag is just a temporary marker that a reference needs to be found, not an excuse to leave unreferenced text. Also, other text in this section has been stripped back to claims supported by the references provided. 1292simon (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with 6 & 8 cylinder engines[edit]

The previous text contained many claims not supported by the references. It has been trimmed to just the referenced claims. 1292simon (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the best-referenced parts of the article. There is no fanboy arguments here, these comparisons are conducted by professional journalists. Touranushertz (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Journalism is not a profession it is a trade. Be that as it may automotive articles do not do comparisons. Greglocock (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
These comparisons are actually one of the most detailed between naturally-aspirated and turbocharged engines.Touranushertz (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't make any difference. The automotive taskforce says we don't do inter-company comparisons on automotive articles. If you don't like it take it up with them. Greglocock (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Previous discussions Greglocock (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there something more specific you can cite? I don't see anything about comparisons at the first link and the second just lists any project discussion that uses the word "comparisons". -—Kvng 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I never took part in the discussions, I just see the outcome. Any attempt to introduce comaprisons causes non encyclopedic stuff to get included in articles, so the easy thing to do is to ban it. Otherwise article A will say that in tests A was better than B, and article B will say that B is better than C, and C ends up saying the C is better than A, all supported by reams of cherry picked RS cites that mean little. Wiki is not here to promote any particular engine, so each article should be objective and wiki as a whole needs to be non contradictory if it is to be useful. A separate article "comparisons of I6 engines" or whatever could be made I suppose. Greglocock (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

HPFP Problems[edit]

Section renamed to be more specific about the content. Unreferenced statements removed (which is especially important since we are discussing an issue which resulted in a Class Action) 1292simon (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I prefer leaving in the material but with a reference tag.Touranushertz (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Current low level reversion antics[edit]

I apologise for repeatedly reverting the comparisons with other engines, but until the editor who repeatedly reinserts them is prepared to discuss the issue and build consensus on this Talk page or any other appropriate forum then I think this is the right course of action. Said editor seems to be ignoring all counterarguments. ihave advised the editor of this discussion. Greglocock (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I support Greglocock's reverts. Touranushertz continues to repeatedly reinsert the same content without any attempt to find a solution here on the Talk page. This is very frustrating for other editors. Also, Touranushertz has repeatedly removed the "disputed" tag when the dispute has not been resolved. 1292simon (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Touranushertz, could you please stop reverting the same text over and over again. Multiple editors disagree with these comparisons and now you are destroying their subsequent improvements to the article when you dump your old text back in. 1292simon (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BMW N54. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mr/Mrs Bot. Approved. 1292simon (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)