Talk:BMW M6

General points

totally re-done to bring it up to standard.

Changed any references to ps to hp. 203.109.252.196

PS is standard units not HP. YCCHAN 19:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This article desparetly needs an image (the current one is awful). Sahands 3 AUG, 2006.

In my opinion are both pictures hideous. -- Janadore 13:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And the first one is under copyright too, I'll be photographing an M6 next week (already talked to the owner) and hopefully we'll get some decent pics here then.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good. Thanks.-- Janadore 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed 'PS' back to 'hp'. PS is not 'standard'; it is used on next to no other wiki pages dealing with cars. Most common format is "hp (kw)" followed by "kw (hp)".

Sub heading

I'm a BMW driver, but can anyone explain what the heading E24 M635CSi/M6 means? It looks like pure gobbledygook, what use would this heading be to a non-BMW M6 fan? It's also a pretty dire way to start an article. Escaper7 08:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess a space would help. E24 M6 and 635CSi. YCCHAN 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just a bit meaningless. Wouldn't M6 from 1983 followed by M6 from 2005 make more sense - the technical details, evolution numbers could be explained below each section. Escaper7 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the 6 series in Europe with the 286 hp engine was called M635 CSi. There was, I beleive, an M6, which was a 635 CSi with "M" kit on it and only the 218hp engine. It's easy to get these two cars confused with each other. Furthermore, for the last 9 months or so of production, the M635 CSI was badged as simply M6, confusing matters further. The car was known as M6 in the USA. LewisR 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

this car rocks ?

who puts that in an article "this car rocks" ?

M635CSi fastest production model ever from BMW?

Wasn't the BMW M1 a faster car? It had the same engine with a lower smaller frontal area. LewisR 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the 8-series was the direct successor to the E24 6-series. The 850CSi would be the second generation of the now 6-series M coupe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

next generation ?

When is comming the next generation of the M6, in 2011,2012 or 2013 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.99.188 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

citation

I noticed that this article needs to add citation, I have changed citation needed to a proper cite. Tianyu10 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Discontinuation

The 6 series was discontinued in 2017 (link, but I can’t seem to tell if this date was for the world, or only for the US. Dave Rahardja 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drahardja (talk • contribs)

It wasn't. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Yes, the coupe models were discontinued worldwide in 2017 (link). But not the convertible and Gran Coupe models. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Hi U1Quattro. Here are the reasons for my changes. If you are planning on reverting them yet again, could you please do me the courtesy for a change of giving me time to reply here first?

• As per the MOS, the purpose of the first paragraph is to define the topic without being too specific. Therefore the details of the body styles are moved to the next paragraph.
• The M6 was produced for the first 3 generations of 6 Series (E24, E63, F06) but not the latest (G32)
• Both E24 engines were 3.5 L straight 6s
• Kerb weights vary by body style, model and country. Not to mention that several of the figures are unsourced. Therefore unfortunately it is not possible to accurately summarise the weight with a simple number in the Infobox, so the figures should instead be properly discussed in the body of the article.
• Adding engine types to summaries (see M8 Talk page)

1292simon (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• U1Quattro, you reverted my edit and ignored the discussion here. Please show the Talk page process some respect. 1292simon (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And please show respect to the fact that your changes are optional as per MoS therefore, only restore them when others agree with you on this. U¹ _quattro TALK 02:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, to address your points:

• Yes the MoS stresses the point you have made, but also in a not too summarised manner, without being broken into too many paragraphs and also giving an overview of the reader of the main points of the article as not many Wikipedia readers take their time to read the whole article.

• I have rectified that concern by adding "with the exclusion of the G32 generation". I don't know what problem you have with that. It's more clearer than "first three generations".

• So? Mentioning them both in a list format is not making the article lengthy.

• Like you are fighting over at the User talk:Akluch, the weight figures are quoted by BMW. If the weight figures vary, then they should be listed out in the infobox. That completes the purpose of the infobox as a summary of the contents. Weight is a field of the infobox and should not be removed. Unlike you claim, it is 100% possible to summarise weight figures in the infobox and it was like so until you changed it.

• No MoS encourages moving infobox contents to summaries like you are doing.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patience, please! (refering to you immediately reverting it yet again) And can you please fix the indenting of your reply above? It is hard to follow the flow of the replies. 1292simon (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(responding to dot points above) Nice try with your first line of "show respect to the fact..." attempting to show an equivalence between my change to the intro paragraph and your continual reverts of other edits without any attempt at discussion. That's quite a stretch...

• Moving body styles to 2nd para: You said "Yes the MoS stresses the point you have made, but also in a not too summarised manner". Where does the MoS say "but also in a not too summarised manner"? If the MoS does say this, I would like to see how it applies to change in paragraphing that I made.
• Generations of 6 Series that the M6 was produced for: Phrasing it as "with the exclusion of the G32 generation" does not make it clearer. The purpose of this sentance in the intro is to provide historical perspective, and the casual reader is unlikely to know whether the G32 is the first, last or middle generation.
• Engine code list: grouping the straight-six engines together is appropriate for the infobox
• Kerb weights in infobox: I think you are confusing the issues. This has nothing to do with the issue of manufacturer vs 3rd party 0-100 km/h times that was discussed on Akluch's page.
• Engine type description: You said "No MoS encourages moving infobox contents to summaries". Actually, Wiki policy states that the Infobox IS a summary of the article's key points, so where does the MoS talk about not including whether an engine is petrol/diesel and how much detail to include about the internals of the turbocharger(s)?

1292simon (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

To address your points:

• Where does any wiki policy say that we should remove infobox weights? I would like to see that? And no, I'm not confusing this with anything as you are believing.

• No wiki policy supports that merging engines is appropriate for the infobox. Infobox Automobile page provides a sample of the infobox to guide editors how to use it. If you can't follow that, suggest your "alternative" approach and obtain consensus.

• The "Historical" perspective is not supported by the BMW website. So stop using that as a source. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The M88/S38 distinction is indisputable and needs to stay. Also, the speed of the original M635 CSi (255km/h) is sourced in km/h and should not be listed in mph and then reversed.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Choppers, I will incorporate these changes.

Hi U1Quattro, here are my responses. By the way, could you please indent your replies correctly, so that people can follow the thread more easily?

Infobox weights: The quote from you is "Like you are fighting over at the User talk:Akluch, the weight figures are quoted by BMW", so that seems a pretty clear case of confusing the issues of weight and 0-100 km/h times. Please see my reason above for discussing the kerb weights in the article body rather than the Infobox.

Engine code list: It is most curious that you put so much authority on the Infobox template documentation, yet have recently stated that the WikiProject Automobile Conventions is "just a general essay"...

Generations of 6 Series: The source is not changing, so your claim about it is not correct. The issue is about presenting the info in a way that is accessible to readers. 1292simon (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Another response:

• The infobox automobile page is not an essay as you put it.

• Another user disagreed with you on engine code list.

• The source doesn't support the information provided. So it should be removed.

U¹ _quattro TALK 09:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi U1Quattro. Your opinion about Infobox template documentation is incorrect, it merely a usage guide not Wiki policy.

Regarding the generations of 6 Series, it is ridiculous that you are now arguing that such a basic fact needs a direct reference (do you really believe that the M6 was not produced for the E24, E63 and F01 generations??). Nonetheless, I have now added references. 1292simon (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Also when it comes to weight, you really need to be careful, the 2008 German brochure says 1,785 kg (3,935 lb) for the coupe, the 2008 US one says 1,773 kg (3,909 lb), this would make you think the US one is lighter, however the opposite is true (by around 110 kg), the US measurement is unladen, the German one follows the EU curb weight standard with the tank 90% full (around 47.5 kg) 68 kg added to represent the driver and 7 kg added to to represent luggage. So by not defining how it should be measured you end up with two possible numbers that are not directly comparable (the EU curb weight adds about 122.5 kg to the unladen number), weight is not one simple number, there is significant variance in both actual weights (between different national markets and over years and updates) and how they are measured.

This kind of thing is best explained in prose, if you must have it in the infobox it should be expressed as a range or be very specific about what car the number represents and how it was measured. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

1292simon's changes do not define these weight changes. I'm done here and reporting him. He doesn't want to follow the infobox guideline and force his changes? Then so be it. I've wasted enough time already on this fruitless discussion. U¹ _quattro TALK 14:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

About your changes, others don't agree that they are impressive. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the kerb weights, there is still room for improvement. However the version with it in the body of the text is less ambiguous than the infobox version. 1292simon (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

no it isn't. Yore not following how the infobox is used. I'm takingthis to ANI because I'm done explaining it to you again and again. If you cannot obtain a clear consensus about your edits from others then maybe the admins can force their decision upon you.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, take some time reading what the others user has said in the link I have posted. Instead of causing disruption, make a list of your changes and see if others agree with them (I certainly don't). If they do then I have no problems with them but in the current state, other users do disagree with you an you fail to realize that. If you want to continue this disruption you're making then I have got no choice but to do what I said earlier.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)