Talk:BMW M4

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bavaria Low‑importance

	Bavaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria 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.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 28 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khuynh96. Peer reviewers: Tmm113, Kanraru.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

performance data[edit]

I noticed that there are not enough information on BMW M3 and BMW M4's performance. I have added more information regarding the performance of the car. Tianyu10 (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

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

Production expressed as years, due to WP:RECENTISM
Paragraph break in Intro section- see BMW M8 talk page
Petrol/turbo terminology- as above
Transmission: removing unnecessary marketing term for dual-clutch
Kerb weight: These vary by body style, country, etc etc. Therefore the simplification was inaccurate.
Power units as per WikiProject Auto
Image relocation to improve layout
Potential copyright issue with www.manualsheaven.net
Trimming categories

1292simon (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was reached about the turbo terminology. Other editors disagree with you on this as well as about the power units. Kerb weight should be included in the infobox. If you disagree then obtain a consensus. Now that you are risking yourself a block, you should do that. Layout is not significantly improved by the relocation as well. WP:RECENTISM is not a guideline and therefore not trumps what MoS say. Established way of expressing production timeline is by month and year. Also WP:RECENTISM is irrelevant as far as this article is concerned.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having the specific date is useless trivia, I don't have a very strong opinion on months, they can be useful, like if production started late in the year, I don't see a good reason to remove them. And U1Quattro, what do you have against line breaks? Toasted Meter (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's useless, have others agree on that. Don't force your opinion down other's throats. Line breaks are not encouraged by any Wiki policy or MoS. If you think that they are useful then let's do an RfC where we can see if other people think they are as useful as you think. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an RFC for a line break, no one other than you would think that is anything but absurd. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we do need that. U¹ _quattro TALK 17:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Months are good, actual days never. Mentioning "petrol" seems unnecessary but if everyone wants to do it then fine, I guess. Marketing names can be useful as one will see them everywhere so it can be helpful for WP to clarify what M-DCT might actually mean - don't know if the infobox is the best place, but again, not super important. Power units should be as per the manufacturer, the outputs can be shuffled with the help of various conversion parameters. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the petrol point but with people wanting to force the changes, discussion is useless. Well, WP should explain what M-DCT actually means as not everyone reader knows what it means.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redline is not the same as maximum engine speed.[edit]

Text says "This 3.0-litre inline-6 engine has been built specifically for the new M4/M3, having a redline of 7,600 rpm with the rev limiter actuated at 7,300 rpm". The maximum engine speed is 7,600RPM, the redline is below that, unless we define the term differently from other people. The redline is when you enter the red area on the rev limiter, warning you that you are approaching maximum safe engine speed. The limiter cuts in well after the redline is crossed. Part of the reason for the redline is to warn the operator that the rev limiter will soon engage. A performance car with a rev limiter that cut in before you even reached the redline would be an abomination.

64.222.115.36 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of BMW M4 DTM (naturally-aspirated) into BMW M4#Motorsport[edit]

MERGED INTO BMW M4 DTM

Naturally-aspirated DTM merged into the Turbo DTM. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Seems to be a variant of the BMW M4 for racing. Doesn't appear to be independently notable, would probably work better merged into the main M4 article (if it is decided to be independently notable then I will move the article to "BMW M4 DTM" since there's no need for the (naturally aspirated) disambiuator) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "naturally-aspirated" part of the name is to distinguish it from BMW M4 Turbo DTM. It's much shorter than the NA DTM page, so I would consider merging the two DTM pages together, or otherwise both into BMW M4. --Vossanova ^o< 21:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vossanova: Oh I wasn't even aware that article existed. I searched "BMW M4 DTM" in the search bar and the only other result was the BMW M3 DTM (E92). I would change the merge target but the discussion has already started here. I'll check that page to see if it would be notable, otherwise I would also support merging both pages into this one. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NA M4 DTM and M4 Turbo DTM are different cars, despite being based on the M4. So I suggest the NA M4 DTM and M4 Turbo DTM be merged into a single article about the M4 DTM, without merging into the main M4 article. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 16:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. As I said in my comment above I would've changed the merge target however the discussion here has already started. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.