BMW 3-Series (G20) / M3 (G80)

Discussion in 'Auto News' started by ProjectWHaT, Apr 1, 2018.

  1. ProjectWHaT

    ProjectWHaT

    Messages:
    12,909
    Location:
    Antarctica
    M3:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1114355_2020-bmw-m3-spy-shots


    --

    3-Series:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1028837_2019-bmw-3-series-spy-shots-and-video
     
    PSN:And-War and Turbo like this.
  2. CSMDuty11

    CSMDuty11

    Messages:
    1,870
    Location:
    Russian Federation
    ...So why does the M3 have +60 in its internal designation, again?
     
  3. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Why not?

    [​IMG]
     
    SecretAgentZero likes this.
  4. SlipZtrEm

    SlipZtrEm Administrator

    Messages:
    26,045
    Location:
    Canada
    Because BMW was tired of being known as a logical, efficient German company, and this is the course correction.

    It's the Whose Line Is It Anyway of model designations.
     
  5. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    BMW has never consistently applied any logical format to development codes, be they Typschlüssel, E, F, G, R, RR, M, J or i.
     
  6. EA11R

    EA11R

    Messages:
    1,094
    The foundation of modern BMW is the 2002. Which was a nonsense name too.
     
  7. Wolfe

    Wolfe Premium

    Messages:
    11,933
    Location:
    United States
    The 2000 sedan was designated for its ~2000cc engine. The 2002 was the two-door version of that sedan, with the ~2000cc engine (as opposed to the 1602 with a 1.6L engine). Unusual, but it had a meaning.
     
    TheCracker likes this.
  8. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    @Wolfes explanation is pretty much* correct, but the difference is the model was branded as, and called, the 2002. G30 and G80 are internal codes that the company use (and therefore fanboi's like me use them too) - it doesn't matter if they make sense or not...

    To put the 2002 in the same context as @CSMDuty11's question, the question would be "Why did BMW have the 114 designation for the 1.6 litre 1502, when the 2002 Turbo had the designation E10/T ?"

    The answer... It doesn't matter! Because they called 'em 1502's and 2002's, and it didn't matter that *the 1502 had a 1.6 litre like the 1602 because people realised what it implied (something that seems to be an issue for some people these days).
     
  9. RandomCarGuy17

    RandomCarGuy17

    Messages:
    13,922
    Location:
    United States
    Meh, I'm use to BMW's nonsense at this point with their car naming schemes. Still stupid though imo.
     
  10. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    What is?
     
  11. RandomCarGuy17

    RandomCarGuy17

    Messages:
    13,922
    Location:
    United States
    Making the chassis numbers different.
     
  12. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Why?

    If you want it easy, just call it a 'new M3', you won't see G80 on any marketing material, or on the car, and the majority of people won't know what a G80 or G20 is anyway. I mean, have you devised a logical system for every single previous BMW development code that this will somehow break? Do you only have capacity to remember a finite number of numbers and this happens to be the one that tips it over the edge? Could you tell me how my E30 was different to a different E30 just by knowing it's an E30? Is UG52 a logical type designation for my current BMW? Why does J mean Toyota and M mean Zinoro if RR means Rolls-Royce?? If an F30 is a 3-er saloon, and an F31 is a 3-er Tourer, then why is an E31 an 8 series if the E30 is 3 series saloon????..... What does it all mean?!? ... oh the humanity!!!!

    The answer... still... nothing. You either have to memorise these things, and know them, or you don't know them... still no different to any other car maker I can think of (I will heartily be corrected on that).
     
    VXR likes this.
  13. SlipZtrEm

    SlipZtrEm Administrator

    Messages:
    26,045
    Location:
    Canada
    Why is it that any discussion about BMW, no matter how benign, always ends up like this?

    upload_2018-4-14_15-46-41.png
     
  14. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Looks around... who, me?

    I'm just here to try and steer people away from calling the thing they don't understand stupid ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    So....

    [​IMG]

    .. is really more accurate.

    As for 'why'... I don't know ... I've literally asked the question "Why?" to try and understand it better myself.
     
  15. RandomCarGuy17

    RandomCarGuy17

    Messages:
    13,922
    Location:
    United States
    I didn't have to, there was a clear pattern already based on past 3-Series generations. The chassis code didn't change between the trim levels until the 6th gen was introduced. Yes, the chassis code number changed for body styles of the 5th gen 3-series, but still retained the same code number between trim levels. Simply, I'm saying it's dumb, because it's inconsistent with what they did in past generations. Once again however, I'm used to it since BMW has been this way for several years.

    Uh...no? Also tips over the edge, wha...?

    Jeez, you make it seem like I was raging over this like the Angry Video Game Nerd or something. :lol:

    Hmmmm, a good question.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  16. SlipZtrEm

    SlipZtrEm Administrator

    Messages:
    26,045
    Location:
    Canada
    That's kind of funny, since I think "golden calf" is oddly appropriate here.
     
  17. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Why?
     
  18. AlexGRFan97

    AlexGRFan97

    Messages:
    43
    Sorting through this list and filtering out all the concept cars and whatnot, it seems glaringly obvious to me that the numbers during the 'E' (Entwicklung) era were assigned based on the order the projects were finished and deemed ready for production. Skipped numbers were failed experiments; two of the more noticeable blocks were the E13 - E19 and E40 - E45 designations, none of which were used on a production car.

    E3: 2500 - 3000 Si, introduced 1968
    E6: x02 series touring, introduced 1971 but finalized in 1968 by Baur
    E9: 2.5 CS - 3.0 CSL, introduced 1968
    E12: 5-series, introduced 1972
    E20: 2002 Turbo, introduced 1973
    E21: 3-series, introduced 1975
    E23: 7 series, introduced 1977 but finalized in April 1976
    E24: 6-series, introduced 1976
    E26: M1, introduced 1978
    E28: Second generation 5-series, introduced 1981
    E30: Second generation 3-series, introduced 1982
    E31: 8-series, introduced 1989 but finalized in 1986
    E32: Second generation 7-series, introduced 1986
    E34: Third generation 5-series, introduced 1987
    E36: Third generation 3-series, introduced 1990
    E38: Third generation 7-series, introduced 1994
    E39: Fourth generation 5-series, introduced 1995
    E46: Fourth generation 3-series, introduced 1998
    E50: Mini, introduced 2001 but finalized in 1998
    E52: Z8, introduced 1999
    E53: X5, introduced 1999
     
    [email protected] and Wolfe like this.
  19. ProjectWHaT

    ProjectWHaT

    Messages:
    12,909
    Location:
    Antarctica
    Don't forget about the E90 generation where each body style has its own code.
    E90: sedan
    E91: wagon
    E92: coupe
    E93: convertible
     
    [email protected] likes this.
  20. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Could be the case for those earlier double digit E numbers but off the top of my head I'd guess it starts to break down fairly quickly once we hit the E60 as after that body styles started getting unique numbers rather than suffixes.

    Nah, I'm just trying to keep things jovial, despite Slip trying to paint it as something else. My point is that though some patterns may exist through the various phases of BMW's history, there really is no rule that explains it all - so I don't understand why people can take objection to something so arbitrary.

    For what it's worth, my sensible answer on the topic at hand is that the recent divergence of M model codes from the core lineup might be indicative of a clearer degree of separation between BMW and M, or it could point to there being a more significant difference in the Bill of materials or the manufacturing logistics.. or it could be entirely arbitrary.

    As a system of numbers it's evolving all the time, just as the actual model designations are.
     
  21. VXR

    VXR

    Messages:
    8,571
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    At least the internal chassis codes make some sort of sense. Trying to work out Audi's new engine code scheme is ridiculous. A 55TSI you say? Tells me a heap about what's under the hood.
     
  22. Crash

    Crash Premium

    Messages:
    5,509
    Location:
    United States
    Following the flow of conversation here...

    To me, it appears BMW has evolved to an "internal designation code" sequence where each new generation/set of vehicles in the (main BMW) family has a new letter sequence (F, G, I bet next generation of vehicles will be H), with some exceptions. If that guess is actually the case, then there's ~15 more generations of vehicles before they will exhaust the alphabet, plenty left.

    --

    If I have to venture a guess, the proliferation of codes for different body styles (arguably could be considered separate "models") and M cars is due to something more practical. From internal development, production execution, operations and accounting perspectives, it's way easier to split them up into separate codes than try to manage potentially significantly different versions of a model with a single code. You can now create an efficient and, at least internally, easily decipherable set of designators that for example, can prefix all CAD models or drawing names in a PDM tool for easy compilation and retrieval. Sure, you can still do that with one model code, but then you'll have to specify if a CAD model is for the sedan? coupe? wagon? Touring? What do you call it? When you're trying to work on an assembly, how do you easily pull up all the parts, and only the parts specific for a sedan+shared components? Separate internal codes alleviate that problem.

    From a production execution perspective, it's easier and more efficient for logistics and operations planning and control to utilize these short alphanumeric codes where it's less subject to misspellings like "Grand Coupe" or confusion about "SWB/LWB/Bulletproof LWB". Keep in mind, automakers will send a few different models with different body styles with different trim levels all down the same production line, with a very short takt time. Imagine for every part where there's a unique version between a SWB/LWB/Bulletproof LWB vehicle, and you as the factory worker have to inspect and make sure you have the right one before installing it, every time you look up a part in the system for installation instructions, every time you have to order another new one of the part because you accidentally broke it while installing it, every time you have to write that out in full on every parts delivery order/invoice from supplier. What a nightmare.

    From an accounting perspective, breaking down the different body styles and the M models, where it's significantly different, effectively gives an easier pre-sorted dataset of sales, demand-related data, cost broken down by body type, margin (perhaps coupes have better margins than wagons, I don't know, but that would be nice data to have if I was running the company), regional purchasing preferences, etc. All this, to me, makes a lot of sense in giving different internal tracking codes to the different models within a Series family.

    Also remember, current automotive mass production at any given plant only has to care about what is currently being built, which is no more than a few code variations at once, so what may appear to us to be a vast proliferation of codes is really significantly more manageable to BMW internal. They don't have to care whether Exx or Fxx was this series or that series or a coupe or a wagon or whatever as the current mass production plants are no longer making the discontinued models and is not responsible for delivering those as complete products anymore.

    When you are planning and running a production system, you are usually looking for ways to make it easier to manage the operations and to decrease the potential for mistakes. How consistent is some internal code to a supposed external framework ranks pretty low on the priority list.

    Why exactly did BMW skip so many numbers at once? I have no idea, but if I was a betting man, I would bet there's an internal rhyme and reason for it.

    If anything, I think BMW is doing what they do best, and that is be very German and be logical, methodical, and orderly in how they have these codes set up now.
     
    RandomCarGuy17 and Wolfe like this.
  23. JC_Dude

    JC_Dude

    Messages:
    1,043
    That would be more equivalent to a 40i at BMW. Which is not a 4.0 petrol, but a 3.0. Tells you about as much as a 55TSI.
     
  24. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The switch between F and G hasn't been that clean and we're not done with the F series yet. The just launched X2 is all the way back at F39, the next 1 series will be F40. Meanwhilst the highest G number at the moment is almost 100 ahead with G38. Upcoming M cars are still in the F range too - F98 M8 for example. It appears there's been some segregation based on platform, as all FWD cars have remained in the F's so far.

    "i" codes already (and slightly confusingly) exist already, the i01 is the i3 and the i12/i15 are the i8's. Current word is that the next generation of BMW-i products will be electrifying versions of series production models, so these may or may not be linked to the existing G codes, first model to hit will be the BEV version of the G01 X3... though I would say it's likely that the production i-NEXT concept will have an 'i' internal designation also.

    As previously mentioned in this thread, J, M, and R have all been used for the Toyota Supra (J29), Zinoro brand BMW Brilliance cars (M12/M13), and R for the last-gen platform MINI's.

    It's actually already more granular than that. Each derivative gets it's own 4 digit Type code. Rather than me having say for example I have an E87 Euro RHD 120d build date 04/04, I can just say UG52 (obviously nobody does that, but that's what it'll say on their computers) these numbers can be derived from a VIN number, and are present in the BMW parts system. An 05/16 build European spec S1000RR motorbike is a 0D50... an ST30 is a Isetta 3-wheeler, an EU M235iR from BMW Motorsport is a 9080... and it goes on... and on... and on....

    Don't know about the CAD side of things personally. I've done quotes based on drawings for components on the new G29 Z4 and G29 was only used as part of the drawing description not the reference, though this was from a 1st tier OEM and I don't know if they originated it or BMW did.

    Whilst true I wouldn't underestimate the complexity of the current line-up. Variations allowing for Body, engine, trim, options are easily in the millions, and plants able to produce BMW 'Individual' models need to be able to build in one-off production also. It was said that even with the E38 7 series there were (IIRC) something like 6 million possible variations. BMW recently said that it had too many steering wheels - over a hundred, even if they just focus on the current line-up the logistics must be mind-boggling.

    Very much this.

    Or, for example, an LS/LT, a 2LT, a 1SS, and a ZL1 1LE? Tells you about as much as 55TSI.... or RS, or ST, or GT2RS or GT3RS... there's plenty of offenders out there.
     
    [email protected] likes this.
  25. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,166
    2LT doesn't tell me anything about the engine in a Camaro because it's not supposed to. Certainly downsized turbo engines has played hell on the naming schemes BMW and Mercedes used for decades, but they do still delineate trim levels by engine.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  26. PSN:And-War

    PSN:And-War

    Messages:
    256
     
  27. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk Premium

    Messages:
    10,341
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Maybe it stands for 2 LiTre, or maybe it stands for 2 Large Turbos! ... the point is that since it is not obviously technically descriptive you have to know what it means to get anything from it. You seem okay with accepting this so all you have to do is accept that BMW badges are not obviously technically descriptive either (although still relatively intuitive), and you would cease to have a problem with it (or at least, no more of a problem than you might with Chevrolet, for example). Some of the most iconic and popular BMW's of all time don't obviously technically descriptive badges so it really should not be difficult to do.

    I'm not sure that's exactly accurate, I would have said SE, M-sport, Sport, Luxury, Efficient Dynamics... even V12 Pure Excellence (shudder) etc. are more commonly used to delineate trim levels. 330 tells you nothing about the trim of a car compared to 320 for example.
     
  28. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,166
    I don't think anyone is quite so stupid that they can't understand that a car available with two different engine options across multiple trim levels specifically refers to the base engine for a specific trim level.

    Chevrolet has used those trim level names for much longer than Mercedes and BMW have used engine size designations that aren't actually the engine size being implied.

    Here's a photo of a trim badge from a Chevrolet vehicle from 1994:
    [​IMG]

    It occupied the same area in the hierarchy as the LT designation does today. They were consolidated across the entire Chevrolet range about a decade ago (after being solely the realm of pickups and SUVs at first).




    If you were fresh off the boat and buying a new car, I think one would be able to understand that one cost more than another because it has more stuff just as easily as you can understand the 320i has a 2.0L engine and the 330i has a 2.0L engine but the latter is more powerful instead of actually related to size like if you owned a BMW made a decade ago.

    And the majority of them, up until 2011 or so, generally did; which was what JC_Dude was alluding to. That's why I also mentioned Mercedes, which also was generally the same way.


    It really should not be difficult to understand this change in the context of the specific thing he was talking about.

    Those things certainly sound like option packages. In fact:

    [​IMG]

    Those are what I'm forced to choose before I pick any options or packages whatsoever; even to the extent of stratifying drivetrains when other manufacturers generally allow you to choose it after the fact. They also have minor styling and exterior trim differences; and even equipment restrictions in top of that as well.
     
    [email protected] likes this.
  29. FT-1

    FT-1 Premium

    Messages:
    5,634
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Non-M Sport variant is starting to shed some camo
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Those 8-Series/X4 style tail lights are gradually making their way onto every model.
     
    super_gt likes this.
  30. 05XR8

    05XR8

    Messages:
    22,412
    The guy on the bike, is not on his phone... no head protection either.

    Anyway, code names or not, Can't wait to see it on the track. The current M3, is speedy in Australian Production Car Series. How much more they'll pump the new one up, should be fun.