BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Forum > M3/M4 versus...

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-12-2012, 03:04 PM   #23
Levi
Brigadier General
 
Levi's Avatar
 
Drives: Alfa Romeo
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague

Posts: 3,247
iTrader: (0)

Back on topic, of course a small dispalcement V8 will be better, but it will have to be build from ground up, what would be too expensive.

However, a possibily would be to build the 1.6l I4 engine into a 3.2l V8 engine, buy putting the two blocks together in a 90° V8 form. The 1.6l I4 making up to 220 PS, as a V8 it would make 440 PS, all this from a light 3.2l V8. There were rumors of Alfa Romeo working on a 3.0l V8 for their falgship 169, but I guess it is no more in the works as the 169 is cancelled.
Levi is offline   Czech_Republic
0
Reply With Quote
      04-13-2012, 08:19 AM   #24
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 Felt IA2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,676
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
We have a winner.

This has been discussed extensively here on the forum. Other manufacturers are sticking with NA such as Audi, Porsche, Ferrari (and no I am not making a direct comparison of BMW to Ferrari...it is still a relevant point).
Hi swamp, good to see you posting here, and I really like this discussion.

Keep in mind, Audi is not sticking with N/A except possibly for the R8. Aside from that car, the RS5 and new RS4 will be the last applications for the 4.2L FSI.

There are also rumors of Porsche moving to turbocharged engines for the base Carrera and Carrera S. Presumably, however, the GT3 family will remain N/A for the forseeable future.

Quote:
By going to DI and other engine "trickery" they are able to significantly green up NA engines. The sole reason BMW M is moving to FI is to have more common engines with more common parts and less parts all of which provide MORE PROFIT. BMW have published many investor reports that highlight their effort in parts reduction and commonality. It's that simple, profit.
There is some truth to this, but it does not fully cover the OP's questions about the possibility of a small displacement V8 TT vs. a V6 TT or an I6 TT.

In fact, BMW has always had more than one displacement V8 engine in their stable until the current generation N63 V8 TT. And, with the N62 and M62 at least, to my knowledge, the differences in parts between the different displacement applications is quite minimal. Just the crank, rods, and block (which is cast the same, but machined differently). However for a potential lower displacement S63, they could even use the same bore size as the the current 4.4L, destroking it only, meaning the block would be identical. This would also give them a very short stroke engine at ~3.0L displacement or so, ideal for revving. Perhaps they could then increase the redline from the current 7200RPM to 8000RPM for more top end power.

Now, I acknowledge that there would still be the issues of weight and size vs. a V6, though an I6 may also have some of those same issues as well. A better solution from an engineering standpoint would obviously be a completely original small displacement V8 design that took advantage of the small ~3.0L displacement to shrink the block down somewhat. Rather like the various custom Hayabusa-based V8s out there. These are very compact and light - lighter than most V6s, and probably even lighter than an N55. This of course, would be very costly. But I am not convinced it would have to be any more costly than a V6 which also be a completely new design. This is partly why I don't believe in the V6 to begin with.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-13-2012, 08:43 AM   #25
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 Felt IA2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,676
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post
That is just what is likely to happen, 4.4l V8 for M6, 3.3l V6 (minus 2 cylinders) for M4 and 2.2l I4 (half V8 engine block) for M2.
Guys, chopping the front two cylinders off of a V8 is not necessarily a cheap way to get to a V6. It would be similar to saying, "Hey lets cut the backside off of a 5 series sedan, tweak the greenhouse a little, add a liftgate, and call that an X3." We could extend this throughout the entire product development domain: We can make 3 series doors by just cutting down some 7 series doors and tweaking them a little. And a rear seat is just two and a half front seats isn't it? What about a dashboard? Can't we just use the same one in all cars with a little trimmed off here and there? Why not share body panels? Why not one big bull-dog platform that can support every model in the lineup. Etc, etc, etc.

When you think about it on those or other terms it sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? Sure, there is a lot of congruity between similar parts, subsystems, and assemblies of similar automotive products (or any industry for that matter). And certainly, in reocognition of this fact, common engineering and design tenets are adhered to. And yes, of course we do share parts as much as possible. But the N63 is an evolution of the modern BMW V8, going back to the M60. It was not designed with a V6 in mind. You don't just hack something together (or apart as it were). So, yes, while we know BMW is working to achieve more commonality across their engines, they are also starting with a "clean sheet" design to achieve this.

The real world isn't like building with Legos. You don't just take parts off to reshape your creations into others.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-13-2012, 08:51 AM   #26
kueks29
Private First Class
 
kueks29's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW E90 M3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Anywhere

Posts: 101
iTrader: (0)

What are you discussing around here?

But anyway is just a pimped N55 ... so it was a I6 ...
more ... everything is pointless to discuss.
I will pay at least not for the additional cost of 30,000 € 335i for a little software, suspension, brakes and optics.

Good-bye BMW ...
kueks29 is offline   Germany
0
Reply With Quote
      04-13-2012, 08:56 AM   #27
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 Felt IA2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,676
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
Rather like the various custom Hayabusa-based V8s out there.
Sorry to quote myself, but it is a nice segue.

Do you all suppose the Hayabusa V8s were cheap to develop? After all, its just two Hayabusa engines stuck together, right? Do yourself a favor and google the development process for these. It was VERY challenging and expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post
However, a possibily would be to build the 1.6l I4 engine into a 3.2l V8 engine, buy putting the two blocks together in a 90° V8 form.
Levi, wou are suggeting two N13B16 engines be mated just as with my example above. Not cheap.

Quote:
The 1.6l I4 making up to 220 PS, as a V8 it would make 440 PS, all this from a light 3.2l V8.
N18B16 makes 220 hp, but that is for FWD applications. N13B16 is a completely different top end and induction system. Could it make 220hp? Probably, but BMW obviously developed the N20B20 for a reason. More efficient for 200hp+ application.

It would nevertheless be neat. But how compact? You may end up with something 95% of an N63 in size.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-13-2012, 09:49 AM   #28
Uli_HH
Lieutenant
 
Uli_HH's Avatar
 
Drives: AW M3 E90)/ 523i Touring
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hamburg Germany

Posts: 572
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kueks29 View Post
What are you discussing around here?

But anyway is just a pimped N55 ... so it was a I6 ...
more ... everything is pointless to discuss.
I will pay at least not for the additional cost of 30,000 € 335i for a little software, suspension, brakes and optics.

Good-bye BMW ...
In very positive thinking ... an engine based on the N55 Block could also be an 3.0ltr.V6 like the InsideLine rumors ... cut the block in half or better delete 3 of the inside cylinders you got 2 I3 (like the i8 engine!? ) ... put them on an 90° crankcase (you need in any kind an new stronger crankcase also for an I6!), mount it with the exhaust side to the inside ... and you get an 3.0ltr.V6 with the turbosystem of the M5 which have nothing to do with the S63Tü, but be based on the N55 and with the possibility of many common parts.

Greets Uli_HH

Last edited by Uli_HH; 04-13-2012 at 03:54 PM.
Uli_HH is offline   Germany
0
Reply With Quote
      04-13-2012, 02:04 PM   #29
Levi
Brigadier General
 
Levi's Avatar
 
Drives: Alfa Romeo
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague

Posts: 3,247
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli_HH View Post
In very positive thinking ... an engine based on the N55 Block could also be an 3.0ltr.V6 like the InsideLine rumors ... cut the block in half or better delete 3 of the inside cylinders you got 2 I3 (like the i8 engine!? ) ... put them on an 90° crankcase (you need in any kind an new stronger crankcase also for an I6!), mount it with the exhaust side to the inside ... and you get an 3.0ltr.V6 with the turbosystem of the M5 witch have nothing to do with the S63Tü, but be based on the N55 and with the possibility of many common parts.

Greets Uli_HH
LOL
Levi is offline   Czech_Republic
0
Reply With Quote
      04-13-2012, 09:03 PM   #30
Xelloss
Private First Class
 
Xelloss's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW E46 M3
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NYC

Posts: 167
iTrader: (0)

Why is there this utter contempt for basing the M3/M4's engine on a series production motor? Besides the E90/E92 M3 and the E60 M5, this has been the case for every generation of the M3 and all other M vehicles. I have no qualms of the F8X using an engine based on the N55 so long as there is significant differentiation and development to make it special as the S54 was.
__________________
2004 E46 M3, Jet Black/Black Interior, SMG II, Nav/Fully Loaded

"I feel the need...

...the need for speed!"
Xelloss is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-14-2012, 05:41 AM   #31
Levi
Brigadier General
 
Levi's Avatar
 
Drives: Alfa Romeo
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague

Posts: 3,247
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelloss View Post
Why is there this utter contempt for basing the M3/M4's engine on a series production motor? Besides the E90/E92 M3 and the E60 M5, this has been the case for every generation of the M3 and all other M vehicles. I have no qualms of the F8X using an engine based on the N55 so long as there is significant differentiation and development to make it special as the S54 was.
We all know that previous M GmbH engines were based on BMW AG engine, and they were very good. But at that time the engines were naturally aspirated, so to get more power, significant differences were made. Another thing is, before there wer no thoughts of reducing costs, but now, anything even being better, but costing more will not be made. Now all these ponts put togheter, with FI increasing power is an easy think, and it does not require alot of R&D, thus reducing cost. There only thing where something is invested in, is realiablity. After the 1 Series M E82, that just has a remapped ECU, larger oil cooler and oil catch can, all these thing that could be done by the aftermarket, most are afraid BMW will do the same for the next M engines. With the S63 found in the M5 it is not the case, but in the M3, a good engine is of bigger importance. An M car must be a whole package, chassis and drivetrain, not only drivetrain like the M6 E63, or only chassis like the 1M E82.
Levi is offline   Czech_Republic
0
Reply With Quote
      04-14-2012, 06:18 PM   #32
mapezzul
Special Agent
 
mapezzul's Avatar
 
Drives: Depends on the day!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bavaria

Posts: 1,736
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli_HH View Post
In very positive thinking ... an engine based on the N55 Block could also be an 3.0ltr.V6 like the InsideLine rumors ... cut the block in half or better delete 3 of the inside cylinders you got 2 I3 (like the i8 engine!? ) ... put them on an 90° crankcase (you need in any kind an new stronger crankcase also for an I6!), mount it with the exhaust side to the inside ... and you get an 3.0ltr.V6 with the turbosystem of the M5 which have nothing to do with the S63Tü, but be based on the N55 and with the possibility of many common parts.

Greets Uli_HH
The i8 uses a different engine family. The follow up to the N55 is in the same family as the i8 3 cylinder (hint).

Look at the N54 lifecycle- look at the N55 life cycle- When is the F80 debuting and how long will it be around? Will the N55 be the basis? Or will BMW debut a new engine layout in the F80 which will preclude the series production vehicle (They just did this with the 63tü).

Food for your thoughts... and remember how much power BMWi is getting out of that i8 3 cylinder (then double it).
mapezzul is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-29-2012, 09:38 PM   #33
phillye30fanboy
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 1988 BMW 325, now with 24v!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: philadelphia

Posts: 245
iTrader: (0)

one word.

efficiency.
phillye30fanboy is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 06:26 AM   #34
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 Felt IA2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,676
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by phillye30fanboy View Post
one word.

efficiency.
No at all likely.

Displacement, not cylinder count, will figure into the efficiency equation. So a 3L V8, like the OP specifically mentioned, should be just as efficient as a 3L I6, all else being equal (i.e. similar valvetrain, ignition, fuel injection, and induction system technology).
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 09:04 AM   #35
Red Bread
Brigadier General
 
Drives: My wife's car
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,243
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
No at all likely.

Displacement, not cylinder count, will figure into the efficiency equation. So a 3L V8, like the OP specifically mentioned, should be just as efficient as a 3L I6, all else being equal (i.e. similar valvetrain, ignition, fuel injection, and induction system technology).
Uh, sure. 33% more moving parts just magically ignore the laws of physics. And don't try to say they'd weigh the same, eight extra valves and springs, two extra plugs, heavier crankshaft with counter balances for the V8, there's no way this works out. The old M60 3.0L V8 got horrific mileage when compared to even the M30 3.5L. Further, the smaller displacement per cylinder will result in less torque and more need to rev, contrary to the current M approach, right or wrong.
Red Bread is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 09:47 AM   #36
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 Felt IA2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,676
iTrader: (1)

I don't know why there is need for a hostile, sarcastic tone. I would ask that you lighten it up a bit. Becoming aggressive does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Bread View Post
Uh, sure. 33% more moving parts just magically ignore the laws of physics.
Oh? But which laws of physics cover quantity of moving parts? Mass and friction are the name of the game, not number of moving parts. Will the V8 having more rotating mass and more internal friction? Perhaps. There are so many different parts to consider that this is not something that can be asserted blanketly. For example, given the same displacement, generally the V8 will have a smaller bore than the 6 cylinder engine, so its pistons will have a smaller circumference. Bearing races may also be smaller. So while there will be more of these parts in the V8 than the 6, the friction itself will not increase by one third. This is just a quick analysis, other factor exist as well.

Quote:
And don't try to say they'd weigh the same, eight extra valves and springs, two extra plugs, heavier crankshaft with counter balances for the V8, there's no way this works out.
You're speculating. The fact is there are very compact lightweight V8 engines out there today. Lexus has even said that the V10 in the LFA weighs less than their corporate V6.

Quote:
The old M60 3.0L V8 got horrific mileage when compared to even the M30 3.5L.
And a modern 5.0L Ford V8 or GM 6.2L V8 get great gas mileage - better than an S65 with its smaller displacement, and better than a 4L H6 from Porsche too I might add. Technology marches on. Citing older engines from days gone by probably doesn't make for a very compelling argument.

Quote:
Further, the smaller displacement per cylinder will result in less torque
I disagree. Torque is a by and large bound by displacement (both physical or virtual via forced induction).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...isplacement.29

The best V8 is marginally lower than the best six cylinder. And note that these are very nearly the same displacement engine. The difference could easily be due to other factors involved, such as the design of the valvetrain, heads, induction system, etc.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 10:08 AM   #37
Red Bread
Brigadier General
 
Drives: My wife's car
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,243
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Sorry if I seemed hostile, this is just a pretty simple issue. Of course we're speculating, BMW won't build another small displacement V8. They've done it numerous times in the past, but I suspect the S65 will be the smallest V8 they build for the next decade or more.

I'm a huge fan of unique motors, but the I6 is plenty unique these days and more tied to BMW than a V8.

However, the aluminum block 4.0l S65 was lighter than the iron block 3.2l S54b32, so that was an example of the M folks taking advantage of a good opportunity to up their game with natural aspiration. The E9x cars, while heavy and complex are pretty impressive track machines, and sound glorious.

I can see why you'd be interested in a continuation of the V8 character, but emissions, complexity and available engine designs just made the I6 decision that much easier. I was trying to point out that the inherent lack of balance in a V8 will make it heavier than an I6 if constructed with similar designs, meaning that the crankshaft will have to be heavier, the extra valves, plugs, etc will also more than offset any gains from lighter pistons and con rods.

It's a neat idea, I'd love it if BMW wasn't in the game of making money and could build a great, small displacement V8 for an actual sports car like the Z2. I'm not a fan of turbos in M cars, but at the same time, the horrific efficiency of the S65 kept me from buying an E90, I just can't personally own a car that gets such poor mileage. So hopefully the F8x cars address that and continue to move the M brand forward, there's a lot riding on this, as each generation of M3 has sold more in proportion to the "regular", non M cars.
Red Bread is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 10:25 AM   #38
Red Bread
Brigadier General
 
Drives: My wife's car
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,243
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
One more thing to discuss. This has actually been the most unknown period of M3 engine speculation I can recall, I was actually quite intrigued to watch it play out. I was hoping for a V6, just to continue the ever-changing nature of the M3. While it's certainly not tied to any BMW history, it would have made for the best packaging. Something the E9x M cars, and the N20 F30 have revealed to many dyed in the wool BMW drivers is that the I6, while nicely balanced and smooth is also long and generally lends a nose heavy feel to the cars.

So a V6 was intriguing, but it would still have two cylinder heads and four cams like a V8, unlike an I6, but could retain the same individual cylinder displacement, which does help with low end torque. It would have been interesting to see the M approach for a V6, but I guess we'll have to wait.
Red Bread is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 11:06 AM   #39
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 Felt IA2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,676
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Bread View Post
Sorry if I seemed hostile, this is just a pretty simple issue.
I absolutely agree it is a simple issue. But I maintain that the issue is one of cost. Why? Because I can't convince myself that BMW is just completely incapable of building a 3L V8 that meets or exceeds their fuel efficiency and emmisions criteria goals for the next M3. However, I can easily believe that they can't do it while meeting the cost requirements of their business case for the product. It's the same reason why I never believed a ~3L V6 was in the cards either.

It comes down to the one thing that matters to a business: money.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 11:09 AM   #40
Red Bread
Brigadier General
 
Drives: My wife's car
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,243
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
It comes down to the one thing that matters to a business: money.
I know, such a bummer! I'd love a Z4 with a 3.0L V12 making 400 hp and 260 or so lb/ft of torque. It would probably get 7 mpg and cost $100k, but it would sound great! My dad had a Ferrari 330 GTC when I was a kid, with a 4.0L V12 and I still remember the sound of that thing. The 250 cars were only 3.0L V12 and just sound fantastic, too bad no one has continued making small displacement V8 and V12 engines.

I was really hoping that Jaguar would get the F-Type right and do a straight six, but I suppose Jag doesn't have the resources for that and they saddled it with a V6.
Red Bread is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 11:14 AM   #41
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 Felt IA2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,676
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Bread View Post
I was really hoping that Jaguar would get the F-Type right and do a straight six, but I suppose Jag doesn't have the resources for that and they saddled it with a V6.
When Ford owned both Jaguar and Volvo, there were rumors of the Volvo I6 seeing use in future Jags - too bad then that Volvo went to Geely instead of Tata. It is a pretty stout engine - on par with an N55 in my opinion. Would have made a nice engine for the F-Type (reconfigured for longitudinal application, of course).
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-30-2012, 11:30 AM   #42
Red Bread
Brigadier General
 
Drives: My wife's car
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,243
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
When Ford owned both Jaguar and Volvo, there were rumors of the Volvo I6 seeing use in future Jags - too bad then that Volvo went to Geely instead of Tata. It is a pretty stout engine - on par with an N55 in my opinion. Would have made a nice engine for the F-Type (reconfigured for longitudinal application, of course).
Agreed, plus Volvo had the Yamaha V8 that was also a pretty interesting motor in search of a better car to be in. First the silly SHO and then the XC90 V8. Pity, it would have made a pretty cool motor for the F-Type too.
Red Bread is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2012, 02:02 AM   #43
Gjm127
Lieutenant
 
Gjm127's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 BMW E92
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal, QC

Posts: 491
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 BMW E92  [4.83]
M3 is a sports car, not a family targeted fuel-efficient car IMO.
It's engine should keep getting bigger.. They arguably built the world's best V8 from 07 to 12, why go back to an I6 for fuel-efficiency?
We're talking M3 for God's sake... I am currently pissed at BMW for this. Long live S65. E9X M3 will be prestigious.
Gjm127 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-31-2012, 04:18 AM   #44
John_01
Colonel
 
John_01's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 325i, E82 135i
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia

Posts: 2,005
iTrader: (0)

IMO if BMW wants to make a V6, they should design a new block with 60 degree V angle. Otherwise a V6 with 90 degree V angle will sound worse and vibrate more than the Japanese competitors, eg. Nissan GTR.

I would also prefer if BMW would make a smaller capacity turbo six for the 1 series and non-M models. In my usage, the N55 gets better fuel efficiency than the 2.5 litre naturally aspirated N52, so I expect a 2.5 litre turbo six would be the most efficient of all. I will never buy a BMW with a 4 cylinder.
John_01 is offline   Australia
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:07 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST