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 > BMW M3 (F80) and BMW M4 (F82) General Forum

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-03-2012, 10:04 PM   #67
US///M3
Major
23
Rep
1,266
Posts

 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gblansten View Post
8:01 --- 153.99 km/h - Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe, 487 PS/170 kg (sport auto 01/12)

http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?fID...3&viewThread=y

That's eight minutes and one second by sport auto in a C63 coupe.
According to some here, M-B doesnt make track car. Hahahahaha
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
Appreciate 0
      05-03-2012, 10:16 PM   #68
E46M
New Member
0
Rep
8
Posts

 
Drives: 2003 BMW M3
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Santa Clara

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by US///M3 View Post
According to some here, M-B doesnt make track car. Hahahahaha

Come out to a track day at Sonoma,Laguna Seca or Thunder hill and count how many C63's you see. I have not seen one in awhile.....
Appreciate 0
      05-04-2012, 01:08 AM   #69
US///M3
Major
23
Rep
1,266
Posts

 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by E46M View Post
Come out to a track day at Sonoma,Laguna Seca or Thunder hill and count how many C63's you see. I have not seen one in awhile.....
I dont see a lot of Lotus exige/elise in a sea of Evos,M3's,Miatas at local autocross events. Does that make the exige/elise less of an aurocross car?
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
Appreciate 0
      05-04-2012, 01:32 AM   #70
kueks29
Private First Class
kueks29's Avatar
Germany
1
Rep
101
Posts

 
Drives: BMW E90 M3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Anywhere

iTrader: (0)

Why are you comparing apples and oranges?

A Lotus Elise, you really can not compare to an M3. or would you compare your a 7 Series with a Porsche 911?

As for the C63, so I drove him for four days recently to sample and I drove it well over 1,400 km.
My conclusion was clear! Great car goes forward and bitten by a tarantula and the sound is pure goose bumps!
But only briefly, because if you times 500 km highway is gone it, you have a headache and is nearly deaf.
The steering precision is reminiscent of the Titanic! If a curve is in sight, ever temporarily turn the wheel and hope you somehow come around ...
Of consumption we will not start at all! With delicate gait is always one at 20 liters, but we demand from the power it lies beyond the 40 liter fast! In contrast, the M3 is a true eco-car!

In addition, the prices are steep over! What in the C63 pure pack everything, since it is fast on the level of a comparable equipped M5!
In addition, the insurance company (in Germany) is not a gentle process with the contributions. I would have to pay is 4.2 times as much as for my M3.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      05-04-2012, 02:16 PM   #71
I M STIG
RawAutos.com
I M STIG's Avatar
United_States
8
Rep
477
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 E90 M3
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gblansten View Post
I completely agree. I would love to see Sport Auto do that test. I'm actually surprised that they have not. The 8:01 time for the C63 coupe was merely a point of interest and a demonstration of the car's significant improvement since the sedan version. AMG has made some serious inroads and I as a consumer enjoy the competition.
The C63 is a hell of a car, period. So your point that it's an improvement, I have to agree. It's such a beautiful car, too.

Before I purchased my M3 I had a CPO E60 M5 6-spd, CPO E63 M6 6-spd and 2008 C63 AMG I was looking at buying. Having driven the AMG as many times as I have, I almost don't care that it's an automatic, because it's just too damn much fun to drive.

I obviously went for the M3, because it seemed the most usable to me with better gas mileage over the other 3 cars, just enough room with the E90, and the M3's been my dream since I was 10. So I had to get the dream, ya know?
__________________

2009 E90 M3| Jerez Black | Extended Silver Novillo with Brushed Aluminum | 6MT | EDC | Premium Package II | Convenience Package | Enhanced Premium Sound | HD Radio | Heated front seats | Fold down rear seats | Moonroof | 19" wheels |
RawAutos.com
Appreciate 0
      05-04-2012, 02:24 PM   #72
I M STIG
RawAutos.com
I M STIG's Avatar
United_States
8
Rep
477
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 E90 M3
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by US///M3 View Post
If you re gonna ignore times where the c63 runs closer times then sure. Here TOP GEAR has the heavier E63 AMG walk all over the M3.
Not bad for another car designed for straight line performance.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...imes#section_1
First, I never said that AMG cars were only meant for straight line performance. The current crop have proved that. However, I did say that the C63 just isn't nearly as balanced, which really helps the M3. The C63 also doesn't have wide enough tires in the rear, I believe. So it hurts when putting the power down.

Also, what am I ignoring where the AMG runs closer? I'm ignoring your comment about the C63 AMG Black Series being faster around the Top Gear track because it's a specialized track car like the M3 GTS/CRT. So yes, I won't include that lap time as being faster or closer to the M3's because it's not in the same league.

So instead of just admitting defeat on the argument of the C63 AMG you bring up a car with 507 hp and 465 lb-ft of torque? You're really throwing random stuff out there now, haha. As much as weight and balance play a role, horsepower can REALLY help at times... especially when you have 93 more hp and 170 more lb-ft of torque.

Care to argue anymore? C'mon, just stop replying to me. It's getting ridiculous when I keep proving that you made a dumb comment by saying I'm spreading false information.

If you have facts, state them. Since you don't, just please stop talking. Not trying to be a dick, I'm just tired of having to comment to you to make sure you get your facts straight.
__________________

2009 E90 M3| Jerez Black | Extended Silver Novillo with Brushed Aluminum | 6MT | EDC | Premium Package II | Convenience Package | Enhanced Premium Sound | HD Radio | Heated front seats | Fold down rear seats | Moonroof | 19" wheels |
RawAutos.com
Appreciate 0
      05-05-2012, 07:27 AM   #73
US///M3
Major
23
Rep
1,266
Posts

 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tico1028 View Post
You have no idea what you're talking about, so no point in even trying to correct you. Just stop spreading false information.

I don't necessarily need too much of a "faster" M3. The reason I like the M3 over the Vette or GT500 also has to do with the interior. I would like a little more low-end torque, but that's not make-or-break for me. When I'm in the market between a C63 and an M3, I would just like the carsto at least be enjoyable and nice to be in, not just to drive.
+1
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
Appreciate 0
      05-08-2012, 01:26 AM   #74
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
214
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
Torque makes a car go, HP makes a car go fast...
Uhhh, no. High torque (typically at low rpm) engines provide a way to get "lazy" acceleration (i.e. without the lowest gear and highest rpm). Ultimate acceleration and overall performance is governed by power to weight ratio.
Appreciate 0
      05-08-2012, 05:44 AM   #75
CanAutM3
Brigadier General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
69
Rep
4,349
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 M4 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2015 BMW M4  [4.75]
2006 Audi S4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Uhhh, no. High torque (typically at low rpm) engines provide a way to get "lazy" acceleration (i.e. without the lowest gear and highest rpm). Ultimate acceleration and overall performance is governed by power to weight ratio.
I think we are saying the same thing

Torque is an actual measurable force that an engine produces, hence it makes a car go.

Horsepower is a mathematical concept that evaluates the ability to provide work over time. On a car, this translates to the potential for the engine to produce torque at the wheel, hence what makes a car go fast (i.e. accelerate rapidly and achieve a high top speed).

I probably over simplified it too much in my previous post

Last edited by CanAutM3; 05-08-2012 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Correct typo
Appreciate 0
      05-08-2012, 08:48 PM   #76
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
214
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
I think we are saying the same thing

Torque is an actual measurable force that an engine produces, hence it makes a car go.

Horsepower is a mathematical concept that evaluates the ability to provide work over time. On a car, this translates to the potential for the engine to produce torque at the wheel, hence what makes a car go fast (i.e. accelerate rapidly and achieve a high top speed).

I probably over simplified it too much in my previous post
Not quite. It is also incorrect to think of one quantity as physical and the other derived. Neither is less mathematical nor more physical. It is just that given one (and engine speed) you know the other precisely. You should read some of the length debates and discussions here in old topics on the forum to better understand these fundamental concepts. There are other much simpler ways of describing the differences. E.g.:

-Peak in gear acceleration will occur at the rpm where peak torque occurs (not counting minor corrections from parasitic losses)..
-Peak acceleration at any given speed occurs by making peak hp (mostly equivalent to saying lowest gear = most acceleration).
-Engine torque is meaningless without speaking of gearing to describe any aspect of vehicle performance
-Overall vehicle performance is much more dependent on peak hp than peak torque (again refer to point above)
Appreciate 0
      05-08-2012, 09:20 PM   #77
CanAutM3
Brigadier General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
69
Rep
4,349
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 M4 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2015 BMW M4  [4.75]
2006 Audi S4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Not quite. It is also incorrect to think of one quantity as physical and the other derived. Neither is less mathematical nor more physical. It is just that given one (and engine speed) you know the other precisely. You should read some of the length debates and discussions here in old topics on the forum to better understand these fundamental concepts. There are other much simpler ways of describing the differences. E.g.:

-Peak in gear acceleration will occur at the rpm where peak torque occurs (not counting minor corrections from parasitic losses)..
-Peak acceleration at any given speed occurs by making peak hp (mostly equivalent to saying lowest gear = most acceleration).
-Engine torque is meaningless without speaking of gearing to describe any aspect of vehicle performance
-Overall vehicle performance is much more dependent on peak hp than peak torque (again refer to point above)
Again, we are saying the same thing. It is what I am implying all along: horsepower is what counts for performance.

Power on the input and output sides of a gearbox will remain the same (disregarding losses), however torque will not (unless it is a 1:1 ratio gearbox).

I do not need to read forums to get educated in my field of work. I am an aerospace engineer specialized in engines. I have worked a big chunk of my career in the test department around dynos doing power calculations all day long. I can assure you, power is a mathematical concept. You cannot measure power by itself (same as energy for instance). Power is the rate at which energy is used. You need to combine more than one measurable element to derive power. Force x distance / time, electrical tension x current, etc... There is no such device as a pure "powermeter" .

Last edited by CanAutM3; 05-09-2012 at 05:08 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-08-2012, 10:49 PM   #78
Xelloss
Private First Class
Xelloss's Avatar
United_States
5
Rep
169
Posts

 
Drives: BMW E46 M3
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NYC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
Again, we are saying the same thing. It is what I am implying all along: horsepower is what counts for performance.

Power on the input and output sides of a gearbox will remain the same (disregarding losses), however torque will not (unless it is a 1:1 ratio gearbox).

I do not need to read forums to get educated in my field of work. I am an aerospace engineer specialized in engines. I have worked a big chunk of my career in the test department around dynos doing power calculations all day long. I can assure you, power is a mathematical concept. You cannot measure power by itself (same as energy for instance). Power is the rate at which energy is used. You need to combine more than one measurable element to derive power. Force x distance / time, electrical tension x current, etc... There is no such device as a pure "powermeter" .
+1

As a fellow engineer (electrical) I'd like to say thank you for providing a truncated but specific explanation on the issue of horsepower versus torque.

On an aside, I hated engineering dynamics but it was supposedly the easiest of the multidisciplinary electives. I never want to draw/see a "Free Body" or "Effect" Diagram in the future.
__________________
2004 E46 M3, Jet Black/Black Interior, SMG II, Nav/Fully Loaded

"I feel the need...

...the need for speed!"
Appreciate 0
      05-08-2012, 11:08 PM   #79
CanAutM3
Brigadier General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
69
Rep
4,349
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 M4 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2015 BMW M4  [4.75]
2006 Audi S4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xelloss View Post
On an aside, I hated engineering dynamics but it was supposedly the easiest of the multidisciplinary electives. I never want to draw/see a "Free Body" or "Effect" Diagram in the future.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2012, 04:04 PM   #80
malter2.0
Banned
United_States
21
Rep
908
Posts

 
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Torque means NOTHING in terms of performance.

SI Unit of power is Watt and its parent unit is HP. Same what centimeters are to inches. Europeans express car power in terms of KW, Americans in terms of HP.

Power to weight ratio is the only thing that matters in terms of performance.
Torque to weight ratios means absolutely nothing. If it did Jetta TDI or 335d or cummins ram would be very high performance vehicle.

If you still think torque means anything, look at the extreme, such as 3L V10 engines from recent F1 cars that rev to 18k rpms. Pistons are so short that they do not provide any torque whatsoever (no stroke!), however they produce massive power.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2012, 11:04 PM   #81
Xelloss
Private First Class
Xelloss's Avatar
United_States
5
Rep
169
Posts

 
Drives: BMW E46 M3
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NYC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by malter2.0 View Post
Torque means NOTHING in terms of performance.

SI Unit of power is Watt and its parent unit is HP. Same what centimeters are to inches. Europeans express car power in terms of KW, Americans in terms of HP.

Power to weight ratio is the only thing that matters in terms of performance.
Torque to weight ratios means absolutely nothing. If it did Jetta TDI or 335d or cummins ram would be very high performance vehicle.

If you still think torque means anything, look at the extreme, such as 3L V10 engines from recent F1 cars that rev to 18k rpms. Pistons are so short that they do not provide any torque whatsoever (no stroke!), however they produce massive power.
+1
__________________
2004 E46 M3, Jet Black/Black Interior, SMG II, Nav/Fully Loaded

"I feel the need...

...the need for speed!"
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2012, 11:43 PM   #82
Keik E92 M3
Banned
United_States
48
Rep
1,349
Posts

 
Drives: BMW M3 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (6)

Garage List
2009 BMW  [4.50]
2011 BMW 335i  [3.40]
Quote:
Originally Posted by malter2.0 View Post
Torque means NOTHING in terms of performance.

SI Unit of power is Watt and its parent unit is HP. Same what centimeters are to inches. Europeans express car power in terms of KW, Americans in terms of HP.

Power to weight ratio is the only thing that matters in terms of performance.
Torque to weight ratios means absolutely nothing. If it did Jetta TDI or 335d or cummins ram would be very high performance vehicle.

If you still think torque means anything, look at the extreme, such as 3L V10 engines from recent F1 cars that rev to 18k rpms. Pistons are so short that they do not provide any torque whatsoever (no stroke!), however they produce massive power.

+1000000!!!
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2012, 01:30 AM   #83
jwickers
Second Lieutenant
2
Rep
243
Posts

 
Drives: 328i GT
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Shanghai - China

iTrader: (0)

This reminds me of the day when i was playing the first GranTurismo on Playstation, i had a Supra tuned with enormous HP at the expense of torque. as a result it was impossible to launch, it would take an eternity to get past 1st gear from a stop, but once it was moving and reving it was a proper rocket.

On a more real world example, i remember the episode of TopGear where Hammond drove a F1 and the trouble he had launching it, for similar reasons.

For causal driving though, torque *is* "performance". I mean my wife feels uncomfortable reving past 4K ...
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2012, 06:08 AM   #84
CanAutM3
Brigadier General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
69
Rep
4,349
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 M4 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2015 BMW M4  [4.75]
2006 Audi S4  [0.00]
I see there are a lot of misconceptions of what torque and power are.

I agree with all of you when looking at standard published values of engine performance of peak power and peak torque, the peak power number is the most important factor in terms of ultimate performance.

However, torque is fondamentaly what an engine produces, this at any RPM. Power is simply calculated by multiplying measured torque by measured RPM at any given point over the entire rev range. Power is a number that represents the ability of an engine to generate useable torque. The distribution of torque on the rev range is therefore very important to performance.

As for saying that torque does not mean anything, well without torque there is no power!

Even on a high strung F1 engine, it is still torque that propels the car. Since the torque is produced at high RPM, it is possible to use a highly demultiplied gearbox and the torque transmitted to the wheels is drastically increased giving the car great performance.

In my world of 30,000 RPM turbine engines (very high power and low relative torque) it becomes even more obvious .

Last edited by CanAutM3; 05-10-2012 at 08:24 AM.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2012, 01:33 PM   #85
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
214
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
Again, we are saying the same thing. It is what I am implying all along: horsepower is what counts for performance.

Power on the input and output sides of a gearbox will remain the same (disregarding losses), however torque will not (unless it is a 1:1 ratio gearbox).

I do not need to read forums to get educated in my field of work. I am an aerospace engineer specialized in engines. I have worked a big chunk of my career in the test department around dynos doing power calculations all day long. I can assure you, power is a mathematical concept. You cannot measure power by itself (same as energy for instance). Power is the rate at which energy is used. You need to combine more than one measurable element to derive power. Force x distance / time, electrical tension x current, etc... There is no such device as a pure "powermeter" .
I certainly was not questioning your background but imprecise language.

Not being able to measure something directly and that thing being only a mathematical or derived quantity is not the same thing. Power is no less derived nor mathematical than torque. Torque is a force acting at a distance, thus you have to measure the force not the torque. In addition you can measure power through luminous intensity, temperature change, voltage and current, etc. Power is defined by equations but it is a very real and useful physical quantity.

We may be into semantics at this point...

Cheers
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2012, 08:24 PM   #86
CanAutM3
Brigadier General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
69
Rep
4,349
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 M4 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2015 BMW M4  [4.75]
2006 Audi S4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I certainly was not questioning your background but imprecise language.

Not being able to measure something directly and that thing being only a mathematical or derived quantity is not the same thing. Power is no less derived nor mathematical than torque. Torque is a force acting at a distance, thus you have to measure the force not the torque. In addition you can measure power through luminous intensity, temperature change, voltage and current, etc. Power is defined by equations but it is a very real and useful physical quantity.

We may be into semantics at this point...

Cheers
I am sorry if I seemed imprecise, it was my best effort to vulgarize.

All I can say is that throughout my engineering education and career, I have been taught and trained with the notion that energy is an indirectly observed quantity, a mathematical concept. Albeit a very powerful concept, one that allows the simplification of very complex physical models. Energy itself remains elusive, you cannot isolate energy in the real world. As you say, speed, temperature, distance, gravitation, electric charge, force, radiation, pressure, chemical links can all be correlated to energy levels. But what is energy? A very clever man went as far as deducing that even mass itself can be correlated to energy… but this could lead to metaphysical discussions not appropriate for a car forum .

Hence, the same can be said of power, as it is the rate of change of energy.

Torque can be seen as the force component of the Newtonian equations in the angular referential, very real and measurable. And since we are on the topic of semantics and precision of language, I need to point out that torque is NOT "a force acting at a distance". Torque is fundamentally a twisting force, better represented as a pair of equal opposing linear forces acting at a perpendicular distance from each other .

I guess there are many different schools of thought and it’s a free world, so everyone is entitled to believe what they want .

Last edited by CanAutM3; 06-06-2012 at 12:26 PM.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2012, 03:04 PM   #87
duk
///M
United_States
42
Rep
2,967
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 AW/FR 6MT E92
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Jose, CA

iTrader: (0)

450hp is fine, tq will be up over a 100lb i bet and it'll be lighter = win
__________________
2011 AW/FR 6MT E92 | Powered by Premier | Alekshop | ESS |
Rok n Peace Clothing: www.roknpeace.com

Appreciate 0
      06-27-2012, 09:34 PM   #88
Murph335
Major
Murph335's Avatar
United_States
21
Rep
1,134
Posts

 
Drives: '07 335 e90, '11 X5D
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chandler, AZ

iTrader: (12)

Garage List
2006 Chevy TBSS  [0.00]
2010 BMW 335i  [0.00]
2007 BMW 335i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by keikdasneak View Post
With all these car company’s releasing cars pushing well over 480hp i believe if the M3/M4 comes with 450hp only it’s going to disappoint a lot of people, especially me.

Ford GT500 is already pushing 660hp
ZL1 580hp
C63 481hp

Unless they drop the weight of this car, i don't see how they are going to keep up with the competition
So short sighted!! if its 450 turbo stock that means ~550hp modified @ 3300lbs uh yea thats going to be FAST! and nice tq for shredding tires!
I can't stand waiting for this M3!

With the new M5 bloated and luxury, this M3 should be a nice middle ground more E39 like. Heard the back seat offers a little more rear leg room in the new 3's. All while dodging the gas guzzler tax, hopefully (like cls63)!
Win win here!
__________________
E90 - H&R Touring - M3 Front Arms - Work Genosis GS-1 19x9+30 x10+26 225f 265r stretch - AA FMIC - AR DP - Cobb E30 Map +160rwhp/+200rwtq
E93 - Style 95 - RB Turbo - AR DP - Evolution RW FMIC - PTF E50 +242rwhp/+234rwtq

Last edited by Murph335; 06-28-2012 at 08:11 AM.
Appreciate 0
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 03:36 PM.




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