BPM
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 Technical Topics > Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust / Bolt-ons

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-26-2013, 07:51 PM   #67
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
3976
Rep
17,614
Posts

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Quickie search so far yields:

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/1731672-post60.html

Anyone have access to electronic back issues of that publication?

And that's N52, not N55, yes. But surely if the N55 had increased the bore spacing it would have made big news long ago. I'll keep searching. Feel free to join me or at least stop me when you are convinced.
__________________
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.
Appreciate 0
      09-26-2013, 07:57 PM   #68
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
3976
Rep
17,614
Posts

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Here's a VAC crank with a ridiculously long stroke (a length which incidentally could get us into 4L plus territory for this supposed new block). Not proof of anything, but does show the measures people have gone to in order to get more displacement from the S54.

http://www.vacmotorsports.com/catalo...troker-kit.htm

Granted they also sleeve, probably to keep the thing from grenading. Don't get me wrong - these guys are competent.
__________________
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.
Appreciate 0
      09-26-2013, 08:20 PM   #69
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
3976
Rep
17,614
Posts

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/archi.../t-427444.html

Good enough for me. I read it on the internet so it must be true. Please feel free to research liberally if you are looking for more answers and need affirmation.

But yeah, I really just want to know the story of the S55 beyond all uncertainty. Amazing how much mystery this car has provided us, eh? Every time we learn more, we realize still how little we know.
__________________
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.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 03:50 AM   #70
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
946
Rep
4,824
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/archi.../t-427444.html

Good enough for me. I read it on the internet so it must be true. Please feel free to research liberally if you are looking for more answers and need affirmation.

But yeah, I really just want to know the story of the S55 beyond all uncertainty. Amazing how much mystery this car has provided us, eh? Every time we learn more, we realize still how little we know.
91mm seems correct for the S54 and N52, so should probably be the same for the N54 and N55 as well. And doing new measurements at a larger scale on the N55, I come up with 91,12mm bore spacing...

If so, BMW really has gone to town with retooling for the S55. They MUST have seen major benefits and possibly a long lifespan for the S55 engine

Last edited by Boss330; 09-27-2013 at 03:56 AM.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 04:07 AM   #71
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
946
Rep
4,824
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

CanAutM3 has pointed out that there seems to be a slight "problem" with the quoted HP and Torque figures:

Quote:
As an observation, those numbers cannot be correct.

-Maximum HP between 5500-7200rpm (should be 5700-7200rpm)
-Maximum torque between 1800-5700rpm

The torque and power plateau cannot overlap (5500-5700RPM). Using the assumption of 430hp and 395lb-ft, the transition from the torque plateau to the power plateau should be around 5700RPM.
BMW's dyno chart actually shows that there isn't a overlap of HP and Torque... So, spot on observation



First post edited to contain this info
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 07:12 AM   #72
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
3976
Rep
17,614
Posts

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
If so, BMW really has gone to town with retooling for the S55. They MUST have seen major benefits and possibly a long lifespan for the S55 engine
Clearly, but the fact that the S55 is only 3L still leaves me with doubts about the entire proposition. The time was ripe in about 1998 for giving themselves room to grow the cylinders. Now? We have turbocharging to increase effective displacement.

Maybe the S55 is larger than 3L. Maybe. But now we are throwing good logic after (possibly) bad.
__________________
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.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 07:23 AM   #73
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
3976
Rep
17,614
Posts

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

And speaking of people commenting through other channels, a knowledgeable forum member sent me this regarding the earlier discussion about the relationship between stroke length and torque:

Quote:
Anyhow, regarding torque and stroke, it is a common misconception that for a given displacement, a longer stroke will yield more torque. With a bigger bore, there is greater surface area for the cylinder pressure to work on and provide a greater pushing force. Torque produced by a piston is defined by the following formula:

T = P x (B/2)^2 x pi x S/2 x sin(Teta)
Where:
T=Torque
P=Cylinder pressure
B=Bore
S=Stroke
Tetal=Crank angle with Teta=0 at TDC
__________________
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.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 07:40 AM   #74
Yellow Snow
First Lieutenant
United Kingdom
7
Rep
311
Posts

Drives: 335d Coupe. Stock no more!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
The great thing with a large bore/short stroke engine is that it's possible for BMW M and the tuners to develop "stroker kits".

With a 85mm bore this engine gets 3219cc
With a 88mm bore this engine gets 3329cc
With a 89,6mm bore this engine gets 3390cc
Don't you mean stroke?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
See my previous post re bore spacing. http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...3&postcount=52

Where do we have the 91mm bore spacing info from?
Is it a verified measurement or just what everyone believes?
It's definitely 91mm spacing. I've measured it myself.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 07:46 AM   #75
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
946
Rep
4,824
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
Don't you mean stroke?



It's definitely 91mm spacing. I've measured it myself.
I meant stroke yes...

And if you read my later posts I also measured a 91mm bore spacing today
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 08:16 AM   #76
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
946
Rep
4,824
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
And speaking of people commenting through other channels, a knowledgeable forum member sent me this regarding the earlier discussion about the relationship between stroke length and torque:
Agree that it's not as simple as oversquare means low torque and undersquare means loads of torque.

However undersquare (with a large bore and short stroke) means the possibility to fit larger valves increasing flow.

Some info I found doing some searching:

-------------------

A longer stroke will have greater port velocity at a given RPM, more torque due to more leverage on the crank, will achieve it's greatest efficiency at a lower RPM, and have less peak potential than a shorter stroke motor. Smaller combustion chambers are also more efficient, with the flame front having a shorter distance to travel- this leads to being more detonation resistant, and having an advantage for emissions.

Bigger bores with shorter strokes have the potential to turn higher RPM's, and larger/more valves will fit into bigger combustion chambers. Since the HP race involves turning ever higher RPM's to make more power, the oversquare motors have increased in popularity particularly when it comes to motorcycles.

Due to the emissions requirements, the lack of widespread consumer interest in 10,000 RPM cars, and the better reliability from lower RPM's, most car/truck engines are nowhere near as oversquare as motorcycle engines.

While it would be interesting to check how one bore/stroke combo would compare to another, it's important to remember that any results you find would be different with other engine combo's. Port size/shape, camshaft profile, exhaust backpressure, intake shape/length, piston style, compression ratio, and a thousand other items would affect the results. Each change would favor one bore/stroke ratio over the other. It's the overall package that counts, not one specific item.

Huge ports, aggressive camshaft profiles, short intake (high RPM type motor) would likely show a preference for an oversquare motor.

-------------

Agree that on a turbo motor many of the points above aren't that critical and a undersquare engine would have sufficed.

But, if bore/stroke info is correct, i give credit to BMW M for choosing a engine concept that is generally better for a high performance, high rpm engine. Especially given the work involved in this...
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 08:41 AM   #77
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
3976
Rep
17,614
Posts

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
Agree that it's not as simple as oversquare means low torque and undersquare means loads of torque.

However undersquare (with a large bore and short stroke) means the possibility to fit larger valves increasing flow.
(I think you meant over-square)

... which would have come in handy on all BMW I6 engines in the recent past as well, including the S54 and other M engines. So, I stick firmly by my point that there is no compelling technical argument for avoiding an over square bore (and bore center increase) for so long. There may have been other reasons at play (costs of tooling or unavailability of more flexible tooling), sure.

Quote:
Agree that on a turbo motor many of the points above aren't that critical and a undersquare engine would have sufficed.
Plus, 3L displacement is plenty for 430hp. If this were a 500hp engine, I would have already been reasonably convinced we have a larger block with more displacement, even though they've hit 3.2L in the past (using iron only, however) and even though Mercedes is now hitting 175hp/L in a $50k car.

Quote:
But, if bore/stroke info is correct, i give credit to BMW M for choosing a engine concept that is generally better for a high performance, high rpm engine. Especially given the work involved in this...
For sure. Especially when I've believed all along they would go with the current I6 architecture to keep cost down.
__________________
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.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 09:19 AM   #78
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
946
Rep
4,824
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Agree that a short stroke/large bore engine would have made even more sense back in the NA days.

Possibly a sign of larger budgets and/or larger production volumes that makes it economically viable to do this now.

I also see the advantage of being able to increase stroke and/or bore in future versions of this engine. Might be an indication of a long term engine platform.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 11:21 AM   #79
Jonjt
Lieutenant
21
Rep
508
Posts

Drives: 09 E92 335i M-sport
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
And speaking of people commenting through other channels, a knowledgeable forum member sent me this regarding the earlier discussion about the relationship between stroke length and torque:
Not claiming to know anything about generalities in engine performance but, by this forum members own formula, torque will increase for a given displacement if the stroke is increased. That formula is just T=F*r*sin(theta), with some extra terms to find force and the moment arm from the stroke and average cylinder pressures.


I see no reason why torque won't increase for a given displacement and more stroke. Just saying.

Last edited by Jonjt; 09-27-2013 at 11:27 AM.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 12:51 PM   #80
solstice
Brigadier General
858
Rep
4,014
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3 6MT
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

From experience with bikes where the difference between bore & stroke is a lot bigger than among cars a larger stroke/bore ratio is used for and results in torquier, low revving engines.

Here's a vivid example of my current V-twin bike vs. a similar sized V-twin of very different character.

Ducati 748 Bore x Stroke: 90x58.8 mm ( My bike )
Harley Davidson 883 Bore x Stroke: 3.0x3.8 inch

In my practical experience from bikes of all types the bore x stroke makes a huge difference in the engine character where long stroke yields an engine with low end grunt and lower peak rpms while a short stroke yields a much racier character with a weak low end but high peak rpms and hp.

The S55 vs N55 difference is however relative minor but still the lower piston speed at a given rpm and larger fuel intakes (valves ) should make room for higher rpms. It makes me wonder if there is a sigfiicant room left that will be utilized to push peak power and redline significantly higher up in the rpm range with a comp. pack. Are the small Mitsu blowers up to feeding the required pressure?

The reason BMW has not implementd a shorter stroke before is likely to find the best balance of both HP and TQ for a road car. They've done a good job at that. The shorter stroke is likely also part of why the M4's TQ is rated lower than that of an Alpina B3.
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 05:55 PM   #81
aus
Major General
United_States
472
Rep
8,457
Posts

Drives: Odysse
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seal Beach, CA

iTrader: (9)

I'm thinking this will be the replacement block for the N55. That block has been around for some time now.

.
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
Appreciate 0
      09-27-2013, 07:19 PM   #82
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
412
Rep
10,367
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
CanAutM3 has pointed out that there seems to be a slight "problem" with the quoted HP and Torque figures:



BMW's dyno chart actually shows that there isn't a overlap of HP and Torque... So, spot on observation



First post edited to contain this info
Nothing is inconsistent in this because power and torque have different units and therefore must have different scales. The curves will cross at different points depending on units or not at all. In US units if the dimensions of the units are removed, the curves cross at 5252 rpm.

Now that being said there are inconsistencies with 395 ft lb and 430 hp at 5500 rpm, that point is simply impossible. I think its obvious that when BMW said more than 369 ft lb they were not being inconsistent. ~410 ft lb actual is a much better and self-consistent estimate if ~430 hp is the actual power (i.e. not underrated).
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2013, 02:25 AM   #83
Yellow Snow
First Lieutenant
United Kingdom
7
Rep
311
Posts

Drives: 335d Coupe. Stock no more!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle

iTrader: (0)

I've just had it from a very reliable source at BMW that the S55 cylinder spacing is 98mm.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2013, 02:48 AM   #84
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
946
Rep
4,824
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Nothing is inconsistent in this because power and torque have different units and therefore must have different scales. The curves will cross at different points depending on units or not at all. In US units if the dimensions of the units are removed, the curves cross at 5252 rpm.

Now that being said there are inconsistencies with 395 ft lb and 430 hp at 5500 rpm, that point is simply impossible. I think its obvious that when BMW said more than 369 ft lb they were not being inconsistent. ~410 ft lb actual is a much better and self-consistent estimate if ~430 hp is the actual power (i.e. not underrated).
In metric units the lines don't cross as they do at 5252rpm in the imperial system. What CanAutM3 pointed out was that you can't have overlapping max torque and max hp rpm.

In the first post it was claimed from one of the sources that max hp began at 5500rpm while you had max torque until 5700rpm. According to CanAutM3 that can't happen. And the dyno graph backs this up. Max hp starts at 5700rpm, or at the point where torque starts falling off.

Hp and torque also doesn't add up but that makes sense as BMW has said substantially more than 369ft lb, which makes sense.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2013, 04:19 AM   #85
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
412
Rep
10,367
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
What CanAutM3 pointed out was that you can't have overlapping max torque and max hp rpm.
I must still be missing something. I can draw a torque and power curve where the peaks in each are single valued and at the same rpm. You must be referring to a special case where there are large plateaus in the curves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
Hp and torque also doesn't add up but that makes sense as BMW has said substantially more than 369ft lb, which makes sense.
Yes, still agree on this. Torque is probably going to be ~410 ft lb.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2013, 06:11 AM   #86
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
3976
Rep
17,614
Posts

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Snow View Post
I've just had it from a very reliable source at BMW that the S55 cylinder spacing is 98mm.
I appreciate the input, but we've heard from enough "reliable sources" over the past few years that we could have reliably been talking about the next M3 being a reliable diesel pickup truck. Or an intra-stellar skateboard with fairy wings.

Hopefully we get a full engine deep dive soon from the horses mouth.
__________________
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.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2013, 06:35 AM   #87
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
3976
Rep
17,614
Posts

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

A rebuttal from out mystery scientist (in his theatre?)!

Quote:
"Not claiming to know anything about generalities in engine performance but, by this forum members own formula, torque will increase for a given displacement if the stroke is increased. That formula is just T=F*r*sin(theta), with some extra terms to find force and the moment arm from the stroke and average cylinder pressures.

I see no reason why torque won't increase for a given displacement and more stroke. Just saying."


The displacement of a cylinder is defined by:

D = (B/2)^2 x pi x S

Substituting this in the Torque formula I provided yields:

T=P x D/2 x sin(Teta)

This demonstrates that Torque produced is displacement dependant regardless of bore and stroke

This formula remains theoretical as there many other parameters that impact the torque prodcuced, but proves the concept nonethelss.

(I apologize for the rather unconventional chain of communications)
__________________
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.
Appreciate 0
      09-28-2013, 07:39 AM   #88
NISFAN
Major General
NISFAN's Avatar
United Kingdom
2188
Rep
8,504
Posts

Drives: The best kind of F30 :)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bedford UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
A rebuttal from out mystery scientist (in his theatre?)!




(I apologize for the rather unconventional chain of communications)
The formula given is a mechanical one. What is not shown is the combustion process and engine characteristics for different stroke lengths. It is these that also influence torque.

A tidbit to ponder over, is that in a petrol engine, the combustion process is over by around 14-16 degrees crank shaft angle ATDC. It is this critical stage that help the extra leverage at small crankshaft degrees make a significant difference in torque. The view is helped by the thought that no matter what force you apply to the top of a piston at TDC, the torque read at the crankshaft will be zero.

Also.....

The main long stroke = higher torque basis is derived in part, in the commonly accepted view that long stroke engines produce peak torque at lower revs than a short stroke engine. They are simply more efficient in this range.

We also know that it is easier to produce higher torque figures at lower engine speeds.

For example, if we were to take a particular engine fitted with a medium cam profile and measure the torque, it would typically be higher than the same engine with a high duration camshaft. The high duration camshaft would develop the torque higher up in the rev scale, and the engine would physically produce more power, but peak torque would be lower (typically). (Of course a short stroke engine would favour building torque at higher revs, but the increase in torque would not be as significant)


Finally, on turbo charged engines, peak torque/power is limited to the onset of detonation. It is commonly understood that a wide flat disc (short stroke) is worse than a smaller higher disc (when talking about the shape of the squish area). This allows a long stroke engine to have more ignition advance, or more boost pressure for a given capacity. These two factors produce more torque in an engine.

The above is a general view, of course, there are exceptions.
__________________

Last edited by NISFAN; 09-28-2013 at 07:56 AM.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
2014 bmw m3, 2014 bmw m3 horsepower, 2014 bmw m3 specs, 2014 bmw m4 horsepower, 2014 bmw m4 specs, 2014 m3, 2014 m3 engine, 2014 m3 forum, 2014 m3 horsepower, 2014 m3 hp, 2014 m3 specs, 2014 m3 weight, 2014 m4 engine, 2014 m4 horsepower, 2014 m4 hp, 2014 m4 specs, 2014 m4 weight, 2015 bmw m3, 2015 bmw m4, 2015 m3, 2015 m3 engine, 2015 m3 specs, 2015 m4, 2015 m4 engine, 2015 m4 hp, 2015 m4 weight, bmw f80, bmw f80 forum, bmw f80 forums, bmw f80 m3, bmw f80 m3 s55, bmw f80 m3 sedan, bmw f82, bmw f82 forum, bmw f82 forums, bmw f82 m3, bmw f82 m3 coupe, bmw f82 m3 forum, bmw f82 m4, bmw f82 m4 coupe, bmw f82 m4 s55, bmw f82 m4 video, bmw f83, bmw f83 m3, bmw f83 m4, bmw m forum, bmw m forums, bmw m3 carbon fiber roof, bmw m3 forum, bmw m3 forums, bmw m3 s55, bmw m3 s55 engine, bmw m3 yas marina blue, bmw m4, bmw m4 bore, bmw m4 bore stroke, bmw m4 concept, bmw m4 stroke, bmw s55, bmw s55 bore, bmw s55 bore stroke, bmw s55 stroke, s55 bore, s55 bore stroke, s55 stroke

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:33 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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