R44 Performance
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 / Tuning

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-26-2014, 02:02 AM   #1
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

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

iTrader: (3)

Further dyno evidence of no under rating

This is a repost but after that crap thread some time ago about the Motor Trend E92 vs F82 dyno testing I felt this deserved its own post.

In short, using a novel and accurate wheel based in-situ dyno, there is no evidence of any significant under rating of the F82 M4.

Although the dyno came back at 449 PS is was acknowledged that a small unrealistic blip in the power curve (see graph below) means that a more realistic number is about 440 PS (434 hp) and that is a 2% under rating (factory claimed is 431 PS which is 425 hp).



Member Boss330 provided the following translation from the article:

Quote:
At the most, only the engine cover is overrated on this biturbo
An attempt poking a bit of fun at the brawny power dome on the car or whatever BMW is calling it these days...

What is innovative about this Insoric RealPower dyno system (link) is that it accounts for drivetrain inertia and losses by measuring wheel hp during an actual acceleration run. It then uses coast down data to calculate (and perhaps estimate) various loses (tires, aero, drive train). And with accurate wheel power and accurate losses one can then get accurate crank power. Boss330 and I have some outstanding emails to the company to better clarify how the coast down measures losses.

One additional data point as to the accuracy of this system is that for the Aston Martin V12 Vantage is measured 566 PS and the stated spec is 573 PS. That is about a 1% error (of course assuming that the car is neither under nor over rated).

Last but not least you might note that the M4 vertical axis is mislabeled. In a reader letter the next month Auto Bild clarified that the values and graphs they provided were correct it was just a mislabeled axis value.
__________________
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 |

Last edited by swamp2; 07-27-2014 at 03:14 PM..
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 02:32 AM   #2
zanzoon
Enlisted Member
2
Rep
36
Posts

Drives: M340i
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: orlando

iTrader: (0)

Still fast and sexy so if i was u ill start saving to buy one
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 02:58 AM   #3
Stevens21234
Lieutenant
114
Rep
524
Posts

Drives: F80 + 991.1 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: MD

iTrader: (0)

Tough to declare if their methodology is actually accurate as you state. Bench marking it against other cars (aston martin marketing) with the presumption of no over/under estimate introduces further uncertainty. Most analysis software you've cited does curve fitting to empirical results - a common initial approach to more rigorous modeling in academia. It would be more interesting if we had dynamic finite element analysis to simulate dynos using sound mechanical engineering theory. I have a friend in BMW technology who does just this to examine engine stresses - I might reach out to him to see if he has theoretical baselines for the M3 and other competitor cars through FEA modeling.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 04:44 AM   #4
ss134
Brigadier General
ss134's Avatar
United Kingdom
229
Rep
3,899
Posts

Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany/UK

iTrader: (1)

Underrated or not I do not know but what is fact is that when they've put E92 M3 and F80 on the same dynos F80 has shown the difference between the two is significant and does not represent a claimed 10hp gain for the F80 model over E92. Was E92 overrated then?!
__________________
2014 AW F80 M3 DCT
2011 AW E90 M3 DCT - Sold
2010 JZB E90 M3 DCT - Sold
2009 6MT E90 LCI 335i M -Sport - Sold
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 05:29 AM   #5
gthal
Major General
gthal's Avatar
Canada
1901
Rep
5,678
Posts

Drives: 2018 340i xDrive
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss134 View Post
Underrated or not I do not know but what is fact is that when they've put E92 M3 and F80 on the same dynos F80 has shown the difference between the two is significant and does not represent a claimed 10hp gain for the F80 model over E92. Was E92 overrated then?!
This is what I have struggled with. So much conflicting data that doesn't add up. Comparison dynos showing very significant differences between E9x and F8x. Trap speeds in excess of 120mph. Some dynos suggesting a higher rating and some lower. To me, I don't see how we can possibly conclude either way at this point BUT it does seem like there is "more" evidence that there is some level of underrating.
__________________
2020 X3 M40i | Black | Current DD
2020 C8 Corvette | Z51 | Torch Red ... built and waiting for delivery
2016 M2 | Long Beach Blue | 6MT
2015 M4 | Austin Yellow | DCT
2012 MB C63AMG | 2011 E92 M3 | 2010 E92 M3
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 07:55 AM   #6
damnitBobby
Major
991
Rep
1,370
Posts

Drives: 2018 M3 ZCP
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Houston

iTrader: (0)

lol at butthurt e92 owner.. that "small unrealistic blip" wasn't on the other graphs we have seen was it?

just accept the F8X pretty much obliterated the E9x on the dyno
Appreciate 1
      07-26-2014, 08:31 AM   #7
Kadema
Private First Class
Kadema's Avatar
Germany
1
Rep
116
Posts

Drives: 123d
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Rothenburg ob der Tauber

iTrader: (0)

I find it neither small, nor unrealistic, that 'blip'. Unless, of course, you expect max power to really cover the whole plateau like in the official charts. That blip does seem to have about the size of a NA engines' power peak. Anyway, 440 or 449 PS is evidence of underrating and not evidence of no underrating, albeit it indicates that 460 or even 480 PS was a bit optimistic.

My favorite quote from the article: "Gigantisch: volle Leistung bis zum Begrenzer - das schafft kein anderer Turbo"

If you take a close look to the upper end of the chart you can see that another nice little detail is underrated: Power sustains better, up to the limiter, than officially claimed.

Thanks for sharing the info and explaining the dyno.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 09:33 AM   #8
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

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

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevens21234 View Post
Tough to declare if their methodology is actually accurate as you state. Bench marking it against other cars (aston martin marketing) with the presumption of no over/under estimate introduces further uncertainty.
A fair criticism. But I did say further evidence, not concrete proof...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevens21234 View Post
Most analysis software you've cited does curve fitting to empirical results - a common initial approach to more rigorous modeling in academia. It would be more interesting if we had dynamic finite element analysis to simulate dynos using sound mechanical engineering theory.
Inaccurate. The simulation software I've used in many other threads is based entirely on 1st principles in physics and engineering. Yes, it helps to tweak some difficult to measure or quantify parameters with test results but that is Engineering 101. This isn't the theory of relativity (hmmm well I guess that has one gigantic largely unknown fact - the cosmological constant...)

Also, for most of these simulation a kinematic rigid model would suffice over a more difficult to construct finite element model. Either way I'm not sure such a model could solver this problem definitively, just way too many unknowns. I have access to a full complement of these tools as this is my profession.
__________________
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 |

Last edited by swamp2; 07-26-2014 at 09:46 AM..
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 09:35 AM   #9
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

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

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by damnitBobby View Post
lol at butthurt e92 owner.. that "small unrealistic blip" wasn't on the other graphs we have seen was it?

just accept the F8X pretty much obliterated the E9x on the dyno
Categorically false.

I like the new cars. I'm just likely not going to buying one soon. If you know anything about my leanings here on the forum you would know this is rubbish. The performance of the car and the wallop it gives the current car is entirely undisputed. My motivations are much more about the science of vehicles.

Anyway, 2% is absolutely within the limit of the error from measurement. No conclusion can be made about under rating from this number.
__________________
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
      07-26-2014, 09:39 AM   #10
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

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

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadema View Post
I find it neither small, nor unrealistic, that 'blip'. Unless, of course, you expect max power to really cover the whole plateau like in the official charts.
Yes, that is exactly what I expect and should be expected. Such blips are not realistic in a crank/engine dynos. Have you ever seen one? Such dynos are very carefully controlled, thermally and air flow wise and are conducted over a long-ish measurement period at a very steady rpm which eliminates all intertial effects, engine and drivetrain.
__________________
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
      07-26-2014, 10:56 AM   #11
GrussGott
Lieutenant General
GrussGott's Avatar
United_States
18113
Rep
11,746
Posts

Drives: 2018 M4 Comp Indv
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newport Beach

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I like the new cars. I'm just likely not going to buying one soon. If you know anything about my leanings here on the forum you would know this is rubbish. The performance of the car and the wallop it gives the current car is entirely undisputed. My motivations are much more about the science of vehicles.
For whatever it's worth (not much), I'm a fan.

For full disclosure these threads annoy me because there's a lot of pseudo-technical mumbo-jumbo words, but that's balanced by the content behind them which seem solid to me.

And I have no idea what your motivation is, but you do drop some knowledge bombs, so
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurtleBoy View Post
He tries to draw people into inane arguments, some weird pastime of his.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 11:35 AM   #12
solstice
Major General
5457
Rep
7,037
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

What I've seen this far the S55 has consistently put down about 70 rwhp more than the S65 has on dynos of the same type. When compared directly to an S65 on the same dyno it also put down about 70 hp more. It will take more than using an AM as reference to convince me that it's not significantly under rated given that the S65 is not severely overrated which don't seem likely at this point in time. That the F8X has put down close to rated crank hp at the wheels at the majority of dyno runs is IMO further evidence of grave under rating since I doubt all those dynos are THAT much off. In the end pick what you like, if you prefer to think it's not under rated you can find a data point or two to support you while ignoring the rest. Personally I don't really care what the exact crank or rw hp number is. Whatever make you happy I guess.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 11:53 AM   #13
Black Gold
Major General
590
Rep
5,396
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Texas

iTrader: (15)

Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by solstice View Post
What I've seen this far the S55 has consistently put down about 70 rwhp more than the S65 has on dynos of the same type. When compared directly to an S65 on the same dyno it also put down about 70 hp more. It will take more than using an AM as reference to convince me that it's not significantly under rated given that the S65 is not severely overrated which don't seem likely at this point in time. That the F8X has put down close to rated crank hp at the wheels at the majority of dyno runs is IMO further evidence of grave under rating since I doubt all those dynos are THAT much off. In the end pick what you like, if you prefer to think it's not under rated you can find a data point or two to support you while ignoring the rest. Personally I don't really care what the exact crank or rw hp number is. Whatever make you happy I guess.
100% agree
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 11:55 AM   #14
jc05e46m3
Brigadier General
jc05e46m3's Avatar
United_States
844
Rep
3,249
Posts

Drives: '21 F90 M5 Comp
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Everywhere.

iTrader: (3)

I just find it completely laughable that the thread title is "Further dyno evidence of no under rating" but then in the first post the OP says "and that is a 2% under rating". Contradiction much?

__________________
'21 /// M5 Comp - Frozen Brilliant White/Black
'18 Porsche GT3 Carrara White/Black/Red - Sold
'18 /// M3 - Individual Imola/Black - Sold
'15 /// M4 - YMB/SO - Sold
'12 E92 ///M3 ZCP - AW/FR - Sold
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 12:22 PM   #15
M5Rlz
Colonel
249
Rep
2,202
Posts

Drives: R8, f10m59(Rip), m4, GTR
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MD

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Categorically false.

I like the new cars. I'm just likely not going to buying one soon. If you know anything about my leanings here on the forum you would know this is rubbish. The performance of the car and the wallop it gives the current car is entirely undisputed. My motivations are much more about the science of vehicles.

Anyway, 2% is absolutely within the limit of the error from measurement. No conclusion can be made about under rating from this number.
have you had a chance to check out the m4 vs. e85 meth map7 fbo 335i video?
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 03:12 PM   #16
Stevens21234
Lieutenant
114
Rep
524
Posts

Drives: F80 + 991.1 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: MD

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
A fair criticism. But I did say further evidence, not concrete proof...



Inaccurate. The simulation software I've used in many other threads is based entirely on 1st principles in physics and engineering. Yes, it helps to tweak some difficult to measure or quantify parameters with test results but that is Engineering 101. This isn't the theory of relativity (hmmm well I guess that has one gigantic largely unknown fact - the cosmological constant...)

Also, for most of these simulation a kinematic rigid model would suffice over a more difficult to construct finite element model. Either way I'm not sure such a model could solver this problem definitively, just way too many unknowns. I have access to a full complement of these tools as this is my profession.
I've examined your threads with software and disagree on the approach. At the end of the day, you're trying to replicate the dyno curves by using sensitivity analysis of various software analysis parameters for that specific curve. You try to limit uncertainty and randomness by trying to derive the curves for different tests at the same company. But again, you're assuming that specific dyno is correct. I could use the same software, curve fit and come up with favorable performance measurement parameters for a variety of different dynos (witha 13% spread) as you've analyzed.

Analysis software would introduce results in a vacuum. furthermore, you could even develop a probabilistically based approach for nonlinear inelastic dynamic finite element analysis and come up with median values that would be more reliable than focusing on singular dynos. Errors would be limited if we could use the cad (to transform into FEA) or finite element model files from the manufacturers themselves (which could be mapped into one consistent program). Doing so would allow for replicable analysis with simulated vacuum conditions limiting variance in extrinsic testing condition properties. Doing so would allow you to consistently use the same modeling approach with again nonlinear and inelastic material deformation to capture small deformations (due to transmission movement and other car component movement) and thermal properties (something typically missing in rigid kinematic modeling) further limiting analysis spread error.

I too have access to a host of these tools as I helped google develop some of their technology behind their self driving car while I was a student at that institute of technology in massachusetts.

Last edited by Stevens21234; 07-26-2014 at 03:19 PM..
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 04:17 PM   #17
verbs
Captain
77
Rep
665
Posts

Drives: 2015 M235i
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zona

iTrader: (0)

Seems like you're on some sort of crusade here.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 07:02 PM   #18
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

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

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jc05e46m3 View Post
I just find it completely laughable that the thread title is "Further dyno evidence of no under rating" but then in the first post the OP says "and that is a 2% under rating". Contradiction much?

I find it laughable that you don't realize:
  1. All test have experimental error. Even the most accurate chassis dynos claim about 2% error.
  2. 2% of 425 hp is about 8 hp. There are folks that actually believe the car makes 465-500 crank hp. 8 hp is effectively no underrating given the above point and in comparison to 75 hp.

If you like feel free to think of a more accurate title to be "further dyno evidence indicates no under rating within reasonable bounds of experimental error". Sheesh, we aren't authoring peer reviewed scientific literature here...
__________________
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
      07-26-2014, 07:06 PM   #19
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

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

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by solstice View Post
What I've seen this far the S55 has consistently put down about 70 rwhp more than the S65 has on dynos of the same type. When compared directly to an S65 on the same dyno it also put down about 70 hp more. It will take more than using an AM as reference to convince me that it's not significantly under rated given that the S65 is not severely overrated which don't seem likely at this point in time. That the F8X has put down close to rated crank hp at the wheels at the majority of dyno runs is IMO further evidence of grave under rating since I doubt all those dynos are THAT much off. In the end pick what you like, if you prefer to think it's not under rated you can find a data point or two to support you while ignoring the rest. Personally I don't really care what the exact crank or rw hp number is. Whatever make you happy I guess.
Have you followed the other thread on this topic? I find the posters there and most of the content significantly more deep/insightful and relevant than arguing about which dyno is better. The general consensus on that thread, from the folks most "in the know" (some subjectivity there for sure on my behald) is there is a no to very mild under rating say 5%. Link.
__________________
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
      07-26-2014, 07:20 PM   #20
jc05e46m3
Brigadier General
jc05e46m3's Avatar
United_States
844
Rep
3,249
Posts

Drives: '21 F90 M5 Comp
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Everywhere.

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I find it laughable that you don't realize:
  1. All test have experimental error. Even the most accurate chassis dynos claim about 2% error.
  2. 2% of 425 hp is about 8 hp. There are folks that actually believe the car makes 465-500 crank hp. 8 hp is effectively no underrating given the above point and in comparison to 75 hp.

If you like feel free to think of a more accurate title to be "further dyno evidence indicates no under rating within reasonable bounds of experimental error". Sheesh, we aren't authoring peer reviewed scientific literature here...
So maybe say 2% error as opposed to 2% underrating. Lol, don't get butthurt. It just looks quite contradictory and if you're attempting to be accurate, then perhaps make it accurate. That's all I'm saying.

By the way, I do believe this car is making somewhere between 440-450. If you don't like that and want to waste your time disproving everyone else (or making yourself believe other things) Most people are basing the differences on what they are seeing in real life. Sure, some believe the car is making 500 crank, but it's not. The thing that dynos give us though, is deltas. And when you look at deltas between E9x and F8x cars, there IS a significant difference. It could be the highest or lowest rating dyno in the world and the deltas still matter-not for the absolutes, but for reference points. That's how it has been, and that's how it will always be. You can continue to combat those ideals all you want, but it won't change.
__________________
'21 /// M5 Comp - Frozen Brilliant White/Black
'18 Porsche GT3 Carrara White/Black/Red - Sold
'18 /// M3 - Individual Imola/Black - Sold
'15 /// M4 - YMB/SO - Sold
'12 E92 ///M3 ZCP - AW/FR - Sold
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 07:26 PM   #21
GrussGott
Lieutenant General
GrussGott's Avatar
United_States
18113
Rep
11,746
Posts

Drives: 2018 M4 Comp Indv
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newport Beach

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevens21234 View Post
you could even develop a probabilistically based approach for nonlinear inelastic dynamic finite element analysis and come up with median values
And who said engineers don't like to have fun!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurtleBoy View Post
He tries to draw people into inane arguments, some weird pastime of his.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2014, 08:22 PM   #22
FogCityM3
Colonel
FogCityM3's Avatar
497
Rep
2,400
Posts

Drives: M3 (E90) & Porsche GT3 RS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: San Francisco

iTrader: (0)

I feel like I'm picking up my kids at school, with all the "Butt-Hurt" commentary that seems to show up here in disproportionate amount, even relative to the school. Nowhere did Swamp even bring in the S65 into the picture or claim that the old car was as fast as the new one. The whole thesis is that the shape of the curve, with flat constant, full power over a very wide RPM range is responsible for how quick the M4 is. I personally think its extremely interesting and I have learned many things from swamp and others in these analyses, they touch on something that I love and gets my neurons firing outside my area of expertise.

I also think the Insoric is extremely interesting tool, especially the "coast down" feature which will help estimate driveline losses. I would love to use this tool, the BT tool and actual moment calculations (which come directly from the ECU and is what the ECU believes to be the power given all the real time inputs), plus a similar Dash Dyno tool that I use, where you enter (and can calculate) gear ratios, temperature, frontal area, pressure, etc and it plugs into the ECU to get speed, acceleration to obtain a rolling road whp calculation. Between all of these we can triangulate a true dyno plot with full heat exchange and very accurate estimates of driveline losses over an rpm range (that go far beyond the traditional "divide by .85" to convert from driveline to bhp). I've said this many times in M3 post, the wheel dynos leave a lot to be desired with huge variation, no matter many are in whatever database is out there.
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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
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