Talk:BMW 5 Series (F10)

Recent anon edits

Hello! Just to clarify, the anon (me) who has been editing recently is one and the same person as User:Vox Humana 8', who was too stupid to remember to sign in.--86.18.235.20 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is true.--Vox Humana 8' 23:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Transmissions offered -- different national versions

I was about to write more about the 550i, but I realized that this article isn't accurately reflecting on different versions in different countries. Hmmm.

Currently, every mention of F10 550i's says it has an automatic transmission. In the USA, though, it also was offered with 6-speed manual transmission in 2011-2013. A similar set of thoughts on the M5, also.

Should I just go through and update all the 550i entries, adding 6-speed manual (although it may not be available in particular countries)?

Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Assembly locations

the information provided in the assembly locations in inaccurate and misleading. The only full manufacturing plant for F10 is Dingolfing, while Shenyang manufacturs the F18 (5 series LWB) for the Chinese market. All other locations listed are purely for CKD or SKD kit assembly. Toluca in Mexico only assembles security vehicles (light protection) for the Mexican market. I think this should be made clear. This problem also appears on other pages for BMW models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain Glyndwr (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

2015 525d engine

According to the official German pricelist for the F10, the 2010 F10 525d is equiped with the 3 litre engine, presumable the N57D30. The page states that the 525d, from 2010-2011, was equiped with the N47D20 engine, which is a 2 litre engine.

I'm unable to find out when the engine was changed for the 525d model. However, the N57D30U0 engine has exactly 204ps and 450Nm, so it seems like it's a simple mixup with the 2 litre engine.

Calamarain (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BMW 5 Series (F10). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229205610/http://www.bmw.in/in/en/_teaserpool/download/insights/pdf/BMW_India_Company_Profile.pdf to http://www.bmw.in/in/en/_teaserpool/download/insights/pdf/BMW_India_Company_Profile.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605084636/http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/motors/phil_lanning/2829504/Seven-plus-three-equals-five.html to http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/motors/phil_lanning/2829504/Seven-plus-three-equals-five.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527042442/http://automobile.automotive.com/134160/1004-2011-bmw-535i/index.html to http://automobile.automotive.com/134160/1004-2011-bmw-535i/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/mseries/m5sedan/2011/showroom/technical_data/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BMW 5 Series (F10). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.autozine.org/Archive/BMW/new/5er_F10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527042442/http://automobile.automotive.com/134160/1004-2011-bmw-535i/index.html to http://automobile.automotive.com/134160/1004-2011-bmw-535i/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

It is nice to have a section within the prose, however it is not Wikipedia standard for the automotive infobox, to not be allowing inclusion of months+years and instead, in a separate section[1]. Over 80% of Automotive articles with production sections included have months within them, but not the full date included as stated by @Stepho-wrs:. Three users independently having a discussion among themselves, does not exactly dictate how article inboxes are configured across Wikipedia, since it is not even listed here [2]. A much deeper discussion, with a widespread panel of users and not just a few out of many, would be a more proper form of consensus being firmly established.

If these changes, regarding inclusion of months keep being removed before that happens, a dispute resolution might end up needing to be opened, on the premise this is not even the standard across this site anyway and is being pushed regardless of that. Carmaker1 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is at Talk:BMW 5 Series (G30)#Production in Infobox.  Stepho  talk  08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, it was an error from copy pasting. Forgot to remove "Reply to" and put instead ((User:XXX)). I very much agree with what you told me and was using your example as a template to follow.--Carmaker1 (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Production dates

Hi U1Quattro. Whatever you don't like about the edit of mine that you just reverted, I am happy to discuss here. Please be more specific with your edits, rather than making blanket reverts which also wipe out other changes, as per WP:BABY. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There were no other changes made so don't mention the same rule again and again which I did not break. Your drive to compress the infobox has been brought to administration before and it was agreed that you ought to obtain a consensus about your edits. If a majority of editors agree with what you're doing then it is acceptable. For now, two editors including me disagree with your edits. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It has always been your strategy to make some useful edits along with some controversial ones so you can blame the other editors who try to restore to the less controversial version of breaking the rule. This is not acceptable at all. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not true, and there were other changes, so yes your revert did violate the policy. As per the opening message, which part of the changes do you disagree with? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the other changes since but yet you still continue with your reverts and prompting me to take this to administration attention if carried on. This proves that and the fact that you didn't read the sources to actually see January 2010. U¹ _quattro TALK 00:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're removing dates from the infobox. First you were solely doing that, then you're introducing other changes so your edits don't get reverted. U¹ _quattro TALK 00:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits like these warrant a consensus because you're moving everything from the infobox to the main body which is not acceptable. U¹ _quattro TALK 01:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, finally we're getting some information about which part you don't like. Regarding the production months, we don't have sourced info for the starting month of production (as per the FV tags in the production section), which is why I removed this currently unsourced claim from the infobox.

Your threat in this edit summary of an ANI report is not WP:CIVIL. Also, you are often describing other people's edits as "not acceptable", so where is the Wiki policy stating that you are the sole judge of what is "acceptable"? 1292simon (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Who said your edits are acceptable? Two editors disagree with your edits, yet you continue to revert changes without seeking consensus. The production months are sourced and you're removing them without any reason. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore you're again removing layouts from the infobox which was previously discussed in ANI and you were told to obtain a consensus about them. Yet you're continuing with that edit pattern again which would leave me with no choice but to open a thread at ANI. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)