BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

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


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
BPM
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-30-2008, 08:41 PM   #1
gbb357
Captain
68
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

How Much Power Does the Nissan GT-R Really Have?

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008.../index.html?hp

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
By Ezra Dyer

It seems like the only time you hear about car companies fudging horsepower numbers, it’s when they’re busted advertising more beans than are actually present in the under-hood burrito. Mazda got in trouble for exaggerating the 2001 Miata’s power output. Ford had to recall the 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra when owners realized its motor fell about 20 horsepower short of its official numbers. In the early 2000’s, Hyundai offered its customers extended roadside assistance and warranties after several models suffered double-digit horsepower deficits.

I have a theory on where all those phantom ponies went: They’re under the hood of the new Nissan GT-R.

Like those other cars, the GT-R’s stated power — 480 horsepower — is a long way from reality. But in the case of the Nissan, the truth is that the car seems to have more power than they’re letting on. The question is, how much more?

Nissan knows, but the company is not saying. Peter Bedrosian, regional project manager for product planning, said that Nissan tests every GT-R production engine on a dynamometer, then records the horsepower and torque for that particular car.

“And can owners find out how much power their car’s motor puts out?” I asked.

That’s a no. I presume that the power printouts are sealed in a lead capsule and buried deep inside Mount Fuji under dead of night. So we’ll just have to make an educated guess.

Thanks to the principle of substitution, we can look at several aspects of the GT-R’s performance and deduce roughly what kind of firepower would be required to accomplish such feats.

For a corollary, the former N.B.A. point guard Spud Webb could dunk (and maybe, for all I know, still can). Spud Webb is 5-foot-7. If Webb told you his vertical leap was only 20 inches, you would conclude that Mr. Webb was understating his abilities and that someone of his height would need at least a 40-inch vertical to win the 1986 NBA Slam Dunk Contest, which he did.

Likewise, the Nissan GT-R laps Germany’s Nürburgring Nordschleife in 7 minutes 29 seconds, which is very nearly the fastest time ever recorded by a production car. For reference, the Corvette Z06, which has 505 horsepower and weighs a whopping 700 pounds less than the GT-R, is 13 seconds slower, with a time of 7 minutes 42 seconds. So, the car with 25 fewer horsepower and 700 more pounds of weight is much, much faster than its rival? Something is rotten in the state of the S.A.E. horsepower laboratories.

I’ll grant you that there are many variables involved in a lap of the Nordschleife, and Nissan will point out that the GT-R has a sophisticated all-wheel-drive system that allows it to power neatly out of corners, while the Z06 is rear-wheel drive. But still … 13 seconds? We could presume that, based on this statistic alone, the GT-R must have at least as much power as the Z06, about 500 horses. But that still wouldn’t be close.

A clearer picture emerges at the drag strip. Basically, your quarter-mile time is influenced by a host of factors, most importantly the success of your launch off the line. But trap speed — the speed at which you finish the quarter-mile — is closely tied to horsepower and a car’s power-to-weight ratio.

It’s algebra: If you know your car’s weight, and you know the speed it reached in a quarter-mile, you can pretty much predict the amount of power required to produce that trap speed. Trap speed doesn’t lie. And the GT-R’s trap speeds give lie to that 480-horsepower rating.

The GT-R can hit 122 or 123 miles per hour in the quarter-mile. It weighs about 4,000 pounds, with driver. There are many calculators and equations devoted to divining horsepower numbers, and given this weight and trap speed, most of them peg the GT-R’s output between 550 horsepower on the conservative end and 580 horsepower on the “maybe on a cool day with a tailwind” side. But I would eat my time slips if this car doesn’t have at least 550 horsepower.

So why won’t Nissan just fess up? Maybe it’s for insurance reasons. Maybe it’s to appease the Japanese government, which regards the GT-R as a pavement-eating menace to civilized mankind. Or maybe it’s because it’s just more fun not to know. It adds to the legend. Because when someone asks you how much power your car makes, hard stats are boring. It’s much more entertaining to say, “480 horsepower, officially,” then, in a conspiratorial tone, confide, “but everyone knows it’s got more.”
Appreciate 0
      06-30-2008, 11:41 PM   #2
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)

Thanks for sharing. Good and relevant information since this topic has been extensively discssed in this very forum.

My big question is the following: Is the physics any more correct today then months ago when this debate raged. Similarly does a NY Times journalist know any more science than many of us here on the forum?
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 12:14 AM   #3
Serious
1M advocate
Serious's Avatar
United_States
213
Rep
878
Posts

Drives: 2018 S4. 2011 M3. 2012 S1000RR
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

thing is in some of the tests the cars must have 550+ hp and in other tests the cars perform right to 480hp spec.

I wouldnt be suprised if nissan is throwing out some ringers to mags.
__________________
2012 BMW S1000RR
2011 BMW M3
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 09:22 AM   #4
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Colonel
99
Rep
2,000
Posts

Drives: 2017 C63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Thanks for sharing. Good and relevant information since this topic has been extensively discssed in this very forum.

My big question is the following: Is the physics any more correct today then months ago when this debate raged. Similarly does a NY Times journalist know any more science than many of us here on the forum?
I'm also wondering what in the heck is going on with Nissan and the GT-R. The last test I read in Car & Driver showed a mere mortal GT-R running the quarter mile with a 115 mph terminal speed. Discounting the wonders of the transmission in that car (plus the sophisticated AWD), that's about what you'd expect the car to run. Yet in a previous test, they ran another GT-R to a 124+ mph trap speed, equating to something around 600 HP. Given that C & D adjusts their numbers for weather conditions (largely eliminating them as a variable), that is a stupendous difference.

So, if you order one, which one will you get?

Perhaps the more "normal" 120-121 mph trap speed car is the one to hope for. Those numbers tend to compute to something more than 480 HP at the flywheel/flexplate, but nobody knows how much the transmission and drive systems are contributing to the results. Or at least I don't.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 10:59 AM   #5
Keto
Lieutenant Colonel
Keto's Avatar
United_States
73
Rep
1,603
Posts

Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2015 BMW M3  [10.00]
If this is true (ringers) then it's too bad they felt the need to take a great accomplishment and embellish it. I can't quite believe that these are mere variations in production.
__________________
2015 SO/SO MT M3 :: Exec : Lighting : Adaptive : HK : CF trim : Full leather : DAP : Black 19's : sunshade
Crystalline tint 40%/70% on windshield : M performance mirrors, spoiler, splitters : Status Gruppe CF lip : RKP diffuser : Fully dechromed
Bavsound Stage 1 : V1 Savvy hardwired : Self-coded
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 11:08 AM   #6
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
1072
Rep
8,008
Posts

Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
I'm not into the maths of physics anywhere near as much as swamp or bruce but the variation between the different results lead me to consider that some of the early examples were ringers.

The transmission offering a reason for it incredible times, don't buy that either because look at the recent M-DCT times, the improvement on trap speed and times are usually quite small compared to the manual cars. The awd system will allow the car to get those first dozen meters off the line perfectly but after that it holds no advantage what so ever. The only thing I see possible is that a Corvette has a very slow gearbox compared to an M3 and if the vette was given a similar transmission it would be even better again than the GTR.

The only example I have seen is by Autocar when they test the acceleration of the Z06 and found the gearbox extremely slow and awful to use, might have been a bad example and you guys will know better about this that me. But if an M3 can post 113mph then an extra 5mph or so would surely be possible from an extra 60hp/more ft/lbs and a superior traction system without resorting to the 550hp+ being suggested.
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 11:09 AM   #7
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
1072
Rep
8,008
Posts

Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keto View Post
If this is true (ringers) then it's too bad they felt the need to take a great accomplishment and embellish it. I can't quite believe that these are mere variations in production.
Do you really believe all the other manufacturers aren't at it too.
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 11:14 AM   #8
!Xoible
Banned
United_States
823
Rep
46,029
Posts

Drives: ....
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: .

iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2008 M3  [4.00]
2007 335i  [9.00]
2008 528i  [8.00]
2006 Infiniti - G35 ...  [8.00]
yes swamp. physics 18.2 was recently released. and it did add hp to GTR in shape of stickers.

the more those editors drink, the more HP the GTR is gaining. good deal IMHO. kudos to Nissan marketing department
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 11:42 AM   #9
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
374
Rep
8,033
Posts

Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Whatever is going on, this is not good for Nissan IMO whatever their reason(s) might be for underrating the car or sending different spec cars to testers. I'd like to know the specs of a product I am buying rather than guessing them.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 03:02 PM   #10
JEllis
Major General
JEllis's Avatar
529
Rep
5,498
Posts

Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth

iTrader: (4)

Yeah, its underrated...every GTR to date has been severely underrated by Nissan. In the beginning due to there now defunt HP clause and today probably because they can.

Dont forget some of the early cars tested were in fact already owned by someone else. The GTR tested by CAR was personel vehicle of a guy in the UK that he had "grey" market shipped over to Britain. That particular GTR still managed to beat the 997TT in the test.

If the early cars were "ringers", which I dont believe they were, then some "ringers" managed to make it into the hands of private owners as well....

Jason
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
Instagram: jellismotorwerks
Appreciate 0
      07-01-2008, 09:14 PM   #11
ase2dais
//Mdicted
ase2dais's Avatar
United_States
346
Rep
9,988
Posts

Drives: a Cop Magnet
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 495 Ring

iTrader: (18)

Garage List
I dont care how much noise this GTR is generating, seems like when I hear Nissan it reminds me of a Sentra
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2008, 02:56 AM   #12
hellrotm
Banned
4143
Rep
6,926
Posts

Drives: F80
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ...Location...Location

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEllis View Post
Yeah, its underrated...every GTR to date has been severely underrated by Nissan. In the beginning due to there now defunt HP clause and today probably because they can.

Dont forget some of the early cars tested were in fact already owned by someone else. The GTR tested by CAR was personel vehicle of a guy in the UK that he had "grey" market shipped over to Britain. That particular GTR still managed to beat the 997TT in the test.

If the early cars were "ringers", which I dont believe they were, then some "ringers" managed to make it into the hands of private owners as well....

Jason
I remember the edmunds test a long while back. The data they pulled was just crazy.

It was stated as the 911 Turbo beater by basically everyone.

Then a more realistic test came along, Car&Driver M3 vs GT-R vs 911 turbo. You know the one were the M3 was chosen over the GT-R and 911 turbo. Everybody thought they were crazy. Nevermind the M3 for now.

In that test, the 911 turbo and GT-R were tested on the same track, same conditions, same driver.

The results were, the 911 turbo had the fastest 0-30, 0-60, 0-140 and the fastest 1/4 mile. It also had the best 70-0 braking and skidpad numbers. Also surprising the 911 turbo had the best gas mileage.
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2008, 07:41 PM   #13
d3l0n
I love the ///M3, but I want 550hp ///M5
d3l0n's Avatar
United_States
141
Rep
3,276
Posts

Drives: BMW330iE90
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
LOL nissan gets played pretty badly lol. I had high hopes for this car until this. It would be projected sports car of the year... but.... wtf. This post sparks some interesting talks.
Appreciate 0
      07-02-2008, 09:42 PM   #14
Keto
Lieutenant Colonel
Keto's Avatar
United_States
73
Rep
1,603
Posts

Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2015 BMW M3  [10.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Do you really believe all the other manufacturers aren't at it too.
I doubt all of them. Ringers, if this is the case, are a calculated risk, as detailed elsewhere in this thread. Nissan may have felt the brand needed the press for this amazing automotive achievement so that car nuts looking for, say, a $25k luxury sedan would say, "Hey, look what Nissan gives you for $70k" or "Look what Nissan's technology lead is over their competitors, I bet that Altima is amazing" etc.

If it's just variability, I'd be scared, because that kind of HP variability suggests imprecise engineering.
__________________
2015 SO/SO MT M3 :: Exec : Lighting : Adaptive : HK : CF trim : Full leather : DAP : Black 19's : sunshade
Crystalline tint 40%/70% on windshield : M performance mirrors, spoiler, splitters : Status Gruppe CF lip : RKP diffuser : Fully dechromed
Bavsound Stage 1 : V1 Savvy hardwired : Self-coded
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2008, 01:59 AM   #15
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
1072
Rep
8,008
Posts

Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keto View Post
I doubt all of them. Ringers, if this is the case, are a calculated risk, as detailed elsewhere in this thread. Nissan may have felt the brand needed the press for this amazing automotive achievement so that car nuts looking for, say, a $25k luxury sedan would say, "Hey, look what Nissan gives you for $70k" or "Look what Nissan's technology lead is over their competitors, I bet that Altima is amazing" etc.

If it's just variability, I'd be scared, because that kind of HP variability suggests imprecise engineering.
Look at the Performance list
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=277

In there you will see that the M3 E92 from 0-100mph has ranged from 9.4s to 10.6s, that's 1.2s which would imply a mighty big HP difference and as you said imprecise engineering.

If you look at one brand then you have to look closer to home as well.

Last edited by footie; 07-03-2008 at 04:46 AM..
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2008, 03:30 AM   #16
gbb357
Captain
68
Rep
706
Posts

Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Look at the Performance list
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=277

In there you will see that the M3 E92 from 0-100mph has ranged from 9.4s to 10.6s, that's 1.2s which would imply a mighty big HP diference and as you said imprecise engineering.

If you look at one brand then you have to look closer to home as well.
Excellent points Footie, as always.
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2008, 05:28 AM   #17
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
1072
Rep
8,008
Posts

Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Excellent points Footie, as always.
My point was that to be classed as an unbiased web site you need to consider all angles and this evidence points to BMW among others doing exactly the same thing that some here are accusing Nissan of.

Press cars are known to be a little more perfect than every other one which comes off the production line, another example of BMW at their work was the E43 M3, it too had some huge differences in times with most really good times happening around it's launch, ranging from 15.8s (0-200km/h) to 18.2s being the most recent I saw listed. The same applies to the RS6 with upwards to a second difference in it's 0-200km/h times.

THEY ARE ALL AT IT.
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2008, 06:56 AM   #18
Keto
Lieutenant Colonel
Keto's Avatar
United_States
73
Rep
1,603
Posts

Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2015 BMW M3  [10.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Look at the Performance list
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=277

In there you will see that the M3 E92 from 0-100mph has ranged from 9.4s to 10.6s, that's 1.2s which would imply a mighty big HP difference and as you said imprecise engineering.

If you look at one brand then you have to look closer to home as well.
Times do not equal HP as we have all learned on the forums recently. We're talking in the neighborhood of a 15-20% difference in projected HP here for the GT-R (estimates from 480 to ~600). This compares to a ~10% difference in time in the example you mentioned, and times have extra variables thrown in such as driver, conditions, method (C&D's rolling start vs. dead stop), etc. You are not arguing apples to apples there. If someone dynos a M3 at 350 hp at the crank or gives us a trap speed that implies that level of hp then we've got an issue.

It could be that a few review samples for the GT-R are that defective, but since Nissan tests every engine on the way out the door as I read elsewhere, you wonder....
__________________
2015 SO/SO MT M3 :: Exec : Lighting : Adaptive : HK : CF trim : Full leather : DAP : Black 19's : sunshade
Crystalline tint 40%/70% on windshield : M performance mirrors, spoiler, splitters : Status Gruppe CF lip : RKP diffuser : Fully dechromed
Bavsound Stage 1 : V1 Savvy hardwired : Self-coded
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2008, 07:00 AM   #19
Keto
Lieutenant Colonel
Keto's Avatar
United_States
73
Rep
1,603
Posts

Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2015 BMW M3  [10.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
My point was that to be classed as an unbiased web site you need to consider all angles and this evidence points to BMW among others doing exactly the same thing that some here are accusing Nissan of.

Press cars are known to be a little more perfect than every other one which comes off the production line, another example of BMW at their work was the E43 M3, it too had some huge differences in times with most really good times happening around it's launch, ranging from 15.8s (0-200km/h) to 18.2s being the most recent I saw listed. The same applies to the RS6 with upwards to a second difference in it's 0-200km/h times.

THEY ARE ALL AT IT.
Again, times are not the same as the HP figures. Admittedly, those HP figures are estimates, but the fact that someone bothered to write an article about the GT-R shows that they may have exceeded the industry-standard "fudge factor" for HP.

If this is such a standard practice, why does BMW consistently report shitty times for their models? BMW's reported 0-60 for the E92 is 4.8 seconds. All the mags beat that regularly.
__________________
2015 SO/SO MT M3 :: Exec : Lighting : Adaptive : HK : CF trim : Full leather : DAP : Black 19's : sunshade
Crystalline tint 40%/70% on windshield : M performance mirrors, spoiler, splitters : Status Gruppe CF lip : RKP diffuser : Fully dechromed
Bavsound Stage 1 : V1 Savvy hardwired : Self-coded
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2008, 08:06 AM   #20
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
374
Rep
8,033
Posts

Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

We've seen plenty M3 dyno outputs, including chasis dynos done by the same company on two different production cars which were in the region of ~370-hp at the hubs. That is perfectly reasonable/expected for an engine that is rated at 414hp at the crank. To the best of my recollection, the GTR dyno runs on the other hand were really inconsistent with Nissan's 480 hp rating.

I really doubt that you'll see too much of a variation in power output due to manufacturing variances on production M3s. They must have made a science out of that, and I am sure each engine is being tested before it is dropped into a car to make sure it meets specs. They are not running a bakery over there.

And what exactly BMW or Audi can do to a naturally aspirated engine that is going to increase its power output considerably for launch cars? Not much. The only possibility I can think of is to modify the code to overwrite emissions trade-offs, but I doubt they would. Even if they did, you won't see significant differences. Are you saying the launch cars have different hardware in them? I don't think so. Nissan, on the other hand, can play around with boost and change things significantly.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2008, 08:41 AM   #21
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
1072
Rep
8,008
Posts

Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
There is numerous examples of cars around their launch performing better than later on in their life cycle and this is not just BMW or Audi where you will see this effect. Like I mention the RS6 have shown wide variations, the same for the M5 and the RS4, in fact I reckon if you look long enough and hard enough you will find load of manufacturers doing press specials.

You say the emission will be off, that's correct but then tell me a magazine that checks this out on a road test. The only way round the possibility of ringers is for magazine to dyno the cars tested, such a thing would let people see the true figures these press cars are putting out.

I would admit less can be achieved with a N/A engine unless internals are worked on which is possible as who will open an engine to see, but I reckon 10~12% is very achievable without too much work being done, you have to remember that these car are usually scrapped when returned and seldom cover more than 5000miles if that so their reliability isn't required to be the same as a production engine, if you build as engine designed to last a very short life span you can lighten a hack of a lot.

Don't read to much into that last statement as I was only putting out the possibilities of how such cars can be made to perform better and this may not be the case at all, but you have to admit that 1.2s a difference in the case of the M3 is an 8% improvement is performance which is something of an extreme if their horsepower are remotely consistent with each other.

I might add that almost all of the great times happen in the US by US magazines, maybe their consistency is the thing which should be put in question.
Appreciate 0
      07-03-2008, 08:49 AM   #22
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Colonel
99
Rep
2,000
Posts

Drives: 2017 C63
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keto View Post
...If this is such a standard practice, why does BMW consistently report shitty times for their models? BMW's reported 0-60 for the E92 is 4.8 seconds. All the mags beat that regularly.
You are inadvertently discussing two different things here. As footie has mentioned, press cars have traditionally been as well checked out as the manufacturers can make them (at least to begin with), and of course that's a no-brainer. It serves everyone's best interests to have a car with all systems perfect as a representative test vehicle. If you worked for a manufacturer and supplied a below-spec vehicle for test, your boss would probably have you killed, and then fire you. This would of course be his or her last official act before being escorted off the property. After all, there are only billions at stake.

On the other hand, if a press car were even a little better than spec, probably nobody would be fired, or even chastised. If the press car was a lot better than spec, though, heads will roll if the press picks up on this.

As long as you figure the test vehicle is about as good as it gets, you're in good shape as a prospective buyer.

As for reported times (0-60, etc.), do you know what procedures BMW employs to get their numbers?

Neither do I.

What I do know is that, assuming you are extremely adept and well-practiced at such procedures, and tested your particular M3 with trusty stopwatch in hand on a normal July day, you are likely to come up with an 0-60 number which is in the neighborhood of one second off what Car & Driver would report on the exact same pass (assuming they had their intrumentation aboard). The difference would be even greater than that if you were at any altitude above sea level.

Test procedures vary wildly, and therefore results vary wildly, even on the same car on the same day.

Bruce
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 05:49 PM.




m3post
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