The new M Performance automobiles range

[SCOTT27]

Well, no nothing is known, but anything can happen, except M3 CSL, Z4 M and Z2 of course.

Z2 or should I say Z3. Is not a question of "if" but "when" Watch this space...

 

[Deleted member 25]

He meant a real Z2, not an FWD disgrace.

 

[Levi68]

Yes, maybe it's my deep feelings for the high-revving couple (S65 and S85). Let's hope and wait. I want this new M3/M4 to shine again. Munich won't disappoint us, I'm sure. The F10 M5 is now a success. And they really tried to copy a flat-plane crank V8, with some metallic V10 noises. It doesn't have that burbling noise, traditional to cross-plane crank V8.

I'm just trying to save the reputation of the M badge.

I don't have your good optimisme unfortunately.

Amen, amen and AMEN!

Also, no need to try to save the reputation of the M brand on this forum. It's already lost, and there are die hard members here who keep going over and over the 'mistakes' M has made. It's like a sport really.

I feel myself concerned.

Z2 or should I say Z3. Is not a question of "if" but "when" Watch this space...

I wish so. Anyway it won't come that soon, so I won't go wrong by getting an 86.

 

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

He meant a real Z2, not an FWD disgrace.

Coming soon:

MZ23.5sDrivexDrivemoderndiesel!

MZ33.0xDrivesDriveluxurydiesel

Honestly, you can't tell the difference between an M car and a normal BMW anymore. I'm waiting for ///M to make an a real ///M version of the M3....Nope, not going to happen. They'd rather stick that badge on the back of a 4 ton SUV, you know because having a 550 HP SUV makes sense. With that said, it's bringing them in money and that's all that seems to matter to BMW now.

 

[K-A]

My next car is gonna be a M550xdmodernclassiclineageEditionDrive i

 

[SCOTT27]

He meant a real Z2, not an FWD disgrace.

Yes, RWD and a soft-top and back to 96 with the SLK, Z3 and Boxster duking it out. Although the Boxster has matured nicely - The new Boxster is a stunner, less so the SLK which is just a mess, visually. Everything is just straightlines and angular until they round the rear and it looks as if two cars are stuck together.

Keep an eye out this Summer. The Vision Connected Drive Concept Car provides the design language but not necessary the details.
The move is because the introduction of the BMW 4er. A Z4 Replacement will move upwards and become the Z5 and retain a folding Hardtop.

 

[EMpower]

The move is because the introduction of the BMW 4er. A Z4 Replacement will move upwards and become the Z5 and retain a folding Hardtop.

You are not saying that Z5 will have 4 doors? are you?

 

[klier]

Honestly, you can't tell the difference between an M car and a normal BMW anymore.

Poor, poor you if that's the case. And actually pretty sad for an active member of a German car forum...

 

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Poor, poor you if that's the case. And actually pretty sad for an active member of a German car forum...

Klier, take off the fanboy blinders for just a moment. Please, if you will tell me what sets an ///M car apart from a normal BMW production car? Is it the over boosted steering at slow speeds as to compensate for the weight? Is it the fact that the engine is no longer special? What about the fact that BMW is slapping the badge on everything they see and everyone and their grandma thinks they're driving an M? What does the M badge stand for? I've already stated that I've been a BMW driver so I'm not a fanboy. Please, do enlighten me if you would. ///M Cars USE to be something special. I'm sorry, but how are you suppose to respect an ///M car if every single poser is going to have a ///M328ixDrivemodernsportperformancesDrive3.0i? People say MB overuses the AMG badge. Compared to BMW, they don't use it at all. You don't see Audi slapping an RS badge on an A4, do you? There is no RSA4Quattro.

 

[martinbo]

I feel that you're overreacting HotIce. I think many anti-BMW punters are using this new leverage of the M badge by BMW (it all came to a head here a few years back with the X5M/X6M siblings) as some kind of ordinance against the maker. It's to insinuate that the marque has losts its way and that the once pristine reputation of the M badge is somehow tarnished. I've never owned a BMW (driven dozens though) but I still reckon that their cars remain exciting for all types of consumers and that the outlook for future buyers of the brand is more promising than ever. A couple of key observations from my side:

Naturally aspirated engines - as magnificent as they are with the S65 and M156 being among my top favourites - are being consigned to niche applications vis a vis Subaru BRZ, Porsche 911, LFA, Aventador, 458, 599 etc. Market forces dictate that manufacturers require greater scope of control of engine output, delivery characteristics, fuel consumption and emissions and turbocharging affords this broader scope far better than any other type of current reciprocating engine technology.

The mystique and allure of the traditional M recipe is sustainable only to a certain extent as a result of its particularly focused nature. In being so focused the target demographic is commensurately small and thus opportunities to leverage the success of the brand - not the recipe - is significantly diminished. If you reduce your opportunities, you reduce your ability to compete and if you can't compete, well, obviously you fade away into nothingness. This is a macro-economic fact of the automotive market landscape. Don't agree? Just ask Porsche, or, name me a globally viable auto manufacturer and I'll describe ways in which they have pursued opportunities to fruition.

People with money don't buy into a tradition or an ethos. They buy what they want. If what they want happens to conform to, let's say, a traditionally sporting ethos then this is merely incidental. It is a coincidence of aligned values. Consumers who don't identify with this ethos go elsewhere and if this ethos is too specific then opportunity is reduced and potential customers will look elsewhere. Such as: people in the market for a performance SUV (as abhorrent as the concept may be) buying an ML63 AMG or Cayenne Turbo because the badge carried a stronger cachet than a hypothetical X5 xDrive4.4iS.

It is the specificity of the old, traditional M recipe that would result in diminished opportunity and yet at the same time - greater competition. Look at what Merc did with the AMG acquisition. Subtly different, yet with equal appeal in other measures; AMG, RS and (to a different extent) S cars suddenly started stomping all over M's opportunity base. That recipe needed to be broadened in scope in order to cater for a wider criteria range of consumer needs. And fast!

It's obvious that whilst BMW's M division has offered models that appeal less to traditional proponents of the M ethos, the M division continues to offer superlative models that still cater for their traditional customer base. Yesteryear's E39 M5 customer demographic is more than adequately catered for with the new F10 M5. Sure, it's bigger and more luxurios and more tech-laden but it's also faster and more capable (exactly the same was said of the E39 in its day - an old man like me will remember). That's what that particular market demographic wants and will pay for. If they didn't want that would they then buy an E63 AMG? Of course not - they'd buy an M3. So, traditional M pundits have the amazing 1M Coupé to lust after, the E90/92 M3 in the twilight of its illustrious innings to snap up while they can and a bigger, heavier more luxurious M5 that still wins its comparative tests. So what really has changed for BMW M in the traditional sense? Nothing. Even the E46 M3 CSL (a highly, highly focused product offered to too many who didn't have a clue what they were spending their money on) has the E92 M3 GTS as a spiritual successor - this time offered more sensibly to the right customers.

Coming back to turbocharged engines and the statement that M no longer offers "special engines" well, if the S63Tu isn't special with its absolutely unique combination of configuration, delivery characteristics and rpm range then I don't know what is - especially in the light of the present turbocharging trend. BMW's pioneering work on the hot-side-inside concept is so groundbreaking that it was soon and blatantly imitated. Those M bastards - lost the plot they have. I don't know by what standard members here deem to judge an engine as special. Is it because the engine in the 1M is borrowed from two "iS" niche models that it's judged a half-hearted effort? What the...? It's the only twin-turbo straight six engine in series production. It makes an impressive 250 kW and a collosal 500 Nm in a silky smooth, quick responding engine fitted to a compact body. If this is not good enough then nothing will be - it's the turbo era: get used to it. I am equally confident that the new straight six in the F30 M3 will be suitably special in the context of modern practice.

As for M Performance, the automotive landscape is characterised by a trend to "plug-that-niche" in order to broaden the opportunity base. Audi has successfully done so using the combination of regular, S-Line, S and RS models. The M Performance branding is being implemented simply to offer consumers a greater range of choice as opposed to diluting the strong brand recognition and admiration of the full-blown M cars.

And finally, as for BMW's rather verbose naming convention, that's old news. Dead Horse Beaten. It's not like xDrive3.0d has done anything detrimental to the sales performance of BMW models bearing such nomenclature.

 

[Zafiro]

Haven't people read the same reviews as me? So far no one have said that 1M and M5 feels like a normal 1-series or 5-series. It's okey to critize BMW but the arguments need to be better and more truthful. Now it's only trashtalk. And one more thing, how many here have actually driven the new M5 or 1M? If you havent, who are you to trash.

 

[Zafiro]

M135i spotted?

 

[EnI]

M Performance fills the niche previously "tii" / "is" / "si" were meant to fill (or have been filling: 335is, Z4 35is etc).

They went with M in the end since it's an established brand with huge helo! effect.
Although having rich heritage tii / si / is trademarks are definitely not that powerful & special (only know to real BMW aficionados) - and would require tons of money to promote. M does not need that. Therefore M Performance: as a missing link between M Sport pack and true M models.

It's analog to Audi's S-Line - S - RS line-up (BMW: M Sport pack - M Performance - M).

Meaning: you can get any model (regardless the featured engine) with M Sport pack - with mainly cosmetic M features (+ lowered sports suspension) ... then there are M Performance models with more special M-like treatment (with M-tweaked engines, special aero kit, special brakes, suspension setting, steering setting etc) ... and then there are M models: with dedicated M-developed engines, M-redeveloped chassis, M-developed brakes, M-developed aero features etc).

Be sure MB will join the bandwagon soon ... offering something between AMG pack & real AMG models. Otherwise will lose sales to Audi & BMW. And others (Lexus, Infiniti, Jaguar etc) will follow as well.

I'm not sure how will BMW deal with BMW Performance Parts and BMW Performance Kit from now on - with M Performance existence. Will the BMW Performance offer be altered, or will two different lines exist: BMW Performance vs M Performance? I don't have a clue.

 

[manuelf]

....
I'm not sure how will BMW deal with BMW Performance Parts and BMW Performance Kit from now on - with M Performance existence. Will the BMW Performance offer be altered, or will two different lines exist: BMW Performance vs M Performance? I don't have a clue.

Since you can't order Performance Parts on your new car, but have to costly replace it afterwards at your dealer (and sell the original parts being replaced at you own), I have the impression that Performance Parts are better fitted to used cars.... at least from an economic point of view... don't you think?

 

[Deckhook]

I don't disagree with a single point Martin has made but one small part of that lengthy post does bother me, though BMW were obviously first with their turbo configuration which you rightly pointed out how can you make the swipping statement that it's has been copied, given the length of time the development of an engine takes from idea to release do you really believe that Audi weren't already working on a similar system at the same time and is it not conceiveable that the only reason it didn't arrive earlier is it's more complexed cylinder deactivation system?

 

[Levi68]

I feel that you're overreacting HotIce. I think many anti-BMW punters are using this new leverage of the M badge by BMW (it all came to a head here a few years back with the X5M/X6M siblings) as some kind of ordinance against the maker. It's to insinuate that the marque has losts its way and that the once pristine reputation of the M badge is somehow tarnished. I've never owned a BMW (driven dozens though) but I still reckon that their cars remain exciting for all types of consumers and that the outlook for future buyers of the brand is more promising than ever. A couple of key observations from my side:

Naturally aspirated engines - as magnificent as they are with the S65 and M156 being among my top favourites - are being consigned to niche applications vis a vis Subaru BRZ, Porsche 911, LFA, Aventador, 458, 599 etc. Market forces dictate that manufacturers require greater scope of control of engine output, delivery characteristics, fuel consumption and emissions and turbocharging affords this broader scope far better than any other type of current reciprocating engine technology.

The mystique and allure of the traditional M recipe is sustainable only to a certain extent as a result of its particularly focused nature. In being so focused the target demographic is commensurately small and thus opportunities to leverage the success of the brand - not the recipe - is significantly diminished. If you reduce your opportunities, you reduce your ability to compete and if you can't compete, well, obviously you fade away into nothingness. This is a macro-economic fact of the automotive market landscape. Don't agree? Just ask Porsche, or, name me a globally viable auto manufacturer and I'll describe ways in which they have pursued opportunities to fruition.

People with money don't buy into a tradition or an ethos. They buy what they want. If what they want happens to conform to, let's say, a traditionally sporting ethos then this is merely incidental. It is a coincidence of aligned values. Consumers who don't identify with this ethos go elsewhere and if this ethos is too specific then opportunity is reduced and potential customers will look elsewhere. Such as: people in the market for a performance SUV (as abhorrent as the concept may be) buying an ML63 AMG or Cayenne Turbo because the badge carried a stronger cachet than a hypothetical X5 xDrive4.4iS.

It is the specificity of the old, traditional M recipe that would result in diminished opportunity and yet at the same time - greater competition. Look at what Merc did with the AMG acquisition. Subtly different, yet with equal appeal in other measures; AMG, RS and (to a different extent) S cars suddenly started stomping all over M's opportunity base. That recipe needed to be broadened in scope in order to cater for a wider criteria range of consumer needs. And fast!

It's obvious that whilst BMW's M division has offered models that appeal less to traditional proponents of the M ethos, the M division continues to offer superlative models that still cater for their traditional customer base. Yesteryear's E39 M5 customer demographic is more than adequately catered for with the new F10 M5. Sure, it's bigger and more luxurios and more tech-laden but it's also faster and more capable (exactly the same was said of the E39 in its day - an old man like me will remember). That's what that particular market demographic wants and will pay for. If they didn't want that would they then buy an E63 AMG? Of course not - they'd buy an M3. So, traditional M pundits have the amazing 1M Coupé to lust after, the E90/92 M3 in the twilight of its illustrious innings to snap up while they can and a bigger, heavier more luxurious M5 that still wins its comparative tests. So what really has changed for BMW M in the traditional sense? Nothing. Even the E46 M3 CSL (a highly, highly focused product offered to too many who didn't have a clue what they were spending their money on) has the E92 M3 GTS as a spiritual successor - this time offered more sensibly to the right customers.

Coming back to turbocharged engines and the statement that M no longer offers "special engines" well, if the S63Tu isn't special with its absolutely unique combination of configuration, delivery characteristics and rpm range then I don't know what is - especially in the light of the present turbocharging trend. BMW's pioneering work on the hot-side-inside concept is so groundbreaking that it was soon and blatantly imitated. Those M bastards - lost the plot they have. I don't know by what standard members here deem to judge an engine as special. Is it because the engine in the 1M is borrowed from two "iS" niche models that it's judged a half-hearted effort? What the...? It's the only twin-turbo straight six engine in series production. It makes an impressive 250 kW and a collosal 500 Nm in a silky smooth, quick responding engine fitted to a compact body. If this is not good enough then nothing will be - it's the turbo era: get used to it. I am equally confident that the new straight six in the F30 M3 will be suitably special in the context of modern practice.

As for M Performance, the automotive landscape is characterised by a trend to "plug-that-niche" in order to broaden the opportunity base. Audi has successfully done so using the combination of regular, S-Line, S and RS models. The M Performance branding is being implemented simply to offer consumers a greater range of choice as opposed to diluting the strong brand recognition and admiration of the full-blown M cars.

And finally, as for BMW's rather verbose naming convention, that's old news. Dead Horse Beaten. It's not like xDrive3.0d has done anything detrimental to the sales performance of BMW models bearing such nomenclature.

I mostly agree with what you say, but you forgot the SLK 55 AMG which always has a NA V8, and was build exclusivly for this car, which also is a mass production car. Why can't BMW do that? BMW can enter all niches, (SUV Coupé, 4 Door Coupé,...) except the one of the 911 GT3 RS and the Boxter Spyder/Cayman R. Why? What wrong would there be in building a 350 PS NA I6 1300 kg 2 seater coupé? The M3 GTS and M3 CRT were not build with the same passion as the M3 CSL. Here lies the difference.

Haven't people read the same reviews as me? So far no one have said that 1M and M5 feels like a normal 1-series or 5-series. It's okey to critize BMW but the arguments need to be better and more truthful. Now it's only trashtalk. And one more thing, how many here have actually driven the new M5 or 1M? If you havent, who are you to trash.

The difference should not only be felt physically and by measuring data. It should also be felt in mind and spirit. Of course an 1M and a 135i feel different, just as a 125i would feel different compared to a 125i with KW V3 coilovers, Hotchkis stabilizer, Drexler LSD, GruppM intake and KN air filter, Supersprint full exhaust, Michelin Pilot Sport tires and ECU remap. But I think this is not the point, isn't it?

M Performance fills the niche previously "tii" / "is" / "si" were meant to fill (or have been filling: 335is, Z4 35is etc).

They went with M in the end since it's an established brand with huge helo! effect.
Although having rich heritage tii / si / is trademarks are definitely not that powerful & special (only know to real BMW aficionados) - and would require tons of money to promote. M does not need that. Therefore M Performance: as a missing link between M Sport pack and true M models.

It's analog to Audi's S-Line - S - RS line-up (BMW: M Sport pack - M Performance - M).

Meaning: you can get any model (regardless the featured engine) with M Sport pack - with mainly cosmetic M features (+ lowered sports suspension) ... then there are M Performance models with more special M-like treatment (with M-tweaked engines, special aero kit, special brakes, suspension setting, steering setting etc) ... and then there are M models: with dedicated M-developed engines, M-redeveloped chassis, M-developed brakes, M-developed aero features etc).

Be sure MB will join the bandwagon soon ... offering something between AMG pack & real AMG models. Otherwise will lose sales to Audi & BMW. And others (Lexus, Infiniti, Jaguar etc) will follow as well.

I'm not sure how will BMW deal with BMW Performance Parts and BMW Performance Kit from now on - with M Performance existence. Will the BMW Performance offer be altered, or will two different lines exist: BMW Performance vs M Performance? I don't have a clue.

BMW "si" really meant something when we look at the 320si (E90). It was a fare better WTCC edtion of the 3 Series than DTM edition of the A4 was. Also, Tii, never made it to production, all that was made to production were the ricey paint stipes.





The problem of all this is not "M Performance Automobiles", but "not true M". The M5's weight is a shame, when before we gloated over Audi and Mercdes how heavy their cars were. In any case nothing is eternal, GM died, BMW's reign is also soon to pass by.

 

[Zafiro]

The difference should not only be felt physically and by measuring data. It should also be felt in mind and spirit. Of course an 1M and a 135i feel different, just as a 125i would feel different compared to a 125i with KW V3 coilovers, Hotchkis stabilizer, Drexler LSD, GruppM intake and KN air filter, Supersprint full exhaust, Michelin Pilot Sport tires and ECU remap. But I think this is not the point, isn't it?

Mind and spirit, you do too much Yoga. Tuned cars have nothing to do with stock car. Its like asking why do I want a Porsche GT3 when I can buy myself tuned and modified 911 S.
The point is that M5 is much more different to a 550i to drive and thats the whole point with a M. Levi, do it again and do it right.

 

[martinbo]

... part of that lengthy post does bother me, though BMW were obviously first with their turbo configuration which you rightly pointed out how can you make the swipping statement that it's has been copied, given the length of time the development of an engine takes from idea to release do you really believe that Audi weren't already working on a similar system at the same time and is it not conceiveable that the only reason it didn't arrive earlier is it's more complexed cylinder deactivation system?

Yes I believe that. Do I know it for a fact? No. Do you have any facts to the contrary? No. The fact of the matter is that in 2008 BMW released the production N63. It's 2012 now and Audi only showed their engine in late 2011. So that's three years earlier to market. Cylinder Deactivation and active engine mounts to compensate: differentiators rather than time-to-market delays.

This is typical of your style - saying that Audi could've been working on a similar system - bringing focus-robbing conjecture and imaginings into the discussion. Fact: BMW pioneered the hot-side-inside to market. Fact: Audi followed BMW by introducing a near identical solution in complete contrast to their long-standing turbo'd Vee engine tradition three years after BMW. Anything else is supposition until proven and corroborated.

Levi, I didn't forget the SLK 55 AMG V8. Barring its cylinder deactivation system, the engine is unremarkable by latest generation normally aspirated engine standards: it doesn't rev particularly high and it doesn't make the 100 Nm per litre benchmark. For now, the engine is purely a niche application.

 

[Deckhook]

Personally I think it's great that BMW have followed Audi's path to offer a sub M brand to sit between their normal cars and the true Ms. Why it's taken so long is the thing I'm complaining about but at least it's better late than never.

 

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

I feel that you're overreacting HotIce. I think many anti-BMW punters are using this new leverage of the M badge by BMW (it all came to a head here a few years back with the X5M/X6M siblings) as some kind of ordinance against the maker. It's to insinuate that the marque has losts its way and that the once pristine reputation of the M badge is somehow tarnished. I've never owned a BMW (driven dozens though) but I still reckon that their cars remain exciting for all types of consumers and that the outlook for future buyers of the brand is more promising than ever. A couple of key observations from my side:

Naturally aspirated engines - as magnificent as they are with the S65 and M156 being among my top favourites - are being consigned to niche applications vis a vis Subaru BRZ, Porsche 911, LFA, Aventador, 458, 599 etc. Market forces dictate that manufacturers require greater scope of control of engine output, delivery characteristics, fuel consumption and emissions and turbocharging affords this broader scope far better than any other type of current reciprocating engine technology.

The mystique and allure of the traditional M recipe is sustainable only to a certain extent as a result of its particularly focused nature. In being so focused the target demographic is commensurately small and thus opportunities to leverage the success of the brand - not the recipe - is significantly diminished. If you reduce your opportunities, you reduce your ability to compete and if you can't compete, well, obviously you fade away into nothingness. This is a macro-economic fact of the automotive market landscape. Don't agree? Just ask Porsche, or, name me a globally viable auto manufacturer and I'll describe ways in which they have pursued opportunities to fruition.

People with money don't buy into a tradition or an ethos. They buy what they want. If what they want happens to conform to, let's say, a traditionally sporting ethos then this is merely incidental. It is a coincidence of aligned values. Consumers who don't identify with this ethos go elsewhere and if this ethos is too specific then opportunity is reduced and potential customers will look elsewhere. Such as: people in the market for a performance SUV (as abhorrent as the concept may be) buying an ML63 AMG or Cayenne Turbo because the badge carried a stronger cachet than a hypothetical X5 xDrive4.4iS.

It is the specificity of the old, traditional M recipe that would result in diminished opportunity and yet at the same time - greater competition. Look at what Merc did with the AMG acquisition. Subtly different, yet with equal appeal in other measures; AMG, RS and (to a different extent) S cars suddenly started stomping all over M's opportunity base. That recipe needed to be broadened in scope in order to cater for a wider criteria range of consumer needs. And fast!

It's obvious that whilst BMW's M division has offered models that appeal less to traditional proponents of the M ethos, the M division continues to offer superlative models that still cater for their traditional customer base. Yesteryear's E39 M5 customer demographic is more than adequately catered for with the new F10 M5. Sure, it's bigger and more luxurios and more tech-laden but it's also faster and more capable (exactly the same was said of the E39 in its day - an old man like me will remember). That's what that particular market demographic wants and will pay for. If they didn't want that would they then buy an E63 AMG? Of course not - they'd buy an M3. So, traditional M pundits have the amazing 1M Coupé to lust after, the E90/92 M3 in the twilight of its illustrious innings to snap up while they can and a bigger, heavier more luxurious M5 that still wins its comparative tests. So what really has changed for BMW M in the traditional sense? Nothing. Even the E46 M3 CSL (a highly, highly focused product offered to too many who didn't have a clue what they were spending their money on) has the E92 M3 GTS as a spiritual successor - this time offered more sensibly to the right customers.

Coming back to turbocharged engines and the statement that M no longer offers "special engines" well, if the S63Tu isn't special with its absolutely unique combination of configuration, delivery characteristics and rpm range then I don't know what is - especially in the light of the present turbocharging trend. BMW's pioneering work on the hot-side-inside concept is so groundbreaking that it was soon and blatantly imitated. Those M bastards - lost the plot they have. I don't know by what standard members here deem to judge an engine as special. Is it because the engine in the 1M is borrowed from two "iS" niche models that it's judged a half-hearted effort? What the...? It's the only twin-turbo straight six engine in series production. It makes an impressive 250 kW and a collosal 500 Nm in a silky smooth, quick responding engine fitted to a compact body. If this is not good enough then nothing will be - it's the turbo era: get used to it. I am equally confident that the new straight six in the F30 M3 will be suitably special in the context of modern practice.

As for M Performance, the automotive landscape is characterised by a trend to "plug-that-niche" in order to broaden the opportunity base. Audi has successfully done so using the combination of regular, S-Line, S and RS models. The M Performance branding is being implemented simply to offer consumers a greater range of choice as opposed to diluting the strong brand recognition and admiration of the full-blown M cars.

And finally, as for BMW's rather verbose naming convention, that's old news. Dead Horse Beaten. It's not like xDrive3.0d has done anything detrimental to the sales performance of BMW models bearing such nomenclature.

Thanks for the excellent reply, Martin. There are points I agree with and others I will like to discuss. Currently on the road but I would love to continue this discussion when I get home.