[CRConrad]

> then Mazda could have successfully sued BMW over the confusion between MX-2 and M3

Assuming you mean the MX-3 (I can't find any reference to such a thing as a Mazda MX-2), it would hopefully have been the other way around -- BMW suing Mazda, since the M3 predates the MX-3 by half a decade:

> M3 models have been produced for every generation of 3 Series since the E30 M3 was introduced in 1986. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3

> The Mazda MX-3[4] is a four-seat coupé manufactured and marketed by Mazda, introduced at the Geneva Auto Show in March 1991[5] and marketed for model years 1992–1998. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-3

[sundvor]

These model numbers are rife, and hardly unique to the brands. If you were to shorten Tesla's Model 3, you'd have the TM3.

And back to Mazda, they have a very successful "3" that _could_ be described as an M3. :)

If anything it's nice that there's some consistency between at least a few brands on the numbering - if you see a 3, you'll know it's likely a medium sized car.

[floatingatoll]

Ugh I looked up MX-2 instead of MX-3, thanks for the correction. The point stands, but it seems lost in the noise due to my off-by-one. Oh well.

[CRConrad]

Sorry, I don't get what you mean? Yes, you were off by one in the model name, writing "MX-2" in stead of "MX-3", but both I and a sibling comment corrected for that, disussing the actually existing MX-3 in stead of the non-existent "MX-2". So what's the "noise" here, in your opinion? It was your actual point that was disproved.

Yes, there is no such thing as a "Mazda MX-2", and never was. I went directly to Wikipedia last time, but that has pretty much every other car model that ever existed, so I saw no reason to believe a "Mazda MX-2" ever existed. And now that I've googled for your exact term, here are most of the top hits:

Speculation from 2009 about a coming new model (possibly for 2013) -- which was sparsely reported even at the time, and apparently never materialised (since no actual specifications, prices, tests, or reviews show up in at least the first five pages of Google results):

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mazda/32905/mazda-mx-2-reveale...

https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1033621_mazda-working-on...

https://www.drive.com.au/news/2013-mazda-mx-2-rendered-specu...

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/cgi-2013-mazda-mx-2-8195....

https://www.burlappcar.com/2009/06/mazda-mx2-coming-up.html

https://www.tv2.no/a/12383893/ (in Norwegian)

A few auto trading sites that purport to have pages related to it (my guess: from mistyped searches), but which turn out to contain other models (mostly MX-5's, with the odd Mazda 2 sprinkled in):

https://www.gumtree.com/cars/uk/mazda/mazda+mx+2

https://www.newsnow.co.uk/classifieds/cars-vans-for-sale/maz...

https://cars.trovit.co.uk/used-cars/mazda-mx-2

https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-autos/mazda-mx-2/k0c216 (in German)

And that's it. So, to sum up:

1) There is no "Mazda MX-2", there never was.

2) The only "noise" here was your typo; if you were talking about actually existing cars, you must obviously have meant the MX-3. You were after all talking about model names clashing with the M 3.

3) This was corrected for in the discussion; what was discussed was your actual point, not the "noise" (your typo).

4) If for some incomprehensible reason you actually meant the non-existent "Mazda MX-2", our point against it stands even firmer than with the MX-3: The BMW M3 would have predated the "MX-2", had it materialised in 2013, by 27 years in stead of merely five. If anyone had been able to sue anyone, it would still have been BMW, not Mazda.

So no, your point doesn't stand.

And I'm utterly baffled: Where are you -- still! -- claiming to have "looked up MX-2" from???

[floatingatoll]

Swap which was one first, I meant. It was either M3 or MX. Sounds like it was M3. So, “BMW could have sued Mazda” instead of “Mazda could have sued BMW”, which ultimately has no material effect whatsoever on the point I’m making, since I could have chosen any number of non-BMW, non-Mazda examples there. I’m sorry that you felt compelled to write a page-long proof that BMW was first; no argument here! And I hope you’re enjoying your M3 :)

[CRConrad]

Hah, I wish! (Why didn't you give me an M8 while you were at it? I drive a Tiguan -- the one with a 1.4 l engine. :-)

But you're really not very good at reading, are you? That was not "a page-long proof that BMW was first", it was an at most half-page-long proof that there never was a "Mazda MX2". And you also seem to have missed my question how you still, two days later, claim to have "looked up the MX-2". I've pointed out twice now that there is no such thing, so where did you look that up?

[floatingatoll]

I don't know, sorry. I've already admitted defeat repeatedly here, so you're welcome to keep pressing me if you like, but I don't have any more data to offer you in light of this latest reply. Maybe I typo'd it when I was researching because I'm terrible at mobile touchscreens, and since I'm also dyslexic I misread MX-3 as MX-2. I don't know for sure, and obviously I'm not very familiar with Mazda or BMW model numbers, but I'm not going to dig into my browser history to try and answer your question, because — again — none of this is materially relevant to the point or to the discussion. Oops, I screwed up. Moving on.