2014 BMW M3/M4, will it be tri turbo or not? Answer is sort of

[TVC]

The times have changed bro. Most top tier race cars use paddle shift trannies now. And car makers, ever keen on passing down racing "tech" to the street cars, marketed them successfully to the yoohoos that plop down the money for it.

Besides the traditional stick being more fun (which is subjective by the way, in 20 years time the next gen of yoohoos would probably detest manual), the automated manual, or manumatic, DSG, PDK, or whatever they call it is, is faster more efficient and safer. Having two hands on the wheel at all times is safer than just one hand on the wheel and one on the shifter.

With increasing efficiency requirements that will inevitably be handed down to manufacturers in the future, the traditional stick doesn't have that efficiency trait exclusively to itself anymore.

But oddly enough, the stick shift is making a comeback in economy/low end sports cars.

That said, with the average buyer of a Rolls, Ferrari, or BMW being in their mid-life crisis or later, they probably wouldn't like to keep operating the clutch in stop and go traffic. Even I get annoyed sometimes in heavy traffic. The beauty of the paddle shifter is that you can let the car do everything if you just want to get home.

True. The thing that I don't like is when companies don't even offer a manual transmission, like Ferrari and likely other companies in the future. At least offer a manual transmission. People are getting to caught up in speed and forgetting what is fun. If people bought them 10 years ago why aren't they anymore?

I could understand using paddle shifters and sequential transmissions on a race car because it is faster and manual shifting could slow down a good driver. But most people aren't good enough drivers for that to happen. And many people who buy DCT transmissions won't even take their car to the track anyway. I think it's more marketing than anything, now people can buy what is essentially an automatic car but believe they are driving manual or using what is used in race cars.

It seems to me that often, not always, people who buy sports cars with DCT transmissions are the same kind of people who buy something nice because it is a status symbol not because they actually enjoy it. They don't really want a sports car, they want the status and image associated with the car. And to me that's pretty much the lamest thing someone could do.

I guess I'll just never understand it. If I wanted automatic I'd just buy a luxury car, at least then it makes sense. If someone buys DCT sports car instead of manual for situations like a daily commute through heavy traffic it kind of takes the whole point away from owning or driving a fast car in the first place.

Back to BMW, this is the article where it says the next M5 won't be manual but the M3 will offer it.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/21/next-bmw-m5-to-drop-manual-transmission-option/

It may have been posted before or even out dated. Like others have said it appears that BMW is offering a six speed on the next gen M5. Maybe BMW got too many complaints?

 

[MatskiMonk]

I guess I'll just never understand it. If I wanted automatic I'd just buy a luxury car, at least then it makes sense. If someone buys DCT sports car instead of manual for situations like a daily commute through heavy traffic it kind of takes the whole point away from owning or driving a fast car in the first place.

Automatic does not equal luxury, and Manual doesn't equal sporty. I think you are too keen to WAY over-simplify things. Without a shadow of a doubt the cruddiest slowest pieces of junk I've ever driven have been manuals, and the fastest best handling ones have been Auto's, does that mean I think Auto's are sportier, not at all, because I'm not as keen as you to generalise... as I said over in the 'Save the Manuals' thread, the gearbox itself is way less important than the overall package.

As far as the BM goes, the M5 and M3 will be offered in manual at least for the next 7 years or so.

The boss of M (or the old boss of M, can't remember which) gave an interview where he described the problem of building transmissions and drivetrains that can handle modern-day power and torque and are strong enough to handle a life-time of lesser skilled people shifting at inappropriate times - obviously it's possible, but for the ever dwindling number of people that want manuals, is it worth it? M3, M5, M6 are not as edgy as maybe they once were.

 

[TVC]

Automatic does not equal luxury, and Manual doesn't equal sporty. I think you are too keen to WAY over-simplify things. Without a shadow of a doubt the cruddiest slowest pieces of junk I've ever driven have been manuals, and the fastest best handling ones have been Auto's, does that mean I think Auto's are sportier, not at all, because I'm not as keen as you to generalise... as I said over in the 'Save the Manuals' thread, the gearbox itself is way less important than the overall package.

The point is not that manual is always better, or even sportier when comparing two or more cars. A 458 is much more of a sports car than a manual Honda Civic is. But that's not the argument I am making. You are right that the overall package is much more important.

The argument is that in a given car a manual transmission will give the driver a purer, more connected, and ultimately "sportier" feeling than an automatic or DCT will.

Imagine a Porsche GT3 with PDK vs a 6-Speed (possiblly 7-speed) manual. PDK is good but does not connect the driver with the car nearly as much and most car enthusiasts would argue that PDK is not as fun as the manual option. Imagine the same with a ZR-1, BRZ, M3, Lotus, etc.

For a given package a manual transmission is likely to make the car more of a sports car than an automatic transmission.

Likewise, as you said automatic does not equal luxury. But for a given car automatic is likely more luxurious than manual. A Rolls Royce with a manual transmission would not be as luxurious as one with an automatic. In that way the automatic makes the car better at what it is designed to do. Much like a manual transmission in a sports car makes the car more sporty because it is more interactive and engaging than an automatic or DCT. In my opinion a manual transmission makes a sports car better at what it is designed to do and that is to ultimately be fun and engaging, not just fast.

The boss of M (or the old boss of M, can't remember which) gave an interview where he described the problem of building transmissions and drivetrains that can handle modern-day power and torque and are strong enough to handle a life-time of lesser skilled people shifting at inappropriate times - obviously it's possible, but for the ever dwindling number of people that want manuals, is it worth it? M3, M5, M6 are not as edgy as maybe they once were.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of before. I do wonder how long companies will keep increasing horse power. Ferrari and Lamborghini are already in the 700s and Mercedes isn't far behind.

At the same time though, people who shift inappropriately would likely get the DCT over the manual anyway. And with the right drive train components I don't see why it would be that big of a problem. Chevy seems to be doing just fine with the ZR-1

 

[JJ72]

Don't see why they are pulling manuals either, if your company bills driving fun and driving involvement, a manual is a must have option, performance and how "sporty" it is has no relation.

Manual gearbox is a mellowed and perfected technology, it is always going to be cheaper to build, lighter, and have more reliability records than PDKs....actually remember the days when manufacturers don't build their own gearbox but source from companies like Getrag? Ferrari 575 and Murcielago all had manuals....so as the Mclaren F1, and those were at least 10 year old cars! Cost is hardly a factor. They can perfectly afford 5% of manual models per overall production.

The M heritage cannot be without a hardcore option, it's the halo in their "ultimate driving machine" fantasy, I think it is just accountants taking over the driving enthusiast side of BMW, of course you can say "this is business, they have to maintain profit." But history tells us everytime a sports car line goes overly soft (R33 GTR, Golf GTI Mk IV, second gen CRX) you end up with a forgettable generation of cars with crap resell values.

so imo this move makes no sense, at all.

 

[TVC]

Don't see why they are pulling manuals either, if your company bills driving fun and driving involvement, a manual is a must have option, performance and how "sporty" it is has no relation.

Manual gearbox is a mellowed and perfected technology, it is always going to be cheaper to build, lighter, and have more reliability records than PDKs....actually remember the days when manufacturers don't build their own gearbox but source from companies like Getrag? Ferrari 575 and Murcielago all had manuals....so as the Mclaren F1, and those were at least 10 year old cars! Cost is hardly a factor. They can perfectly afford 5% of manual models per overall production.

The M heritage cannot be without a hardcore option, it's the halo in their "ultimate driving machine" fantasy, I think it is just accountants taking over the driving enthusiast side of BMW, of course you can say "this is business, they have to maintain profit." But history tells us everytime a sports car line goes overly soft (R33 GTR, Golf GTI Mk IV, second gen CRX) you end up with a forgettable generation of cars with crap resell values.

so imo this move makes no sense, at all.

That's exactly what I think.

It seems cars are getting too soft with too many electronics and extra weight. It's fine having stuff like that but at least give us the option to not have them. At least make the manual transmission an option and just factor in only a certain amount of people will buy them. The cost is so low that it shouldn't not be an option and the price will just be passed onto the buyer anyway.

 

[McLaren]

I think the argument is not that DCT cars are not fun to drive it's that they are not as fun to drive as manual cars. I really do not understand why DCT in sports cars are so popular. I mean, I do understand why people buy them, but I just don't get why those people are buying sports cars in the first place.

1: That's an opinion.
2: DCT are popular because it improves performance, fuel efficiency, & it's a much better option in today's world.
3: Whether a manual makes the car as fun or not, no one here as driven the new M3, so it's impossible to make any real claim to if it's a fun car to drive or not, regardless of transmission.

A majority of people are not going to be able to even use a car to its full potential whether it's manual, DCT, or automatic. Some of this has do to regulations on public roads (where they likely spend most of their time) but most of it comes down to them not having nearly enough driving skill to fully use the car. So the argument that DCT is faster really carries no weight. Sure for drag racing or freeway battling it may be better, but then the M3 isn't really good at either of those.

Your argument doesn't really hold any sort of validity because what's the point of building any sort of sports car, then, if most people can't drive them to their full limits?

To me, if someone wants an automatic car they should buy a luxury car instead of a sports car. If you don't want to shift why have anything else that attempts to make the car in any way sporty? I feel that if someone buys a car like an M3 with an automatic transmission would be better off with an E550.

Transmission has no end-all bearing on how a car is defined. End of story.

Just my opinion but if I am going to buy an automatic car I rather buy a Rolls Royce Phantom than a Ferrari FF or a similarly priced sports car with an automatic transmission. Automatic is not sporty and never will be as raw as manual.

The issue here is you classify both transmissions as 2 different things. I've driven a Superleggera & the E-Gear is miles better & more engaging than most other cars I've had the chance to drive with a manual.

And again, that's opinion.

I just don't get it, to me if you buy a DCT you probably don't really care about driving so why buy a car with stiffer suspension, less comfortable seats, and less luxurious amenities. At least with a luxury car you get high end gadgets and fancy materials (because weight does not matter) which make the car in some way enjoyable.

Again, transmission selection is not the ultimate cause of how a car is defined as sports or luxury. There can be a mix there.

If someone is buying a sports car in the first place why not buy a manual car so you get the full driving experience. If you want automatic just buy a luxury car, at least then you can be comfortable doing nothing while driving.

So, really, you're just another manual elitist. Got it.

It's as if people want the sports car but don't want it to be sporty.

Have you driven a car with a proper DCT-esque transmission? A Cayman S with a manual or PDK, is still a sporty car. There is no argument there.

Most people wouldn't buy a Rolls Royce with a manual transmission so why are they buying a Porsche 911 or Ferrari with an automatic.

Because a Rolls Royce is considered the bar of luxury. It's not a car you're even supposed to drive to begin with.

And before anyone says PDK or any other DCT is not technically an automatic, I already know that. And that is fine if they aren't, but they are both operated by the driver in the same fashion and as far as the user is concerned they might as well be identical.

Then you've never driven one, else you'd know how a proper DCT acts.

True. The thing that I don't like is when companies don't even offer a manual transmission, like Ferrari and likely other companies in the future. At least offer a manual transmission. People are getting to caught up in speed and forgetting what is fun. If people bought them 10 years ago why aren't they anymore?

You know whose fault that is? People like you, the consumer.

Ferrari gave buyers 1 more chance to have a gated manual right before the 458 because of people just like you, crying that it was still a highly desired transmission. At the end of that following year, the majority of Ferraris made were ordered with F1-SuperFast II transmissions. Take into account that a gated manual was standard & people still wanted the more expensive paddle-shift transmission.

Like Lamborghini, the gear-stick manual is no longer worth the cost of production for Ferrari because not enough people order it to validate the engineering costs.

And what's fun to you is not fun to everyone else.

I could understand using paddle shifters and sequential transmissions on a race car because it is faster and manual shifting could slow down a good driver. But most people aren't good enough drivers for that to happen. And many people who buy DCT transmissions won't even take their car to the track anyway. I think it's more marketing than anything, now people can buy what is essentially an automatic car but believe they are driving manual or using what is used in race cars.

1: This goes right back to the whole point of sports cars to begin with if no one can use them to their full potential.
2: Many people who buy manuals don't track them either, so irrelevant.
3: Again proving that you have most likely never driven a proper DCT or you'd know exactly how it behaves.

It seems to me that often, not always, people who buy sports cars with DCT transmissions are the same kind of people who buy something nice because it is a status symbol not because they actually enjoy it. They don't really want a sports car, they want the status and image associated with the car. And to me that's pretty much the lamest thing someone could do.

This is pretty much the lamest argument against DCT transmissions someone could conjure up.

I guess I'll just never understand it. If I wanted automatic I'd just buy a luxury car, at least then it makes sense. If someone buys DCT sports car instead of manual for situations like a daily commute through heavy traffic it kind of takes the whole point away from owning or driving a fast car in the first place.

You'll never understand as long as you make ignorant statements about it. There are people who daily commute manual Porsches & that's all they do with it. What makes them such better owners?

Back to BMW, this is the article where it says the next M5 won't be manual but the M3 will offer it.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/21/next-bmw-m5-to-drop-manual-transmission-option/

It may have been posted before or even out dated. Like others have said it appears that BMW is offering a six speed on the next gen M5. Maybe BMW got too many complaints?

Or maybe like Ferrari, enough people said they wanted it in the US. I'll put money on it that the number of manuals ordered is miniscule compared to the DCT.

The point is not that manual is always better, or even sportier when comparing two or more cars. A 458 is much more of a sports car than a manual Honda Civic is. But that's not the argument I am making. You are right that the overall package is much more important.

The argument is that in a given car a manual transmission will give the driver a purer, more connected, and ultimately "sportier" feeling than an automatic or DCT will.

Except that's nothing more than your opinion being presented as fact.

Imagine a Porsche GT3 with PDK vs a 6-Speed (possiblly 7-speed) manual. PDK is good but does not connect the driver with the car nearly as much and most car enthusiasts would argue that PDK is not as fun as the manual option. Imagine the same with a ZR-1, BRZ, M3, Lotus, etc.

Most car enthusiasts are nothing more than biased fanboys who've never touched a proper sports car in their life.

To reiterate, I've driven a Cayman S with both transmissions. The manual is fun, but the PDK offers its own world of enjoyment, esp. coming in & out of turns when you can remain focused on the road.

For a given package a manual transmission is likely to make the car more of a sports car than an automatic transmission.

False.

Likewise, as you said automatic does not equal luxury. But for a given car automatic is likely more luxurious than manual. A Rolls Royce with a manual transmission would not be as luxurious as one with an automatic.

A Rolls Royce with any sort of transmission is going to be luxurious. It's quite possibly the most luxurious car on the current market. But, it's not a car you're suppose to drive yourself anyway.

In that way the automatic makes the car better at what it is designed to do. Much like a manual transmission in a sports car makes the car more sporty because it is more interactive and engaging than an automatic or DCT. In my opinion a manual transmission makes a sports car better at what it is designed to do and that is to ultimately be fun and engaging, not just fast.

You're right, that's your opinion. It obviously is not the opinion of the manufacturers though, if they are out to build the fastest sports cars in the world & a Dual Clutch Transmission improves that goal.

What makes a car fun & engaging is how it drives. A 458 & MP4-12C are twins separated at birth, but the redhead is the one that receives praise for driving like a proper Ferrari whilst the McLaren is met with mixed reviews.

Don't see why they are pulling manuals either, if your company bills driving fun and driving involvement, a manual is a must have option, performance and how "sporty" it is has no relation.

Except what goes into making a car fun & involving goes beyond the transmission.

Manual gearbox is a mellowed and perfected technology, it is always going to be cheaper to build, lighter, and have more reliability records than PDKs

I'd ask for proof, but I know it's an incorrect statement.

1: If manuals are so perfected, why is the manufacturer moving onto DCTs, or hell, autos in general? Is it because it improves performance? Perhaps fuel efficiency?
2: Cheaper to build is also false. Ferrari & Lamborghini find it more cost effective to build their cars to accommodate F1-SuperFastII/E-Gear because that's what the market majority demands; keeping manuals as an available option means the car has be re-engineered to fit them.
3: I have seen nothing that says manual gearboxes are more reliable than PDK. Maybe 10 years ago, that'd be true, but the transmission has come so far in terms of evolving that it's likely to be as dependable as a manual. Probably why Ferrari & Lamborghini also sort their paddle shift gearboxes as being more dependable to hold 700+ horses. It's definitely a reason why Bugatti went with a DCT to hold 1,000+hp if their goal was to make the Veyron a usable car.

....actually remember the days when manufacturers don't build their own gearbox but source from companies like Getrag? Ferrari 575 and Murcielago all had manuals....so as the Mclaren F1, and those were at least 10 year old cars! Cost is hardly a factor. They can perfectly afford 5% of manual models per overall production.

They still do to this day. Getrag builds the transmissions in BMW as well as Ferrari & Mercedes. Lamborghini receives their transmissions from Graziano as does McLaren. BorgWarner builds the GT-R transmission & iirc, Ricardo builds the transmission in the Veyron.

Not sure why that even matters though since these exact companies were building the manual transmissions for the same manufacturers. Ricardo was the builder for the Ford GT's transmission.

And you can claim cost is hardly a factor, but unless you have access to the finance books, that's a hard claim to make. Plus, even if they can afford it, it makes perfect sense as a business to phase out what the consumer no longer wants, esp. when you gave the consumer one last chance to purchase what they wanted.

The M heritage cannot be without a hardcore option, it's the halo in their "ultimate driving machine" fantasy, I think it is just accountants taking over the driving enthusiast side of BMW, of course you can say "this is business, they have to maintain profit." But history tells us everytime a sports car line goes overly soft (R33 GTR, Golf GTI Mk IV, second gen CRX) you end up with a forgettable generation of cars with crap resell values.

Those cars went soft for more than just a transmission....

so imo this move makes no sense, at all.

Like TVC, it probably doesn't make sense because you only choose to see one side of it.

 

[JJ72]

Mclaren, just hear me out.

I am not saying Manual transmission defines a car, or if it fundamentally makes a car fun or not; but for the ultimate involvement and dynamic driving - it is just about the last word, the icing on the cake. It is the last 2% that makes a good sports car - a great sports car.

and my problem is - BMW advertising themselves as the Ultimate driving machines - not just good, not just "quite sporty", but the ultimate. (Lets not go into semantics now, it's their marketing positioning for quite a while.)

We can all understand even under such a brand, there are more casual users, in fact most of the customers are not driving enthusiasts, people who don't want to (or can't) use stick shift in their daily car, we can all understand that, and that's when semi auto are good.

You see there's no such thing as a perfect gearbox, it depends on the intent of use and context, I say the manual gearbox is perfected; i.e. as good as it possibly can be within it's intent. But I never say manual gearbox is the perfect choice for all application and I am very willing to admit for 95% of customers it isn't - that's a point you seem to misunderstood from my wordings.

A PDK will be foolproof, consistent, quicker around a track, has autoblip and everything, it is much better in ultimate performance and efficiency than a manual - but there are contexts that are not strictly relevant to a "sports car."

As for Ferrari using "F1" tech gearbox, it's more about their target customers being 40 to 50 year old man and their marketing has always been about bringing customers Formula 1 technologies, it fits their ideology, on the other hand firms like Noble, TVR or Chevy are firms which ideology are more inclined towards the use of manual gear boxs, seeing the latest Noble is pushing 650 hp, technical limit and money really isn't a problem, Noble isn't exactly a big company with trillion to spend.

now the M3....yes it's a sedan, but among the regular M series offerings it is the one which they offer CSL models in, the one they make a GTS version in, so I think we can rightly say it should be the most dynamic among all lineup. If it's the M5 I wouldn't be as surprised if there is no manual gearbox, since the M5 is more about gadgets and dual personality from electronic wizardary, but the message that strikes me is M3 has become just a slightly smaller M5, and it's a mistake most oftenly made by Audi, where their lineup has too much overlap and not enough difference between one another.

Which comes to my point....it is not only non-sense from a driver's point of view, it's non sense from a marketing point of view. I didn't take one view, I took at least two.

Unless they are planning to make the 1M a regular model, and let it be the most extreme of all lineup, then I can understand they logic behind this. As for your business theory, How many manual E92 are they shifting anyway? The smart money are all one getting a nice manual E46 M3 nowadays, as it is the purist's choice, the lighter more direct and simpler car.

p.s. you can claim cost is a factor, but unless you have access to the finance books, that's a hard claim to make, it goes both ways.

I don't want to be an armchair expert and argument over things point by point, I just want to make my statement and you can take it, agreeing or not, cos even the head of marketing in BMW won't be 100% sure if the direction will work or not, time will play itself out.

Have a good day.

 

[JJ72]

sorry for double posting, but if you don't want to read the long passage I will summrise my point.

The point of the M3, judging from its heritage - is only complete with a manual option. BMW has every right to change it's positioning, but doing so will leave a void unfulfilled, and one that works against their brand positioning for the last decade - which again BMW has every right to change - I just don't see it as a positive change, from both driver and marketing point of view.

 

[McLaren]

Mclaren, just hear me out.

I am not saying Manual transmission defines a car, or if it fundamentally makes a car fun or not; but for the ultimate involvement and dynamic driving - it is just about the last word, the icing on the cake. It is the last 2% that makes a good sports car - a great sports car.

Except that's not a fact, that is simply your opinion. I know people who couldn't care less about having a manual & still enjoy their cars.

and my problem is - BMW advertising themselves as the Ultimate driving machines - not just good, not just "quite sporty", but the ultimate. (Lets not go into semantics now, it's their marketing positioning for quite a while.)

First off, it's a slogan. Lexus touts itself as "Excellence in Perfection", but I'm pretty sure many people don't see that at all. Secondly, nowhere does the "Ultimate Driving Machine" have to be fitted with a manual or auto.

A PDK will be foolproof, consistent, quicker around a track, has autoblip and everything, it is much better in ultimate performance and efficiency than a manual - but there are contexts that are not strictly relevant to a "sports car."

Oh, such as?

As for Ferrari using "F1" tech gearbox, it's more about their target customers being 40 to 50 year old man and their marketing has always been about bringing customers Formula 1 technologies, it fits their ideology

Their target demographic doesn't really have anything do with it. That demographic grew up an age of manual-only sports cars.

on the other hand firms like Noble, TVR or Chevy are firms which ideology are more inclined towards the use of manual gear boxs, seeing the latest Noble is pushing 650 hp, technical limit and money really isn't a problem, Noble isn't exactly a big company with trillion to spend.

Developing a transmission is not the issue. It's the cost effectiveness of having both & the market for Ferrari does not order the car with a manual, so there is no reason to develop a manual gearbox for the 458 if no one is going to order enough to justify the costs.

now the M3....yes it's a sedan, but among the regular M series offerings it is the one which they offer CSL models in, the one they make a GTS version in, so I think we can rightly say it should be the most dynamic among all lineup.

Not sure what you're trying to argue here. The M3 E46 CSL, widely regarded as one of the best M3s around was a SMG-only car. The E92 GTS is a 7-speed DCT-only to further enhance it being a "race-for-the-road" car.

If it's the M5 I wouldn't be as surprised if there is no manual gearbox, since the M5 is more about gadgets and dual personality from electronic wizardary, but the message that strikes me is M3 has become just a slightly smaller M5, and it's a mistake most oftenly made by Audi, where their lineup has too much overlap and not enough difference between one another.

The M3 has not become a smaller M5. And I find it even more baffling how you're coming to this conclusion & what a DCT has anything to do with it. I could assume you're saying that an E90 is like a smaller M5 because it has a DCT, a transmission you'd be more inclined to find in a M5, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt because that's a ridiculous argument.

Which comes to my point....it is not only non-sense from a driver's point of view, it's non sense from a marketing point of view. I didn't take one view, I took at least two.

No, it's not. It remains your opinion & just because you are unable to understand it, hardly means it's nonsense.

Unless they are planning to make the 1M a regular model, and let it be the most extreme of all lineup, then I can understand they logic behind this. As for your business theory, How many manual E92 are they shifting anyway? The smart money are all one getting a nice manual E46 M3 nowadays, as it is the purist's choice, the lighter more direct and simpler car.

The smart money is not doing that at all because the smart money knows it's a horrendous car to maintain. The smart money is the one buying the current M3 & waiting to trade it in on a new one.

The only people going after E46 M3 manuals are either purists who understand the amount of money required to maintain it or young adults with no concept of figuring in maintenance costs when you buy a car.

p.s. you can claim cost is a factor, but unless you have access to the finance books, that's a hard claim to make, it goes both ways.

I don't need access to the finance books. It was published in articles why the manual transmissions were dropped.

Only 1-2 percent of Lamborghinis last year were ordered with a manual. The Ferrari California was offered with a manual transmission yet, only 4 were actually ordered with it for the '12 model year.

The California had been the last Ferrari to offer a six-speed manual in place of the dual-clutch automatic, but with that choice now officially off the table, you can no longer buy a Ferrari with a manual transmission. It's hard to criticize that move, however, when you realize what the take rate for the manual was: two. Not two percent -- two cars. Out of some 8000 Californias sold.

Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1202_2013_ferrari_california_first_drive/#ixzz23meQaior​

​

The head of engine development at Ferrari, Vittorio Dini, says manual transmissions have had their day, with the latest twin-clutch automatic transmission offered in the 458 Italia providing quicker acceleration and better fuel economy than a manual.

“The manual gearbox has been a tradition for us but almost nobody buys one anymore,” he says.


He says the take-up of manual transmissions on the forerunner to the 458, the F430, was just five per cent, while demand for a self-shifting box on the recently released California convertible was even less.



“I don’t even think we have sold one yet. We offered it because some customers said they wanted it, but that hasn’t been the case,” he says.

Why offer something no one wants? Why bother pumping money into accommodating the 458 with a possible manual if it's going to be slower, less fuel efficient & have zero buyers?


Even Porsche has said they will only continue to build manuals if there is a demand for them & the number of manual 911's has dropped. The 7-speed manual is something unique, so that has increased the sales a bit, but I won't be surprise if manual sales go back on the decline after this year.

I don't want to be an armchair expert and argument over things point by point, I just want to make my statement and you can take it, agreeing or not, cos even the head of marketing in BMW won't be 100% sure if the direction will work or not, time will play itself out.

The head of marketing does research on what the consumer base is buying. If the majority of people are not buying manuals, they have to take that into account.

sorry for double posting, but if you don't want to read the long passage I will summrise my point.

The point of the M3, judging from its heritage - is only complete with a manual option. BMW has every right to change it's positioning, but doing so will leave a void unfulfilled, and one that works against their brand positioning for the last decade - which again BMW has every right to change - I just don't see it as a positive change, from both driver and marketing point of view.

Oh really? So that's why again, the M3 CSL & newer M3 GTS are SMG-II/DCT-only? BMW seems to disagree with you.


Funny thing is the M3 CSL is now 8 years old & I haven't seen anyone knock BMW for making one of the greatest M3s a SMG-II only car. In fact, it still remains a highly-desired car.

 

[TVC]

I really want to respond but breaking up a post into small sentences and responding individually to each sentence makes it really difficult. So instead, I'll read your post and I guess we will have to disagree.

What I will say is that I fail to see how any car enthusiast can claim that DCT or Automatic is more fun and engaging than manual. Or that DCT and automatic are just as sporty as manual.

 

[homeforsummer]

What I will say is that I fail to see how any car enthusiast can claim that DCT or Automatic is more fun and engaging than manual.

Because it takes all sorts to make the world go round? Some people don't feel "engaged" by working a clutch and gearlever, and some would even go as far as to say it takes enjoyment away from accelerating, braking and steering, particularly in a powerful or intimidating car.

Or that DCT and automatic are just as sporty as manual.

Because "sporty" is a completely arbitrary term.

"Sporty" = "likeness to sports". Last I checked, a great many motorsports use paddleshift-style transmissions. Which of the two is really more "sporty"?

And, as if it hasn't been discussed enough in the "save the manuals" thread, car makers aren't going to offer a transmission that doesn't really sell. Ferrari doesn't use paddleshift 'boxes for the hell of it, or to piss off consumers, they use it because a greater and greater percentage of their buyers want it. Even with the 355 a large proportion of sales were of the "F1" box when it was offered, and by the 360, the majority picked the paddleshift. And that's a decade ago now.

Why spend millions developing an option for your car that nobody is going to buy anyway?

BMW = just the same.

 

[TVC]

Because it takes all sorts to make the world go round? Some people don't feel "engaged" by working a clutch and gearlever, and some would even go as far as to say it takes enjoyment away from accelerating, braking and steering, particularly in a powerful or intimidating car.



Because "sporty" is a completely arbitrary term.

"Sporty" = "likeness to sports". Last I checked, a great many motorsports use paddleshift-style transmissions. Which of the two is really more "sporty"?

And, as if it hasn't been discussed enough in the "save the manuals" thread, car makers aren't going to offer a transmission that doesn't really sell. Ferrari doesn't use paddleshift 'boxes for the hell of it, or to piss off consumers, they use it because a greater and greater percentage of their buyers want it. Even with the 355 a large proportion of sales were of the "F1" box when it was offered, and by the 360, the majority picked the paddleshift. And that's a decade ago now.

Why spend millions developing an option for your car that nobody is going to buy anyway?

BMW = just the same.

That is true, I just feel that a majority of car enthusiasts prefer manual. Of course I think it would be safe to say a majority of sports car buyers are not car enthusiasts.

You are right, sporty, like any word, has a different meaning to different people. I mean a car that is engaging, fun to drive, takes a certain amount of skill, and provides a certain thrill. A car that connects to the driver and in turn connects the driver to the road. I feel like a manual car does this better than DCT or automatic because it gives the driver more input and greater control over what the car is doing.

Yeah it all comes down to money. I'm fine with companies offering DCT I just wish for them to keep manual an option. Maybe over time, after people get to try out PDK and other DCT, manual will become more popular. Though it's unlikely, I guess I could only hope.

 

[McLaren]

You are right, sporty, like any word, has a different meaning to different people. I mean a car that is engaging, fun to drive, takes a certain amount of skill, and provides a certain thrill. A car that connects to the driver and in turn connects the driver to the road. I feel like a manual car does this better than DCT or automatic because it gives the driver more input and greater control over what the car is doing.

More input & greater control is quite possibly the only good defense manuals have anymore. The problem is that most of the people who continue to argue that only a manual can really connect a driver to the car have never driven anything with a proper paddle-shift.

I've driven a Superleggera out at the track in Las Vegas. That sort of car doesn't need a manual to make it better connected to the driver unless you can quite possibly push it to its limit with ease & were looking for more interaction. For the rest of us, I barely tapped in 70% of that car & it still did everything you just described as a sports car; it was engaging, fun, thrilling, & requires skill to fully understand how capable it is. I didn't see how much more "connection to the road" or input was needed since it relays everything back to you perfectly & leaves it up to you to find where your own limits are with it.

A manual at that point is either just going to be another chore for some & fun for others. But, it certainly isn't going to make any significant amount of connection to the road over the E-Gear which is fine because its something manufacturers already take into account when they develop these transmissions. Ferrari doesn't just build & throw F1-SuperFastII transmissions into the car and call it a day. They do realize drivers want feedback & more input to the car, so they develop the transmission to do that in addition to the rest of the car. The only difference is that the input is controlled through the dial, which can soften the car or stiffen it to provide more feedback. It's not just pull the paddle back & done anymore.

Yeah it all comes down to money. I'm fine with companies offering DCT I just wish for them to keep manual an option. Maybe over time, after people get to try out PDK and other DCT, manual will become more popular. Though it's unlikely, I guess I could only hope.

DCT has been around since the 80's, & made their way into road cars in the mid-90's. Not sure why you think a manual will become more popular, esp. if the current market isn't even taking advantage of ordering cars that still have manuals.
I really want to respond but breaking up a post into small sentences and responding individually to each sentence makes it really difficult. So instead, I'll read your post and I guess we will have to disagree.[/quote]
A lot of what I said isn't "agree to disagree". The only thing we can agree to disagree on is how fun manual is.

Everything else has been shown over time or were questions you just didn't answer.

 

[homeforsummer]

That sort of car doesn't need a manual to make it better connected to the driver unless you can quite possibly push it to its limit with ease & were looking for more interaction.

That raises an interesting point, actually.

Some of the stuff on sale today is so ridiculously quick that paddleshifts are literally the only way that most drivers can approach the car's limits - they leave you more time to concentrate on lines, braking points etc*, i.e. more time actually driving the car.

As I've said before, a manual is ideal in a Miata, but in something like the next M3, which will probably have well in excess of 400bhp, I reckon most people would get the most from it with a dual clutch. Let's face it, with that sort of horsepower (and more), does shifting gears via a clutch and lever really add to the fun?

*On a circuit obviously - anyone who drives a modern supercar to its hugely high limits on the road is either mad or an idiot

 

[TVC]

More input & greater control is quite possibly the only good defense manuals have anymore. The problem is that most of the people who continue to argue that only a manual can really connect a driver to the car have never driven anything with a proper paddle-shift.

I've driven a Superleggera out at the track in Las Vegas. That sort of car doesn't need a manual to make it better connected to the driver unless you can quite possibly push it to its limit with ease & were looking for more interaction. For the rest of us, I barely tapped in 70% of that car & it still did everything you just described as a sports car; it was engaging, fun, thrilling, & requires skill to fully understand how capable it is. I didn't see how much more "connection to the road" or input was needed since it relays everything back to you perfectly & leaves it up to you to find where your own limits are with it.

A manual at that point is either just going to be another chore for some & fun for others. But, it certainly isn't going to make any significant amount of connection to the road over the E-Gear which is fine because its something manufacturers already take into account when they develop these transmissions. Ferrari doesn't just build & throw F1-SuperFastII transmissions into the car and call it a day. They do realize drivers want feedback & more input to the car, so they develop the transmission to do that in addition to the rest of the car. The only difference is that the input is controlled through the dial, which can soften the car or stiffen it to provide more feedback. It's not just pull the paddle back & done anymore.


DCT has been around since the 80's, & made their way into road cars in the mid-90's. Not sure why you think a manual will become more popular, esp. if the current market isn't even taking advantage of ordering cars that still have manuals.
I really want to respond but breaking up a post into small sentences and responding individually to each sentence makes it really difficult. So instead, I'll read your post and I guess we will have to disagree.

A lot of what I said isn't "agree to disagree". The only thing we can agree to disagree on is how fun manual is.

Everything else has been shown over time or were questions you just didn't answer.

Fair enough.

And I don't "think" it will make a return, I even said that is probably won't happen. And the fact is DCT are a lot more widespread now than they ever were in the past, they weren't really on road cars until the early 2000s. PDK has been around since the 962 but how many people knew about it before they put it on the 911? Not nearly as many people as the amount that know about it now.

Most of it is "agree to disagree." On both sides, this discussion really comes down to opinion. Maybe it's not all opinion but it's mostly opinion.

Here's a short article on the very topic (coincidentally it's from BMW):

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/manual-gearboxes-here-to-stay-says-bmw-20110207-1aj01.html

Also saw this thread:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=726948

That raises an interesting point, actually.

Some of the stuff on sale today is so ridiculously quick that paddleshifts are literally the only way that most drivers can approach the car's limits - they leave you more time to concentrate on lines, braking points etc*, i.e. more time actually driving the car.

As I've said before, a manual is ideal in a Miata, but in something like the next M3, which will probably have well in excess of 400bhp, I reckon most people would get the most from it with a dual clutch. Let's face it, with that sort of horsepower (and more), does shifting gears via a clutch and lever really add to the fun?

*On a circuit obviously - anyone who drives a modern supercar to its hugely high limits on the road is either mad or an idiot

No doubt that DCT has it's advantages. It is a good point, DCT does what a majority of drivers are unable to do, that is make a near perfect shift every time (or nearly every time). I guess fun is all subjective, so while DCT is fun for some I am sure others would absolutely hate it. Just as some don't mind automatic, while others hate it. Same goes for manual. (And most other things) For some people, a manual transmission would add to the fun, even at that power level. People did buy the F40, GT2 RS, F50, Carrera GT, 959, 993 Turbo S, 512 TR, etc. Or maybe more to the point, people are still buying 911 Turbo's with manual transmissions, same goes (at least when they were being produced) for the LP-640, LP-670, F430, and even Koenigsegg offered manual with optional DCT up to the current Agera R and that was with over 1000 hp.

 

[McLaren]

No doubt that DCT has it's advantages. It is a good point, DCT does what a majority of drivers are unable to do, that is make a near perfect shift every time (or nearly every time). I guess fun is all subjective, so while DCT is fun for some I am sure others would absolutely hate it. Just as some don't mind automatic, while others hate it. Same goes for manual. (And most other things) For some people, a manual transmission would add to the fun, even at that power level. People did buy the F40, GT2 RS, F50, Carrera GT, 959, 993 Turbo S, 512 TR, etc.

Not really a strong argument considering during the era for most of those cars, manuals were the only options available.

Or maybe more to the point, people are still buying 911 Turbo's with manual transmissions, same goes (at least when they were being produced) for the LP-640, LP-670, F430, and even Koenigsegg offered manual with optional DCT up to the current Agera R and that was with over 1000 hp.

Except more people bought 911 Turbos with a PDK just as most people bought LP640s with E-Gear. And an even fewer number bought the SV with a manual; in fact, it was not even an available option at introduction, so all the 6-speed SVs are custom orders.

As for the Koenigsegg, that's false. The Agera was never offered with a manual transmission. In fact, Koenigsegg's DCT is one of a kind because it only had one input shaft. The second clutch slows the shaft for the gears to synchronize even faster, making full use of the power.

 

[TVC]

Not really a strong argument considering during the era for most of those cars, manuals were the only options available.

Except more people bought 911 Turbos with a PDK just as most people bought LP640s with E-Gear. And an even fewer number bought the SV with a manual; in fact, it was not even an available option at introduction, so all the 6-speed SVs are custom orders.

As for the Koenigsegg, that's false. The Agera was never offered with a manual transmission. In fact, Koenigsegg's DCT is one of a kind because it only had one input shaft. The second clutch slows the shaft for the gears to synchronize even faster, making full use of the power.

Yes I know that. I wasn't really arguing or trying to make an argument just pointing out that cars in the past had a lot of power and manual transmissions. And even today some people feel that manual is enjoyable even with a lot of power. Not really an argument just pointing something out.

I didn't write that Koenigsegg offers the Agera or Agera R in manual. Maybe I should have used "up until" instead of "up to" to be more clear, but either way I meant the CCX/CCXR was the last model offered with with manual and that they had over 1000 horsepower. Though I do see where miscommunication could have occured, I should have been more specific and proofread what I wrote.

 

[JJ72]

Just realized, the New GT500 has 660hp, 650 lb/ft of torque and it has manual on offer, not an expensive car too, just some facts to take into account.

 

[Denilson]

I personally think that the E9X M3 was way too heavy concidering it's heritage.
A true M3 is suposed to be lightweightish, have good balance and an I-6, nothing else. Ok, the I-4 in the E30 was nice, but cars weigh a lot more these days compared to the E30 M3, so the I-6 is the way to go imo.
The E9X do have nice balance, but it's too heavy as I said, and much more of a GT-coupe. Like a small M6 if you will.

And as all true M-fanatics, the addition of turbo/s is not something I like to see, but the way the industry is heading, I guess it's history with N/A sport cars in this range.
Ofc (At least for a few more years), we'll still see them in the Ferraris and Lamborghinis etc, but in a car like the BMW, I can't see the progress going any other way than towards turbos and smaller volumes.
What I really liked was the engies from BMW that produced more than 100hp/liter without turbos or superchargers.
Highreving engines was developed to produce those kind of numbers, and I just love them to death.
Looking at the masterpiece in teh Ferrari 458..
560 bhp from a 4,5 liter engine without turbos or superchargers is just stunning.

It seems to me that often, not always, people who buy sports cars with DCT transmissions are the same kind of people who buy something nice because it is a status symbol not because they actually enjoy it. They don't really want a sports car, they want the status and image associated with the car. And to me that's pretty much the lamest thing someone could do.

You wrote "often", I see that. But only wanted to give you my take on it.

I used to own a M3 E46 Comp. Package ´05 that I used quite a lot on trackdays and in everyday driving.
The car was fitted with the SMG II sequential transmission (Not a Dual Clutch, but still), and it also had an AUTO setting.
I used it like once just to try it.
But apart from that one time, I used the manual paddle shifters all the time.

I descussed with a lot of friends about the gearbox. The E46 M3 came with Manual or SMG II as you might know.
But eventually decided to go with the SMG II.
And I was so happy I made that decision once I bought the car.
In Sweden, we drive manual gearboxes all the time, so wanted to try something new (Had manual transmission in my E46 325i), and it was such a nice gearbox. What I really liked was that I could decide with my throttle input during shifting how hard I wanted to change gears.
If I let of the gas a tad while shifting, the shift was silky smooth like the smoothest of manual gearshifts.
If I had my foot planted to the floor, it kicked the gears in like it would in a manual when going all out.
Even in "S6" (The hardest and fastest shift setting) I could totally control the shifts, and the gearbox was really rewarding.
I've not driven a Dual Clutch yet, but it seems to me like part of the fun is taken out since the shifts are so smooth. I want the car to give me a kick in the back if I want to.
Imo, the SMG II was the best from both worlds.
During trackdays, I never missed a shift, which eventually happens afetr driving hours and hours with a manual gearbox around a track for a whole day.. With the SMG II, it was just flawless. So easy to manage.

What's really an up side with the paddle shifters though is that you never have to take your hands off the wheel. Full control all the time. Comes in real handy when you chase 1/10 of seconds on a track.

Best decition ever from me defenetly, at least as far as cars are concerned. 👍

 

[McLaren]

I personally think that the E9X M3 was way too heavy concidering it's heritage.
A true M3 is suposed to be lightweightish, have good balance and an I-6, nothing else. Ok, the I-4 in the E30 was nice, but cars weigh a lot more these days compared to the E30 M3, so the I-6 is the way to go imo.
The E9X do have nice balance, but it's too heavy as I said, and much more of a GT-coupe. Like a small M6 if you will.

Ok, so if the E30 M3 was fine with the I4 because it doesn't weigh what cars do today, why does that logic not apply to the new M3 getting a V8 since cars still weigh a lot more these days.

The E36 M3 weighed 354lbs. more than the E30. The E46 M3 weighed 196lbs. more than the E36. The E92 M3 now weighs 289 lbs more than the E46.

So, the E36 adopting an I6 & weighing 350lbs. more than the E30 is fine, but the E92 weighing 290lbs. & adopting a V8 is suddenly "too heavy"? Can we just add in the fact that the M3 still manages to under weigh all its German competitors?

And as all true M-fanatics, the addition of turbo/s is not something I like to see, but the way the industry is heading, I guess it's history with N/A sport cars in this range.
Ofc (At least for a few more years), we'll still see them in the Ferraris and Lamborghinis etc, but in a car like the BMW, I can't see the progress going any other way than towards turbos and smaller volumes.

Um, what are you talking about? Ferrari's are still N/A V8s, & V12s. Lamborghini is the same.

I'm not sure what the issue is with turbos. They work just fine for the Audi & Mercedes, and it would mean the re-introduction of the I6 you believe the car needs.

 

[Denilson]

Ok, so if the E30 M3 was fine with the I4 because it doesn't weigh what cars do today, why does that logic not apply to the new M3 getting a V8 since cars still weigh a lot more these days.

The E36 M3 weighed 354lbs. more than the E30. The E46 M3 weighed 196lbs. more than the E36. The E92 M3 now weighs 289 lbs more than the E46.

So, the E36 adopting an I6 & weighing 350lbs. more than the E30 is fine, but the E92 weighing 290lbs. & adopting a V8 is suddenly "too heavy"? Can we just add in the fact that the M3 still manages to under weigh all its German competitors?


Um, what are you talking about? Ferrari's are still N/A V8s, & V12s. Lamborghini is the same.

I'm not sure what the issue is with turbos. They work just fine for the Audi & Mercedes, and it would mean the re-introduction of the I6 you believe the car needs.

If you're not sure what the issue is with turbo, there's no way trying to explain it to you either I guess.
My opinion is that it does matter a lot.
And your opinion is that it does'nt matter..
You're entitled to your own opinion ofc. 👍

But may I ask you this?
How do you make an engine produce bhp if the engine is N/A?
What makes it possible to produce power (bhp) using a turbo?

If you know the answer, you'd see that the caracter of the engines are widely separated.
The engine caracter is'nt going to be the same obviously..
Makes sense?

Weight:
Keeping in mind what cars weigh today, a 1,7 ton M3 is way too much IMO.
The car I owned was at 1520 kg, and that's pushing it imo even back then. I'd love to see the new M3 weigh around 1500 kg.. I really hope so.
With your logic, a 690 bhp, 3,6 ton car would be the same as an 230 bhp and 1200 kg car?
I don't buy that.
It's not of any importance what AUDI's and Mercedes's weigh.
An M3 is supposed to be agile.
The Mercedes and AUDI's are not competing in that area.
Well, they do now since BMW made the M3 so heavy. But they really should'nt.
An M3 has always been lightweight compared to the RS/AMG cars.. Uuuntil the fat E9X came out.
It's nothing but a huge mistake from M GMbH imo.

And regarding the Ferrari and Lamborghini..
I had to read what I wrote again, and I still can't see where I said that those cars are fitted with turbos.

 

[aadil717]

And as all true M-fanatics, the addition of turbo/s is not something I like to see,

Denilson, I'm an M fanatic and I can honestly say l would love a turbocharged I-6 (if it works - which it will). The 335i and 335d have epic engines, and having that smoothness and boost in power/torque driving an M3 would be awesome.

But that's just me though. The S54 in the E46 (my favourite M car) is just great, but to keep up with other rivals I really do think that turbos are necessary. It's not like the turbos will be huge so you get masses of lag, more so masses of torque (i'd like to think).
I know you didn't say they were bad etc, just pointing out that I think it's a good idea to utilise them.

And for the Auto/Manual argument, I hope they give us both options; but I really don't see Dual Clutch being a bad thing if it's developed to be better than a manual. I guess I trust the designers and engineers at BMW more than most people.

 

[homeforsummer]

People did buy the F40, GT2 RS, F50, Carrera GT, 959, 993 Turbo S, 512 TR, etc. Or maybe more to the point, people are still buying 911 Turbo's with manual transmissions, same goes (at least when they were being produced) for the LP-640, LP-670, F430, and even Koenigsegg offered manual with optional DCT up to the current Agera R and that was with over 1000 hp.

The latter cars you mention make more sense than the former cars, but realistically sell in small enough numbers to justify the point I was making. The market is so small for manual transmissions in cars like that, that it effectively doesn't make sense giving them manuals.

To expand on my point: Above, you list the F40 (478bhp), F50 (513bhp), 959 (444bhp), 993 Turbo S (424bhp), and 512TR (390bhp).

959 aside, all of these cars are notorious for being tricky to drive. Some are notorious for being incredibly difficult to drive too. The 512 for instance isn't just twitchy, but has an atrocious driving position and heavy controls.

Nowadays, you can waltz into a Jaguar showroom and slap £100k on the table for a ~550bhp XKR-S. Now I mention that car because it's the most powerful car I've driven*, but it's also incredibly easy to drive. If you never put your foot down you'd never know it comes within a few tenths to 60mph of cars that, in their time, were considered the pinnacle of road car design. The Jag is (and the pun here is very much intended) a pussycat in comparison.

As are most other modern supercars, and much of the reason for that, as well as general improvements and electronic aids, is because drivetrains are now so refined. And much of that is down to paddleshift gearboxes that allow you to access all that performance incredibly easily.

I'm not saying a good manual isn't fun to use - of course it is! - but a carmaker is under no obligation to develop and provide a manual gearbox for a modern high-performance car when all it does is makes the car slower, harder to use and less economical... and probably won't be bought anyway!

Even BMW knows this. And I'm not too worried about BMW anyway, since they proved with the 1M that they still know how to make an old-school M-car. I'd be leaving the M3 to all the footballers and looking at the 1-Series for the next true M-car...


*Confession: It's actually quite depressing in some ways how accessible performance is these days. I've driven a handful of quiet, refined, relaxed cars that would decimate supercars from the days when I was growing up. Of course, in other ways it's brilliant - you can now buy family cars that would destroy a mid-90s Ferrari...

 

[alonsof1fan91]

A lot of what I said isn't "agree to disagree". The only thing we can agree to disagree on is how fun manual is.

I think you are both arguing about different points. The Super Leggera you mentioned is for sure a thrill to drive and breath taking. Ferraris for example are set up in a way that can make most if us feel like Alonso while driving it.
But is a Gallardo, mainly driven by Rappers and soccer players delivering a pure driving expierence as a F40 does?
For sure its faster, easier to drive, safer and more comfortable, but is it as challenging? A friend of mine works in the automotive industry and has tested cars like the Veyron SS, Aventador or R8, but he grinned like a child at Christmas when he stepped out of the F40 for the first time.

Purist want cars which make them work their butt of in every corner they approach. This is the reason why JC prefered the F40 over the Enzo, eventhough the latter one did everything better.
I never saw the M3 as a car which is aimed to do this, so I have no problem with it.

Well, the sportiest car I have ever driven was a manual 360 Modena and Im satisfied with that level if uhm puristnes.

 

[JJ72]

Well, the sportiest car I have ever driven was a manual 360 Modena and Im satisfied with that level if uhm puristnes.

Me too, in Nero colored sexiness, it's sin if gated shifter become extinct.

 

[McLaren]

But is a Gallardo, mainly driven by Rappers and soccer players delivering a pure driving expierence as a F40 does?

Where did I say it did for starters?

For sure its faster, easier to drive, safer and more comfortable, but is it as challenging? A friend of mine works in the automotive industry and has tested cars like the Veyron SS, Aventador or R8, but he grinned like a child at Christmas when he stepped out of the F40 for the first time.

A bit of an irrelevant claim since nearly every person who has driven a F40 outside of the owners grins when they get out. For a lot, it's not even the driving experience, but because they got to drive such an iconic car that sat on their bedroom walls.

Purist want cars which make them work their butt of in every corner they approach. This is the reason why JC prefered the F40 over the Enzo, eventhough the latter one did everything better.
I never saw the M3 as a car which is aimed to do this, so I have no problem with it.

Purists also tend to believe they know how sports cars should be made & tend to criticize anyone who buys a performance car with any intention of using it outside of how they believe it should be.

I'm partially glad they're a dying breed.

If you're not sure what the issue is with turbo, there's no way trying to explain it to you either I guess.
My opinion is that it does matter a lot.
And your opinion is that it does'nt matter..
You're entitled to your own opinion ofc. 👍

But may I ask you this?
How do you make an engine produce bhp if the engine is N/A?
What makes it possible to produce power (bhp) using a turbo?

If you know the answer, you'd see that the caracter of the engines are widely separated.
The engine caracter is'nt going to be the same obviously..
Makes sense?

It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's just another silly train of thought from manufacture loyalists about how their cars should be made. Loyalists rarely ever take into account real world requirements.

Weight:
Keeping in mind what cars weigh today, a 1,7 ton M3 is way too much IMO.
The car I owned was at 1520 kg, and that's pushing it imo even back then. I'd love to see the new M3 weigh around 1500 kg.. I really hope so.
With your logic, a 690 bhp, 3,6 ton car would be the same as an 230 bhp and 1200 kg car?
I don't buy that.

I didn't say that. I said your logic was silly & one-sided. An E36 tacked on 350lbs. from the E30, but you bypass that because cars are heavier than they used to be, so the I-4 wasn't viable. But, in this current age, the E92 only adding 300lbs. is suddenly too much despite that an I-6 likely wasn't a viable solution like the V8 was.

It's not of any importance what AUDI's and Mercedes's weigh.
An M3 is supposed to be agile.

It actually is considering it's what helps make the M3 a much more agile car.

The Mercedes and AUDI's are not competing in that area.

Oh they're not? Let me phone up Mercedes then, & ask what was the point of the CLK63 Black Series, one of their greatest track-oriented cars.

Well, they do now since BMW made the M3 so heavy. But they really should'nt.

Wrong, they've been doing it for a while now & it wasn't because of the M3's weight.

An M3 has always been lightweight compared to the RS/AMG cars.. Uuuntil the fat E9X came out.

More incorrect info; the M3 is still a lightweight compared to the RS/AMG cars. Most of those cars are tipping the scales close to 4,000lbs.

It's nothing but a huge mistake from M GMbH imo.

"...imo."

Like with the other member, that's what it comes down to. Your opinion mixed in with personal expectations & some misinformation to support that opinion.

 

[JJ72]

what's wrong with having an opinion that is "personal", isn't that exactly the definition of an opinion...

Forum discussion shouldn't be full of multi-quotes and argument word by word....imo

 

[Denilson]

McLarnen... Wake up dude.
You think turbos on an M3 is fine, I don't.
"imo", exactly..

IMO the current M3 is a joke.
IMO it's too heavy (I've driven both the E46 and E92 on a track.).
IMO I love how the I-6 delivered the power without turbo or superchargers
IMO it's not relevant what AUDI's and Mercedes's weigh. Cause I'm only stating what I want from an M3.
IMO turbos are the new way to keep high powerlevels but with smaller engines and better economy. But I guess I have to accept that we're heading in that direction.
IMO I don't like to drive a turbo engine as much as I love to drive a proper N/A engine.
IMO it's not an excuse to say "look at how much that AUDI weigh".
IMO the E36 was still an agile car despite it's higher weight compared to the E30.
IMO the E46 was still an agile car despite it's higher weight compared to the E36.
IMO the E9X is'nt agile to the same degree as I expect from an M3. It's more like a GT.


aaadil717:
I know that the 3,0 liter engines for the 335i/d are really good. But still not a proper M engine imo.
What's special to me with an M engine is that it revs up to 8200 rpm, the caracter of the engine, and ofc the sound it makes.
This is ofc subjective, but that's what I think.
The 335i engine "only" revs to around 7000rpm. It dos'nt need to rev higher to reach the same bhp due to the extra torque it produced.
It's an epic engine, for a standard 3-series.
But not epic enough for an M... IMO

As I hope McLaren understand:
Torque * revs = power
I.e
If we take the 3,2 liter engine, and put many engineering hours in to the development to make it rev as high as 8200 rpm's, we can reach (in this case) 343 bhp.
Too reach 343 bhp with a turbo engine, the number of revs are'nt that important since you in this case have higher torque.
The sum of this very logical example is that a turbo engine will most likely (have'nt come a cross one still) not have the same caracteristics.

But finally, I do understand, and accept that we're going towards downsized engines with turbos instead of doing it the proper M way (McLaren: -> IMO, ok?).
But I still don't like it.. (McLaren -> IMO ok?)

I put my hopes to the M GmBH engineers to find a way to implement the turbo in such a way that the M caracteristics are still there.
If so, I'd be fine with the use of turbos, but I have a feeling I'll be disapointed.

 

[McLaren]

what's wrong with having an opinion that is "personal", isn't that exactly the definition of an opinion...

Forum discussion shouldn't be full of multi-quotes and argument word by word....imo

There's a difference between a valid opinion & then an opinion that is nothing but personal viewpoints that are being stated as borderline fact. Not to mention again, the false statements made as well as the 1-sided logic about weight.

Now, I may or may not reply to the other post when I get home since he wants to keep referring to things I haven't even remotely said & that his attempt to say "IMO" isn't cute since it doesn't validate some of what he said beforehand.

What to expect is one thing, but current situations in the world must be taken into account, something most don't do; they just expect a sports car to be the way it was 10-20 years ago. And to be clear, I am very well aware of the M3s characteristics. I've had an E36 in the past & I've had a lot of seat time as a potential buyer for the E46 and friend of an owner who had a Comp-spec package as well. And while I haven't had anywhere near the same amount of time in the E92, I've still been very pleased with what I have gotten to experience & I do believe it still lives up to the M3 name.

 

[Dennisch]

the proper M way

And what is the proper M way?