BMW M says "We're sorry for the X5/X6 M" ; offers make-up gift in the form of M3 GTS

[Paulie]

It sounds awesome compared to the stock M3 . Does anyone else think the rear spoiler looks a little small for the car?

 

[harrytuttle]

I would agree with most and say it's a step in the right direction, except for the fact that it's not. One could say that it's a return to //M's core values only that would also be wrong because BMW has never been this hardcore (not with road cars, at least). While it's certainly aimed at the 911 GT3 [RS], it remains to be seen if it really is hard and fast enough. It's a shame that it took the loss of most of the interior to make a BMW that seemed even remotely hardcore enough to get this kind of attention.

What this car does is even further blur the focus that //M had, what with the X6M & X5M on the opposite end of BMW Motorsport's production line. There is one car that best defines where //M was: the 1991 E30 M3. Front engine, rear drive, no forced induction, a full interior, and reduced weight. The remaining aspects of that car were simply amplified from the standard car's existing attributes.

I wish BMW luck this time around. Great car, but no more //M than the X6M.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Gettin' really tired of people making negative judgements of BMW and M, because they're producing cars that don't conform what individual people think they should be making.

Does the fact that the X5/X6 M cars exist detract from the M3/5/6? No of course it doesn't, does the M3 GTS answer the call of people looking for a more hardcore M3, yes it does. So where's the problem?

As for comparisons with the Porsche GTwhateveritis... Porsches fans seem to live in the own little bullet-proof bubble, even IF the GTS is better than the Porsche - I doubt they'd ever admit it!

 

[Philly]

The X5/X6 M go against what the M badge stands for, or at least what people think it should stand for. Being SUVs, they aren't the fast sports cars that the M badge would indicate. They still are great sports versions of the X5/X6, just huge deviations from the purpose of the name. I similarly have issues with all of the M kit that BMW offers on the X3 (apparently), but that's a little different. BMW should come up with another name for their sporty line of stuff, I think.

Being a Porsche fanboy, I will probably never admit that the GTS is better than the GT3. Yes, I'm sure it is an amazing car, and it may even be faster, but it's still a BMW and the GT3 is still a Porsche so I would still take the GT3.

 

[///M-Spec]

Gettin' really tired of people making negative judgements of BMW and M, because they're producing cars that don't conform what individual people think they should be making.

I've had 6 BMWs, of which 3 were M cars. I've earned the right to judge. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or something.

Does the fact that the X5/X6 M cars exist detract from the M3/5/6? No of course it doesn't, does the M3 GTS answer the call of people looking for a more hardcore M3, yes it does. So where's the problem?

It's not necessarily the products themselves, just the way they're branded. I was just fine with the X5 4.8is.

But the X5/X6 Ms are marketing exercises. BMW is cashing in on the brand equity they've built up over the last 20 years. A high center of gravity and excessive weight are antithetical to M's high performance ethos.

Just because they can make something work doesn't mean it is an honest product. The X/M products dilutes the M brand and as someone who has held M products in high esteem over the years, I resent that.

The GTS is a "we're still serious" statement. And a welcome one. The problem is when cars like the GTS become the exception rather than the norm at BMW M.

However, contrary to Mr. Tuttle's post above yours, I think the core M products are still good cars.

As for comparisons with the Porsche GTwhateveritis... Porsches fans seem to live in the own little bullet-proof bubble, even IF the GTS is better than the Porsche - I doubt they'd ever admit it!

There are fanboys in every corner of carfandom.

On paper, the GTS is a good match for the GT3 and GT3 RS. It weighs only about 150 lbs. more, but makes way more torque. The larger frontal area will probably hurt it at higher speeds, but I predict the GTS will be very competitive in terms of laptimes, provided it runs on the same Pilot Cups as the Porsches.


M

 

[MatskiMonk]

I've had 6 BMWs, of which 3 were M cars. I've earned the right to judge. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or something.

It's not that it hurts my feelings... It just irratates the hell out of me!

It's not necessarily the products themselves, just the way they're branded. I was just fine with the X5 4.8is.

But the X5/X6 Ms are marketing exercises. BMW is cashing in on the brand equity they've built up over the last 20 years. A high center of gravity and excessive weight are antithetical to M's high performance ethos.

...

The GTS is a "we're still serious" statement. And a welcome one. The problem is when cars like the GTS become the exception rather than the norm at BMW M.

I respect your opinion, you have had more experience with M cars than I have by the sounds of it, so I'll trust your judgement on how good those cars were as products.

The basis of my frustration (and this is directed at no-one in particular) is that people have made their mind up what M should be based on what they like about M cars, yet this isn't how M as a brand has developed.

M was set-up to go racing.. the first officially badged M car was the M1.. since which, no other car like it has rolled out of BMW.. the next M power vehicle was a 5 series, so one could argue that the M brand has been diluted ever since the late 70's - a 4 door saloon that wasn't built to go racing is a far cry from a mid-engine supercar designed to homologate a race car...
The E30 M3 was a track focused everyday bahn-stormer that firmly established itself as a motorsport legend... but why the hell did we need a convertible version? Nearly 20 years ago BMW unleased an M5 touring - again, a pretty for cry from the road legal race car idea that the M1 & E30 M3 represented. The current M5 and M6 approach 2 tonnes in weight, with both touring and convertible versions available (in fact at one stage the M6 convertible was BMW's flagship model). In many touring classes since the 80's it has not even been a M-badged model that took the honours.. 318iS, 320iS, 325iS are all badges that had sucess where the M3 had out grown the classes.

And as far as the turbo-charging issue goes, it was almost inevitable that BMW would eventually have to go this way, but not unprecidented - BMW's in motorsport were turbo'd as early as the M1 and the E21 - and lets not forget the 2002 Turbo, which wore M colours on it's body.

There has always been more hardcore tweaked versions of M3's:

E30 M3, Evo, Evo 2, Sport Evo (along with special editions (Ravaglia, Cecotto etc)
E36 M3, Evo, GT, GT2, (GT-R was sold?), M3-R
E46 M3, GT-R, CSL, CS (or ZHP, or ??? depending on market)

Most of the variants were built to allow the M3 to race in certain categories, and I believe the GTS is no exception. It paves the way to increase the displacement of the engine in the M3 GT2 and GT4 race cars, and therefore (hopefully) make these cars more competitive.

The point I'm trying to make is that since M was created it has always created vehicles that cater for what the market wants - 4 doors, tourers, convertibles... and now SAV's. Also, since M was created they've been tweaking the road cars to keep the race cars as competitive as possible, and they are still doing that too.

So how much has M's ethos changed? In my opinion not much.

 

[Zmann42087]

Honestly? The ///M badge hasn't been appropriate attire for any BMW since the E30 M3. Nothing they've produced since has had that same racing pedigree. The only true ///M-cars are the M1 and the E30 M3 (the original M3).


BMW M1 Procar

BMW E30 M3 DTM/Gr.A

 

[///M-Spec]

It's not that it hurts my feelings... It just irratates the hell out of me!

I respect your opinion, you have had more experience with M cars than I have by the sounds of it, so I'll trust your judgement on how good those cars were as products.

The basis of my frustration (and this is directed at no-one in particular) is that people have made their mind up what M should be based on what they like about M cars, yet this isn't how M as a brand has developed.

M was set-up to go racing.. the first officially badged M car was the M1.. since which, no other car like it has rolled out of BMW.. the next M power vehicle was a 5 series, so one could argue that the M brand has been diluted ever since the late 70's - a 4 door saloon that wasn't built to go racing is a far cry from a mid-engine supercar designed to homologate a race car...
The E30 M3 was a track focused everyday bahn-stormer that firmly established itself as a motorsport legend... but why the hell did we need a convertible version? Nearly 20 years ago BMW unleased an M5 touring - again, a pretty for cry from the road legal race car idea that the M1 & E30 M3 represented. The current M5 and M6 approach 2 tonnes in weight, with both touring and convertible versions available (in fact at one stage the M6 convertible was BMW's flagship model). In many touring classes since the 80's it has not even been a M-badged model that took the honours.. 318iS, 320iS, 325iS are all badges that had sucess where the M3 had out grown the classes.

And as far as the turbo-charging issue goes, it was almost inevitable that BMW would eventually have to go this way, but not unprecidented - BMW's in motorsport were turbo'd as early as the M1 and the E21 - and lets not forget the 2002 Turbo, which wore M colours on it's body.

There has always been more hardcore tweaked versions of M3's:

E30 M3, Evo, Evo 2, Sport Evo (along with special editions (Ravaglia, Cecotto etc)
E36 M3, Evo, GT, GT2, (GT-R was sold?), M3-R
E46 M3, GT-R, CSL, CS (or ZHP, or ??? depending on market)

Most of the variants were built to allow the M3 to race in certain categories, and I believe the GTS is no exception. It paves the way to increase the displacement of the engine in the M3 GT2 and GT4 race cars, and therefore (hopefully) make these cars more competitive.

The point I'm trying to make is that since M was created it has always created vehicles that cater for what the market wants - 4 doors, tourers, convertibles... and now SAV's. Also, since M was created they've been tweaking the road cars to keep the race cars as competitive as possible, and they are still doing that too.

So how much has M's ethos changed? In my opinion not much.

This is a good post. 👍

I agree with your sentiment that the M brand has certainly deviated from it's original product and has done so long ago. If M had stayed "BMW Motorsport", then the only M cars would be $180,000+ mid engined supercars.

I think we also agree that cars like the M1, E30 M3 and indeed the GTS are actually exceptions rather than the norm. So the question remains... what is normal for BMW M?

And the key issue of contention is the X/M cars and how they fit into the brand.

This is something that will be a lengthy reply, so it may end up being tomorrow before I post.

BTW: Kudos for recalling the Ravaglia and Cecotto M3s. But you left out the US only 1995 M3 Lightweight. And the M3 CS was called the ZCP or "M3 Competition Package" in the US --the ZHP was for the 330i.


M

 

[McLaren]

The X5/X6 M go against what the M badge stands for, or at least what people think it should stand for. Being SUVs, they aren't the fast sports cars that the M badge would indicate. They still are great sports versions of the X5/X6, just huge deviations from the purpose of the name. I similarly have issues with all of the M kit that BMW offers on the X3 (apparently), but that's a little different. BMW should come up with another name for their sporty line of stuff, I think.

Being a Porsche fanboy, I will probably never admit that the GTS is better than the GT3. Yes, I'm sure it is an amazing car, and it may even be faster, but it's still a BMW and the GT3 is still a Porsche so I would still take the GT3.

People think Porsche should have stuck to sports cars, but look at they've got now. A Cayenne Turbo S & a Panamera Turbo, the former once being the fastest SUV around, and the latter, the current, quickest 4-door around the 'Ring.

Manufacturers change. What a division stood for 10 or 20 years ago, can do a complete 180 by today. I don't know why people feel car companies need to always stay true to their roots. Times change & people change, and manufacturers put the current consumers ahead of the older ones.

 

[MatskiMonk]

BTW: Kudos for recalling the Ravaglia and Cecotto M3s. But you left out the US only 1995 M3 Lightweight. And the M3 CS was called the ZCP or "M3 Competition Package" in the US --the ZHP was for the 330i.


M

Was ranting off the top of my head ...

besides.. Johnny Cecotto, Roberto Ravaglia legends.. where is the Priaulx edition 320si

 

[Jetboy.]

should be proper manual. that alone would help to drop ~100kg more.

I would prefer a tradtional 3-pedal 6-speed, though. More fun to drive, even if it isn't any faster.

I agree here. It certainly was fun to put the DSG boxes in every special edition back when they were new and exciting. But now that they're in everything from a $1.25 Veyron to a $12.5k Golf, the novelty has worn off a bit. So you should go with the enthusiast transmission for a car for the enthusiasts.

Thank you! God I thought no one cared anymore. It's just not a real Bimmer without the third pedal. 👎



Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[MatskiMonk]

Thank you! God I thought no one cared anymore. It's just not a real Bimmer without the third pedal. 👎

Hmm, Fun vs. Function... tough one

I love my old 635CSi, 75% of them were auto's, so maybe I'm biased, but IIRC when BMW fitted an MT to the US E60 M5 it got panned for being rubbish... I suspect an MT fitted to the GTS would make it slower around than ring, and these days.. that seems to be all that matters!

 

[TheCracker]

I suspect an MT fitted to the GTS would make it slower around than ring, and these days.. that seems to be all that matters!

They're missing a trick then by not offering a manual. Since they're aiming the GTS squarely at the 911 GT3 RS, they should realise that the technical team behind the GT3 RS will not let the Porsche top-brass put the PDK gearbox in it, to keep it's purity, and because they know the cars target ordinance don't want it either.

 

[homeforsummer]

As for comparisons with the Porsche GTwhateveritis... Porsches fans seem to live in the own little bullet-proof bubble, even IF the GTS is better than the Porsche - I doubt they'd ever admit it!

Given that I was one of the people who mentioned preferring the Porsche, I'll assume some of this is partly aimed at me, some at Philly and some at Stotty. After all, if nobody had mentioned the GT3, then you probably wouldn't have made the above comment.

I'm not quite sure how saying that I prefer the Porsche immediately makes me a fanboy or means that I live in a bubble, nor can I see how saying that I'd prefer the Porsche means that I'll somehow deny it if the GTS is a better car (and "better" is very subjective at this sort of level).

I like BMWs. Quite a lot actually. That doesn't mean I can't hold preference for something else, and assuming that preferring something to the car you like immediately makes you a fanboy, is pretty much fanboyish behaviour itself.

Please refrain from it.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Given that I was one of the people who mentioned preferring the Porsche, I'll assume some of this is partly aimed at me, some at Philly and some at Stotty. After all, if nobody had mentioned the GT3, then you probably wouldn't have made the above comment.

The comment was made in reference to Porsche fans, you may or may not fall into that bracket, I had nobody in mind when I posted that, and I probably would still hve mentioned it even if no-one here has posted it because virtually every piece of text I've seen written about the GTS (barring BMW press releases) also refers to the Porsche. So please don't take it too personally.

I'm not quite sure how saying that I prefer the Porsche immediately makes me a fanboy or means that I live in a bubble, nor can I see how saying that I'd prefer the Porsche means that I'll somehow deny it if the GTS is a better car (and "better" is very subjective at this sort of level).

I intentionally refrained from using the term fanboy, because it gets nobody anywhere.. I think the problem is that the 911 as a car is such a strong 'brand' on it's own, with a large and dedicated following, and the fact that which is the best at this level is so subjective means people that already like Porsches will probably always favour the dynamics of the Porsche, and may never really take any competition seriously - I'll admit I may be wrong on that, but thats the attitude I percieve of Porsche drivers.

I like BMWs. Quite a lot actually.

Good

That doesn't mean I can't hold preference for something else, and assuming that preferring something to the car you like immediately makes you a fanboy, is pretty much fanboyish behaviour itself.

Please refrain from it.

Again, I was trying to avoid using the term 'Fanboy', I don't believe I made reference as to which is the better car or which people should like the most... at worst I think I can be accused of assuming that Porsche fans are too stuck in their ways!

 

[homeforsummer]

Understood 👍 Sorry if I appeared to overreact.

 

[Stotty]

There is a bigger difference between these cars than the obvious similarities in price and purpose... a GT3 has a level of uniqueness and character way beyond what even a souped up M3 can offer, and will never be mistaken for a chavved up £25k 320d.

Fanboy? Me?

I really don't see the point of the X5M and X6M... these models are never going to deliver meaningful volume or profit and are so inconsistent with the core values of the M Division that I think they do significant long-term damage to their image.

 

[///M-Spec]

As promised...

In my mind, there are three types of M cars. Homologation specials like the E30 M3 and M3 Lightweight. Fast road cars like the M5, M6 and current M3. And the M1, which stands alone because it is radically different from what BMW had ever done before and since.

If you look carefully at the history of M cars, you will see that fast road cars account for the overwhelming majority of their products. And cars like the E30 M3 are the exception, rather than the norm.

So for someone to say "M cars are not what they used to be" and point to the E30 M3 as an example, this would not only be stating the perfectly obvious, but the message would be about 30 years late. Because as soon as BMW put the M badge on the back of a hopped up E12 5-series in 1979, they stopped making exclusively race cars and started making fast road cars.

This was long before the E30 M3 was even on the table. And neither the E12 M535i nor the E28 M5 that replaced it was ever factory raced, nor did their components contribute to any homologation requirements. (yes, I know the E28 M5 had basically the same motor as the M1, but it served no homologation purposes) So when I hear someone say "M has lost it's roots", I instinctively think "no ****, welcome to 1979."

Ok. So if I can accept that BMW M makes fast road cars (not race cars) and if I can accept the M5 Touring and the M3 Convertibles then why don't I accept the X5 M and X6 M?

You have to draw the line somewhere.

And point of fact is, I've never really accepted the touring versions of the M5 nor the convertible versions of the M3 and M6 either.

Imagine if you will, a numeric scale with positive integers meaning "more ///Motorsport" and negative integers meaning "more ///Marketing". The M1 and E30 M3 are +9s. The E46 M3 CSL and E36 M3 Lightweight are +8s. While the GTS is looking to me like a +9.

All M5s would hover around the 0 to +2 mark. Tourings will dip into the negatives at -1. Verts? -3 to -4.

To me, the X/Ms are -10s.

Why? Because the platforms they are based on are inherently far, far more compromised than wagons and convertibles.

All cars are a series of compromises. Even race cars. If you want downforce, you will also have more drag. If you want more grip, the tires will go away faster. If you want less weight, you will give up rigidity and strength. And so on.

The first edict of performance is weight. An M5 says "you will agree to my weight penalty because I can also provide more space and comfort for four passengers". Okay, I can accept that. This is trading one function (hauling butt) for another type of function (hauling butts and their luggage).

An X6 M says "you will agree to a much higher weight penalty for less space than an M5 but a higher driving position and all wheel drive without a performance benefit". No. Not acceptable. Form is not following function, but style. Hauling butt gets traded for hauling vanity and ego. Acceptable for a mainstream BMW, but not an M car.

A secondary consideration of weight is where the weight resides. Not only will weight hurt performance, but the higher the weight is, the greater the penalty.

An M5 has a much higher center of gravity than a formula car. This is so it can provide space for passenger comfort. An X6 has an even higher center of gravity for what reason? So you can sit higher. No. Not acceptable for an M car.

You have to draw the line somewhere. When function is sacrificed to style to this sort of extent, I have to put my foot down and say "bogus".

The GTS and X/Ms sit at the opposite ends of the spectrum. The core products (M5s and M3s) are fine the way they are because that's the way they've always been. But I want more GTSs and less X/Ms.

Re: Turbocharging. I don't have a problem with it. It is simply a means to an end.

Thank you! God I thought no one cared anymore. It's just not a real Bimmer without the third pedal. 👎

I thought the exact same way until I drove the new M3 with the dual clutch gearbox. It is a game changer.

Whereas I avoided SMG cars in the past, if/when I get a new M3, which transmission it has will come down to a matter of $.

I really don't see the point of the X5M and X6M... these models are never going to deliver meaningful volume or profit and are so inconsistent with the core values of the M Division that I think they do significant long-term damage to their image.

+infinity... and beyond


M
(Been watching Toy Story with my kids again)

 

[Jetboy.]

I thought the exact same way until I drove the new M3 with the dual clutch gearbox. It is a game changer.

Whereas I avoided SMG cars in the past, if/when I get a new M3, which transmission it has will come down to a matter of $.

I've driven similar equipped cars (No, not an M3 wherein lies the rub and null point to this argument) and felt that it just removes the driver from the full driving experience. If BMW is the "Ultimate Driving Machine", why disinherit another involving part of the experience? To me it's sacriligious, and the sad part is, less people are feeling that way. Soon there will be no manuals. 👎



Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[MatskiMonk]

As promised...

In the beginning....

Lots of words

.... the End

Good post I genuinely can't argue with your reasoning there, if I were to this would simply become a thread about whether the X6 deserves to exist at all.

At the end of day, I really like the X6, and I really like monsterous performance... the XxM's are very very quick (faster than E46 M3 at the ring?), so to me an X6M is a desirable vehicle - which means I guess I'm just alot more likely to tolerate it than some - but whether it's a great car or not, and whether I like it, I'll conceed aren't factors that should make it deserving of an M-badge.


Either way fingers crossed that one day the M1 won't sit alone in it's category.

 

[///M-Spec]

I've driven similar equipped cars (No, not an M3 wherein lies the rub and null point to this argument) and felt that it just removes the driver from the full driving experience. If BMW is the "Ultimate Driving Machine", why disinherit another involving part of the experience? To me it's sacriligious, and the sad part is, less people are feeling that way. Soon there will be no manuals. 👎

It depends on what your goals are.

If your goal is to enjoy yourself, then yes, manual > DCT.

If your goal is to go fast, DCT > manual.

Going to the track or autocross? I'll take DCT in a heartbeat. There's a lot going on when you're out there. Changing gears with a paddle frees up your brain to concentrate on other aspects of going fast (ie, your braking points, lines, watching for traffic and flag stations, etc)

Going to work? I live in the NY/NJ metro area. I'll take DCT 4 days out of 5.

Which only leaves pleasure drives where I would still want a stick. A romp down a back road, road trip or driving vacation. I don't get too many of those these days

Keep in mind that I've been driving stick for 15+ years. And until very recently have ruled out owning any kind of automatic. My current car is stick and if it were slushbox only, I wouldn't have bought it.


EDIT:

Good post I genuinely can't argue with your reasoning there, if I were to this would simply become a thread about whether the X6 deserves to exist at all.

Thank you. It's nice to trade posts with someone so well informed about BMWs.

I don't actually mind the mainstream X6. At the end of the day, BMW exists to make what customers want to buy. But M cars should be held to a higher standard. And like I said earlier, if BMW simply didn't brand the X6 M as an "M car" but perhaps the "X6 Sport" or similar I wouldn't think twice.


M

 

[Jetboy.]

It depends on what your goals are.

If your goal is to go fast, DCT > manual.

Going to the track or autocross? I'll take DCT in a heartbeat. There's a lot going on when you're out there. Changing gears with a paddle frees up your brain to concentrate on other aspects of going fast (ie, your braking points, lines, watching for traffic and flag stations, etc)

Unfortunately, I have to agree you're right. It does involve going faster. But (at least in my opinion) if you show up at the autocross to be the fastest, you already lost the point. I feel it's about the fun, and part of the fun is the ability to demonstrate skill. With DSG I feel the skill and connection is somewhat lost. If I were out to race around and press buttons all day, I'd save the race fuel and fire up the PS2.

Which only leaves pleasure drives where I would still want a stick. A romp down a back road, road trip or driving vacation. I don't get too many of those these days

Keep in mind that I've been driving stick for 15+ years. And until very recently have ruled out owning any kind of automatic. My current car is stick and if it were slushbox only, I wouldn't have bought it.

It gladdens my heart to see you're still an enthusiast.👍 I wish people would keep the option for manual alive, however. This to me is part of what makes a driving machine a true driving machine. If BMW loses the option over time (Save for entry models), I'll feel the marque lost sight.


Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[McLaren]

I've driven similar equipped cars (No, not an M3 wherein lies the rub and null point to this argument) and felt that it just removes the driver from the full driving experience. If BMW is the "Ultimate Driving Machine", why disinherit another involving part of the experience? To me it's sacriligious, and the sad part is, less people are feeling that way. Soon there will be no manuals. 👎



Cheers,
Jetboy

Unfortunately, I have to agree you're right. It does involve going faster. But (at least in my opinion) if you show up at the autocross to be the fastest, you already lost the point. I feel it's about the fun, and part of the fun is the ability to demonstrate skill. With DSG I feel the skill and connection is somewhat lost. If I were out to race around and press buttons all day, I'd save the race fuel and fire up the PS2.



It gladdens my heart to see you're still an enthusiast.👍 I wish people would keep the option for manual alive, however. This to me is part of what makes a driving machine a true driving machine. If BMW loses the option over time (Save for entry models), I'll feel the marque lost sight.


Cheers,
Jetboy

Manufacturers change. What a division stood for 10 or 20 years ago, can do a complete 180 by today. I don't know why people feel car companies need to always stay true to their roots. Times change & people change, and manufacturers put the current consumers ahead of the older ones.

Like I said, things change. I bet in the 80's, there were people who wished Ferrari would build more cars like their 1950's racing cars, just like they wish cars like the F40 were still produced today.

Whatever you defy as the ultimate way to drive has & will change again. The goal of performance cars is to go faster & to do so, the stick-operated manual gearbox has to die. If you want a proper gearbox & car, you're just going to have to buy one already built, because I'm quite positive that many sports car-builders will begin sticking to 1 transmission type such as Lamborghini.

 

[Jetboy.]

Like I said, things change. I bet in the 80's, there were people who wished Ferrari would build more cars like their 1950's racing cars, just like they wish cars like the F40 were still produced today.

Whatever you defy as the ultimate way to drive has & will change again. The goal of performance cars is to go faster & to do so, the stick-operated manual gearbox has to die. If you want a proper gearbox & car, you're just going to have to buy one already built, because I'm quite positive that many sports car-builders will begin sticking to 1 transmission type such as Lamborghini.

*sigh* I guess that makes me an older fart than most the people here. And I'm 19. I don't mean to jack the thread with my views, but it still does somewhat apply to this future vaunted M3. Once again, this is removing the driver from the experience. In a company that touts to be the most direct driving experience on the planet, this is a step in the wrong direction. I'm not asking for death of the DSG, but I want to have the option remain open elsewhere. I don't want my future of driving purity remain with rusting hulks well over 40 years old or entry level eco-bubbles that cost less than what I make in a month. If I'm going to buy a higher-end car (And I will) in the future, I don't want it to pale in experience and satisfaction to driving my old 1988 Chevrolet Nova, which lacked power steering or even electronic fuel injection.


Cheers
Jetboy

 

[Jim Prower]

WAIT...You used to own a Nova, too?

erm, nevermind that.

ANY-way, I can kind of see both sides of the argument, here. I kinda fall down upon the DSG side of things (sadly, or not, depending on your opinion,) since the system is...well, lighting-quick. Race cars in almost every top-tier motorsport use some sort of automated manual, or at the very least, one that doesn't require depressing the clutch while shifting, (many retain it for when the car must stop or...I think...reverse) though this is typically a heavily beefed up Sequential gearbox with an automated clutch, ignition interrupter, and not a dual-clutch setup.

But...there's that involvement thing, which is where I suppose we must figure out where we draw the line, and what the real purpose of the GTS is. I look at it and see a trackday weapon rather than a car meant to be enjoyed on the road. They have the regular M3 for that. Heck, they even have a Sedan version, so you get extra utility, too.

 

[V8_Vantage]

Oooooh, there appears to be a brick in my pants...
Orange should be the only colour available... black won't stand out.

 

[The Outlaw]

Welcome to evolution of the M-division people. Sorry but things don't always stay the same forever. I mean do you do all of the same things and live the same lifestyle as your descendants (with the same last name) from 3 centuries ago?

And as far as BMW choosing the DSG as being the only option for the GTS - I think it was necessary in order to put the cars level of performance closer to that of the GT3RS, at least on the track. A DSG gearbox is probably worth about 5-10 second around the ring, which is a whole lot. I'm also of the opinion that you really need to experience just how good a DSG gearbox is on the track...as it really allows the average driver to concentrate on all of the more important things of putting in a good lap while still having a very enjoyably time trying to squeeze out those last few tenths.

 

[Prince.M5]

I agree with you ''timeattack07gt''... Things don't always stay forever and ever. This is what we called evolution. We don't need retardation.

It is true that BMW choosing DCT as being the only option for the GTS because they want to keep the performance up. For example, the BMW M5 6-Speed is a whole lot slower than the M5 SMG. I know it's fun to press the clutch and change gears but you know, pressing the clutch and change gears would take some times maybe .3-.5 of a second roughly instead of the DCT which can change gears I think around .3 or less than that. Take a look at this. I think this pretty much explains everything.

 

[McLaren]

*sigh* I guess that makes me an older fart than most the people here. And I'm 19.

Just means you're not the target audience of the manufacturer then, if you're 19 and the car doesn't fit your interests.

I don't mean to jack the thread with my views, but it still does somewhat apply to this future vaunted M3. Once again, this is removing the driver from the experience. In a company that touts to be the most direct driving experience on the planet, this is a step in the wrong direction.

It's a tag line. BMW has been boasting for years that it's the "Ultimate Driving Machine", but there are people who do think that even the M3 isn't that.

I'm not asking for death of the DSG, but I want to have the option remain open elsewhere. I don't want my future of driving purity remain with rusting hulks well over 40 years old or entry level eco-bubbles that cost less than what I make in a month.

Then you'll have to buy an older car then. Companies are cutting back on manuals for several reasons, one being the cost. As I noted, Lamborghini is planning to entirely axe the 6-speed gearbox because it costs the company so much to produce cars with both transmissions. That's why the 6-speed gearbox is now an option while E-Gear remains the standard. Expect Ferrari to do the same within the next few years as well.

 

[Tornado]

As I noted, Lamborghini is planning to entirely axe the 6-speed gearbox because it costs the company so much to produce cars with both transmissions. That's why the 6-speed gearbox is now an option while E-Gear remains the standard. Expect Ferrari to do the same within the next few years as well.

To be fair, the comparison with Lamborghini and Ferrari isn't directly compatible...