# Mr Bruhnke about the possibility of a manual transmission on the E60M5



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

BMW M Division Manager tt the Stockjolm Open event in Sweden :

Question : Manual gearbox for the E60 M5?

Answer : "The manual could be an option for the US market, only for the USA then. It is never good to say no to a market. But I want to give the customers a chance to try it out first. They really have to try the new SMGIII first, we want to give them a possibility to try to it. We have started to think about it but not started any development on it."

More here

Click


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

As I understand it, the 7 speed will not allow a standard gear selector.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Yeah, it'll probably end up being a carryover 6sp. All the better to entice people to SMGIII with.

I still say SMG h8rs should actually drive a SMGII (NOT SSG!) car.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Kaz said:


> Yeah, it'll probably end up being a carryover 6sp. All the better to entice people to SMGIII with.
> 
> I still say SMG h8rs should actually drive a SMGII (NOT SSG!) car.


And I still say that I have driven one (two, actually), and that I continue to have zero interest in the concept. I've said it before and I will say it again--if I am not going to clutch for myself, I'd rather have a torque converter for a street car. Works better, and probably lasts longer.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

JST said:


> And I still say that I have driven one (two, actually), and that I continue to have zero interest in the concept. I've said it before and I will say it again--if I am not going to clutch for myself, I'd rather have a torque converter for a street car. Works better, and probably lasts longer.


yeah, that's what nick said too


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

atyclb said:


> yeah, that's what nick said too


I would never, ever change my mind about something car related. For example, I would never spend months trashing the E46 M3 and then buy one. Wouldn't happen.

I will admit that the reviews of the M5 are compelling enough that I am at least mildly intrigued, but the price point is so high I don't think it will ever seriously tempt me. Moreover, on this point I think I am firm--I just don't see the value proposition in SMG, and like I said above, if I were to give up clutching there are any number of very nice torque converter equipped cars I'd buy first.


----------



## webguy330i (Jan 9, 2002)

Holy crap look at that guy's history, he really moved up the ranks.


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

JST said:


> I would never, ever change my mind about something car related. For example, I would never spend months trashing the E46 M3 and then buy one. Wouldn't happen.


JST,

But you did do it, didn't you? :dunno:

As far as the torque converter goes, how can it be better than a sequential box?!?

Don't get me wrong, given the choice, I'd always go for manual as well, but between auto and sequential, I'd go for sequential in a heartbeat...


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

JST,

All your absolutes...



> I would never, ever change my mind about something car related.


How much time have you actually spent with SMGII? I would suggest you've only spent enough to be confused and haven't found the true feel you can develop for SMG.

A torque converter over SMG? Wow, don't see that... Your hatred for the SMG concept must run deep. What are your qualifications to say the TC will outlast the computer controlled clutch. There have been statements that the precision of the computer will extend the life of the driveline beyond that of the manually controlled clutch.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

ALEX325i said:


> JST,
> 
> But you did do it, didn't you? :dunno:


Yeah, sarcasm doesn't come across well on the screen. I was making a joke at my own expense. At this point, I can't ever imagine buying an SMG, but who knows how my attitudes/situation will change in the future?



> As far as the torque converter goes, how can it be better than a sequential box?!?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, given the choice, I'd always go for manual as well, but between auto and sequential, I'd go for sequential in a heartbeat...


A torque converter is better than a sequential box in that, to my mind, it is a better and more elegant solution for coupling the engine power to the wheels on a street car. There's none of the lurching, none of the hesitation that comes in slow-speed situations, and none of the problems with things like parallel parking on a hill that can still catch the electronic brain of an SMG out.

Modern slushies can be programmed to shift very quickly, and with enough power the extra parasitic losses are nearly inconsequential. From every review I've read, the manual shift porgram in the ZF auto box in the DB9 makes an SMG superfluous, it works better in auto mode, and you don't have to worry about changing the clutch.

Of course, in racing, where every iota of power and shift speed counts, an SMG makes sense. But for a street car, I maintain that if you are not going to clutch, you might as well slush.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

JST said:


> Of course, in racing, where every iota of power and shift speed counts, an SMG makes sense. But for a street car, I maintain that if you are not going to clutch, you might as well slush.


I think that's the point. A slushie lowers drivetrain efficiency, and ruins fuel economy and emissions. The car is bad enough as it is - I don't think it needs to be any worse. And can you think of an automatic transmission able to handle 8,600 rpm shifts?


----------

