# BMW To Offer A 6-speed Manual For Us Market!



## KevinM (May 2, 2003)

An official from BMW NA anounced this on the M5board.com web site...check it out

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=504099&postcount=77


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Not to flame, but... I'd be pretty skeptical, given that this is a single source with no substantiation other than he/she saying "I'm with BMWNA."


----------



## KevinM (May 2, 2003)

I understand your concern...but check out the web site under the E60 forum; this is a very knowledgeable group of E60 M5 fanatics and after having reviewed all the info there, I think it might be real.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

KevinM said:


> An official from BMW NA anounced this on the M5board.com web site...check it out
> 
> http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=504099&postcount=77


Why would I want a weaker tranny not as suited for the engine as the 7 speed designed specifically for it? 

They made it in only SMG because the shoft pattern designed to cope with the engine power was not humanly shiftable, so why would I want a regular H gate with a completely messed up gear ratio? :dunno:

It used to be that people buy stick shift for performance, but now they are just being stubborn when the 7 speed performs better. And spare me the manly man self shifting crap, if you can't heel and toe, you can't really drive stick. 

Lastly, both my cars are stick, but that's only because a good SMG version of the tranny was not available.


----------



## beewang (Dec 18, 2001)

:stupid: 

Stick Sucks!! SMG rules!! :thumbup:


----------



## zcasavant (Jun 26, 2002)

Stuka said:


> Why would I want a weaker tranny not as suited for the engine as the 7 speed designed specifically for it?
> 
> They made it in only SMG because the shoft pattern designed to cope with the engine power was not humanly shiftable, so why would I want a regular H gate with a completely messed up gear ratio? :dunno:
> 
> ...


I don't care if the SMG performs better or administers blowjobs. I prefer shifting by myself.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

zcasavant said:


> I don't care if the SMG performs better or administers blowjobs. I prefer shifting by myself.


The power blowjob option is delayed availability. SOP 9/05


----------



## SONET (Mar 1, 2002)

Stuka said:


> It used to be that people buy stick shift for performance, but now they are just being stubborn when the 7 speed performs better. And spare me the manly man self shifting crap, if you can't heel and toe, you can't really drive stick.


I think you're only looking at this from one angle. I realize that even the worst SMG system can shift substantially faster than I can. But that's not an issue for me - I'm not planning on entering any timed competitions anytime soon. MT is just more fun in my opinion and I won't buy anything else until there is no other option.

And your gear ratio argument doesn't make much sense IMHO.

--SONET


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

zcasavant said:


> I don't care if the SMG performs better or administers blowjobs. I prefer shifting by myself.


:stupid:

But the interior of the M5 would probably keep me away even if I did have that kind of bank for a car. IMO, the abandoning of the driver-oriented cockpit is the single worst element of the new BMW design direction.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

SONET said:


> I think you're only looking at this from one angle. I realize that even the worst SMG system can shift substantially faster than I can. But that's not an issue for me - I'm not planning on entering any timed competitions anytime soon. MT is just more fun in my opinion and I won't buy anything else until there is no other option.
> 
> And your gear ratio argument doesn't make much sense IMHO.
> 
> --SONET


The major thing that I have against MT for the M5 is that are they really going to spend all that money to redo the bracing so that they can have a humanly shiftable pattern? Whereas the SMG has a messed up pattern designed to strengthen the 1st and 2nd for the extra load that the 500HP engine has for it. :thumbdwn:

When the car was designed that way from the start, you can't tell me that the after thought 6 speed MT is not going to suck in comparison. That and the fact that the gear ratio will be totally different on it than the 7 speed. But hey, most 'merican drivers don't drive their M5's at speed anyway.


----------



## Kewl X5 (Apr 6, 2002)

KevinM said:


> An official from BMW NA anounced this on the M5board.com web site...check it out
> 
> http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=504099&postcount=77


My take on this is that if you truly wanted a sports car, get a 911 or M3 or ZO6. But I glad that they offer a 6-speed. I hope BMW doesn't pull this SMG-only stuff on the next M3.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Kewl X5 said:


> My take on this is that if you truly wanted a sports car, get a 911 or M3 or ZO6. But I glad that they offer a 6-speed. I hope BMW doesn't pull this SMG-only stuff on the next M3.


I don't have any official information yet, but I would be willing to bet that all future M offering will be SMG only.


----------



## jetstream23 (Mar 9, 2004)

philippek said:


> I don't have any official information yet, but I would be willing to bet that all future M offering will be SMG only.


I'd agree, 5 years from now it will just seem like natural evolution.

Funny how you don't hear people saying, "Can't I get a non-power steering car. I liked leaning into the wheel and turning hard."

It's evolution.....like the cassette tape to the CD.


----------



## SONET (Mar 1, 2002)

jetstream23 said:


> Funny how you don't hear people saying, "Can't I get a non-power steering car. I liked leaning into the wheel and turning hard."


----------



## cwsqbm (Aug 4, 2004)

jetstream23 said:


> I'd agree, 5 years from now it will just seem like natural evolution.
> 
> Funny how you don't hear people saying, "Can't I get a non-power steering car. I liked leaning into the wheel and turning hard."
> 
> It's evolution.....like the cassette tape to the CD.


Let's not forget power brakes (remember people complaining they didn't feel right?)


----------



## KevinM (May 2, 2003)

Whether you like or hate SMG I think it is great that BMW seems to be offering a true manual transmission in the E60 M5 for a variety of reasons (and I am not in the market at all for this car, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is I just got my E39 M5  ).

1. It shows that BMW NA and BMW are actually listening to their customers which I take as a good thing.

2. No matter what your opinion of SMG or true manual transmissions are, it's great to have a choice. The SMG and stick crowd needn't bash each other over their opinions; each has its own merits. When one is shelling out $85K or so for a car, I think they should have the transmission they want regardless of ultimate performance, etc. Personal enjoyment, no matter how you define it, is part of the picture too.

3. I agree that true manual (and yes I realize that SMG is a manual transmission with an electronic clutch) will soon be a thing of the past...so I think it is great that some current modern sports cars and sedans still offer them. Perhaps it will add to their luster as time passes, at least for some of us.

In the end, if the 6-speed option is actually offered, the BMW community wins!


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

philippek said:


> I don't have any official information yet, but I would be willing to bet that all future M offering will be SMG only.


The next M3 will probably weigh in at somewhere around 3600-3700lbs anyway, so the SMG only thing doesn't really bother me. I won't be buying any of their current or future generation land barges anyway.

If I wanted a 3700lb, 400bhp "sports sedan," I would have bought an Audi.

Good bye, BMW. It's been nice knowing you.


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

zcasavant said:


> I don't care if the SMG performs better or administers blowjobs. I prefer shifting by myself.


 :beerchug: :thumbs: :clap:


----------



## dawgbone (Nov 19, 2004)

philippek said:


> I don't have any official information yet, but I would be willing to bet that all future M offering will be SMG only.


Good!!! There goes drag racing :tsk: I guess we could all put our SMG's into launch mode, and let our dogs steer it down the track...That way you and me could drink our beers, and cheer Toto on!!! Go Toto Go!!!

I *almost* hate drag racing anyways!!!

Ultimate Driving Machine should stay as such...Not Ultimate Computerized Driving Machine....Give us an option!!! I'll stick with the vintage MT


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

SoloII///M said:


> The next M3 will probably weigh in at somewhere around 3600-3700lbs anyway, so the SMG only thing doesn't really bother me.


Which crystal ball did you use for that bold prediction? The E60 M5 comes in at 4050 lbs, which is 24 pounds heavier than the E39 it replaces. This, despite being bigger in just about every dimension.

BMW has publicly stated that their future will bring more innovations in lighter materials and weight-saving design. Witness the use of CF in the M3CSL and the M6, and the liberal use of aluminum in the E60 and E90, and you see their design direction. Contrast this to other car manufacturers who answer the weight issue by strapping on a supercharger or multiple turbochargers to their engines.

I would be willing to bet that the E90 M3 coupe will weigh no more than 3500 lbs, compared to the 3415 for the current model. No, it won't be an Elise, but it certainly won't be an Audi either.


----------



## SteveT (Dec 22, 2001)

Check out Alex Baumann's thread regarding the typo on the M5 website for more discussion on the topic.

Typo Thread


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

philippek said:


> I would be willing to bet that the E90 M3 coupe will weigh no more than 3500 lbs, compared to the 3415 for the current model. No, it won't be an Elise, but it certainly won't be an Audi either.


The M6 is 3,600 lb (DIN, unladen) now. I wouldn't think a new M3 would weigh *more* than that. Here's a quick-and-dirty estimate for the weight of the M3, using relative weights of the M6 and 645Ci:

(M6 / 645Ci) 1,635 / 1,615 = 1.0124

1.0124 x kerb weight of 330i = 1.0124 x 1,445 = 1,463 kg

= 3,226 lb

Note: these weight are without the customary 75 kg added on for EU-style measurements.

3,226 lb - or 3,391 kg (DIN, EU) - sounds OK to me.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

andy_thomas said:


> The M6 is 3,600 lb (DIN, unladen) now. I wouldn't think a new M3 would weigh *more* than that. Here's a quick-and-dirty estimate for the weight of the M3, using relative weights of the M6 and 645Ci:
> 
> (M6 / 645Ci) 1,635 / 1,615 = 1.0124
> 
> ...


How did the M6 become 3600 pounds? 

BMW quoted as saying 3.5Kg/HP

507HP X 3.5Kg/HP = 1774.5Kg

1774.5Kg/0.454lbs/Kg = 3908 Pounds

Where did the 3 hundred and 8 pounds go? :dunno:


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Stuka said:


> Where did the 2 hundred and 8 pounds go? :dunno:


South Beach diet.


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

philippek said:


> South Beach diet.


 :rofl:


----------



## e46supra (Jan 13, 2003)

He said unladen weight, completely empty.

Curb weight meaning fluids, fuel and maybe even a driver (I've heard this to be true).

The E39 M5 weighs around 3750lbs when unladen, 4000lbs curb weight.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

Stuka said:


> How did the M6 become 3600 pounds?
> 
> BMW quoted as saying 3.5Kg/HP
> 
> ...


One press release quotes a kerb weight of 1,710 kg (DIN) (EU). This includes a nominal 75 kg for driver and a full tank of fuel. I removed this to make the comparisons easier.

1,635 * 2.205 = 3,605 lb.

I have no idea where the 3.5kg/HP comes from - I have never read a press release with that unit of measurement (it doesn't mean anything to anyone, and besides, mixes metric with SAE units).


----------

