# Auto Trans is Faster than Manual!!!



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

It looks like the manual transmission's last "advantage" over an automatic is now gone. 

Autoweek, February 20, 2006 "The all new Porsche 911 Turbo goes from 0 to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds with the five-speed automatic, and 3.7 seconds with the standard six-speed manual".

If Porsche has the ability to manufacture an automatic transmission (in a production vehicle) that yields a faster 0-60mph time than a manual, surely BMW (and other german manufacturers) cannot be far behind...

Now every soccer mom with a little cash will be able to accelerate faster than the best manual shifter driver. :rofl:


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

Shucks, that's been true since the '60s. MoPar Torqueflites and B&M Hydro-sticks were faster in the quarter-mile than manual trannys with the same engines and vehicle weights.

Now if a car maker could make an automatic trans that is as much *fun* to drive as a manual.....


----------



## wwb4 (Dec 29, 2005)

Bob Clevenger said:


> Shucks, that's been true since the '60s. MoPar Torqueflites and B&M Hydro-sticks were faster in the quarter-mile than manual trannys with the same engines and vehicle weights.
> 
> Now if a car maker could make an automatic trans that is as much *fun* to drive as a manual.....


You're right about that....the "fun" part is very important.


----------



## #5880 (Feb 11, 2006)

I know the rear ends in BMWs are geared different manual vs auto. Some manual guys swap their differential for the auto.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

pilotman said:


> It looks like the manual transmission's last "advantage" over an automatic is now gone.
> 
> Autoweek, February 20, 2006 "The all new Porsche 911 Turbo goes from 0 to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds with the five-speed automatic, and 3.7 seconds with the standard six-speed manual".


As far as German manufacturs were concerned, this happened 30 years ago at Mercedes-Benz. 'Course, that said more about the sheer undriveability of the manual-transmission car than the efficiency of the auto...


----------



## Fast Bob (Jun 4, 2004)

The "auto advantage" is even more pronounced in the 911 Turbo for 2 reasons:

(1)It`s ridiculously easy to launch a rear-engined, All-Wheel-Drive, 502 lb/ft of torque, auto trans car....
(2) The auto is more than likely geared high enough to reach 60 in first gear, while the stick model requires a 1-to-2 shift just before 60....

Regards,
Bob


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

pilotman said:


> It looks like the manual transmission's last "advantage" over an automatic is now gone.


Umm, no.

SMG will shift faster than both stick and step, but I don't want that either.

It's all about the feel, the control, and the fun.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

I also been noticing recently some of the new cars coming out have a better gas mileage with the automatic versus the manual version.


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

Jeff_DML said:


> I also been noticing recently some of the new cars coming out have a better gas mileage with the automatic versus the manual version.


Some? All. The lazy 1500 RPM shift points of the 6-speed Steptronic make all the difference. With the stick you're shifting at 3500-4500 RPM and with the SMG even higher.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

Malibubimmer said:


> Some? All. The lazy 1500 RPM shift points of the 6-speed Steptronic make all the difference. With the stick you're shifting at 3500-4500 RPM and with the SMG even higher.


I meant gas mileage rating. I can match those lazy shifts with my manual cars


----------



## Fast Bob (Jun 4, 2004)

Jeff_DML said:


> I meant gas mileage rating. I can match those lazy shifts with my manual cars


Yeah, but you don`t have a torque converter helping to motivate the car at those low RPMs....

Regards,
Bob


----------



## Jspeed (Dec 23, 2001)

I remember when the 996TT came out, the factory test driver claimed that he could lap a track faster in the Tiptronic than the manual. It's not surprising considering the power loss from the auto tranny's hydraulics is a small percentage of the engine's huge output. Being able to shift w/o lifting the throttle also means no need to spool up the turbo again after a shift.

Manual might be slower, but it's more fun and it's satisfying to master it. The same could be said for drifting.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

Jspeed said:


> I remember when the 996TT came out, the factory test driver claimed that he could lap a track faster in the Tiptronic than the manual. It's not surprising considering the power loss from the auto tranny's hydraulics is a small percentage of the engine's huge output. Being able to shift w/o lifting the throttle also means no need to spool up the turbo again after a shift.
> 
> Manual might be slower, but it's more fun and it's satisfying to master it. The same could be said for drifting.


Walter is the mouth piece of PAG. What is he supposed to say? That tippy magic tronic are for uncoordinated poseurs?

Guess what his personal car tranny is. I'll give you a hint, it aint tippy magic tronic.:thumbup:


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

pilotman said:


> It looks like the manual transmission's last "advantage" over an automatic is now gone.
> 
> Autoweek, February 20, 2006 "The all new Porsche 911 Turbo goes from 0 to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds with the five-speed automatic, and 3.7 seconds with the standard six-speed manual".
> 
> ...


Too bad it's still just a slushbox setup for the poseurs who are not cooordinated enough to drive a real gearbox.

It still doesn't rev match. It still doesn't allow you to go from 6th to 3rd (within reason) instantaneously if you know how to properly rev match. It sure is good at magically transforming poseurs into someone who can drive a sports car.:rofl:


----------



## Malibubimmer (Sep 28, 2005)

Jeff_DML said:


> I meant gas mileage rating. I can match those lazy shifts with my manual cars


So did I. :doh: The gas mileage is up _because of _the lazy shifts.


----------



## wwb4 (Dec 29, 2005)

pilotman said:


> It looks like the manual transmission's last "advantage" over an automatic is now gone.
> 
> Autoweek, February 20, 2006 "The all new Porsche 911 Turbo goes from 0 to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds with the five-speed automatic, and 3.7 seconds with the standard six-speed manual".
> 
> ...


I remember reading that same thing in this month's "Automobile".


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

Stuka said:


> Too bad it's still just a slushbox setup for the poseurs who are not cooordinated enough to drive a real gearbox.
> 
> It still doesn't rev match. It still doesn't allow you to go from 6th to 3rd (within reason) instantaneously if you know how to properly rev match. It sure is good at magically transforming poseurs into someone who can drive a sports car.:rofl:


I don't think your assessment is accurate. I think we are seeing the beginning of a trend here, i.e. moving from manuals to automatics. I have a manual BMW and I love it, but I hate it in traffic.

Most BMW's sold in the US are automatics, nearly every one in fact. Of the rows and rows of BMW's on dealer lots, I usually see one or two that are sticks.

I love it how all you guys on the message boards who drive manuals say how great they are because they are significantly faster (see the posts regarding how "slow" the step is and why would you ever buy a BMW with a step, ZHP is sooo much faster).

Well, now you change your story and say we don't like manuals because they're faster, we just like them because they're more fun.

this logic is hypocritcal. One reason most people like manuals is because they are almost always faster (acceleration wise) than their automatic counterparts, why deny that? I can kill a step every time, by about a second which is a lot.

But I don't think that is going to be true much longer, and as another poster noted, the fuel economy of automatics is quickly approaching (or exceeding) that of the manual.

Other than "its more fun to drive" I no longer see the advantage...


----------



## Vroom (Feb 21, 2006)

Stuka said:


> Too bad it's still just a slushbox setup for the poseurs who are not cooordinated enough to drive a real gearbox.
> 
> It still doesn't rev match. It still doesn't allow you to go from 6th to 3rd (within reason) instantaneously if you know how to properly rev match. It sure is good at magically transforming poseurs into someone who can drive a sports car.:rofl:


Gimme a break. :jack: This is the type of mentality that leads non-BMW afficianados to generalize that BMW owners are jerks. If you need the exercise and can't make it to the gym, great for you, you get to workout your left arm and leg more than an auto trans driver. If you are turned on by turn of the 20th century technology, by all means, knock yourself out and play with a stick. SMG (or DSG) and auto are the future and are great alternatives to ancient technology that has no place on the crowded roads of modern countries.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

Vroom said:


> Gimme a break. :jack: This is the type of mentality that leads non-BMW afficianados to generalize that BMW owners are jerks. If you need the exercise and can't make it to the gym, great for you, you get to workout your left arm and leg more than an auto trans driver. If you are turned on by turn of the 20th century technology, by all means, knock yourself out and play with a stick. SMG (or DSG) and auto are the future and are great alternatives to ancient technology that has no place on the crowded roads of modern countries.


Hey Vroom :jack:... Stuka drives a Porsche.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

I could care less if a auto tranny is faster than manual, for me a manual is alot more fun to drive, plus I love the higher rpms you can get with a manual over a auto.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

pilotman said:


> Now every soccer mom with a little cash will be able to accelerate faster than the best manual shifter driver. :rofl:


And what is up with some guy with 13 posts coming on the board and trolling the manual owners on this board. :thumbdwn:


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

Artslinger said:


> And what is up with some guy with 13 posts coming on the board and trolling the manual owners on this board. :thumbdwn:


i have been posting on this board for years, i just switched accounts.

and *I am* a manual BMW driver, have been for over 10 years. So i'm not trolling big time, just making a point.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

pilotman said:


> i have been posting on this board for years, i just switched accounts.
> 
> and *I am* a manual BMW driver, have been for over 10 years. So i'm not trolling big time, just making a point.


What was your old user name?


----------



## #5880 (Feb 11, 2006)

Hasn't racing shown the future is paddles?

I love stick too, everytime I get a loaner I ask for it. A toy for the weekends, stick. But I put on 25k mi a year, and a third of that is Chicago bumper to bumper. That's the reality of most car owners now, even in da Fatherland.


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

Auto trannys have had quite good performance overall for many years. They have also enjoyed better gas mileage overall for at last the last 10 years.

When using manuals, most people tend to use more gas then required resulting in less then optimal fuel consumption. The manual should get better mileage than an auto but it rarely does anymore.

A lot of the performance numbers have to do with the engine/drive train along with the technology in the more modern tranny's.

If you look at the BMW specs, the more powerful engines bring the manual and auto tranny's to pretty much the same numbers.

Difference in 0-60 times between BMW engines with manual/SMG/auto

Any BMW with a V8 - .1 second
Most BMWs with 6 cylinder - .2 seconds
X3 6 cylinder - .3 seconds

I suspect if they built an M5 or M6 with an auto it would be just as fast either way.


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

Artslinger said:


> What was your old user name?


Moderato, Sarafil, what's the difference? :dunno:

my point is many manual drivers (not just those limited to this board, read every popular auto mag which all universally say great car, but it would be quicker with the manual...) have said for a very long time that "slushboxes suck" because they "rob power" and are slow.

I think we're pretty close to getting automatic transmissions (in cars most people can afford) that will compete (or better) manual acceleration. It takes the skill out of driving.

Unless you're dealing with a significantly underpowered vehicle like the new BMW 320 si, which a manual would definitely be more beneficial.

Designed to comply with FIA homologation regulations, only 500 BMW 320si's are destined for the UK out of 2,600 cars worldwide. All feature a hand-built four-cylinder engine made at BMW's engine plant at Hams Hall, near Coventry. The high revving 2.0-litre unit delivers 173bhp at 7,000rpm before red-lining at 7,300rpm and 147lb-ft of torque at 4,250rpm.


----------



## lil' poppa (Oct 27, 2004)

pilotman said:


> Other than "its more fun to drive" I no longer see the advantage...


I'll settle for that advantage. :thumbup:


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

pilotman said:


> It looks like the manual transmission's last "advantage" over an automatic is now gone.
> 
> Autoweek, February 20, 2006 "The all new Porsche 911 Turbo goes from 0 to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds with the five-speed automatic, and 3.7 seconds with the standard six-speed manual".
> 
> ...


The fact that a manual is faster than its auto sibling baffles the mind. In this day and age, with computers, advanced engineering, etc. there is no reason why a manual should ever be faster than an auto.

I think the auto industry is more focused on fuel consumption and shift comfort. Porcshe obviously decided to spend a little cash on the auto tranny development. To me this is a no brainer. Humans will never be faster than computers.


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

Difference in 0-60 times between BMW engines with manual/SMG/auto

Any BMW with a V8 - .1 second
Most BMWs with 6 cylinder - .2 seconds
X3 6 cylinder - .3 seconds

I suspect if they built an M5 or M6 with an auto it would be just as fast either way.[/QUOTE]

325i performance data according to BMWUSA.com:

Acceleration 0-60 mph - Manual transmission 6.7 sec

Acceleration 0-60 mph - Automatic transmission 7.2 sec


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

pilotman said:


> Difference in 0-60 times between BMW engines with manual/SMG/auto
> 
> Any BMW with a V8 - .1 second
> Most BMWs with 6 cylinder - .2 seconds
> ...


325i performance data according to BMWUSA.com:

Acceleration 0-60 mph - Manual transmission 6.7 sec

Acceleration 0-60 mph - Automatic transmission 7.2 sec[/quote]

Yeah that is why I said "most". The slower cars like the X3, and 325 have a wider delta. But you are not going to win any races with either one anyway. :dunno:


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

pilotman said:


> Moderato, Sarafil, what's the difference? :dunno:
> 
> my point is many manual drivers (not just those limited to this board, read every popular auto mag which all universally say great car, but it would be quicker with the manual...) have said for a very long time that "slushboxes suck" because they "rob power" and are slow.


Er, I have driven autos on the track, and it sucks in every sense of the word.:thumbdwn:

You are never in the right gear, you have to work around the slushie POS. The car should do what it tells you to, not what the slushie seels like doing. And tippy magic tronic is just that, fancy automatic. It is not SMG, but then, the demographic that they are after will not want SMG because it isn't "smooth enough for the boulevard cruise.":rofl:

You have no control, and that's what sucks. Yes, I know some people have slushies on his track car, but he spent a good amount of $$ getting the tranny software done so that it will stay in gear (geeze, staying in gear like it's supposed to, what a novel concept) at redline. No automatic does that, they all upshift for you from the factory, and that is stupid.:thumbdwn:


----------



## bluemagic (Dec 5, 2005)

I prefer the manual because my driving habits tend to be a little hard on auto trannys. I like to take off the line a little faster than most auto trannys expect so they dont shift at the right times and I dont get the speed or power I want. I just get high revs and a clunk as the tranny finaly engages. Over the long run its fairly bad for it.


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

bluemagic said:


> I prefer the manual because my driving habits tend to be a little hard on auto trannys. I like to take off the line a little faster than most auto trannys expect so they dont shift at the right times and I dont get the speed or power I want. I just get high revs and a clunk as the tranny finaly engages. Over the long run its fairly bad for it.


Auto's will be driven harder with under powered cars just to get them moving. When you don't have a lot or HP, the manual helps compensate.

On higher HP cars, it is not an issue.

That is why the 330 is a good way to good if you want an auto.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

pilotman said:


> Moderato, Sarafil, what's the difference? :dunno:


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

Vroom said:


> Gimme a break. :jack: This is the type of mentality that leads non-BMW afficianados to generalize that BMW owners are jerks. If you need the exercise and can't make it to the gym, great for you, you get to workout your left arm and leg more than an auto trans driver. If you are turned on by turn of the 20th century technology, by all means, knock yourself out and play with a stick. SMG (or DSG) and auto are the future and are great alternatives to ancient technology that has no place on the crowded roads of modern countries.


I agree, and if you are not such a noobie, then you'll know that I had an E46 M3 with SMG. But you know what? As someone who has a BMW and a Porsche, you don't know what you are talking about. And read the TOU lately?

The PDK is only going to installed on the 997 GT3RS. That sorry piece of junk called tippy magic tronic is nothing but a fancy automatic slushie that robs power and does its own thing instead of you telling you which gear that YOU want to be in.:thumbdwn:

Slushies will never be in the future for true performance cars, it is in cars for poseurs who want a car that appears sporty without having to "suffer" if you will, it's requirements. It is unfortunate that Porsche stuck a slushie in its Turbo, making it poseur friendly. But no matter, I am looking to get a GT2/3, they come with manual only and no traction control.

Oh, and why don't you try driving on the track for a change becuase spouting out this non sense about something that you don't understand? Ever driven a slushie on the track?:dunno::rofl:


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

chuck92103 said:


> Auto's will be driven harder with under powered cars just to get them moving. When you don't have a lot or HP, the manual helps compensate.
> 
> On higher HP cars, it is not an issue.
> 
> That is why the 330 is a good way to good if you want an auto.


You still can't hold the car in 3rd around redline and tell it not to shift. That's what sucks about slushies.:thumbdwn:

Not to mention you can't be in any gear at any time of your own choosing (within reason) because the computer does it for you. And I love how people loves to sneak SMG in the agrument. SMG aint no slushie, not by a long shot. And that's why you have all those whiners crying about how their SMG sucks because it is not smooth like the step. :rofl:


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

I have to laugh when I hear the word "track". 

We are talking about cars built for the masses. Not cars people will be tracking. 

Is a manual at a track a good thing? Yes. But a lot of other mods are needed to achieve good performance. 

For most of you the track is the interstate stuck in traffic like everyone else.:tsk:


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

chuck92103 said:


> I have to laugh when I hear the word "track".
> 
> We are talking about cars built for the masses. Not cars people will be tracking.
> 
> ...


A stock BMW does very well at the track. My E46 M3 was all stock and it did just fine. My E30 is all stock except bushing that I put in because I am a cheap arse and don't want to keep changing them. The E30 rolls like a boat, yet I still managed to pass E46 M3 in it on the track.:dunno:

I drive my BMW and Porsche in traffic everyday, and for us manual drivers, it aint no big thing. You know why? Because it becomes second nature, yes, even the impossible act of rev matching is second nature.

You want to talk about the street? OK, on the freeway, I leave the car in 1st or second, and I time myself and leave just enough room so that I don't have to shift a whole lot. This also gives me the advantage of the great manual in gear acceleration, which even the lock up torque convertor can't match. That POS 997 Turbo with the tippy magic tronic being faster could very easily be because it only has 5 slousy gears, and a different rear end. They can play with all kinds of things to make the car get faster 0 to 60 acceleration, but that really doesn't mean jack. And there are way cheaper cars out there that can do better for the 125K that Porsche is charging.:thumbdwn:


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

People get so emotional when the facts speak for themselves and technology advances do not go in their favor.

What can you do. :dunno: 

Everybody thinks they are a professional race car driver. :tsk:


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Give me the best of both worlds, a SMG-like system that has a reasonable auto mode. Audi's dual-clutch system has a great reputation (never tried one myself).


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

chuck92103 said:


> I am talking about the new SMG found in current new cars. Not the one in the E46. A lot of changes since then. :thumbup:


The new SMG upshifts at redline in non-auto modes?


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

Plaz said:


> The new SMG upshifts at redline in non-auto modes?


No I believe the engine cuts out. Too many blown engine issues from amatures. BMW has no choice but to either cut the engine at redline or upshift. Pick your poision. The 6 series manual states it will deactivate the system.


----------



## whiskey.org (Sep 9, 2005)

chuck92103 said:


> I read the manual, your are correct, the SMG won't upshift, according to the manual it just deactivates itself after redlining for a few seconds , which I guess that to mean cuts the engine power.
> 
> You folks argue that autos suck. For arguments sake, ok.
> 
> ...


I think lots of us would prefer manual, even if it is slower

I would consider owning an SMG, DSG type car, as long as the manual mode was truly manual, and the gear changes were fast.

Automatics are getting better, much better than they were.... and SMG is a bit young and hasn't been really tested long enough for me to want one yet.

nothing better than manual so far yet though...


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

whiskey.org said:


> I think lots of us would prefer manual, even if it is slower
> 
> I would consider owning an SMG, DSG type car, as long as the manual mode was truly manual, and the gear changes were fast.
> 
> ...


i would choose one of those auto SMeG thingies if it cost the same as the regular manual, gets the same mileage as a regular manual and drops down a 3rd pedal at a push of a button for full control :angel:


----------



## motor_werke (Nov 15, 2005)

I own a 92 325 manual, and a 94 volvo 850 auto. I hate driving the 850, boring as all hell, but I needed a winter beater car so I don't salt up the 325 in the winter like I have in previous years. The 325 is a blast to drive! In fact, I look forward to every warm day that I can take it out. Is it the handeling? Of course. BUT! The real thing I miss is shifting. Working the gearbox is a great feeling, to have full control over the gear selection. Granted, with the newer "shiftable" auto's, you do get gear selection, but you only get to push or pull the lever back. It doesn't matter to me even if the auto is faster 0-60, launching off the line isnt as much fun as driving on the back roads. 

That brings me to my biggest complaint about driving an auto... when you are going down a gentle hill. Since the auto is always applying a little power, you gain momentum. In the Volvo, I find I am gently braking often, which is annoying. In the 325, I simply leave it in gear and take my foot off the gas so the car maintains a constant speed that I want. It's great. Engine breaking is wonderful, instead of tapping the breaks, just let up on the gas. Granted, I havn't driven newer auto's very much (only an e46 325xi for a few minutes).

Let's take a step even further back. In a manual, you are looking ahead to see curves or obstacles in the road. You can shift gears in advance knowing this. With an auto, the transmission doesn't "see" these things, and must compensate as you enter the turn. Of course, you can say "well, in the steptronic, I can do the same". However, I imaging that most people leave the car in "auto" mode most of the time anyways. 

To top it all off.... how can you not like blipping the throttle on a downshift in the manaul? The sound is intoxicating! :angel: 

Disclaimer: I also like SMG/DSG. I have driven it, and its great. Still not sure I could give up the third pedal just yet.

I have nothing against auto's, they are great for most people. If people buy auto's in their BMW, fine by me. I still prefer a manual, but to each his own. To me, once you make a car an automatic, it becomes more about the A->B than the joy of driving and understanding the inner workings of your car and driving dymanics such as when to shift.


----------



## Rob325_in_AZ (Oct 22, 2004)

pilotman said:


> Now every soccer mom with a little cash will be able to accelerate faster than the best manual shifter driver. :rofl:


Are there any manual transmission drivers here who chose their transmission for the sole purpose of beating soccer moms off the line in a drag race? :dunno:


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

motor_werke said:


> Let's take a step even further back. In a manual, you are looking ahead to see curves or obstacles in the road. You can shift gears in advance knowing this. With an auto, the transmission doesn't "see" these things, and must compensate as you enter the turn. Of course, you can saw "well, in the steptronic, I can do the same". However, I imaging that most people leave the car in "auto" mode most of the time anyways.
> 
> To top it all off.... how can you not like blipping the throttle on a downshift in the manaul? The sound is intoxicating! :angel:


:thumbup: down shifting, double clutching and blipping is 1/3 the fun of driving.


----------



## motor_werke (Nov 15, 2005)

HW said:


> :thumbup: down shifting, double clutching and blipping is 1/3 the fun of driving.


I don't double clutch.... but I think your math is a bit off ... its a LEAST 80% the fun of driving. The other 20% is the shifting itself  I get 0 pleasure from driving the Volvo. Granted, some of that is from mushy suspension, and the fact that FWD is horrible. But, all that said, it it was a manual, it would at least have some fun factor!


----------



## toshweir27 (Jan 4, 2002)

lao270 said:


> Hasn't racing shown the future is paddles?
> 
> I love stick too, everytime I get a loaner I ask for it. A toy for the weekends, stick. But I put on 25k mi a year, and a third of that is Chicago bumper to bumper. That's the reality of most car owners now, even in da Fatherland.


I too put on near 25k a year on my 6spd manual 330 in chicago. 90% of which is on the eisenhower expressway going between the city and the suburbs for work. I find that a manual is great in traffic. i'm not riding the brakes for 2 hours a day and i have much more control. i feel less in control with an automatic. i've been driving manuals in chicago traffic for 15 years.


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

motor_werke said:


> That brings me to my biggest complaint about driving an auto... when you are going down a gentle hill. Since the auto is always applying a little power, you gain momentum.


BMW's current autos downshift on inclines automatically (5/6/7 series, not sure about the 3) by sensing constant breaking so you in essence use the engine power to slow you down. The same as downshifting.

If you folks have not driven a new 2005 or newer BMW at length (auto, manual, or SMG) you do not know what you are missing. A lot of changes have gone into these 3/5/6/7 series cars.

Some of the comments on this thread lead me to believe some folks are not aware of the changes as people keep referring to "the way things were".


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

chuck92103 said:


> BMWs current autos downshift on inclines automatically by sensing constant breaking so you in essence use the engine power to slow you down. The same as downshifting.
> 
> If you folks have not driven a new 2005 or newer BMW at length (auto, manual, or SMG) you do not know what you are missing. A lot of changes have gone into these 3/5/6/7 series cars.
> 
> Some of the comments on this thread lead me to believe some folks are not aware of the changes as people keep referring to "the way things were".


sure but can these new systems look ahead and anticipate changes in the road. i can see a hill (up, down), curve (easy, medium, hairpin), exit ramp, on ramp and prep my gear, rpm, throttle and braking for it. that is part of the fun.


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

HW said:


> sure but can these new systems look ahead and anticipate changes in the road. i can see a hill (up, down), curve (easy, medium, hairpin), exit ramp, on ramp and prep my gear, rpm, throttle and braking for it. that is part of the fun.


There is no substitute for human intervention to forcast upcoming automobile maneuvers. What a human interprets is a necessary operation may be totally different for someone else much less a computer.

Whether or not this is an advantage really depends on the driver.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

chuck92103 said:


> Some of the comments on this thread lead me to believe some folks are not aware of the changes as people keep referring to *"the way things were"*.


will things really change that much for manual drivers in future cars? other than adding extra gates on the shifter? :dunno:


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

HW said:


> will things really change that much for manual drivers in future cars? other than adding extra gates on the shifter? :dunno:


You are seeing it now. More gears were added over the years, and technology like "hill holder" clutches. The next incarnation of the manual is SMG. The first SMG's were not all that great, but they get better with each interation.

As more people understand SMG and use it, the manual tranny will go bye bye.

Long term I can see one transmission. An SMG tranny so refined that it could function as an auto or manual and appease all buyers. Time will tell.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

chuck92103 said:


> You are seeing it now. More gears were added over the years, and technology like "hill holder" clutches. The next incarnation of the manual is SMG. The first SMG's were not all that great, but they get better with each interation.
> 
> As more people understand SMG and use it, the manual tranny will go bye bye.
> 
> Long term I can see one transmission. An SMG tranny so refined that it could function as an auto or manual and appease all buyers. Time will tell.


if you are talking $$$ cars, perhaps. most of these crowds tend to want the latest new fangled watchamacallits. but SMG will always be more expensive than say a regular slushbox and in addition to that a dry clutch that sees wear and tear like a regular manual. for those slushy users that aren't used to having to add the cost of a new clutch now and then that sucks .

to me, as the car ages, features of the car becomes less reliable and in the end, sometimes i wish those features aren't there anymore so i don't have to put more $$$ in to fixing it. and bmw's are known for having lots of electrical things that break down and become really $$$ to fix/replace.

like i said in an earlier post, an SMG that has a button that you can push and a third pedal pops out :thumbup: only then will SMG appease everyone (who's willing to shell out more for SMG).


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

chuck92103 said:


> Whether or not this is an advantage really depends on the driver.


manual / SMG / slushy will get you from A to B. :dunno: they all work. let's just agree on that. :thumbup:


----------



## motor_werke (Nov 15, 2005)

Just don't lump SMG in with the slush boxes... I think SMG is great! Granted, I've only spent a few minutes in an SMG e46 M3. However, I drove the Audi A3 with DSG and it was a blast to drive. With a 7 speed gearbox, I'd be happy to switch to the SMG/DSG, which of course is the only option since working a 7 speed gated manual would be a bit tough... I guess they figured that out, and the M5 will only be getting a 6 speed.


----------



## Rob325_in_AZ (Oct 22, 2004)

I don't care if someone's automatic is faster than my manual. I

don't care if 99% of the population drives automatic. 

As long as manual is still available at least as an option. Right now that would definitely be the deciding feature if two otherwise similar cars were available, but one didn't come with a stick. When they make SMG regularly available and it is the only option to a slush-box, then I guess that's what I'll have to buy.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

motor_werke said:


> Just don't lump SMG in with the slush boxes... I think SMG is great! Granted, I've only spent a few minutes in an SMG e46 M3. However, I drove the Audi A3 with DSG and it was a blast to drive. With a 7 speed gearbox, I'd be happy to switch to the SMG/DSG, which of course is the only option since working a 7 speed gated manual would be a bit tough... I guess they figured that out, and the M5 will only be getting a 6 speed.


i'm still not sure how the 7th gear fit's into the overall range. :dunno: i've always thought that manufacturers geared the ratios so that one can do upto 100km/h on 2nd gear to redline so that they can get the best 0-100 times for marketing purposes. so to me 6 seems like a good number. my 5 speed has the top gear ratio being 1:1 and i've always thought adding overdrive to that would be nice which would be the 6th gear. but where does the 7th fit in?


----------



## Rowag (Nov 12, 2004)

pilotman said:


> It looks like the manual transmission's last "advantage" over an automatic is now gone.
> 
> Autoweek, February 20, 2006 "The all new Porsche 911 Turbo goes from 0 to 60 mph in 3.4 seconds with the five-speed automatic, and 3.7 seconds with the standard six-speed manual".
> 
> If Porsche has the ability to manufacture an automatic transmission (in a production vehicle) that yields a faster 0-60mph time than a manual, surely BMW (and other german manufacturers) cannot be far behind...


:tsk: Um, has anybody ever considered the fact that the 0-60 in the auto is probably faster than the manual because there's probably no shift in the auto until after 60?

I'd bet $20 that there's a range where the manual is faster. Maybe 0-70, 0-80, 20-80, etc. Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if the trap speed of the manual's 1/4 mile was faster, despite having a slower 0-60.

Look, I love autos at times. When I was in college and in stop-and-go traffic all the time, I drove an auto and I was GLAD that I didn't have a stick. But for a car I know like the back of my hand in a city where I know where I'm going, I like to be in complete control of my gears. If you're threading through trafffic there are many times when you'll want to stay in 3rd around 4k (or whatever the meat of your powerband is) for an extended period of time. Autos simply don't know how or when to do that. :thumbdwn:

Manuals might die off to SMG. If so, works for me - that'll mean they've gotten them right. But for now, why would I go auto? Why would I want to:


get LESS gas mileage
have WORSE performance
add extra weight
add extra complexity
add extra fluids to worry about
...AND pay more?? :dunno:


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

digitaldragon03 said:


> Screw autos!
> Screw SMG! Thats for wussies!
> Screw synchronized manual cars too! Not enough control!
> ITS ALL ABOUT UN-SYNCHRONIZED MANUAL CARS!! Im a true driving enthusiast! My balls are bigger than yours too!!


I've driven an old vehicle with a crashbox (aka: non-syncromesh manual transmission) for a while (long ago) and while I can do it, I don't enjoy it.

I've driven vehicles with slushboxes (aka: automatic transmissions) and while I can do it, I don't enjoy it.

I've only driven a vehicle with SMG once and while I can do it, I don't enjoy it.

I've driven vehicles with synchromesh manual gearboxes most of my life and I enjoy it.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

http://kalecoauto.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=22

:angel:


----------



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

SpeedFreak! said:


> Nothing is as fast or as good as SMG. Specifically, the M version with Drive Logic. The dumbed down version is still better then a manual... but to slow for my personal taste.


um, better how exactly? because the SMG I drove absolutely SUCKED. Step is far better than SMG.

(regular SMG is what I'm talking about)


----------



## AzNMpower32 (Oct 23, 2005)

While we're on this topic of transmissions, what yields faster accel times with the automatic: Sport Drive or the manual Steptronic?


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

AzNMpower32 said:


> While we're on this topic of transmissions, what yields faster accel times with the automatic: Sport Drive or the manual Steptronic?


probably sport drive. they need to and prob have optimized it for marketing reasons


----------



## digitaldragon03 (Jul 9, 2005)

Artslinger said:


> Whoaaah take it easy... :rofl:


Its called satire.


Bob Clevenger said:


> I've driven an old vehicle with a crashbox (aka: non-syncromesh manual transmission) for a while (long ago) and while I can do it, I don't enjoy it.
> 
> I've driven vehicles with slushboxes (aka: automatic transmissions) and while I can do it, I don't enjoy it.
> 
> ...


This is not about whats most fun. Its about the fact that automatic and sequential manual transmissions are getting good enough to be faster than most people with a standard manual. These clutch-pedal-less transmissions are starting to be faster than most drivers are in their manual cars, even though it may not be the "purist" choice.


----------



## Rowag (Nov 12, 2004)

digitaldragon03 said:


> Its called satire.
> This is not about whats most fun. Its about the fact that automatic and sequential manual transmissions are getting good enough to be faster than most people with a standard manual. These clutch-pedal-less transmissions are starting to be faster than most drivers are in their manual cars, even though it may not be the "purist" choice.


Sheesh, by some of these posts you'd think Porsche is about to start racing an auto tranny. :rofl:

It's been pretty evident for a couple of years now that a *good* SMG setup is faster than a manual driver in virtually any condition. Most people I've seen that don't like them either (a) like the extra involvement of the clutch or (b) find the current generations of SMG lacking in the trouble-free, smoothness, and inexpensive categories.

I don't think, though, that we have yet to see a case where an auto tranny (not SMG - I'm talking about a true slushbox) is *overall* faster than a manual (or even *as* fast overall). What we've got is one instance where, in a fairly high end car with gobs of power, an auto happens to be faster *to 60*. That's it.

I still maintain that it's simply because there are fewer gears in the auto in this case, and as a result there is no shifting required to reach 60. The manual, on the other hand, requires a shift in this particular car, as it has more gears. Why did they add more gears? Because they can, because they've got more room without the slushy components taking up space. More gears = closer ratios = more power to the ground = faster performance OVERALL.

Show me quarter mile numbers and I might change my tune. :dunno:

Show me dyno numbers where an auto has less drivetrain loss than a manual and I might change my tune. :dunno:

All current published car specs - except for this one 911 - list manuals as being quicker to 60 than slushboxes. Quarter mile times are even more pronounced. Heck, auto 3 series have a 3.64 rear end or something crazy like that versus the manual @ ~3.0 and they're *still* slower in every regard. :tsk:

When a tranny comes along that:

has identical gearing to a manual (i.e. lots of gears)
has a clutch (torque converters simply drain too much power)
weighs approximately the same as a manual
allows you to choose your own gears and STAY there
costs about the same as a manual
can be as smooth as a manual
is as reliable as a manual

...then you'll have a true replacement for a manual, and I think most enthusiasts will be pleased (I know I will). SMG is getting there, but it still needs some work in the cost, reliability, and smoothness departments.

Again, this all isn't to say that slushboxes don't have their place. I drove one for years and it was the perfect choice for my life at the time. :dunno:


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Stuka said:


> Slushies will never be in the future for true performance cars, it is in cars for poseurs who want a car that appears sporty without having to "suffer" if you will, it's requirements.


Just like manuals will not be in the future for ANY cars.....

As someone else stated, it sure is interesting how everyone gets all worked up about this subject.

In the above post the term "suffer" was used very effectivly. I can't think of a better way to describe driving a "stick" manual in the realities of today's urban driving. There is no need to suffer this type of transmission today, there are better options and the options are improving quickly.

In real world driving the stick is on it's last leg, most don't want them and manufacturers are listening. The M5/M6, for the first time, were not initially offered in a manual. They were forced to come to the market with them by the vocal minority. As soon as BMW sees the sales figures on the manuals, that will be the last time they will buckle to that pressure I am sure.

On the track, if you want to be fastest, you won't be driving a stick.

Enjoy the manual transmission while you can. In the not so distant future, the technology created at the dawn of the automotive industry will be gone forever. Chalk up another one to technology!

I won't really miss them, I have moved on I think......I do however miss Pong every now and then!!


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

i was told we were all supposed to be driving around in hover cars by now :dunno: you're right, those won't have manual trannies.



MaxTimeOff said:


> Just like manuals will not be in the future for ANY cars.....
> 
> As someone else stated, it sure is interesting how everyone gets all worked up about this subject.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

digitaldragon03 said:


> Its called satire.
> This is not about whats most fun. Its about the fact that automatic and sequential manual transmissions are getting good enough to be faster than most people with a standard manual. These clutch-pedal-less transmissions are starting to be faster than most drivers are in their manual cars, even though it may not be the "purist" choice.


 Let's see, it's 2006 now, so automatic trannys have been faster in terms of pure accelleration over a 1/4-mile for about 40 years now. What's the big deal?


----------



## Rowag (Nov 12, 2004)

MaxTimeOff said:


> Just like manuals will not be in the future for ANY cars.....
> In real world driving the stick is on it's last leg, most don't want them and manufacturers are listening. The M5/M6, for the first time, were not initially offered in a manual.


Neither were they initially offered with a slushbox, and they still aren't.

You're right - manually-activated clutches and sticks will eventually die. That's a given.

But the fully-automatic slushbox isn't the answer that will replace it, because overall performance-wise it's crap in comparison.

That's why SMG exists. Sequential *Manual* Gearbox. Performance-wise, SMG kills manuals. It's the other areas where it falls short. SMG will get better and better, and eventually it will be the de-facto standard.

But when SMG matures, we'll still be shifting via paddles for performance. The only way *that* will change will be if CDV trannies become the way of the future - which I don't see happening any time soon.

We've definitely got some manual-owners here who have "high and mighty" syndrome. But we've also got some slushy owners who are using this thread to justify their technology as having killer performance when it frankly doesn't.


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Rowag said:


> Neither were they initially offered with a slushbox, and they still aren't.


My point was they are moving away from sticks leaving two alternatives for drivers, autos and electronic actuated manuals (EAM).



Rowag said:


> But the fully-automatic slushbox isn't the answer that will replace it, because overall performance-wise it's crap in comparison.


Depends on which driving environment you are talking about. For the road, I think it is well on it's way already. For the track EAM's all the way, if you want to be competitive that is. But there will always be the Monterey Classic races for us old farts!!



Rowag said:


> That's why SMG exists. Sequential *Manual* Gearbox. Performance-wise, SMG kills manuals. It's the other areas where it falls short. SMG will get better and better, and eventually it will be the de-facto standard.


Well, maybe not for the road.....by-by stick



Rowag said:


> We've definitely got some manual-owners here who have "high and mighty" syndrome.


See this all of the time. Times are changing, and people are generally resistent to change. This subject is a good example of that. I once started a thread stating that offering slushies in the M6 might be preferred by many over a manual, sort of like what AMG does. You would have thought that I was the anti-christ incarnate. It was actually sort of funny.



Rowag said:


> But we've also got some slushy owners who are using this thread to justify their technology as having killer performance when it frankly doesn't.


The only slushies that I can remember on this thread who claim better performance are the dragster guys, I could be wrong. I have no interest in drag racing, but if they are using slushies in top fuel drag racing, I can only assume that is the fastest technology with the best performance or they would use something else.


----------



## Fast Bob (Jun 4, 2004)

One situation where a stick will have an advantage is during inclement weather, where the stick driver can pick any gear, and slip the clutch to compensate for less than ideal road surfaces.

Regards,
Bob


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

MaxTimeOff said:


> ....The only slushies that I can remember on this thread who claim better performance are the dragster guys, I could be wrong. I have no interest in drag racing, but if they are using slushies in top fuel drag racing, I can only assume that is the fastest technology with the best performance or they would use something else.


Top Fuel dragsters do not use any transmission at all.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

MaxTimeOff said:


> In the above post the term "suffer" was used very effectivly. I can't think of a better way to describe driving a "stick" manual in the realities of today's urban driving. There is no need to suffer this type of transmission today, there are better options and the options are improving quickly.


Speak for yourself, I like driving a stick in the city... no suffering here.


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Artslinger said:


> Speak for yourself, I like driving a stick in the city... no suffering here.


I wouldn't dream of speaking on your behalf.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

MaxTimeOff said:


> I wouldn't dream of speaking on your behalf.


Good I'm glad we have that straightened out.


----------



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

Rowag said:


> That's why SMG exists. Sequential *Manual* Gearbox. Performance-wise, SMG kills manuals.


the "regular" SMG absolutely blows. Manual kills SMG performance-wise

SMGIII vs manual is still close...neither kills the other


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Artslinger said:


> Good I'm glad we have that straightened out.


I'll go ahead and let you have the last word. :thumbup:


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

MaxTimeOff said:


> I'll go ahead and let you have the last word. :thumbup:


Okay... now I have the last word. :thumbup:


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

OK, got the sticks --- now wha... OUCH, that hurts! 
Sounds like you have a nice stable there!


----------



## GJR (Jan 6, 2003)

Bob- you're a bigger man than some of the "usual suspects" on this forum. I guess some people feel the need to rip others apart for their choice of transmission, which is a bit juvenile if you ask me. Everyone has their reasons for their decisions, and I don't believe that choosing one over the other makes you more attentive, dedicated, or "enthusiastic" than the other.


----------



## TRWham (Aug 21, 2004)

Rowag said:


> Could you imagine a torque converter that can handle 1000+ hp? :rofl:...


No imagination required. See:

http://www.allisontransmission.com/documents/product/specs_SM9600.pdf

Is 1,250 HP and 3,700 lb-ft enough?


----------



## Rowag (Nov 12, 2004)

MaxTimeOff said:


> Rowag....every time I see your AVATAR it makes me laugh. I think it's funny as he!!. Good one I say!


Thanks! I figured I've spent so long with my sig being "Looking for a sig..." that I should do something about it. I could've put a pic up of the ZHP and Boxster, but I figured that wouldn't change anybody's life or be very unique. :dunno:

I'm hoping my current sig is pretty dang funny. I honestly laugh at it myself every now and then. Truly hilarious, clean humor is so rare in today's society so I figure if I make at least one person laugh it's worth it.


----------



## Rowag (Nov 12, 2004)

TRWham said:


> No imagination required. See:
> 
> http://www.allisontransmission.com/documents/product/specs_SM9600.pdf
> 
> Is 1,250 HP and 3,700 lb-ft enough?


Touche. I should have specified "on a top fuel dragster".


----------



## motor_werke (Nov 15, 2005)

chuck92103 said:


> This may be true. But also, in a manual, you will consistently rev the engine higher than an auto over the long term.


I don't really think that is a true statement. I was just in my friends 4 day old 325xi (06) and I was amazed at how far up the revs it was going. In "normal" mode it was reving to 4k in second gear. In "sport" I saw it in the high 4's. Keep in mind, this was still break-in too. I wasn't the driver, and I havnt driven it, but it seems the e90 auto's are very happy to rev high. I have to say, for an auto I was very impressed by how it held gears, as he navigated some twisty roads without upshifting, even when he lifted off the gas.

But, back to the rev'ing. I'm very gentle on my 92 325, since it has 180k, and I rarely take it north of 3 to 3.5k. Its all about the driver, and how aggressive and "lead-footed" they are. My winter beater, a Volvo, is an auto, and it tends not to rev more than 3.5 or so unless it is almost floored.


----------



## motor_werke (Nov 15, 2005)

Malibubimmer said:


> Here's the bottom line. The 3er twerps are insistent that unless you have a BMW outfitted exactly as theirs, you are a BMW poseur, an incompetent driver, and not an enthusiast. This goes not only for the transmission, but for the other things you may have on your car, too, that differs from theirs. Their car is ALL ABOUT THE RIDE.
> 
> None of these 3er twerps thinks of his car as a device to get him to and from work, or that he can/should listen to the radio or music in it, or that he should ever make a mobile phone call in it. It's all about the enthusiast's ride. That's it.


Please don't make blanket statements about 3er owners being lesser folk. I own a 3, and love it. My next BMW will likely be another 3 series, or the rare possibility of a z4. I prefer the 3 for the smaller size (though it is growing larger). I love manuals, I love my 5 speed 325, and I'm a passionate bimmer fanatic. I really enjoy the fancy gadgets, nav, etc, but I still preffer a manual (or an SMG). The auto's in the e90 are incredible by auto standards, but I like to select my own gears and use the clutch. I feel more involved. 0-60 numbers mean nothing to me, BMW's are well rounded cars with a great overall package. There are many smaller, lighter, and faster cars out there. Most of us buy a BMW for the whole package.

By calling 3 series owners twerps, its the same level as calling auto drivers posers. Discussions and different views are great, but hopefully we can refrain from generalizing people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning a 3 series, its a personal choice. And other posters calling auto drivers posers are just as bad.

For trasmissions, to each his own It's about enjoying your car, driving responsibly and safely. I do think driving enthusiasts should at least learn how a manual (and SMG) and auto work. Even better to experience both.


----------



## TeeKay (Mar 8, 2005)

*Bicycles anyone?*

This debate is not much different from the debate about gearings on bikes. The current shifter of choice now is the Shimano variety, where each click by your thumb or index finger will precisely shift the bike one gear up or down, respectively. It's on all bikes nows, recreational or racing. It produces perfect and fast shifts everytime. It's the SMG/sequential gearbox equivalent on cars.

Yet, some still prefer the feel of thumb-shifters, the kind where you can control and modulate the pressure on the shifter to achieve the correct gear. If you messed up, you would skip the chain and stall. Yet, on this system, you will have complete control over the gears. Also, you can "money-shift" by going through 6 or 7 gears in one thumb movement rather than going through the gears sequentially. This is your Manual equivalent on cars.

And then, if you watched enough infomercials, you would see appearance of a new system that would automatically shift your bike for you based on the terrain, pedal speeds, etc. Here's the Slushbox for your bikes.

Yet, you don't see much ink being spilled on arguing which shifting mechanism is better--not as much as when it comes to bikes. :dunno: Perhaps which shifting mechanism you use is not as important as how you use it?

Also, there's no car equivalent for my gearing of choice--singlespeed. :bawling: I'll tell you, if you want simplicity, control, suffering, being "pure," lightweight, durability, lack of complex parts that may break down, etc., Singlespeed is the way to go. :thumbup: Also, with the right gearing, you can use it for mountainbiking, even through the fabled Mt. Tam of SF Bay, where MTB was invented. And I can go faster with no gears than many friends with 24 or 27 gears.

I'd bet you would enjoy Mt. Tam just as much in any shifting systems, or no shifting at all. Likewise, I'd bet you would enjoy Pacific Coast Highway or any similarly winding road whether your're in a manual, SMG, or auto. It's the drive that is the essence of driving. :thumbup:

Now, if only they have a equivalent of singlespeed in cars.


----------



## E60orBust (Apr 12, 2005)

HW said:


> i would choose one of those auto SMeG thingies if it cost the same as the regular manual, gets the same mileage as a regular manual and drops down a 3rd pedal at a push of a button for full control :angel:


Stepping outside the argument of Auto/SMG/Manual. Why couldn't you have this? On some BMW models, the SMG is a no cost option, but think about it. The SMG clutch is electronically controlled. Wouldn't it be possible to install a momentary switch (linked to a third pedal) that cuts in on the clutch and manually opens it?

Third pedal down - you are controlling the "electronically controlled clutch"
Third pedal left alone - SMG software controls it.

I've seen people put a manual knob on their auto, stick M3 body kits on a coupe, so why not break in to the wiring diagram and over-ride the SMG electronic clutch. C'mon, with all the users on this board, there has got to be at least one electrical engineer


----------



## AzNMpower32 (Oct 23, 2005)

TeeKay said:


> Now, if only they have a equivalent of singlespeed in cars.


Uh no, not cool. My '96 Lexus ES had a broken solenoid (whatever that is) which rendered it almost undriveable. Basically, it only took one gear (3rd) no matter what. So starting off from a stop sign was painfully slow, and then going faster than 60 was kinda dumb. Kinda sorta felt like a CVT...........which brings up a point. If you dont like shifting, why don't you get a CVT? There's no shifting at all!


----------



## Jspeed (Dec 23, 2001)

E60orBust said:


> Stepping outside the argument of Auto/SMG/Manual. Why couldn't you have this? On some BMW models, the SMG is a no cost option, but think about it. The SMG clutch is electronically controlled. Wouldn't it be possible to install a momentary switch (linked to a third pedal) that cuts in on the clutch and manually opens it?
> 
> Third pedal down - you are controlling the "electronically controlled clutch"
> Third pedal left alone - SMG software controls it.
> ...


Theoretically, that's totally feasible. It's simply a "clutch-by-wire" design. You just have to figure out how to simulate the right amount of weight for the clutch pedal. The mounting of the clutch pedal could be connected to the transmission housing to get some vibration feedback. This would be perfect for launching the car and maneuvering the car at parking speeds.


----------



## E60orBust (Apr 12, 2005)

Jspeed said:


> Theoretically, that's totally feasible. It's simply a "clutch-by-wire" design. You just have to figure out how to simulate the right amount of weight for the clutch pedal. The mounting of the clutch pedal could be connected to the transmission housing to get some vibration feedback. This would be perfect for launching the car and maneuvering the car at parking speeds.


Any volunteers to rip apart their transmission and ECU? :thumbup: 
......

Don't look at me, I don't own an M3! Honest! :eeps:


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

Jspeed said:


> Theoretically, that's totally feasible. It's simply a "clutch-by-wire" design. You just have to figure out how to simulate the right amount of weight for the clutch pedal. The mounting of the clutch pedal could be connected to the transmission housing to get some vibration feedback.  This would be perfect for launching the car and maneuvering the car at parking speeds.


I think the most practical way would be to build it with the manual hydraulic actuator (slave cylinder, foot pedal, etc) in parallel with the computer-controlled actuator (probably using the same slave cylinder) and wire up the system so that when the foot pedal is depressed a slight amount or more (like the cruise control switch) the computer control is disconnected.

This would make for a true dual-mode clutch, but then you'd need some way to initiate gear changes when you _are_ using the foot pedal. Remember, the computer controls are disconnected at this point. You don't want to have the tranny do a shift when the clutch is only partly disengaged. Perhaps a switch that is operated when the clutch is fully depressed (like the starter interlock) could be used to signal for the next gear change.

Any thoughts?


----------



## ffej (Aug 17, 2005)

Bob Clevenger said:


> I think the most practical way would be to build it with the manual hydraulic actuator (slave cylinder, foot pedal, etc) in parallel with the computer-controlled actuator (probably using the same slave cylinder) and wire up the system so that when the foot pedal is depressed a slight amount or more (like the cruise control switch) the computer control is disconnected.
> 
> This would make for a true dual-mode clutch, but then you'd need some way to initiate gear changes when you _are_ using the foot pedal. Remember, the computer controls are disconnected at this point. You don't want to have the tranny do a shift when the clutch is only partly disengaged. Perhaps a switch that is operated when the clutch is fully depressed (like the starter interlock) could be used to signal for the next gear change.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Maybe just mount a spring/hydraulic loaded quasi-clutch pedal that doesn't really do *anything* except FEEL like a clutch pedal shoud? :eeps:


----------



## E60orBust (Apr 12, 2005)

ffej said:


> Maybe just mount a spring/hydraulic loaded quasi-clutch pedal that doesn't really do *anything* except FEEL like a clutch pedal shoud? :eeps:


So something that just makes your left foot feel like part of the group and not so left out?
Get a pedal mount and a squishy ball glued to the back of the third pedal for that effect.

This would be an interesting project to undertake. Maybe I should have posted it on fanatics too?


----------



## Fast Bob (Jun 4, 2004)

ffej said:


> Maybe just mount a spring/hydraulic loaded quasi-clutch pedal that doesn't really do *anything* except FEEL like a clutch pedal shoud? :eeps:


That would fall into the category of "manual transmasturbation", would`nt it?

Regards,
Bob


----------



## bill92 (Apr 3, 2005)

If BMW is the Ultimate Driving Machine.

and a Manual transmission is more fun to drive than a slushy.

Then I am having more fun in my Ultimate Drive Machine then someone with a slushy.

I'm glad BMW still gives me the choice.

Disclaimer:Wife's BMW has slushy, and she loves the way hers drives. She just doesn't know what she is missing!


----------



## chuck92103 (Oct 9, 2005)

bill92 said:


> Disclaimer:Wife's BMW has slushy, and she loves the way hers drives. She *just doesn't know what she is missing*!


Yes she does, she is just smart enough to know she does not need it. :rofl:


----------

