# How many want AutoTrans in M6?



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> Job? What job? I'm a member in the first place, then forum moderator. There's no guideline that moderators can't participate in discussions.
> 
> So keep me out of your auto tranmission fetish.
> 
> Carry on.


I never asked you into this discussion in the first place. So quit posting to it if you don't want to be included. Quite frankly, you haven't added anything of value anyway, so that might be best.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

MaxTimeOff said:


> I never asked you into this discussion in the first place. So quit posting to it if you don't want to be included. Quite frankly, you haven't added anything of value anyway, so that might be best.


Whenever you quote me in your posts, I'll be there.


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> Whenever you quote me in your posts, I'll be there.


Great! Then try to add value, and don't ask to be "kept out".


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

MaxTimeOff said:


> Great! Then try to add value, and don't ask to be "kept out".


I already added my value and voted on the polls. I have stated my opinion on the other thread, but you didn't like it.


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> I already added my value and voted on the polls. I have stated my opinion on the other thread, but you didn't like it.


With value added posts like these.......

Alex quote "I have lost all the interest in reading the rest of the thread after reading this."

AND

Alex quote "And I would expect better from you instead of a broad statement like "all you manual drivers suck, because it's not the best"."

Which was a complete misquote on your behalf as I never said that nor do I feel that way.

AND

Alex quote "Who are you to judge that manual transmissions are the worst choice. Don't give me an attitude, I didn't disrespect anyone. If you don't want to hear opinions, then don't post."

.....I think there should be no posts forthcoming from you on this subject/fetish.

Isn't it like 2:00 AM in Germany (assuming you're posting from Germany)? Shouldn't you go to bed before you really make a bigger fool of yourself?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

MaxTimeOff said:


> Shouldn't you go to bed before you really make a bigger fool of yourself?


Yes, but before going to the bed, I just want to add a final value and say that automatic trannies have no place in an ///M car.


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> Yes, but before going to the bed, I just want to add a final value and say that automatic trannies have no place in an ///M car.


Now that's probably the best comment you have made in this whole thread. While I disagree with you (in the case of the M6), I truly respect your opinion.


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

using traffic as an excuse for an auto tranny.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

MaxTimeOff said:


> Now that's probably the best comment you have made in this whole thread. While I disagree with you (in the case of the M6), I truly respect your opinion.


You can disagree until the next ice age, but it won't change the fact that the M division follows a different philosophy than their standard models.

Below are 2 interviews with Ulrich Bruhnke, President of BMW M-GmbH. Read and see what he's saying about the typical characteristics of an M car. For the american market there will be even a *manual transmission* option on the E60M5 soon, *read - a manual, not an automatic. *

Do you think that we are wiser than the company itself, which is producing cars to make money?

Anyway, here are the articles. Have fun reading them.

http://www.automobilemag.com/q_and_a/0503_ulrich_bruhnke/

http://carsguide.news.com.au/news/story_page/0,8269,15274165%5E21822,00.html

Do you know where Mr Bruhnke is coming from? If not, do a Google search.


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Matthew330Ci said:


> using traffic as an excuse for an auto tranny.


Excuse, what excuse? I don't even drive the freeways on a "commute" basis.

This post......

"The fact is, maybe someone wants the power/handling/prestige of the M6 but works 12 hours a day and on occasion wants to take the M6 to work and maybe just doesn't feel like shifting in commute traffic! Yea yea I know, SMG in auto mode may fit the bill, but that's not the point here. It's not like you're required to have in your posession a flame retardant suite, Sparco gloves and shoes, and a helmut before you are allowed to buy an M6!"

....was purly hypothetical, your mileage may vary  It was merely presented to highlight the fact that different people may have different needs, believe it or not!

And thankfully, I haven't worked a 12 hour day in a very long time....MaxTimeOff :thumbup: !!


----------



## Shinkaze (May 27, 2005)

Matthew330Ci said:


> using traffic as an excuse for an auto tranny.


It's all about sales, and SMG is a marketing ploy. If you look at cars like the Porsche 911, Corvette, etc you quickly see that a majority of their sales are automatics. BMW marketing isn't dumb and realized that by offering manual only they were missing a golden opportunity to grow sales. However after such freverent degredation of the Automatic transmission how could they justify the product that the market demanded?

SMG was an obvious solution to their dillema. It gave those that wanted an M car but wanted an Automatic a way of getting that transmission on a clear conscience. Look at M3 sales now and a majority are SMG equiped. Good move for BMW, they now have an automatic solution to meet market demand that is "true to ther philosophy".

Now I've seen the argument that "SMG" is a trickle down from Formula 1 technology. ....maybe in concept only but not in terms of actual tech, the SMGII tranny used in the M3 bares no commonality with the F1 gearboxand has more in common with a Muncie 4-speed found in a 1970 Chevy Nova than it does with the F1 tranny.

Whether you like the SMG solution is a matter of taste. For me it's the fun of an automatic combined with the Hassel of a manual so it's really the worst of both worlds. Were I to want an automatic gear shifting solution, I'd take an automatic over an SMG. Maybe the technology will be better on the new M5/M6, but if it feels the same as the SMGII in the M3, then it's not going to be for me.

Saying SMG is a marketing ploy will offend many folks here I'm sure, but take one look at the name and you can that is the case. SMG stands for Sequential Manual Gearbox. The SMGII on the M3 isn't Sequential, it's a "mechanical automation system" that fits on a standard non-sequential ZF 6-speed. The Tranny in my CBR-600RR is Sequential, the M3's isn't. (or more precisely it's a non-sequential tranny that has been forced into sequential gear selection only).

-Adam


----------



## Shinkaze (May 27, 2005)

Alex Baumann said:


> You can disagree until the next ice age, but it won't change the fact that the M division follows a different philosophy than their standard models.


I find it hard to argue the "sporting purity" of a car that weighs nearly 4,000 lbs.

-Adam


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Shinkaze said:


> BMW marketing isn't dumb and realized that by offering manual only they were missing a golden opportunity to grow sales. However after such freverent degredation of the Automatic transmission how could they justify the product that the market demanded?
> 
> -Adam


Come on Adam, you can read the posts. BMW doesn't want to sell more ///M's, they sell out all they can build so why would they want to offer a transmission in an M6 that would have a much larger market appeal?? :rofl: The BMW M group should only build ///M cars with manual transmissions. Afterall, we have MB AMG that can build cars for everyone else!!! By a Vette or a Continental GT if you want anything but a manual transmission, or better yet, put a M6 badge on the Hyundai, only enthusiasts will know :rofl: :rofl:

Spoken like a true automotive CEO.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Shinkaze said:


> I find it hard to argue the "sporting purity" of a car that weighs nearly 4,000 lbs.
> 
> -Adam


Adam, it's not your typical driving-between-the-cones car, but on the track and in straight line it can upset a lot of cars, which are considered as 'pure' sports cars.

I agree that it's not lightweight, at least it's not a Lotus or Donkervoort. But do they aim the same target market? I don't think so.

It is also correct that the SMG offered has very few common with the F1 gearboxes, but the idea and principle is almost the same. The core of the concept is that it is a manual transmission and it doesn't come with a torque converter. Is this a bad thing both for BMW and the customer? Do we really want an F1 gearbox in a street car that would cost almost as much as a brand new 330i?

And those, who thinks that the M6 is an M5 in a 6-Series body, are fooling themselves. A recent interview with the managing director after a road test revealed that the M6 have been purposely set up sharper and sportier than an M5 on purpose.

Anyway, I don't know why we are sitting here and writing hate tyriads against the M guys as if they are doing a bad thing.


----------



## MaxTimeOff (Jan 10, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> Anyway, I don't know why we are sitting here and writing hate tyriads against the M guys as if they are doing a bad thing.


I'm not sure it was a "hate tyraid" that was posted by Adam. It was more like an opinion. Alex, do you know the difference between a hate tyraid and an opinion :dunno: ?


----------



## TXE39 (Oct 2, 2003)

I voted SMG because that is most likely how I would equip mine if I had the choice (of transmissions and buying one in the first place - M5 for me thanks). I think it should be offered with SMG or three pedals. An auto would be unacceptable. I agree - go for the Vette if you want that kind of car with an auto....or maybe Alpina will make one :thumbup:


----------



## Shinkaze (May 27, 2005)

Alex Baumann said:


> Adam, it's not your typical driving-between-the-cones car, but on the track and in straight line it can upset a lot of cars, which are considered as 'pure' sports cars.


 Oh I agree that the performance of the M6 is most impressive, but beating a `pure' sports car around teh track doesn't make your vehicle a sports car itself. I'm sure a Turbo-Cayenne SUV will upset quite a few `pure' sports cars as well, but at the end of the day it's still a truck. And something like a Sunbeam Tiger or an Alfa Romeo Spider, though slow are neither SUV's nor Grand Touring cars.


> I agree that it's not lightweight, at least it's not a Lotus or Donkervoort. But do they aim the same target market? I don't think so.


4000 lbs in more in line with a Turck or 1970's erra Cadillac than a modern performance vehicle. Dimensionally the M6 is similar to my dinosaur of a car the Trans Am, yet it weighs 600 pounds more despite the fact the TA also has a rear seat and larger boot.

As the owner of a likewise heavy M3, I know BMW loads the cars down with many needed convience and luxury features which is part of the reason I bought the M3, but I'm not going to dillude myself into thinking it's a "pure sports car".

The M3 and M6 are fine performance automobiles, but they are Race-able Sedans and Coupes, not streetable race cars.



> It is also correct that the SMG offered has very few common with the F1 gearboxes, but the idea and principle is almost the same. The core of the concept is that it is a manual transmission and it doesn't come with a torque converter. Is this a bad thing both for BMW and the customer? Do we really want an F1 gearbox in a street car that would cost almost as much as a brand new 330i?


 But lack of a torque converter is why the SMG makes street driving difficult. From my admitidly little exposure to SMG (6 E46 M3 SMGIIs driven over 50 miles) I found the SMG only became a smooth transmission under all out driving. Under real street driving, a world of slow cars in the fast lane, stop lights and unpredictable conditions, I found the SMG fell short. Mainly because it doesn't have any clutch finess, it's a digital ON/OFF switch that doesn't have the ability to anticipate turn to turn how much finess is needed, or if I'm coasting to a complete stop at a light or coasting down to hit a hair pin.

A Torque converter is a street solution that buying softening the engagement (and also giving your torque multiplication by keeping the revs high) it naturally is more applicable for street driving. Where the human is no longer in control of shift engement.

Maybe the technology will mature, I just don't find it there yet. And like most other racing technologies for the track I don't find them a very graceful solution on the street. You know R-Compund race-rubber is also a track technology, but in varying conditions of the street and needs of the driver, it really doesn't make much sense to equip an M6 with R-compund rubber either.



> And those, who thinks that the M6 is an M5 in a 6-Series body, are fooling themselves. A recent interview with the managing director after a road test revealed that the M6 have been purposely set up sharper and sportier than an M5 on purpose.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know why we are sitting here and writing hate tyriads against the M guys as if they are doing a bad thing.


I apologize if you have interpretted my critical analysis of BMW's marketing decision as a "hate tirade", but I feel it's a point of view that needs to beconsidered even if youdo find it's implications distatesful.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

TXE39 said:


> I agree - go for the Vette if you want that kind of car with an auto....


 A regular Vette is not an analogue to an M car, and the Z06 is manual only. An AMG Benz would be a more natural automatic-equipped comparison.


----------



## GJR (Jan 6, 2003)

jetstream23 said:


> Yeah, and get rid of the power steering too!


If you think that's bad, try to imagine a "motorsports" car with I-Drive. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Shinkaze said:


> Oh I agree that the performance of the M6 is most impressive, but beating a `pure' sports car around teh track doesn't make your vehicle a sports car itself. I'm sure a Turbo-Cayenne SUV will upset quite a few `pure' sports cars as well, but at the end of the day it's still a truck. And something like a Sunbeam Tiger or an Alfa Romeo Spider, though slow are neither SUV's nor Grand Touring cars.
> 4000 lbs in more in line with a Turck or 1970's erra Cadillac than a modern performance vehicle. Dimensionally the M6 is similar to my dinosaur of a car the Trans Am, yet it weighs 600 pounds more despite the fact the TA also has a rear seat and larger boot.
> 
> As the owner of a likewise heavy M3, I know BMW loads the cars down with many needed convience and luxury features which is part of the reason I bought the M3, but I'm not going to dillude myself into thinking it's a "pure sports car".
> ...


I didn't imply that your post was a hate tyraid, if it came that way, I apologize, it wasn't my intention. It was to point out the general negative approach here to BMW's corporate decisions.

Adam, I totally agree that the M6 is not and have never been considered as a sports car, it's a Grand Tourer. This is even in the official press release, namely " ...the new M6 combines supercar presence with Grand Touring potential".

That said, we have quite a number of discussions about the definition of sports cars, but unfortunately we all failed to reach a consensus (can be found in the archives) We even bashed Porsches, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Corvettes etc. It was quite an effort 

As for the SMG being difficult in street use, this is correct as well. And this, again, have been acknowledged by the person, who was (is) in charge of the gearbox development at BMW. He said 'those who are seeking a comfortable shifting are better served with our Steptronic' This was on the BMW Group corporate site under the Technology & Innovation section.

I know, we are all longing for a stripped down, mass production, street-legal 2000lbs track car with 5-star crash ratings. I'm confident that BMW is capable of building a car like this, but the question is how much it would cost and without all the options if BMW could run any profit at all.


----------

