# E90 M3 SMG only?



## DevExpert (Sep 6, 2003)

Is it true that new E90 M3 will be SMG only no manual transmission?


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2004)

DevExpert said:


> Is it true that new E90 M3 will be SMG only no manual transmission?


I don't think there's been a strong rumor on the subject yet. We do know that the E60 M5 is SMG-only (no stick) as is the new M6.

It doesn't look promising. But you never know. Because of the potential backlash if they didn't, I wouldn't be surprised if they did still offer a true manual on the M3.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

TD said:


> It doesn't look promising. But you never know. Because of the potential backlash if they didn't, I wouldn't be surprised if they did still offer a true manual on the M3.


It depends on supply and demand. The E46 M3 has never been sold in Australia with a manual gearshift; demand far outstrips the supply of only a handful of cars a year, despite extreme pricing. So BMW can load it to the hilt, and still guarantee sales (and margin). Also demand for the CSL appears to have been unaffected by the inclusion of an SMG gearbox - the problems with that car are related to its price, or more accurately the limited performance hike over the regular M3 given its price.

The SMG 'box in the M5 has had good reviews of its performance (if, perhaps, not its useability), so I doubt any potential backlash would figure in BMW's product planning process. Only a relatively small band of enthusiasts are likely to look for an alternative, and even then, the direct competition in 2-3 years' time is more likely either to have an automatic gearbox (anything by Mercedes) or some form of sequential shifter/DSG affair (Porsche, Audi).


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

If any car begs for a stick it is the M3. The manual must be cheaper to service and build than the SMG. Plus there must be a good number of people who buy the M3 that want a manual tranny in the car.

Why no manual transmission for the M3? :dunno:


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2004)

Artslinger said:


> If any car begs for a stick it is the M3. The manual must be cheaper to service and build than the SMG. Plus there must be a good number of people who buy the M3 that want a manual tranny in the car.
> 
> Why no manual transmission for the M3? :dunno:


 Well, since they are almost certainly going to offer SMG on the E90 M3, it will save BMW a bunch of money if they only have to certify (and stock parts for) one tranny in each market they sell the car in. I have been saying for years that BMW is going toward only offering one tranny. They are looking to make the SMG good enough to satisfy enthusiasts and smooth enough in automatic mode to satisfy the badge buyers.


----------



## 04E46 (Apr 7, 2004)

SMG only + iDrive only = a car I will not buy.

Performance oriented cars need not such rubbish.


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

TD said:


> Well, since they are almost certainly going to offer SMG on the E90 M3, it will save BMW a bunch of money if they only have to certify (and stock parts for) one tranny in each market they sell the car in. I have been saying for years that BMW is going toward only offering one tranny. They are looking to make the SMG good enough to satisfy enthusiasts and smooth enough in automatic mode to satisfy the badge buyers.


You did post a thread on this a while ago and I was hoping you were wrong but it really looks like you were on the right track ...

I can understand Mercedes not offering a manual but the fact that BMW is heading that way really sucks. You never hear me say anything bad about BMW in ANY of my 6000+ posts so just imagine if that's the way I feel (a person who loves the current BMW's) there are a lot of people thinking the same thing.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2004)

AF-RX8 said:


> You did post a thread on this a while ago and I was hoping you were wrong but it really looks like you were on the right track ...
> 
> I can understand Mercedes not offering a manual but the fact that BMW is heading that way really sucks. You never hear me say anything bad about BMW in ANY of my 6000+ posts so just imagine if that's the way I feel (a person who loves the current BMW's) there are a lot of people thinking the same thing.


http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5593&postcount=10

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=104732&postcount=7


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> It depends on supply and demand. The E46 M3 has never been sold in Australia with a manual gearshift; demand far outstrips the supply of only a handful of cars a year, despite extreme pricing. So BMW can load it to the hilt, and still guarantee sales (and margin). Also demand for the CSL appears to have been unaffected by the inclusion of an SMG gearbox - the problems with that car are related to its price, or more accurately the limited performance hike over the regular M3 given its price.
> 
> The SMG 'box in the M5 has had good reviews of its performance (if, perhaps, not its useability), so I doubt any potential backlash would figure in BMW's product planning process. Only a relatively small band of enthusiasts are likely to look for an alternative, and even then, the direct competition in 2-3 years' time is more likely either to have an automatic gearbox (anything by Mercedes) or some form of sequential shifter/DSG affair (Porsche, Audi).


 I'd never buy an SMG M3.


----------



## zcasavant (Jun 26, 2002)

TD said:


> I'd never buy an SMG M3.


Me either. I've read rumors about the e60 M5 being offered with a 6spd due to demand. I don't know if these rumors have been disproven though.


----------



## DevExpert (Sep 6, 2003)

My thinking is same. The problem is that I know that SMG transmission is shifting faster and could potentially do better job than I can. That is not the point. I enjoy actually doing that and SMG, to me, is the same as automatic transmission. If that thing can shift on it's own it's automatic, period. Yeah, I know it has clutch, blah, blah, blah 



TD said:


> I'd never buy an SMG M3.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2004)

DevExpert said:


> My thinking is same. The problem is that I know that SMG transmission is shifting faster and could potentially do better job than I can. That is not the point. I enjoy actually doing that and SMG, to me, is the same as automatic transmission. If that thing can shift on it's own it's automatic, period. Yeah, I know it has clutch, blah, blah, blah


 I like the artificial insemination analogy- Sure it's more efficient, but is it more fun?

Sure SMG shifts faster, but unless I'm competitively racing, do I really care?


----------



## DevExpert (Sep 6, 2003)

Eh, good analogy. I think we are the extinct breed... I want to enjoy my manual as long as I can...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

<o></o>

When you think about it, 20 years from now we will be, guaranteed, paying a huge premium to drive manual. Hybrid cars, new sources of energy etc. will make manual transmission cars exotic and expensive to own and operate&#8230;



TD said:


> I like the artificial insemination analogy- Sure it's more efficient, but is it more fun?
> 
> Sure SMG shifts faster, but unless I'm competitively racing, do I really care?


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Funny thing is, the people who have them find them just as fun as driving a true manual.

The reason for no manual in the new cars is that the SMG only allows them to build a better gearbox. The 7 speed in the M5 and M6 can not be manually shifted due it having a truely odball shift pattern. How would you like to shift from top left to mid right to bottom left to top right to top middle, etc? Using non-standard gear positions allows them to pt more robust gears in the lower gears, thinner nad lighter gears in the higher gears, and add more stiffing to the tranny case. So you end up with the sturdier, more robust, lighter gearbox.

As for parts supply, the current car uses EXACTLY the same gearbox for SMG and manual. The only differences are external to the gearbox.

If they offer a manual in the E90 you are likely to see a manual 6 speed (current gearbox) versus an SMG 7 speed (M5/M6 gearbox).


----------



## RandyB (Mar 4, 2003)

04E46 said:


> SMG only + iDrive only = a car I will not buy.
> 
> Performance oriented cars need not such rubbish.


Ditto that, bigtime! I can't imagine them not offering a true 6-speed manual.


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

I won't even consider the E90 M3 if it doesn't come with a clutch pedal.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

I would have considered it, but I had two concerns. Pricing (I was already stretching things when I rationalized buying my M3) and reliability (and as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on that one.)

Alex


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

TD said:


> I'd never buy an SMG M3.


And I'll never buy an M3 without SMG. 

The M3 without SMG to me is not an M3, and I have driven both. The stick shift in that car just didn't fit the personality of the car.

And yes, both my cars now are stick shift, only because one is too old, and the other one has no SMG option, and I will not own a car with torque convertor.

I guess I am one of those guys who just don't see the appeal of the third pedal when a competent alternative exists. And no, I can heel and toe and rev match, I do this subconsiously, and it does not turn me on. I have no doubt that SMGIII will be even better than SMGII, which was already way better than the F1 on the 360. :thumbup:

If the SMGIII continues the trend of SMGII, then why not just have SMG on the E90 M3? :dunno:


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

DevExpert said:


> My thinking is same. The problem is that I know that SMG transmission is shifting faster and could potentially do better job than I can. That is not the point. I enjoy actually doing that and SMG, to me, is the same as automatic transmission. If that thing can shift on it's own it's automatic, period. Yeah, I know it has clutch, blah, blah, blah


  

So what do you call the gearbox in the Enzo? It has no automatic mode. :dunno:

So if BMW rem out the automatic routine in the programming, what would you call it then? :dunno:


----------



## Rob325_in_AZ (Oct 22, 2004)

Stuka said:


> So what do you call the gearbox in the Enzo? It has no automatic mode. :dunno:
> 
> So if BMW rem out the automatic routine in the programming, what would you call it then? :dunno:


Speaking as someone who is no position to be buying an M3 anytime soon...

I would not purchase one without a manual transmission. It gets back to why is one purchasing the car in the first place. Sticks are fun. BMWs are about having a fun driving experience. If driving with a stick decreases my performance a fraction of a second vs SMG then so what?

By all means, keep working on improving the SMG, but as long as there is a following that is willing to pay for one keep the option for a stick.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Mpire said:


> The manual transmissions are ALL going away in the next decade or so. Simple reason is that its cheaper to put only one transmission in a car than two or three. They will be putting SMG in everything eventually just because it is both an automatic and a manual.
> 
> The SMG M3 is outselling the non SMG model by a large margin. Why? Because people who buy the car for image want an automatic. Thus, they will buy an SMG car where they wont buy a true manual.
> 
> ...


Are you serious?

SMG i NOT an auto. Anybody who wants an auto will be seriously disappointed with SMG. The reason SMG is outselling standard, if in fact it is, is because of enthusiests buying them. In fact I have yet to see an SMG M3 driver by anything other than an enthusiest, and that is NOT true of the manual.

Yes, poseurs (notice proper spelling) have bought them thinking they were auto, but most of those are very shortly returned since they are nothing like an auto.

Driving SMG in auto mode is more like driving a standard transmission, but with someone else shifting. NOT like driving a ture automatic transmission.


----------



## Mpire (Mar 28, 2003)

While you can spell better than I, you are wrong on the auto part. The salesman can sell SMG as a performance auto, or a performance manual. Its for sales.

You tell a 45 year old woman that there is no automatic version of the M3 and she will go look at a CLK. Its silly. Most people who buy BMWs for image will not consider a manual.

You can say its not an automatic all day long, but when it comes down to it, betty sue will still buy one if it has an automatic mode. The same goes for some guy who buys it just for the image.

Look at how many corvettes they sell that are automatics. I mean, good grief.


----------



## Mpire (Mar 28, 2003)

Am I saying the SMG is inferior to the standard manual, NO.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

Steved said:


> Andy, yes the CSL was actually only £15,000 more than an M3 when comparing the spec like for like (as I did). I traded in my M3 which cost me £44k and paid £59k for my CSL, receiving £34k for my M3. And yes, it feels like I got good value. 14 months on and it still feels like tremendous value despite needing to spend another £6k on exhaust, brakes and an extra set of wheels/tyres.
> 
> The problem is that cars over a certain value don't equate to price comparisons any more. A Ferrari Enzo isn't worth 300% more than a Ferrari 360 and neither is a Mercedes McLaren SLR worth more than 200% of an SL65. Manufacturers charge what the market will pay and whilst I wish my car addiction was less expensive, I'm glad they make the cars in the first place.


I agree with you on the last point. I also agree with you that as a driver's car I think the CSL is probably just that bit sharper, which better drivers than I will appreciate much more. I merely disliked BMW GB's egregious pricing (wno doesn't?), which pitched the CSL high enough to leave unsold cars on the forecourts eventually being pre-registered and sold for quite a bit less than the (list, no options) £59k. Compared to other pricing strategies in BMW GB's line-up, the price was too high for the demand. At this price bracket, I think demand was squeezed a little too far.


----------



## e36M3r (Oct 19, 2004)

One thing I'll bet on, eventually the tide will be turned, SMG will be standard and the Manual Tranny boys will be paying the premium if it's offered. And yes, I think we will see 6sp manuals and 7sp SMGs in the future.

Then with the clutch PEDAL guys paying extra, we can see who will ante up.


----------



## Steved (Nov 4, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> I agree with you on the last point. I also agree with you that as a driver's car I think the CSL is probably just that bit sharper, which better drivers than I will appreciate much more. I merely disliked BMW GB's egregious pricing (wno doesn't?), which pitched the CSL high enough to leave unsold cars on the forecourts eventually being pre-registered and sold for quite a bit less than the (list, no options) £59k. Compared to other pricing strategies in BMW GB's line-up, the price was too high for the demand. At this price bracket, I think demand was squeezed a little too far.


Andy, I agree with you about BMW GB. But what was wrong was not the pricing but the marketing behind it. The plain vanilla M3 Coupe is already under priced compared to the market opposition (i.e. 996 C2) , all BMW did was price the CSL at a level that was finally appropriate. I owned a 996 GT3 before the CSL and the CSL is the better car and provides every inch as much excitement and as rich an ownership experience. The Porsche cost me £78k so the CSL was by all attempts a bargain. It still is in my mind. An M3 Coupe should have been priced at around £50k in the UK, bear in mind that an E36 M3 actually cost more than the E46 M3 and that situation is even more bizzare if you take the inflationary cost of money into account. If Alpina for instance had made something like the CSL then without a doubt they would have charged £60k+.

Having spent some time chatting with the Sales Director at BMW GB I'm pretty sure the price was right (based on the cost to produce such a limited edition model) but BMW did not make the buying process special enough and took quite an arrogant attitude when it came to dealing with the press. They handled the order book very poorly and left many speculators at the front of the queue. When negative press reports arose, the speculators got cold feet and offloaded their cars then other prospective customers pulled their deposits for fear of losing big money (hence the order book moved from being 4 times oversubscribed to only selling 150 or so out of the original 422 cars allocated). The remaining cars have since been sold and prices have begun to firm up, but those of us who put our faith in BMW and paid full price have been left licking our wounds. No doubt it will become a very collectible classic, but yet again BMW have failed to successfully market a premium product limited edition car (remember the Z8?).

I realise we've gone way off thread but perhaps this thread should be focusing more on the need for BMW to build and market a truly 'special' car, and learn from their past mistakes, rather than worry about what gearbox technology (whether that be manual or SMG) they use to achieve it.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

Steved said:


> Andy, I agree with you about BMW GB. But what was wrong was not the pricing but the marketing behind it. The plain vanilla M3 Coupe is already under priced compared to the market opposition (i.e. 996 C2) , all BMW did was price the CSL at a level that was finally appropriate. I owned a 996 GT3 before the CSL and the CSL is the better car and provides every inch as much excitement and as rich an ownership experience. The Porsche cost me £78k so the CSL was by all attempts a bargain. It still is in my mind. An M3 Coupe should have been priced at around £50k in the UK, bear in mind that an E36 M3 actually cost more than the E46 M3 and that situation is even more bizzare if you take the inflationary cost of money into account.


Interesting points. This is rapidly turning into a microeconomics debate . I think any temptation BMW GB had to raise vanilla M3 prices was quashed by the greater visibility buyers have of other (European) markets, given the relative popularity of importing. The regular M3 is much cheaper than the 996/997 for reasons other than the relative strengths and weaknesses of each car (not least because BMW is a lot further down the experience curve).

For BMW to do a successful job of selling the new M3 anywhere, I agree it will have to do with more than just pricing. That the 3er - in all its guises - is essentially a mass-market car indicates that manual transmission will likely be expected in the big markets. I hope the M5's new-fangled 7-speeder turns out to be sufficiently robust in the long term that BMW can use it, or a derivation of it, in the new M3.

Inflation can conjure up all sorts of interesting comparisons. When I replaced my E36 coupe with an E46 saloon, I ended up with a car that had the same power, and more torque, economy, equipment and airbags for very slightly less than price I paid for the 318is in 1994 (whose value today would have been nearer £30,000).


----------



## Steved (Nov 4, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> Interesting points. This is rapidly turning into a microeconomics debate . I think any temptation BMW GB had to raise vanilla M3 prices was quashed by the greater visibility buyers have of other (European) markets, given the relative popularity of importing. The regular M3 is much cheaper than the 996/997 for reasons other than the relative strengths and weaknesses of each car (not least because BMW is a lot further down the experience curve).
> 
> For BMW to do a successful job of selling the new M3 anywhere, I agree it will have to do with more than just pricing. That the 3er - in all its guises - is essentially a mass-market car indicates that manual transmission will likely be expected in the big markets. I hope the M5's new-fangled 7-speeder turns out to be sufficiently robust in the long term that BMW can use it, or a derivation of it, in the new M3.
> 
> Inflation can conjure up all sorts of interesting comparisons. When I replaced my E36 coupe with an E46 saloon, I ended up with a car that had the same power, and more torque, economy, equipment and airbags for very slightly less than price I paid for the 318is in 1994 (whose value today would have been nearer £30,000).


I agree with you Andy. Bringing the thread right back on topic, I hope it's possible for others to see why BMW needs something like SMG as an unique selling point to differentiate the M3 (or M5/M6) from other competitive offerings. BMW desperately need to find a way of sustaining prices both for it's sporting and luxury models. The M3 is cheaper than it should be. The M5 will shortly be launched at a price 10% higher than the previous M5 and the M6 will be launched shortly afterwards for 20% higher than the M5. In order for BMW to succeed in selling these cars they need to retain their value in the way a Mercedes or Porsche does at these price points. BMW's SMG transmissions really differentiate it's products in the sectors they compete in and I don't see any other factor that they have at their disposal. BMW 'need' a love it or loathe it factor, something edgy that causes buyers to choose one car over another (note Mercedes use of superchargers). With cars becoming closer in their basic abiliites and if SMG is causing some buyers to choose it whilst other's reject it, then that's exactly what BMW wants - provided enough customers love it.

There's similarly 'over-intellectulised' discussions over on bm3w.co.uk :thumbup:

Best regards,
Steve


----------



## Mpire (Mar 28, 2003)

The price retention is an issue that deals with styling and customer service. My cousin gets excellent service when he takes his MB to any dealership. I on the other hand cant even get the morons to understand what kinda of BMW I even have. And they they have the nerve to argue with me. Fix the dealerships, and maybe the cars resale will get better.


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

TD said:


> Well, since they are almost certainly going to offer SMG on the E90 M3, it will save BMW a bunch of money if they only have to certify (and stock parts for) one tranny in each market they sell the car in. I have been saying for years that BMW is going toward only offering one tranny. They are looking to make the SMG good enough to satisfy enthusiasts and smooth enough in automatic mode to satisfy the badge buyers.


Right on! They'll also save a bunch of money on development. To me, that's the main reason why they only offer SMG on the E60 M5...


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

BTW, did you guys hear any rumors about the E60 M5 (US only) getting a true manual tranny?


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

Steved said:


> ...there's a considerable performance hike over the M3 when stepping into the CSL...


Damn right. N'ring lap times are proof of that. :thumbup:


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

Pretty soon someone is going to discover the technology that an entire car, not just the transmission, can be controlled by a computer system and it is going to be faster and safer then the same car driven by a human being. Of course the computer will be "supervised" by a driver and to some, that will mean that it is still being "driven" by a person.  I don't see why anyone, or any company would advocate the extinction of the clutch pedal. Just because you don't like to drive one, or don't see a point to driving one, because a damn computer can do it better :tsk: doesn't mean that the option should be completely removed. I would have no problem paying extra for an MT option on my next car that's how much I enjoy the involvement that only a real clutch pedal can provide. If there is no MT option my next car will not be an M that's for sure. While were at it, why don't we just do away with paint and canvas, you can paint on a computer from now on. How about we just do away with real musical instruments? In the future you can only go and see an orchestra of computer controlled sythesizers, don't worry though because there won't be any musical mistakes and none of the instruments will ever be out of tune, so it will be a more "pure experience where one can concentrate just on the music and not be worried about human error."  :banghead: SMG should be for street cars and minor league racing only. They should make SMG completely banned in top tier racing, IMO. It takes too much of the "driver" out of racing.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

ALEX325i said:


> Damn right. N'ring lap times are proof of that. :thumbup:


Not being obtuse here, but how much of this is down to the Cup tyres...?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

andy_thomas said:


> Not being obtuse here, but how much of this is down to the Cup tyres...?


Right. I wonder how the stock M3 would do with the Cup tires.


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

andy_thomas said:


> Not being obtuse here, but how much of this is down to the Cup tyres...?


R-compound tires usually help shaving ~5s off a lap time (i.e. same car, same driver, same conditions, etc).


----------



## Heather (Nov 4, 2004)

Pinecone said:


> Sorry, but those of you casting judgement set in stone for something you have never spent time with is pretty short sighted.


I test drove a 2005 SMG M3 and didn't like it at all. Granted, there are some calibration settings you can change that I did not have time to alter, but the shifting of the car was awkward and no fun.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

A test drive is not enough. That is like saying you only have driven automatics and test drove a manual and didn't like it.

SMG is a third type of tranny. You have to learn how to drive it, just like you had to learn how to drive a manual.


----------

