BMW says manuals are slower and offering a manual M5 is "stupid"
- Thread starter Burtonrider10022
- Start date
The manual transmission is not stupid, it's the development cost to include the manual transmission for such a small market. Working in manufacturing companies most of my career, I agree with what he is saying from an engineering/operations point of view. But obviously, the sales/marketing teams won this argument.
In for some 1950s metal working and fabbing of people building their own damn manuals.
I understand the point from a cost, profit, and resource perspective.
What I’d really love to see is a true apples to apples test of a DSG/DCT vs. a manual in the same car. By apples to apples, I mean the same number of gears. Until recently, manuals had one or two less gears which makes a difference. That would really show which transmission is really faster and end the debate. Now to caveat that so I don’t get flamed, if you can’t shift or are the normal motoring public, the DCT will be more consistent and faster. I am talking about enthusiasts like all of us.
What I’d really love to see is a true apples to apples test of a DSG/DCT vs. a manual in the same car. By apples to apples, I mean the same number of gears. Until recently, manuals had one or two less gears which makes a difference. That would really show which transmission is really faster and end the debate. Now to caveat that so I don’t get flamed, if you can’t shift or are the normal motoring public, the DCT will be more consistent and faster. I am talking about enthusiasts like all of us.
i was kind of considering an e46 m3 rather than the brz, and was thinking of manual vs. smg. not sure what i would have down. and my heel toe shifting is awful. that being said it's still pretty fun.
i went to my first track day in some time on memorial day, and used my solo dl for the first time - so now i have empirical data at 10 hz of exactly how shitty of a driver i am. haven't started looking at it yet though.
i went to my first track day in some time on memorial day, and used my solo dl for the first time - so now i have empirical data at 10 hz of exactly how shitty of a driver i am. haven't started looking at it yet though.
No matter how fast you can shift a manual transmission or how many gears it has I doubt you're going to be faster than a DCT/ DSG or even the older SMG setups. You're not even going to be quicker than a good automatic transmission. It used to be that automatics were slower shifting and less efficient, both problems solved in newer gear boxes. Combine that with true manual shift modes, rev matching on down shifts and crisp instantaneous upshifts and I can see why fewer people want to commit to full time manual shifting. You're giving up so little with some of these automatics.
Not only that but a lot of cars are turbo now and you need to deal with boost bleeding off between shifts. From what I've seen the manual 335's and 535s are appreciably slower than their automatic counterparts for just this reason.
For me personally, I don't even have the best of what's out there but I'll take my automatic over the manual e60 any day of the week. When I'm docile and stuck in traffic it goes into comfort automatic and when I'm up in the hills it goes into sport auto and allows me nearly the same control the manual transmission did in the 550.
But you are overlooking that manuals are more efficient putting more power to the pavement, are lighter, and allow full manual control of the launch.
Yup. The biggest gain in a dct is the addition of extra gears, otherwise it's a wash.
I would argue that the difference in efficiency between your average manual transmission and your current automatic is nominal, like a couple percent. Automatics are exponentially more efficient than they were just 10 years ago. We don't see 20% drivetrain losses any longer.
15 years ago I think that was a solid argument. Now? Not so much in my opinion and I think the performance specs of most cars that can be had with both backs my assertion.
As far as weight, with how heavy cars have gotten it's no longer the difference between a 3100lb car and a 3300lb car but rather the difference between a 3700lb and a 3900lb car and power levels have come up to counter cars becoming so bloated. Proportionately the difference in weight is less of a factor than it would have been 10 - 15 years ago though.
I guess here's my question… Let's look at cars made within the last 5 years that were available in both auto and manual. I don't have time now but I'll take a look later on when I get back. I read a lot of reviews because I'm a serial buyer and in most cases I can recall the automatic version of a modern car is just as quick, if not quicker than it's manual counterpart.
I know dyno's can read different with the same car on a separate pull, but my G8 stock did 303whp. They're flywheel rated at 361/355, depending on the year. That comes out to be a 16% loss going through the trans.
This isn't absolute proof, but just my .02 on the whole thing.
That being said, I think my current transmission tune is still leaving some performance on the table as it can be unpredictable when I step on the gas. Sometimes I'm like 'Whoa!', and other times like 'Meh.'.
This isn't absolute proof, but just my .02 on the whole thing.
That being said, I think my current transmission tune is still leaving some performance on the table as it can be unpredictable when I step on the gas. Sometimes I'm like 'Whoa!', and other times like 'Meh.'.
What's that saying? The exception proves the rule?
Never said that it was representative of all MT - DSG comparisons. Simply stated, less weight and arguable more power to the ground can make up for quicker shifts.
Thread Info
-
Created -
36Replies
-
1KViews
-
Participants list
