[fbsm]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

Meanwhile, your effective tax bracket probably remains the same (I'm sure most folks don't like to talk about that pesky little detail, but there it is).

Given that you're from california I sort of expected that you would ignore the increasing rate of debt growth not to mention unfunded liabilities......

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by snaketh

What's with the ad hominem and general shitty attitude board members have to each other?

I frequent here and some other bmw forums and I feel like people seem to get agitated and easy to get flustered here. Pity because the quality of the posts is generally better.

As a side note I'll be keeping my MT as long as I can. MT to me is like using a manual espresso maker. The automatic ones can make a coffee better, faster, and consistent quality than I can. It's the ritual I enjoy and I will dearly miss once we lose MT.

(Off-topic response alert)

I'm going to assume -- which I don't normally like to do, but here it is -- that you're referring to me as part of your comment since that's a post of mine that you quoted.

I actually get along with quite a few 2Addicts. I've even met a few in person. It's the ones who do two things that I tend to engage with, shall we say, 'verve':
- Ones who don't use 2Addicts properly and muck it up for everyone else
- Ones who either try to pass off opinion as fact or make a largely nonpolitical issue political

My attitude's fine. Yeah I'm cumrudgeonly at times, but that right comes with age and a distaste for those who lack respect for, and consideration of, others. Thing is, those 'others' is the entire reason a forum such as this exists: a place for anyone of any background to talk about and learn about a mutual interest. However, some 'others' on 2Addicts/Bimmerpost would have you believe that this is not what the forums provide. So instead of letting 'those others' set a tone, I choose to challenge that tone at times -- and IME, it's more often those 'others' who escalate things ...

(Off-topic lack of modesty alert)

... I just tend not to back down because my sense of self -- and of others' right to a different point of view -- is acute, and my belief systems are essentially based on thousands of years of sociologic, anthropologic, and psychologic precedent that furthers humanism and humaneness.

(OK: back to topic)

[pz619]

I for one am thrilled with government oversight in regards to safety. I truly mean that. I can't trust the manufacturers to build a safe car and in absence of regulation, they probably won't. Case in point look at Nissan and how they continued to build a 1992 Sentra in Mexico until the end of last year. I get that it's to hit a price point, but my point is without some oversight, it's unlikely manufacturers will do the "right" thing. I'm sort of a fan of seat belts and airbags. I also like the mandantory cameras coming up.

The more important issue is keeping a balance between crippling regulation and a free for all.

Ok, I guess I'll get off my soapbox now.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by fbsm

Given that you're from california I sort of expected that you would ignore the increasing rate of debt growth not to mention unfunded liabilities......

I fully expect that to be fixed before the end of the year, if not sooner.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by pz619

I for one am thrilled with government oversight in regards to safety. I truly mean that. I can't trust the manufacturers to build a safe car and in absence of regulation, they probably won't. Case in point look at Nissan and how they continued to build a 1992 Sentra in Mexico until the end of last year. I get that it's to hit a price point, but my point is without some oversight, it's unlikely manufacturers will do the "right" thing. I'm sort of a fan of seat belts and airbags. I also like the mandantory cameras coming up.

The more important issue is keeping a balance between crippling regulation and a free for all.

Ok, I guess I'll get off my soapbox now.

Here's the other thing to keep in mind with cars. Unlike say a free standing house where you can cut corners and most likely only end up hurting yourself, a car is (or at least can be) a high velocity projectile capable of injuring not only the owner / operator but innocent bystanders as well. Something as simple as a state inspection exists to keep everyone safe, not just force the driver to spend $ on new tires when they'd rather not.

The fine line you walk with a car manufacturer is something that forced Saab out of business for all intents and purposes. For those of us old enough to remember they were right there with Volvo for safety. I cannot for the life of me recall the name right now but way back when the co-developed a car with someone else. The car was "done" according to the other company and put on sale with that badge. Saab then dumped a TON more money into it to make it safe enough to survive a nuclear holocaust.

By the government mandating safety features the effectively force everyone to play ball on a level playing field, and those less concerned with such matters cannot come to market with a cheaper / less safe alternative. Think of it as a safety ante if you will. Make you car safer if you want, but you need to do at least this to get in the game.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by pz619

I for one am thrilled with government oversight in regards to safety. I truly mean that. I can't trust the manufacturers to build a safe car and in absence of regulation, they probably won't. Case in point look at Nissan and how they continued to build a 1992 Sentra in Mexico until the end of last year. I get that it's to hit a price point, but my point is without some oversight, it's unlikely manufacturers will do the "right" thing. I'm sort of a fan of seat belts and airbags. I also like the mandantory cameras coming up.

The more important issue is keeping a balance between crippling regulation and a free for all.

Ok, I guess I'll get off my soapbox now.

Agreed. Keeping this thread about cars, some regulation is a very good thing.

I'm old enough to recall the pre-smog-regulation days and particularly the day my folks drove us to Disneyland. It was unreal as we crested a grade pass and descended into the LA basin and incredible smog. My eyes burned; my throat felt tight - it was miserable.

Most of that smog was generated by automobiles and you can bet your sweet biffy that if it wasn't for ever increasing regulations, the auto manufacturers would have done little to clean up engine exhaust pollutants.

In the end, look what's happened. Cars are cleaner and more efficient than ever, not to mention vast gains in HP if you want it. This industry was challenged, stumbled for a few years then got their act together and figured out how to produce cars that are not only cleaner, but have much better drivability, with better MPG to boot.

The fact is, without some form of government regulation, consumers end up getting the shaft. And it goes well beyond automobiles.

[Maynard]

Lots of griping about those pesky gov't regulations, but have you checked out what it is like to drive in those 'bastions of freedom' where they are unregulated. Slice me some of that Chinese morning mist, before getting into a 'taxi' that makes a Niagara Falls barrel ride look safe. Granted the bureaucracy gets cumbersome and adds expense, but there is a value to having standards - without them there is no way we would be driving cars putting out >100hp/liter, beating supercars of the 70's and 80's for performance, and getting decent gas mileage while being so much safer in a crash.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by Maynard

Lots of griping about those pesky gov't regulations, but have you checked out what it is like to drive in those 'bastions of freedom' where they are unregulated. Slice me some of that Chinese morning mist, before getting into a 'taxi' that makes a Niagara Falls barrel ride look safe. Granted the bureaucracy gets cumbersome and adds expense, but there is a value to having standards - without them there is no way we would be driving cars putting out >100hp/liter, beating supercars of the 70's and 80's for performance, and getting decent gas mileage while being so much safer in a crash.

If anyone here missed it in high school, buy and read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. As he writes far better than can I, I truly am done on this topic now.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by fbsm

The two are tied together

Take for example backup cameras

In the next few years it will be collision avoidance

then once thats mandatory there will be a ban/elimination of MT's due to complexity/difficulty of integration as an excuse

Safe and fun automobiles dont have to be expensive or complicated......government and car industry collusion make it so

Look for example at sales of the VW GTI or the TDI.......iirc 50% of all GTI sales are MT's

Its not that MT's are not popular.......

You're engaging in conflation, and in conspiracy invention.

There is no government force that is "forcing" drivers into AT's over MT's.

Yes manufacturers decide what to offer customers based on what previous customers have purchased, and what they claim they will want to purchase.

The disappearance of AT's from most cars does suck for those who like MT's.
I am one of them. However, a few years back I had to switch due to a medical issue that was greatly aggravated by simply using a clutch.
Still, I'd like to see MT's offered to consumers. However, if manufactures find that the vast majority of consumers do not want MT's, then of course it becomes a ROI issue, singularly.

The other issue of funding and making cars available for testing and certification also becomes an ROI question, that is based on regulation.
Thus, it may not make economic sense to keep developing MT's.

Yes, those things are connected, but not by the same situation.
The regulations haven't changed in order to push AT's over MT's, so there's that for one of your assertions.

The question of ROI is a business decision that is a major concern to any manufacturer, even the ones that don't have much monetarily burdensome regulation.
If demand for MT's were there, and there is a good ROI for it, then of course the manufacturer will continue to offer the option as there is profitability in it. If there isn't, then the option will likely be removed.

There is no governmental conspiracy to force consumers in to AT's, or force MT's out.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by rainfall

At least in the configurator of BMW.de, the M2 still offers a manual (phew)

Also, I'm not sure if anyone noticed in 2016, but manual wasn't available in the US configurator for a week or two in the first semester of 2016. I remember that because I was actively looking to get a 2016 model and saw that they had dropped the manual option in the configurator. Maybe it was a mistake, or maybe they were testing the market. It went back up later in the month.

Even if BMW keeps the 6MT version in the M2, I'd still be sad if they dropped the 2 series 6MT because I would rather have the M240i instead.

The omission was likely either a mistake, or there may have been parts availability issues at the time.

BMWUSA.com config also have an MT option still available for both 230i and M240i, for the current 2017 model year.
It's in the "Options" section, because the AT is considered a "standard" item.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by fbsm

OMG....what did man ever do without our betters in big government telling us what to do?

The gun safety comparison is just plain retarded....let me guess....you live in a big city.

....the only effective safety is the tool user.

Rinse and repeat for ALL of your choices in life from food to toys for your kids.

The intelligent question/answer isnt what % of overall sales are MT.....rather....what % of sales of cars they are OFFERED in.

As indicated previously the MT in GTI comprises ~50% of all GTI sales

TDI's have ALWAYS been MT heavy on sales

Mini coopers rinse and repeat the above

Porsche has reversed course and started offering MT's on models they had removed the option from

Subaru sells a ton of MT's

WHY do people buy MT's?

Simplicity
Reliability
Lower cost to own especially if you keep a car past 100k
More fun....
Live where there is a lot of snow....automatics SUCK
Any number of reasons.....

Why do people choose an automatic?

Elderly
Injured
Lots of stop/go traffic/live in a city
New to driving (one less thing to deal with)
Family car that sees a bunch of different drivers
Corp/fleet vehicle

There's simply no argueing that Government regulation and subsequent cost to certify vehicles before they are ALLOWED to be sold is driving up cost MASSIVELY as well as forcing standardization and removing options

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answ...ive-sector.asp

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ts-drive-cook/

http://www.heritage.org/government-r...ase-car-prices

The one size fits all model doesnt fit anyone.....

Perhaps there is just no "arguing" with you.

No one here is arguing that regulations have no impact on the cost of vehicles.
You are lumping various issues of fact into your own woven belief of some grand conspiracy for the reason as to why the vast majority of car consumers don't want MT's.

I suppose the reason why a lot of households have dish washing machines is because of some government regulations that are secretly depriving households of the ability to handwash their pots, pans, and dishes? LOL!
C'mon already. The market offers technology and other items to consumers and the consumers then decide if they want it or not.
My mother would NEVER use a dish washing machine, but there sure are a lot of consumers who do, and thus plenty of variations to choose from.

Yes, many of us know and love MT's, like you.
However, jumping to a belief in some governmental attempt to stop your fun is beyond the pale.
Simply accept that for certain automobiles there are not enough MT takers for some manufacturers to want to continue to offer them.
No need to call your congress-person or senator and demand an investigation or legislation to "save the manuals!"

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

A few points, but first, your comments and sources suggest this point of view may be as much politically-based as about the auto industry. Let's put aside the politics and focus on the car business, where I spent almost three decades helping one company achieve satisfied customers and strong profitability.

Let's use the 2 Series as an example, since we are all here. In 2016, a database to which I have access shows 17% were manual transmissions/83% automatic. 2 Series is cross loaded in Leipzig along with other products, so the volume burden is less than for 3 Series, for example, where it has to support one or more entire plants on its own. Part of the financial calculation is to assess overall demand and ask the question if BMW could sell all the available production dedicated to 2 Series with just one transmission (AT). If they believe they can, there is no financial upside to even the costs of having two powertrain families to manage in inventory, no less test in vehicle development for crash and emissions.

As to the regulations, I don't know if your use of the present tense is intentional, but it doesn't apply. The relevant regulations which come into play for a different powertrain family are frontal impact and emissions. I sense your resentment of "betters", but unless you have expertise in physics, structural engineering, mannequin kinematics, and relevant biosciences, the folks both at NHTSA and in the various car companies certainly are "better" trained and more knowledgeable about how to prevent injury/death than most "civilians". Also, these regs have been part of FMVSS for decades. This is a cost the various OEMs have been managing for that time. This is neither new nor massively increasing. I don't think there is any rational case anyone can make to suggest our cars should not have to meet certain minimum standards for passenger safety in a crash or for emissions into the atmosphere. But, if anyone was to try to make that case, they would have needed to have been present well back into the last century.

In the final analysis, OEMs are free to offer whatever transmission choices they wish. Costs can be managed in various ways, such as amortizing investment into variable piece cost before determining base vehicle program WSD/MSRP pricing, adding an optional charge for vehicles so-equipped. If a OEM decides to actually drop the feature, it is not purely for cost, as sufficient demand will almost always find a way to be satisfied (Nature, and business, abhors a vacuum). But, when demand becomes tenuous, the weight given to the costs increases in the face of diminished return.

I shall replace your knowledge, experience, and cogent ability to express said knowledge and facts, and replace them with my beliefs and opinion, which I say is as valid as yours.

So, nah nah nah...nah nah, rasberrys to you!

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

Here's the other thing to keep in mind with cars. Unlike say a free standing house where you can cut corners and most likely only end up hurting yourself, a car is (or at least can be) a high velocity projectile capable of injuring not only the owner / operator but innocent bystanders as well. Something as simple as a state inspection exists to keep everyone safe, not just force the driver to spend $ on new tires when they'd rather not.

The fine line you walk with a car manufacturer is something that forced Saab out of business for all intents and purposes. For those of us old enough to remember they were right there with Volvo for safety. I cannot for the life of me recall the name right now but way back when the co-developed a car with someone else. The car was "done" according to the other company and put on sale with that badge. Saab then dumped a TON more money into it to make it safe enough to survive a nuclear holocaust.

By the government mandating safety features the effectively force everyone to play ball on a level playing field, and those less concerned with such matters cannot come to market with a cheaper / less safe alternative. Think of it as a safety ante if you will. Make you car safer if you want, but you need to do at least this to get in the game.

It was GM who I believe you are referencing.
Yes, I am "old enough".

Interesting link on Saab's potential comeback.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oing-bust.html

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by RPM90

I shall replace your knowledge, experience, and cogent ability to express said knowledge and facts, and replace them with my beliefs and opinion, which I say is as valid as yours.

So, nah nah nah...nah nah, rasberrys to you!

Well, I guess you showed me! :