[fbsm]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

And what percentage of Golf sales are GTIs?

And do you really believe exotic carmakers are eliminating manuals because of government regulation?

And the take rate of MTs in Europe is declining at an accelerated rate, paced by the lack of such options in the aforementioned exotics, as well as high-performance variants and EVs/hybrids

And here's the kicker stat: In the U.S., MT sales are 12 percent of what they were a generation ago. 12 percent!!!

I'm not even going to give you due respect. Your conclusions are so off-base you should be embarrassed. Manuals have never sold well in the U.S. Neither have hatchbacks. Guess what? The reasons for both are exactly the same: a combination of consumer preference and the cost of testing regulations ...

... which, by the way, you should be damned glad exist if you or a loved one have ever been in an accident. If it were up to people who think similiarly to you, guns wouldn't have safeties, food would be jacked up with all manner of chemicals and hormones, and childrens toys could have all the small parts a maker wanted to use.

I'm sorry. Folks with blinders on really peeve me off.

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.....

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by fbsm

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

And so does 80 percent of the rest of the U.S. population. I own a gun. The more 'safeties' a firearm has, the better. I'm not going to get into an off-topic argument with you about this. And you have no possible argument about the other two points.

Originally Posted by fbsm

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

No, that's one effective safety. But let's apply this mantra to vehicles --
an equally deadly object -- shall we? If the 'user' is so important, then why don't we train drivers better in the U.S. so those users don't kill so many others with that deadly object? See, this is the case in much of Europe -- and the death rate due to vehicles is a fraction of ours. It's also one reason (of many) why manuals have been preferred by many in Europe for decades. It is not a matter of choice. It is cultural -- the cultures have made the choice. Not governments. Cultures.

See, myopic and selfish viewpoints like this don't take into account those other than themselves being in danger because of the perception of what freedom is is entirely self-centered and individualistic. Therefore it's not the government, really, that's the evil here -- it's people who can't see beyond their own noses when it comes to individual liberty vs. the greater good (and feel free to define 'greater good' any number of ways. Not all of them are, shall we say, 'progressive'.) They endanger others because of those choices -- thus they become the primary problem, and government has to exist to keep yahoos like those in check. (Oh, and also apply the same mantra to corporations.)

Originally Posted by fbsm

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

No, it doesn't. But the thing is, in this case, the 'size' you prefer -- and the one I preferred until a couple of cars ago, by the way -- has fit relatively few in this market throughout history. Sure, choice is good. But choice only happens if its profitable for someone. Government, sir, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT in a non-controlled market -- in fact, a relatively less regulated open market like the U.S. has that encourages the development of choices is rejecting MTs far more ably than any government policy ANYwhere.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

No, it doesn't. But the thing is, in this case, the 'size' you prefer -- and the one I preferred until a couple of cars ago, by the way -- has fit relatively few in this market throughout history. Sure, choice is good. But choice only happens if its profitable for someone. Government, sir, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT in a non-controlled market -- in fact, a relatively less regulated open market like the U.S. has that encourages the development of choices is rejecting MTs far more ably than any government policy ANYwhere.

^^^ There it is.

Strange how some folks chose to turn a blind eye to this fact. Businesses are in business to make a profit, pure and simple.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by fbsm

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

...

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

...

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.....

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.

[fbsm]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

And so does 80 percent of the rest of the U.S. population. I own a gun. The more 'safeties' a firearm has, the better. I'm not going to get into an off-topic argument with you about this. And you have no possible argument about the other two points.

80% of the US population DOES NOT live in cities.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/...lly-mean/1589/

Keep playing with the names of shit and playing stupid games

The only safety that actually works on a firearm is the tool user.....this has been proven time and time again

Originally Posted by Viffermike;21913691
No, that's [I

one[/I] effective safety. But let's apply this mantra to vehicles --
an equally deadly object -- shall we? If the 'user' is so important, then why don't we train drivers better in the U.S. so those users don't kill so many others with that deadly object? See, this is the case in much of Europe -- and the death rate due to vehicles is a fraction of ours. It's also one reason (of many) why manuals have been preferred by many in Europe for decades. It is not a matter of choice. It is cultural -- the cultures have made the choice. Not governments. Cultures.

The culture hasnt made the choice wrt training/driving...big cumberson government has.....the 4th branch of government (Bureaucracy) makes the overwhelming majority of rules/regulations both at the state and federal levels....and they are almost totally unaccountable in MOST cases......this has been demonstrated beyond question

Originally Posted by Viffermike

See, myopic and selfish viewpoints like this don't take into account those other than themselves being in danger because of the perception of what freedom is is entirely self-centered and individualistic. Therefore it's not the government, really, that's the evil here -- it's people who can't see beyond their own noses when it comes to individual liberty vs. the greater good (and feel free to define 'greater good' any number of ways. Not all of them are, shall we say, 'progressive'.) They endanger others because of those choices -- thus they become the primary problem, and government has to exist to keep yahoos like those in check. (Oh, and also apply the same mantra to corporations.)

Name calling really enhances your argument eh?

not

The myopic one is the person who thinks that one size fits all and that if it applies to those that live in a big city then it MUST also be relevent to folks that DONT live in highly urbanized parts of the country.

One size fits all has NEVER worked out well....funny how big gov progressives never learn this lesson

Originally Posted by Viffermike;21913691
No, it doesn't. But the thing is, in this case, the 'size' you prefer -- and the one I preferred until a couple of cars ago, by the way -- has fit relatively few in this market throughout history. Sure, choice is good. But choice only happens if its profitable for someone. Government, sir, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT in a non-controlled market -- in fact, a relatively less regulated open market like the U.S. has that [I

encourages[/I] the development of choices is rejecting MTs far more ably than any government policy ANYwhere.

Government quite literally never creates anything.....it is ALWAYS a cost and it ALWAYS stifles innovation

I'm not trying to imply that government has no place.....the problem is excessive government and large business colluding with government to create a regulatory environment that stifles/prevents start ups and innovation.....which is exactly what we have today in the US....not only in the Auto industry but also in most other segments....from Agriculture to Pharma to industry to Health care

Want to make something worse then regulate the shit out of it.....

Funny how some of us can make a point without the need to call others names......give it a whirl sometime.....

[fbsm]

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.

All other things aside the automobile industry just like every other large industry is political

Thats why they spend huge sums of money to influence regulations and legislation

Worse than that....the politics come first as we've seen for decades........cant sell a car in the US without it complying with a whole series of regulatory agencies each of which have their own agendas

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by fbsm

One size fits all has NEVER worked out well....funny how big gov progressives never learn this lesson

Government quite literally never creates anything.....it is ALWAYS a cost and it ALWAYS stifles innovation

These seem to be the primary premise of your concern. I don't think these talking points are finding application in this analysis. I can't agree with the first as F=MA does fit all. It happens everywhere. Whether a pickup truck hits a tree in the most rural setting, or a BMW hits a bridge abutment in a big city, the ability to manage impact forces does apply everywhere, and flesh and blood is equally susceptible to injury in all settings. Those concerns gave rise to the 100 series of FMVSS and saved countless lives.

There are many examples, but FMVSS requirements brought about a wide range of safety innovations in motor vehicles which may have never occurred without that necessity. Of course, added content has cost, but innovation was far from stifled....it was stimulated!

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by fbsm

All other things aside the automobile industry just like every other large industry is political

Thats why they spend huge sums of money to influence regulations and legislation

Worse than that....the politics come first as we've seen for decades........cant sell a car in the US without it complying with a whole series of regulatory agencies each of which have their own agendas

You're missing a logic step here. Auto manufacturers want to make money. They make money by selling machinery (potentially dangerous machinery) to the public. The government for our greater good regulates such matters. The auto manufacturers seek to influence the government so that regulations are in their favor. In their favor = make more money.

You can't just say that auto makers are political since they try to influence the government. They should be agnostic, politically speaking, and motivated purely by profit, in a morally defensible way. So not VW lying and cheating for example.

It's the EXACT same thing suppliers to BMW deal with but instead of government regulations it's tolerances BMW dictates for its parts. If you have ever seen anything in a manufacturing environment and done an RFP or RFQ you will know that there's a TON of back and forth between suppliers and customers over specs, tolerances, costs, etc. That's no different than BMW going back and forth with gov't regulators about specs.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by fbsm

All other things aside the automobile industry just like every other large industry is political

Thats why they spend huge sums of money to influence regulations and legislation

Worse than that....the politics come first as we've seen for decades........cant sell a car in the US without it complying with a whole series of regulatory agencies each of which have their own agendas

OK....if saving lives and having clean air are "agendas", I'm done here. Took my best shots to share actual experience and perspective from inside the business, but your political concerns are overwhelming the substance of the discussion. Best wishes....

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by fbsm

The only safety that actually works on a firearm is the tool user.....this has been proven time and time again.

Applying that logic to automobile drivers proves the point. Too many drivers today are either poorly trained and/or ignore traffic rules. I see it everyday: Texting; rolling through stop signs; turning left before turning right; tail-gating; speeding; passing on the right; road rage, etc.

Welcome to the me-first society.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by fbsm

80% of the US population DOES NOT live in cities.

Your view. Not the majority's (or the U.S. Census Bureau's, for that matter).[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by fbsm

The culture hasnt made the choice wrt training/driving ...

You just keep diggin' that self-dug hole deeper, OK?

Originally Posted by fbsm

The culture hasnt made the choice wrt training/driving ... Funny how some of us can make a point without the need to call others names......give it a whirl sometime.....

Read that graf again, sir. I don't call you, personally, any name at all. I refer to people with similar viewpoints as yours. I did that on purpose. So, you know, you can go right on ahead and use swear words because you're reading something into what I posted that isn't there: a personal attack. My guess is you do that a lot.

Reported.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

OK....if saving lives and having clean air are "agendas", I'm done here. Took my best shots to share actual experience and perspective from inside the business, but your political concerns are overwhelming the substance of the discussion. Best wishes....

Maybe the smartest move of the day

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

Texting; rolling through stop signs; turning left before turning right; tail-gating; speeding; passing on the right; road rage, etc.

You visiting PA by chance? If it was a black convertible that was me on my morning commute today

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

You visiting PA by chance? If it was a black convertible that was me on my morning commute today

[fbsm]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

You're missing a logic step here. Auto manufacturers want to make money. They make money by selling machinery (potentially dangerous machinery) to the public. The government for our greater good regulates such matters. The auto manufacturers seek to influence the government so that regulations are in their favor. In their favor = make more money.

You can't just say that auto makers are political since they try to influence the government. They should be agnostic, politically speaking, and motivated purely by profit, in a morally defensible way. So not VW lying and cheating for example.

It's the EXACT same thing suppliers to BMW deal with but instead of government regulations it's tolerances BMW dictates for its parts. If you have ever seen anything in a manufacturing environment and done an RFP or RFQ you will know that there's a TON of back and forth between suppliers and customers over specs, tolerances, costs, etc. That's no different than BMW going back and forth with gov't regulators about specs.

Of COURSE businesses are in the business to make money

What you're missing is the corporatist relationship between big government and big business

The 4th branch of government doesnt exist for some altruistic reason.....

In most every case it exists to perpetuate itself rather than for good reasons.....

Are there examples where there IS benefit to some % of the literal mountain of regulations issued every year absent the review/consent/approval of elected officials?

Yes

But the overwhelming majority of regulation panders to big business (squashes innovation/start ups) and/or pushes a political agenda

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/28/a-...nt-regulation/

Government regulation comes at a huge expense and isnt particularly effective.

[Hops128i]

Well, if I search cars.com there are 15/860+ non-M2 2 series with a manual transmission, they've effectively eliminated the manual if you don't want to order one, and want a particular set of options.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

You visiting PA by chance? If it was a black convertible that was me on my morning commute today

Were you wearing aviators goggles?

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by fbsm

Of COURSE businesses are in the business to make money

What you're missing is the corporatist relationship between big government and big business

The 4th branch of government doesnt exist for some altruistic reason.....

In most every case it exists to perpetuate itself rather than for good reasons.....

Are there examples where there IS benefit to some % of the literal mountain of regulations issued every year absent the review/consent/approval of elected officials?

Yes

But the overwhelming majority of regulation panders to big business (squashes innovation/start ups) and/or pushes a political agenda

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/28/a-...nt-regulation/

Government regulation comes at a huge expense and isn't particularly effective.

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).

If you really, really try, I'm sure you can still find a vehicle with a manual transmission. Right? I recommend a 1963 Ford Galaxie 500 with a 427 side oiler big-block V-8 engine. Goes like hell, particularly with the 4-speed manual. Corners like it's on marbles. Brakes are pretty awesome too, not to mention the MPG.

Oh, BTW, did I mention that our little cars will put that big muscle car on the trailer?

Don't you just love progress?

[snaketh]

... which, by the way, you should be damned glad exist if you or a loved one have ever been in an accident. If it were up to people who think similiarly to you, guns wouldn't have safeties, food would be jacked up with all manner of chemicals and hormones, and childrens toys could have all the small parts a maker wanted to use.

I'm sorry. Folks with blinders on really peeve me off.

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.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

Were you wearing aviators goggles?

Goggles - no. Some Ollie Peeps aviator glasses? Probably.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Hops128i

Well, if I search cars.com there are 15/860+ non-M2 2 series with a manual transmission, they've effectively eliminated the manual if you don't want to order one, and want a particular set of options.

Well here's the thing. From a dealer's perspective, they are not losing sales by not stocking manuals. If you want one you just order one. It's not like in Philly where I am Devon BMW loses sales all day / every day since Main Line has a ton of manuals in stock.

Just keep the "fast movers" in stock since most folks want an auto anyway, then for those that want a manual order the damn thing and wait 8-10 weeks.

[3.0L]

I spent the first half of my career in the consumer electronics business. 23 years to be exact, with the last 10 years as half owner and general manager. I was the person in the "hot seat" who decided what inventory to order and when. It was one of the toughest parts of business and something I paid very close attention to. To summarize that task, I ordered and stocked inventory that moved. I balanced that with the "right" quantity, in an attempt to get 4 turns per year, or better.

I had to put aside personal preferences. If folks wanted ugly cabinets, that's what I offered them.

Just the way it is, folks. And we did well.