[whoosh]

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

Show me a single street car you think is purchased based solely on performance. And I'll show you a car that isn't.

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by hyperzulu

The E46 M3 manual is worth significantly more than its auto counterpart, yet you still feel that having an option on the M2 will somehow burden its status as a great car in history?

I do.

Example: the 1993 Porsche RS America was a de-contented Carrera 2. It had no more power, no better brakes, no better suspension than could be ordered on the C2, was manual only, and they were made in pretty decent numbers. It was simply a stripped out, 10k cheaper Carrera 2.

Today the C2 is worth 60% less than it was new. Meanwhile the RS America is worth 60% more than it was new.

If they'd put those options on the Carrera 2- if you could order it without back seats, without a radio, etc, what would a C2 optioned like that be worth? Would it be worth 3 to 4 times what a regular C2 is? No. Even if only a handful made, it would be worth only slightly more than a C2. However the RS America is worth 3-4 times more than a C2 today.

The 1M is in some ways the modern equivalent of an RS America.

Now no where have I argued that the M2 should be manual only. I'm simply pointing out that by offering the choice, you do lose something that made the 1M special.

[vantagesc]

For my purposes, DCT will make the M2 more enjoyable to drive because the performance is easier to extract. I already have a weekend car that requires a lot of energy to drive fast (manual, stiff suspension, high revving / low torque engine, no power steering). BMWs, even the 1M, are daily drivers. If you want something built as a sports car from the ground up, there are other options IMO. The M2 should still be a focused car, but I don't see DCT as diluting that significantly unless you start bringing a whole lot of other things into consideration.

[vantagesc]

I guess where you are losing me Pete is that you are talking about a whole host of characteristics and features defining a car's perceived value. I'd agree with that. But I think your argument is significantly diluted if all we're talking about is the same car in manual vs. DCT. Especially in today's climate.

I also don't agree that the 1M is like an RS America at all. The only two features you couldn't get on the 1M that you could get on a 135i were DCT and the sunroof. The 1M still had every other creature comfort available.

IMO, the widebody, suspension, compact size, short wheel base, and torque of the motor all had more to do with the 1Ms appeal than the reputation of being a drivers car because it was manual only. Your argument that by adding DCT, they would have had to reduce power to protect the M3 only bolsters what I'm saying.

Hell, arguably the greatest modern M3, the E46 CSL, wasn't even offered in a manual. Unfortunately that generation SMG was rubbish, otherwise the car would be worth even more. Clearly what was driving value for that car is the other features, demonstrating that the gearbox choice in isolation is not enough.

Most of what you've been saying actually agrees with hyperzulu.

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by whoosh

(Arial Atom 500)

The $225k Atom 500 has no ABS making that performance quite questionable. It is also slower around the track than a number of options that cost less- quite a few motorbikes, the BAC Mono, Radicals, or indeed a tuned Atom 3.5 for half the price with race gas and the boost turned up. You can get a used time attack car (ie GT-R) that will take it in both a straight line and around the track for half the price.

Sure some of these are less streetable, less reliable, less whatever, but we said "purely performance"...

[hyperzulu]

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

I do.

Example: the 1993 Porsche RS America was a de-contented Carrera 2. It had no more power, no better brakes, no better suspension than could be ordered on the C2, was manual only, and they were made in pretty decent numbers. It was simply a stripped out, 10k cheaper Carrera 2.

Today the C2 is worth 60% less than it was new. Meanwhile the RS America is worth 60% more than it was new.

If they'd put those options on the Carrera 2- if you could order it without back seats, without a radio, etc, what would a C2 optioned like that be worth? Would it be worth 3 to 4 times what a regular C2 is? No. Even if only a handful made, it would be worth only slightly more than a C2. However the RS America is worth 3-4 times more than a C2 today.

The 1M is in some ways the modern equivalent of an RS America.

Now no where have I argued that the M2 should be manual only. I'm simply pointing out that by offering the choice, you do lose something that made the 1M special.

I just think it's hard to really justify what makes a car special. It's a phenomena hard to explain that makes a car really sought after. Rarity is part of it, but lack of options is really one of those things that I think has been conceived somewhere and taken as truth, similar to the idea that fit women are more attractive than curvy ones.

The E46 M3 CSL fits the same mold, despite having the wrong gearbox. So instead of focusing on making the M2 special, they should offer a CSL for the purist. Then everyone's happy.

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by vantagesc

I guess where you are losing me Pete is that you are talking about a whole host of characteristics and features defining a car's perceived value. I'd agree with that. But I think your argument is significantly diluted if all we're talking about is the same car in manual vs. DCT. Especially in today's climate.

Where you're missing it is that I am not saying that by going manual only the car will automatically be more valuable, though recent history has shown that's often the case. Instead if you read again I'm saying focus drives a car's value. Cars that don't appeal to the masses, but only appeal to a select few. Having a manual transmission only, as in the 1M, is one example of this. Only having 3 color options is another- I remember clearly how much grief that caused. Stiff suspension, tricky handling, etc, all features that focus and differentiate a car from its peers.

The M3 CSL is another example of a "focused" car, and is in fact in line with my point. It is valuable because it's focused. I'd argue that at least the SMG versions would be worth less if a manual had been available, and perhaps they all would. And they would all certainly have been diluted if one could have ordered it with sunroof, comfort options, etc. By not offering those options, the CSL keeps a promise- you see one and you know it's the "real deal". Same as an RS America, same as a 1M.

I think you're assuming I'm saying that manual is always worth more. I'm not. I'm saying focused cars with fewer options actually work, and this is one reason why BMW might choose not to offer a DCT, if indeed they go that route.

Now, if we imagine three potential offerings for the M2, we could get:

Manual only, ~380 hp
DCT only, ~365 hp (reduced to keep the performance gap to the M4)
Optional transmission, ~365 hp

Choose your particular poison, and while you're at it maybe try to guess what you think each will be worth in 5 years. I know which way I'd go, but I realize I'm in the (passionate) minority.

[zkeeper]

One guy's passionate for blondes, another is for brunettes. I hate to see the value of the car attached to a person's passion--ie. for manuals. Manual makes it special to one....DCT offered is a passion preference for another. Personally I think any exclusivity to the 1M is not due to the manual...but to production run.

Hopefully BMW will offer manual and DCT---opening up more revenue stream and keeping the "passion" for these kinds of cars at this level ongoing and ongoing.

If you are on staff with BMW engineering??? and listening in???, just walk into the room and tell them, "hey there are more out there who wish the option choice than we might think".

[vantagesc]

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

Where you're missing it is that I am not saying that by going manual only the car will automatically be more valuable, though recent history has shown that's often the case. Instead if you read again I'm saying focus drives a car's value.
....
I think you're assuming I'm saying that manual is always worth more. I'm not.

I agree with you on the focus point and thought that's what you were arguing, until you said that including a DCT would burden the M2's status as a great car. To me that sounds awfully like saying that a manual only car is more valuable. That's why I said "where you are losing me....".

[sgrinavi]

Has there ever been a transmission thread in the history of the internets that hasn't degraded to the M vs A guys?

Buy what you like and don't worry about what anyone thinks. It's your damn car.

[Cavpilot2k]

Originally Posted by sgrinavi

Has there ever been a transmission thread in the history of the internets that hasn't degraded to the M vs A guys?

Buy what you like and don't worry about what anyone thinks. It's your damn car.

+1
This bickering is irrelevant. The car should have both options, and that comes from a MT-only guy. The 1M would not be any less sought-after if a portion of them had DCT. In fact, given the market for performance DCTs, I think it would actually have a larger audience for the same population of vehicles, making it even more valuable.

Regardless, the M2 will, rightfully have both as options. Period, argument over.
Feel free to disagree, but I will bet a month's paycheck to anyone on that any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

We will have the choice. Next discussion?

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by vantagesc

I agree with you on the focus point and thought that's what you were arguing, until you said that including a DCT would burden the M2's status as a great car. To me that sounds awfully like saying that a manual only car is more valuable. That's why I said "where you are losing me....".

Two separate points. I believe either a manual only or a DCT only car is more valuable, optional less so. But you didn't answer the question... In the long run, as I said, given the options I outlined above I know which I'd bet on for value. Would you really bet otherwise?

Originally Posted by Cavpilot2k

This bickering is irrelevant. The car should have both options, and that comes from a MT-only guy.

Never did I say the car "should" come one way or another, I simply suggested how options might effect the value proposition. As for your boredom with the discussion, what do you suggest we should we talk about instead, the merits of differing shades of blue paint? The automatic transmission eliminates 40% of the man / machine interface. There has been no bigger change to the driving experience in BMW's history. It is worthy of discussion, and different ideas as to why BMW is doing what they are doing and how it effects the customer equally so. If you feel otherwise don't click on a thread with that topic in the title.

As for irrelevance, opinions matter. The M5 has a manual only because of customer reaction, and the M2 will have a manual for the same reason. Seven years from now, when most high end cars are equipped with self-driving options, there will be another argument over similar points, the seeds of which are being sown now. That discussion will also be worth having...

[RingMeister01]

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

I do.

Example: the 1993 Porsche RS America was a de-contented Carrera 2. It had no more power, no better brakes, no better suspension than could be ordered on the C2, was manual only, and they were made in pretty decent numbers. It was simply a stripped out, 10k cheaper Carrera 2.

Today the C2 is worth 60% less than it was new. Meanwhile the RS America is worth 60% more than it was new.

If they'd put those options on the Carrera 2- if you could order it without back seats, without a radio, etc, what would a C2 optioned like that be worth? Would it be worth 3 to 4 times what a regular C2 is? No. Even if only a handful made, it would be worth only slightly more than a C2. However the RS America is worth 3-4 times more than a C2 today.

The 1M is in some ways the modern equivalent of an RS America.

Now no where have I argued that the M2 should be manual only. I'm simply pointing out that by offering the choice, you do lose something that made the 1M special.

The days of the RS are long gone although customers that would be in interested today are still around. Unfortunately we've become so drunk in options and safety requirements a stripper (ike the RS) just isn't feasible today. Shame.

P.S. A huge point that the RS was cheaper than the C2. Today something like this would care a 10K premium over the standard model.

[Artemis]

Chill, forum fellows. An MT/DCT choice will be available for the M2.

BMW might as well pull a "We Told BMW Enthusiasts That The M2 Will be MT Only (or DCT Only)" prank:

[Seagull]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Chill, forum fellows. An MT/DCT choice will be available for the M2.

BMW might as well pull a "We Told BMW Enthusiasts That The M2 Will be MT Only (or DCT Only)" prank:

So true. But it was entertaining just like the vid...

[Pete_vB]

LOL. We'll see, but it it's the volume model that's rumored, I agree it'll be optional. Limited more focused models interest me more, part of the reason I'll likely pass and keep the 1M.

Latest word from a number of sources this past week is that the Cayman GT4 will be manual only. We'll see if this is purely rumor soon; I'm on that list...

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

it's the volume model that's rumored, I agree it'll be optional.

Yes, that's what's rumored for the base M2 that goes into production in Nov 2015.

However, never say never: BMW might reserve a 1M move for special M2 versions (M2 GTS/CSL?), if ever considered someday in the future: MT only for "the hardcore community". Free translation of an excerpt from a recent interview with BMW M boss Nitschke:
http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1049659

"Q: You have stated that dual-clutch transmission are set because of the high-speed concept. What about the manual transmission?
Nitschke: In Europe, the taking order for the manual transmission decreased significantly. Here we are, for example, in M3/M4 in the range of 20 percent. Today the DCT and automatic gives better performance figures than the manual transmission, which for us in certain way is a small dilemma. But there is of course a hardcore community, for which the manual transmission is mandatory. What I can promise is that the combination of six-cylinder and manual transmission is maintained as a long-term option, which also makes sense from weight reasons because the manual transmission is about 30 kg lighter. In addition, we believe that the manual gearbox perhaps even again could become a unique selling point - based on the competition. In the V8 this is currently still a moving target, since particularly the American market the demands a manual transmission. But it is also clear that this solution represents a second build line, and a second transmission supplier, and a separate setup, which also is cost relevant."

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

Latest word from a number of sources this past week is that the Cayman GT4 will be manual only. We'll see if this is purely rumor soon; I'm on that list...

Now that would be a surprise move for Porsche, for the reason I pointed out in http://www.2addicts.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=66

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Now that would be a surprise move for Porsche, for the reason I pointed out in http://www.2addicts.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=66

Yes and no. 100% of previous GT car drivers by definition used manuals. Porsche spent a long time cultivating those customers, and were reportedly disappointed with how few of them upgraded to the 991 GT3- the car has sold well and attracted many new customers from other makes, Ferrari, etc, but has been relatively (compared to previous models) shunned by existing GT customers, more than they'd hoped.

It wouldn't be too surprising if they reacted with a model for those particular "hardcore" customers, though we'll see if the GT4 does the trick. As for the 5% manual statistic, I wonder what the real number is, particularly in the US. I believe the 991 is ~20% worldwide, and the US always skews towards manuals.

[ORIGIN M.]

M-DCT for me or Bust !

[Wilson]

Clearly this is a very passionate subject for many here, and the merits of one gearbox over the other could be argued ad infinitum.

At the end of the day Pete I think we are both arguing the same thing, both sides want the gearbox that they want.

There are a couple of things that have been said by some posters that are factually wrong, particularly how performance is measured. Performance is just that, it is measured by benchmarks in key areas and the highest score wins. A DCT will be a contributing factor in wining many of the performance benchmarks, the end.

However, when it comes to subjective measures, ie the fun factor, some may prefer the MT over the DCT, they have more enjoyment rowing the gears, but no more enjoyment than the next person who prefers the DCT over the MT.

For example, your comment below could equally be applied to a driver of a DCT car;

"but having owned a DSG car I've found that personally I nearly always prefer the driving experience on US roads in a good manual."

Part of your argument below is correct, re fuel economy, the other part is not. Two engines with identical displacement, one NA the other with a turbo (or other form of forced induction), the turbo will be superior in all categories, including torque, HP, and fuel economy. If you were trying to compare a larger displacement NA motor to a smaller displacement turbo motor, then maybe.

"A different argument, but ignoring fuel economy normally aspirated motors are objectively still better. They are lighter for the same power output and have better throttle response. They are going the way of the dodo purely because of fuel economy standards, which is also contributing the the MT's demise."

Your below comment is part of the problem, you define a purist, enthusiasts car by connecting it to a MT, which is simply garbage. Enthusiasts come in all shapes and sizes, I am positive you are an enthusiast, but equally, if the 1M was sold with DCT, other enthusiasts would have bought every last one of them.

"Finally if they had, with sunroofs, automatics, etc rolling around the 1M's reputation as a driver's car would have been diluted. That 1M could not have been the purist, enthusiast's car that we got."

I will say no more on the issue, my hope is that BMW offer this M2 in both MT and DCT and all enthusiasts can enjoy its greatness.

[SmallTownBoy]

Your quote that started much of this "performance car" debate was:

Originally Posted by Wilson

Pete, are you seriously suggesting that if the M2 is offered in both a MT and a DCT then it wont fit anyone perfectly, that's laughable. A gearbox does not define a car, but if it did, I would say that if you want a performance car such as the M2, then in fact the DCT is the only gearbox option to have, all measurable benchmarks will be markedly superior with the DCT.

Now you say:

Originally Posted by Wilson

There are a couple of things that have been said by some posters that are factually wrong, particularly how performance is measured. Performance is just that, it is measured by benchmarks in key areas and the highest score wins. A DCT will be a contributing factor in wining many of the performance benchmarks, the end.

However, when it comes to subjective measures, ie the fun factor, some may prefer the MT over the DCT, they have more enjoyment rowing the gears, but no more enjoyment than the next person who prefers the DCT over the MT.

It seems you're taking a more nuanced approach. So don't be so quick to call others "wrong" when you've moved the goalposts.

In your own words, DCT has gone from being "...the only gearbox option to have.." to "...a contributing factor in wining [sic] many of the performance benchmarks..."

I strongly disagree with your first quote and completely agree with your second. There are many reasons to buy a "performance car." Probably the most important for a lot of people is the purely subjective "fun factor". We've been telling you this for about 2.5 pages of posts.

The end.

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by Wilson

Part of your argument below is correct, re fuel economy, the other part is not. Two engines with identical displacement, one NA the other with a turbo (or other form of forced induction), the turbo will be superior in all categories, including torque, HP, and fuel economy.

LOL, not sure how you got that, as I never mentioned displacement.

Power to weight ratio. Not hp per liter- why would you care? Comparing street car motors:

• The "antiquated" normally aspirated pushrod V8 in the Z28 makes more hp per pound that the M4's "advanced" direct injected TT 3.0L.
• The 918's V8 (608 hp from just 308 lbs) betters McLaren's twin turbo V8 by a wide margin, or any other turbo street car motor you care to name.
• The M4's S55 twin turbo I6 has no better power to weight ratio than the older S65 B44's 4.4L V8.

And while we're correcting facts, turbo engines are not more efficient than NA engines of the same displacement. In fact the most efficient street car engines (highest brake specific fuel consumption) are normally aspirated. Turbos improve economy by allowing the engine to be downsized.

As for the rest, I stand by what I wrote. Which may or may not be what you think you read.