 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / November 2006Z4 automatic vs. stick
Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? I will be buying a Z4. I want an automatic because 1) I will not be driving it like a race car and 2) the advances in automatic transmissions make them as reliable as manuals and 3) I have been driving autos for over 30 years and am ready for a change. > Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? > > I will be buying a Z4. I want an automatic because 1) I will not be > driving it like a race car and 2) the advances in automatic transmissions > make them as reliable as manuals and 3) I have been driving autos for over > 30 years and am ready for a change. Sounds like an auto will make you happy. Go for it. Why does anyone else's opinion matter? > Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? > > I will be buying a Z4. I want an automatic because 1) I will not be driving > it like a race car and 2) the advances in automatic transmissions make them > as reliable as manuals and 3) I have been driving autos for over 30 years > and am ready for a change. I would get the auto. From test drives, BMW autos seem pretty good to me. I would suggest staying away from the SMG. I had a 2004 Z4 3.0i with the SMG and although the technology was cool - I am a bit of a geek and like that kind of stuff - it was not very smooth shifting. I would say it is one of the reasons I traded the car in so soon (that along with troubles with the top and wanting room for more than 2 people). I now have a 2006 330i with a 6 speed manual and I think it is a much better automobile all around. >> Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 330i with a 6 speed manual and I think it is a much better automobile all > around. They are two different cars. The Z4 is not practical but it will be a "weekend" car and not an everyday drive. The 3 series would be my second choice although there is not much room in the back seat. My third choice would be a X3 but I don't like the expense and maintenance associated with AWD regardless of the improved handling. >>> Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > would be a X3 but I don't like the expense and maintenance associated with > AWD regardless of the improved handling. You might want to at least drive an M3. Try the SMG too. Some people don't like it, as the previous poster said. I have it in my M3 and love it. Definately not an automatic and if that is the 'feel' you want, the SMG is not for you. If you like a 6-speed, but want an auto mode in traffic, the SMG is great. Love mine. But I have a 540 when I need an auto >>>> Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > But I have a 540 when I need an auto The M3 would be too much money for a weekend car. And I am kind of old school. Automatic or manual. The SMG may be nice but I prefer tried and true technology. > The M3 would be too much money for a weekend car. And I am kind of old > school. Automatic or manual. The SMG may be nice but I prefer tried > and true technology. I agree. Until BMW join the 21st century and use a twin clutch SMG the rough changes when in auto mode just ain't acceptable. It's one thing having 'punchy' changes when enjoying a country road, but not when trickling through traffic.  Signature*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> The M3 would be too much money for a weekend car. And I am kind of old >> school. Automatic or manual. The SMG may be nice but I prefer tried [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > having 'punchy' changes when enjoying a country road, but not when > trickling through traffic. You must be driving a different SMG than I am. I can choose the 'roughness' of the shifts. 1-2 means smooth. 4-6 means fun. Tom > > I agree. Until BMW join the 21st century and use a twin clutch SMG the > > rough changes when in auto mode just ain't acceptable. It's one thing > > having 'punchy' changes when enjoying a country road, but not when > > trickling through traffic. > You must be driving a different SMG than I am. I can choose the > 'roughness' of the shifts. 1-2 means smooth. Have you any experience of decent autos? Not being funny, but the SMG isn't in the same class, smoothness wise. And I've driven a recent M5. Signature*Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you? * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Have you any experience of decent autos? Not being funny, but the SMG > isn't in the same class, smoothness wise. And I've driven a recent M5. In my opinion the "automatic" or "D" mode in the new, E60 M5 is worthless. Shifting manually with the SMG III takes some getting used to but in S5 and S6 modes, it is very smooth and fast. I recently found out that you can re-calibrate the amount of clutch slip in the M5 (or M6) with the SMG. You drive at least 20 mph ... put the gearshift in neutral so you are coasting and pull up on both paddle shifters. This procedure is recommended whenever you change tires also. Eisboch >> > I agree. Until BMW join the 21st century and use a twin clutch SMG the >> > rough changes when in auto mode just ain't acceptable. It's one thing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Have you any experience of decent autos? Not being funny, but the SMG > isn't in the same class, smoothness wise. And I've driven a recent M5. You want it to be as smooth as an automatic? Then buy an automatic. That's not what it is. And yes, I've experienced a decent automatic. The one in my 540 isn't bad > > Have you any experience of decent autos? Not being funny, but the SMG > > isn't in the same class, smoothness wise. And I've driven a recent M5. > You want it to be as smooth as an automatic? In auto mode, yes. Different when doing the selection yourself and in a hurry. The two aren't mutually exclusive - Audi manage it. As will BMW when they adopt a twin clutch SMG shortly. > Then buy an automatic. That's not what it is. If it can change gear without any action on the part of the driver, it's an auto. There is no argument possible about that. An auto isn't defined by the presence of a torque convertor. Signature*With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> > Have you any experience of decent autos? Not being funny, but the SMG >> > isn't in the same class, smoothness wise. And I've driven a recent M5. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > an auto. There is no argument possible about that. An auto isn't defined > by the presence of a torque convertor. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. > If it can change gear without any action on the part of the driver, it's > an auto. There is no argument possible about that. An auto isn't defined > by the presence of a torque convertor. Dave, you can take that position if you like, but why does BMW (and others) offer three different transmission types for the Z4? Manual Automatic SMG Eisboch > > If it can change gear without any action on the part of the driver, > > it's an auto. There is no argument possible about that. An auto isn't > > defined by the presence of a torque convertor. > Dave, you can take that position if you like, but why does BMW (and > others) offer three different transmission types for the Z4? Because the SMG isn't sufficiently developed to replace a conventional auto. Nor does it give the same driving satisfaction as a true manual. Things may change, though. If you require a 'clutchless' change with total control over the gears, both automated synchromesh boxes and torque convertor autos are improving all the time. I'd not take a bet which will win - although my money says the TC auto since it's intrinsically more reliable. Signature*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Eisboch <rce@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > If it can change gear without any action on the part of the driver, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > win - although my money says the TC auto since it's intrinsically more > reliable. I would debate the reliability point of a traditional TC/auto with planetary gears, since they have far more parts (mostly bearings, bushings and clutches) than even an SMG. More parts, more things to break. FloydR > I would debate the reliability point of a traditional TC/auto with > planetary gears, since they have far more parts (mostly bearings, > bushings and clutches) than even an SMG. More parts, more things to > break. Mechanical failure in an epicyclic gearbox is rare. True the clutches can and do wear, but so do those on a servo operated synchro box. As do synchro cones etc - especially with the hammering they get on an SMG. Signature*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Floyd Rogers <fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I would debate the reliability point of a traditional TC/auto with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mechanical failure in an epicyclic gearbox is rare. You are wrong. But then, you've never seen the insides of a US GMC auto circa 1980. They were designed to last around 100K miles, and it was rare to get more than that from them. OTOH, Ford's C6 truck tranny would last 300-400K miles. Don't forget BMW's fiasco with GMC trannies in the late '80s and early '90s for US spec cars. Don't forget that loss of synchro isn't catastrophic, whereas bearing/bushing failure of the planetary gear(s) is. FloydR > > Floyd Rogers <fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I would debate the reliability point of a traditional TC/auto with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Mechanical failure in an epicyclic gearbox is rare. > You are wrong. Am I? It's a generalization based on my experience of many different types. > But then, you've never seen the insides of a US GMC > auto circa 1980. Thankfully not, but there will always be an exception. > They were designed to last around 100K miles, > and it was rare to get more than that from them. But what failed? I was specifically referring to the gear train rather than the various clutches. > OTOH, Ford's C6 truck tranny would last 300-400K miles. > Don't forget BMW's fiasco with GMC trannies in the late '80s > and early '90s for US spec cars. > Don't forget that loss of synchro isn't catastrophic, whereas > bearing/bushing failure of the planetary gear(s) is. Bearing/bush failure is common on many synchro boxes too if you want to take that road. And failure of synchro cones will invariably lead on to other failures if not repaired. > FloydR Signature*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Floyd Rogers <fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> wrote: >> They were designed to last around 100K miles, >> and it was rare to get more than that from them. > > But what failed? I was specifically referring to the gear train rather > than the various clutches. The bushing/thrust washer that holds the planetary away from the sun/planetary holder. FloydR > >> They were designed to last around 100K miles, > >> and it was rare to get more than that from them. > > > > But what failed? I was specifically referring to the gear train rather > > than the various clutches. > The bushing/thrust washer that holds the planetary away from > the sun/planetary holder. Poor design or materials, then. Most autos go to their grave without suffering that sort of failure. Signature*Strip mining prevents forest fires. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > In article <12mmsjm4i00p93c@corp.supernews.com>, >> >> They were designed to last around 100K miles, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Poor design or materials, then. Most autos go to their grave without > suffering that sort of failure. Since almost all GM autos from that era die with that failure, your statement that "most" live is obviously incorrect. I agree that it's poor design: a ball bearing carrier (rather than the cheaper roller bearing and thrust washer) would last much longer. Doesn't change the facts, however. FloydR > > In article <12mmsjm4i00p93c@corp.supernews.com>, > >> >> They were designed to last around 100K miles, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Poor design or materials, then. Most autos go to their grave without > > suffering that sort of failure. > Since almost all GM autos from that era die with that failure, your > statement > that "most" live is obviously incorrect. But I'm speaking from a UK perspective. The GM autos from that era used here tended to be the larger ones fitted to Jaguar and Rolls Royce. > I agree that it's poor design: a ball bearing carrier (rather than > the cheaper roller bearing and thrust washer) would last much longer. > Doesn't change the facts, however. Facts depend on where they're gathered from. Signature*Half the people in the world are below average. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > But I'm speaking from a UK perspective. The GM autos from that era used > here tended to be the larger ones fitted to Jaguar and Rolls Royce. When did we start speaking from a UK perspective? (I'm not going to bother to look, as I no longer care.) This is a global group, not UK specific, so "facts" should be world-wide, not cherry picked from one country. Later. FloydR > > But I'm speaking from a UK perspective. The GM autos from that era used > > here tended to be the larger ones fitted to Jaguar and Rolls Royce. > When did we start speaking from a UK perspective? (I'm not going > to bother to look, as I no longer care.) This is a global group, not UK > specific, so "facts" should be world-wide, not cherry picked from one > country. Indeed. The point I perhaps was trying to make more honestly after you started talking about 'US GMC autos'. ;-) Signature*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. No. It's a US-perspective (or even LA-perspective) NG... DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] This is a global group, not UK > specific, so "facts" should be world-wide, not cherry picked from one > country. > > Later. > > FloydR > No. It's a US-perspective (or even LA-perspective) NG... Since it *is* a US originated group I try to make it plain where I hail from. Wish it were the case with some others writing to car groups with 'uk' in the title... Signature*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> No. It's a US-perspective (or even LA-perspective) NG... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wish it were the case with some others writing to car groups with 'uk' in > the title... What makes it a "US Originated group"? >If you require a 'clutchless' change with total >control over the gears, both automated synchromesh boxes and torque >convertor autos are improving all the time. I'd not take a bet which will >win - although my money says the TC auto since it's intrinsically more >reliable. Not that I'm a fan of TC transmissions, but there is something just inherently cool about a planetary gear set. Just a simple arrangement of a few cogs that stays fully meshed all the time, yet it gives you two forward speeds and reverse simply by holding a different part of it still. It's almost like god invented it because he knew it would come in handy when we got around to making cars. I've mentioned it before, but I've often wondered why no one ever put a friction clutch in front of one instead of a torque converter. SignatureDan. >>If you require a 'clutchless' change with total >>control over the gears, both automated synchromesh boxes and torque [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I've mentioned it before, but I've often wondered why no one ever put > a friction clutch in front of one instead of a torque converter. Because the TC will handle a heck of a lot more torque application. It "gives" where the friction clutch wears out. Eisboch >> I've mentioned it before, but I've often wondered why no one ever put >> a friction clutch in front of one instead of a torque converter. >Because the TC will handle a heck of a lot more torque application. It >"gives" where the friction clutch wears out. But the numbers in real-life of TCs and friction clutches among different power levels of engines doesn't seem to bear that out. Why would it make any difference whether there was a planetary gear set or a mainshaft/layshaft gear arrangement behind the clutch? SignatureDan. > Why would it make any difference whether there was a planetary gear > set or a mainshaft/layshaft gear arrangement behind the clutch? Gear life depends on accurate meshing - so the loads on the teeth are correct. Much easier to achieve in a planetary setup. On a synchromesh box there is a fair distance between bearings. Signature*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> Why would it make any difference whether there was a planetary gear >> set or a mainshaft/layshaft gear arrangement behind the clutch? >Gear life depends on accurate meshing - so the loads on the teeth are >correct. Much easier to achieve in a planetary setup. On a synchromesh box >there is a fair distance between bearings. That's a good argument *for* putting a planetary gearbox, rather than a synchro. one, behind a friction clutch. I'd love to know what I've missed that would tell me why it's not done. SignatureDan. > >> Why would it make any difference whether there was a planetary gear > >> set or a mainshaft/layshaft gear arrangement behind the clutch? > >Gear life depends on accurate meshing - so the loads on the teeth are > >correct. Much easier to achieve in a planetary setup. On a synchromesh > >box there is a fair distance between bearings. > That's a good argument *for* putting a planetary gearbox, rather than > a synchro. one, behind a friction clutch. I'd love to know what I've > missed that would tell me why it's not done. Probably because you've already got 'clutches' in a planetary box which can do the same thing. Didn't the Model T Ford use this principle? Later pre-select boxes of course used a fluid flywheel for starting from rest. Signature*When cheese gets it's picture taken, what does it say? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >Probably because you've already got 'clutches' in a planetary box which >can do the same thing. Didn't the Model T Ford use this principle? Later >pre-select boxes of course used a fluid flywheel for starting from rest. Then why do you *have* to have a torque converter? Oh dear, I'll never understand this... SignatureDan. > >Probably because you've already got 'clutches' in a planetary box which > >can do the same thing. Didn't the Model T Ford use this principle? Later > >pre-select boxes of course used a fluid flywheel for starting from rest. > Then why do you *have* to have a torque converter? Oh dear, I'll > never understand this... It has several functions. First it acts as a 'clutch' when starting from rest. Next it acts rather like a continuously variable gearbox by allowing the engine speed to exceed its output speed by up to around 2000 rpm and converting most of that speed into extra torque at lower output RPM. Not all though, as it gets hot in doing so. ;-) It also - and crucial for most autos - cushions the actual gearchange. When autos had two or three ratios, the torque multiplying feature was crucial to reasonable performance - albeit at the expense of economy. Boxes now have up to what? 8 ratios, so this part isn't much needed. So many just use it for starting off and each gearchange, locking it out of action via an extra clutch for most of the time. Signature*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >When autos had two or three ratios, the torque multiplying feature was >crucial to reasonable performance - albeit at the expense of economy. I've always had a pretty good grasp of the mechanics of it all, including how the TC works and the subtleties of what it does. I was kind of thinking that torque multiplication rather than the 'disengaging' effect of low torque transmission at low RPM was the underlying reason they were first used, and I suppose there was then no real reason to change things later. SignatureDan. >>Probably because you've already got 'clutches' in a planetary box which >>can do the same thing. Didn't the Model T Ford use this principle? Later >>pre-select boxes of course used a fluid flywheel for starting from rest. > >Then why do you *have* to have a torque converter? Oh dear, I'll >never understand this... A fluid flywheel is not the same as a torque converter. A TC will direct oil flow onto a fixed stator that in turn directs oil flow to a turbine attached to the gearbox input. whereas a FF is simply a spinning container of oil that inertia eventually makes the outside tank oil viscosity turn the vanes of a "spinner" connected to the output to the gearbox. David Brown tractors used to have this arrangement and a similar arrangement although not fluid was the magnetic flux flywheel (clutch less) setup designed jointly by Jeager and Smiths and fitted to the once famous Hillman Minx and I think Simca or Renault cars in France. Here endeth the last lesson or rather useless information. Sir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK Unlike a clutch, it is not possible for a torque converter to completely disengage so there would always be some torque present during shifts which would wear out the synchros in very short order. That's also the reason that a standard transmission will outlast an automatic by a factor of two or three. If you want to keep your car for more than 300k miles I would not recommend an automatic. >>> Why would it make any difference whether there was a planetary gear >>> set or a mainshaft/layshaft gear arrangement behind the clutch? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a synchro. one, behind a friction clutch. I'd love to know what I've > missed that would tell me why it's not done. >Unlike a clutch, it is not possible for a torque converter to completely >disengage so there would always be some torque present during shifts which >would wear out the synchros in very short order. That's completely the opposite of my quandary! SignatureDan. > Unlike a clutch, it is not possible for a torque converter to completely > disengage so there would always be some torque present during shifts > which would wear out the synchros in very short order. That's also the > reason that a standard transmission will outlast an automatic by a > factor of two or three. If you want to keep your car for more than > 300k miles I would not recommend an automatic. Which goes against the findings of most large organisations who now specify autos even for things like light vans. The beauty of an auto is it is virtually driver proof. And remember you don't get a synchro transmission without a clutch, so the two should be considered together when assessing life. Not many will get anything like 300k miles out of a clutch. Signature*What am I? Flypaper for freaks!? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. I agree completely with Dave that the most prominent virtue of the automatic transmission is that it is much more 'foolproof' than the manual transmission and if your situation requires it by all means buy an automatic. That's why commercial operators do it - many of their drivers have no respect for the hardware. On the other point, if a clutch goes out it costs you $150 and a Saturday spent under the car whereas band clutch failure in an auto will cost you about 20 times that amount and will often result in scrapping the vehicle. Automatic transmissions have their place - it's just not in any of my cars. >> Unlike a clutch, it is not possible for a torque converter to completely >> disengage so there would always be some torque present during shifts [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > when assessing life. Not many will get anything like 300k miles out of a > clutch. > On the other point, if a clutch goes out it costs you $150 and a > Saturday spent under the car You're taking a very simple example here. Some clutches these days aren't simple and aren't cheap. The flywheel may also need replacing. > whereas band clutch failure in an auto will cost you about 20 times that > amount and will often result in scrapping the vehicle. Automatic > transmissions have their place - it's just not in any of my cars. Well it's quite possible to DIY auto box repairs if you take a simple one as you have with a clutch. Nor are the parts that expensive. I've done several. Not a modern electronically controlled 5+ speed, though. Yet. ;-) Signature*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > In article <Y8CdnTiMC6bmd_jYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> Dave, you can take that position if you like, but why does BMW (and >> others) offer three different transmission types for the Z4? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > win - although my money says the TC auto since it's intrinsically more > reliable. I agree with you about the TC. By design, it allows higher torque application without ripping itself apart. Eisboch >>> The M3 would be too much money for a weekend car. And I am kind of old >>> school. Automatic or manual. The SMG may be nice but I prefer tried [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Tom My Z4 did have a different SMG - There were no options other than the sport button. I think the SMG used in the M3 is much more advanced. >You must be driving a different SMG than I am. Could be. The SMG in the Z4 is actually an SSG, an Italian-made less robust version of the SMG used in the M-class cars. epbrown -- "Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car; most people will settle for the car." Chris Titus 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black, 2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black >>> Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > would be a X3 but I don't like the expense and maintenance associated with > AWD regardless of the improved handling. My wife and I took a trip in the convertible last weekend to the local Fry's Electronics store to get a monitor. While there, we opted to buy a computer for one of the kids for Christmas. I'm glad we had the 3 Series convertible because we could not fit the stuff we bought into the trunk. Buy the 4-seater and use it for weekends. You'll spend about the same money, but you'll appreciate the extra space. Guarantied. Trust me, the 330 convertible is not a very practical car either, but it is more practical than the Z3 or the Z4. Frankly, the 325 or 328 convertible (whichever they sell these days) is as fun to drive as the 330, and it looks damn near identical. Personally, I prefer the tire package on the 330, but that's just me. >> Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 330i with a 6 speed manual and I think it is a much better automobile all > around. Now THAT is very good advice. I get the whole two-seater thing, and I drive a convertible so I even understand the attraction there. But, as much as I like the looks of the two-seaters (pretty much all of them), when I get to my retirement and can have such a toy, my choice will be another 3 Series with 4 seats. We rather enjoy going places with the top down, and storage space is handy with the back seat available. >>> Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > another 3 Series with 4 seats. We rather enjoy going places with the top > down, and storage space is handy with the back seat available. When I retire the choice will be made for me and I will have to abandon two seaters because I will not be able to get in and out of them. Right now the 2 seater appeals more to me. If I need to haul something I will use the 4-runner and if it doesn't fit in the 4-runner I will rent a pick-up. But if I am going for an overnight trip down the coast I will throw a bag in the trunk and take the Z4. BTW, the new Z4 coups look tremendous. > Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? > > I will be buying a Z4. I want an automatic because 1) I will not be driving > it like a race car and 2) the advances in automatic transmissions make them > as reliable as manuals and 3) I have been driving autos for over 30 years > and am ready for a change. I have a preference for a stick, especially in a roadster. As you say in another post, the Z4 would not be your commuter car, so why worry about manners in traffic? An automatic demands less involvement of the driver in the actual driving. If you want a fun car, get a standard (with clutch) car. How could anyone consider a sports car with an automatic transmission? Signature-Fred W > I have a preference for a stick, especially in a roadster. As you say in > another post, the Z4 would not be your commuter car, so why worry about > manners in traffic? An automatic demands less involvement of the driver > in the actual driving. If you want a fun car, get a standard (with > clutch) car. How could anyone consider a sports car with an automatic > transmission? I'm kind of the same way... If you just want to steer, get an automatic. If you actually want to drive, get a manual. But that's just me... automatics have their benefits too, so it all depends on what's important for you and what you enjoy. Hence, it's a personal preference, so I don't even see a point of asking what others think. Cheers, Pete >> Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > clutch) car. How could anyone consider a sports car with an automatic > transmission? Ever drive in San Francisco? I have - with a stick and believe me it is not fun. I had to take my 4-runner in a few weeks back and there is nothing worse than climbing one of those hills and seeing the traffic light at the top turn red. Driving a stick in heavy stop-and-go traffic is not fun either. Over the years I have just gotten sick of them. Initially I chose a stick because it was more dependable than an automatic but that cannot be said anymore. > Ever drive in San Francisco? I have - with a stick and believe me it is > not fun. I had to take my 4-runner in a few weeks back and there is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Initially I chose a stick because it was more dependable than an automatic > but that cannot be said anymore. Why are we even having this discussion then? :) Pete >> Ever drive in San Francisco? I have - with a stick and believe me it is >> not fun. I had to take my 4-runner in a few weeks back and there is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pete My original post stated I wanted an automatic and why. But I thought it would be interesting to hear other viewpoints. At first blush I can see why someone couldn't understand why someone would choose an auto over a stick for a sports car. >>> Ever drive in San Francisco? I have - with a stick and believe me it >>> is not fun. I had to take my 4-runner in a few weeks back and there is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > why someone couldn't understand why someone would choose an auto over a > stick for a sports car. Some of us buy fine automobiles because we've reached a stage in our lives where "fine" is more imporant than other stuff. When one reaches that point, one buys what they want not what othere think they might want. I've seen you say that you want a stick, but you make several pursuasive arguments for a manual (your original post is confusing both ways). Think about what it takes to make YOU happy and buy it. f.ck everybody else. Pardon me for being crude ... If you are gonna ask, and follow the advise you asked for, blow off the Z and get a 330 convertible -- your choice, manual, automatic, or SMG. (I'd get the manual, but that's me.) Having said that, I'd really like to drive an SMG, anybody near San Diego that wants me to drive their car? > Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? > > I will be buying a Z4. I want an automatic because 1) I will not be > driving it like a race car and 2) the advances in automatic transmissions > make them as reliable as manuals and 3) I have been driving autos for over > 30 years and am ready for a change. Get whichever makes you the most comfortable. If you want a manual transmission, then get one. If you want an automatic, get one of those. Whatever you do, do not get a transmission according to what somebody else thinks is good. A BMW transmission in either form is going to give you excellent service. > Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? > > I will be buying a Z4. I want an automatic because 1) I will not be > driving it like a race car and 2) the advances in automatic transmissions > make them as reliable as manuals and 3) I have been driving autos for over > 30 years and am ready for a change. My wife just bought a Z4si a couple of weeks ago with the automatic. The si version also has the "sports" mode and the 255 hp engine version. To be honest, I was not overly impressed I first drove the car in the normal "D" mode. (I drive a Porsche 996TT manual, so the Z wasn't really a fair comparison) The Z4si was ok ... but goes through the gears quickly .... like an American built sedan, so at 45 mph on a back road it is in 5th or 6th gear at low RPM. If you give it a bit of gas, it's response was sluggish, IMO, unless you caused it to downshift. That is, until I tried the sports mode ..... We've had several BMW's before, some with a "sports" mode that makes subtle changes to the shift points and the suspension stiffness. In the Z4si the sports mode is not subtle at all. It causes the automatic shifts to behave very much like how you should drive a high revving, manual sports car. It selects a gear that keeps the engine RPM up and won't shift until it should ... rather than trying to get into a higher gear quickly. It also automatically downshifts when you are slowing down as if it were a manual, again keeping the engine RPM up in a sweet spot on the hp and torque curve. It really is effective and makes the Z perform like a European sports car. I think the sports mode is only available in the si version .... it isn't offered in the Z4i as far as I know. You can also shift "manually" with the BMW Steptronic (or whatever they call it) but I was very impressed with the auto/sports mode. BTW ... this is an '06 model. I don't know about earlier years. Eisboch > You can also shift "manually" with the BMW Steptronic (or whatever they call > it) but I was very impressed with the auto/sports mode. > > BTW ... this is an '06 model. I don't know about earlier years. > > Eisboch I have the step-tronic in my 740 and it makes the car a totally different animal so if you can get one with the manual option I'd recommend it. I often use it to lock the car in gear on twisty roads etc so it's not running away or doesn't kick down on a corner. I have the regular torque converter and I'm sure one with a lower stall speed (like in the sport model) would reduce the slushiness feel. Mine has the adaptive box and it's alright but it takes a while to learn. I'd prefer a manual override other than the full sports mode. >> You can also shift "manually" with the BMW Steptronic (or whatever they >> call [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Mine has the adaptive box and it's alright but it takes a while to > learn. I'd prefer a manual override other than the full sports mode. We've had two 750's ... an '01 (12 cylinder) and an '06 (8 cylinder). Obviously, both had the Steptronic automatic transmission with the "manual" shifting capability and both had a "sports" mode that modified the shift points and suspension dampening settings. They worked, but neither of these sport modes had the same effect of the sports mode in the Z4si. Using sports mode in it has a much more pronounced effect and makes it feel like a true sports car. It doesn't simply modify the shift points ... it will hold the car in the appropriate gear to maximize engine RPM in the power curve and maximize responsiveness for a given speed. You can do the same thing with the manual shifting setting, but I found the automatic mode (in sports mode) to be very effective and fun. Eisboch > Anybody have a preference of automatic over stick? > > I will be buying a Z4. I want an automatic because 1) I will not be > driving it like a race car and 2) the advances in automatic transmissions > make them as reliable as manuals and 3) I have been driving autos for over > 30 years and am ready for a change. Well I'm buying a E92 335d and with the massive torque it has at low revs, the Steptronic is a standard option, since the MT can't handle it. I took the car out for a testdrive and really love it! DS mode really reads my thaughts, and you can always go in manual mode :) F.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.