Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Re: Z4 automatic vs. stick

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.



You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

Login | Free CarKB.com registration | Whole discussion thread

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Re: Z4 automatic vs. stick

Floyd Rogers24 Nov 2006 05:23
>   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

Dave Plowman (News)23 Nov 2006 23:47
> 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 Rogers23 Nov 2006 19:59
>   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

Dave Plowman (News)23 Nov 2006 18:49
> > 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.


Eisboch23 Nov 2006 18:37
> 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

Dave Plowman (News)23 Nov 2006 15:59
> > 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.


Tom Scales23 Nov 2006 14:15
>> > 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

Dave Plowman (News)23 Nov 2006 10:58
> > 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.


Tom Scales23 Nov 2006 00:57
>> 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

Dave Plowman (News)22 Nov 2006 21:44
> 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.


grinder22 Nov 2006 21:20
>>>> 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.

Tom Scales22 Nov 2006 18:35
>>> 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

grinder22 Nov 2006 16:42
>> 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.

Keith22 Nov 2006 15:34
> 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.

grinder22 Nov 2006 14:52
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.

Quick links:

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage




©2009 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.