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

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.

Facts depend on where they're gathered from.

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

Poor design or materials, then. Most autos go to their grave without
suffering that sort of failure.

The bushing/thrust washer that holds the planetary away from
the sun/planetary holder.

FloydR

Am I? It's a generalization based on my experience of many different types.

Thankfully not, but there will always be an exception.

But what failed? I was specifically referring to the gear train rather
than the various clutches.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.