M5 gets great review

[Dori A Schmetterling]

The Sunday Times, UK's biggest-selling quality Sunday paper reviewed the new
M5. Loved it and declared it the best sporting saloon in the world.

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,12389,00.html

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[Frank Kemper]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > haute in die Tasten:

> Autocar loved it too.
>

So did Auto Motor Sport. They even showed some embarassment that they were
not able to find negative things, so they pointed out that you cannot order
factory installed fog lights, because the engine needs all the air it will
be able to get. Okay, it was only a brief first ride, not a complete test.

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

[Trey]

>
> I think that SMG makes a lot of sense - with 7 forward gears
> it is easy to make a wrong shift - I bet that with manual box
> we would hear comments how hard it is to engage right gear
> in spirited driving.

why does it need seven gears?? a six speed would be fine. Or are they using
seven because thats what F-1 uses?

[bfd]

"Trey" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > I think that SMG makes a lot of sense - with 7 forward gears
> > it is easy to make a wrong shift - I bet that with manual box
> > we would hear comments how hard it is to engage right gear
> > in spirited driving.
>
> why does it need seven gears?? a six speed would be fine. Or are they
using
> seven because thats what F-1 uses?
>
Sorry, but a six speed manual is insufficient. After all, how else is BMW
going to justify its $85-95K price tag!

[Grant]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

>
> I'd guess it had to be a new box to handle the torque, and they
> couldn't afford to do both.

An unrelated question about the new M5 - why have the designed it with a
go-faster button? Apparently UK examples will be restricted to 400bhp every
time they're started, until you press the magic button to give you access to
the full 507bhp [1].

Why?

[Dan Drake]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:40:34 +0100, "Grant" > wrote:

>An unrelated question about the new M5 - why have the designed it with a
>go-faster button? Apparently UK examples will be restricted to 400bhp every
>time they're started, until you press the magic button to give you access to
>the full 507bhp [1].
>
>Why?

Just a guess - so that the illusion that the E39 M5 gives of a 'kick'
in responsiveness and power when you press the 'sport' button is
translated into something real?
--
Dan Drake

[Trey]

> Sorry, but a six speed manual is insufficient. After all, how else is
> BMW going to justify its $85-95K price tag!

hmm... toss in a 325 as a free gift?

[Trey]

Dan Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:40:34 +0100, "Grant" > wrote:
>
>> An unrelated question about the new M5 - why have the designed it
>> with a go-faster button? Apparently UK examples will be restricted
>> to 400bhp every time they're started, until you press the magic
>> button to give you access to the full 507bhp [1].
>>
>> Why?
>
> Just a guess - so that the illusion that the E39 M5 gives of a 'kick'
> in responsiveness and power when you press the 'sport' button is
> translated into something real?

for most the driving that will take place (commuting,/traffic) you really
dont need 500HP, so why burn fuel at a 500HP rate? back off the timing to
make the engine run a little cooler, then lean out the fuel just a little to
get it back up to temp, your now at 400HP, and saving a little fuel... or am
I way off target?

[Grant]

"Grant" wrote in message

>
> An unrelated question about the new M5 - why have the designed it
> with a go-faster button? Apparently UK examples will be restricted to
> 400bhp every time they're started, until you press the magic button
> to give you access to the full 507bhp [1].
>
> Why?

Missing footnote alert.

[1] I *really* like the fact the engineers made it _exactly_ 507bhp. Can I
suggest 635bhp for the next one.....

[Frank Kemper]

"Trey" > haute in die Tasten:

> for most the driving that will take place (commuting,/traffic) you
> really dont need 500HP, so why burn fuel at a 500HP rate? back off the
> timing to make the engine run a little cooler, then lean out the fuel
> just a little to get it back up to temp, your now at 400HP, and saving
> a little fuel... or am I way off target?
>

From what I've read the 500 HP switch also changes the engine response
characteristics from "ordinary engine" to "nervous racing engine". This
may be not convenient when your wife and your mother-in-law happen to sit
in the car. AFAIK it was always a merit of the BMW M5 concept to deliver
both: A good sports car and a good sedan. German car mag Auto Motor Sport
described cruising around in the new M5 as surprisingly calm, quiet and
soft - as long as you do not hit the sport button;-)

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Trey > wrote:
> for most the driving that will take place (commuting,/traffic) you
> really dont need 500HP, so why burn fuel at a 500HP rate? back off the
> timing to make the engine run a little cooler, then lean out the fuel
> just a little to get it back up to temp, your now at 400HP, and saving a
> little fuel... or am I way off target?

Just a bit. ;-) 'Backing off' or retarding ignition beyond the optimum
setting will make the engine run hotter - not cooler - and use more fuel.
Weakening off the mixture on a cat equipped closed loop system also isn't
possible - or desirable.

It has the most powerful microprocessor fitted to any car, and this will
give the best settings under all loads.

It's possible the standard power setting makes the car easier to drive
smoothly in town etc - just a guess. Or more likely, a gimmick.

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Miki]

"Trey" > wrote in message
...


> for most the driving that will take place (commuting,/traffic) you really
> dont need 500HP, so why burn fuel at a 500HP rate? back off the timing to
> make the engine run a little cooler, then lean out the fuel just a little
to
> get it back up to temp, your now at 400HP, and saving a little fuel... or
am
> I way off target?
>
>
Yeah , with 507 BHP will consume 20 L per 100 km , but with 400 will concuse
"only" 17,5 L . :-))))))))))
Trust me, the car that cost-s 100 000 $ and his owner, they don"t have
understanding for fuel consumemation., :-)

--
First man , then machine ...........Honda Type R

[Trey]

Miki wrote:
> "Trey" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> for most the driving that will take place (commuting,/traffic) you
>> really dont need 500HP, so why burn fuel at a 500HP rate? back off
>> the timing to make the engine run a little cooler, then lean out the
>> fuel just a little to get it back up to temp, your now at 400HP, and
>> saving a little fuel... or am I way off target?
>>
>>
> Yeah , with 507 BHP will consume 20 L per 100 km , but with 400 will
> concuse "only" 17,5 L . :-))))))))))
> Trust me, the car that cost-s 100 000 $ and his owner, they don"t have
> understanding for fuel consumemation., :-)


I do find it amusing when someone comes onto the NG and says "I just bought
this $50k car, can I run the cheapest/lowest grade gas I can find?"
But your right, for most of the folks that will be buying the M5, I would
not be surprised if 25% of the buyers pay cash in full.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Trey > wrote:
> I do find it amusing when someone comes onto the NG and says "I just
> bought this $50k car, can I run the cheapest/lowest grade gas I can
> find?" But your right, for most of the folks that will be buying the M5,
> I would not be surprised if 25% of the buyers pay cash in full.

In the UK, they'll be the first E60 to command a premium over list -
they're going to restrict imports.

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Miki]

"Frank Kemper" > wrote in message
...


.. AFAIK it was always a merit of the BMW M5 concept to deliver
> both: A good sports car and a good sedan.


I believe , that 545iA is competent for that. Not new M5, come on , you
really think that 507 BHP is capable to drive calm :-))))))))))))))




--
First man , then machine ...........Honda Type R

[Miki]

"bfd" > wrote in message
...


> Sorry, but a six speed manual is insufficient. After all, how else is BMW
> going to justify its $85-95K price tag!

Well, how much cost-s E39 M5 ? The same story is with AMG-s , they don"t
have to justify their cost.They are very quality brand"s in one huge
concern.

--
First man , then machine ...........Honda Type R

[Miki]

"Alex P" > wrote in message ...


> I think that SMG makes a lot of sense - with 7 forward gears
> it is easy to make a wrong shift - I bet that with manual box
> we would hear comments how hard it is to engage right gear
> in spirited driving.

E39 M5 had manual shift ( that is 107 BHP less than a new M5 ) , E46 M3 in
the first edition ( 2000, 2001 ) had manual shift, but later as a option
came SMG II , like in 325i and 330i . M5 always had manual , that is the
tradicion on Motosport deparment. E55 AMG in all edition-s , and Audi had A
or semi-automatic. Everyone hoped that the new M5 will have manual ,
but......SMG III is the best semi-automatic gearbox in the world , but that
is just not it !

--
First man , then machine ...........Honda Type R

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Miki > wrote:
> but......SMG III is the best semi-automatic gearbox in the world , but
> that is just not it !

It's anything but. Still rough changing in auto mode, according to road
tests. Audi make a smooth changing sequential box, so it can be done. You
need two layshafts and clutches.

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[himes]

That's probably 'Sport Mode' like many other BMWs; delays upshifts,
seems to give a little hotter throttle response. Doubt that it's an
'Increase HP' switch.

[Michael Low]

"Trey" > wrote in message >...
> Miki wrote:
> > "Trey" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >> for most the driving that will take place (commuting,/traffic) you
> >> really dont need 500HP, so why burn fuel at a 500HP rate? back off
> >> the timing to make the engine run a little cooler, then lean out the
> >> fuel just a little to get it back up to temp, your now at 400HP, and
> >> saving a little fuel... or am I way off target?
> >>
> >>
> > Yeah , with 507 BHP will consume 20 L per 100 km , but with 400 will
> > concuse "only" 17,5 L . :-))))))))))
> > Trust me, the car that cost-s 100 000 $ and his owner, they don"t have
> > understanding for fuel consumemation., :-)
>
>
> I do find it amusing when someone comes onto the NG and says "I just bought
> this $50k car, can I run the cheapest/lowest grade gas I can find?"
> But your right, for most of the folks that will be buying the M5, I would
> not be surprised if 25% of the buyers pay cash in full.


Yes, I think many E60 M5 buyers will be buying with cash instead of a
lease or loan.

I also agree that many, perhaps most owners of truly expensive cars
are not necessarily blind to rising gas prices and a gas guzzler.
When people buy a car they see it as a "capital" item - pay once with
the maintenance costs factored in over several years. They understand
what they are getting into.

However, gas prices is a whole different ball game - the price of gas
fluctuates and no one likes that - not even M5 owners. It's
irritating. Most people who are smart with money won't carry a lot of
cash because most of their money is invested. So if you drive a lot
and the gas bill keeps rising and then catapults into the stratosphere
when that new car turns out to be even more of a gas guzzler you
notice it. I also think it depends a lot on how the general economy
is doing.

If everything is on the up-and-up then people tend to turn a blind eye
to a rising gas bill but if your stocks and bonds are tanking and the
US dollar has tanked and your taxes have just gone up then a gas
guzzler just adds insult to injury.

BTW, there appears to be 3 engine management programs: P400, P500 and
P500 SPORT. Anyone know the difference between P500 and P500 SPORT?


Michael

[Alex P]

"Miki" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alex P" > wrote in message ...
>
>
>> I think that SMG makes a lot of sense - with 7 forward gears
>> it is easy to make a wrong shift - I bet that with manual box
>> we would hear comments how hard it is to engage right gear
>> in spirited driving.
>
> E39 M5 had manual shift ( that is 107 BHP less than a new M5 ) , E46 M3 in
> the first edition ( 2000, 2001 ) had manual shift, but later as a option
> came SMG II , like in 325i and 330i . M5 always had manual , that is the
> tradicion on Motosport deparment. E55 AMG in all edition-s , and Audi had
> A
> or semi-automatic. Everyone hoped that the new M5 will have manual ,
> but......SMG III is the best semi-automatic gearbox in the world , but
> that
> is just not it !
>
> --
> First man , then machine ...........Honda Type R
>

Maybe that's not it - SMG box instead of true manual, however
it is true marvel of technology:

65msec for gearchange and all gears are independent of each other,
pistons move gear out of use and next gear at the same time (something
you could not ever do with manual box). Due to the fact that gears are
independent shift pattern is erratic, hence it is impossible to create
manual.

Not sure about you but I would take 7 gear SMG III any time
over E39 type manual box.

[Alex P]

>
> BTW, there appears to be 3 engine management programs: P400, P500 and
> P500 SPORT. Anyone know the difference between P500 and P500 SPORT?
>
>
> Michael

P400 = 400hp
P500 = 500hp
P500S = 507hp :-)

Alex

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Alex P > wrote:
> 65msec for gearchange and all gears are independent of each other,
> pistons move gear out of use and next gear at the same time (something
> you could not ever do with manual box). Due to the fact that gears are
> independent shift pattern is erratic, hence it is impossible to create
> manual.

You can't engage one gear before disengaging another on this SMG - that's
why it doesn't work well as an auto. The twin layshaft Audi box does allow
this though with the common gear shifts - but not if you skip a gear.

The reason for the odd layout of the gears which doesn't allow a manual
shift is strength.

> Not sure about you but I would take 7 gear SMG III any time
> over E39 type manual box.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Trey]

Michael Low wrote:
> "Trey" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Miki wrote:
>>> "Trey" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> for most the driving that will take place (commuting,/traffic) you
>>>> really dont need 500HP, so why burn fuel at a 500HP rate? back off
>>>> the timing to make the engine run a little cooler, then lean out
>>>> the fuel just a little to get it back up to temp, your now at
>>>> 400HP, and saving a little fuel... or am I way off target?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah , with 507 BHP will consume 20 L per 100 km , but with 400 will
>>> concuse "only" 17,5 L . :-))))))))))
>>> Trust me, the car that cost-s 100 000 $ and his owner, they don"t
>>> have understanding for fuel consumemation., :-)
>>
>>
>> I do find it amusing when someone comes onto the NG and says "I just
>> bought this $50k car, can I run the cheapest/lowest grade gas I can
>> find?"
>> But your right, for most of the folks that will be buying the M5, I
>> would not be surprised if 25% of the buyers pay cash in full.
>
>
> Yes, I think many E60 M5 buyers will be buying with cash instead of a
> lease or loan.
>
> I also agree that many, perhaps most owners of truly expensive cars
> are not necessarily blind to rising gas prices and a gas guzzler.
> When people buy a car they see it as a "capital" item - pay once with
> the maintenance costs factored in over several years. They understand
> what they are getting into.
>
> However, gas prices is a whole different ball game - the price of gas
> fluctuates and no one likes that - not even M5 owners. It's
> irritating. Most people who are smart with money won't carry a lot of
> cash because most of their money is invested. So if you drive a lot
> and the gas bill keeps rising and then catapults into the stratosphere
> when that new car turns out to be even more of a gas guzzler you
> notice it. I also think it depends a lot on how the general economy
> is doing.
>
> If everything is on the up-and-up then people tend to turn a blind eye
> to a rising gas bill but if your stocks and bonds are tanking and the
> US dollar has tanked and your taxes have just gone up then a gas
> guzzler just adds insult to injury.
>
> BTW, there appears to be 3 engine management programs: P400, P500 and
> P500 SPORT. Anyone know the difference between P500 and P500 SPORT?
>
>
> Michael

This would be why I have a motorcycle. At 50-60 MPG its pretty cheap in
terms of gas. My truck however, 11MPG winter, 13 MPG summer.

There are rich people that move a lot of money, then there are rich people
that are rich because they closely watch what they are spending. In the case
of the person watching their money, yes, they may want a nice car like the
M5, but do not want to spend extra on gas if they dont have to.

[dizzy]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:09:33 GMT, "Trey" >
wrote:

>There are rich people that move a lot of money, then there are rich people
>that are rich because they closely watch what they are spending. In the case
>of the person watching their money, yes, they may want a nice car like the
>M5, but do not want to spend extra on gas if they dont have to.

I know many people who don't have much money and drive 12MPG SUV's.
I'd think the typical M5 owner would not worry about gas cost, at
least at US prices.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:
> >I'd guess it had to be a new box to handle the torque, and they couldn't
> >afford to do both.

> But I assume that someone else (ZF?) is actually making the box? It
> seems they could have bought a manual, as well, although I don't doubt
> they would have to pay some of the development costs...

All of them, I'd say. There can't be many other makers looking for a
manual to handle that sort of torque.
M-B, Jaguar etc seem to have gone down the conventional auto only route.

--
*With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Frank Kemper]

"Miki" > haute in die Tasten:

> I believe , that 545iA is competent for that. Not new M5, come on , you
> really think that 507 BHP is capable to drive calm :-))))))))))))))
>

Yes, of course I do.

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

[Michael Low]

"Trey" > wrote in message >...
<snip>
>
> This would be why I have a motorcycle. At 50-60 MPG its pretty cheap in
> terms of gas. My truck however, 11MPG winter, 13 MPG summer.
>
> There are rich people that move a lot of money, then there are rich people
> that are rich because they closely watch what they are spending. In the case
> of the person watching their money, yes, they may want a nice car like the
> M5, but do not want to spend extra on gas if they dont have to.


Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. It's how people perceive the
cash flow movement or relative change in cash-in vs. cash-out.

Some people can't or don't want to know their cash flow situation.
Those who do manage their cash flows will notice excessive expenses
when revenues sour or go negative. People who make their money as
oppose to come into it have to leverage their money to make more -
they don't leave a lot of idle cash lying around. Their money is in
constant movement.

They will dump guzzlers especially if they were impulse rewards they
bought after a windfall when gas was cheaper. It's not so much the
absolute price that matters - it's the noticeable change in prices and
revenues that **** people off. It adds another kink to the juggling
of their budgets. Of course, expensive gas guzzlers also tend to be
nasty when it comes to repairs or non-warranty work.

[Jim Levie]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:16:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>> >I'd guess it had to be a new box to handle the torque, and they
>> >couldn't afford to do both.
>
>> But I assume that someone else (ZF?) is actually making the box? It
>> seems they could have bought a manual, as well, although I don't doubt
>> they would have to pay some of the development costs...
>
> All of them, I'd say. There can't be many other makers looking for a
> manual to handle that sort of torque. M-B, Jaguar etc seem to have gone
> down the conventional auto only route.

I wouldn't think it as much of a problem with torque as it would be a
matter of preserving the engine. A missed up shift, say going into 1st
when you meant to hit 3rd with a good head of steam up (on a 6 speed) or a
missed downshift is going to result in, ahh, interesting things in the
engine bay. No amount of computer control helps when the car's momentum is
driving the engine.

Seems to me this was one of the goals when SMG type transmissions were
first introduced into F1 racing quite a few years ago. The other, of
course, was reduced driver workload.

--
The instructions said to use Windows 98 or better, so I installed RedHat.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Jim Levie > wrote:
> > All of them, I'd say. There can't be many other makers looking for a
> > manual to handle that sort of torque. M-B, Jaguar etc seem to have gone
> > down the conventional auto only route.

> I wouldn't think it as much of a problem with torque as it would be a
> matter of preserving the engine. A missed up shift, say going into 1st
> when you meant to hit 3rd with a good head of steam up (on a 6 speed) or
> a missed downshift is going to result in, ahh, interesting things in the
> engine bay. No amount of computer control helps when the car's momentum
> is driving the engine.

But this surely applies to any manual gearbox setup - although the more
the ratios the greater the chance of wrong slotting?

> Seems to me this was one of the goals when SMG type transmissions were
> first introduced into F1 racing quite a few years ago. The other, of
> course, was reduced driver workload.

Surely the main one was the faster change speed? Which is all but
irrelevant for road use.

--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[dizzy]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:50:35 -0500, Jim Levie >
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:16:49 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> dizzy > wrote:
>>> >I'd guess it had to be a new box to handle the torque, and they
>>> >couldn't afford to do both.
>>
>>> But I assume that someone else (ZF?) is actually making the box? It
>>> seems they could have bought a manual, as well, although I don't doubt
>>> they would have to pay some of the development costs...
>>
>> All of them, I'd say. There can't be many other makers looking for a
>> manual to handle that sort of torque. M-B, Jaguar etc seem to have gone
>> down the conventional auto only route.
>
>I wouldn't think it as much of a problem with torque as it would be a
>matter of preserving the engine. A missed up shift, say going into 1st
>when you meant to hit 3rd with a good head of steam up (on a 6 speed) or a
>missed downshift is going to result in, ahh, interesting things in the
>engine bay. No amount of computer control helps when the car's momentum is
>driving the engine.

Well, let's take-away all of our manual trannies, then, to protect our
valuable motors from our clumsy selves.

Sorry, but I don't think that's AT ALL a valid reason to not offer a
manual.

[dizzy]

On 23 Sep 2004 20:49:15 -0700, (Michael Low)
wrote:

>"Trey" > wrote in message >...
><snip>
>>
>> This would be why I have a motorcycle. At 50-60 MPG its pretty cheap in
>> terms of gas. My truck however, 11MPG winter, 13 MPG summer.
>>
>> There are rich people that move a lot of money, then there are rich people
>> that are rich because they closely watch what they are spending. In the case
>> of the person watching their money, yes, they may want a nice car like the
>> M5, but do not want to spend extra on gas if they dont have to.
>
>
>Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. It's how people perceive the
>cash flow movement or relative change in cash-in vs. cash-out.
>
>Some people can't or don't want to know their cash flow situation.
>Those who do manage their cash flows will notice excessive expenses
>when revenues sour or go negative. People who make their money as
>oppose to come into it have to leverage their money to make more -
>they don't leave a lot of idle cash lying around. Their money is in
>constant movement.
>
>They will dump guzzlers especially if they were impulse rewards they
>bought after a windfall when gas was cheaper. It's not so much the
>absolute price that matters - it's the noticeable change in prices and
>revenues that **** people off. It adds another kink to the juggling
>of their budgets. Of course, expensive gas guzzlers also tend to be
>nasty when it comes to repairs or non-warranty work.

I think you guys are making it up as you go along. Rich people have
fewer liquid assets than poor people, and care more about gas expense
than poor people do? Ludicrous.

[Frank Kemper]

dizzy > haute in die Tasten:

> Sorry, but I don't think that's AT ALL a valid reason to not offer a
> manual.
>

I think that the reason for offering the M5 only with SMG is very simple:
The car has a naturally aspirated V10 engine (like a Formula 1 race car)
and a sequential shift gearbox (like a Formula 1 race car). So they try to
get back some of the money they are spending year after year for Formula 1
racing. The main competence of BMW in the BMW Williams team is the
powertrain, not the body, the suspension or the aerodynamics. After all,
the M5 is also a marketing issue. If you want a 5'series with conventional
stick shift, buy a 545i.

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroën Xantia - Made in Trance

[David Haqeman]

dizzy > wrote in message >...

> Well, let's take-away all of our manual trannies, then, to protect our
> valuable motors from our clumsy selves.
>
> Sorry, but I don't think that's AT ALL a valid reason to not offer a
> manual.


I rarely use 6th gear in my M5. (2000)...because of the heavy traffic
in my personal daily world.

My point is that to manually use a clutch for SEVEN gears in
metropolitan areas is a pain in the arse.

That's why I think the SMG as the only option for the new M5 makes
sense.

You don't market an automobile of this calibre for just the rural
driver, IMO.

David H.

[dizzy]

On 26 Sep 2004 06:54:54 -0700, (David
Haqeman) wrote:

>dizzy > wrote in message >...
>
>> Well, let's take-away all of our manual trannies, then, to protect our
>> valuable motors from our clumsy selves.
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't think that's AT ALL a valid reason to not offer a
>> manual.
>
>I rarely use 6th gear in my M5. (2000)...because of the heavy traffic
>in my personal daily world.
>
>My point is that to manually use a clutch for SEVEN gears in
>metropolitan areas is a pain in the arse.

You don't need 7 gears, especially with a big motor like that.

>That's why I think the SMG as the only option for the new M5 makes
>sense.
>
>You don't market an automobile of this calibre for just the rural
>driver, IMO.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
David Haqeman > wrote:
> I rarely use 6th gear in my M5. (2000)...because of the heavy traffic
> in my personal daily world.

> My point is that to manually use a clutch for SEVEN gears in
> metropolitan areas is a pain in the arse.

Why? You don't have to use all the gears if you're not in a hurry. It has
plenty of torque...

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Ramone Cila]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Sep 2004 06:54:54 -0700, (David
> Haqeman) wrote:

> >My point is that to manually use a clutch for SEVEN gears in
> >metropolitan areas is a pain in the arse.
>
> You don't need 7 gears, especially with a big motor like that.

My thought exactly. The beauty of it being a manual is that you only have to
use the ones appropriate for any given driving condition, driving preference
or driving tactic. Some require only 3 gears, some others might make 7 gears
look attractive. But having them isn't a problem, not having them when the
condition arises might be. Or in at least might be less fun!

[Dan Drake]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:51:17 -0600, "Ramone Cila" >
wrote:

>
>"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
>> On 26 Sep 2004 06:54:54 -0700, (David
>> Haqeman) wrote:
>
>> >My point is that to manually use a clutch for SEVEN gears in
>> >metropolitan areas is a pain in the arse.
>>
>> You don't need 7 gears, especially with a big motor like that.
>
>My thought exactly.

You guys have never ridden motorcycles, have you? You really should
drive or ride something with a sequential gearbox before you spout off
like this. A sequential gearbox in something fast is nearly as much
fun as sex. Try it.
--
Dan Drake

[dizzy]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:42:43 -0400, Dan Drake
> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:51:17 -0600, "Ramone Cila" >
>wrote:
>>
>>"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 26 Sep 2004 06:54:54 -0700, (David
>>> Haqeman) wrote:
>>
>>> >My point is that to manually use a clutch for SEVEN gears in
>>> >metropolitan areas is a pain in the arse.
>>>
>>> You don't need 7 gears, especially with a big motor like that.
>>
>>My thought exactly.
>
>You guys have never ridden motorcycles, have you? You really should
>drive or ride something with a sequential gearbox before you spout off
>like this.

You should have a clue of what you're talking about before you spout
off like this. I've ridden motorcycles most of my life.

>A sequential gearbox in something fast is nearly as much
>fun as sex. Try it.

What's that got to do with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?

[Dan Drake]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:34:41 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>>You guys have never ridden motorcycles, have you? You really should
>>drive or ride something with a sequential gearbox before you spout off
>>like this.
>
>You should have a clue of what you're talking about before you spout
>off like this. I've ridden motorcycles most of my life.

What, Honda 90s?

>>A sequential gearbox in something fast is nearly as much
>>fun as sex. Try it.
>
>What's that got to do with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?

You just don't get it, do you? You've never driven a car with a
sequential gearbox, have you? Three gears is enough for you. You
need a Ford Popular.
--
Dan Drake

[dizzy]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:06:02 -0400, Dan Drake
> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:34:41 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>>>You guys have never ridden motorcycles, have you? You really should
>>>drive or ride something with a sequential gearbox before you spout off
>>>like this.
>>
>>You should have a clue of what you're talking about before you spout
>>off like this. I've ridden motorcycles most of my life.
>
>What, Honda 90s?

Actually, my first bike was a Honda 90...

>>>A sequential gearbox in something fast is nearly as much
>>>fun as sex. Try it.
>>
>>What's that got to do with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?
>
>You just don't get it, do you? You've never driven a car with a
>sequential gearbox, have you?

How many people have, dorky?

>Three gears is enough for you. You
>need a Ford Popular.

Uh huh. Care to answer my question now, dorky? What's this got to do
with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?

[Dan Drake]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:21:54 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>Actually, my first bike was a Honda 90...

Wow. That didn't have a sequential gearbox, and I guess it just went
downhill from there?

>>You just don't get it, do you? You've never driven a car with a
>>sequential gearbox, have you?
>
>How many people have, dorky?

Some of us have, and we like it very much. It was a bike-engined
Caterham Seven for me.

>>Three gears is enough for you. You
>>need a Ford Popular.
>
>Uh huh. Care to answer my question now, dorky? What's this got to do
>with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?

Try it. You might like it. If you've ever had sex, then you might be
able to make a comparison. You see, no-one ever died from *not*
having sex - but it sure is nice. Do you see? No. I thought not.

Be my guest and have the last word. You're probably the type who
desperately needs it.
--
Dan Drake

[dizzy]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:36:01 -0400, Dan Drake
> wrote:

>>Uh huh. Care to answer my question now, dorky? What's this got to do
>>with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?
>
>Try it. You might like it. If you've ever had sex, then you might be
>able to make a comparison. You see, no-one ever died from *not*
>having sex - but it sure is nice. Do you see? No. I thought not.

I see you couldn't answer the question, dorky.

With a motor like the M5's, there's zip need for 7 foward gears, so
there's no "need" to go to SMG for shifting.

[Jim Levie]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:50:35 +0000, dizzy wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:36:01 -0400, Dan Drake >
> wrote:
>
>>>Uh huh. Care to answer my question now, dorky? What's this got to do
>>>with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?
>>
>>Try it. You might like it. If you've ever had sex, then you might be
>>able to make a comparison. You see, no-one ever died from *not* having
>>sex - but it sure is nice. Do you see? No. I thought not.
>
> I see you couldn't answer the question, dorky.
>
> With a motor like the M5's, there's zip need for 7 foward gears, so
> there's no "need" to go to SMG for shifting.

I don't think that one could make that assertion without seeing the
HP/Torque curves for the engine. If it is even a little bit "peaky" those
7 gears might be more than just a "frill". Well okay, since I'm not in
Germany with an unlimited speed Autobahn handy maybe the first six are a
good idea.

--
The instructions said to use Windows 98 or better, so I installed RedHat.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:
> With a motor like the M5's, there's zip need for 7 foward gears, so
> there's no "need" to go to SMG for shifting.

Autos used to make do with 3 - or even sometimes two - gears, plus the
torque convertor. Now these too have 6 and even 7 gears.
There's no 'need' for this either. But it improves the performance.
I reckon 6 is probably the limit for a conventional shift manual box. The
chances of hitting the wrong gear get to great after that.

Personally, for fun driving, I reckon 4 is enough. Little chance of wrong
slotting no matter how enthusiastic you are. Add an electrically operated
overdrive for cruising.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Frank Kemper]

dizzy > haute in die Tasten:

> What's that got to do with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?
>

The new BMW M5 is capable of going approx. 200 mph, if the speed limiter
is removed. If the speed limiter is in place, it will not go faster than
155 mph. For the target group for this car it may be quite interesting
to have the option to shift back one or two gears while travelling at 120
mph, just to ged rid of that bloody Mercedes in the rear mirror.

My advice for those who can detect the quality of a gearbox without ever
having driven it and who happen to live in a country with a 65 mph speed
limit: Go and get a 545i with stick, it is fast and fun enough for you;-)

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

[Frank Kemper]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > haute in die Tasten:

> Personally, for fun driving, I reckon 4 is enough. Little chance of
> wrong slotting no matter how enthusiastic you are. Add an electrically
> operated overdrive for cruising.
>

Or get yourself a racing gearbox with the first gear far on the left
side. This gear you only need for the start, then you can use the
classical H-scheme. OTOH the BMW M5 engine follows the concept of a
high-reving, non-supercharged race engine, which gets ist power mainly
out of the revs and not out of the torque. IMHO BMW wanted to show their
Formula one competence with that car, so they installed a non-turbo V10
engine and a sequential, clutchless 7 step gearbox - like they usually
do with their Formula one race cars.

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

[dizzy]

On 28 Sep 2004 10:06:23 GMT, Frank Kemper >
wrote:

>dizzy > haute in die Tasten:
>
>> What's that got to do with needing 7 fowards gears in a street car?
>>
>
>The new BMW M5 is capable of going approx. 200 mph, if the speed limiter
>is removed. If the speed limiter is in place, it will not go faster than
>155 mph. For the target group for this car it may be quite interesting
>to have the option to shift back one or two gears while travelling at 120
>mph, just to ged rid of that bloody Mercedes in the rear mirror.

Sorry, but I call BS. Your hypothetical scenario above is not
sufficient reason for BMW to reason "let's not offer a 6-speed manual,
because this car should have 7 gears, which means SMG".

[dizzy]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:42:09 -0500, Jim Levie >
wrote:

>I don't think that one could make that assertion without seeing the
>HP/Torque curves for the engine. If it is even a little bit "peaky" those
>7 gears might be more than just a "frill".

If you're paying that much money for a 5L V10, and it's "peaky",
something is wrong. You could get 500 "peaky" HP for a lot less
money, via turbo-charging, for example.

[Ignasi Palou-Rivera]

dizzy > writes:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:42:09 -0500, Jim Levie >
> wrote:
>
>>I don't think that one could make that assertion without seeing the
>>HP/Torque curves for the engine. If it is even a little bit "peaky" those
>>7 gears might be more than just a "frill".
>
> If you're paying that much money for a 5L V10, and it's "peaky",
> something is wrong. You could get 500 "peaky" HP for a lot less
> money, via turbo-charging, for example.

The thing is that even if the 5L V10 is peaky, its valleys are much higher
than most other car's peaks...

--
Ignasi.
'90 325is
(using SPAM trap e-mail address)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:
> Sorry, but I call BS. Your hypothetical scenario above is not
> sufficient reason for BMW to reason "let's not offer a 6-speed manual,
> because this car should have 7 gears, which means SMG".

A six speed manual to handle that torque that they would be willing to fit
doesn't exist. To develop one for the anticipated demand just wouldn't be
worth it. Most buyers want an auto option on this sort of car - regardless
of the rights or wrongs. Other makers seem to have gone down the
convectional auto only with this sort of power.

--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:
> If you're paying that much money for a 5L V10, and it's "peaky",
> something is wrong. You could get 500 "peaky" HP for a lot less
> money, via turbo-charging, for example.

Well, the first 24 valve 2.5 BMW engine was very peaky, but a delight to
drive. There's something about an engine that gives you a kick once the
revs rise. That's why I'm personally not keen on diesels - they promise so
much at low revs but don't deliver as they rise.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Frank Kemper]

dizzy > haute in die Tasten:

> If you're paying that much money for a 5L V10, and it's "peaky",
> something is wrong. You could get 500 "peaky" HP for a lot less
> money, via turbo-charging, for example.
>

Dizzy, I seriously doubt that you have a clue of the spirit and the
marketing idea which is behind a BMW M car. It is not a matter of as much
bang for the buck as possible. They are selling technology marvels for
lots of money. If you want to be fast without being technically advanced,
buy some US-sportscar with a bigblock engine. A dodge viper is not slower
than a curent M5, baybe it is even faster, but that is not the point.

Another, very simple question: If there is a noticeable demand for such a
car with an ordinary stick shift, why do you think the car manufacturers
do not supply it to the customer? I bet, the answer is very simple:
because the demand is not high enough. I do not believe that the fact
"manuals cannot handle that much torque" is really valid. I have been
driving heavy trucks with 16 speed manual gearboxes, which had four times
the torque of an M5. But with these gearboxes every shift needs at least
0.75 seconds, which may be a little bit too long for an M5.

I'd like to ask you to test yourself. Given the fact that BMW would
introduce a M5 with 6 speed manual gearbox - would you - yes I mean you
personallay - take 160 grand in your hand and buy one? If you would not
buy one new nevertheless, you are not the target group. I am also not
member of the target group, I simply do not have enough money (and I
would prefer something with auto-box)

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

[Dan Drake]

On 29 Sep 2004 11:52:06 GMT, Frank Kemper >
wrote:

>dizzy > haute in die Tasten:
>
>> If you're paying that much money for a 5L V10, and it's "peaky",
>> something is wrong. You could get 500 "peaky" HP for a lot less
>> money, via turbo-charging, for example.
>>
>
>Dizzy, I seriously doubt that you have a clue

You should have stopped writing there...
--
Dan Drake

[Dori A Schmetterling]

How delightfully late sixties and English...

:-)
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
[.......[
>
> Personally, for fun driving, I reckon 4 is enough. Little chance of wrong
> slotting no matter how enthusiastic you are. Add an electrically operated
> overdrive for cruising.

[Dori A Schmetterling]

....the overdrive, I mean....

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> How delightfully late sixties and English...
>
> :-)
> DAS
> --
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
> [.......[
>>
>> Personally, for fun driving, I reckon 4 is enough. Little chance of wrong
>> slotting no matter how enthusiastic you are. Add an electrically operated
>> overdrive for cruising.
>
>

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Dori A Schmetterling > wrote:

> > Personally, for fun driving, I reckon 4 is enough. Little chance of
> > wrong slotting no matter how enthusiastic you are. Add an electrically
> > operated overdrive for cruising.

> How delightfully late sixties and English...

Common in the '50s here - I had a '57 3.4 Jaguar so equipped. Discs all
round too..

--
*Why does the sun lighten our hair, but darken our skin?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[dizzy]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:00:13 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>dizzy > wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but I call BS. Your hypothetical scenario above is not
>> sufficient reason for BMW to reason "let's not offer a 6-speed manual,
>> because this car should have 7 gears, which means SMG".
>
>A six speed manual to handle that torque that they would be willing to fit
>doesn't exist.

Doesn't exist? How about the 6-speed in the Dodge Viper?

>To develop one for the anticipated demand just wouldn't be
>worth it. Most buyers want an auto option on this sort of car - regardless
>of the rights or wrongs.

That's the usual company line, yes.

>Other makers seem to have gone down the
>convectional auto only with this sort of power.

When you say "other makers", you mean purveyors of boredom like
Mercedes.

[dizzy]

On 29 Sep 2004 11:52:06 GMT, Frank Kemper >
wrote:

>dizzy > haute in die Tasten:
>
>> If you're paying that much money for a 5L V10, and it's "peaky",
>> something is wrong. You could get 500 "peaky" HP for a lot less
>> money, via turbo-charging, for example.
>>
>
>Dizzy, I seriously doubt that you have a clue of the spirit and the
>marketing idea which is behind a BMW M car.

Really? No clue at all? Gee, do you really think it's all that hard
to figure out? Yet you know it all and I have no clue. Huh.

>It is not a matter of as much
>bang for the buck as possible. They are selling technology marvels for
>lots of money.

Bull****. "Technolgy marvels" indeed. You sound like having high
technology is more important than the driving experience. I maintain,
and I believe that BMW would agree, that you are wrong.

>If you want to be fast without being technically advanced,
>buy some US-sportscar with a bigblock engine. A dodge viper is not slower
>than a curent M5, baybe it is even faster, but that is not the point.

Really? Gee, I didn't know that M5's don't compete with the Dodge
Viper. Thanks for the "clue".

>Another, very simple question: If there is a noticeable demand for such a
>car with an ordinary stick shift, why do you think the car manufacturers
>do not supply it to the customer? I bet, the answer is very simple:
>because the demand is not high enough.

The standard company line. The same line Cadillac used to give us.
I'm impressed. Not.

>I do not believe that the fact
>"manuals cannot handle that much torque" is really valid.

Of course they can handle the torque.

>I have been
>driving heavy trucks with 16 speed manual gearboxes, which had four times
>the torque of an M5. But with these gearboxes every shift needs at least
>0.75 seconds, which may be a little bit too long for an M5.

You really think that that is an appropriate comparison? Talk about
clueless...

>I'd like to ask you to test yourself. Given the fact that BMW would
>introduce a M5 with 6 speed manual gearbox - would you - yes I mean you
>personallay - take 160 grand in your hand and buy one? If you would not
>buy one new nevertheless, you are not the target group. I am also not
>member of the target group, I simply do not have enough money (and I
>would prefer something with auto-box)

Why not buy a boring Mercedes, then?

[Frank Kemper]

dizzy > haute in die Tasten:

> Why not buy a boring Mercedes, then?
>

Dizzy, my last post to you began with the words "I seriously doubt that you
have a clue..." One newsgroup member answered that I should have stopped
there. I think he is right.

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroën Xantia - Made in Trance

[Dan Drake]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:57:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Dori A Schmetterling > wrote:
>
>> > Personally, for fun driving, I reckon 4 is enough. Little chance of
>> > wrong slotting no matter how enthusiastic you are. Add an electrically
>> > operated overdrive for cruising.
>
>> How delightfully late sixties and English...
>
>Common in the '50s here - I had a '57 3.4 Jaguar so equipped. Discs all
>round too..

Years ago, one of the many Triumph 2000s I have owned, that also had
overdrive, developed a fault that allowed overdrive to be selected on
1st and 2nd, as well as 3rd and 4th gears. I liked it, and I never
fixed it. It really was a novelty rather than being useful, but I
used to be able to brag about having an *eight speed* Triumph 2000.
Trump that, new M5 owners!
--
Dan Drake

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:
> >A six speed manual to handle that torque that they would be willing to
> >fit doesn't exist.

> Doesn't exist? How about the 6-speed in the Dodge Viper?

BMW don't use Dodge parts. I've not driven one, but road tests didn't much
like that box anyway. It might be too large, too heavy, too noisy or
unrefined - anything. The Viper isn't the same sort of car.

> >To develop one for the anticipated demand just wouldn't be worth it.
> >Most buyers want an auto option on this sort of car - regardless of the
> >rights or wrongs.

> That's the usual company line, yes.

Well, if you look at the sales where there is an option..
And weren't there complaints about the last M5 not having an auto option?

> >Other makers seem to have gone down the convectional auto only with
> >this sort of power.

> When you say "other makers", you mean purveyors of boredom like Mercedes.

Jaguar. Aston Martin. Hardly boring.

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Dan Drake > wrote:
> Years ago, one of the many Triumph 2000s I have owned, that also had
> overdrive, developed a fault that allowed overdrive to be selected on
> 1st and 2nd, as well as 3rd and 4th gears. I liked it, and I never
> fixed it. It really was a novelty rather than being useful, but I
> used to be able to brag about having an *eight speed* Triumph 2000.
> Trump that, new M5 owners!

Yes - failure of the inhibit switch was common. A Lucas product. ;-)

It could also then be engaged in reverse. Not good news - it would break.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dan Drake]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:38:40 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Dan Drake > wrote:
>> Years ago, one of the many Triumph 2000s I have owned, that also had
>> overdrive, developed a fault that allowed overdrive to be selected on
>> 1st and 2nd, as well as 3rd and 4th gears. I liked it, and I never
>> fixed it. It really was a novelty rather than being useful, but I
>> used to be able to brag about having an *eight speed* Triumph 2000.
>> Trump that, new M5 owners!
>
>Yes - failure of the inhibit switch was common. A Lucas product. ;-)
>
>It could also then be engaged in reverse. Not good news - it would break.

I don't think I ever tried reverse.

In my experience, a more common failure was for the overdrive to cease
operation altogether.

speaking of Triumph 2000/2500s, I had one or two automatics where the
inhibitor switch that prevented starting while in drive had ceased to
function. Likewise, I didn't fix those; I'd just crank the starter
then mash the loud pedal to drive off.
--
Dan Drake

[tech27]

Whether you like it or not, the BMW approach is to totally engineer the car
to what they feel is the ultimate. While you can gussy it up with cosmetic
stuff they just don't give you options like auto/manual/SMG. This is the way
it has always been. The E39 M5 had one of the shortest options list around.
No-this suspension package or that one, different wheel/tire combos, etc.

Yeah, there are things that they "coulda" or "shouda", but that just ain't
the way they do it. And quite frankly, there isn't anything I would have
wanted BMW to change on my M5. Chips, big brakes, X pipe exhaust, etc. I can
do myself if I want to.


"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:00:13 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> > wrote:
>
>>dizzy > wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I call BS. Your hypothetical scenario above is not
>>> sufficient reason for BMW to reason "let's not offer a 6-speed manual,
>>> because this car should have 7 gears, which means SMG".
>>
>>A six speed manual to handle that torque that they would be willing to fit
>>doesn't exist.
>
> Doesn't exist? How about the 6-speed in the Dodge Viper?
>
>>To develop one for the anticipated demand just wouldn't be
>>worth it. Most buyers want an auto option on this sort of car - regardless
>>of the rights or wrongs.
>
> That's the usual company line, yes.
>
>>Other makers seem to have gone down the
>>convectional auto only with this sort of power.
>
> When you say "other makers", you mean purveyors of boredom like
> Mercedes.
>

[dizzy]

On 30 Sep 2004 00:07:50 GMT, Frank Kemper >
wrote:

>dizzy > haute in die Tasten:
>
>> Why not buy a boring Mercedes, then?
>>
>
>Dizzy, my last post to you began with the words "I seriously doubt that you
>have a clue..." One newsgroup member answered that I should have stopped
>there. I think he is right.

No rebuttal to anything I said. I guess you're just another idiot who
cowardly claims victory while running away with his tail between his
legs. Good thing we all know about you, now.

[dizzy]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:36:40 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>> >A six speed manual to handle that torque that they would be willing to
>> >fit doesn't exist.
>
>> Doesn't exist? How about the 6-speed in the Dodge Viper?
>
>BMW don't use Dodge parts. I've not driven one, but road tests didn't much
>like that box anyway. It might be too large, too heavy, too noisy or
>unrefined - anything. The Viper isn't the same sort of car.

Yes, but the fact is that a suitable manual is hardly unobtainable.
Sure, it will cost. How much did they spend on that motor?

>> >To develop one for the anticipated demand just wouldn't be worth it.
>> >Most buyers want an auto option on this sort of car - regardless of the
>> >rights or wrongs.
>
>> That's the usual company line, yes.
>
>Well, if you look at the sales where there is an option..
>And weren't there complaints about the last M5 not having an auto option?

So they "compromise" with SMG. Sorry, but compromise sucks, and you
shouldn't have to accept such a gross compromise, at that price level.

>> >Other makers seem to have gone down the convectional auto only with
>> >this sort of power.
>
>> When you say "other makers", you mean purveyors of boredom like Mercedes.
>
>Jaguar. Aston Martin. Hardly boring.

I believe Aston offers 6-speed manuals on their high-end cars...

[Jim Levie]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:22:03 +0000, dizzy wrote:


>
> So they "compromise" with SMG. Sorry, but compromise sucks, and you
> shouldn't have to accept such a gross compromise, at that price level.
>

From what I've read about the M5's transmission the SMG wasn't so much of
a "design compromise" as much as it was a necessity. To obtain good shift
times (reportly 0.1 sec) the layout of the gear train is such that a
manual shifter simply isn't possible. If in fact it will shift that fast
the SMG is probably faster than a manual & clutch.

--
The instructions said to use Windows 98 or better, so I installed RedHat.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:
> Yes, but the fact is that a suitable manual is hardly unobtainable.

I meant available as in their parts bin. Of course 6 speed boxes are
available but might not be suitable for the variety of reasons I've
mentioned.

> Sure, it will cost. How much did they spend on that motor?

BMW don't like losing money on any vehicle.

<snip>

> >Jaguar. Aston Martin. Hardly boring.

> I believe Aston offers 6-speed manuals on their high-end cars...

Not on the most powerful, IIRC.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Frank Kemper]

dizzy > haute in die Tasten:

> I guess you're just another idiot who
> cowardly claims victory while running away with his tail between his
> legs. Good thing we all know about you, now.
>

And I guess, you just have reached membershio of the Frank Kemper
Killfile Inhabitants Club.

No, I have to correct myself. It is not just a guess. I am absolutely
sure about this.

*plonk*

Frank

--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance

[dizzy]

On 1 Oct 2004 08:42:03 GMT, Frank Kemper >
wrote:

>dizzy > haute in die Tasten:
>
>> I guess you're just another idiot who
>> cowardly claims victory while running away with his tail between his
>> legs. Good thing we all know about you, now.
>
>And I guess, you just have reached membershio of the Frank Kemper
>Killfile Inhabitants Club.

You started the insults, asshole.

>No, I have to correct myself. It is not just a guess. I am absolutely
>sure about this.
>
>*plonk*

*plonk*

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ba9ad8.16479536@localhost>,
Yertle > wrote:
> >From what I've read about the M5's transmission the SMG wasn't so much
> >of a "design compromise" as much as it was a necessity. To obtain good
> >shift times (reportly 0.1 sec) the layout of the gear train is such
> >that a manual shifter simply isn't possible.

> I've read this several times - does this mean the shift
> pattern of a manual shifter for the M5 would be impossible
> to implement or just too strange for practical road use?

The gearbox is conventional in design, but the order of the internal gear
layout has changed for strength. This means you couldn't have a
conventional change as the gears aren't arranged 123456 along the layshaft
etc. In other words, a conventional change might result in a 1-4, 2-6, 5-3
layout (or something).
The explanation I read was that the most used gears need to go at either
end of the layshaft for maximum durability, and these aren't 1&6 in
practice.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Jake McClean]

Trey > wrote:

:>
:> I think that SMG makes a lot of sense - with 7 forward gears
:> it is easy to make a wrong shift - I bet that with manual box
:> we would hear comments how hard it is to engage right gear
:> in spirited driving.

: why does it need seven gears?? a six speed would be fine. Or are they using
: seven because thats what F-1 uses?

Need? NEED?

This is car has nothing to do with NEED and everything to do with WANT. It
is a technical, performance and automotive spotlight. Necessity has very
little to do with most of its features.