BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
Steve Thomas BMW
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-06-2011, 04:47 PM   #89
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I'm sure you'll disagree...
I do but it really has nothing to do with whether one transmission is a more of a technological leap than another, which was the central point of your retort as I read it. When it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter if we are talking about the first transmission ever concevied or some new transmission built using alien technology or wizardry.

Instead, it is simply a matter of avoiding a falacy of misclasification.

Manual transmissions
--------------------
H-gated, clutched
Sequential manual (no clutch pedeal)
Sequential manual (with clutch pedal)

Automatic transmissions
-----------------------
Planetary with torque converter
Planetary with wet clutch
Electrohydraulically clutched (what BMW improperly termed "SMG")
Belted CVT
Toroidal CVT

We could go on, I'm sure there are others. The important part here is that all transmission will fall into one group or the other. Or if you really want, make that automatic group the automanual group instead (it's more accurate after all, as I've conceded earlier).

What doesn't make sense - unless there is some ulterior motive, IMHO - is to insist that the DCT be set apart from all these others merely because its innovative.

If anything, one could argue CVT is the odd man out here, deserving its own category since these transmission don't really shift at all in the traditional sense (well some do, but this is done artificially).
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-06-2011, 04:57 PM   #90
mainstray
NSDQ
 
mainstray's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey

Posts: 324
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Studntloan View Post
Tt m engine with high redline, sounds like a win
mainstray is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-07-2011, 09:15 AM   #91
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

I meant to reply and make these comments yesterday, but ran out of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider View Post
Agree. DCT does not represent the type. DCT is simply a type of sequential manual gearbox (as is SMG).
Yeah, on this one I have to echo swamp's comments below (and disagree with yours).

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
DCT, sequential and SMG are quite different. All manuals at heart, so Ido think we agree on that. A SMG is nothing more than a truly standard manual with hydraulic/computer control added for the traditional clutch and traditional levers/forks...
Quote:
[With a sequential manual] You can not really skip gears. Even with a two click operation during one clutch in, that "skipped" gear is actually physically engaged. That is the essense of the sequential, SMG and DCT can truly skip gears.
Exactly BMW's SMG is not really a sequential manual at all. In fact, sequential manuals predate modern computer controlled transmissions altogether. All you need to build a sequential manual is a manual transmission and a rotating corkscrew mechanism that is designed to move the shift forks in and out of engagement in succession. It's really quite simple and ingenious. It cleverly solves the problem of how to shift a motorcycle without having to reach for a gated shifter that would necessarily be located somewhere other than the handlebars.

Quote:
Bringing the term sequential back to mkoesel's approach for naming is an interesting topic. What should a sequential transmission be called?
Very simple. A proper sequential manual is indeed a manual transmission. The reason, as always, is that it can only be shifted manually. That's the only criteria that is important. Any modern variation that may have some baked in automatic mode is no longer a sequential manual (by definition). Note that I am not sure if such an animal exists (an auto-shifting "sequential manual"), but I suspect that they do. Also, note that some sequential manuals operate the clutch for you (mechanical, or sometimes via a solenoid, I believe). This is still very much a sequential manual since you still absolutely have to shift it yourself.

Quote:
...the VAST majority of the automotive world felt a new term was needed and chose one - "sequential" or "sequential manual".
The proper name is "sequential manual", not simply "sequential" as that is terribly underspecific for the name of a transmission itself, IMHO. And of course the reason the word "manual" was chosen to follow "sequential" is very much elementary as I've just illustrated.

Quote:
Indeed, sorry to Levi a well, this was a MASSIVE off topic onslaught...
+2

Quote:
The mods could clean up the thread pretty easily. Anyone can report threads that are crass, OT or anyhting else that may violate forum rules. Just click the little reg/white/black exclamation point in the lower left under the avatar area in a post.
Great by me, just lets move the offending discussion somewhere instead of killing it off entirely, ok? That's pretty frustrating when the latter happens for no good reason.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-07-2011, 10:09 AM   #92
MVF4Rrider
PCA, BMWCCA
 
MVF4Rrider's Avatar
 
Drives: 997S, MV Agusta F4, E46 M3
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Las Vegas NV

Posts: 2,060
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
IYeah, on this one I have to echo swamp's comments below (and disagree with yours).
Well, I disagree with both of you as its operation is what distinguishes it. Of course it's very different mechanically and electronically. Designs will evolve, but SMG and DCT are operated very much the same.

Cheers!
__________________
'08 Carrera S 6MT Guards Red/Black ext leather, Carbon fiber pkg, sport exh, sport chrono +, PASM, Nav, Bose, 19" forged turbos, red tranny tunnel
'07 MV Agusta F4 1000 R 1+1, Corse Red/Silver, RG3 race pipes and factory race ECU
MVF4Rrider is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-07-2011, 11:28 AM   #93
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Read closely. I am not talking about the difference between BMW's SMG and BMW's (or anyone else's) DCT. Those two are both automatic transmissions - both electrohydraulically shifted automatic transmissions, in fact (albeit with very dissimilar implementations, yes).

His point - at least the one I agreed with - is that a true sequential manual transmission is not an automatic transmission at all, and secondarily cannot, in fact (very much by design) shfit gears in any way other than sequentially.

Note Ferrari, Lamborghini and Aston Martin all have gearboxes that are the same in user operation and in internal mechanics to BMW's "SMG". Unlike the term "DCT" however, which is often applied generically to the dual clutch gearboxes used by BMW (Getrag), Audi (BW), Porsche (ZF), the term SMG has never been genericized to cover all single clutch automatics or auto-manuals. The reason for this is basic - its because that term was incorrectly used by BMW to begin with. Everyone else got it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider View Post
Well, I disagree with both of you as its operation is what distinguishes it. Of course it's very different mechanically and electronically. Designs will evolve, but SMG and DCT are operated very much the same.

Cheers!
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-07-2011, 07:49 PM   #94
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
I do but it really has nothing to do with whether one transmission is a more of a technological leap than another, which was the central point of your retort as I read it. When it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter if we are talking about the first transmission ever concevied or some new transmission built using alien technology or wizardry.

Instead, it is simply a matter of avoiding a falacy of misclasification.

Manual transmissions
--------------------
H-gated, clutched
Sequential manual (no clutch pedeal)
Sequential manual (with clutch pedal)

Automatic transmissions
-----------------------
Planetary with torque converter
Planetary with wet clutch
Electrohydraulically clutched (what BMW improperly termed "SMG")
Belted CVT
Toroidal CVT

We could go on, I'm sure there are others. The important part here is that all transmission will fall into one group or the other. Or if you really want, make that automatic group the automanual group instead (it's more accurate after all, as I've conceded earlier).

What doesn't make sense - unless there is some ulterior motive, IMHO - is to insist that the DCT be set apart from all these others merely because its innovative.

If anything, one could argue CVT is the odd man out here, deserving its own category since these transmission don't really shift at all in the traditional sense (well some do, but this is done artificially).
So innovation and large internal differences are indeed one of my criteria, however, as I've provided many times in prior posts there are other criteria that are just as important. And for those exact reasons I do think a CVT deserves its own category. Here is seems the OEMs and journalists also agree. CVTs are typically called CVTs not automatics. One key differentiator for CVTs is feel. Wow do they feel unique when driving them.

Dogmatic insistence that every single transmission fit neatly into one of two categories does a disservice in my opinion. Disservice to all who want to know what it is and how it will feel and work in addition to something about the user interface.

Also the clutchless sequential offers an interesting case. It is automatic in that the clutch is automatic. Your "bar" must then involve rising to the automatic category only if both the clutching and gear lever movements are automated?

Finally, calling terminology opinions different than yours a "fallacy" is a bit of a stretch....

I am going to ask the mods to split off this topic and make a new thread for it.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-08-2011, 03:33 AM   #95
Uli_HH
Lieutenant
 
Uli_HH's Avatar
 
Drives: AW M3 E90)/ 523i Touring
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hamburg Germany

Posts: 572
iTrader: (0)

To end all discussions about manuell and automatic-trannys ... and if an DCT/DKG ist more than an "auto" or an "manu" ... my infos about the new M3 F32 (no F30!) are:
This next M3 gets an 3.5ltr I6 TTT and an automatic-tranny only ... and because for me the M-DKG is to 100% an manuell-tranny, that meens that the new M3 gets the same ZF 8-Gear-Auto as the new M5!
The engine of the new M3, an inline 6 with 3.5ltr. and 3 Turbos develops more than 450HP and more than 500NM (Redline max 7.500), so that the current M-DKG doesn´t work and the M-GmbH won´t spend the money to make it fit for more than 500NM ... also the ZF-Auto is much cheaper than the M-DKG ... and BMWs M-GmbH has developed the electronic, that it could make this 8-Gear Auto feel like the real M-DKG !!!

So my current M3 with V8 and DKG would be my last one ... and would stay in my garage for long time. The only possible new M3 for me was an "newer" e90 M3 with V8/DKG and CP ... an decision to make this year!

Greets Uli_HH
Uli_HH is offline   Germany
0
Reply With Quote
      03-08-2011, 04:48 AM   #96
IS3andME
Lieutenant
 
Drives: Lexus IS300
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Maryland

Posts: 416
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostRideTheWhip View Post
They also said they would never go turbo.
They also said there would never be an SUV M car.
They also said that they would never use the same engine in an M car as a regular 3 series.

Your point is?
You do remember the X5 LM, the vehicle that had the V12 from the LeMans winning LM prototype racecar...which had a engine was based on the S70/2 engine from Mclaren F1?

And supposedly this monster put out 750 HP and had a very quick ring time...
Well, it was done as a one off (I think two were made), and it was done by M Division--you don't think any of them had said "hmmmm, a X5 M?" ?
that X5 LM is the precursor, the spiritual daddy of the X5/X6 M
IS3andME is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-08-2011, 09:08 AM   #97
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
And for those exact reasons I do think a CVT deserves its own category. Here is seems the OEMs and journalists also agree. CVTs are typically called CVTs not automatics. One key differentiator for CVTs is feel. Wow do they feel unique when driving them.
Like I said in my post, if anything I *might* consider singling out the CVT. I will repeat what I said earlier though - that some CVT's do indeed shift in the traditional way we think of shifting. Instead of using infiinitely varying ratios, they are fixed at some small number. So, just like with the DCT, setting apart CVTs that behave this way from any other automatic makes no sense because again they will shift through a fixed set of ratios just like a planetary, DCT, etc. However, at the same time if you also think of a standard infinitely varying CVT as just an infinte-speed transmission (it is, after all), then in fact it can be classed as an automatic too. The reason - as always - is that it chooses the ratios for you. Simple. And, just as I've said earlier with respect to other types of transmissions, if someone were to build a CVT that cannot shift through its range of ratios by itself then indeed that's now a manual transmission.

Quote:
Dogmatic insistence that every single transmission fit neatly into one of two categories does a disservice in my opinion. Disservice to all who want to know what it is and how it will feel and work in addition to something about the user interface.
Let's entertain that notion for a minute.

First, this same "disservice" has been done for decades to those who want to understand the internal workings of a planetary box. DCT technology changes nothing in this regard. In fact, the anecdotal evidence regularly bears this out in that by and large, even among enthusiasts, very few appear to genuinely understand how a "traditional automatic" with planetary gear sets really works. Sure, we all learn about torque converters at some point early on, usually in the context of why they "suck" and how they sap power as compared to a clutch (increasingly outdated notions these days). But the rest gets glossed over mainly because it is quite complex, IMHO (probably the most complicated mechanical system in a car, and this was especially the case in decades past before sophisticated computer-enhanced AWD systems and differentials appeared).

But what about this notion of a "disservice"? Here you are missing the bigger picture. The fact is, categorization can take place over a number of different properties or attributes. Our debate boils down to whether the set of all transmissions can be partioned over the properties "automatic" or "manual". Maybe it can't, so for the sake of argument, we'll also add in your "automanual" term as well. Remember, just because we know that it is elementary to alternatively classify transmissions via how they operate internally, does not mean we cannot pick some other partition that is also perfectly valid as well. This is no different than observing that while we might typically classify flowers based on their species, we could just as easily classify them based on their colors as well. Both are valid. And while a botanist might scoff at the idea of the latter in general, a group of laymen might find the color classification very helpful.

So can we effectively partition the set of all transmissions over the terms manual, automatic, and automanual? Sure we can. In fact, this takes place even as two transmissions with the same basic internal workings could land in seperate categories (just like with my flower example above, the same might happen with two of the same species of flower when grouping by color). For example, as discovered earlier, there are already both automatic (proper-automatic, I mean) DCT and "automanual" DCT on the market today. The two would then necessarily be in two different categories. And how do we classify? The criteria is simple: automatic means that user involvement in selecting ratios is never possible, automanual means user involvement in selecting ratios is possible but not necessary, and manual means user involvement in selecting ratios is mandatory. And that's it. In fact it is easy to see that these three criteria do represent a partition of the set of transmissions.

Of course, as I mention earlier, we could instead partition on the internal workings. But if we do this, we must not attempt to put the planetary box in some subset we decide to term "automatic" while putting the DCT in some other subset we've termed "dual clutch" or "eletrohydraulically clutched" or somesuch. If we do, then we end up with a fallacy of misclassification. I.e. we are trying to sort things out based on two competing criteria, and it will result in invalid subsets (they won't form a proper partition).

Quote:
Also the clutchless sequential offers an interesting case. It is automatic in that the clutch is automatic. Your "bar" must then involve rising to the automatic category only if both the clutching and gear lever movements are automated?
Like I've said before, it's about the ratios and who/what chooses them. You could prove to yourself what the definition of an "automatic" transmission is to the typical driver by trying to sell them a car that you call an automatic but that still requires they be involved in selecting the gear ratio. We all know what would happen here - the majority of people would tell you to take a hike.

But even if we redefine the term "automatic", that doesn't change how a DCT and planetary box operate today, nor does it mean that we can no longer partition the set of transmissions properly with this term and the related ones I use above. Instead if just means you now have added another set; maybe call it "partially automatic" and then rename the "automatic" to "fully automatic" or whatever else you want to call them. It does not under any circumstance mean that we have to throw away the whole idea of partioning them based on the criteria of how the user interacts with them, and now insist that they can only be partioned using the criteria of how they operate internally.

Quote:
Finally, calling terminology opinions different than yours a "fallacy" is a bit of a stretch...
It just needed more explanation.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.

Last edited by mkoesel; 03-08-2011 at 09:13 AM.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-08-2011, 09:42 PM   #98
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Good post (all of it). I continue to enjoy the discussion. I did ask the mods to move all of this to another thread which has obviosuly not been done. Seems a bit odd as they are usually quite responsive to reports made with the "!". Maybe you should report yourself as well!

The only part I will reply to is this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
But what about this notion of a "disservice"? Here you are missing the bigger picture. The fact is, categorization can take place over a number of different properties or attributes. Our debate boils down to whether the set of all transmissions can be partioned over the properties "automatic" or "manual".
Absolutely, there is no debate that transmissions can be characterized by only 2 attributes. It is not that your convention is wrong or incorrect. However, the question is should they be? What you seem to miss about my point is that the range of the entire set of relevant attributes for actual transmissions simply yields such a wide variation in those attributes, that I simply insist there is indeed such a disservice.

Let's take the most obvious example, in your scheme a DCT (not necessarily the M-DCT, just any dual clutch unit) can be called an automatic. Let's compare a very traditional automatic (say shifter on the tunnel, planetary gears and torque converter) to the DCT. An appropriate set of attributes might be the feel (subtleties of smoothness, jerk, shift feel, shift speeds, feel during launch, etc.), user interface, performance, sound and internal construction - really anything you can experience about the two transmissions. Are any of these experiences going to be similar between the two units? Certainly to an enthusiast they won't be and that is key to me. But also, even to anyone mildly observant about their vehicle, they will not be similar. In fact the only thing similar about them is that they both can select ratios automatically, your key differentiator.

This is about as clear of a "disservice" as I can describe. This is again why journalists and manufacturers typically do refer to dual clutch units as such and CVTs as such. It would only be foolish for me to argue that these two transmissions can not select their own ratios obviously they can.

Let's look to another automotive area for inspiration and relevance. Is the only important thing about an engine its number of cylinders? Is it being gasoline or diesel powered, is it 2 cycle or 4 cycle, is it NA or FI, V or inline, electric or hybrid? Most people absolutely care about more than one of these characteristics, especially in such a broad range of ICEs (and non ICEs). Claiming that we only need to describe gasoline vs. diesel is not entirely dissimilar to your scheme for transmissions!
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-08-2011, 09:56 PM   #99
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli_HH View Post
To end all discussions about manuell and automatic-trannys ... and if an DCT/DKG ist more than an "auto" or an "manu" ... my infos about the new M3 F32 (no F30!) are:
This next M3 gets an 3.5ltr I6 TTT and an automatic-tranny only ... and because for me the M-DKG is to 100% an manuell-tranny, that meens that the new M3 gets the same ZF 8-Gear-Auto as the new M5!
The engine of the new M3, an inline 6 with 3.5ltr. and 3 Turbos develops more than 450HP and more than 500NM (Redline max 7.500), so that the current M-DKG doesn´t work and the M-GmbH won´t spend the money to make it fit for more than 500NM ... also the ZF-Auto is much cheaper than the M-DKG ... and BMWs M-GmbH has developed the electronic, that it could make this 8-Gear Auto feel like the real M-DKG !!!

So my current M3 with V8 and DKG would be my last one ... and would stay in my garage for long time. The only possible new M3 for me was an "newer" e90 M3 with V8/DKG and CP ... an decision to make this year!

Greets Uli_HH
Hello Uli, nice to hear you posting some rumors (or perhaps stronger information than just "rumors") on the F32 M3. You've posted valuable information here long ago about the E9X M3 before its release!

I do not find any of the details you posted surprising. Although I'm hesitant regarding true automatic transmissions, it is absolutely true that they have greatly advanced in recent years. If they can make a true automatic both feel and perform like a M-DCT, then I would not have a problem owning such a unit.

We have discussed the displacement of the new M3 quite a bit and how to arrive at 3.5l is the question. Will it use the same bore spacing as the N55/N55? Perhaps it will be a stroked version? There is not a tremendous margin available on wall thickness between bores nor on piston speeds to get 7500 rpm. Will it have Valvetronic?

See good discussions here and here. Well maybe not all of these threads are "good discussions" but there are plenty of smart posts.

What do you say mkoesel, 3.5l we are hearing again?
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-11-2011, 02:28 PM   #100
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli_HH View Post
To end all discussions about manuell and automatic-trannys ... and if an DCT/DKG ist more than an "auto" or an "manu" ... my infos about the new M3 F32 (no F30!) are:
This next M3 gets an 3.5ltr I6 TTT and an automatic-tranny only ... and because for me the M-DKG is to 100% an manuell-tranny, that meens that the new M3 gets the same ZF 8-Gear-Auto as the new M5!
m5board is reporting that the new F10 M5 has a 7 speed DCT. Link. Now if that is indeed a really good torque converter/planetary automatic one might get confused and think it is a DCT. I doubt they also got confused between 7 and 8 gears though. Also I do think if you paid close attention to low speeds and "clutching" there would be no way to get confused. We will see.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-12-2011, 10:04 AM   #101
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Good post (all of it). I continue to enjoy the discussion.
Thanks, yeah, its a good debate.

Quote:
I did ask the mods to move all of this to another thread which has obviosuly not been done. Seems a bit odd as they are usually quite responsive to reports made with the "!". Maybe you should report yourself as well!
I think it is time consuming to go through and break off some posts into a new thread. That's probably why they are slow or hesitant to react.

Quote:
Absolutely, there is no debate that transmissions can be characterized by only 2 attributes. It is not that your convention is wrong or incorrect. However, the question is should they be?
Perhaps not, but the fact remains that this is how the originators of the terms we use to describe transmissions today decided to do it. We could just throw out the terms automatic and manual today. Maybe its time. But again, this means we must now refer to the traditional "automatic" as a planetary gearbox, since that's what it is. And a traditional manual becomes, well, whatever term best describes its internals (I don't like my earlier one that much). Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Quote:
In fact the only thing similar about them is that they both can select ratios automatically, your key differentiator.

This is about as clear of a "disservice" as I can describe. This is again why journalists and manufacturers typically do refer to dual clutch units as such and CVTs as such. It would only be foolish for me to argue that these two transmissions can not select their own ratios obviously they can.
Right, but again, for the average consumer the real disservice would be to get into the details unnecessarily. And for the enthusiast who does care, well, what I said in the above paragraph applies. We have to get specfic about all transmissions, not the just the new and exciting ones.

Quote:
Let's look to another automotive area for inspiration and relevance. Is the only important thing about an engine its number of cylinders?

...
Claiming that we only need to describe gasoline vs. diesel is not entirely dissimilar to your scheme for transmissions!
Not quite. I would say both are important and which we use depends on the context of the discussion.

For fun, let's assume someone comes up with never before seens type of combustion engine. Maybe it has variable displacement, HCCI, and an electromagnetic valvetrain. This engine, however, still has pistons (i.e. its not rotary, or turbine) and furthermore these pistons are arranged in a V. We'll call the engine ATCE (Advanced Technology Combustion Engine).

Using that hypothetical, here's my best attempt at analogy to our debate, using engines:

Person A: Boy, that new ATCE is a great V6, eg?
Person B: Yep, it's awesome. It's not a V6 though. It's an ATCE.
Person A: Well, yeah, ok sure, but it is still a V6 though. There are six pistons and they are arranged in a V shape.
Person B: Yeah, but this thing is amazing! It uses HCCI, so its sort of like a diesel, but it burns gasoline instead. Very efficient. And no cam shafts either. You can't really group it in with today's V6 engines.
Person A: Sure you can. Just because it offers a new design doesn't mean it can't be grouped in with previous technolgy. Otherwise we'd have to brake out all other engines based on different tech too - like direct injection, overhead cams vs. pushrods, etc.
Person B: No because this is new and to gloss over all the advancements would be to miss the whole point of the engine.
Person A: V6 engines have come a long way too, you know. What about all those advancements over the years?
Person B: We still have to call this an ATCE.
Person A: Then we can today's direct injected V6 something else too, maybe a GDI-DOHC.

...etc, etc, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
What do you say mkoesel, 3.5l we are hearing again?
I still say it is not practically possible using the current I6 architecture. And to come up with a new architecture now - unless it were to be the start of a new family to be used across all BMWs - makes no sense for a car that needs to hit the expected price point.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-12-2011, 10:27 AM   #102
jeffnnj
Second Lieutenant
 
jeffnnj's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 E93 M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NNJ, USA

Posts: 281
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreasyGinzo View Post
I drove a twin clutch tranny for 2 years...I agree it is far from a slushbox but nothing beats the control you have over a car with a clutch pedal. Or the fun of throwing a lever with a nice mechanical feel. If they could come up with a way of having a selectable neutral in between gears I may think about getting one again.
+1
__________________
2011 M3 Convertible, Alpine White/Black Novillo Leather
2008 550i Sport, Platinum Gray/Natural Brown (retired)
2006 550i Silver Gray/Black (retired)
2002 M3 Convertible Titanium Silver/Black(retired)
1998 328i Convertible Arctic Silver/Gray(retired)
jeffnnj is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-12-2011, 03:57 PM   #103
Levi
Brigadier General
 
Levi's Avatar
 
Drives: Alfa Romeo
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague

Posts: 3,308
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
Person A: Boy, that new ATCE is a great V6, eg?
Person B: Yep, it's awesome. It's not a V6 though. It's an ATCE.
Person A: Well, yeah, ok sure, but it is still a V6 though. There are six pistons and they are arranged in a V shape.
Person B: Yeah, but this thing is amazing! It uses HCCI, so its sort of like a diesel, but it burns gasoline instead. Very efficient. And no cam shafts either. You can't really group it in with today's V6 engines.
Person A: Sure you can. Just because it offers a new design doesn't mean it can't be grouped in with previous technolgy. Otherwise we'd have to brake out all other engines based on different tech too - like direct injection, overhead cams vs. pushrods, etc.
Person B: No because this is new and to gloss over all the advancements would be to miss the whole point of the engine.
Person A: V6 engines have come a long way too, you know. What about all those advancements over the years?
Person B: We still have to call this an ATCE.
Person A: Then we can today's direct injected V6 something else too, maybe a GDI-DOHC.

...etc, etc, etc.




Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
I still say it is not practically possible using the current I6 architecture. And to come up with a new architecture now - unless it were to be the start of a new family to be used across all BMWs - makes no sense for a car that needs to hit the expected price point.
That is good news for me. I am still one of the few that thinks the next M3 F32 will be special and M3 badge worthy, and will not just get a 1 Series M E82 treatment.
Levi is offline   Czech_Republic
0
Reply With Quote
      03-12-2011, 04:24 PM   #104
MVF4Rrider
PCA, BMWCCA
 
MVF4Rrider's Avatar
 
Drives: 997S, MV Agusta F4, E46 M3
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Las Vegas NV

Posts: 2,060
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreasyGinzo View Post
If they could come up with a way of having a selectable neutral inbetween gears I may think about getting one again.
I assume there is (like my SMG). From any gear I can move the console joystick to neutral. However the system will select the appropriate gear when you move the joystick back (makes sense to keep the user from potentially overreving the motor). Same for M-DCT?
__________________
'08 Carrera S 6MT Guards Red/Black ext leather, Carbon fiber pkg, sport exh, sport chrono +, PASM, Nav, Bose, 19" forged turbos, red tranny tunnel
'07 MV Agusta F4 1000 R 1+1, Corse Red/Silver, RG3 race pipes and factory race ECU
MVF4Rrider is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-12-2011, 04:31 PM   #105
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Levi: (OT again...) I like your signature. You don't really believe the MP4-12C will hit 7:00 in the Ring do you? My guess is 7:3X by Sportauto and 7:2X from a Pro/factory driver.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-12-2011, 04:34 PM   #106
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider View Post
I assume there is (like my SMG). From any gear I can move the console joystick to neutral. However the system will select the appropriate gear when you move the joystick back (makes sense to keep the user from potentially overreving the motor). Same for M-DCT?
Yep, same for M-DCT.

I think they want some way to guarantee the transmission will go back to the same gear it was in before you went to N. It would be possible for someone to design one that worked that way (as long as speed is still close to where it was when in gear), but probably doesn't offer much value. I remember before I had a DCT thinking like those guys - that I'd want more control over when the car was in and out of gear. But once you try it you realize it's not as important as you thought it would be.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-12-2011, 04:42 PM   #107
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
For fun, let's assume someone comes up with never before seens type of combustion engine. Maybe it has variable displacement, HCCI, and an electromagnetic valvetrain. This engine, however, still has pistons (i.e. its not rotary, or turbine) and furthermore these pistons are arranged in a V. We'll call the engine ATCE (Advanced Technology Combustion Engine).

Using that hypothetical, here's my best attempt at analogy to our debate, using engines:
I don't think you have pushed the analogy far enough nor quite correctly. You did mold it perfectly to make your desired point though .

Both engines in your example are absolutely gasoline ICEs. That is "evolution" in my evaluation. Continuing with the engine analogy a DCT is somewhat more like a hybrid in that it is 2 transmissions running in parallel. Sure not a perfect analogy since a typical hybrid uses an ICE and an electric motor say rather than 2 ICEs. Nonetheless, still 2 engines in parallel. What do we (all of us) say powers such vehicle - we just call an apple and apple and say "hybrid"! Both the drive and the drivetrain are specialized enough that they very appropriately deserve and get their own terms. Doing otherwise does a disservice to all, hyper-milers, eco trendy soccer moms or tech inclined early adopters alike.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-12-2011, 05:34 PM   #108
MVF4Rrider
PCA, BMWCCA
 
MVF4Rrider's Avatar
 
Drives: 997S, MV Agusta F4, E46 M3
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Las Vegas NV

Posts: 2,060
iTrader: (0)

^^ 2 suggestions: 1) there should be an "ultimate tech" thread to hash out this type interpretive engineering and to keep every thread from getting hijacked, and 2) for every thread hijacker a 25 cent deposit should go into a central fund to be used for whatever (prizes, giveaways, donations to survivors of lost members, etc).
__________________
'08 Carrera S 6MT Guards Red/Black ext leather, Carbon fiber pkg, sport exh, sport chrono +, PASM, Nav, Bose, 19" forged turbos, red tranny tunnel
'07 MV Agusta F4 1000 R 1+1, Corse Red/Silver, RG3 race pipes and factory race ECU
MVF4Rrider is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-13-2011, 01:07 AM   #109
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider View Post
^^ 2 suggestions: 1) there should be an "ultimate tech" thread to hash out this type interpretive engineering
Ha, "inerpretive engineering". Funny term. Here it is really semantics and jargon at the center of this debate. I asked the mods twice to try to move the OT debate to another thread. They are usually more than willing to do so. Not sure what is going on here.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-13-2011, 08:52 AM   #110
Levi
Brigadier General
 
Levi's Avatar
 
Drives: Alfa Romeo
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague

Posts: 3,308
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Levi: (OT again...) I like your signature. You don't really believe the MP4-12C will hit 7:00 in the Ring do you? My guess is 7:3X by Sportauto and 7:2X from a Pro/factory driver.
OT: The MP4-12C is now the best handling sportscar, and goes from 0-300 km/h in 24,5 sec. Even by Sportauto it may run the N-Ring under 7;25 min.
Levi is offline   Czech_Republic
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST