3 series with AT?

On 6/23/2006 6:19 PM, Eisboch went clickity-clack on the keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:

Kind of reminds me of the old VW Beetle with the automatic stick-shift. It had a switch inside the shifter (on the floor) so that when you moved the stick it would electronically engage the clutch, but you'd actually shift gears.

BMW makes lots of 3 Series cars with automatic transmissions. People like them, so they do not appear on Edmunds.

Don't forget to try autotrader.com and cars.com.

No, but reports say it's no smoother when driven gently than earlier SMGs which I have driven.

Why? It is an auto transmission with a degree of manual over-ride. Can you stall it? Can you start off in an unsuitable gear? Can you over-rev it or change into an unsuitable gear for engine speed? No? So it's an auto with a degree of manual control...

But they're not as smooth as a good driver can achieve with a manual box. The twin clutch VW system gets pretty close, though, and BMW will use a similar system shortly.

This system was usually called semi-automatic and similar types were fitted by other makers.

Can you give an example of a epicyclic auto where you don't have to select drive? ;-) And of course a BMW Steptronic requires the lever to be moved to select 'manual' mode.

Virtual cigar on the way. ;-)

In the UK probably the majority of all cars are plain old manuals - although things are changing - so it gives no street cred to say you drive a manual. it would seem things are different in the US - hence the spirited defence of calling a different type of auto a manual...

I don't know the exact ratio, but here in the US the vast majority of cars are automatic. By basic definition here, an auto utilizes a torque converter and a manual uses a clutch, manually or automatically operated. Also, by definition, BMW and Ferrari, consider a SMG a manual. Audi refers to it sometimes as being a "semi-manual".

But, I understand your POV.

Eisboch

Obviously, I have an M5. I have to admit that for the first couple of weeks I had serious reservations regarding the transmission. The M5 has a strict "run-in" or "break-in" requirement that limits RPM, throttle and gearbox usage for the first 1200 miles, and then a more flexible period until 3000 miles. Shifting at the lower (relative) RPMs during the first 1200 miles was not impressive at first. Using the "automatic" shifting mode was horrible. But, in time, the shifts became smoother and faster, mostly because the driver gets used to the system. After 1200 miles where you may allow the engine to rev up like it's supposed to the shifts are flawless, particularly in the S4 or S5 modes. I doubt even the most experienced or talented driver can do better using a true manual, simply because the SMG shifts much faster than humanly possible.

You can't judge the new M5/M6 SMG performance with one or two test drives. You have to use it for a while and adapt your driving style to the transmission and car.

Remember. These things red-line at 8,250 RPM. You need to allow them to rev up to at least 4000 RPM to optimize the SMG shifting. So now, having owned several manual gearbox autos in the past and having now become accustom to the SMG, I'd take the SMG over a straight manual every time. And I don't even bother with the "auto" mode.

Eisboch

Yes - I'd guessed that.

Strange given one of the first mass produced autos was the GM Hydramatic 4 speed in the '40s and '50s which didn't have a torque convertor.

Autos also have clutches. ;-)

The marketing men always get their own way. I'll bet non of their engineers consider an 'SMG' a manual.

Which must make for interesting driving in a city context. I need a car which can be driven smoothly and slowly when the needs must as well as like a hooligan at times.

Perhaps you don't do any city driving?

With seven gears, I can drive as slowly as I want and still keep the RPMs up. But, again, I understand your POV. I've just become used to and fond of the SMGIII.

Eisboch

Ironic, isn't it? Semantics is fundamental to understanding language and meaning. Yet in common parlance, it has come to many to mean playing silly games with meanings. Sad, too.

And have been for decades.

Eisboch correctly uses present tense, since the fluid coupling Hydramatic was replaced in the U.S. by torque converter based units by the mid 1960's - although I understand Rolls Royce used it through 1967.

Of course, Chevrolet and Buick each developed their own torque converter transmissions and never used Hydramatics.

IIRC, the only other fluid coupling units were Chrysler's 4 speed M-6 transmissions which were semi-automatic, requiring a (de-clutched) manual shift from 2nd to 3rd, even when the coupling was replaced by a converter. And for a number of years, Dodges could be equipped with a conventional 3 speed manual (including clutch) with a fluid coupling. A well used version of one of these "Fluid Drives" was my first car, and it was easy to learn to manipulate the clutch as the engine wouldn't stall.

Tom K.

Constant Velocity Transmissions are automatics.

But no torque convertor - usually - so sort of makes a nonsense of most of the definitions here?

The key word is "here" - in the U.S. Although the DAF minicar had it years ago, very few cars for sale in the U.S. use this particular type of AT. Are any CVT equipped cars manufactured in the U.S.?

Tom K.

Except for using a fluid coupling, that was the basic design of Chrysler's M-6. Costing about $130.00 it had 2 speeds (1st & 3rd), both of which could be modified by the OD, yielding 2nd and 4th. This "semi-automatic" was also available with a torque converter for twice as much money - for comparison, a new Plymouth cost about $1,800 in those days. Both were finally supplanted by the TC based 2 speed "Powerflite" in 1954.

Tom K.

There are many CVT cars available in the US. Honda's been offering it for a while, and GM offers in the Honda-powered Saturns. I believe you can get Audis with CVT now, as well.

Oh yeah!. The new Ford Five Hundred has a CVT. I'm not certain, but I would be surprised if the Fusion and its Mercury counterpart were not equipped with a CVT, or at least had it as an available option.