Let’s talk about the economics of offering non-popular features like an MT

[manicottiK]

I believe, but am not sure, that part of the issue with offering an MT is that each Model x Engine x Transmission x Drivetrain combination must be tested and certified for a bunch of things. Adding the manual transmission to the 320, 330, and 340 means three additional certifications (or 6 if they were to offer it in RWD and Xdrive).

For the number of people interested, it seems not worth it to BMW.(Note that my current '17 530i is my first automatic since 1996. It's a fine drive, but I miss the clutch.)

Maybe BMW could offset the certification cost by limiting the number of variations offering a manual transmission and charging more it than for the automatic.

If BMW were to offer manual only in one of the 320i, 330i, and 340i, which should get it?

If BMW were to offer manual only in RWD or X-drive, which should get it?

If BMW were to offer manual as an option for a price, how much would you pay ($0, $500, $1,000, $1,500, etc.) for it?

[dfresh713]

If its already being offered in the M3, it can be "US certified". From my experience in life there is always a way. The way will be found.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by dfresh713

If its already being offered in the M3, it can be "US certified". From my experience in life there is always a way. The way will be found.

It can be...it's just a few million dollars. The M3 cert was based on building impact prototypes for frontal compliance with FMVSS 208. That powertrain combination has unique characteristics and is not applicable to other powertrains. A 330 and 340 would have to be certified individually, which means development, time, people and crash testing. I've been involved with this in my prior work and we're into seven digits per vehicle species. The question BMWAG will ask is, how many incremental cars will they sell and do they have production capacity to produce them. If the G20 program already is projected as at capacity, there is no upside.

[MT4life]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

It can be...it's just a few million dollars. The M3 cert was based on building impact prototypes for frontal compliance with FMVSS 208. That powertrain combination has unique characteristics and is not applicable to other powertrains. A 330 and 340 would have to be certified individually, which means development, time, people and crash testing. I've been involved with this in my prior work and we're into seven digits per vehicle species. The question BMWAG will ask is, how many incremental cars will they sell and do they have production capacity to produce them. If the G20 program already is projected as at capacity, there is no upside.

Ok I'll bite. Since we're throwing numbers around and nothing concrete. Can BMW NA tell us how much it would be to certify M340i with 6MT. 7 digits what? How many cars at $50K Invoice a pop would they have to sell to break even or make a small profit? 50K x 100 cars is already 5 million, is that good, is that enough? Don't you think they would sell 200-300 cars a year with 6MT?

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by MT4life

Ok I'll bite. Since we're throwing numbers around and nothing concrete. Can BMW NA tell us how much it would be to certify M340i with 6MT. 7 digits what? How many cars at $50K Invoice a pop would they have to sell to break even or make a small profit? 50K x 100 cars is already 5 million, is that good, is that enough? Don't you think they would sell 200-300 cars a year with 6MT?

It's not BMWNA...they are just the US distributor. The program is managed and profitability is accounted for at BMWAG. The relevant number won't be the invoice. It would be the BMWAG margin for the incremental units built. When I ran a vehicle program, MSRPs in the range of the current 340i had margins of approximately $10,000-$12,000 to the manufacturer. If the total cost of a cert program for one engine family/powertrain (RWD M340i MT) is ~$3M, the breakeven is roughly 270-300 units, which is likely doable.

But, they will ask themselves why do they need to do this to keep the order bank and plant full? They have no doubt designed a program for a new vehicle which they believe will equal or slightly exceed the capacity of their plants. To do otherwise would results in a program manager finding a new career. If they found they had unused capacity over time for a few hundred, even a thousand, or so units, it is far easier for them to manage that with a small promotional/incentive program than to take on the system-wide burden of developing another powertrain program. (It might even be lower investment to bring back the station wagon to the US for a couple of thousand units of open capacity or discount some 330s to a corporate fleet if they were surprised with lower total demand than planned. It's about filling the line at the lowest cost.) So, those relative handful of MT units would be substitutional, not incremental, to the program. In my old days at another OEM, the variable cost of a manual transmission was actually higher than an automatic (despite that we and everyone else made money with a lower variable cost AT option and charged an option price of around $1000 to order an AT to boot! Gotta love the car biz!), so it is possible substituting an MT for an AT actually loses per vehicle margin. This is not a plan a program manager would bring forward.

Further, aside from certifying the vehicle, there is impact at the plant for managing the addition of another powertrain combination...they are not small items and with their 4s, 6s, hybrid, diesels, with the existing combinations of transmissions for higher demand markets, adding yet another can add even more program investment. And, they will wonder, for what? They plan to sell every US bound AT vehicle as is, so what benefit accrues to them? We see the result of the answer to that question. They allow us the manual only where is has a major impact on a program...the M3 and M4 yet to come.

[SCOTT26]

FYI the lower engined models have been developed with both manual and auto. The more Performance engineered models are automatic only. They are not going to develop a manual M340i/340d as customers would prefer Sport auto.

[MT4life]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

FYI the lower engined models have been developed with both manual and auto. The more Performance engineered models are automatic only. They are not going to develop a manual M340i/340d as customers would prefer Sport auto.

As "some" customers would prefer Auto. Some.
I'm getting 2018 m340i Msport with 6MT and waiting for BMW to change their mind in a couple of years

[hans007]

Originally Posted by MT4life

As "some" customers would prefer Auto. Some.
I'm getting 2018 m340i Msport with 6MT and waiting for BMW to change their mind in a couple of years

I could see them putting it in the 330i. At least probably they'd get back their invsestment.

THe 340i though... it just seems like there isn't that big a market. what percentage of 3 series are 340s as it is? In LA anyway it seems like there are more m3s than 340s

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by hans007

I could see them putting it in the 330i. At least probably they'd get back their invsestment.

THe 340i though... it just seems like there isn't that big a market. what percentage of 3 series are 340s as it is? In LA anyway it seems like there are more m3s than 340s

It isn't just about getting back the investment, do BMW want sales where emissions are increasing the fleet average? Much more is involved that simply filling the market with choice (AT & MT). In achieving emission targets, BMW will be looking to the future, where are the savings coming from? MT doesn't help the cause, particularly in the higher output models, without expensive MT development.

Reading some of the independent technical articles, it seems even the future of MT requires an additional automated clutch feature, to fit into the future of CO2 and emission reduction. So MT will lose the "total driver control", as future MT is developed.

Factors like coasting/sail mode require an 'over-ride' automated clutch, which then also benefit stop-start, traffic jam assist, 48 Volt hybrid energy recuperation, drive train protection, etc., etc.

Look at it laterally, why develop a 'semi-automated' MT to meet emission targets, 'in parallel' to the highly developed AT? AT already has the ability to engage energy saving features, plus the driver assist functions being added to the model ranges.

Plus any MT development will require more ratios (down speeding) to get the same fuel efficiency already available with the 8-speed AT.

Don't under estimate how emission targets (and legislation) are impinging on models available with MT and other model choices across the markets. All the manufacturers are liable to penalties if they don't achieve the fleet averages, MT as we know it, is not helping them one bit.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

It's not BMWNA...they are just the US distributor. The program is managed and profitability is accounted for at BMWAG. The relevant number won't be the invoice. It would be the BMWAG margin for the incremental units built. When I ran a vehicle program, MSRPs in the range of the current 340i had margins of approximately $10,000-$12,000 to the manufacturer. If the total cost of a cert program for one engine family/powertrain (RWD M340i MT) is ~$3M, the breakeven is roughly 270-300 units, which is likely doable.

But, they will ask themselves why do they need to do this to keep the order bank and plant full? They have no doubt designed a program for a new vehicle which they believe will equal or slightly exceed the capacity of their plants. To do otherwise would results in a program manager finding a new career. If they found they had unused capacity over time for a few hundred, even a thousand, or so units, it is far easier for them to manage that with a small promotional/incentive program than to take on the system-wide burden of developing another powertrain program. (It might even be lower investment to bring back the station wagon to the US for a couple of thousand units of open capacity or discount some 330s to a corporate fleet if they were surprised with lower total demand than planned. It's about filling the line at the lowest cost.) So, those relative handful of MT units would be substitutional, not incremental, to the program. In my old days at another OEM, the variable cost of a manual transmission was actually higher than an automatic (despite that we and everyone else made money with a lower variable cost AT option and charged an option price of around $1000 to order an AT to boot! Gotta love the car biz!), so it is possible substituting an MT for an AT actually loses per vehicle margin. This is not a plan a program manager would bring forward.

Further, aside from certifying the vehicle, there is impact at the plant for managing the addition of another powertrain combination...they are not small items and with their 4s, 6s, hybrid, diesels, with the existing combinations of transmissions for higher demand markets, adding yet another can add even more program investment. And, they will wonder, for what? They plan to sell every US bound AT vehicle as is, so what benefit accrues to them? We see the result of the answer to that question. They allow us the manual only where is has a major impact on a program...the M3 and M4 yet to come.

And they have to train all the mechanics or at least provide good service materials and lifetime parts supplies for all markets.

A lot of complexity for a handful of customers that are mostly substituting. If it was incremental and/or conquest sales, there would be more justification - especially if your marketing could move them to automatics for their next purchase (so you don’t lose them to another brand with a manual)

[P1]

What about offering drum brakes, steel wheels and non-power steering? We should include that also.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by P1et

What about offering drum brakes, steel wheels and non-power steering? We should include that also.

[Tuxedo]

Originally Posted by P1et

What about offering drum brakes, steel wheels and non-power steering? We should include that also.

Look I drive a dodo bird, in that, where can I find an 6cyl natural aspirated RWD manual trans. I know progress has passed me by so I'll respond to your comment with surly snark of my own

I can get a inline 6 and sounds like a machine feels like a machine or I can get it's replacement 2.0l 4cyl turbo that sounds like a hamster wheel and pipe the sound it never had thru a speaker. Real vs fake

I can get RWD where I can punch the corner and barely even use the steering due to hitting the rear wheel just right and throttle just right out of the corner or I can use the steering wheel and the brakes in my FWD shit box. Spinal shivers vs hey I can drive real fast on the hwy

I can get a Manual Trans that shifts smooth into my favorite gear and down shifts de-accelerates under my control or I can... nothing just 2 peddle down the road did I mention drive fast on the hwy.

Atleast I can say with dignity mine is better, not more popular.

[P1]

Originally Posted by Tuxedo

Look I drive a dodo bird, in that, where can I find an 6cyl natural aspirated RWD manual trans. I know progress has passed me by so I'll respond to your comment with surly snark of my own

I can get a inline 6 and sounds like a machine feels like a machine or I can get it's replacement 2.0l 4cyl turbo that sounds like a hamster wheel and pipe the sound it never had thru a speaker. Real vs fake

I can get RWD where I can punch the corner and barely even use the steering due to hitting the rear wheel just right and throttle just right out of the corner or I can use the steering wheel and the brakes in my FWD shit box. Spinal shivers vs hey I can drive real fast on the hwy

I can get a Manual Trans that shifts smooth into my favorite gear and down shifts de-accelerates under my control or I can... nothing just 2 peddle down the road did I mention drive fast on the hwy.

Atleast I can say with dignity mine is better, not more popular.

I get that, trust me. But the MT is getting too much attention as far as “being connected to your vehicle” is concerned. Hence my suggestions on other often overlooked technology and features.

Which makes me think: almost forgot manual windows and a cassette player!

[Tuxedo]

Originally Posted by P1et

Which makes me think: almost forgot manual windows and a cassette player!

[Tuxedo]

Originally Posted by P1et

I get that, trust me. But the MT is getting too much attention as far as “being connected to your vehicle” is concerned. Hence my suggestions on other often overlooked technology and features.

Which makes me think: almost forgot manual windows and a cassette player!

no doubt last night looked at Apple carplay and Rear camera upgrades to my 1er, very valid point

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

It can be...it's just a few million dollars. The M3 cert was based on building impact prototypes for frontal compliance with FMVSS 208. That powertrain combination has unique characteristics and is not applicable to other powertrains. A 330 and 340 would have to be certified individually, which means development, time, people and crash testing. I've been involved with this in my prior work and we're into seven digits per vehicle species. The question BMWAG will ask is, how many incremental cars will they sell and do they have production capacity to produce them. If the G20 program already is projected as at capacity, there is no upside.

This is my argument that the Governments should allow use of computer simulated crash testing for certification. This in many instances would close the business model for producing a chassis with varying drive train configurations. The chassis is developed using very sophisticated computer modeling tools for finite element analysis design. A computer simulated crash test tool would be as accurate in determining safety performance variability of a chassis/drive train combination as any level of precision left to the test setup or at worst, a real-world crash.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

This is my argument that the Governments should allow use of computer simulated crash testing for certification. This in many instances would close the business model for producing a chassis with varying drive train configurations. The chassis is developed using very sophisticated computer modeling tools for finite element analysis design. A computer simulated crash test tool would be as accurate in determining safety performance variability of a chassis/drive train combination as any level of precision left to the test setup or at worst, a real-world crash.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject.

I am not knowledgeable about the application of computer simulation. I know from casual observation that such CAD (and other programs I don't know/remember by name) simulation was used in the early design and simulated impact development work, before parts/vehicles were created for barrier testing. I also know that a series of prototypes of the identical (to the degree that is possible) vehicle can be produced and impact tested, and results in impact testing can vary, for a long list of possible reasons, from vehicle to test dummy. As a result, the objective was set for 20% above FMVSS requirements so that all the variation, including the most significantly different outlier at the low end of the distribution would be well within the requirements. I don't know how a computer simulation for compliance certification could account for that real-world variation.

[Grumpy Old Man]

MT is a great anti theft device.

[Turkish Pickle]

Why would a MT transmission spec'd variant go through the same testing as it's AT brother, is it because they're technically different drivetrains?

I'm not a BMW engineer but I'd assume the only difference between AT/MT is the transmission, and judging by "muscle" cars, maybe the diff ratios.


I'm sure someone will comment on me being young but I also don't see why there's such a great push for MT. Yes I can drive MT, I even got my license on a MT car back home but with great AT boxes today I don't think a MT car would ever be my only car...
Hell if someone can combine a H patterned shifter that works as a manual when a mode is selected without a clutch that'd be great. Think like a SMG with a H pattern!

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Sportstick

I am not knowledgeable about the application of computer simulation. I know from casual observation that such CAD (and other programs I don't know/remember by name) simulation was used in the early design and simulated impact development work, before parts/vehicles were created for barrier testing. I also know that a series of prototypes of the identical (to the degree that is possible) vehicle can be produced and impact tested, and results in impact testing can vary, for a long list of possible reasons, from vehicle to test dummy. As a result, the objective was set for 20% above FMVSS requirements so that all the variation, including the most significantly different outlier at the low end of the distribution would be well within the requirements. I don't know how a computer simulation for compliance certification could account for that real-world variation.

The state of simulations makes it a very viable option instead of doing actual crash testing. Heck, with the nuclear test ban treaty, the US government had to figure out a way to do "testing" of nuclear warheads. The testing has been achieved via simulations which I would dare say is a lot more complex than simulating a vehicle crash.

[Sportstick]

Originally Posted by Bayerische Motoren Werke

Why would a MT transmission spec'd variant go through the same testing as it's AT brother, is it because they're technically different drivetrains?

I'm not a BMW engineer but I'd assume the only difference between AT/MT is the transmission, and judging by "muscle" cars, maybe the diff ratios.

They each require their own certification program as they are different significant mass parts and must be crash tested to see how each performs against the impact barrier.