2019 Bmw Z4 First Drive

[rockstar93]

Originally Posted by Huz-Z

This must be a business decision based on the fact that even considering all of us grumpy old men who post on this and similar forums, there aren't enough people buying manual shift cars these days to justify having them available on the car.

Originally Posted by deemo319

I think you are correct. If I recall correctly BMW NA dropped the E89 Z4 with a manual transmission in 2014 due to an extremely low take rate and related costs of certification of each model with different engines and transmissions. And this was noted as part of BMW's long range plans in dropping manual transmission availability.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

THIS is the key reason manual transmissions are being dropped from the US market. What you indicate is just stupid US DOT safety regulations, which the current pro-business Administration should be made aware of and get changed. In this day and age of very sophisticated and advanced computer-aided modeling, one version of the chassis should be physically crash tested and any change in engine or transmission component should only require the chassis to be crash tested using computer simulation tools. The change of engine/transmission does not significantly change the crash performance of the chassis as they are not structural chassis members. While it is understood the concern is penetration of the engine through the firewall and transmission through the tunnel, both smaller and larger engines perform almost identically as do transmissions.

The cost for requiring chassis crash testing with engine/transmission changes makes the business case for a small market segment of manual transmission cars too expensive. The drive for reduced fuel consumption numbers also adds into the equation as well. It limits consumer choice, which is always a bad thing and typical of too much Government oversight.

This is a pet peeve of mine.

High level it does all boil down to costs and incremental sales, but the cost of certification is only part of it.

I work in Product Planning for a major automotive company here in Canada and we've been having a lengthy discussion on whether to offer a manual transmission in our upcoming "hot hatch" offering. From our desks, there would be no additional costs to certifying the vehicle, "simply" adding the model code in the system and ordering them from the factory is all it takes - granted this is because the model with MT was developed already and we're only debating on whether to offer it to the Canadian market. Even though there isn't much work or upfront costs to offer, we still struggle to justify it.

A couple points to consider:

1. Take customer take rate that we see is <1%. Even if it was higher it's extremely low. Because of this, less dealers even order the car -> less MT cars on lots lead to less MT sales to customers -> lower take rate leads to less MT cars ordered/offered by the manufacturer/dealer. It's a never ending cycle
2. Offering an additional trim/engine/transmission means we need to keep this model in our brochures, websites - adding cost
3. One of our mandates company-wide is to reduce complexity in our models (we're not the only manufacturer doing this as it limits customer confusion and is easier for dealers to have the right cars at the right time for customer demand). Adding an additional transmission seems easy, but it basically doubles the trim count of a vehicle (accounting for engine, transmission, interior, exterior, and option package combinations this count could easily be in the hundreds)
4. If a car doesn't sell (either to a dealer or customer) not only do we need to account for the cost of additional incentives, but we run into issues of batteries dying and needing replacement, cost of storage, little things that add up
5. Recall that offering a transmission option also adds cost in supporting the model - there needs to be local stock of most unique parts to the transmission which could be big and costly (re-man transmissions) to small and trivial (floor mats)
6. Even when the option to have a MT is there it isn't always a good one. Because of the high-cost/low ROI, more R&D is spent on the AT/DCT/CVT than a MT so often times the MT is less than ideal to the rest of the car. In my "hot hatch" scenario, the MT offered is the same one on the base trim 2.0L N/A as the 1.6L Turbo sporty trim.

Not to say my company is the same or even competes with BMW, but most manufacturers experience the same things and follow the same trends. I'm simply bringing it up as there's more to it than government regulations.

At the end of the day the only way to truly change the trend is for more people to start/continue buying new, MT cars. If the sales increase enough, I have no doubt that manufacturers will keep them alive and offered regardless of cost.

As a last aside, I should note that I am also extremely disappointed in the lack of a MT and ///M model G29 and because of that won't consider it myself. I do agree with all previous points that if there was only 1 model that should justify an ///M or MT, it would be the 2-seat, driver-focused, sports car.

[deemo319]

BMW AG did have ZF develop a manual transmission for the G29 Z4 with the 2.0 liter 4cyl engine. And it's more than likely this model will definitely not be coming to North America.

Americans would by this car with that engine and transmission but it probably wouldn't be a lot of them.

The Z4 should have a manual transmission but the take rate would be extremely low.

[Huz-Z]

But how will the kids text and drive if you make them buy cars with manual transmissions?

[deemo319]

Originally Posted by Huz-Z

But how will the kids text and drive if you make them buy cars with manual transmissions?

They can't so it makes the roads safer for all of us!

A manual transmission are the best anti-theft and anti-texting deterrents!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Huz-Z

But how will the kids text and drive if you make them buy cars with manual transmissions?

Wrong question....

How will buyers iDrive and shift with a manual transmission...?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by rockstar93

High level it does all boil down to costs and incremental sales, but the cost of certification is only part of it.

I work in Product Planning for a major automotive company here in Canada and we've been having a lengthy discussion on whether to offer a manual transmission in our upcoming "hot hatch" offering. From our desks, there would be no additional costs to certifying the vehicle, "simply" adding the model code in the system and ordering them from the factory is all it takes - granted this is because the model with MT was developed already and we're only debating on whether to offer it to the Canadian market. Even though there isn't much work or upfront costs to offer, we still struggle to justify it.

A couple points to consider:

1. Take customer take rate that we see is <1%. Even if it was higher it's extremely low. Because of this, less dealers even order the car -> less MT cars on lots lead to less MT sales to customers -> lower take rate leads to less MT cars ordered/offered by the manufacturer/dealer. It's a never ending cycle
2. Offering an additional trim/engine/transmission means we need to keep this model in our brochures, websites - adding cost
3. One of our mandates company-wide is to reduce complexity in our models (we're not the only manufacturer doing this as it limits customer confusion and is easier for dealers to have the right cars at the right time for customer demand). Adding an additional transmission seems easy, but it basically doubles the trim count of a vehicle (accounting for engine, transmission, interior, exterior, and option package combinations this count could easily be in the hundreds)
4. If a car doesn't sell (either to a dealer or customer) not only do we need to account for the cost of additional incentives, but we run into issues of batteries dying and needing replacement, cost of storage, little things that add up
5. Recall that offering a transmission option also adds cost in supporting the model - there needs to be local stock of most unique parts to the transmission which could be big and costly (re-man transmissions) to small and trivial (floor mats)
6. Even when the option to have a MT is there it isn't always a good one. Because of the high-cost/low ROI, more R&D is spent on the AT/DCT/CVT than a MT so often times the MT is less than ideal to the rest of the car. In my "hot hatch" scenario, the MT offered is the same one on the base trim 2.0L N/A as the 1.6L Turbo sporty trim.

Not to say my company is the same or even competes with BMW, but most manufacturers experience the same things and follow the same trends. I'm simply bringing it up as there's more to it than government regulations.

At the end of the day the only way to truly change the trend is for more people to start/continue buying new, MT cars. If the sales increase enough, I have no doubt that manufacturers will keep them alive and offered regardless of cost.

As a last aside, I should note that I am also extremely disappointed in the lack of a MT and ///M model G29 and because of that won't consider it myself. I do agree with all previous points that if there was only 1 model that should justify an ///M or MT, it would be the 2-seat, driver-focused, sports car.

The cost of all your points is peanuts compared to crash test certification.

[rockstar93]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The cost of all your points is peanuts compared to crash test certification.

Agreed 100%.

But in my scenario that cost was non-existent, yet a MT was still not justifiable.