BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Still Stickin' It!
Joined
·
886 Posts
The body structure and impact performance will be different from the coupe. Therefore, BMW would need a separate compliance impact testing program for this powertrain combination in the convertible body for a small percentage (MT) of a small percentage (convertible) of the market. Lots of cost for little ROI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Wouldn't it be almost the same as the 235? The weight of the engine makes that much of a difference? I think a few decades ago, California forbade larger-displacement motors with MT's, but this is the opposite. . .
 

·
Still Stickin' It!
Joined
·
886 Posts
Wouldn't it be almost the same as the 235? The weight of the engine makes that much of a difference? I think a few decades ago, California forbade larger-displacement motors with MT's, but this is the opposite. . .
It's not total weight. It's impact management and how that affects the kinematics of the occupants in a crash. The crash pulse of the vehicle will vary from coupe to convertible as the body-in-white has several structural differences. U.S. FMVSS compliance would require impact testing for each powertrain combination in that unique body, as MT and AT have different physical characteristics. That means investment to build the crash prototypes and time on the barrier, which takes away from other programs at BMW under testing and development.
 

·
Still Stickin' It!
Joined
·
886 Posts
In less-intelligent terms, bummer. :-(
Sorry....30 years in the industry.....my apologies for the jargon....

Every car manufacturer has to crash test every powertrain family in every body to make it legal to sell, once they pass the test! The difference from coupe to convertible in the way the body crushes on impact PLUS the overall difference for an AT vs and MT mounted in the vehicle means they would need to spend the same investment to crash a MT convertible as for the high volume AT coupe. That's a lot of money and resources (people/facilities) to MAYBE sell an extra few cars....maybe...over what they are selling now. We're taking a few million of investment.

Most car companies have one or two impact barrier test facilities and they are usually busy with developing future generations of cars. With all the new models BMW is developing, they may have also decided the time was better spent on higher volume and more business-important programs.

This is all my educated guess speculation....this is a major reason why we don't see more powertrain variations across bodystyles for powertrains which already exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
No demand for it either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
thanks Sport, since there's an M235 MT vert, I didn't think it would take that much more to test the 228/230, but I understand the cost/benefit analysis. Kinda forces me to consider the 228 coupe MT vs. $10k+ more for the 240 vert MT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
This is all my educated guess speculation....this is a major reason why we don't see more powertrain variations across bodystyles for powertrains which already exist.
That IS the major CONSEQUENCE that leads to shortage of powertrain options. If I had to speculate about the REASON for it, Detroit screwed us over again, all deaths they caused by forcing 55 mph national speed limit were not enough. I said I was going to speculate, not document.

Nothing happens in U.S. auto industry without a blessing from Detroit. We even bailed them out when, what they pigheadedly kept doing, tuned deadly on them. So, I cannot believe a law that is so bad and damaging to the consumers would be there if someone with influence and money didn't put fingers in that pie.

What is wrong with protecting unsuspecting people from crash-unworthy vehicles? Absolutely nothing. What IS wrong is placing unreasonable constraints in order to minimize possible permutations placed on market - which, just miraculously so, with no links to reality, hugely benefits manufacturers by lowering costs with large batch production and makes dealers relevant since there are so few possible combinations that they can still stock cars and then dicker for the price.

None of that, obviously, happens in Europe and they are still not extinct with bad, crash-unworthy vehicles being forced on them at the tune of 10 engines possible per chassis and most of those with both AWD or RWD and MT or AT to chose from.

Normal programming is being resumed, you can remove ear muffs. Your well being is not going to be affected after this messages from our sponsors ...
 

·
Still Stickin' It!
Joined
·
886 Posts
That IS the major CONSEQUENCE that leads to shortage of powertrain options. If I had to speculate about the REASON for it, Detroit screwed us over again, all deaths they caused by forcing 55 mph national speed limit were not enough. I said I was going to speculate, not document.

Nothing happens in U.S. auto industry without a blessing from Detroit. We even bailed them out when, what they pigheadedly kept doing, tuned deadly on them. So, I cannot believe a law that is so bad and damaging to the consumers would be there if someone with influence and money didn't put fingers in that pie.

What is wrong with protecting unsuspecting people from crash-unworthy vehicles? Absolutely nothing. What IS wrong is placing unreasonable constraints in order to minimize possible permutations placed on market - which, just miraculously so, with no links to reality, hugely benefits manufacturers by lowering costs with large batch production and makes dealers relevant since there are so few possible combinations that they can still stock cars and then dicker for the price.

None of that, obviously, happens in Europe and they are still not extinct with bad, crash-unworthy vehicles being forced on them at the tune of 10 engines possible per chassis and most of those with both AWD or RWD and MT or AT to chose from.

Normal programming is being resumed, you can remove ear muffs. Your well being is not going to be affected after this messages from our sponsors ...
I completely get the emotion and understand you said you were speculating, but, respectfully, I must disagree significantly on several points based on having been inside a car company and some of the industry suppliers over the last three decades.

1) The 55 speed limit was enacted in 1974 by then-President Nixon purely as a fuel conservation move. The auto industry had nothing to do with it, and did not support it, as it, along with insurance costs and emission stadards, helped kill the profitable muscle car segment.

2) I have seen no data about any deaths resulting from lowering the speed limit, and I have looked at lots of data over the years. Actually, the trends had gone the other way.

3) There is no "pie" nor "fingers" relating to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The simple logic is that cars sold should all meet a basic minimum crashworthiness standard. It is up to the manufacturers 100% as to which models to test or not. No one benefits monetarily from the regulation, except maybe a few employees who do the crash tests. Actually, the industry would sell more freely without such regulations, but they exist as a result of the NHTSA agency directive.

4) Manufacturers are free to have as many permutations as they want. They just have to test them to show the vehicle meets the minimums. They are also free to engineer them above the minimum standards. Food manufacturers also have to meet FDA minimum standards for cleanliness, even for specialty/small batch products; airline pilots, even for smaller airlines, must have minimum training hours, so this concept is not unique.

5) Europe does do this. The testing regulations are also quite stringent, although they have some variations, such as frontal impact testing with belted dummies. The manufacturers simply choose to certify as many vehicles as they believe they can profitably sell. We may very well have a situation where BMW's Leipzig plant is already at capacity, so the incremental potential sales of MT convertibles can not be realized in production, making the business case quite negative. BMW has the freedom to build....they may not have the capacity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
I completely get the emotion and understand you said you were speculating, but, respectfully, I must disagree significantly on several points based on having been inside a car company and some of the industry suppliers over the last three decades.
Not really emotional, just really had enough of the BS. I am glad to hear the perspective of industry insider, but I will ask you some questions. These are not there to prove anything, they are for you to maybe stop and think again.

1) The 55 speed limit was enacted in 1974 by then-President Nixon purely as a fuel conservation move. The auto industry had nothing to do with it, and did not support it, as it, along with insurance costs and emission stadards, helped kill the profitable muscle car segment.
Might be. Now calculate and ask how much it would have costed to cut weight/size in half or to redo all engines with half displacement. Still convinced that 55 mph didn't have Detroit fingers in it?

Think about it. Pick 100 people each from other 5 continents that have cars (minus North America and Antarctica) that do not live under a rock and ask simple question : What is the best way to reduce fuel consumption of vehicles in road transportation in your country? (it has to affect them, whatever it is)

Count how many are going to say "lower speed limits" and then scratch your head. I am willing to bet real cash on this.

2) I have seen no data about any deaths resulting from lowering the speed limit, and I have looked at lots of data over the years. Actually, the trends had gone the other way.
This is because you think that human actions exist in a vacuum. And only consequence to those actions are immediate reaction forces. I wish it was that simple.

Who do you think created the army of clueless and incompetent zombies hitting cop cars with all strobe lights on a full speed on Interstates? Huh? Did we actively force people to stop paying attention and forget how to drive properly in order to receive a DL? Somehow, I do not think so. Why nobody else on the planet MUST have cupholders? Is it because they are stupid and do not know they can actually drink and drive or is it maybe that the environment they drive in isn't conductive to brainless driving? What do you think? Is it easier to have a full lunch on I-76 through woods of Pennsylvania at 55 mph or on unrestricted Autobahn?

4) Manufacturers are free to have as many permutations as they want. They just have to test them to show the vehicle meets the minimums. They are also free to engineer them above the minimum standards. Food manufacturers also have to meet FDA minimum standards for cleanliness, even for specialty/small batch products; airline pilots, even for smaller airlines, must have minimum training hours, so this concept is not unique.

5) Europe does do this. The testing regulations are also quite stringent, although they have some variations, such as frontal impact testing with belted dummies. The manufacturers simply choose to certify as many vehicles as they believe they can profitably sell. We may very well have a situation where BMW's Leipzig plant is already at capacity, so the incremental potential sales of MT convertibles can not be realized in production, making the business case quite negative. BMW has the freedom to build....they may not have the capacity.
Well, let's say your point 4 is correct (and I am not saying it is), considering your point 5, how do you explain that there are permutations of 2 and 3 series vehicles that on whole 750 million people market of EU will sell in less than 1,000 during the chassis lifetime of 7 years. How do you explain that? Are those tests in EU free of charge? Or they, maybe, do it differently?

Do you really, but really think carmakers are required to test every permutation in Europe? Or maybe Euros are smart enough to understand that once you tested the chassis for crash-worthiness and once you tested an engine for emissions ... that's it. Whether you put MT, AT, FWD, RWD or AWD in all permutations, the deviation is so small to be error in rounding. No, I do not think for a minute that Euros are smarter, I strongly believe there is other explanation for it - whatever that might be.

Seriously, just ask yourself ... how many M235i with MT and AWD you think were sold in EU? Or how many F31 wagons in 335i guise with MT and AWD? Yet, they sell them - also as RWD and AT in all possible permutations.

When people want to argue that "market has spoken" I cringe, because market can only speak if it is left to do its job. By blackmailing carmakers and removing choices for customers, market definitely said something, but you should not trust those numbers.

Carry on. As you were :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,568 Posts
A while back C&D studied the data and concluded that higher speed limits were quite safe on our highways. No increase in accidents.

I was living in Florida for 20 years where 80-85 mph is the norm and I did not see one accident ever on any of the highways.

I would much rather drive 85 mph on Florida Interstate 75 than 2 mph in a Brandon shopping mall parking lot. Much safer! No comparison!
 

·
Still Stickin' It!
Joined
·
886 Posts
Not really emotional, just really had enough of the BS. I am glad to hear the perspective of industry insider, but I will ask you some questions. These are not there to prove anything, they are for you to maybe stop and think again.

Might be. Now calculate and ask how much it would have costed to cut weight/size in half or to redo all engines with half displacement. Still convinced that 55 mph didn't have Detroit fingers in it?

Think about it. Pick 100 people each from other 5 continents that have cars (minus North America and Antarctica) that do not live under a rock and ask simple question : What is the best way to reduce fuel consumption of vehicles in road transportation in your country? (it has to affect them, whatever it is)

Count how many are going to say "lower speed limits" and then scratch your head. I am willing to bet real cash on this.

This is because you think that human actions exist in a vacuum. And only consequence to those actions are immediate reaction forces. I wish it was that simple.

Who do you think created the army of clueless and incompetent zombies hitting cop cars with all strobe lights on a full speed on Interstates? Huh? Did we actively force people to stop paying attention and forget how to drive properly in order to receive a DL? Somehow, I do not think so. Why nobody else on the planet MUST have cupholders? Is it because they are stupid and do not know they can actually drink and drive or is it maybe that the environment they drive in isn't conductive to brainless driving? What do you think? Is it easier to have a full lunch on I-76 through woods of Pennsylvania at 55 mph or on unrestricted Autobahn?

Well, let's say your point 4 is correct (and I am not saying it is), considering your point 5, how do you explain that there are permutations of 2 and 3 series vehicles that on whole 750 million people market of EU will sell in less than 1,000 during the chassis lifetime of 7 years. How do you explain that? Are those tests in EU free of charge? Or they, maybe, do it differently?

Do you really, but really think carmakers are required to test every permutation in Europe? Or maybe Euros are smart enough to understand that once you tested the chassis for crash-worthiness and once you tested an engine for emissions ... that's it. Whether you put MT, AT, FWD, RWD or AWD in all permutations, the deviation is so small to be error in rounding. No, I do not think for a minute that Euros are smarter, I strongly believe there is other explanation for it - whatever that might be.

Seriously, just ask yourself ... how many M235i with MT and AWD you think were sold in EU? Or how many F31 wagons in 335i guise with MT and AWD? Yet, they sell them - also as RWD and AT in all possible permutations.

When people want to argue that "market has spoken" I cringe, because market can only speak if it is left to do its job. By blackmailing carmakers and removing choices for customers, market definitely said something, but you should not trust those numbers.

Carry on. As you were :)
I was as follows :D:

Cutting engines as you suggest and creating new families of smaller engines would be about a 3-5 year program per engine, of course many might happen simultaneously, but not all, due to design, development, testing, and validation resources. While that happens, one would need to have down-sized the vehicles to live with these smaller engines, also 3-4 years, per program. There would be some ability to overlap, although launches would need to be stretched out for sequencing, as no one company could successfully launch that many vehicle programs simultaneously. The point is that the 55 mph limit, which none of us enjoyed, was able to be done almost immediately...your suggestion was half a decade+ for the first new cars to be launched. And, that would have little to no effect on fuel consumption, as it would take more than another decade to replace the existing US fleet on the roads. Again, 55 was immediate and affected all existing vehicles. I'm glad that technology and rethinking package size has finally resulted in some more rationally-sized vehicles, although we do see size creep upon us again.

No, I don't think in a vacuum, thank you. However, the highway fatality rate is multi-factorial. But, without falsely attributing correlation to causation, see what you make of this data, starting the year after 55 was implemented through recent times. Don't make the error of looking at the trends and concluding that fatality rates have dropped because texting has increased!! ;)

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts

Other actual studies have attributed the drop to improved safety technology and seat belt compliance, while studies in the earlier decades did find a reduction in speed limit had a beneficial effect.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716164339.htm

As an enthusiast, this isn't necessarily pleasing to me either, but the science is fairly solid. Of course, speed per se is not the issue. It's speed relative to the surrounding environment of cars, objects, road conditions, and the capability/sobriety of the driver.

As to the stringency of ECE testing, here's just the standard for frontal impact in Europe.

http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs81-100.html

Testing is required in order to confirm the lack of negative outcome of the variations. It may well be that ECE member country companies devote more resources to supporting there local markets and have learned that they can have a positive business case (which is what this is really all about for them) with only a few variations, as the NA market soaks up their available capacity with less variation. Americans are far less discerning about engines than are Europeans, so they may have allocated resources accordingly.

I sense an emphatic "anti-regulation" theme, which I do not share, even as one who had to help manage compliance with the NHTSA standards. But, there is no "blackmail" of car makers. They remain free to produce whatever they wish which can pass minimal standards. Given the growth of the premium German manufacturers, I would say they have figured out a good business plan for themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,122 Posts
Interesting discussion, but we are way OT. I truly do not want to have last word on it, but you are listing data that, when compared to nothing else, exist in a vacuum and show that we today don't necessarily die when we hit the wall at 40 mph. I attribute that to eating more spinach. Where are the charts showing increased spinach consumption in the last 40 years?

Kidding ... point being that we die on all measured factors WAY more than Germans do and WAY WAY more than Scandinavia+Denmark while driving slower, while driving larger vehicles and HAVING A LOT LESS TARGETS TO HIT. My colleagues visiting from Italy comment often "How can they have a car accident here?"

Didn't understand anything about the link to UNECE. I only know I can buy 3 series (F30) in Italy with 9 engines to chose from, most of them offering RWD or AWD, MT or AT simultaneously. That only means one thing to me : it CAN be done. I am still waiting on reasonable explanation as to why we cannot have that. Again, not the consequence (beating dead horse with how regs are), but WHY the regs are that way when it clearly doesn't benefit anybody according to you - not dealers, not car makers, not for sure customers. Peace, brother :str8pimpi
 

·
Still Stickin' It!
Joined
·
886 Posts
Interesting discussion, but we are way OT. I truly do not want to have last word on it, but you are listing data that, when compared to nothing else, exist in a vacuum and show that we today don't necessarily die when we hit the wall at 40 mph. I attribute that to eating more spinach. Where are the charts showing increased spinach consumption in the last 40 years?

Kidding ... point being that we die on all measured factors WAY more than Germans do and WAY WAY more than Scandinavia+Denmark while driving slower, driving larger vehicles and HAVING A LOT LESS TARGETS TO HIT. My colleagues visiting from Italy comment often "How can they have a car accident here?"

Didn't understand anything about the link to UNECE. I only know I can buy 3 series (F30) in Italy with 9 engines to chose from, most of them offering RWD or AWD, MT or AT simultaneously. That only means one thing to me : it CAN be done. I am still waiting on reasonable explanation as to why we cannot have that. Again, not the consequence (beating dead horse with how regs are), but WHY the regs are that way when it clearly doesn't benefit anybody according to you - not dealers, not car makers, not for sure customers. Peace, brother :str8pimpi
Yes, interesting (and hopefully for other readers!), OT (but OP seemed satisfied already?) and enjoyable!

Sorry about ECE link. The first English link is the frontal impact standard which shows they require the manufacturer to ensure variations in powertrain don't adversely affect crash outcomes. That happens with a test. Which variations are included or excluded are not documented there but the burden is on the manufacturer to ensure the outcome.

Anyway, just to be clear, I said the regs don't benefit anyone FINANCIALLY. I do believe they save lives and reduce injuries and am glad all vehicles must at least meet them. They were enacted from that same motivation for societal benefit...to at least set a floor for what we consider reasonable minimums. There is no ceiling for doing better.

Yes, Peace and justice to us all, each and every one! :angel:
 

·
Using SPF 45
Joined
·
3,669 Posts
No demand for it either.
I think this is the answer. Only about 10% of cars are sold with an MT (or maybe that's even the BMW stat). Most 230 cabrios are likely sold to people who just want to get into a convertible to cruise around, not enthusiasts who want to drive it in a spirited fashion. Think country club mom not dot-com wealthy kid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
A while back C&D studied the data and concluded that higher speed limits were quite safe on our highways. No increase in accidents.

I was living in Florida for 20 years where 80-85 mph is the norm and I did not see one accident ever on any of the highways.

I would much rather drive 85 mph on Florida Interstate 75 than 2 mph in a Brandon shopping mall parking lot. Much safer! No comparison!
lol I lived in Brandon for years. My parents still live over in Valrico!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,568 Posts
lol I lived in Brandon for years. My parents still live over in Valrico!
Brandon: Great mall, great multiplex, great Costco, great restaurants. Brandon has it all! :)

Regards from Causeway Boulevard! :thumbup:

PS: The car below is parked 18 miles south of Brandon! :)

Given all of the above, there is STILL no MT in the 230i Vert probably because convertibles are overwhelmingly driven by MT-averse women-especially a 2 Series Vert with the 4 cylinder turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Just as a follow-up, I drove a 228 CV A8 that seemed to have a "peppier" engine than the M235 CP M6. Since my other main contender is the Miata, I've basically narrowed it down to the new Miata or a stripped M235i CV MT. My daughter is 13, so the 235 would accommodate all 3 of us for those fleeting, top-down drives together that seem to etch into the mind as priceless moments. Excluding one of my ladies would just be sad. . . although the responsiveness and flick-ability of the Miata would also be missed. I'm making myself wait until end of year sales kick in, so my mind will probably change along the way as well. . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Just tried to configure a 430i CV, and no MT there either, is the stick going extinct? Doesn't anyone like rowing gears anymore? Sigh, craziness.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top