[Squidget]

Originally Posted by M2PDX

As I've gone through the G87 break in period I've even had to hold up a bit and try to keep the motor under 4,000 rpm, but even then, the car is an animal.

And it STICKS to the road. Steering isn't perfect, but a lot better than on my F80 M3. And the 6MT is pretty darn good. Much better than expected.

Having watched a bunch of Hagerty stuff now, I don't think it's performance he's talking about, on any axis.

He's not really talking about track feel, he's talking about roadster feel. For example, see his love letter video to the Miata, that's his kind of car. Analog. Tremendous feedback. Direct linkage of inputs to outputs.

Your Miatas, your Chathams. Rack and pinion steering, no by-wire anything. Probably preferably NA, not turbo.

And I agree with him, in a way, that today's cars are far more isolated and there's a tactile joy in driving old cars. It is a great experience, sure.

But it's the kind of indulgence only a car journalist (or very rich person) can have. If you need a daily driver with four seats and a warranty, there aren't any cars like that. Zero that I know of.

So Jason isn't wrong, but his opinions are irrelevant to a lot of us.

When you consider cars you can actually buy, the M2 is a GODDAMNED BEAST and curb stomps everything in its price bracket*.

*Because RIP SS 1LE

[ScottyK329]

I definitely think the M2 is getting a unfair shake at major testing. Granted the manual would definitely be more fun. But from a performance figure stand point, the 8sp auto version will put up the best #s . Ex. Motorweek. The only official test info I found was from car and driver who obtained a 3.5 0 to 60 and quarter mile in 11.7. At 122mph. Significantly faster. The manual version duplicated Haggertys #s almost exactly.

[SpencerC_6MT]

Originally Posted by Squidget

Uneven gears would be a real barrier for casual drivers, and those are the people you need to reach. The super hardcore are already rolling MTs, BMW isn't gonna worry about them. For MT to be a going concern, it's gotta reach at least a few of the more casual drivers.

Which is why every sane automaker provides rev-matching and launch control, of course.

Though I agree uneven gear spacing would be unfortunate, I think the factory gear spacing is plainly un-ideal to begin with. Apologies for all the math, but it's necessary when talking gear ratios.

1st gear @ 7200RPM: 40mph -> 2nd gear: 4060RPM (44% drop)
2nd @ 7200: 71mph -> 3rd: 4800 (33% drop)
3rd @ 7200: 107mph -> 4th: 5510 (24% drop)
4th @ 7200: 140mph -> 5th: 6110 (15% drop)
5th @ 7200: 165mph -> 6th: 6090 (15% drop)
6th @ 7200: 195mph

My annoyance with these ratios is how close they are from 4th to 5th to 6th. Every engine this gearbox has been tied to has had a very smooth torque curve with a wide power plateau up top, and the S58 exemplifies this best. So why the miniscule 1100RPM drop between gears? Obviously acceleration isn't just determined by power, gear reduction plays a role here, but I think the advantages of a shorter 4th and longer 6th would handily outweigh the downsides. Since the S58 power peak starts at 6200 and runs to redline, you could easily pull 4th back to improve acceleration in-gear, without sacrificing much once you upshift to 5th. This is a sticking point for me in 3rd especially; if geared shorter, you could stay in the engine's happy place on the 2-3 shift, and have the fun of redlining 3rd without cracking triple digits. In terms of 6th it's pretty simple, this motor isn't lacking for torque and passing power on the highway would be more than adequate in spite of a longer ratio.

It's not worth the time doing calculations on a "corrected gearset" that will only ever exist in my mind, but I have time to kill, so it'd look something like this:

1: 4.11 [no change]
2: 2.315 [no change]
3: 1.542 -> 1.7
4: 1.179 -> 1.28
5: direct [no change]
6: 0.846 -> 0.8

1st @ 7200: 40mph -> 2nd: 4060 (44% drop)
2nd @ 7200: 71mph -> 3rd: 5290 (27% drop)
3rd @ 7200: 97mph -> 4th: 5420 (25% drop)
4th @ 7200: 129mph -> 5th: 5630 (22% drop)
5th @ 7200: 165mph -> 6th: 5830 (20% drop)
6th @ 7200: 207mph

Imo these ratios would really serve to make the manual experience more fun, while retaining a natural spacing pattern and minimizing changes. It really serves to make 3rd more fun, thanks to 10% more torque at the wheels and redline being encountered a lot sooner. 4th has a similar benefit, with 8% more torque at the wheels and a less irresponsible 130mph redline as opposed to 140. But the 4-5 shift is still a reasonable drop, with the engine almost at peak power. The lengthening of 6th is similar, dropping highway RPMs by ~125 and increasing potential top speed for the real speed demons, but only giving up 5% of wheel torque. Rev-matching would likely become much easier, since the rev drop between gears is very similar from 2-6, so downshifting at a set RPM requires a roughly similar amount of gas whether you're in 6th or 3rd.

There's no way in hell I'm paying half the value of my car to have a custom gearset made, but surely there's a machine shop out there who would make 'em for me on the house. You know, as a thank you for coming up with the idea for a huge-selling product.

[Squidget]

Originally Posted by SpencerC_6MT

Though I agree uneven gear spacing would be unfortunate, I think the factory gear spacing is plainly un-ideal to begin with. Apologies for all the math, but it's necessary when talking gear ratios.
(MATHS)

I don't even particularly disagree that 6th could be tweaked, but I'm not sure you could realistically tweak 3rd. For marketing reasons, 0-100 times matter, and having to make an extra shift would probably be a net loss.

This is the same reason it's problematic when people suggest shortening 2nd. If it negatively impacts 0-60 times, it's probably not feasible. (And also becomes a problem for autoXers)

If you can't move 3rd, then I'm not sure there's much actual value in moving 4th, since it's pinned by the ratios of both 3rd below and 5th above.

To be clear, IMO if BMW was free from the demands of the mass market (and mpg standards), then sure, there are ALL KINDS of potential tweaks you could consider for the gears, depending on whether you want to drag, autoX, do power road courses, etc.

[aerobod]

If you increase the gaps between the gears at high speeds, then the cube effect of aerodynamic drag vs power will blunt the acceleration at higher speeds, too. "Even spacing" is about fitting a curve, not a straight line, with that curve matched more to the resistance against the car at a given speed, effectively the drag force when at the redline in 3rd-6th.