Looked at the stats of the C32 AMG vs. M3. The AMG offers 16 more HP and lot more torque than the M3, but due MB not offering a manual, the M3 outperforms the C32 0-20, 0-40, 0-60, and quarter mile.

Somebody up there in MB gotta be fired for not putting out a manny.

 

Some drivers no doubt prefer a manual so it would be a nice option to offer. However most MBs buyers purchase autos, even where there is a choice. BMWs choice to not offer a 4-door M3 and MBs decision to not offer a manual were business decisions they consciously elected to make. You gotta make your choice.

You are right, an auto will always have more drivetrain loss and thus needs a bit more power to keep the same "times" as a manual. The C32 has a bit more power, and the net result is M3 manual is published as just slightly faster. But autos do have some advantages, otherwise people wouldn't buy them. But some advantages are not just in the "luxo" factor.

Please remember that the published times that you see in any magazine was typically the best one made after many many runs by a professional driver basically abusing the tranny. Certainly the auto will put down more consistent runs and the manual will take longer to master, even for the pro. So if you think you could hop into an M3 manual and beat a C32 (driven by just an OK driver), good luck because you need to be a VERY good driver. If the race is "less planned" (more spontaneous) the C32 will have an even larger advantage. You will see that the M3 manual if properly driven and utilizing the correct rpm range will have a small edge, if not the C32 will usually take it. The real world is a lot different than the magazines. Many C32s owners have taken M3s and I am also sure there are some M3s that have won. But if you buy an C32 you will find most M3s arent interested in racing, perhaps because the M3 is "expected to win" and if the M3 owner makes even a minor mistake they are actually likely to lose, so they have much more at stake and nothing much to gain.

That said, the rest of the car makes the real difference in the choice, not the 0-60 times difference. If I didn't have to contend with stop-n-go a manual would certainly be more attractive to me. Then it might be fun and not a PITA.

 

Agree with what rrf said.

0-60 and 1/4 mile times are not everything in real life. From stoplight to stoplight, maybe. But how often do we get to do that.

 

Yes, what you said makes perfect sense. However, you know how people are. With nothing else, they will always look at the 0-60 times and the handling as one of the biggest factors. Besides, with the SMG, even semi newbies can have fun not only enjoying a 6-speed, but also not have to mess around with the foot clutch pedal and out clutch even the best pros in a real 6-speed. And from what I hear, SMG also allows you to set it for automatic, if you don't want the hassle during rush hour.

I seriously hope MB comes out with a SMG equivalent or just a pure 6-speed. I know if I'm in the market, that would seal the deal for me. I love manuals.

 

MB has an SMG-type sequential manual that is controlled by flaps behind the steering wheel - it's called "Sequentronic" I believe, and the first car to have it will be the SL350 as far as I know.

 

I also agree with rrf. It is important to note that some magazines allow for some wheel spin and in some cases rolling starts. Furthermore, some manufacturers do not always provide a typical ''stock'' configuration for testing.

I owned a manual BMW 318i with the sport package and although the car only had 138hp it was a delight to drive. It had great handling and excellent steering response.

I now have a C32 and I also find it a delight to drive, but in a different way. It too has great handling and having all that torque and power available at the twitch of your foot is a feeling that can only be described when you actually drive the car.

Sure I sometimes miss the manual transmission, but for the times when you are stuck in traffic or when you rocket in comfort in the C32, not having a manual transmission is the last thing on my mind.

 

Franco,

I couldn't agree more.

Having driven one, I found the M3 nasty in traffic, (personal opinion!) and sadly, I'm in traffic much more than I'm at the track.

 

oggle, you are right about the SMG II in the M3 having a auto mode. The last time i drove my friend's M3 i tried both modes. The auto mode act just like the automatic trans except at slower speed between gear is very harsh. another thing is that if you are in 1st gear and you let go of the brake while stoping at the stoplight for more than 10 seconds the gear will pop back to neutral, so if you don't pay attention, that might be some annoying little problem. Overall i enjoy the ride. it's more comfortable than i had expected, but it's not as much as good for a daily driver like the C32 do.

 

Really good manual transmissions have been around for awhile, but I don't believe that Mercedes' is recognized as one of them.

But the really good news lately is the BMW SMG II, the C32 auto, and the Audi CVT. These are very upscale "auto" designs that will begin to change the way that future automatics are implemented. Supposedly the Audi performs pretty well, but is really really boring.

I drove a C240 and that auto seems completely different than the C32's. The C32 auto though not revolutionary is state of the art for automatic evolution. The 1997 M3 auto which was the top of the heap a few years ago, doesn't compare.

But if you really want a great manual, I think most will agree BMW shifts better than MBZ. If I wanted a manual I would have to jump ship and buy the M3.

I like the concept of SMGII best, less drivetrain loss and naturally better performance, but best of all choice of modes. I think SMG will be the great survivor of all these design concepts.