[DB_Cooper]

The CSL just doesn’t look right, a base M4 is styled better, IMO.

But if we are talking “homages”, I’d rather the clown shoe. Still overpriced but it looks great.

[JTO24]

Originally Posted by TractionControlDelete

I think some context is important here when comparing the new car to the original one.

Reminds me of when I had an 05 Pontiac GTO. To non-enthusiasts, it was a complete failure since it looked nothing like the old GTOs, and was not a retromobile like the Mustang or Camaro. Someone made a good point that part of what Pontiac did with the 04-06 GTO was take a large motor and stuff it into a midsize car; like the original GTO recipe back in the 60s. Looking at it from that POV, the car and direction they went made more sense.

[DRLane]

Originally Posted by JTO24

Reminds me of when I had an 05 Pontiac GTO. To non-enthusiasts, it was a complete failure since it looked nothing like the old GTOs, and was not a retromobile like the Mustang or Camaro. Someone made a good point that part of what Pontiac did with the 04-06 GTO was take a large motor and stuff it into a midsize car; like the original GTO recipe back in the 60s. Looking at it from that POV, the car and direction they went made more sense.

Does it? Doesnt CSL = competition sport lightweight?

BMW could’ve followed the GTO recipe and they would’ve had enthusiasts abuzz with more than “that paint job is sick, and wow are these expensive”.

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but frankly this is the disappointment. They could’ve done a lot, they chose to do very little and instead focus on exclusivity to stimulate demand.

Porsche put more effort into their next GT3 RS iteration, which is a production car than BMW did in an ultra limited edition homage showpiece.

Raise your expectations and they’ll do more…

[TargaM2]

How did BMW go from the CSL using a proposed unique transaxle arrangement to a stock manual trans that has to be replaced every 30,000klms ?. How is that acceptable in a modern day automobile ?. This car just reeks of laziness on BMWs part.
It appeals to those with zero mechanical knowledge that simply think “oh it’s expensive so it must be good”.

[advantage20]

Originally Posted by TargaM2

How did BMW go from the CSL using a proposed unique transaxle arrangement to a stock manual trans that has to be replaced every 30,000klms ?. How is that acceptable in a modern day automobile ?. This car just reeks of laziness on BMWs part & is a blatant money grab at ANY price.
It appeals to the mechanically inept with zero knowledge that simply think “oh it’s expensive so it must be good”.

It sucks, but to be accurate it's actually 50,000 km, which arguably few if any of these cars will ever reach anyway. Replacing the gearbox is rumored to cost around €10,000 current money, i.e. chump change for given owners. And I'm pretty sure BMW will keep under wraps at least 2 extra gearboxes for each and every 3.0 CSL produced, just in case, so there's no risk of running out even if these are still allowed to roll in 50 years time, fingers crossed

[TargaM2]

Originally Posted by advantage20

It sucks, but to be accurate it's actually 50,000 km, which arguably few if any of these cars will ever reach anyway. Replacing the gearbox is rumored to cost around €10,000 current money, i.e. chump change for given owners. And I'm pretty sure BMW will keep under wraps at least 2 extra gearboxes for each and every 3.0 CSL produced, just in case, so there's no risk of running out even if these are still allowed to roll in 50 years time, fingers crossed

Apologies it should have read 30,000 miles not klms, either way that’s still nothing short of pathetic from an engineering point of view.
The likes of Kia/Hyundai or one of the many new cheap Chinese brands would never think of producing a car with such shortcomings yet it’s suddenly acceptable to BMW because the proposed owners are wealthy or supposedly won’t drive it much…!?
Sorry but that’s just horseshit no matter how you try to frame it. Even if the gearbox replacements are free It’s still obviously not fit for the purpose & at the price BMW charged for that car there is absolutely no excuse for that.

[Hedoniste]

2 more pics (not mine but from my bro)

[JTO24]

Originally Posted by DRLane

Does it? Doesnt CSL = competition sport lightweight?

BMW could’ve followed the GTO recipe and they would’ve had enthusiasts abuzz with more than “that paint job is sick, and wow are these expensive”.

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but frankly this is the disappointment. They could’ve done a lot, they chose to do very little and instead focus on exclusivity to stimulate demand.

Porsche put more effort into their next GT3 RS iteration, which is a production car than BMW did in an ultra limited edition homage showpiece.

Raise your expectations and they’ll do more…

Oh no, I'm not giving BMW a pass here. I am still disappointed with this thing compared to what was being hinted at. At this price, this thing should've been a bespoke vehicle like the 2015 concept.

I don't know how much of a premium the original batmobile was over the normal e9, but I'm sure it wasn't this much.

[advantage20]

Originally Posted by TargaM2

Apologies it should have read 30,000 miles not klms, either way that’s still nothing short of pathetic from an engineering point of view.
The likes of Kia/Hyundai or one of the many new cheap Chinese brands would never think of producing a car with such shortcomings yet it’s suddenly acceptable to BMW because the proposed owners are wealthy or supposedly won’t drive it much…!?
Sorry but that’s just horseshit no matter how you try to frame it. Even if the gearbox replacements are free It’s still obviously not fit for the purpose & at the price BMW charged for that car there is absolutely no excuse for that.

I don't think Kia/Hyundai or the Chinese brands are making ICE cars with manual gearboxes that need to handle 550 Nm of torque, are they? And that's after cranking it down 100 Nm from the normal M4 CSL which gets the full 650 Nm with its ZF 8 speed auto. For reference, the naturally aspirated 911 GT3 manual needs to handle only 470 Nm, while the turbocharged 911 GTS manual is rated at 570 Nm and I have no info on maintenance (if it can go more than 50,000 km kudos to Porsche, it must be a unicorn).

So is it really an engineering shortcoming, or is it about creating quite a unique offering in this day and age, perhaps the last from BMW, namely coupling the very torquey S58 turbocharged engine to a raw manual?

[DRLane]

Originally Posted by advantage20

I don't think Kia/Hyundai or the Chinese brands are making ICE cars with manual gearboxes that need to handle 550 Nm of torque, are they? And that's after cranking it down 100 Nm from the normal M4 CSL which gets the full 650 Nm with its ZF 8 speed auto. For reference, the naturally aspirated 911 GT3 manual needs to handle only 470 Nm, while the turbocharged 911 GTS manual is rated at 570 Nm and I have no info on maintenance (if it can go more than 50,000 km kudos to Porsche, it must be a unicorn).

So is it really an engineering shortcoming, or is it about creating quite a unique offering in this day and age, perhaps the last from BMW, namely coupling the very torquey S58 turbocharged engine to a raw manual?

Is this a serious response? ~ 405 ft lbs is a lot to ask a manual gear box to sustain?

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by advantage20

I don't think Kia/Hyundai or the Chinese brands are making ICE cars with manual gearboxes that need to handle 550 Nm of torque, are they? And that's after cranking it down 100 Nm from the normal M4 CSL which gets the full 650 Nm with its ZF 8 speed auto. For reference, the naturally aspirated 911 GT3 manual needs to handle only 470 Nm, while the turbocharged 911 GTS manual is rated at 570 Nm and I have no info on maintenance (if it can go more than 50,000 km kudos to Porsche, it must be a unicorn).

So is it really an engineering shortcoming, or is it about creating quite a unique offering in this day and age, perhaps the last from BMW, namely coupling the very torquey S58 turbocharged engine to a raw manual?

BMW was not willing to invest massive development budget in a better manual with the projected low take rate. So it certainly didn't invest for the 50p of this 3.0CSL either. The torque is indeed the same as the manual M4, but this one doesn't need replacement every 30k mls. It's the power that kills it. Or stated differently, the torque at high rpms.

Just a proof, that this car is not to be bought for it's top specs. It's a tarted up M4 with this as an extra trade-off for its exclusivity. And like you said, probably only a few will reach their 30k mls any of the coming years.

[R0LL0T0MASI]

Originally Posted by g21

So to get a nice dashboard in a BMW would cost $823,000

I can't help but completely agree. They could (*should*) have tried to build an actually extreme version of the M4, designed to take on the 911GT3/GT3RS... with active aero and other tech that would be worthy of 6 figures... probably for SIGNIFICANTLY less than $823K. It looks hideous too, IMO. A terrible paint job selection. A car this exclusive and expensive should at least offer color options (black, grey, individual), without the tacky red and blue M performance signage. Why build something incrementally more capable/track oriented than a well tuned M4 or M4 CSL for this much $?? M division is capable of more than this.

Some are going to say it's about the limited production and homage to a classic... Save it. Please save it. Not for this much $.

[italiabrain]

Originally Posted by KoenG

BMW was not willing to invest massive development budget in a better manual with the projected low take rate. So it certainly didn't invest for the 50p of this 3.0CSL either. The torque is indeed the same as the manual M4, but this one doesn't need replacement every 30k mls. It's the power that kills it. Or stated differently, the torque at high rpms.

Just a proof, that this car is not to be bought for it's top specs. It's a tarted up M4 with this as an extra trade-off for its exclusivity. And like you said, probably only a few will reach their 30k mls any of the coming years.

BMW has been pretty open about no longer being willing to spend any money on any manual development at all. If all they have to do is EPA cert the current one and de-rate a car they'll do that.

Manual development shouldn't have been for just this car. It should've been for all of the inline 6 products. The manual should've had a feel update, a torque-handling update, and a features update, and it should've allowed the competition pack on the current M3 and M4 to not be mutually exclusive with the manual. It also should've allowed the CSL to be a near or true competitor to the GT3 at some level of price undercut.

They're simply not interested. They're doing the minimum to keep a slice of the manual crowd, just like they did the minimum to make this look like the concept.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by italiabrain

BMW has been pretty open about no longer being willing to spend any money on any manual development at all. If all they have to do is EPA cert the current one and de-rate a car they'll do that.

Manual development shouldn't have been for just this car. It should've been for all of the inline 6 products. The manual should've had a feel update, a torque-handling update, and a features update, and it should've allowed the competition pack on the current M3 and M4 to not be mutually exclusive with the manual. It also should've allowed the CSL to be a near or true competitor to the GT3 at some level of price undercut.

They're simply not interested. They're doing the minimum to keep a slice of the manual crowd, just like they did the minimum to make this look like the concept.

These are wise words! I'am always considered to be a sceptic about MT, but it is just because it's clearly a dead end investment for BMW (and other brands like Audi/MB). A well balanced, short throw MT with a clutch pedal with short travel... on a M4 competition would be no less than divine! Euhh... much more than this 3.0CSL and for probably much less $.

[DO444]

Unbelievable.

Hate the price.
Love the car.

That’s really something.
Thanks for sharing.

[R0LL0T0MASI]

Originally Posted by advantage20

I don't think Kia/Hyundai or the Chinese brands are making ICE cars with manual gearboxes that need to handle 550 Nm of torque, are they? And that's after cranking it down 100 Nm from the normal M4 CSL which gets the full 650 Nm with its ZF 8 speed auto. For reference, the naturally aspirated 911 GT3 manual needs to handle only 470 Nm, while the turbocharged 911 GTS manual is rated at 570 Nm and I have no info on maintenance (if it can go more than 50,000 km kudos to Porsche, it must be a unicorn).

So is it really an engineering shortcoming, or is it about creating quite a unique offering in this day and age, perhaps the last from BMW, namely coupling the very torquey S58 turbocharged engine to a raw manual?

Is this a serious response? ~ 405 ft lbs is a lot to ask a manual gear box to sustain?

See: Tremec. See: Corvette.

[THEROK]

S58 lol

[jp1984]

Originally Posted by DB_Cooper

The CSL just doesn’t look right, a base M4 is styled better, IMO.

But if we are talking “homages”, I’d rather the clown shoe. Still overpriced but it looks great.

Dear BMW,
Make a legit Golf competitor you cowards!
thx

[advantage20]

Originally Posted by DRLane

Is this a serious response? ~ 405 ft lbs is a lot to ask a manual gear box to sustain?

How much more do you need?

Originally Posted by R0LL0T0MASI

Is this a serious response? ~ 405 ft lbs is a lot to ask a manual gear box to sustain?

See: Tremec. See: Corvette.

Did you mean the C7 whose manual take rate had dwindled to 25%, or the C8 which doesn't even have a manual option? Or perhaps the Mustang manual which is also topping out at around 25%? That market share is pretty much confined to America and is shrinking day by day. And those enthusiasts typically don't care about the other aspects of the driving, or the comfort, the fit and finish, the tech, the general refinement... nearly as much as the rest of the world does, especially in the premium segments BMW and Porsche are competing in -- at a certain price point refinement takes precedence over the thrill of neck-breaking gear throwing.

European manufacturers also need to comply with ever more stringent CO2 emission standards, which favors sophisticated auto transmissions. While European customers are deterred from buying high-powered ICE cars to begin with, due to high fuel cost plus tax rape sometimes in the dozens of thousands of euros for only a few extra grams of CO2, on top of base prices oftentimes already being higher than elsewhere in the first place -- and more prosaically, usually have smaller parking/garage space, and in this case would rather settle for one punchy family wagon/SUV daily than a s#itty people mover for the week days plus a sports sedan/coupé for the week-end (but even the lightweight benchmark Alpine A110 2-seater is only available with a DCT).

Technically, BMW probably could have gone the extra mile developing a manual M4 Competition, or at least a manual M4 CSL with a higher count than that ridiculous 1,000 worldwide run (if they'd struck a deal with given suppliers that fit everyone's business plans, and if given gearbox itself fit into the platform)... But again, that market segment is shrinking faster than my virility in front of Lia Thomas, and the enthusiast crowd's bare-bones requirements don't really overlap with BMW's aspirations as a global premium brand anymore, take it or leave it. Hey, maybe BMW would indulge if Americans were willing to add the M3 Touring or M340i Touring to their shopping list, but somehow a lot of those same enthusiasts worshipping the gear stick seem to find sports wagons more gross and vulgar than their SUV equivalents, and would rather daily haul their asses in a Ford Explorer or Honda Passport

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by advantage20

How much more do you need?



Did you mean the C7 whose manual take rate had dwindled to 25%, or the C8 which doesn't even have a manual option? Or perhaps the Mustang manual which is also topping out at around 25%? That market share is pretty much confined to America and is shrinking day by day. And those enthusiasts typically don't care about the other aspects of the driving, or the comfort, the fit and finish, the tech, the general refinement... nearly as much as the rest of the world does, especially in the premium segments BMW and Porsche are competing in -- at a certain price point refinement takes precedence over the thrill of neck-breaking gear throwing.

European manufacturers also need to comply with ever more stringent CO2 emission standards, which favors sophisticated auto transmissions. While European customers are deterred from buying high-powered ICE cars to begin with, due to high fuel cost plus tax rape sometimes in the dozens of thousands of euros for only a few extra grams of CO2, on top of base prices oftentimes already being higher than elsewhere in the first place -- and more prosaically, usually have smaller parking/garage space, and in this case would rather settle for one punchy family wagon/SUV daily than a s#itty people mover for the week days plus a sports sedan/coupé for the week-end (but even the lightweight benchmark Alpine A110 2-seater is only available with a DCT).

Technically, BMW probably could have gone the extra mile developing a manual M4 Competition, or at least a manual M4 CSL with a higher count than that ridiculous 1,000 worldwide run (if they'd struck a deal with given suppliers that fit everyone's business plans, and if given gearbox itself fit into the platform)... But again, that market segment is shrinking faster than my virility in front of Lia Thomas, and the enthusiast crowd's bare-bones requirements don't really overlap with BMW's aspirations as a global premium brand anymore, take it or leave it. Hey, maybe BMW would indulge if Americans were willing to add the M3 Touring or M340i Touring to their shopping list, but somehow a lot of those same enthusiasts worshipping the gear stick seem to find sports wagons more gross and vulgar than their SUV equivalents, and would rather daily haul their asses in a Ford Explorer or Honda Passport

I guess you're also saying now the 3.0CSL is a lame proposal for 800k€ and much is due to the lame MT?

[R0LL0T0MASI]

Originally Posted by advantage20

Did you mean the C7 whose manual take rate had dwindled to 25%, or the C8 which doesn't even have a manual option? Or perhaps the Mustang manual which is also topping out at around 25%? That market share is pretty much confined to America and is shrinking day by day. And those enthusiasts typically don't care about the other aspects of the driving, or the comfort, the fit and finish, the tech, the general refinement... nearly as much as the rest of the world does, especially in the premium segments BMW and Porsche are competing in — at a certain price point refinement takes precedence over the thrill of neck-breaking gear throwing.

European manufacturers also need to comply with ever more stringent CO2 emission standards, which favors sophisticated auto transmissions. While European customers are deterred from buying high-powered ICE cars to begin with, due to high fuel cost plus tax rape sometimes in the dozens of thousands of euros for only a few extra grams of CO2, on top of base prices oftentimes already being higher than elsewhere in the first place — and more prosaically, usually have smaller parking/garage space, and in this case would rather settle for one punchy family wagon/SUV daily than a s#itty people mover for the week days plus a sports sedan/coupé for the week-end (but even the lightweight benchmark Alpine A110 2-seater is only available with a DCT).

Technically, BMW probably could have gone the extra mile developing a manual M4 Competition, or at least a manual M4 CSL with a higher count than that ridiculous 1,000 worldwide run (if they'd [...]

People’s preference for comfort, fit & finish, the tech, and general refinement is not mutually exclusive from simply improving the MT. And it still stands that those cars have a damn good MT regardless of their market penetration… Porsche still offers one of the best MT’s out there, irrespective of refinement elsewhere. There are also plenty of American drivers I’ve spoken to who would love the same thing in BMWs. Some of the fanbase who drive those MT cars have been right here expressing their desire for BMW to improve the MT for some time!

From a P/L perspective, yes, I’ll agree with you that going forward, it won’t make financial sense to keep it going… or to even build a new MT from the ground up. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that if BMW had been able to borrow/share technology such as the ZF 8HP automatic, share engine/parts with Toyota, etc, they could have found a way to borrow some better MT tech without it meaningfully harming profitability. That goes for the F series or the G series. For an UBER expensive, one-off car such as the CSL, I would think this is *especially* so, in considering if they could have offered a durable MT. BMW is a very profitable company (recent net Y/Y income of 2.8B). In an industry where the balance of automotive passion & profitability is important, I just think there were some lazy design choices with the CSL that favored cost reduction in the wrong areas. I can’t know this for certain… It will only ever be speculation as most of us don’t have the balance sheets.

To the point about fuel economy, I ultimately think if we’re talking about the G series, the difference between auto and MT is not even splitting hairs, but negligible: Official fuel economy for the auto & MT is listed at 16 city/23 highway (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...&rowLimit=50). I get it, things are getting extremely tight in Europe, but if BMW has officially listed that as a reason for shying away from the MT with regard to the G series, I am *highly* dubious of the actual validity of that. The auto and MT G series are realistically in the same basket against EV’s.

Last thing, with all due respect: I’ve never found anything neck breaking about shifting a MT! I don’t think people would buy these cars if it were such an unpleasant experience. With my Honda’s 6 spd, I can move that shifter with my pinky. But… In the end it is all subjective & a reason why both still exist.

[advantage20]

Originally Posted by KoenG

I guess you're also saying now the 3.0CSL is a lame proposal for 800k€ and much is due to the lame MT?

I won't judge the M4/3.0 CSL's MT as a whole as I haven't driven it. I was just assuming that 560hp/550Nm were plenty enough to have fun with purely in terms of punch, if even Porsche aren't aiming higher; now if other aspects of that MT (throw length, crispness...) suck relative to Porsche and a few others and do not quite fit the "Ultimate Driving Machine" brief, then fair enough, I'll gladly take y'all's word for it.

No, I'm mostly disappointed by the design work They've copy-pasted entire sections of the 2015 3.0 CSL Hommage R Concept onto the M4 as if to say "Look, we've released the production version of the concept!", when any trained eye can see the mismatch between the two design languages and the tricks used to try and make them blend together (e.g. that bulky silver trim covering part of the rear window to make it look as though it's actually pointing upwards like on the concept). At the end of the day we don't know how much of that €750k price tag went into hard work versus pure profit; I'm even willing to assume that it wasn't enough for building a completely new frame to give it the concept's flat and square profile versus the M4's fastback roofline, bespoke headlights and taillights, etc. It doesn't matter: yes it is spectacular, yes the M striping is tasty, but in terms of pure design (lines and shapes cohesiveness) it's a failure. Even the full carbon fiber body couldn't transform the M4 into something else.

Originally Posted by R0LL0T0MASI

Last thing, with all due respect: I’ve never found anything neck breaking about shifting a MT! I don’t think people would buy these cars if it were such an unpleasant experience. With my Honda’s 6 spd, I can move that shifter with my pinky. But… In the end it is all subjective & a reason why both still exist.

Of course, I never meant that the shifting itself or having to modulate the throttle are unpleasant experiences per se! I've always loved my manuals, 3.0L 500+ Nm diesel included. I just meant that once you're in the 600Nm/600hp range, there has to be some drop in smoothness due to the sheer amount of torque/power delivered, no matter how talented the driver, on top of the previously discussed technical challenges to the MT itself. And once you're in those higher price brackets, buyers typically aren't looking for that thrilling focus and engagement anymore, but rather for quick yet relaxed and serene GT cruising in comfort and luxury (I'd assume, also because of the greater average age). Which is why, I guess, virtually no manufacturer ventures in that territory to begin with, even though apparently it is technically feasible.

In the end, if somehow BMW drops the ball even further and for example completely discontinues the base MT M3/M4 at LCI, forcing us to either go 8AT Competition or branch off to the M2, I'm confident that the M2 on the other hand will definitely keep its MT for years to come, and with a little luck the currently testing rumored 8AT M2 CS will later give way to a last hurrah MT M2 CSL, who knows