Gramps

I test drove a 2010 BMW 328 I X-drive with the paddle shift automatic. My son has an '08 335I coupe that is truly a nice car. His is a standard 6 speed. I have been intrigued by the ZF automatic in the 3 series. This was my first ever expeience with a paddle shift automatic. What I found was that the paddles seemed counter-intuitive to me. You pull the paddle toward you for upshifts and push it away for downshifts. Never having used a paddle shift before I found that a little off-putting. I have a Volvo that has an automatic that can be manually shifted and you push the stick forward for upshifts and pull it back for downshifts. Anyone have a paddle shift BMW? What are your thoughts?

NYC6

I have a 2010 135i with the Steptronic auto(paddles) it shifts much faster than my A6 transmission 06 Corvette. I like it alot bettter. The paddle aragement is different from the Vettes and it takes a little while to retrain the brain but it happens pretty quick. I usually just leave it in auto or sport mode and it do the shifting. The car is faster that way and its my DD.

The 2011 135's have the new DCT transmission but I havent test driven one. Its said to be a step up from the steptronic but I dont feel the need to upgrade. Currently Im very pleased and the clutch swaps and repairs on the new DCT are supposed to through the roof, price wise. Thats the reason I jumped on a late build 2010. That and the N54 with twin turbos is battle proven, easy to add alot of HP and easier to work on than the 2011 N55 single turbo with variable timing. Thats supposed to be very complicated and expensive to work on also.

ALMS21

I have an '09 335i with the Step trans and I have to tell you, it is the best auto with paddles that I have ever driven. The shifts are instantaneous and a good bit faster than the Vette. From what I hear from most people (specifically, a CF memeber with an auto GS) is that the "pull back" to upshift is more intuitive as you are gaining speed you are more inclined to be moving back in your seat and the pulling back just "feels right".

Dave68

Keep in mind that while the "shifts" may be quicker than those performed by a C5 or C6, the BMW itself is not faster by any stretch of the imagination. I just wanted to make that clear.....

ALMS21

A good bit faster shifts was obviously what I meant.

Having said that and while I am not going to compare my 335i to C6 in overall performance (i.e. road course), it will run right with a C6 LS3 in a straight line. It has the JB3 2.0 with DCI and is making 385 rwhp and runs high 11's to low 12's. The cost of the JB3 2.0 with DCI was $585. Top end falls off after about 135-140 though.

http://www.dragtimes.com/BMW--335i-D...l?resultpage=1

NYC6

Since you opened the door here. "By any stretch of the imagination?". Thats a stretch right there. The 135i is running right with a non Z06 stock C5. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are damn near identical to each other. A C5 owner at the drags lined up with a 135/335 better be on his game or he'll be looking at Bavarian taillights. Just wanted to make that clear.

135i
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...ca2d716237.pdf

C5http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...omparison.html

Dave68

Assuming equal drivers, the C5 will win with a 4.5 sec. 0-60 (crappy runflats) and pulling away at the 1/4 by a good margin. The Z06 will blow the 135 away, even in C5 form.

After 100 MPH, it is no contest.

NYC6

Have a link for a stock C5 pulling a 4.5? I supplied two for verification. There are many others that put the two neck and neck 0-60 and 1/4 mile.

I also posted a "non Z06" to reafirm thats what neither of us were talking about since the topic was automatic shifting.

135i also sports "crappy runflats" and cuts better times with other rubber.

Granted, after 1/4 mile speeds the C5 walks away. The 135i still tops out at 155mph.

My point was....."By any stretch of imagination" isnt the case by most who are familiar with both autos.

NYC6

not one 4.5 in the bunch. I could have posted many more.
http://www.southerncarparts.com/corv...799-ex-16.html
http://www.c5registry.com/racing/compare.htm
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/chevrol...c5-ar6617.html
http://www.supercarsite.net/chevrole...-c5-coupe/2002
http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-qu...mile-times.htm

ALMS21

Not accurate. I have beat more than one C5....and the 135 is right there with the 335. Not saying that that is therefore gospel but I have yet to see any stock C5 run a 1/4 mile time better than 13.1.

Dave68

Sorry to say, but I have a mind like a steel trap. In 2001, Car & Driver compared the 01 C5 vert to the Porsche Boxster to the AMG SL to a BMW M Roadster. The C5 won the comparison with a 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds on slippery (2001) tires which are definitely less grippy than those installed on many cars, today. The C5's 1/4 mile time was 13.1 at 109 MPH. After the quarter, it smoked the competition. I tried to look up this article but believe me, the times I stated are dead-accurate.

Of course, at the same time, I was a CF enthusiest and saw more than a few C5 coupes doing the 1/4 in 12.8 - 12.9 range. One guy took his 01 to Bonneville salt flats and saw 180 on the speedometer.

The other thing to consider today is that FAR more C5 owners have modified their cars than have 335 or 135 owners. A BMW owner is thus far more likely to get blown away on the street. I can't count how many supercharger-equipped C5s and C6s I've seen on the road, just on the way to work. While I agree some BMWs are good-handling cars, when it comes to drag-racing speed, they are often second tier.

By the way, Car & Driver just published a best handling car in the world for under $100,000 issue. While the almighty M3 was included, it (as well as a Z06) was beaten by a Mazda RX8.
Never underestimate Mazda when it comes to handling. Okay, back on track, bros!

NYC6

I dont doubt you saw that article but the facts are 99% of C5's dont run 4.5's. I posted a few where the #'s ranged from 4.7-5.0 or so. And as I said there were many other links I could have posted with like #'s. Gotta go with avgs not 1 specific ringer car.
And I thought our conversation was stock for stock. Yes there are more modded Vettes on the streets but thats not really the point I think. That kind of dilutes the discussion. Well if I did this and this to this car it will beat this car from this and this. For the record, as stated before a $ 500 JB3 tune for the N54 engine takes about 15 minutes to install and bumps rwhp close to 400. And other mods bring them close to 500. But again thats not relevant. The C5 is a great car and so are the 1 and 3 series. They are very close in many performance #'s also.

Dave68

I think it is relevant in that if you assume you have a good chance of beating a very common supercharged C5 (490-520 RWHP) with a 135 BMW on the street, you will be very much surprised, even if the BMW had been chipped.

Newer model cars are less likely to be modified - I think most people will agree. This is why back when I bought my 01, I wouldn't take lightly any Camaro or Mustang - many have been modified heavily.

You claim that 99% of C5s can't run 4.5 and I say a good percentage of C5s are running much stickier tires than the OEM Goodyear runflats with rock-hard sidewalls. I know from experience that a simple switch of tires makes a huge difference in handling and acceleration. 4.5 and under is much easier to accomplish with softer sidewall tires.

That's why I'll bet there are far more C5s that can out-accelerate a 135 or 335 than there are 135 or 335s that can out-accelerate C5s.

Back to reality, though, I think it's safe to say that most people who have paddle shifting auto-tranny cars keep them in auto-shifting mode most of the time, especially if they live in higher (population) density areas.

MVR 155

Are you kidding me, everytime a topic comes up you have to skew the results/figures to back up your "opinion".... get real. You successfully derailed the Viper GTS thread with your Mosler comments and now you are derailing this one bringing hypothetical supercharged C5's into it..... do you even read what you type before posting it?????

Its also soooo very funny how you have to make mention of something to do with Mazda or Toyota/Lexus on nearly every thread you post in.

The OP was asking for opinions of the paddle shift in the 2010 BMW.... the next poster mentions that he likes the trans.....an actual owner of a BMW and an owner of a C6 Auto trans corvette..... the 3rd poster (also an owner) comes back to agree and also comments it shifts faster than the vette.... NOWHERE DID ANYONE MENTION THE BMW BEING FASTER THAN THE VETTE!!!! Being that the BMW is german and we all know you despise german cars you instantly have to come in here and start comparing the possiblility of running into superchaged C5's etc.....

GIVE ME AND EVERYONE ELSE HERE A BREAK DAVE!!!!

You should get the magazine/bench racer of the year award since you seem to be an expert about every car you have never gotten behind the wheel of

Dave68

I did infer that you were talking about the shifting speed but others who are casually reading your post might think that you were saying a stock 335i is faster than a stock C6, even an "older" C6 and I just wanted to make it clear that this is not in any way true. But really, if you want to talk about getting the most bang for the buck, I can mention Mustangs.......

So, MVR, my simple clarification statement started this whole thing. Of course I had to bring up the latest Car & Driver article about the best handling cars since the two cars I mentioned (Mazda RX8 and Lotus Elise) came in 3rd and 2nd, bested only by the lightweight Boxster that cost far more than the RX8. All three of these cars are better handling than the M3 but I'll just leave it at that.
Thanks for joining in on this discussion!

ALMS21

Now you are bringing a Mustang into a conversation about the shift speeds in a BMW vs those in the C6?

It's obvious, as MVR155 said, you are posting just to slam the BMW. I'll bow out of this dicussion right now for the benefit of the OP. I have contributed my opinion based on the FACT that I own a 335 with paddles and have ridden in a forum member's 2010 C6 GS with paddles and stated my opinion.

To the OP, I'd be curious to compare the Steptronic tranny with paddles in the BMW vs the C6 paddles after a Chuck COW tune. I hear the Chuck COW tune is a nice improvement in response/shifting.

NYC6

Earth to Dave, Earth to Dave we're losing you.......

Handling, mustangs, Mazda, Lotus. WTF are you talking about? Im done here also, you're and not on the same page of life.

0Chuck CoW

Oh yes it is.....

Chuck CoW

Dave68

My last comment, since you don't seem to understand how Mustangs came into this discussion:

We were talking about OEM vs OEM comparisons (with the simple exception of runflat tires) when out of the blue, you started comparing your modified 335i and how it can run with a C6. I brought up Mustang as an example that anyone can modify a less expensive car to perform as well as a more expensive car and end up spending less than the cost of the more expensive car. That's called an analogy and is often used in debates.

Notice that I didn't go into a deep discussion about Mustangs - just mentioned them briefly to try to keep modification/cost out of this discussion.

Okay, carry on, paddle pullers.......

MVR 155

He didnt bring up anything to do with mods until you had to point out that a C6 is faster.... once again for the slow people (you should listen here)...... The OP and the other posters (people who actually own and drive BMW's with paddle shift) said nothing regarding the BMW being faster than the vette, they simply stated that the shifts were faster....THATS ALL DAVE!!! Seriously man.... what the hell is wrong with you????