Just keep the manual V8 as a cost leader and make it an open special order so that if you want one, you wait a bit longer than the V10 but you get what you actually want; a supercar with involvement! 
On one hand, I don’t think of Audi as a supercar I’d think to drive if I liked to drive manual.
On the other, are there any other (new) mid-engined supercars for a similar price that would make more sense with a manual? Is the relative lack of these a side effect of the progressive loss of manual cars in general?
[quote=“strop”]On one hand, I don’t think of Audi as a supercar I’d think to drive if I liked to drive manual.
On the other, are there any other (new) mid-engined supercars for a similar price that would make more sense with a manual? Is the relative lack of these a side effect of the progressive loss of manual cars in general?[/quote]
The 1st generation Audi R8 V8 manual was written about by quality car rags like EVO as being a really good drive and the manual gearbox was mentioned as a highlight and strength of the car so, if you like what EVO likes then the R8 was a drivers pick for the money.
IMO all cars make more sense as a manual and I almost cried when I found out that Ferrari had dropped their iconic open gated manual option for paddleshift only. There are feasible options for manual 'boxes available for all but crazy cars like most Brabus product but marketing is driving the gearbox choice; old tossers with too much money being told they’re “just as good” as F1 drivers because their gearbox works in a similar fashion. Since supercars are seen as the bleeding edge of car tech it’s only natural that lesser cars/ manufacturers adopt the tech when it becomes cheap enough.
There is more than fashion involved in gearbox choice for major manufacturers but what’s trending has more influence on the decision making process than it deserves; dollars speak louder than traditions 
I agree. I’ve only driven manual like four times in my life but at least on the fourth time, I can tell that manual does invoke a mechanical connection whereas technology is either distancing us from the machine, or else redefining what connection means (why I was less than ultra-enthused about the new hypercars). They both have their places, but I’m afraid that it looks as if the place of manual will be reserved for ‘true enthusiast’, or ‘old timer’ territory, so will likely populate ‘budget cars for the driver’ or, as you say, crazy madmobiles, otherwise seems to increasingly force manual diehards towards buying secondhand.
Not that I’m aware of.
A supercar is, almost by definition, built to push technological and performance boundaries; replacing a sequential dual-clutch transmission with an old-fashioned manual gearbox would make one slower, which rather defeats the purpose of building a supercar in the first place. Even the new 911 GT3 follows this trend (7-speed dual-clutch only), which says a lot given that the 911 GT3 is probably as close as you can get to “pure high-end driving machine”.
My personal view on the matter: I enjoy driving, occasionally the spirited sort, but my transmission preference is an automatic with paddles. Day-to-day driving, automatics usually pick the same gear I’d select anyway, and if I want the ride to be a bit livelier that’s what the paddles are for. Am I less “connected” to my car because I don’t have a clutch pedal and a shifter gate? I don’t really care.
Small bonus is that it’s much easier to find a used fun car which hasn’t been thrashed by some boy racer if it’s an automatic.
Even though I really enjoy driving manual cars, I can see the point of an automatic or sequential box in almost all cars.
For cheap, city runarounds, automatics are way more comfortable and easy to drive in traffic jams, requiring a lot less effort and thought. And super cars are better with sequential, because they still maintain some sort of involvement, while making the actual driving fast a lot easier for everyone, and instead of having a hard clutch and a temperamental gearbox, as most super cars did, the car can just cruise along when the owner isn’t on the mood.
Considering this it really isn’t surprising to learn that 98% of Gallardo buyers opted for the automated manual option. Also, it is more likely that the people who can afford such cars are old and so they can’t really think as fast,lowering the requirements for their dream cars is something that they would like.
But, make no mistake, I still want my blue/sliver manual 1st gen R8 V10 or a black Gallardo Balboni.
I think automatics are too heavy and bad for economy to use in cheap city runabouts, also, the manufacturers are going CRAZY with the number of gears, TEN DAMN GEARS. If you need more ratios, and efficiency, just get a CVT! It’s a no-compromise economy transmission, seamless and lightweight.
And, yeah, Leo is right, an R8 doesn’t truly need a manual for it’s market.
Wait, that’s the “new” R8? It’s indeed a step backwards. Looks ugly and weird, the color doesn’t help it either, blaargh. Just get a Huracan.
[quote=“Leonardo9613”]Even though I really enjoy driving manual cars, I can see the point of an automatic or sequential box in almost all cars.
For cheap, city runarounds, automatics are way more comfortable and easy to drive in traffic jams, requiring a lot less effort and thought. And super cars are better with sequential, because they still maintain some sort of involvement, while making the actual driving fast a lot easier for everyone, and instead of having a hard clutch and a temperamental gearbox, as most super cars did, the car can just cruise along when the owner isn’t on the mood.
Considering this it really isn’t surprising to learn that 98% of Gallardo buyers opted for the automated manual option. Also, it is more likely that the people who can afford such cars are old and so they can’t really think as fast,lowering the requirements for their dream cars is something that they would like.
But, make no mistake, I still want my blue/sliver manual 1st gen R8 V10 or a black Gallardo Balboni. 
[/quote]
I agree that auto’s make life easier but IMO making cars that require less thought than the current crop of manuals is a scary prospect; drivers need to think MORE not less! As for old supercars having heavy, recalcitrant gearboxes, the fault lies with the manufacturer for not engineering the gearbox installation well. The biggest reason the Honda NSX was such a revelation (besides the tech) was that it was so easy to drive. Prior to this, supercars (and especially Italian ones) were hard to drive, inconsistent in their handling and annoying to work with. The NSX changed all that by having controls that were light yet well weighted and road manners that were tame unless you were actually getting stuck in. The Ferrari F355 and the 360 Modena were Ferrari trying to implement this new standard.
As for supercars being defined as boundary pushing technological tour de force’s; this has only been true for recent times. Ferrari built front engined road cars long after F1 switched to mid engined cars and they waited until Lamborghini made commercial success with the Muira before they built their own mid-engined model. This car didn’t even get called a Ferrari and had a V6, hardly cutting edge compared to Muira and Countach with their V12. Until fresh blood like the Maclaren F1 and Honda NSX, the supercar market was dominated by cars steeped in olde worlde tradition and were trading on reputation only. The rallying revolution had produced many very fast road cars that were more innovative and were doing so at a fraction of the cost of the Italian jobs… As for a manual gearbox hampering speed; the Pagani Zonda was available in manual only for most of it’s life and it was very fast and the Maclaren F1 was manual; fastest car in the world for 10 years and still considered to be an icon.
The 911 GT3 has dropped the manual because the marketing folks want a closer alignment with the racecar; the Porsche manual is one of the best in the business.
I don’t want manuals to be placed ahead of other gearbox choices; I want manufacturers to give the consumer the option to have the gearbox they like to use available. I’d wait 3 months for my manual R8 to be ordered and supplied over buying the sequential on the dealership forecourt. When it comes to car gearbox options I’m staunchly pro-choice!!! 
What I hear from owners of the “old” GT3 is that the manual is not nearly as sharp as the rest of the car.
That being said I’m also on of those people that would choose a technically inferior manual over an automatic versions. But on the other side I can also see why my mom like her DSG.
[quote=“T16”]
What I hear from owners of the “old” GT3 is that the manual is not nearly as sharp as the rest of the car.
That being said I’m also on of those people that would choose a technically inferior manual over an automatic versions. But on the other side I can also see why my mom like her DSG.[/quote]
I don’t know ( 
) anyone who owns a GT3 or GT3 RS but no-one in the car rags complained about the manual gearbox and I read every review of the car I could; the 997 911 GT3 is a personal favourite of mine, 
The latest GT3 write-ups seemed to indicate that the double-clutch gearbox was standardised to align roadcar production with the racecar rather than dissatisfaction with the manual gearbox. As for the Porsche manual being “one of the best”, again this is gleaned from over a decade of automotive articles which used the Porsche manual action as the yardstick by which other fast car gearboxes were judged by. That would be based on the entire range and so it is entirely possible that the GT3 was too focussed for the manual 'box, especially since the race version of that car was sequentially shifted. I suspect though that these limitations were found on trackdays rather than street driving since it’s easier to blame bad technique on the car rather than the driver! 
Honestly I prefer the old grille & vents. A lot of cars may have copied 'em, but they were original enough on the R8 and in that respect they continued to look like the ‘real deal’ compared to the pretenders. The new grille just says “look what Lexus did, guess we’d better too…” And the new vents to me are just an afterthought - merely change for the sake of change.
Those air intakes on the side are a little over the top now too (but I dunno, maybe the new engine needs 'em?)
[quote=“PaleOne”]Honestly I prefer the old grille & vents. A lot of cars may have copied 'em, but they were original enough on the R8 and in that respect they continued to look like the ‘real deal’ compared to the pretenders. The new grille just says “look what Lexus did, guess we’d better too…” And the new vents to me are just an afterthought - merely change for the sake of change.
Those air intakes on the side are a little over the top now too (but I dunno, maybe the new engine needs 'em?)[/quote]
I agree with PaleOne on this, the older car looked cohesive and, although I didn’t find it attractive, the older car had presence. The new car looks awkward and clumsy in some details (as pointed out by PaleOne) and overall looks like a bad copy of the old car. I think Audi has run out of ways to re-do their current styling language (it’s been around singe the late 90’s!) and they missed the chance to try something new with this car… But my feelings are academic anyway since I cannot afford an old R8, let alone the current model!