# 0-60 4.2secs



## falconmick (Mar 12, 2018)

Mate of mine who weighs about 17 stones just had stage 1 remap on his 2.0TSi Quattro, with full tank of fuel and about 30kgs in boot managed a 4.2secs 0-60 using launch control. Obviously lighter driver with almost empty tank and empty boot should easily crack sub 4 secs 0-60.


----------



## Number86 (Oct 20, 2017)

falconmick said:


> Mate of mine who weighs about 17 stones just had stage 1 remap on his 2.0TSi Quattro, with full tank of fuel and about 30kgs in boot managed a 4.2secs 0-60 using launch control. Obviously lighter driver with almost empty tank and empty boot should easily crack sub 4 secs 0-60.


What is it running now? I guess about 300bhp?
And how was this timed...?

Also to note. The book figures are 0-62mph (or 100kph) which is typically worth a tenth or two vs 0-60


----------



## falconmick (Mar 12, 2018)

297bhp, will have to ask him for name of equipment manufacturer.


----------



## gAgNiCk (Dec 25, 2017)

falconmick said:


> 297bhp, will have to ask him for name of equipment manufacturer.


Interested to know whose map?


----------



## Omychron (Sep 9, 2016)

That seems like a correct figure for the 2.0
Best I've seen on mine is 3.9, but I'm happy to attribute part of that to driver measuring error. :lol: (That was 0-100kph, not 0-60mph)
I'm at 305BHP after remap btw, everything else is stock.


----------



## falconmick (Mar 12, 2018)

I was recently watching a few 'drag races' on Youtube and different standard 300bhp MK7 Golf Rs were consistently showing 4.6 0-60, VAG are known to be modest with their 0-60 figures.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ben-S (Dec 24, 2016)

falconmick said:


> I was recently watching a few 'drag races' on Youtube and different standard 300bhp MK7 Golf Rs were consistently showing 4.6 0-60, VAG are known to be modest with their 0-60 figures.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


DSG Golf R official 0-60 is 4.6 seconds so not much of a surprise.

As an aside what does the amateur 0-60 tester use to measure time. If measuring bits of a second difference a handheld stopwatch and a human judging the position of a needle would far outweigh small tweeks by small changes on a car. Are there apps for phones etc?


----------



## falconmick (Mar 12, 2018)

Ben, On the 300ps DSG GR7 official 0-60 is 4.9, 5.1 secs on manual, so 4.6 is a surprise, the facelifted GR7 310ps 0-60 is 4.6. (I've owned both models) 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rev (Nov 17, 2015)

In this video of the TTS he gets 0-100kph of 4.1 secs.


----------



## Stanyer (Jun 24, 2015)

gAgNiCk said:


> falconmick said:
> 
> 
> > 297bhp, will have to ask him for name of equipment manufacturer.
> ...


seems low, i got 335bhp from stage 1 intake and catback. 350bhp stage 2 sports cat. Ran 3.6 secs

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Why would you have 30kg in the boot that's about half a person and why would you have even weighed it :lol:

How did you measure the 0-60 and how do you know the average gradient wasn't downhill at all - just looking at a video is far from accurate and you can be out by as much as .2-3 of a second.

I have a Dragy gps and got a verified 3.1 recently (not a 2.0T though and nothing in the boot  )


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

powerplay said:


> Why would you have 30kg in the boot that's about half a person and why would you have even weighed it :lol:
> 
> How did you measure the 0-60 and how do you know the average gradient wasn't downhill at all - just looking at a video is far from accurate and you can be out by as much as .2-3 of a second.
> 
> I have a Dragy gps and got a verified 3.1 recently (not a 2.0T though and nothing in the boot  )


Really :roll:


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

These times are SFA

0-100 mph in under a second



Not a 2.0T either and no boot :lol:


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

Rev said:


> In this video of the TTS he gets 0-100kph of 4.1 secs.


It would be interesting to see these numbers with out using LC (launch control). I hate how today's car manufacturers advertise acceleration with out disclosing that it was achieved in LC.

I want real situation 0-100 or 0-60. LC is a gimmick and its not exactly fast/easy to set up. (feel like a pilot just flipping all those switched to activate LC) :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Whats wrong with being a pilot? 
LC is nothing like being a pilot btw :wink:


----------



## Omychron (Sep 9, 2016)

Toshiba said:


> Whats wrong with being a pilot?
> LC is nothing like being a pilot btw :wink:


Nothing. Those guys are awesome, as everyone knows! :lol: :lol:


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

Toshiba said:


> Whats wrong with being a pilot?
> LC is nothing like being a pilot btw :wink:


All Im saying is that Id appreciate non LC numbers in their official spec page and if they so desperately need to show LC they can put them in a bracket next to real acceleration times.


----------



## handyman (Mar 8, 2009)

captainhero17 said:


> All Im saying is that Id appreciate non LC numbers in their official spec page and if they so desperately need to show LC they can put them in a bracket next to real acceleration times.


I think Porsche do that don't they?


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

handyman said:


> captainhero17 said:
> 
> 
> > All Im saying is that Id appreciate non LC numbers in their official spec page and if they so desperately need to show LC they can put them in a bracket next to real acceleration times.
> ...


Hmmm... I just went to check I don't see it. They still post one acceleration time. At least not on their original German website.
I dont think any car manufacturer does it. They rather muddy up the truth. Still it would be interesting to know the realistic figures.
Because LC is not something to rely on. The mechanics behind it do not represent real world situations.


----------



## ormandj (Mar 27, 2017)

Is LC different in the TTS? In my TTRS I hit the traction control button and that's it to enable LC. Nothing like the startup process on an F16 or A10...


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

ormandj,

Set car in to dynamic mode in Audi Drive, set gearbox in S mode, turn off traction control. Didnt expect people to take my joking comparinson with pilots too literally. But its not like a 1 button press process. In porsche they have this mapped to a single button that does all of this for you. In Audi it feels like an afterthought. 

The button process is not even my gripe with the LC system. 
Its just that manufacturers present LC accelerations as true data. Which is kinda misleading. Yes the car do 4.0 sec with LC. But LC has a ton of disclaimers that they don't really tell you right of the bat such as:
1. You cannot use it while the engine is cold. (so chuck few minutes in there before you can use it) 
2. You cannot use it in a succession (the LC mode will go in to a few minutes cool-down before you can use it again)

 They should treat LC like nitro (NOS) in cars and give the spec numbers in a separate bracket to indicate that the car is able to go above the regular performance albeit in short bursts.

So if your car can do 5.1sec with out LC and say 4.2 with LC vs a car that can do 4.5sec (and has no LC). The second car is realistically "quicker" in practice. Because it can do this acceleration consistently. And not keel over after doing an LC once.


----------



## Ben-S (Dec 24, 2016)

Is 0-60 really a good real world indicator of performance anyway. I can't recall ever wanting to race someone off the lights. 50-70 would be better for most of us most of the time.

Agreed though - I've used LC once in my standard 2.0 TT and it felt remarkably quicker than any other standing start I've done with it.


----------



## Number86 (Oct 20, 2017)

What's wrong with launch control. If you have an auto box it's literally impossible to launch the car like you would a manual, with a clutch you can dump at the desired revs. So really it needs to have LC to balance the scales so to speak.

The 0-62 difference between the manual and DSG is mostly due to the speed of the gearbox, not the launch control, the manual loses out massively every gear change.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Number86 said:


> What's wrong with launch control. If you have an auto box it's literally impossible to launch the car like you would a manual, with a clutch you can dump at the desired revs. So really it needs to have LC to balance the scales so to speak.
> 
> The 0-62 difference between the manual and DSG is mostly due to the speed of the gearbox, not the launch control, the manual loses out massively every gear change.


This is very true, I don't see any reason why a manual can't "launch" the same as an s-tronic, it just requires the correct driver input/skill.

The s-tronic adds some weight over a manual transmission so like-for-like an s-tronic car would actually launch slower, all other things being equal; it makes up for this and surpasses it by being able to keep the power virtually uninterrupted during gear changes.

So if you consider LC being invalid then you're giving the advantage automatically to the manual car (while there are still any left lol) where a good "launch" just requires skill.


----------



## ormandj (Mar 27, 2017)

captainhero17 said:


> ormandj,
> 
> Set car in to dynamic mode in Audi Drive, set gearbox in S mode, turn off traction control. Didnt expect people to take my joking comparinson with pilots too literally. But its not like a 1 button press process. In porsche they have this mapped to a single button that does all of this for you. In Audi it feels like an afterthought.
> 
> ...


My car is always in dynamic mode unless I'm going on a road trip. For me, if for whatever reason I was cruising in comfort or something, that's just a press on the drive select button, then a press on TC button. 'S' transmission mode is automatically turned on when in dynamic mode, you'd have to disable it intentionally on my car. It's still just two button presses worst case scenario in the RS. Maybe different in TTS, I'm not familiar. I don't think it's a huge undertaking far worse than a Porsche or any other car. I was also kidding about the pre-flight stuff. 

You shouldn't break 3k rpm or drive hard before the engine is warm LC or not, and I've used LC back to back 10+ times at a nearly empty drag strip without a need for more cool down after each run. The drive around is plenty.

I do agree on giving numbers with and without LC. Check out car and driver, they list a 5-60 number which is really what you're looking for.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

powerplay said:


> Number86 said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with launch control. If you have an auto box it's literally impossible to launch the car like you would a manual, with a clutch you can dump at the desired revs. So really it needs to have LC to balance the scales so to speak.
> ...


I'm not convinced you can rev out a manual whilst at a standstill like the older cars.They're usually limited to ~4000rpm to protect the valves from going in to orbit.


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

Ben-S, well in real world situations yes, 0-60 is rarely used. But those 50-80 accelerations are also posted in some car magazines when they test the model. And yes I agree, they are much more useful. 0-60 is just how we agreed to measure acceleration. I have no idea why we chose this number in particular. 

ormandj, I dont have a TTs I have a regular "peasant" TT 2.0 Quattro S-tronic hahahah :lol: 
But in regards to LC. My cousins Porsche has a dedicated LC button. You can drive it in comfort mode and whit a press of that button the car will set everything needed to launch LC. Which shows that this option was meant to be used and to be a quick straightforward process.

Unless someone like you always drives in Dynamic (I stopped, just makes me want to drive quick in city and get a ticket (stupid speed cameras [smiley=bigcry.gif] ), it really feels like that scene from that French movie "Taxi" where Daniel has to do through all that process to turn his car in to sport machine.
Its strange that they didnt make a dedicated button for it in RS models, the sportiest version.

Tell me, once you do LC does traction control turn on by itself? I never had an opportunity to try LC.


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

leopard said:


> I'm not convinced you can rev out a manual whilst at a standstill like the older cars.They're usually limited to ~4000rpm to protect the valves from going in to orbit.


I cant rev past 3.500rpm or so when I am in neutral in my regular 2.0 TT S-tronic either.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

leopard said:


> powerplay said:
> 
> 
> > Number86 said:
> ...


Yes that's also the case for me mine won't rev past 4000 in N and I suspect the same for all versions, but that doesn't affect the comparison since the s-tronics don't exceed 3,500 when using LC anyway.


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

powerplay said:


> Yes that's also the case for me mine won't rev past 4000 in N and I suspect the same for all versions, but that doesn't affect the comparison since the s-tronics don't exceed 3,500 when using LC anyway.


Powerplay, sorry don't want to go off topic her but are you satisfied with your Traffic Recognition system? They are offering to retrofit this on to any TT MK3 now at Audi for 260£. Worth it?


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

leopard said:


> I'm not convinced you can rev out a manual whilst at a standstill like the older cars.They're usually limited to ~4000rpm to protect the valves from going in to orbit.





powerplay said:


> Yes that's also the case for me mine won't rev past 4000 in N and I suspect the same for all versions, but that doesn't affect the comparison since the s-tronics don't exceed 3,500 when using LC anyway.


Quite,on a like for like basis.
Perhaps a misinterpretation...



Number86 said:


> What's wrong with launch control. If you have an auto box it's literally impossible to launch the car like you would a manual, with a clutch you can dump at the desired revs.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

captainhero17 said:


> powerplay said:
> 
> 
> > Yes that's also the case for me mine won't rev past 4000 in N and I suspect the same for all versions, but that doesn't affect the comparison since the s-tronics don't exceed 3,500 when using LC anyway.
> ...


Looks like despite not wanting to you have anyway :lol:

I would have to say no without any hesitation, it offers nothing and often doesn't work at all, I wouldn't pay £260 for it nor would I even pay £26.
It's easily enabled yourself (like I have) if you have VCDS or OBDeleven.

Charging £260 to literally flip a single bit of data in your ECU to enable an existing fuction is worse than daylight robbery.


----------



## ormandj (Mar 27, 2017)

captainhero17 said:


> Ben-S, well in real world situations yes, 0-60 is rarely used. But those 50-80 accelerations are also posted in some car magazines when they test the model. And yes I agree, they are much more useful. 0-60 is just how we agreed to measure acceleration. I have no idea why we chose this number in particular.
> 
> ormandj, I dont have a TTs I have a regular "peasant" TT 2.0 Quattro S-tronic hahahah :lol:
> But in regards to LC. My cousins Porsche has a dedicated LC button. You can drive it in comfort mode and whit a press of that button the car will set everything needed to launch LC. Which shows that this option was meant to be used and to be a quick straightforward process.
> ...


Well, the application for LC is pretty much just the drag strip, so an extra button press (or two) really isn't a big deal - to answer your question, it's persistent until you turn off the car. I can't see many using it often on the street and I don't even use it at the road courses I visit. It's great for 1/4 mile times and showing passengers what violent acceleration feels like for giggles, but that's about it.


----------



## zooks (Sep 15, 2017)

Stanyer said:


> gAgNiCk said:
> 
> 
> > falconmick said:
> ...


Thats yours reviewed by Lockwood on youtube isn't it?
Nice job.


----------



## macaddict111 (Jun 13, 2018)

Road & Track's official review of the (obviously stock) TTS lists 0-60 MPH at 4.2 seconds. In fact they even quip somewhere in the article something to the effect of "Not sure where Audi's 4.6 number came from but 4.2 wasn't challenging..."

It's nice to have a spec understated for once.


----------



## Steve2017TTS (Aug 2, 2017)

macaddict111 said:


> Road & Track's official review of the (obviously stock) TTS lists 0-60 MPH at 4.2 seconds. In fact they even quip somewhere in the article something to the effect of "Not sure where Audi's 4.6 number came from but 4.2 wasn't challenging..."
> 
> It's nice to have a spec understated for once.


Hi,
A few things:-
Firstly - Audi make the TTS with different engine outputs for different markets - 310hp in the UK and 286hp where we live in the Middle East (presumably due to higher temperatures)
Secondly - magazines and brochures often quote 0-60mph or 0-100km/h (62mph) times. Depending on gearing there can be 0.5 second difference between 0-60mph and 0-100km/h times, on the same car.
Thirdly - car manufacturers often provide press cars that have been fettled! - hence better reviews and performance times!
Lastly - I don't think you can get a brilliant 0-60 time on an automatic TTS without using launch control. Without launch control there is a noticeable delay and slow start - when you mash the throttle pedal. This hurts the 0-60 times and prevents a clean, fast start from static. Interestingly, our other car - ML63 launches incredibly cleanly from static, even with the auto-hold function in operation. On the TT - that feature seems to make starts even slower.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Blade Runner (Feb 16, 2018)

powerplay said:


> Number86 said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with launch control. If you have an auto box it's literally impossible to launch the car like you would a manual, with a clutch you can dump at the desired revs. So really it needs to have LC to balance the scales so to speak.
> ...


These two posts sum it up nicely. As a manual driver, it is slightly irritating (and misleading) when people make comments like "and the manual is of course slower than the DSG/s-tronic ..", a statement usually based purely on a bit of tech (LC) that, as far as I can see, never gets used in any real-world driving situation. Slower in 4th from 40-70? I think not. I have a theory that a skilled driver could get a manual TTS (or Golf R) off the line quicker than the corresponding s-tronic (DSG) in regular sport (non LC) mode. Never seen that done side by side but I think it would be interesting. We will never know with the RS, but that's another story! The bottom line is that all these cars are very quick, and most people wouldn't be able to perceive a 0-62 difference of (say) 4.3 vs 4.9 secs anyway.

I agree with others who have said that 0-62 times should be quoted without use of LC (or the LC time be quoted in addition) as it is essentially a gimmick to impress your mates or GF.


----------



## Omychron (Sep 9, 2016)

Blade Runner said:


> powerplay said:
> 
> 
> > Number86 said:
> ...


Then again, no driver can shift as quick as a DSG can, regardless of LC. Even without it, a DSG is going to be faster, skilled driver or not.

Also funny how people will go on about "added weight". The DSG adds 20kg. :roll: The effect on 0-60 time is negligible.


----------



## macaddict111 (Jun 13, 2018)

Omychron said:


> Blade Runner said:
> 
> 
> > powerplay said:
> ...


Twin-clutch transmissions tend to be about weight-neutral when compared to the manual alternative. That's because they ARE manual transmissions (a wet clutch and hard-linked ratios, vs torque converter and maze of clutches). But since they're being computer controlled they don't have to worry about all the shift hardware, and they can usually make them lighter and more simply because they don't have to deal with added stresses manuals are designed to have to handle, like cramming the gate into the wrong, low gear.

Manual transmissions are utterly and totally obsolete. Period. That's not to say they're not fun and don't have a place or that I don't like to drive them, but there's literally no argument anymore that someone somehow will be able to launch or shift a manual better. If you haven't done a launch through 3rd gear in a DSG, you should and you'll understand why. Also, the simple fact that torque has to be stopped while shifting a manual means it will never compare. Even the fastest-shifting person with a great manual can't compare to what is essentially two separate 3-speed transmissions that basically overlap torque with each other. This constant flow of torque is compounded in a turbocharged car, in which dropping torque production, even for fractions of a second, releases significant boost and requires more exhaust restriction to re-spool when torque resumes.

And launch control isn't a gimmick when it comes to 0-60 times, it makes a huge difference. It's pre-spooling the turbo and dropping the clutch into it at the very least, which is something that before you could only really do with your (slower) manual.


----------



## phazer (Apr 2, 2018)

macaddict111 said:


> Twin-clutch transmissions tend to be about weight-neutral when compared to the manual alternative. That's because they ARE manual transmissions (a wet clutch and hard-linked ratios, vs torque converter and maze of clutches). But since they're being computer controlled they don't have to worry about all the shift hardware, and they can usually make them lighter and more simply because they don't have to deal with added stresses manuals are designed to have to handle, like cramming the gate into the wrong, low gear.
> 
> Manual transmissions are utterly and totally obsolete. Period. That's not to say they're not fun and don't have a place or that I don't like to drive them, but there's literally no argument anymore that someone somehow will be able to launch or shift a manual better. If you haven't done a launch through 3rd gear in a DSG, you should and you'll understand why. Also, the simple fact that torque has to be stopped while shifting a manual means it will never compare. Even the fastest-shifting person with a great manual can't compare to what is essentially two separate 3-speed transmissions that basically overlap torque with each other. This constant flow of torque is compounded in a turbocharged car, in which dropping torque production, even for fractions of a second, releases significant boost and requires more exhaust restriction to re-spool when torque resumes.
> 
> And launch control isn't a gimmick when it comes to 0-60 times, it makes a huge difference. It's pre-spooling the turbo and dropping the clutch into it at the very least, which is something that before you could only really do with your (slower) manual.


Based on the complaints here and in other places about the behaviour of STronic/DSG I'm not sure how that obsoletes the manual box. There's a way to go IMO though I do realise in a couple of years there will be no choice.


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

I can't really be bothered with a few tenths to 60 here and there, but we own a new Golf R (missis) and a TTS (me) and the TTS is a little quicker than the Golf, well before the REVO map it now has and the 382bhp it's now spitting out. Both cars are autos and I drive them both fairly equally - the TTS is lighter, sharper and more involving than the Golf. Not night and day, but it is very noticeable. Makes me cringe when people seem to compare them as rivals, when in fact one is a family hatchback and the other a sports coupe. Chalk and cheese, especially given the TT's interior/tech compared to the more humble Golf. When my new TTS BR arrives, that'll have to get the same remap. Can't have her indoors going faster than me


----------



## Mark Pred (Feb 1, 2017)

I can't really be bothered with a few tenths to 60 here and there, but we own a new Golf R (missis) and a TTS (me) and the TTS is a little quicker than the Golf, well before the REVO map it now has and the 382bhp it's now spitting out. Both cars are autos and I drive them both fairly equally - the TTS is lighter, sharper and more involving than the Golf. Not night and day, but it is very noticeable. Makes me cringe when people seem to compare them as rivals, when in fact one is a family hatchback and the other a sports coupe. Chalk and cheese, especially given the TT's interior/tech compared to the more humble Golf. When my new TTS BE arrives, that'll have to get the same remap. Can't have her indoors going faster than me


----------



## captainhero17 (Apr 10, 2018)

phazer said:


> Based on the complaints here and in other places about the behaviour of STronic/DSG


Phazer I am not challenging you or anything. I am genuinely interested in few examples of those reports and opinions regarding the DSG/S-Tronic. Because I know they exist and but I never managed to find any concrete complaints.
Can you name any?
Any of those complaints have to do with jerky behaviour in slow/city speeds? (or from a traffic light standstill?) 

I heard a lot of complaint over Multitronic Audi transmission. But not enough from S-tronic which was heavily praised for not sucking as Multironic.


----------



## phazer (Apr 2, 2018)

captainhero17 said:


> phazer said:
> 
> 
> > Based on the complaints here and in other places about the behaviour of STronic/DSG
> ...


There's been a few on here from the RS owners (overtakes, quick throttle changes etc) and I believe Audi even updated the software to try and make the box quicker to respond. Round town and in traffic of course it's fine and in a lot of respects better/easier than a manual but I hate the response times.

The STronic is certainly leagues ahead of that old crappy multichronic!

* Full disclosure, I don't like the 6 or 7 speed STronic/DSG boxes but have given the 7 a fair hearing after a hateful experience with the 6 speed and will continue to do so when the next generation arrives, until then I'll keep my stirring stick.


----------



## macaddict111 (Jun 13, 2018)

captainhero17 said:


> phazer said:
> 
> 
> > Based on the complaints here and in other places about the behaviour of STronic/DSG
> ...


I'm really not familiar with the mechanical shortcomings of the DSG (failure points etc). 90% of the "complaints" about DSG behavior/preference boil down to people who grew up driving manuals (like me) and also grew up with an "auto's suck" mentality (like me, and yes, they did used to be terribly inferior transmissions), who haven't taken 1 month to actually learn how to drive an auto, and who can't understanding that DSG can't read minds. People who "binary drive" (0 to 100% throttle applications while already moving), and then complain the DSG wasn't in the right gear, or who don't realize how slow their own manual shifting is, but notice any delay in the DSG because they were _thinking_ they wanted to be in a lower gear, but didn't indicate this in any way that the DSG needs like even the slightest throttle tip in to allow it to engage the correct ratio. Also, I think there's a ton of male ego generally involved too ("no computer can shift better than me"). These are also usually the same guys you hear driving around town going 30 MPH in 2nd gear at 4000 RPM, taking over a second to shift, and over-revving on pretty much all clutch engagements (sorry, not implying that personally Phazer). :roll:

Again, I'm really not trying to dig people for _enjoying_ driving a manual. I totally get why that might be more fun or someone's preference. I just think it's a bit disingenuous to argue that a manual driver could do it better, or that they're still slower. If I were in the market for a C7 corvette, I wouldn't even consider the auto just because the 7-speed manual is much better suited to that drivetrain. My first three cars were manuals and once dual-clutch transmissions came about (and even some of the new high-ratio-count torque converter auto's), I stopped even considering manuals. There's a reason they aren't even sold in North America that has nothing to do with people being too lazy to shift.

From a mechanical or technological standpoint, having two separate gearboxes in one transmission simply can't be beat. There is no way a transmission that requires complete disconnection of the engine from the wheels to shift will be faster than one that has (essentially) no break in torque, especially when this constant torque is needed to maintain boost. If the gearbox is heavy, has a low ratio-count, or has a torque converter, then yeah it's gonna suck, but basically none of that applies to dual-clutch. That's why professional racing of almost every type hasn't had manuals for decades. They would get eaten alive because everyone has dual-clutch now.

Ultimately, cars of the future simply don't have transmissions (other than a fixed final drive gearset), because they're going to be electric which is, again, superior in every way to a gas engine from a technological standpoint.


----------



## phazer (Apr 2, 2018)

No offence taken  You might find me hooning around at high revs, but I won't be in 2nd gear 

It is true that I hate that the gearbox doesn't get what I want it to do, I don't want to have to think that far ahead, I don't with a manual clearly. I also don't think having to spend a month learning or changing everything about the way I drive means that the dual clutch boxes are the future or better. They're different that's for sure.

I'm under no illusion about my ability to change quicker than a machine but I'll take 0.5 second slower for the engagement factor or more correctly overcoming the lack of engagement factor I feel with the current VAG auto boxes.

ETTO though.


----------



## powerplay (Feb 8, 2008)

Have had dsg/s-tronic transmissions in my last few cars and they continue to have just very slightly more pros than cons for me to choose them (or not, in the case of the mk3 s-tronic only).

I am under no illusion I expect the gearbox to do everything for me, quite the reverse in fact, I usually have mine 95% of the time in manual.

In fact nearly all my frustrations with the s-tronic is its nannying and the software decisions/restrictions that prevent me from using the gears how I wish. The irony for me is that one of their selling points is the ease of driving in stop-start traffic, which is where I hate mine the most!!

In the mk2 RS if you drove it in manual mode it would force you in to first gear below 10mph - hated that. You had to remember to flip back into D to stay in 2nd which it would do to virtually a standstill.

In the mk3 RS if you want to stay in 2nd down to walking pace you have to *stay in manual* mode, otherwise it will select first gear in D when there's really no need and I would never do it if I were in proper control.

However in the mk2 RS If you pull away in manual mode you can change to 2nd gear almost immediately; in the mk3 RS if you pull away in manual mode it *refuses* to let you select 2nd gear until you exceed 7mph FFS, yet slowing down to 2mph is allowed.

In the mk2 RS changing up through the gears in manual was snappy and quick regardless of how I was driving. In the mk3 rs it's only snappy and quick with a minimum level of throttle - too little throttle and upchanges are delayed, slow and slurry.

So somewhere someone has deemed it to work that way and it sucks. every day I curse the damn thing or have to workaround its unnecessary restrictions.

If I had the options of a proper manual I would take it. Not because a dual clutch is not as good - it could and should be very good, they just don't make it as good as it could be.

I haven't driven a ZF or PDK equipped car so maybe they're better. Couldn't be worse.

As far as mine goes, it's the car's achilles heel.


----------



## macaddict111 (Jun 13, 2018)

phazer said:


> It is true that I hate that the gearbox doesn't get what I want it to do, I don't want to have to think that far ahead, I don't with a manual clearly. I also don't think having to spend a month learning or changing everything about the way I drive means that the dual clutch boxes are the future or better. They're different that's for sure.


I guess I'd say, you probably are thinking quite a bit ahead with a manual, it just doesn't seem like it because it's something we're so skilled at that it doesn't require any intentional thought. It's like catching a ball, it's just muscle memory at that point (as it should be). You're probably subconsciously thinking about ratios and moving your foot towards the clutch a lot more than you think, you just notice it when the transmission doesn't have that subconscious forethought.

Also, any car takes learning, can't expect any machine to read your mind. I also get that you spent lots of dollars/pounds/yen and it shouldn't be a job haha, so power to you if that really bothers you. None of this will matter anyway for electrified cars... haha

My DSG gripe and example of having to learn it is how quickly it wants downshift with even slightly moderate throttle. Aka, if I'm at 1500 RPM in 5th cruising and want to increase my speed 10 MPH, I really want to go wide open throttle and use the torque of the engine to get me there, not downshift and rev like I'm going to try to go 100 MPH. The DSG _loves_ to downshift in that situation, and will try to jump down a gear with anything over maybe 20% throttle, when I really want it to stay there and build boost and torque away. Simple solution is to tip-in to a little less than 20%, wait like 1/2 second until boost shows on the gauge, then it'll let you go way up to like 2/3 throttle without downshifting. Sounds complicated, but once I figured that out, it's 2nd nature. Not wrong, just different. What Audi is really trying to do with that programming is avoid turbo-lag for people not used to T/C'ed cars. But I am, expect it, and it doesn't bother me.



powerplay said:


> In fact nearly all my frustrations with the s-tronic is its nannying and the software decisions/restrictions that prevent me from using the gears how I wish.


This is precisely why I rarely use manual, especially due to the uncertainty of downshifting. Is it going to, or should I? I just don't bother most of the time and leave it in D.


----------

