Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff
Good to talk to you Swamp.
Not to say the C&D testing of DCT vs 6MT is scientifically valid but it is a real world test in less than perfect conditions, which is where real cars operate in the real world. You remember these results:
"But Is It Quicker?
After scouring the test results for some useful conclusion, the answer is “not really.” The M DCT car hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds, cleared the quarter-mile in 12.7 at 113 mph, and achieved 150 mph in 26 seconds flat. Compare that to the six-speed manual’s numbers of 4.3, 12.8 at 113, and 24.3, respectively. If you zoom in even closer and look at each 10-mph increment, the two cars trade off which is quicker until 120 mph, when the manual starts pulling away."
|
Good point but the devil is in the details as they say.
1. 0-60 is a traction and uncertainty game not a good test of raw acceleration. I think most folks will consistently put down a better 0-60 with LC and the M-DCT as opposed to the 6MT.
2. Apples vs. apples. There is a belief that "testing" is always superior to simulation. The problem with this is that obtaining true apples to apples testing is very difficult. In this particular instance one effect surely present is break in. The 6MT was sure much more broken in in June compared to the M-DCT. We have seen the differences in the E46 (and just about any other car) that a good break in can make.
3. Single point of evidence. One test showing marginal difference surely does not make the case that "on average" the same findings will apply.
4. Time to speed is not the same as distance between speeds as Bruce always points out. Simulations of the MT vs. M-DCT show this. There are generally larger time gaps for contests from speed x to speed y than for times from 0-z mph.
More real world apples to apples testing is needed to see if these predicted advantages are realized in the real world.