DCT efficiency?

[ruff]

Others concerned about the mileage to performance ratio of the M3 in relation to the Vettes and particularly the Porsches of the world?

For this reason, I may be tipping the scales towards DCT and for the fact that it is the only option which sets the car apart from the vast majority of sports cars, other than it's inherent screaming red line. The Motor Trend comparo b/w the M3, ISF and C63 had the actual M3 mileage at 19.1 and the higher mileage rated ISF (16/23) ended up with 17.9 actual mileage rating for this test. This bolsters my hopes for the M3 mileage but it still appears more likely to be a misprint or outlier based on most M3 mileage reports. I am hoping a DCT equipped M3 can eek out a 22 highway rating but my guess would be 21. Hopefully, there will be small a reduction in the gas tax to make up for the high cost of DCT. We shall see, but not soon enough.

[mkoesel]

Why ruff, to what do we owe the pleasure?

Seriously, I thought maybe you'd moved on to greener pastures. Where have you been of late?

Regarding your query, I believe I do remember one new owner mentioning 22 highway. But the MT article a misprint? To me its more likely that the M3 actually does reasonable in mixed driving scenarios, while of course sucking gas through a straw when revs go above 5k.

[Keto]

Budget $1300 and take any less as a nice surprise.

[swamp2]

Hey, ruff, what's up, hi.

Do read over the recent threads with all the discussion on this. I think many believe we may get one notch down on GGT to $1000. I don't think there is much hope for no GGT.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Why ruff, to what do we owe the pleasure?

Seriously, I thought maybe you'd moved on to greener pastures. Where have you been of late?

Regarding your query, I believe I do remember one new owner mentioning 22 highway. But the MT article a misprint? To me its more likely that the M3 actually does reasonable in mixed driving scenarios, while of course sucking gas through a straw when revs go above 5k.

Mkoesel, The pleasure is all mine my friend. The pasture out back is finally looking a bit greener. I guess I thought the mileage numbers on all the cars tested may have been overly optimistic, given the cars were flogged on a road coarse. The gas hog of gas hogs the C63 was reportedly getting 17.5 miles per gallon, go figure.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Hey, ruff, what's up, hi.

Do read over the recent threads with all the discussion on this. I think many believe we may get one notch down on GGT to $1000. I don't think there is much hope for no GGT.

Swamp,

you are too kind. Don't worry I am not Pollyanna enough to believe there will be much if any GGT relief with DCT. I have read the other discussions on this. I am in the minority here when it comes to my reasons for considering DCT. My take on DCT is different than most, thus my thread starter. I am thinking about it for efficiency reasons in regards to the M3's competitors more so than for it's performance and cutting edge technology. Upside to DCT is obvious - performance, efficiency and ease of use. Downside IMO is weight, complexity, cost, and reduced driver involvement.

I would take a few miles to the gallon over a few tenths of second in performance. Getting just a couple more miles for every gallon of gasoline over the life expectancy of the car is significant, especially in these times. One of the high water marks for determining great engineering is the performance to efficiency ratio an engineer can extract from the same engine.

I believe that the 997 in all it's configurations is not assessed any gas guzzler tax, including the GT2. The porky 911 Targa 4s with tiptronic gets a very reasonable 17/23. The Porsche numbers are even more remarkable given the fact that the 997's efficiency and performance numbers will only improve once DFI is introduced, possibly as soon as this August.

Swamp, maybe you have seen this article? You should like it, given the high praise the DCT transmission receives. I believe you are right in thinking the GT-R's power is underrated. The car in reported specs simply defies the laws of physics.

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22031

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

...
Swamp, maybe you have seen this article? You should like it, given the high praise the DCT transmission receives. I believe you are right in thinking the GT-R's power is underrated. The car in reported specs simply defies the laws of physics.

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22031

Totally agree about the loft goal of maximizing performance and economy The M3 should have had DI and NO GGT, period, 6MT and M-DCT. Those little P cars have small frontal areas and are very light, this obviously helps mpg.

Thanks for that article. The dual clutch stuff was right up my alley to read. I simply can not believe that the tranny is so good that is makes the Scuderia seem "archaic". I trust most folks remember (one of my favorite videos...) my post about the Scuderia here. If the GT-R transmission makes this seem archaic it is a quantum leap. Many have not given the transmission nearly as high of praise. This along with the reviews of the Mitsubishi tranny have me very confident in the M-DCT.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by ruff

S
Swamp, maybe you have seen this article? You should like it, given the high praise the DCT transmission receives. I believe you are right in thinking the GT-R's power is underrated. The car in reported specs simply defies the laws of physics.

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22031

OT: excuse my meandering off topic but with the above article in mind, I must ask you ruff, if the GT-R was available and with no mark-up, would you have that over our beloved M3? I love the M3, but on paper and every test shows that I'm getting less car for the money than the GT-R. That being said, I will still be ordering the e92 M3 with M-DCT.