M3(DCT) us M3(MT), 1/4 Mile or 60-130

[acj]

Are there any comparisons(published magazines, videos, local drag race)of completely stock M3(DCT) us M3(MT) around? If either of the two cars were modified please state the modification. Non-hp modifications such as 20' rims or weight reduction should be disclosed as they do affect the car's performance. Please post links or results to the outcomes.

[yoko]

DCT 0-100kmh 4.6 sec
MT 0-100kmh 4.8 sec

[icemang17]

The DCT weighs about 45lbs more than the 6MT....but it does have an extra gear to spend a bit more time in the powerband....that with the faster shifts it does tend to out accelerate the 6MT.....

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by icemang17

The DCT weighs about 45lbs more than the 6MT....but it does have an extra gear to spend a bit more time in the powerband....that with the faster shifts it does tend to out accelerate the 6MT.....

It also gets better fuel economy. Gas is wasted when you back off the throttle and reengage the throttle while shifting. DCT allows seamless throttle during shifts, which will make a noticable difference in the course of a tank of gas.

[MMMorish]

And the DCT takes all the fun of driving this car away too!

p.s. not trying to start a thread war.. just joking around!

[ase2dais]

well since you let the cat out of the bag, I do agree that DCT is much faster
but cant really agree that it isnt as much fun though.

[swamp2]

There is not enough information in this regard.

The best "database" of M3 performance results is right here in the forum. Have a look here.

The 60-130 figure will run about 0.6 seconds in favor or the DCT which is about 7-8 car lengths. I came up with this number using CarTest physics based simulation software. It has been validated in various threads here on the forum. It does even better in relative predictions like this one but generally does quite well in absolute predicitons as well.

[mPlasticDesign]

DCT will beat MT 0-recall/service dept. Everytime.

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by swamp2

There is not enough information in this regard.

The best "database" of M3 performance results is right here in the forum. Have a look here.

The 60-130 figure will run about 0.6 seconds in favor or the DCT which is about 7-8 car lengths. I came up with this number using CarTest physics based simulation software. It has been validated in various threads here on the forum. It does even better in relative predictions like this one but generally does quite well in absolute predicitons as well.

i call BS!!!!!!!!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by sayemthree

i call BS!!!!!!!!

Excellent debate skills. State your "opposition", use lots of exclamation points, provide no counter evidence, nor any reasoning against stated points. Welcome to kindergarten...

I am not a betting man by nature but on this particular time difference would you place money on it being less than 0.4 seconds? I'd place a friendly wager on it being > 0.4 seconds in a heartbeat.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

DCT will beat MT 0-recall/service dept. Everytime.

This thread is not about reliability and your comment only provokes the raging battles that surface here all too often on the MT vs. DCT topic.

But to your comment directly - hardly "everytime" [sic]. You do realize that most M3 M-DCT owners have not had any software updates and have experienced no problems significant enough to take their car in for service, right? That being said the units have shown a few glitches including even servicing mistakes by BMW dealers. The very strongly positive thing is that mechanically the units appear to be very solid, the rest is just minor software tweaking. For me this is not nearly a big enough draw back given the plethora of advantages of the system.

Too each their own.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

There is not enough information in this regard.

The best "database" of M3 performance results is right here in the forum. Have a look here.

The 60-130 figure will run about 0.6 seconds in favor or the DCT which is about 7-8 car lengths. I came up with this number using CarTest physics based simulation software. It has been validated in various threads here on the forum. It does even better in relative predictions like this one but generally does quite well in absolute predicitons as well.

I know that your times are about right, it's what we found when testing DSG. But the 7~8 car lengths sounds to be off a little bit, I think this needs pegged back a little to around 3~4 car lengths.

This one also includes the launch which helps.
[u2b]tOGsQmh_tIA&NR=1[/u2b]
This one show the improvement better because the launches of both cars are about the same and the only improvement being made it the shifts themselves.

[M3-loverboy]

[footie]

Originally Posted by M3-loverboy

No need for popcorn. For my part I won't be arguing for the sake of it, no doubt swamp has done the sim and the times are in accordence with the customery 0.2s per shift improvement (i.e. 3 shifts = 0.6s). I am just finding it hard to imagine that solely with the improvement in shift time that the DCT car can pull out a 6~8 length advantage.

As I said the best I ever saw was only 3~4 car lengths when using DSG, maybe the shorter gearing from the extra gear is the trick.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

There is not enough information in this regard.

The best "database" of M3 performance results is right here in the forum. Have a look here.

The 60-130 figure will run about 0.6 seconds in favor or the DCT which is about 7-8 car lengths. I came up with this number using CarTest physics based simulation software. It has been validated in various threads here on the forum. It does even better in relative predictions like this one but generally does quite well in absolute predicitons as well.

Swamp, I call BS as well - I think.

Unless you have a way (via CarTest) to determine the relative positions of the two vehicles after a 60 - 130 run, then there is simply no way to equate time to speed with time to distance. Repeat, there is simply no way to do that.

This was the point of difference in regard to our first dustup in these forums way back when, and it seems you may in fact still not get it.

So, is there a function in the software that can reliably do this sort of prediction? If so, then pardon me for bringing up this point again.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Swamp, I call BS as well - I think.

Unless you have a way (via CarTest) to determine the relative positions of the two vehicles after a 60 - 130 run, then there is simply no way to equate time to speed with time to distance. Repeat, there is simply no way to do that.

This was the point of difference in regard to our first dustup in these forums way back when, and it seems you may in fact still not get it.

So, is there a function in the software that can reliably do this sort of prediction? If so, then pardon me for bringing up this point again.

Bruce

Thought you might know better by now. It seems you are the one who doesn't get it. CarTest will plot distance vs. speed and I have shown such plots in the past. Here are two ways to calculate this, one much less accuarate and one much more accurate.

1. d=rate x time. 130 mph x 0.6 seconds, which equals 7-8 car lengths. I know this is not exact; the relative point in the curve vs. shift points makes a large difference as well cars with drastically different shaped power curves can make this approximation worse, but in this case it is a pretty good approximation.
2. Graph from CarTest. Offset the curves to compensate for the fact that they represent a 0-X run. Distance required for DCT = ~1741 ft, MT =~1837 ft. This equates to 6-7 car lengths.

Anyone want to place a friendly wager on <5 car lengths or <0.4 seconds difference?

P.S. Reading from the graphs involves some inaccuracy but when actually using the software there is a cursor with a real time readout of the actual x and y values in proper units. This makes the error way less than what you would see trying to use paper or a ruler on the graph.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Thought you might know better by now. It seems you are the one who doesn't get it. CarTest will plot distance vs. speed and I have shown such plots in the past. Here are two ways to calculate this, one much less accuarate and one much more accurate.

1. d=rate x time. 130 mph x 0.6 seconds, which equals 7-8 car lengths. I know this is not exact; the relative point in the curve vs. shift points makes a large difference as well cars with drastically different shaped power curves can make this approximation worse, but in this case it is a pretty good approximation.
2. Graph from CarTest. Offset the curves to compensate for the fact that they represent a 0-X run. Distance required for DCT = ~1741 ft, MT =~1837 ft. This equates to 6-7 car lengths.

Anyone want to place a friendly wager on <5 car lengths or <0.4 seconds difference?

P.S. Reading from the graphs involves some inaccuracy but when actually using the software there is a cursor with a real time readout of the actual x and y values in proper units. This makes the error way less than what you would see trying to use paper or a ruler on the graph.

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."

[footie]

At distance marker 1,800ft the manual M3 will be at a speed of approx 126mph, while the M-DCT car will be at approx 130mph, that is a difference of 4mph.

Now maybe Bruce can explain this better than I ever could but I feel you have got the wrong end of the stick with this one swamp. I don't think your speed/distance or time/distance is the same as drawing a line in the graph and saying it's ahead by 100ft. I know the DSG car is roughly has the same improvement over the manual Golf but it doesn't equate to this among of distance between the two cars.

No flaming here, I either can't get my head around the figures or you are wrong.

[FStop7]

Now you went and did it, Ruff. You're going to have 20 pages of graphs and treatises written in the haughtiest, most condescending tone possible thrown at you.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by FStop7

Now you went and did it, Ruff. You're going to have 20 pages of graphs and treatises written in the haughtiest, most condescending tone possible thrown at you.

Isn't that my job here? I am thankful to have a job.

[footie]

Originally Posted by ruff

Isn't that my job here? I am thankful to have a job.

It would be nice to have someone else on the receiving end of swamp's wrath.

I happily hand over the position and all the disadvantages that go with it.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by footie

It would be nice to have someone else on the receiving end of swamp's wrath.

I happily hand over the position and all the disadvantages that go with it.

Swamp and I go back a ways. I respect him and he respects me. We get along great and love heated banter and tough debates. An increased knowledge base and the enthusiastic passion we share for sports cars is the end result.