DSG (Top Gear mag latest take)
- Thread starter Amchlolor
- Start date
I really don't know if there is a delay or not, but it's not something that I ever experience. Perhaps like you, having been driving a DSG for the past 4 years my normal driving technique has eliminated it. I certainly think that if any delay is evident it will show up much more in D which I only ever use when I'm in a traffic jam. I accept that some people say they experience some delay, but personally I don't.
No delay for me either...might be different as mine is petrol,I have driven a TDI with DSG and I have to say I agree with Bowfer, in the TDI I hated it...I guess its each to there own???
There is a delay on mine......only really noticed it after i had a petrol auto courtesy car from audi.
No delay on that when pulling away....thought it was just the way the petrol engine responded more quickly then my diesel and nothing to do with the auto or dsg......????
No delay on that when pulling away....thought it was just the way the petrol engine responded more quickly then my diesel and nothing to do with the auto or dsg......????
But Volkswagen are quite happy to offer it in the 250PS Golf R32.
I think Audi's decision is probably more to do with not wishing to spend the money to develop other than a manaul S3. They may be right and most drivers who choose an S3 would probably prefer the manual so it's not worth their while carrying out the development to add a DSG option.
h5djr said:
That was pretty much what I was eluding to...
If it can be done pretty easily (eg. the 3.2) then I think they will always offer the choice, but on the A3/S3 2.0TFSI, they don't see the justification in the expense of sorting it...
There must be about 100 threads on here with the same discussion over and over again about the pro's and con's of this dsg box.
Like dave (h5djr) mentioned earlier at least Audi give their customers the option.
And the DSG is certainly a better option than a standard auto, even if its not everybody's first choice of gearbox.
The more options you have the better you can get a perfect match for what you want and what you prefer........
Like dave (h5djr) mentioned earlier at least Audi give their customers the option.
And the DSG is certainly a better option than a standard auto, even if its not everybody's first choice of gearbox.
The more options you have the better you can get a perfect match for what you want and what you prefer........
Having been an early adopter of S-Tronic (nee DSG) there is no way that I'd ever go back to a tedious manual.
Whether you prefer Drive or Sport, Paddles or Tiptronic, it is a brilliant piece of engineering.
Whether you prefer Drive or Sport, Paddles or Tiptronic, it is a brilliant piece of engineering.
normski said:
And possibly because they can't fit a DSG box into a 2.0 quattro A3? Seems odd to give DSG as an option on the non-quattro 2.0 and the 3.2, but not the 2.0 quattro...
I'll have to admit, after owning a DSG equipped car, i am quite worried about the future and what i'll replace it with! Not sure if i ever want to go back to old fashioned yesterday technology manual gearbox! I'm happy that my car is unique, in that is the only true sequential gearboxed diesel you can by in the UK today (obv with the exception of vw which is identical) - and that has only got to be a good thing for residuals. How many other cars can you say are truly unique? S3? nah everyone and his dog are chucking out 250bhp 2.0 turbos!
DSG is certainly an innovative piece of engineering.
But I personally found it far too clinical in operation which simply took away some of the driving experience, enjoyment and fun. Plus, the software is too nanny like; you should be able to hold onto a gear as long as you like right on the red line.
Lots to go wrong too in 3, 4, 5 years time...
But I personally found it far too clinical in operation which simply took away some of the driving experience, enjoyment and fun. Plus, the software is too nanny like; you should be able to hold onto a gear as long as you like right on the red line.
Lots to go wrong too in 3, 4, 5 years time...
a3norwich said:
I actually think DSG is very crude in it's operation.
The only time it's truly smooth is when you're changing up the gears under load.
If you only drove it like that,it would seem very good.
Other times,I liken it to being driven by someone with poor clutch control.
For example,downchanges in anything other than 'D' are much jerkier than any half-decent driver in a manual would manage.
Driving around town is a massive compromise.
You either put up with the poor throttle response of 'D',or you put up with the jerky traffic responses of other modes.
Try driving around town in 'manual' mode and you need a neck brace.
(common to every DSG I've driven,but I haven't driven H5DJR's... ;-0 )
Macduff said:
I looked at them 2.5 years ago.
They're fine,but they're a bit old hat now.
The Lexus would have been a possibility,but have you seen the prices ???
Crikey,£27K for a decent spec,easy !
X-type is a possibility,as is the new Mondeo (which is getting good reviews)
New C class Merc is also a possibility,if the price is right (although I think the MD might shy away from Merc,as they may give the clients a wrong image,as even a £22K Merc is perceived as more expensive).
normski said:
Really ?
We had one X-type (a 2.5 V6 I think) that seemed very well built.
The X-type also gets good reviews for refinement and handling.
Always finished ahead of the A4 in any group tests I read too.
Matt said:
In the right trim and with the right wheels,I like 'em too.
Although I need four doors,actual rear space doesn't matter too much.
It's only ever kids that are in there.
The X-type estate is one of the few estates I'd entertain.
That or a 159 sportwagon.
Neither really 'look' like estates,if you get my drift.
bowfer said:
Haven't they recently brought out newer / re-vamped versions..... might be worth another look. I'll be looking to change my car in the next 6 - months, very tempted by the 159, but would want to wait for the GTA version. Had a 156 GTA a few years ago..... totally impractical but a hoot to drive...... and what an engine sound !! Also think about waiting for the new S4.... but the way Audi are at the minute it'll be a lot of money before you even specify a steering wheel !!
such as, mitsibishi (spelling?) lancer, saabs, vauxhalls, blah blah, ok none exactly the same - the point i made was that nobody else does a diesel (economy) 170 (& decent performance) sequential gearbox car - so not much other choice, whereas an S3 - you could go anywhere from there, vauxhall vxr, lancer, saab, ford and pretty much the same
A4Quattro said:
That sort of thing can be levelled at umpteen cars though.
An A3 is a Golf.
A Saab 9-3 is a Vectra
Etc.etc.
They may share some common parts,but it doesn't mean they're the same.
The Vectra,Saab 9-3 and Alfa 159 all use the same 1.9 GM diesel,but each one does their own thing with it,so you wouldn't believe it's the same engine.
I believe Alfa put a different head and ECU on,for example.
Many LCD TV's share parts,but the different processors they use and the different ways the different manufacturers 'weave their magic' makes one hell of a difference.
Oh god yeah, thats right but its still not a "proper" Jaguar.
My definition of a proper jaguar would be one that shares nothing with another manufacturer, although the new XKR is a DB9 for 50k less, so really none of them are proper jags.
One of the guys at my office has a 2.5 x type and said he much preferred his A4 cabriolet even though it did have a few faults.
My definition of a proper jaguar would be one that shares nothing with another manufacturer, although the new XKR is a DB9 for 50k less, so really none of them are proper jags.
One of the guys at my office has a 2.5 x type and said he much preferred his A4 cabriolet even though it did have a few faults.
A4Quattro said:
Few and far between these days though eh ?
Only BMW and Merc don't share their parts with 'mass' brands,I think ?
With regard to 'lesser' models,that's part of the attraction with the 159,for me.There isn't a 'base' model that can be tarted up to look like a better one.
So if you see a 159,you know it can only possibly be one of a very few engine and spec levels,all of which are pretty decent.
Some say they'd prefer more choice,but I think choice can cause problems.
I've never liked the way Audi offer so much choice that you can make a 1.6 look like a top-of-the-range 3.2,for example.
I just don't agree that you should be able to do that.
It leads to confusion and blurring of the range,IMO.
I've already read some people on here having to tell people it's an S3,because your average Joe just thinks 'A3'.
I think that's a failing on Audis part,I really do.
I''ve seen the R8 in the flesh.
All very impressive,but I'd rather have a low mileage DB9.
Note What car's comment about DSG on the R8...
"The R-Tronic semi-automatic version is expensive,and jerky at low speeds"
Seriously though,will the R8 ever be a success ?
Will buyers take it seriously ?
I'm thinking along the lines of the Vauxhall VX220.
The press loved it,better than the Lotus Elise they said.
When all was said and done,people still associated Vauxhall with family saloons and bought the Lotus instead.
I can't help feeling the same could happen with the R8 ?
Will people spend £75K on an Audi that is being sold alongside 1.6 A3's ?
When they can walk into a Porsche garage instead ??
Audi will probably argue the R8 is being used as a means of getting people into their showrooms,these people then buying 1.6 A3's.
That's all very well,but I bet,deep down,they'll get the hump if it doesn't sell.
Remember BMW's M1 ??
All very impressive,but I'd rather have a low mileage DB9.
Note What car's comment about DSG on the R8...
"The R-Tronic semi-automatic version is expensive,and jerky at low speeds"
Seriously though,will the R8 ever be a success ?
Will buyers take it seriously ?
I'm thinking along the lines of the Vauxhall VX220.
The press loved it,better than the Lotus Elise they said.
When all was said and done,people still associated Vauxhall with family saloons and bought the Lotus instead.
I can't help feeling the same could happen with the R8 ?
Will people spend £75K on an Audi that is being sold alongside 1.6 A3's ?
When they can walk into a Porsche garage instead ??
Audi will probably argue the R8 is being used as a means of getting people into their showrooms,these people then buying 1.6 A3's.
That's all very well,but I bet,deep down,they'll get the hump if it doesn't sell.
Remember BMW's M1 ??
Well Portsmouth Audi have sold their allocation for the next two years.
Mind he didn't say how many they are allocated a year so that could be a total of two
Seeing as they had a preview day for those that have ordered one, I guess it must be a few.
Mind he didn't say how many they are allocated a year so that could be a total of two
Seeing as they had a preview day for those that have ordered one, I guess it must be a few.
steve184 said:
A4Quattro said:
My mistake? I assumed that Steve actually meant 2.0 with 250BHP...very few of the above then? Silly me for taking him literally rather than allowing poetic licence...
steve184 said:
My mistake? I assumed that you actually meant 2.0 with 250BHP...very few of the above then? Silly me for taking you literally rather than allowing you poetic licence...
bowfer said:
Admittedly my experience is three years only with 3.0 sports, and ragging the **** off them...door hinges and seals falling off, electric seats and mirrors failing, suspension collapsing, amazing wicked brake fade, awful headlights (mainbeam) and worse of all random clutch failures owing to a pin in the housing snapping because it couldn't handle the amount of stress going through it...most of our jags had at least 3 new ones, with one of our first going through six.
Of course they were used for "spirited" driving...but not since a batch of Senators (that had sat in a field for a year) in the mid-90's or Rover 827's have I come across a car that fell apart so quick...
Nice to tootle around in though I should think...
bowfer said:
And the scary thing there is that the Vectra is better built. We looked at a 9-3 before we bought the A4. It was trully appalling inside for a "premium" brand car. Had a Vectra hire car shortly after and it was definitely better built.
Still wouldn't use my own money to buy a new Vectra. 50% depreciation in the first year is scary. Could stand the indicator/wiper stalk operation either.
