How do you get a 2.0 TDI DSG off the line quickly
- Thread starter stevehsv868
- Start date
Floor the throttle in any mode.
Seriously,that's all you can do.
I've tried acceleration tests in all modes.
There's no mode better for launching from a standing start than any other.
Once rolling,the best acceleration figures I got were in S mode,just letting the car rev out and change up itself.
People say revving out the diesel hurts acceleration,but my own findings suggest otherwise.
Mind you,acceleration is a relative term.
The car accelerates up to 60mph quickly enough,but it totally dies a death after that.
I couldn't better 26 seconds to 100mph,which is glacier-like.
Seriously,that's all you can do.
I've tried acceleration tests in all modes.
There's no mode better for launching from a standing start than any other.
Once rolling,the best acceleration figures I got were in S mode,just letting the car rev out and change up itself.
People say revving out the diesel hurts acceleration,but my own findings suggest otherwise.
Mind you,acceleration is a relative term.
The car accelerates up to 60mph quickly enough,but it totally dies a death after that.
I couldn't better 26 seconds to 100mph,which is glacier-like.
alanjonesbath
VAGOwners.co.uk
Use the 'launch control' feature. Put in 'S', turn the traction control or whatever its called off, left foot on the brake, and right foot all the way down on the accelerator. The revs will go to about 2000rpm I think. Then, when your ready to go, just release the brake. You get a slight pause as always, but not too much, and then you fly off. Definately the fastest way of getting off the line, but not something I'd use in normal driving I don't think.
alanjonesbath
VAGOwners.co.uk
I guess its one of the 'newer model' features. It even mentions it in the manual. Like I say, I'm not sure how useful it is, I've never been bothered to try it 'on the road', but useful if I ever decide to do a RWYB day at Santa Pod.bowfer said:
It mentions it in the manual - yes.
But if you read the small print/disclaimer, it states that it only works on 6-cyl vehicles.
Only the 3.2 petrol is a 6'er, not the 2.0 TDI...
I tried the procedure a number of times before I read the manual properly...
But if you read the small print/disclaimer, it states that it only works on 6-cyl vehicles.
Only the 3.2 petrol is a 6'er, not the 2.0 TDI...
I tried the procedure a number of times before I read the manual properly...
170 TDI's have launch control - its jst the older 140's that don't - and i dont think you can get DSG on the 140 anymore??? correct me if im wrong??
nope im wrong! you can get DSG on the 140 TDI but not sure if it has launch control or not but it definately does on the 170.
I was wondering the other day what mode or procedure Audi will have used to assess their acceleration times for these cars - Launch control, D, S, manual?? dunno
I was wondering the other day what mode or procedure Audi will have used to assess their acceleration times for these cars - Launch control, D, S, manual?? dunno
Datastorm
Registered User
The TDI170 certainly has it, but I find I get too much wheel spin doing it.
It's a shame you have to turn off the traction control really, would b soooooo much better if you could keep this on and pull away nicer.
My mates 3.2 Quattro on the other hand hardly wheel spins at all with launch control.... guess that's the 4WD for ya !
If only you could keep the traction control switched on............
It's a shame you have to turn off the traction control really, would b soooooo much better if you could keep this on and pull away nicer.
My mates 3.2 Quattro on the other hand hardly wheel spins at all with launch control.... guess that's the 4WD for ya !
If only you could keep the traction control switched on............
alanjonesbath said:but useful if I ever decide to do a RWYB day at Santa Pod.
I feel sorry for the bloke behind you in the queue.
He'll have a looooong wait for you to get out of the way...
;-)
alanjonesbath
VAGOwners.co.uk
Why on earth do you feel the need to say things like that? Does it really serve a purpose other than to insult and anger others?bowfer said:
If you don't like your automatic, sell the ****** thing.
alanjonesbath said:Why on earth do you feel the need to say things like that? Does it really serve a purpose other than to insult and anger others?
If you don't like your automatic, sell the ****** thing.
I wouldn't take it so harshly. He wasn't saying it to be mean.
Were you Bowf?
Alan,
I think the point Bowfer's making is that a 2.0Tdi isn't going to be the quickest car up the strip... I doubt very much he was making a personal insult against you.
And for the record I am sure Bowfer would have sold his motor a long time ago given the choice but it's a company car!
And before anyone tells me they have taken their 2.0Tdi up the strip I don't care. So have i and it didn't exactly set the world alight!
J.
I think the point Bowfer's making is that a 2.0Tdi isn't going to be the quickest car up the strip... I doubt very much he was making a personal insult against you.
And for the record I am sure Bowfer would have sold his motor a long time ago given the choice but it's a company car!
And before anyone tells me they have taken their 2.0Tdi up the strip I don't care. So have i and it didn't exactly set the world alight!
J.
Nothing personal meant,it's just that it's a very slow car.
Taking it to a drag strip would,IMO,be a tad embarrassing.
Remember,I've timed my car myself.
26 seconds to 100mph..
Count out 26 seconds..
Long time innit ?
Now imagine doing that in front of people with much faster cars.
Nuff said.
I wish one of the 170 owners on here would do a 0-100 test sometime.
I'm dying to know how much of a difference there is,even roughly.
Taking it to a drag strip would,IMO,be a tad embarrassing.
Remember,I've timed my car myself.
26 seconds to 100mph..
Count out 26 seconds..
Long time innit ?
Now imagine doing that in front of people with much faster cars.
Nuff said.
I wish one of the 170 owners on here would do a 0-100 test sometime.
I'm dying to know how much of a difference there is,even roughly.
alanjonesbath
VAGOwners.co.uk
Go on then, what do you consider to be a 'fast car' then, if a car that can do 130mph and 0-60 in 9 seconds is slow? We can't all afford Ferraris; we accept what we have is what we have. Whats wrong with doing a RWYB day? The whole point is to see what your car is capable of surely? If I wanted to 'compete' in sprints, I wouldn't have bought a diesel automatic would I? At the RWYB days, they group similar cars together, and there are pleanty of cars there that go up the strip with PD130/PD150 TDIs in them, I've seen a few 1.4's etc. go up on these days as well. If you want to take these things seriously then fair enough, most of us just want to have a bit of fun.bowfer said:
How it can be described as 'a very slow car' is beyond me. My Land Rover is a 'very slow car'. My friends 1.0l Arosa a 'slow car'. At what point does a car stop being a 'very slow car' in your book then?
You're missing the point.
26 seconds to 100 mph is slow even for a car of it's type.
The BMW320D does it a whole 5 seconds faster,for example.
I don't know what sort of difference that is in distance terms,but 5 seconds at 100mph must mean the BMW would be a speck in the distance !
Ok,the BMW320 has 163bhp over the 140bhp of the A3,but it's also 125kgs heavier (1505kgs v 1380kgs)
So the 140bhp A3 (sportback) actually has a better power-to-weight ratio than the 320D.
So why is it 5 seconds slower to 100mph ?
Aerodynamics don't come into it as such comparitively low speeds,so it comes down to one simple thing.
Audi have cocked up the gearing of the 140bhp DSG.
Even a quick drive tells you they've geared it to chase a good 0-60 time.
1st,2nd and 3rd are short and closely spaced,with 3rd running out at more or less bang on 60mph.
Unfortunately,the revs then take a comparitive nosedive when it changes to 4th,which it really struggles to pick itself up from.
That's what harms the 0-100mph time,the change from 3rd to 4th.
BMW have evidently geared there's much more sensibly.
You can argue "who does 0-100mph anyway"
Well,who does 0-60 then stops at 60 ???
I do 0-100 all the time,but I'm lucky that I live near quiet,fast roads.
I've nothing against you going to a RWYB.
I'm just a bit confused as to why you would want to.
These tracks are for people who want to see what their car can accelerate to without breaking the law.
No offence,but you'd be lucky if a 140 DSG breaks 70mph over 1/4 mile,so you could do the test yourself on any quiet road.
I've been to bike RWYB meeting where people take slow bikes.
People take it in the right spirit,but it's funny at the same time,seeing something crawling up the strip...
26 seconds to 100 mph is slow even for a car of it's type.
The BMW320D does it a whole 5 seconds faster,for example.
I don't know what sort of difference that is in distance terms,but 5 seconds at 100mph must mean the BMW would be a speck in the distance !
Ok,the BMW320 has 163bhp over the 140bhp of the A3,but it's also 125kgs heavier (1505kgs v 1380kgs)
So the 140bhp A3 (sportback) actually has a better power-to-weight ratio than the 320D.
So why is it 5 seconds slower to 100mph ?
Aerodynamics don't come into it as such comparitively low speeds,so it comes down to one simple thing.
Audi have cocked up the gearing of the 140bhp DSG.
Even a quick drive tells you they've geared it to chase a good 0-60 time.
1st,2nd and 3rd are short and closely spaced,with 3rd running out at more or less bang on 60mph.
Unfortunately,the revs then take a comparitive nosedive when it changes to 4th,which it really struggles to pick itself up from.
That's what harms the 0-100mph time,the change from 3rd to 4th.
BMW have evidently geared there's much more sensibly.
You can argue "who does 0-100mph anyway"
Well,who does 0-60 then stops at 60 ???
I do 0-100 all the time,but I'm lucky that I live near quiet,fast roads.
I've nothing against you going to a RWYB.
I'm just a bit confused as to why you would want to.
These tracks are for people who want to see what their car can accelerate to without breaking the law.
No offence,but you'd be lucky if a 140 DSG breaks 70mph over 1/4 mile,so you could do the test yourself on any quiet road.
I've been to bike RWYB meeting where people take slow bikes.
People take it in the right spirit,but it's funny at the same time,seeing something crawling up the strip...
alanjonesbath
VAGOwners.co.uk
Anyway, back on topic...
Where is the small print? I've just checked mine, page 155 of the manual (dated 11/2006), it says it 'Applies to S-tronic gearbox'. Can't see any mention of it applying only to the 6-cyl engines. What happens when you follow the procedure mentioned? I'm just wondering now because when I followed it, it certainly 'appeared' to 'launch', so I'm just wondering what happens on yours? Mine just accelerates and goes, no drop in revs or anything like that.SamDude said:
The manual for my current A3 2.0TDI-170 Sportback mention the Launch Control and says the same "Applies to vehicles with S tronic gearbox" The manual cover both 140 and 170 engines, so as no mention is made of it applying to a particular engined model I assume it applies to both.
The manual for my previous A3 2.0TDI-140 3-door said it only applied to the 6-cylinder engines.
I think for the 2.0TDI-140 it may have been included some time after I bought mine in July 2004.
The manual for my previous A3 2.0TDI-140 3-door said it only applied to the 6-cylinder engines.
I think for the 2.0TDI-140 it may have been included some time after I bought mine in July 2004.
alanjonesbath said:
See my post above
When I was trying it, it was 'bogging' down (technical term) when I had the brake and accelerator pedels down.
When I lifted the brake, it took a moment to compose itself and then went off. The momentary delay was definately not 'launch' material and the acceleration is the same as flooring it with ESP off anyway...
SamDude said:
That's what happens if I try and involve left-foot braking in mine too (05 sportback).
I used to do it to avoid rolling back on hills,but it's the same principal.
The car gets confused,takes a moment to sort itself out and then accelerates normally.
No raised revs,nothing.
Just bogging down and normal acceleration.
That's not launch control by any stretch of the imagination.
So the big question is can you retro-fit launch control ?
It depends on what the change is I guess, DSG ECU or Engine ECU or a combination of both.
It depends on what the change is I guess, DSG ECU or Engine ECU or a combination of both.
Bowfer - i did a test last night - 60-100 took approx 12 secs (and the 0-60 is supposedly 7.8) so add the two together and a 170 is roughly 20secs to 100.
Not dead accurate but gives you an idea. And i'm pretty sure 3rd gear goes wayyyy past 60 in my car... i must check!
Not dead accurate but gives you an idea. And i'm pretty sure 3rd gear goes wayyyy past 60 in my car... i must check!
steve184 said:
Cheers.
Pretty much what I expected.
Not much difference to 60,but the greater power making it's presence felt after that.
20 seconds to 100 is much better than the 140.
Right up there with the 20-21 seconds posted for the 320D.
I'd be interested to see if they've changed the gearing in the 170.
It's almost guaranteed really.
It would also make sense that they've lengthened 3rd gear so that it goes further than it does on the 140.
The greater power would mean it can pull it,but it would also explain why the 170 isn't that much faster to 60.
If it had the same gearing as the 140,it would be much faster to 60.
Audi definitely,without a shadow of a doubt,geared the 140DSG with a respectable 0-60 in mind,and the hell with it after that.
My guess (it's not rocket science) is they did this specifically to beat the manual's 0-60 time.
DSG wouldn't have been quite so marketable if it's 0-60 was worse than the manual,after all.
We're only talking fractions,but fractions count in marketing.
We all look at the first figure first !
i was wrong actually my car hits 60 in 3rd but only just - this is the exact point the gearbox changes up itself to 4th as it is on the limiter
steve184 said:
Same 3rd gear gearing as the 140 then.
They've maybe changed the 4th gear ratio to improve pick up after the change from 3rd to 4th or (just as likely) the extra 30bhp makes all the difference.
i tried the launch control properly yesterday and i must say i was quite impressed - first time i tried it and i got the perfect getaway (not just for a DSG, but for any car including a proper manual!) got a slight chirp from the tyres confirming they were at the limit but not beyond it, i was pretty much doin 30 before the rest of the cars had left the traffic lights!
I have just looked at the details in the Audi workshop manual for the DSG fitted to my 2004 2.0TDI-140 3-door (code HLE) and the DSG fitted to my current 2007 2.0TDI-170 Sportback (code JPQ) and all the ratios including the two separate final drive ratios (for 1st to 4th gear and for 5th/6th and reverse gears) and they are all exactly the same.
Bowfer - Regarding the 0-60 time and gearing it up to complete 60 in 3rd to make it seem quicker - I am not sure this is the case as DSG cars are supposedly taking 0.whatver to change gear, without loss of power, so therefore it should not make that much of a difference....
huh? 7.8 compared to 9.5? Seems like a fairly large difference to me....Bowfer said:
I think they were refering to 0-60 time on the 140 diesel not specifically the difference between the 140 and 170. Looks like the thread has become a little confused over what is being compared.
140 Manual time is 9.5s
140 DSG time is 9.2s
DSG is quicker because the gear change is quicker not because of better gearing in the dsg box to aid a quicker 0-60 time.
170 gearing the same too - jus the extra bhp making the difference.
same good increases in 0-60 and 60-100 times when 140 has been re-mapped to about 175-185bhp. So im guessing its just the extra power.
140 Manual time is 9.5s
140 DSG time is 9.2s
DSG is quicker because the gear change is quicker not because of better gearing in the dsg box to aid a quicker 0-60 time.
170 gearing the same too - jus the extra bhp making the difference.
same good increases in 0-60 and 60-100 times when 140 has been re-mapped to about 175-185bhp. So im guessing its just the extra power.
DIABLO636 said:
I'm sure,if you check,DSG cars have lower 1st,2nd and 3rd gearing than the manual.
That,to me,proves they did it deliberately to get the 0-60mph time down.
They obviously knew,if they kept the gearing the same,the 0-60mph time would be slower than the manual.
Which would hurt sales.
marriedblonde said:
They must have,coz it used to be something like a claimed 8.7 for my car.
Certainly not as high as 9.5,that's for sure.
Moving the goalposts to make the 140 look bad and the 170 look better ???
Hmmm...
I have just looked back at some of the old A3 brochures and compared the figures with the current 2007 Model Year brochure.
Original April 2003 - A3 2.0TDI-140 Manual (before DSG) - 0-62mph = 9.5secs
January 2005 Sportback - A3 2.0TDI-140 DSG - 0-62mph = 9.2secs
September 2005 Sportback - A3 2.0TDI-140 DSG - 0-62mph = 9.2secs
April 2005 - A3 2.0TDI-140 DSG - 0-62mph = 9.2secs
October 2006 Sportback - A3 2.0TDI-140 DSG - 0-62mph = 9.2sec
October 2006 Sportback - A3 2.0TDI-170 DSG - 0-62mph = 7.9secs
current 2007 Sportback - A3 2.0TDI-140 DSG - 0-62mph = 9.2secs
current 2007 Sportback - A3 2.0TDI-170 DSG - 0-62mph = 7.9secs
