Road Race: 2.0FSI v 2.0TDI

[Japper]

[ QUOTE ]
and that they don't feel sporty. The latter reason is why Ferrari/BMW don't use a dual-clutch, and instead have their own SMGs and such. They feel sporties when you can feel the change /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That'll be why Porsche are developing their own DSG box then /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif because, hey, well porsche's aren't sporty are they /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[imported_CurryMilkShake]

Yak - totally agree with the initially perceived 'loss of sensation', as with a constant surge you dont get the repeated surges with each gear change.. though your perception changes with use, definately.

however, correct me if I'm wrong - there is less transmission 'loss' than you might think - normal autos lose a lot through the torque converter (does this include DSG? not sure) as this wastes energy.

The Multitronic doesnt have a torque converter, it has conventional clutches, which are electronically controlled, so once engaged doesnt lose any more energy there than a manual. one of the big issues in development apparently was the lack of any 'creep' like you get from a normal auto. The 'creep' that you get from a multitronic is actually software controlled clutch slippage, to 'simulate' the same effect!

the only other area of loss (compared to a manual) would be the chain, but since this is never allowed to be slack, and is held at the best ratio, theres not going to be significant loss there.

Torque limits - yes, agreed - I believe the spec for it is 350lb/ft or so, which is pretty respectable, (same as the dsg limit I thnk?)

I think Audi have got work to do with both variants of the autos, Multi & DSG, but the concepts of keeping the power on during gear changes is good - I think the concept of keeping the engine at max efficiency/power, and then varying the ratio at which that power is applied, while a different way of thinking to what we are used to, is a more pleasing solution from an engineering perspective.

and I've diverted the thread, whoops - apologies!

 

[Japper]

[ QUOTE ]
however, correct me if I'm wrong - there is less transmission 'loss' than you might think - normal autos lose a lot through the torque converter (does this include DSG? not sure) as this wastes energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is no torque converter on DSG. It has 2 conventional clutches so is a manual box with electronically controlled clutches, one for odd and one for even gears.

 

[Mark_N]

[ QUOTE ]
www.audi.co.uk.......
2.0FSI, 0-100kmh 9.1 secs,top speed 131mph.
2.0TDI, 0-100kmh 9.5 secs,top speed 129 mph, and thats from "the horses mouth"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeh and VW had the 1.8T 150bhp engine quicker on paper than the PD150 Golf but everyone knows the TDI left the 1.8T Golf for dead...happened to me many a time in my GTI where I was wasted by a PD150.

One of the reasons why I went for a diesel.

 

[Mark_N]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never managed to get 28mpgs from my car, not even in the middle of winter and when I've been driving just short periods in the city. I wonder how they got that reading?



[/ QUOTE ]

You've never seen 28 or less than???

 

[Japper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never managed to get 28mpgs from my car, not even in the middle of winter and when I've been driving just short periods in the city. I wonder how they got that reading?



[/ QUOTE ]

You've never seen 28 or less than???

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, I wish I had bought the FSI now as it's far more econommical than the TDI /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Oh and Audi as well as every other manufacturer does not do their mpg figures in a bench. They have to, by law do a very strict test route following set procedures.

 

[OutLore]

[ QUOTE ]
Damn, I wish I had bought the FSI now as it's far more econommical than the TDI /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! me too! Mine regularly drops to 11 or so if I am gunning it! have seen 5mpg too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif but only for a second, and normally between on and off throttle....

Maybe we should have a "Who can get the lowest average" thread instead of the usual "how many can you get to a tankful" ..... I think the 3.2 guys might be up for it anyway /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[JaminBen]

ah, no?

 

[slimbloke]

60-0 litres in 100 miles, he-he.

My MPG calculations often go to zero, or even --- when the computer gives up!

 

[yak]

[ QUOTE ]

You've never seen 28 or less than???

[/ QUOTE ]

Averaging a 28 mpg per tank, no I haven't. That would be 10,8l/100km and that's pretty high.

 

[chipper]

'Do you really think manufacturers set their gear ratios to deliver the best 0-60 time'

they do - a few examples

0-60 is led alot by no of gear changes (non dsg owners take note!) and rev limit
2 changes = fast 0-60 - 3 not so good - obviously engine has to be powerfull enough to pull a gear!

citroen saxo vts - massively long second gear to get the 0-60 time down - hence a big hole in 3rd to make up for it! (very annoying except from the lights!)

porsche boxter - regeared the car to make its 0-60 worse - reason - so that 911 owners could laugh at them and wouldnt be tempted to buy a significantly cheaper car which is in the real world as quick! (still a hairdressers car ;-)

my 911 has a short ratio box option - so not as quick as a few 0-60 wise as i have another gear change to fit in - but on a twisty..... mmmmmmm nice

 

[slimbloke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
60-0 litres in 100 miles, he-he.

My MPG calculations often go to zero, or even --- when the computer gives up!

[/ QUOTE ]

--- means you are not using any fuel at all doesn't it? IE off throttle and decelerating - moving foward keeps the engine running, so no fuel is required...

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you mean, but this time... unfortunately, no. the rapid reduction in the MPG figure shown, followed by --- seems to happen (in this case) when I press the fun button too hard /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif