Auto without LC v Manual: auto speed a myth in real world?
Discussion
Hi 
I wanted to know your opinions on Auto vs Manual for faster cars as it's been playing on my mind.
TLDR: Auto times nowdays are faster, but quoted 0-60s are with launch control. So essentially my question is: do the quoted 0-60 times with launch control muddy the waters and is manual faster in the real world for non-track drivers?
I am into slightly faster cars now having had bangers all my life. Currently drive a mildly 'fast' (ok not really fast but faster than I'm used to) Audi TT 2.0 DSG with a 0-60 of 6.2s The manual version is quoted at 6.4s. So when I was deciding between the two years ago I thought "ooh look, faster 0-60, faster car, I'll go with the auto!".
I was then disappointed to realise that quoted 0-60 times are WITH LAUNCH CONTROL. Now as I don't do drag races or track days that is of zero use to me. I will never use LC, have no interest in it, so it's useless to me. There's no way in the world I'll be spending ages setting it up to use at the lights etc. Haven't done in years, won't start now. Now I've heard LC can shave 0.5s off 0-60 times (how accurate is this?) so if I'm not using LC suddenly my 6.2s 0-60 'fast' car is in real world usage only 6.7s 0-60.
So now of course in real world non-LC usage I have a slower car than I thought... but then how about the quoted times with manual? Is it the case that with manual to get the quoted 6.4s you also have to do some crazy wheelspinning stuff... and again in daily usage I won't normally do that so again I should add some time to the quoted 0-60s? Having said that I *would* (and would regularly in old manuals) be ready with my foot on the throttle and the bite point of the clutch ready to leap. So my thinking is that whilst this is the case there is probably a lot more of a grey area with a manual car in terms of control i.e.
with auto the options are:
LC - 6.2s
No-LC - 6.7s
no grey area.
with manual the options may be:
Pro-race-driver-perfect start - 6.4
Daily driver, no rush - 6.9
BUT grey area i.e. Boy racer trying to beat someone at lights, clutch at biting point, revs at 1500 or so... may get 6.5s...?
So I'm guessing actually if never using launch control, despite faster quoted (ie. with LC) times on the auto in real world you may actually get faster times on the manual as you can either be as good as a race driver, or somewhere on the path there...
Another thing to throw into the mix though is that dual clutch autos are faster obviously not *just* because of launch control but faster gear changes at the 'right' time and also sometimes better gear ratios. So even without LC and perhaps a slower 0-60 time perhaps once rolling auto is always goign to be faster?
Any thoughts from people would be appreciated so it's not just my useless brain debating with itself!
I wanted to know your opinions on Auto vs Manual for faster cars as it's been playing on my mind.
TLDR: Auto times nowdays are faster, but quoted 0-60s are with launch control. So essentially my question is: do the quoted 0-60 times with launch control muddy the waters and is manual faster in the real world for non-track drivers?
I am into slightly faster cars now having had bangers all my life. Currently drive a mildly 'fast' (ok not really fast but faster than I'm used to) Audi TT 2.0 DSG with a 0-60 of 6.2s The manual version is quoted at 6.4s. So when I was deciding between the two years ago I thought "ooh look, faster 0-60, faster car, I'll go with the auto!".
I was then disappointed to realise that quoted 0-60 times are WITH LAUNCH CONTROL. Now as I don't do drag races or track days that is of zero use to me. I will never use LC, have no interest in it, so it's useless to me. There's no way in the world I'll be spending ages setting it up to use at the lights etc. Haven't done in years, won't start now. Now I've heard LC can shave 0.5s off 0-60 times (how accurate is this?) so if I'm not using LC suddenly my 6.2s 0-60 'fast' car is in real world usage only 6.7s 0-60.
So now of course in real world non-LC usage I have a slower car than I thought... but then how about the quoted times with manual? Is it the case that with manual to get the quoted 6.4s you also have to do some crazy wheelspinning stuff... and again in daily usage I won't normally do that so again I should add some time to the quoted 0-60s? Having said that I *would* (and would regularly in old manuals) be ready with my foot on the throttle and the bite point of the clutch ready to leap. So my thinking is that whilst this is the case there is probably a lot more of a grey area with a manual car in terms of control i.e.
with auto the options are:
LC - 6.2s
No-LC - 6.7s
no grey area.
with manual the options may be:
Pro-race-driver-perfect start - 6.4
Daily driver, no rush - 6.9
BUT grey area i.e. Boy racer trying to beat someone at lights, clutch at biting point, revs at 1500 or so... may get 6.5s...?
So I'm guessing actually if never using launch control, despite faster quoted (ie. with LC) times on the auto in real world you may actually get faster times on the manual as you can either be as good as a race driver, or somewhere on the path there...
Another thing to throw into the mix though is that dual clutch autos are faster obviously not *just* because of launch control but faster gear changes at the 'right' time and also sometimes better gear ratios. So even without LC and perhaps a slower 0-60 time perhaps once rolling auto is always goign to be faster?
Any thoughts from people would be appreciated so it's not just my useless brain debating with itself!
I the real world, it's irrelevant. In the real world, the car 'infront' is the one driven by the biggest d
head....
(auto's can return faster ultinmate 0-60 than manuals for three important reasons
1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
head....(auto's can return faster ultinmate 0-60 than manuals for three important reasons
1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
Max_Torque said:
(auto's can return faster ultinmate 0-60 than manuals for three important reasons
1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
Depends when you start timing. 1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
I've seen many spend up to five seconds trying to remember the correct sequence of button presses to engage LC, by which time I'm a long way up the road with may manual transmission.
You've clearly given this too much of your thought...
You say 0-60 doesn't bother you, but from your post it seems to concern you that "launching" your auto TT without LC would give a slower 0-60 (something you claim to not ever do anyway)...
Buy what you enjoy driving as someone mentioned above.
You say 0-60 doesn't bother you, but from your post it seems to concern you that "launching" your auto TT without LC would give a slower 0-60 (something you claim to not ever do anyway)...
Buy what you enjoy driving as someone mentioned above.
Max_Torque said:
(auto's can return faster ultinmate 0-60 than manuals for three important reasons
1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
This, and I'd add that as well as having more gears, auto boxes (at least, DSGs) change gear faster than a person will, and can grab the best gear on kick down rather than guessing. Your car will be consistently faster than a manual car in most situations, should you be worrying about that sort of thing, and your reluctance to faff about and use launch control from the lights is weighed against the reluctance of the person in the manual car to give it a boot-full of revs and dump the clutch away from the lights.1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
I have a heavy automatic convertible car. It can also, apparently, do 0-60 in 5 seconds or so. There's no launch control on my car that I'm aware of, so all other things being equal I should be able to stamp on the accelerator and get a consistent 0-60 time, no skill required. It's faster in a straight line than I'd be in a manual, I'm sure of that much...
jeremyc said:
Max_Torque said:
(auto's can return faster ultinmate 0-60 than manuals for three important reasons
1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
Depends when you start timing. 1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
I've seen many spend up to five seconds trying to remember the correct sequence of button presses to engage LC, by which time I'm a long way up the road with may manual transmission.
a good and properly working duel clutch system will change gear in a fraction of the time a human can change gear manually
however many people would argue it detracts from the enjoyment of driving, but then no one after driver involvement would buy a TT
when jurno's do 0-60 in a manual car mechanical sympathy is not part of the test, its a very mechanically brutal process, very few owners can match those times
however many people would argue it detracts from the enjoyment of driving, but then no one after driver involvement would buy a TT
when jurno's do 0-60 in a manual car mechanical sympathy is not part of the test, its a very mechanically brutal process, very few owners can match those times
Edited by Dave Hedgehog on Tuesday 25th April 13:26
As above, if you're not bothered about 0-60 times, can't be arsed with launch control and don't want to subject your car to full bore standing starts, then why are you worrying about a fraction of a second here or there?
Out on the road these fractions of a second don't mean anything. Take two cars with similar power, the faster car tends to be the one with the better driver. The driver who can get on the power a bit earlier, and can anticipate what other drivers are going to do, so doesn't have to be on the brakes all the time.
Aim to be the better driver, rather than just owning the car that does 0-60 half a second quicker.
Out on the road these fractions of a second don't mean anything. Take two cars with similar power, the faster car tends to be the one with the better driver. The driver who can get on the power a bit earlier, and can anticipate what other drivers are going to do, so doesn't have to be on the brakes all the time.
Aim to be the better driver, rather than just owning the car that does 0-60 half a second quicker.
Where do I ever say I don't care about 0-60 times. Of course I do, and it's the point of this post. To me the 0-60 ability of a car is an indication of how fast a car is in general. A car with 0-60 3s is likely to be faster than a car with a 0-60 of 12s. Just because I don't want to use LC doesn't mean I don't care about 0-60 times or don't think they're important. It just means I don't want to use LC.
The point of this thread is to question how much of an indicator a 0-60 time is of a car's actual speed when comparing autos and manuals, given that autos are quoted using a feature most wouldn't use in the real world. i.e. it seems to me to be a "trick" that the auto employs to jump off the line perfectly and perhaps might not therefore give the best indication of general speed when, say, comparing two manual cars' 0-60 times. I won't regurgitate it all again, it's all in the OP hopefully.
Yes the driver is more important than the car, yes don't worry about fractions of a second here and there bla bla bla... but that's not my question.
The point of this thread is to question how much of an indicator a 0-60 time is of a car's actual speed when comparing autos and manuals, given that autos are quoted using a feature most wouldn't use in the real world. i.e. it seems to me to be a "trick" that the auto employs to jump off the line perfectly and perhaps might not therefore give the best indication of general speed when, say, comparing two manual cars' 0-60 times. I won't regurgitate it all again, it's all in the OP hopefully.
Yes the driver is more important than the car, yes don't worry about fractions of a second here and there bla bla bla... but that's not my question.
Edited by SimpleSam on Tuesday 25th April 19:09
golfdsg said:
jeremyc said:
Max_Torque said:
(auto's can return faster ultinmate 0-60 than manuals for three important reasons
1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
Depends when you start timing. 1) Left foot braking against TC enables the turbo's to be spooled up before launch
2) Some positive drive torque is maintained during gear shifts
3) Gearing - generally more gears, means engine is kept closed to peak power for more of the time)
I've seen many spend up to five seconds trying to remember the correct sequence of button presses to engage LC, by which time I'm a long way up the road with may manual transmission.
SimpleSam said:
Where do I ever say I don't care about 0-60 times. Of course I do, and it's the point of this post. To me the 0-60 ability of a car is an indication of how fast a car is in general. A car with 0-60 3s is likely to be faster than a car with a 0-60 of 12s. Just because I don't want to use LC doesn't mean I don't care about 0-60 times or don't think they're important. It just means I don't want to use LC.
The point of this thread is to question how much of an indicator a 0-60 time is of a car's actual speed when comparing autos and manuals, given that autos are quoted using a feature most wouldn't use in the real world. i.e. it seems to me to be a "trick" that the auto employs to jump off the line perfectly and perhaps might not therefore give the best indication of general speed when, say, comparing two manual cars' 0-60 times. I won't regurgitate it all again, it's all in the OP hopefully.
Yes the driver is more important than the car, yes don't worry about fractions of a second here and there bla bla bla... but that's not my question.
The problem with basing performance assumptions on the 0-60 time is that they are hugely variable. Take 2 cars with the same engine - the VW Golf R and the SEAT Leon Cupra. The Golf has a 0-60 time 1 second quicker than the Leon due to the fact that it is 4 wheel drive rather than front wheel drive. However, take the standing start advantage away from it and the performance is virtually identical.The point of this thread is to question how much of an indicator a 0-60 time is of a car's actual speed when comparing autos and manuals, given that autos are quoted using a feature most wouldn't use in the real world. i.e. it seems to me to be a "trick" that the auto employs to jump off the line perfectly and perhaps might not therefore give the best indication of general speed when, say, comparing two manual cars' 0-60 times. I won't regurgitate it all again, it's all in the OP hopefully.
Yes the driver is more important than the car, yes don't worry about fractions of a second here and there bla bla bla... but that's not my question.
Edited by SimpleSam on Tuesday 25th April 19:09
You'd be better basing your assumptions on 30-70mph times, than 0-60.
IanCress said:
The problem with basing performance assumptions on the 0-60 time is that they are hugely variable. Take 2 cars with the same engine - the VW Golf R and the SEAT Leon Cupra. The Golf has a 0-60 time 1 second quicker than the Leon due to the fact that it is 4 wheel drive rather than front wheel drive. However, take the standing start advantage away from it and the performance is virtually identical.
You'd be better basing your assumptions on 30-70mph times, than 0-60.
Thanks Ian yes that's very true and a good point to bring up. Interestingly though of course a 4WD can take that advantage into the rest of the range too *in the real world*, so will likely be able to do better when wet/ around corners etc safely on roads. But yes cars are different. You'd be better basing your assumptions on 30-70mph times, than 0-60.
Indeed I end up being even more nerdy and look at the whole range of speeds and the torque curves etc, wheel torque, weight normalised figures too as 0-60 is only part of the story.
The reason I ask though is that I'm considering auto vs manual in exactly the same cars, so all other factors apart from weight of the gear system, and mode of transmission would be identical.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff