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!
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
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.
Thanks again Ian but as I say I'm asking a specific question. I appreciate tenths here and there don't matter (to you) but my question remains as it clearly matters to me, even if you disagree that it should.
To elaborate, which may be helpful, one of the reasons I ask is that I am very much interested in coming off the line quickly (traffic lights, junctions etc *safely*) but don't want to use launch control due to the time it takes to set up. With a manual - despite the lower 0-60s - I'm *guessing* I'll have more control to do a better launch which, whilst it won't be perfect, will at least jump me off the line faster than an auto where I don't use launch control. This is the "grey area" I allude to in my original post.
To elaborate, which may be helpful, one of the reasons I ask is that I am very much interested in coming off the line quickly (traffic lights, junctions etc *safely*) but don't want to use launch control due to the time it takes to set up. With a manual - despite the lower 0-60s - I'm *guessing* I'll have more control to do a better launch which, whilst it won't be perfect, will at least jump me off the line faster than an auto where I don't use launch control. This is the "grey area" I allude to in my original post.
Hmmm... so it seems perhaps manual 0-60 times are even more artificial than the auto ones. In fact if anything auto could be regarded a much more accurate and replicable 0-60 because there's only one way to do launch control and only one way to change gear i.e. do LC and then keep your foot on gas. Interesting...
smarty156 said:
Here's something to ponder regarding Launch Control.
A recent 0-60 test between the Giulia Quadrifoglio (conventional auto), BMW M3 Competition (DCT) and AMG C63S (not sure, auto?) compared the times to manufacturer quoted times.
The Quadrifoglio matched the quoted time exactly (and was quickest) but both the M3 and C63 were slightly slower (2 tenths I seem to remember) than quoted. Interestingly, the Alfa doesn't have launch control whereas both the BMW and Merc were using launch control.
Not sure if that helps much other than to say LC doesn't really seem to aid 0 to 60 times and the Quadrifoglio being auto without LC didn't hinder it.
Thanks everyone, really engaging discussion so far.A recent 0-60 test between the Giulia Quadrifoglio (conventional auto), BMW M3 Competition (DCT) and AMG C63S (not sure, auto?) compared the times to manufacturer quoted times.
The Quadrifoglio matched the quoted time exactly (and was quickest) but both the M3 and C63 were slightly slower (2 tenths I seem to remember) than quoted. Interestingly, the Alfa doesn't have launch control whereas both the BMW and Merc were using launch control.
Not sure if that helps much other than to say LC doesn't really seem to aid 0 to 60 times and the Quadrifoglio being auto without LC didn't hinder it.
Edited by smarty156 on Wednesday 26th April 14:02
Smarty that's an interesting fact. The thing is though that's comparing auto without LC and auto LC when the quoted times are also done in the same manner. Interesting that LC isn't as precise as just putting your foot on the gas. I'm really interested though in what the difference between not using and using LC is in a car that can do it, and how that compares with the quoted times. Because as I say and others say above, you can't do it on safe legal UK roads without looking like a tit. i.e. how much do you lose by not using the LC.
Similarly, it's now dawning on me that even manual times are with a driver using LC, and again I wouldn't use full LC (4000revs or whatever) in a manual for the same reasons. So in real world driving in otherwise identical cars (non-LC auto and moderate revving on the bite point on a manual) which wins?
Edited by SimpleSam on Wednesday 26th April 15:25
Ok... So.... Thanks to great replies my understanding is this:
0-60 times are with LC whether an easy LC I would never use on an auto or a brutal LC I'd also never do on a manual.
So that brings me back to my original point and I'm thinking pulling off at traffic lights here: As I wouldn't be using LC for either (without being dangerous and look like a bell end) is the manual likely to give me a quicker jump off the line because at least I'll be able to use a "partial" LC. Eg rev up to 2-3000 or so without sounding a tit and without spinning and then dumping the clutch when the lights go green so I at least get a bit of a boost? Because auto it's binary. Either use LC or just go from minimal revs. I think that's the essence of my questioning here.
It's been so long I've had a manual i just cant remember! I also can't remember how quickly you would change gear to second pulling off at the lights (because my DSG just does it without me thinking - it really dumbs you down!). Because if you go up to second very quickly (IE 2 or 3 car lengths) then the DSG would have the advantage of much quicker gear changes to throw into the mix right?
0-60 times are with LC whether an easy LC I would never use on an auto or a brutal LC I'd also never do on a manual.
So that brings me back to my original point and I'm thinking pulling off at traffic lights here: As I wouldn't be using LC for either (without being dangerous and look like a bell end) is the manual likely to give me a quicker jump off the line because at least I'll be able to use a "partial" LC. Eg rev up to 2-3000 or so without sounding a tit and without spinning and then dumping the clutch when the lights go green so I at least get a bit of a boost? Because auto it's binary. Either use LC or just go from minimal revs. I think that's the essence of my questioning here.
It's been so long I've had a manual i just cant remember! I also can't remember how quickly you would change gear to second pulling off at the lights (because my DSG just does it without me thinking - it really dumbs you down!). Because if you go up to second very quickly (IE 2 or 3 car lengths) then the DSG would have the advantage of much quicker gear changes to throw into the mix right?
Edited by SimpleSam on Thursday 27th April 18:33
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff