I don't think Honda/Acura has a twin clutch gearbox yet, just a regular slushbox automatic with flappy paddle controls added for a bit more driver control, just a bit.

Do try an Audi/VW with the DSG. While it too has flappy paddles, those paddles operate the very different dual-clutch gearbox, which is what makes all the difference.

PS. I think Volvo will soon be coming out with a DSG type tranny, as is BMW in the M3 and Mitsubishi in the EVO. I imagine the Volvo box might soon find homes in various Ford products too -- Focus and Fiesta might be likely candidates -- and I think DCTs (Ford's acronym) is a key part of their ecoboost strategy.

Or you could just win a nice, big lottery and hook yourself up with a Bugatti Veyron, which too has a DSG that should dispel any concerns about handling high power levels (unless you're anticipating well over 1,000hp!).

 

lol im right along wiht 2k manual will be best plus its more reliable unless you dont know how to drive a stick then it wont last you a day lmao

 

rhumb

I read the other thread today quoting Ford's CAFE strategy specifically with the ecoboost and it mentioned the DCT. Can you explain what effect a DCT transmission will have on saving fuel economy, I don't quite understand that part of the benefit. I see performance with very quick efficient shifts.

Also if an automatic loses more horsepower in the drivetrain than a traditional manual, will the DCT's power losses be closer to the manual because of the clutch or the automatic because of the difference?

 

Thats a good ? will it?

 

im not saying DSG is bad, it just isnt for me, I miss my old pickup with a manual transmission. It had 280k on it, and 150k on the clutch, and was better than my auto now, that only has 120k on it, i just like having a clutch pedal

 

Yea cant really blame ya man

 

The DCTs internal function is a bit closer to a manual's in how the gears shift and in the use of a clutch, well, two clutches, to engage and disengage the tranny from the motor. Thus you'll have about the same drive line efficiencies/losses as a manual box. The tighter control over the clutching and shifting might net a smidgeon more economy and the near instantaneous shift speeds definitely enhance performance.

Figure, for the sake of argument, that a well shifted manual will realistically take .5 seconds per shift (interruption in power delivery) while a DCT will do it in half that, .25 seconds. Figuring three shifts in the quarter mile and you've saved .75 seconds right there! Of course, this is a bit idealized and there are many other factors, but that does give an indication of the possible performance benefits. Oh, and the newer DCTs are getting their shift times down to around .1 seconds!

Current automatic boxes are generally quite a bit more complex and less efficient, what with their torque converters (even locking ones) and all, and thus are bigger, heavier, and have worse drive train efficiencies/losses. Their complexity is also why they cost so much more too.

There are probably some areas where a standard manual might do better, at least at present, such as in pickups that might do a lot of clutch-slipping towing and whatnot and really don't need fast shifts. And I too miss that three-on-the-tree of my dad's old '71 pickup with about two trillion hard miles on the clock.

Remember, DCT are a very new and young technology on the steep part of the development and refinement curve. As excellent as the current early examples are, I think we've only just seen the beginning of what will be possible with these things.

 

Thanks for the answer rhumb, I appreciate it. Thanks for taking the time to inform.

 

It is more about POLLUTION control, not fuel economy. They want to control your engine and shift points, they can't do that with a manual transmission.

 

Pollution control certainly, but you already get that with manuals, in a rather clumsy way, by the throttle holding revs up so as not to tank the air/fuel ratio on lift throttle and belch out the unburned hydrocarbons.

Presumably, a DCT in close integration with the ECU and throttle, could do a finer job of this, thus reducing not only pollution, but also the lost energy contained in those unburned hydrocarbons shooting out the tailpipe. A little bit, to be sure, but with 35mpg CAFE standards looming, every little bit helps.

More fun, though, are the perfectly rev-matched downshifts to grease into the next lower gear coming into the tight little turn with the aplomb and finesse of Micheal Schumacher at Spa in Belgium.

 

When I decided to get my 1st Mustang (last February), I went to the delaer here and they had like 6-7 Mustangs and they were all automatics

So I ordered a manual one (last March) and expecting it here in July.. 4 months of waiting just to get a manual one.. my friends call me crazy for ordering a manual one with the rush we have on streets these days..

My other car is a Fiat Coupè Turbo and it is a manual also, I bought a Suzuki Swift last June and it was also manual

 

All of my cars and trucks have been manual transmissions since the '70's . That is actually millions of miles driven. If I am too old and feeble to drive a stick shift, it's time for me to quit driving...

 

And I can't argue with your logic, but I think we lose something in the trade.

 

I think the pure manual boxes will stick around for a while, with the DCTs supplanting the autoboxes first and the existing stick shifts sticking around as cheap price leaders. But in the future, faced with the cost of developing two new trannies vs. one excellent one, well, you can guess which plan the bean counters are going to sign off on.

Yes, something definitely will be lost, but I think, overall, the DCTs will prove better overall.

 

might as well get a truck w/ auto then; there goes my driving fun if your prediction comes true and by golly i hope it doesn't!

 

Bummer. I like the ability to choose and I hope to keep it as long as possible.

 

Get an auto with a stall and kiss the sticks goodbye, and zero chance of excuses such as a missed shifts. Stalled autos <3 sticks. I have them both. I'd prefer a stalled auto definately especially a 5 speed like in the new stangs. The GTO is a 6 speed because it won't hit the track. #1 reason why is consistancy, and you can't shift as fast as the fluid can. Manuals are good for circut type tracks but the 5speed auto's gearing takes some of the advantage out of it. Stall an auto with a tune and I bet you outrun manual cars with exhaust and tune. Manuals do have an advantage on a dyno and a slight advantage on the track 100% stock. Throw a stall in the equation though and the auto will handily take the advantage.

 

I'd be willing to bet that on evenly matched cars 9 out of 10 times, the auto will win hands down.

 

Maybe so, but I drive my Mustang for fun and enjoyment, I'm not winning anything. There is a connection with the car with the stick that the auto will not give. I can do all sorts of things with a clutch that the car's computer can never control.

 

right on brother