Garbage, PDK will not give anyone 5 mph in trap speed. In fact many times manual cars trap higher than their DSG counterparts.

Conditions have a greater effect than anything. Look at all the various traps for a Z06. Everything from 121 - 127 all by magazines. All manual transmissions. You test all over the country in different cars, you will get results that vary by several MPH 5-7 is common.

Look at the GT-R. Everywhere from 115 - 121 or so. Same transmission.

 

Many times...sources/links?
Go look at the acceleration chart from R&T's site. Clearly, the Turbo was losing time and velocity (not just acceleration) on each shift. (Turbo in yellow, ZR1 in red, GT-R in blue)



If you think conditions were so important, compare the 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, etc intervals between the Turbos in each test.

Examples, 30-40:
R&T vs C&D: 0.4s vs 0.6s

Now look what happens when the manual has to shift:
40-50: 1.2 vs 0.6

50-60: 0.7 vs 0.6
60-70: 0.7 vs 0.7
70-80: 1.5 vs 1.0 (manual has a shift)
80-90: 1.0 vs 1.0
90-100: 1.2 vs 1.2
100-110: 1.8 vs 1.4 (manual has a shift)
110-120: 1.6 vs 1.5

Does that point to major differences in conditions? What about all the Euro tests where the PDK car has never trapped as low as 122? On a wet surface and with a passenger on board, Evo magazine recorded a 125.5 mph trap speed. You honestly think R&T's car had better conditions?

 

Oh comon now, you know that time vs speed has nothing to do with trap speed. A car that ran a 0-60 in 1.5 and one that ran it in 2.5 can still trap the same speed, in fact that's a large part why the DSG's are slower in trap speed because they launch so well.

Look at the fastest traps for the Exo X and E92 M3 both with different versions, you will not find several mph between the two. Do your own homework, I'm not looking it up for you.

Your theories mean jack crap on the drag strip. Maybe you should try it.

 

Dez - the run was actually in Minnesota, but ya...I agree that the car may have more in it in better conditions.

 

Correction to my earlier post: I should have asked "Do you honestly think R&T had worse conditions than Evo?" The fact that you failed to answer says quite a lot.

Uh, we're not talking about a car that ran 0-60 in 1.5 vs one that ran in 2.5. We're talking about a car that did 0-40 in 1.6 seconds in the R&T test vs 1.7 in the C&D test (yes, the R&T Turbo was faster in 0-40). In 50-70, the PDK car was only faster by .1s. They both covered 80-100 in the same exact time. You were comparing apples to monkeys.
Were conditions so much worse than previous tests? The last time R&T tested the GT-R (the one where everyone was crying "foul - it's a ringer!"), it trapped 3.9 mph slower in the quarter mile. Their previous test of the ZR1 showed 125.5 mph, yet in this recent test with the Turbo, it hit 128.7 mph.
If a car is heading down the 1/4 mile, and it loses 1-2 mph on each shift while it's still rolling toward the quarter, how do you reckon it gets there with the same speed as the same car in which speed is not lost during the shift? It's still rolling toward the quarter mile, but it has to cover the same 1-2 mph increment again, 3 times. Do you honestly think that when the manual car takes .5s longer than the PDK car to go from 70-80 and .4s longer in 100-110, it's doing so in the same distance as the PDK car?
But you said it yourself:
"Look at the GT-R. Everywhere from 115 - 121 or so."
The GT-R in this test with the 997.2 Turbo hit 120.4, so on the higher end of your range, which means conditions aren't as bad as you're making them out to be.

 

I'm not going to get into your formulas because you obviously have never driven at the track. Everything isn't about formulas. Guys can get crappy launches and still trap the same speed, it happens on a regular basis.

Have you ever driven at the drag strip? You are forgetting that this is time vs distance not time vs speed. The car that is pulling ahead during shifts also loses time to accelerate prior to the finish line, it gets to the line faster and therefore had less time to build speed.

Hardly ever does fastest ET and fastest trap go hand in hand. But you'd have to have been to the strip to know that. You can granny shift and trap an high number because as you may NOT know trap speed is not the actual speed you are traveling (at one given point) at the end of the 1/4 mile.

Or did you know that?

 

Oh ok.

We have an 11.0 and a 10.9 already with the car barely having hit the streets. IMO it's bound to run a 10.8 or so in stock form but probably not until they come down in price where people feel better about abusing them at the strip for an ET. What do you think?

 

the 1 million question is exactly what a stock PDK is capable of in real world.....

 

Wait, are you implying that R&T are averaging the final portion of the dragstrip like in NHRA event? If they're going to go through that, why not just apply NHRA correction factors to all of their times?
Formulas...I didn't provide any formulas. But if you want to get into formulas, go ahead and tell me that the manual car traveled the same exact distance to gain 10 mph when it is losing 0.6s, 0.5s, and 0.4s on those shifts.

"Crappy launches"? What makes you think R&T got a crappy launch on the manual 997 Turbo? Their 0-40 time beat C&D's time. I'd also like to hear your explanation for how "bad conditions" were, considering the GT-R and ZR1 trapped 3-4 mph faster than in previous tests. Like I said, compare apples to apples. The 997.2 Turbo manual vs PDK is not like those cases you described (crappy launches, granny shifting, etc.). These are two very similar vehicles, the difference being one is continuing to accelerate hard even when shifting, while another is not only losing velocity (at which point its power/wt ratio is ZERO), but it's still moving toward that 1/4 mile marker while it has to regain those 2-mph increments it has lost on those shifts.

Yeah, you've tracked before. So what? That didn't prevent you from jumping to hairbrained (and disproven) theories on other subjects before, did it?
So tell me, heavy. In all of your hours upon hours of driving a 997.2 Turbo with PDK on the dragstrip, what were your trap speeds? Please post up your timeslips for all of us to see. Do you think a PDK transmission has any effect on trap speed?

 

C&D explained why:
"Despite the weight-saving wheels and brakes, the porky 3658-pound MR we tested was a full 100 pounds heavier than the less-expensive GSR models, with about 70 pounds attributable to the transmission. And there’s a launch-control mode, but it doesn’t work very well, largely due to Mitsubishi’s own programming of the Getrag-sourced box. It revs to 5000 rpm but then engages the clutch too slowly to get a good launch or take full advantage of the turbo—the clutches in the car are too small to reliably withstand the heat of repeated aggressive dumps—and shifts aren’t as quick as those enacted by other manufacturers’ double-clutch units, particularly downshifts."

They weighed the M3 manual at 3600 lbs, which is 100 lbs lighter than they weighed the DCT-equipped car. Yet the heavier DCT-equipped car trapped 2 mph faster than the lighter car. Go ahead and convince me that the dual-clutch transmission didn't play a role.
R&T would tell you otherwise when they, as you suggested, removed the variable of conditions and tested the Evo X MR (with DCT) vs the GSR (manual-only) head to head:
"You can see clearly the GSR's clearly defined shifts. It takes an average of 0.37 seconds to make an upshift happen, and you'll lose about 0.9 mph in the process. Meanwhile, the paddle-shift MR is pulling away..."

And as C&D described, the Evo's DCT is relatively garbage compared to others. I never said a garbage DCT system will always net a performance gain, so don't even go there.
In the case of the Porsches Turbos, they were within 5 lbs of each other. Thus, a better comparison to see the effects of DCT.

 

You must not realize the magazines almost always apply correction factors to the vehicles. Because at least in the US many of them test at Altitude, and people want to see the fast speeds. What you see is not always what they got. Case in point the 124 mph trap speed for the GT-R by C&D that they actually had the nerve to defend.


Ok Guibo, let's leave it at this. When a 997.2 Manual Turbo Traps 125-127 (which it will) your whole theory will be utter trash, unless you can find a PDK Turbo trapping 130-132 stock, which will not happen unless in some magic conditions.

THERE IS NO WAY A PDK IS WORTH 5 MPH!!!!!


You seem to have missed the big picture as always, and have nothing to offer but what someone else WROTE. You are comparing tests across the sea with two completely different cars as if it were the same day with the same car and the transmission switched. You can't really be that clueless.


How about comparing Edmunds 121 trapping GT-R with the 113 mph trapping GT-R from C&D (I think). Was the PDK in the one GT-R broken? How about the 121 trapping Z06 vs the 127 or 121 trapping 997 GT2 vs 127?


You see, your data points for comparison are useless because you can get the same delta of difference in testing from one mag to the other with the exact SAME TRANSMISSION.


So therefore your theory that PDK adds 5 mph to the trap speed is trash because this is the norm with 1/4 mile testing. Find me one car that doesn't have a 5 mph delta between the fastest and slowest trap speeds.


Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

i understood what you told...

but yes PDK really add mph at the trap speed.
how much? maybe 2-5? we dont know exactly...
but like you said the differences in tracks, while the manual did 115, i can warranty a pdk will put mph over it...

its phisical my friend, 3 changes while a pilot needs 0,250 sec per gear, the pdk will NEED 0,120 SEC for THE ALL 3 CHANGES...

this results in 0,750 - 0,120 = 0,630 sec of full throttle for the PDK.

 

We are not talking about time here. Talking about speed.

2 mph is within the realm of possibility seeing as there are only 2-3 shifts on any given drag strip run anyways. Considering shift speed, and drive train loss. Plus I'm not sure if the overboost is available on the Manual, so it still may not be apples to apples.



5 mph IS NOT!!!!!

 

False. R&T does not apply a correction factor, nor does Evo. Nor do those Euro mags. I'm still waiting for your answer, heavy: Did Evo Mag get better conditions than R&T?
From R&T, 6/2009:
"Although we record the ambient conditions at the time of testing, we do not adjust our figures to compensate for temperature, humidity, elevation and the like."

Let me guess, the one single time that a manual Turbo gets tested, you claim it has bad conditions. Even though the same mag recorded faster times in this test with the other two cars (ZR1 and GT-R) than they did previously. LOL.

I think you were talking about the 111 mph GT-R. Fine. Have a look.
111 mph GT-R vs R&T's previous GT-R, which (according to you) had bad conditions since it trapped at the lower end of your scale, 116.5 mph.
C&D vs R&T GT-R's
0-30: 1.4 vs 1.1
30-40: 0.8 vs 0.7 (shift)
40-50: 0.9 vs 0.8
50-60: 1.0 vs 0.8
60-70: 1.2 vs 1.1 (shift)
70-80: 1.4 vs 1.2
80-90: 1.6 vs 1.3
90-100: 1.9 vs 1.6 (shift)
100-110: 2.1 vs 1.9
110-120: 2.5 vs 2.2

Doesn't look to be any difference between DCT performances. The C&D car was steadily losing ground. In that same test, the Z06 trapped at 124, so you can't really say conditions were unfavorable. The ACR also trapped at 126 mph, whereas in R&T's test it managed only 122.6.

And proof that a properly working DCT makes a difference, this from R&T in another Evo MR:
"While it had a few rough edges in our long-term 2008 Evolution MR test car, TC-SST has since been smoothed out via software reprogramming for 2010"
2010 Evo MR Touring
Weight: 3690 lb
1/4 mi trap: 103.6 mph
Test conditions: 84-deg F, 49% humidity, light wind

Compare that to their GSR (manual-only) test
Weight: 3555 lb
1/4 mi trap: 100.9 mph
Test conditions: 66-deg F, 45% humidity, calm wind

Delta between mags? Most of the figures I posted up were from the same mag. And even the delta between C&D's and R&T's Turbos showed negligible difference...outside of the intervals that involve a shift, in which case the PDK car clearly beat the manual.

 

Guibo, do you not realize that a car can run a similar ET and not trap the same speed?

You keep trying to jump back and forth from 0-xx time intervals and use that as a basis for trap speeds.

And here's a clue, just because the same magazine tested doesn't mean the conditions were the same on that given day. Stop being selective in picking and look at the spectrum. No matter how you slice it there is a 5 mph variance in ANY cars 1/4 miles times, transmission or not. You cannot justifiably call it one way or the other.


Not only that, there could be a 2-3 mph difference from one CAR to the next (of the same car).

You complete lack of experience driving anything is the problem, you have no real world experience to back up your theories that are completely flawed in their data pool.

I'm not about to search all the internet mags to battle you. Like I said, let's wait and see, the truth WILL be told!!!!!