Sub-compacts faster than Compacts?

[jut703]

Recently I've been modding this certain PC game I've been playing, Test Drive Unlimited. And as I add cars, I have to edit the physics to match the car's performance. One of the factors I use to gauge if I've gotten the physics correctly is if the 0-100 and top speed figures are about right. Because of this, I've done more research about performance figures in the past 2 weeks than I have in my life.

Now to my point, I've read that 1.5L subcompacts such as the Vios, in automatic trim, reach 100 at about 11.5-12.5 seconds, while 2.0L compacts such as the Altis and Mazda 3 do so in about 10.2-10.5. Fair enough, since the power advantage of compacts are slightly hampered by the weight gain.

However, I've also read that several manual and dual clutch (ehem Focus) 2.0 compacts reach the 0-100 mark in 8.5-9.5 seconds. That's a 2 second difference from their automatic counterparts. Is that really the case? Cuz for higher end cars, the usual difference between a manual and automatic tranny is less than a second.

And most surprisingly, I've read about Honda Jazzes in manual tranny that reach the 100 kph mark in 8.5 seconds, stock. Which puts it faster than or equal to even the TDCi Focus. Any truth to this? And why the 3 second difference from the AT counterpart?

[Gen. Miting]

grabeh ang geeky heheh

[mda]

However, I've also read that several manual and dual clutch (ehem Focus) 2.0 compacts reach the 0-100 mark in 8.5-9.5 seconds. That's a 2 second difference from their automatic counterparts. Is that really the case? Cuz for higher end cars, the usual difference between a manual and automatic tranny is less than a second.

Probably has something to do with the gear ratios being different for the MT and AT variants.

[niky]

Recently I've been modding this certain PC game I've been playing, Test Drive Unlimited. And as I add cars, I have to edit the physics to match the car's performance. One of the factors I use to gauge if I've gotten the physics correctly is if the 0-100 and top speed figures are about right. Because of this, I've done more research about performance figures in the past 2 weeks than I have in my life.

You can't expect a 1:1 correlation between a video game and real life. Factors such as air pressure, wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, coefficient of friction of the track, track temperature, tire pressure, coolant temperature, fuel level, driver weight, etcetera... make most 0-100 km/h times suggestive rather than definitive. I can get a 0-100 km/h time that's 3/10ths faster simply by finding a road that's slightly downhill.... or by driving on an empty tank... or by finding a launch pad with better grip.

Now to my point, I've read that 1.5L subcompacts such as the Vios, in automatic trim, reach 100 at about 11.5-12.5 seconds, while 2.0L compacts such as the Altis and Mazda 3 do so in about 10.2-10.5. Fair enough, since the power advantage of compacts are slightly hampered by the weight gain.

However, I've also read that several manual and dual clutch (ehem Focus) 2.0 compacts reach the 0-100 mark in 8.5-9.5 seconds. That's a 2 second difference from their automatic counterparts. Is that really the case? Cuz for higher end cars, the usual difference between a manual and automatic tranny is less than a second.

Depends on the power of the car. A naturally aspirated 2 liter car with a crappy four-speed automatic is severely handicapped when it comes to the "launch". The only way you can get to 100 km/h in 8.5 seconds with, say, a Honda Civic, is to rev the car out to 5000 rpm and dump the clutch. Can't do that in a 'matic. And most ATs have longer gear ratios than their MT counterparts.

If the car has enough torque to break traction, the AT will only be slightly slower than the MT. The Focus TDCi numbers? 8.6 seconds for the 6MT, around 9.2 seconds for the 6DCT Powershift. Both six speeds. So, despite being around 50-60 kg heavier, the Powershift is only 0.6 seconds slower.

And most surprisingly, I've read about Honda Jazzes in manual tranny that reach the 100 kph mark in 8.5 seconds, stock. Which puts it faster than or equal to even the TDCi Focus. Any truth to this? And why the 3 second difference from the AT counterpart?

Maybe you're talking about American times? Because a 0-60 mph time is actually 0-96 km/h. And that's a lot shorter than a 0-100 km/h time. For a car with that little power, the difference will be around 1 - 1.5 seconds (depending on where the shift from 2nd-3rd lies... usually you have to shift into 3rd before 100 km/h).

Most 0-100 km/h numbers I've seen for the First generation Jazz (which is faster) hover in the 10+ second range. In my testing, the AT Jazz is around 11.5 seconds.

The 2010 Jazz does 0-100 km/h in about 11.2 seconds with the 5AT. US sites post a 0-60 mph time of around 8.5 with the 5MT... that would be about 10 seconds, likely, when converted to 0-100 km/h. That's a mere difference of around 1.5 seconds, just about right.

[basti08]

The dual clutch powershift tranny TDCi is slower than a manual TDCi?

What the heck is the use of the dual clutch? It should be quicker.

[alwayz_yummy]

accelation talk... kahit DSC yan, slower parin yan than MTs. its in the gear ratio, also engine characteristic differences(if applicable)

darn it, why kasi there is no 2.5 MTs na forester or xtrail.. at base model lang ang G.livina 6MT

[jut703]

You can't expect a 1:1 correlation between a video game and real life. Factors such as air pressure, wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, coefficient of friction of the track, track temperature, tire pressure, coolant temperature, fuel level, driver weight, etcetera... make most 0-100 km/h times suggestive rather than definitive. I can get a 0-100 km/h time that's 3/10ths faster simply by finding a road that's slightly downhill.... or by driving on an empty tank... or by finding a launch pad with better grip.



Depends on the power of the car. A naturally aspirated 2 liter car with a crappy four-speed automatic is severely handicapped when it comes to the "launch". The only way you can get to 100 km/h in 8.5 seconds with, say, a Honda Civic, is to rev the car out to 5000 rpm and dump the clutch. Can't do that in a 'matic. And most ATs have longer gear ratios than their MT counterparts.

If the car has enough torque to break traction, the AT will only be slightly slower than the MT. The Focus TDCi numbers? 8.6 seconds for the 6MT, around 9.2 seconds for the 6DCT Powershift. Both six speeds. So, despite being around 50-60 kg heavier, the Powershift is only 0.6 seconds slower.



Maybe you're talking about American times? Because a 0-60 mph time is actually 0-96 km/h. And that's a lot shorter than a 0-100 km/h time. For a car with that little power, the difference will be around 1 - 1.5 seconds (depending on where the shift from 2nd-3rd lies... usually you have to shift into 3rd before 100 km/h).

Most 0-100 km/h numbers I've seen for the First generation Jazz (which is faster) hover in the 10+ second range. In my testing, the AT Jazz is around 11.5 seconds.

The 2010 Jazz does 0-100 km/h in about 11.2 seconds with the 5AT. US sites post a 0-60 mph time of around 8.5 with the 5MT... that would be about 10 seconds, likely, when converted to 0-100 km/h. That's a mere difference of around 1.5 seconds, just about right.

I know that the game obviously differs greatly from real life, but I was just using actual test figures of cars and modifying the in-game cars to replicate similar performance. As for handling, it's merely a trial-and-error thing and I'm pretty sure it's far off as the physics engine in itself is limited and I haven't driven all of the cars I have in game IRL so I wouldn't be too sure how to approximate. It's just a past time anyway, so it's all for a bit of geeky fun.

As for the 0-100 times, I never actually thought of it, but you're right abut the 4 kmh difference. For higher end sports cars 4 kph would translate to tenths of a second but it'd be much more for slower 1.5L subcompacts and 4-AT equipped 2 liter compacts.

One example of the 100 in 2nd gear vs 100 in 3rd gear disparity you're referring to is in the Impreza and Evo IX. AFAIK, the Evo does it in 2nd gear hence the reported sub-5 second time, while the Impreza does it in 5.5. Though the actual acceleration power of the two cars don't differ that much, the necessary gear change makes all the difference.

[niky]

Yes. But on the race track, what matters is how suited the gears are to the track configuration, not simple 0-100 km/h numbers. Which is why a car with a better spread of ratios and a better torque band will be faster around the racetrack.

The dual clutch powershift tranny TDCi is slower than a manual TDCi?

What the heck is the use of the dual clutch? It should be quicker.

Convenience, nothing more, nothing less. The dual-clutch transmission adds a lot of weight to the car. VW doesn't want to admit it, but their dual-clutch cars are actually slower in real-life testing... especially on their smaller cars. For a Polo, the 50kg weight penalty of the DSG is like having a dead body in the trunk.

Still, for powerful cars, a dual-clutch system is a good thing to have on a racetrack, as it allows you to focus more on driving and less on fiddling with a fiddly stick and clutch.

[contracontra]

Mga sir share ko lang regarding dsg. May napanood ako sa best motoring. Comparing dsg ng vw golf/scirocco sa manual. Hindi makapaniwala si keiichi na mas mabilis sa shifting niya yung dsg. They tested it on track ang quarter mile. Talo ang manual.

Yun lang po.

[niky]

The Scirocco is a 210 hp compact with a turbocharged engine. What it loses in the ability to "launch" versus a manual, it more than gains back in quick shifts keeping the boost from dropping between gears.