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.

[jut703]

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.

True. But the game I'm modding right now isn't a racing game. And I just stick to stock gear ratios which can be inputted in the car's physics. The physics allows you to input horsepower, what rpm peak power is reached, torque, what rpm it's reached, redline, gear ratios.. and that's pretty much it for the real life stuff. There's an acceleration tab where you manually input how fast it goes (higher number = greater acceleration), and "gear inertia" which just fiddles with how fast the revs climb up, and "drag", which is far from real life drag coefficients, but functions the same way, higher drag, lower top speed.

As for DSG transmissions, for the focused ones, perhaps a manual would shift quicker. But the thing is, computers shift much more consistently than humans. And if for example it was my grandmother testing a manual and a DSG, chances are the DSG would have quicker times.

[niky]

True. But the game I'm modding right now isn't a racing game. And I just stick to stock gear ratios which can be inputted in the car's physics. The physics allows you to input horsepower, what rpm peak power is reached, torque, what rpm it's reached, redline, gear ratios.. and that's pretty much it for the real life stuff. There's an acceleration tab where you manually input how fast it goes (higher number = greater acceleration), and "gear inertia" which just fiddles with how fast the revs climb up, and "drag", which is far from real life drag coefficients, but functions the same way, higher drag, lower top speed.

As for DSG transmissions, for the focused ones, perhaps a manual would shift quicker. But the thing is, computers shift much more consistently than humans. And if for example it was my grandmother testing a manual and a DSG, chances are the DSG would have quicker times.

There's no doubt a computer can shift faster than a human.

The balancing point (for drag-racing) is how much weight penalty you have to sacrifice for the fancy box versus how much power you have. As the ratio of power to weight difference gets higher, the penalties mean less, and the consistent shifting time becomes more important.

That's why drag racing automatic economy cars sucks... but professional drag racers use automatic transmissions (albeit with manual controls).

[Type 100]

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.

These factors are precisely why I think a 0-100 km/h time by itself is woefully incomplete as a performance benchmark. Short of drag racers, how often does one get to 0-100 km/h anyway? It has to be said, it's also very brutal on a car's componentry.

A far more relevant test without straying too far from 0-100? Do 0-160-0 km/h. Autocar UK has been doing that test for years, and it's quite useful because they also test max braking power - far more important.

Even more relevant in real-life situations is in-gear acceleration testing. Pick a gear, accelerate from 80-120 km/h, then repeat for all other applicable gears (usually first gear is out of the question). This test is great for showing off an engine's flexibility.

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.

0-100 km/h actually equates to 0-62 mph - FYI.

[niky]

Yup. When I test cars now, I've set one of the custom ranges on the V-Box to 0-96 to simulate a 0-60.

So I do both 0-60 and 0-62 mph in one go. I also quote 60-100 km/h, as a measure of passing power. Maybe I should have matched passing tests with C&D, but it's too late now... and "48-80 km/h" and "80-112 km/h" tests won't matter as much to Pinoys. I picked 60 and 100 because 60 is the legal minimum on the highway and 100 the legal maximum... though some diesels have trouble accelerating between 80-100.

The difference for 10-second cars is around 1 - 1.5 seconds. For faster cars (in the 5-6 second range), it's a bit lower... but again, it all depends on where that shift point between 2nd and 3rd (or, if you're a Corvette owner, 1st and 2nd) occurs.

Autocar's 0-160-0 test is a test of pure power and braking, but it still relies on driver variables such as launch ability and threshold braking.

Hmmm... just thinking... If you want to replicate real-life performance in a videogame, try to match trap speeds. In this way, you eliminate the variability factor of a good/poor launch. No matter how bad the launch, trap speeds remain fairly constant, to within a few kilometers an hour.

[aejhayl17]

sorry ot:

how about the dual clutch in an EVO X TC-SST? same lang ba yung dual clutch at twin clutch? how would it be compared to the dual clutch of the TDCI ford?

*sir niky T., pwede ko po ba mahingi yung link ng review niyo about the evo x? cant find it anymore.

[niky]

sorry ot:

how about the dual clutch in an EVO X TC-SST? same lang ba yung dual clutch at twin clutch? how would it be compared to the dual clutch of the TDCI ford?

*sir niky T., pwede ko po ba mahingi yung link ng review niyo about the evo x? cant find it anymore.

Yes, it's the same thing.

Haven't reviewed the EVO X yet. If you know someone willing to lend one for a week, no questions asked, I'd be happy to.

[aejhayl17]

Yes, it's the same thing.

Haven't reviewed the EVO X yet. If you know someone willing to lend one for a week, no questions asked, I'd be happy to.

im willing, pagnanalo na ko sa lotto.

sorry, i thought you and niky Tamayo is the same person. ive seen that review from the bigbigcar, but di ko lang nabasa kase may ginagawa ako noon sir.

sorry ot