Sweet. Just make it quick!

Can’t wait to try it.

Loving the DSG in the girlfiend’s GLI. This can only be good for Volvo.

HURRY UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, like it matters cause you guys will never get a Volvo. Ha ha…

hope to see it in the new falcon when it comes out.

if they can finally do a good job…..it will be an incredible new era for automobiles

Veda….. are u slow or what? It says it will be installed in Ford, Mazda, and others. Learn to read every word before u make a lame comment.

Interesting that they’re going to replace even CVT transmissions with dual clutch systems.

I’m going to venture a guess that these designs are only for FWD cars, unfortunately.

Wow, this is cool! Great work all involved.

S-60, maybe you’re the dumbass here. Are you really going to get a Land Rover, Mazda, or Ford?

I will never get a Volvo, but I likes the Mazdas.

Veda, are u like POOR??? Jealous that we, not you, can afford these? I leased a Land Rover before. I almost got a Mazda 6 after the Land Rover. I can pretty much get anything i want! Not everybody is like you!

DSG is just a fad. A regular automatic gearbox with fast clutches can be both faster and smoother than DSG.

I can see the LR2 getting this tranny before too long.

Not sure if it would work in the other Rovers unless they go on a diet. 6,000 lbs of 4WD Land Rover and a DSG tranny makes me nervous.

Huck –”A regular automatic gearbox with fast clutches ….”

WTF are you talking about?

Are you some kind of magic engineer from MIT or Cal Tech?

Please enlighten the forum.

“DSG is just a fad. A regular automatic gearbox with fast clutches can be both faster and smoother than DSG.” It will still be a slushbox with all the losses, weight, etc

@Renton
DSG uses an extremely fast clutch, which can engage/disangage in 8 ms. A clutch in a regular but decent automatic gearbox engages/disangages in approx 200 ms. Mind you, this is not the entire shift time, there is also a delay before the shift, that might take more than the shift itself - a regular auto gearbox shifts in about half a second from the moment it receives the command.

Nevertheless, the clutches used for DSG are of the same type as those used in a regular automatic gearbox, they are electro-hydraulically actuated multiplate clutches, but quicker to engage/disengage. This coupled with the fast processing of the unit, gives the almost instantaneous DSG response (on upshifts, downshifts are different).

Both of these components (fast clutches and fast eletronics) that give the DSG a responsive upshift can very well be used to build automatic gearboxes, they are not specific to DSG in any way. In fact such autoboxes would be faster than DSG (it should be obvious why).

@kosai03
A DSG is just as heavy as an automatic able to take the same amount of torque. DSG is significantly heavier than a manual gearbox. In plus, these days, neither manuals nor DSGs are necessarily more economic than automatics. By 1500 rpm the losses in an automatic gearbox are about 2 percent, compared with 1-2 percent for a manual. But with heavy use (like racing the engine) the losses into heat due to friction in a manual transmission are bigger than in an autobox (which has better cooling). And then there is the torque converter lock-up, which completely eliminates the slippage when it is engaged. Keep in mind that in a manual transmission there is always a small amount of slippage between the gears, which at high rpms can translate in noticeable losses. Take a look at recent EPA ratings for the same engine and different types of transmissions. You’ll see interesting things.

BTW - Peugeot autoboxes suck balls… 3 years of a 206 showed me this… OT I know, but had to be said.

Huck– Automatics have torque converters, DSGs do not. That is the main difference.

For racing/performance applications, the loss of drivetrain control that the torque converter gives is unacceptable. You don’t want a fluid connection at any point between the engine and the wheels.

I don’t think he really understands what a DSG is.

f1 trannies are dual clutch and are so fast they can shift mid turn without hesitation. sure wouldn’t want that to trickle down.

huck - the losses of an internal combustion engine make losses at any other point in the drive train irrelevant. they need to eliminate the weak link to see any appreciable gains in efficiency.

Yo, guys, come ON!
you R actin’like some kids arguin’about sports: what’s better: baseball or …table tennis?!
Everybody has the right to have a wrong oppinion:)
From my point of view, Volvo expands its market which is kind of a sign of EVOLVElution…from granny wagons to COOL hatches like C30
And a DSG option is nothing short of success for Volvo.
I don’t really like the idea of it but…if Volvo really goes for it that’s just gonna attract more customers… not everybody’s lookin’ for performance, you know…

…and BTW JhnnyBlazE, U R absoF**KINGlutely right, the imported 206 i had to drive in Canada for an year had possibly the worst autobox i’ve ever tried :@
Otherwise Peugeots R nice especially when they R brand new!

The question is, what form does this thing exist in?

Who buys an automatic 206? I rented a 206 in Spain, diesel with a manual. It was a fine little 50mpg car, very practical.

and guys…,
nice to meet ya all!

angelo, i just tried, man. There wasn’t a wide range to choose from, so, as foxed as U possibly R, decided to try it.. there wasn’t a single Volvo unfortunately…

Let’s get this sorted out:

Huck got one thing right:
Some automatics have a torque converter lock up feature which gives it roughly the same mechanical loses of a traditional clutch. He failed to mention that very few vehicles have this feature. I mean VERY few (DaimlerChrysler late model 5spd and 7spd derived from E-class platform).

Something that Huck failed to mention:
Loses are dependant not just on load but on the TYPE of load. Higher torque engines have greater loses to torque converters (not a big surprise if you think about it). Notice what happens to highway fuel economy in BMW’s diesels (automatic vs. manual). A 530d manual gets roughly 10mpg more than a 530d automatic (highway). Some of this can be attributed to gearing, most of it, however, is due to losses in present in the torque converter.

In terms of speed:
F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports. Period. If they could make an automatic shift as fast/faster as a SMG/Dual Clutch system, they would use it. The fact is, they don’t. End of debate on that end. Can automatics be made faster? Sure. The new ZF 6 speed (found on the e92) reduces shift times to ~100ms.

@Renton
The difference between DSG and regular automatics is not that DSG lacks the torque converter. In fact today’s automatics can do away with the torque converter the way DSG does. The reason why torque converter was used in automatic transmissions in the first place was to be able to stop the car without physically disconnecting the engine from the transmission. This solution was preferred instead of the car going in a sort of neutral at stop by itself, because of the poor automatic control mechanisms available when the first automatic transmission made it to the market.

Actually the early automatic planetary gearset transmissions from the late ’30s used a normal clutch to connect to the engine, the driver had to manually declutch to stop the car. These clutches were replaced with fluid coupling in the early ‘40s, and it took another 20 years for the torque converter (another type of fluid coupling, better suited for automatic transmissions) to appear.

Today DSG uses two wet multiplate clutches to connect to the engine, that can partially disengage on stop, to replicate the behavior of a torque converter, that is allowing the engine to idle while the car is stopped without putting the car in neutral (DSG still has the “forward creep” at stop of an automatic gearbox). The same solution can be implemented in a regular automatic, which also uses wet multiplate clutches, but there are important drawbacks of this solution, that prevents manufacturers to do so (I will discuss them here).

Thanks for the summing up John.
We/(Me personally) really needed it.
So what do U think guys, as another generalization of our oppinions, apart from whether U like Volvo or not: Is that DSG a nice hit or not? And is it a desperate try to catch up with other, more mass-orientated brands with wider ranges (eg. GM)?

@December12

Just a few corrections:

* F1 gearboxes are NOT double clutch transmissions. They are robotized manuals, more like BMW SMG, Ferrari F1 transmission (introduced on 355 F1) or Lambos E-gear.

* In F1 automatic transmissions are not allowed by the regulation. There was in the mid 90s a debate of whether or not to allow the automatic transmissions to be used in F1, manufacturers arguing for making them legal. F1 organizers decided against them, they argued that this could compromise F1 perception among the motorsport audience. Automatic transmissions are not used in F1 simply because of the regulation, not because there is some technical difficulty that would prevent it.

* Torque converter lock-up is a feature of pretty much every current automatic gearbox, except perhaps the cheapest 4-speed autoboxes (but those are not something to talk about in the first place).

* according to BMW 530d gets a combined consumption of 42.2 mpg on manual and 37.7 mpg on auto. However, if we look at 540i the situation is reversed: it gets 25.7 mpg on manual and 27.2 mpg on auto, and guess what 540i automatic gets faster to 62mph than 530d manual, despite that 530d engine produces far more torque down low! (500Nm@1750rpm for 530d compared with 390Nm@3500rpm for 540i)

huck f1 cars as of mid 2006 season all use a dual clutch seamless gearbox which preselects the “next” gear and activates it fast enough to eliminate the need for a throttle blip, which will send a car off. it is debatable how “automatic” f1 transmissions are but the simple fact remains the driver simply activates a digital switch which allows a computer to manage throttle and gear change. it eliminates the need for the driver to manage throttle and gear change control which i would call automatic.

If you saw any of the races this year you would have noticed the drivers flat throughout turns while shifting, using the paddles. this is accomplished by a seamless, dual clutch sequential gear box. you would have also seen the lap times of the cars besting those of the previous years v10’s.

Ignore that December12 at the beginning the previous post was a reply to some of the remarks made here by John and kellyp.

S-60-driver, no it has nothing to do with $ but rather I was amazed at your stupidity for actually “owning” those brands. And FYI, leasing is the solution for those too poor to buy cash. Now I know how much you’re worth. Poor you…

@kellyp
The term seamless gearbox refers to CVT transmissions, which are also banned by the F1 regulation. I have to admit that I have followed less and less Formula 1 since I’ve moved to US, but I have never heard of teams switching to double clutch transmissions, can you point out to some really good source on this matter?

Here it should be noted that DSG transmissions are purely automatic (despite that they are basically made of two intermeshed manual gearboxes). This shoud go against F1 regulations. Robotized manuals are still manual transmissions, in which driver’s commands are sent by wire (instead of a direct mechanical/hydraulic connection, like in a normal manual gearbox).

In a DSG there CANNOT be a direct mechanical connection between the driver and the transmission (in order to change gears), there is no other option that sending the input through wire. When the dual clutch gearbox was invented in the 30s, it was from the beginning thought as an automatic transmission. Nowadays DSG allows manual override, but this first dual clutch transmission was purely automatic (because it was purely mechanical, and it did not allowed a connection between the driver and the transmission, much like a planetary gearset transmission).

In other words DSG is an automatic transmission with manual override, just like those based on planetary gearsets (with manual override). Calling DSG a “sequential manual transmission” is just marketing nonsense, geared mostly towards the European driver, which has to overcome some of its own prejudices regarding the automatic transmissions. It is funny that Borg Warner, the American manufacturer that brought DSG to the market, was one of the staunchest preponents of the torque converter automatics in the late ’50s (wiping out in 10 years all other types of automatics based on different kinds of fluid coupling).

“Is that DSG a nice hit or not? And is it a desperate try to catch up with other, more mass-orientated brands with wider ranges (eg. GM)?’

DSG would be welcome in most models while CVT excels for mini cars. Those who have tried the CVT in a Honda Fit or City would agree that it gives a major advantage on the launch but it will lose to the manual on the freeway. To completely drop CVT is not the brightest idea as it is by design the smoothest type of transmission there is. Ignoring performance and maintenance costs, basically you get an option for a smoother or sportier transmission than the regular auto.

As for the real reason Ford wants to use it on their offerings, it’s probably just a marketing scheme to fool customers into buying the “latest greatest technology invention” that’s available on German brands but most drivers don’t need. It’s just like how completely slow and useless the paddleshift is on the Euro Focus. And I don’t know why Volvo is the one developing it for Ford since their auto transmission can’t take too much abuse from the turbo engine and will get rough in a short period of time. But why blame them, everybody needs to make some $.

google seamless gearbox formula one, and while your at it google dsg while your at it.

CVT’s will not be seen in widespread applications for one simple reason. Customers don’t like them. In an effort to make people comfortable with them, manufacturers have gone as far as to add unecessary “shift” points, simulating the rise and fall of revs to make it seem like they’re shifting.
As for DSG’s, they are a fantastic compromise for those that want both manual and automatic functions in the same car. They blow ’smg’ type trannies out of the water for smoothness and speed. If you havn’t tried one, head down to an Audi dealer and try an A3. It will open your eyes to a new way of shifting.
I don’t know if they will ever replace auto’s or sticks, but they will definitely make the BMW SMG type tranny seem ridiculously behind the times. I’d say having 3 choices, DSG, full auto, and full manual, will only be a good thing for manufacturers.

@awd_volvo
Unfortunately DSG is a step backwards. Bear with me and read this boring explanation.

A manual transmission (SMG and similar gearboxes are included here) has a single layshaft, a single clutch and it can produce ONE gear ratio at any given time. If the driver needs another ratio he has to change the gears. A DSG transmission has two layshafts, two clutches to change between the layshafts and can produce TWO gear ratios at any given time. A planetary gearset automatic transmission (regular automatic gearbox) has multiple shafts, multiple clutches to change between the shafts and it produces ALL gear ratios at the same time.

Now you can see why DSG is superior to SMG. DSG has two layshafts and beside the currently used gear ratio it can preselect the next gear ratio. This reduces the shift time by a large amount, because the only thing that happens (when the correct gear is preselected) is the switch between clutches. Because of this DSG shifts much faster and smoother than a manual gearbox, which besides clutching it also has to change the gears (this takes much longer than clutch switching and it will also interrupt the power delivery from the engine).

The problem is that the two shafts/two clutches arrangement is also DSG’s biggest drawback. DSG cannot read driver’s mind nor road conditions, it cannot really make accurate predictions on what gear to preselect. In normal driving, DSG is pretty good in making these decisions, but DSG is marketed as a sporty transmission, and here is where DSG fails. Let’s take a typical situation. Let’s say you start from a traffic light with average push on the throttle pedal. Due to road conditions you decide to change lanes and you need to accelerate. The trouble is that at that point DSG wants to upshift (it already preselected the upper gear), while you need to downshift. It will downshift if you tell to do so, but the lag is very much noticeable, and you won’t get the acceleration push when you need it.

For an automatic transmission in the same situation it makes no difference whether you want to upshift or downshift, it has either ratios waiting to be engaged by the appropriate clutch. Unfortunately, in real world, you won’t get any advantage driving an automatic in this scenario, because the clutches in today’s automatic transmissions are slow, especially when downshifting to lower gears. However, there is no technical impediment that prevents the use of faster clutches in the future. Faster clutches were not installed in automatic gearboxes because it was believed that the market is not interested in such a development. This is not true anymore; we should make manufacturers notice that fast clutches are desired on automatic transmissions.

Related problems caused by the dual shaft layout, are the lack of consistency in shift times (upshift to preselected gear is superfast, anything else takes place with a noticeable lag) and the gear hunt at low speeds (the gearbox controller does not know what gear to select and/or preselect, and it switches back and forth, which is quite disconcerting for the driver).

The other category of DSG drawbacks are those related to the lack of a torque converter. DSG is already a heavy gearbox, mounting a torque converter would only make the things worse. Nevertheless, it needs a torque converter. The reason why the torque converter was adopted on automatic transmissions was to allow the engine to idle while the car is stopped. Later it was used as another reduction gear at low speeds, it bumped the torque as much as 2:1 at low speed (with power losses), very useful for specific applications. These reasons are not important anymore, and the design of the torque converter changed considerably. For early torque converters slippage was very important (to provide the torque boost), nowadays slippage is reduced to minimum by design (so much that it is perfectly comparable with that in manual transmissions).

Torque converters are used nowadays mostly to dampen the shift shock, where they are very effective. The lack of direct control over the clutch and gear shift in automated transmissions derived from manual gearboxes (like SMG, DSG) makes the shift noticeable and unpleasant for the driver and its passengers. Even for DSG, where the interruption of power cannot be felt, the shifts in low gears at low speeds are unpleasantly jerky. These shift shocks would have been absorbed with a torque converter. Another scenario where DSG needs a torque converter is at starting from a stop: if the driver is not careful, the clutch engages with a strong jolt, something that wouldn’t have happened if the transmission had a torque converter. The lifespan of the DSG clutches is pretty short, and overall DSG gearbox is not the kind of transmission that inspires the driver a feeling of a reliability (hunting in low gears contributes to this), are other issues that could have been alleviated by using a torque converter.

@kellyp

I googled for it before and I haven’t found any mention from an official F1 site, clearly saying that they are using a double clutch transmission. So, unless you have a credible source to put it here, it means that DSG type transmissions are not used in F1.

Now, I remember that BAR was trying something like a double-clutch gearbox in 2005, and there was some controversy surrounding it. But I don’t remember how all ended. There was always a rumor that top teams are working on double-clutch transmissions, but I haven’t found anything clear about their use during actual F1 races.

Veda, ur an ass-moron…. i get very bored with cars. I love them to death. Thats why i lease cars. I wish they have 6 months leases or 12 months leases. Oh well!! BTW, I BOUGHT 2003 Honda Accord Coupe with 7,000 CASH down. Im not poor.

Now, just forget about it. DSG is sweet. Its faster than manual verison. Like VW. Itll make Ford look good than GM with their crappy 4 speed autos. I know they have 6 speed, not in majority of vehicles!

@Huck

I agree with most of your explanation but this:

“Even for DSG, where the interruption of power cannot be felt, the shifts in low gears at low speeds are unpleasantly jerky.”

This couldn’t be further from the truth. I’ve test driven a DSG GTI myself and low speed shifts (or any shift, down or up) is impressively smooth. You will also find in serious reviews of the transmission (top gear, car and driver, etc…) that no one ever made a comment pointing to a big lack of smoothness problem.

Also, any such “gear hunting” as you described seems to make sense when described theorically but is non-existent when you are actually driving the car. The DSG worst-case scenario of downshifting is something like going from one gear to another that is two notch under (ie on the same clutch) and even that is faster than any automatic gear change. I guess they made a very good job with the prediction algorithm.

Like someone else suggested I say anyone who wants to make up their mind about the DSG should head to a VW/Audi dealer and test drive one.

BTW, DSG is VW group’s term for their dual-clutch transmission (direct sequential gearbox). It is time to stop calling any similar design like that.

Uh, Huck, have you actually DRIVEN a DSG equipped car??
I have. I noticed absolutely ZERO jerkiness or delay in shifting. Their may be scenarios where shifting isn’t as fast as top efficiency, but it still is light years ahead of any other automated manual box. Don’t see where you claim it’s a step backwards.
Porsche and BMW make great full auto’s, but they still don’t satisfy the enthusiast like a manual, and sometimes you just don’t want to be clutching and uncluthing all day, especially if you live in high traffic areas.
So, like I said, DSG is a huge step forward. Having another viable option in transmissions is a good thing.
I rest my case.

faroche,
DSG is like ‘Kleenex’. It’s a brand name that’s become standard for the product.
I think DSG is a great way to refer to it.
What would you suggest?

I guess DSG is fine as long as people know what they are refering to and dont think it’s german for dual-clutch or some crap like that. I thought it would be a good opportunity to not repeat the kleenex mistake.

I believe the DSG initials come from the German word “Direktschaltgetriebe”, meaning direct shift gearbox. I believe it was first called “dual sequential” referring to the dual clutches, then marketing decided “direct shift” was more consumer friendly.
It’s also reffered to as a “DCT” or dual clutch tranny.
Porsche used them in racing versions first, I believe, and called them PDK (Porsche Doppelkupplungs)
With all that confusion, I’m just calling it DSG.

S-60-driver, ok you brought this up… if you think cash $7000 is a lot of money for a car, try $180,000 cash for a brand new Mercedes S350. Yea it really costs that much for the S Class here and yea I paid cash. So you’re really as poor as I thought eh?

norby413, yea CVT will never see mainstream use but I haven’t seen a single complain on small cars from Honda and Nissan.

lol, ur lying. Nice try. Maybe ur a drug dealer gangsta or whoever.

Just forget about it. There are many peeps in America that can afford cash down payment or a whole car for cash.

Move on…….

something’s not right, there is no 2007 S350. Only S550 and up. If ur car is a 2006, then yes there is a S350, but only like 70 grand. What are u talking about $180 grand?? Even the top of line AMG verison cost 130 grand. Top.

S-60-driver, the hint is in the “S350″ which is not available in the US. Yea I happened to be in a place where they actually offer S350 as the lowest model for the S Class and where the tax is 75% of the norm depending on the engine size. Here’s another hint, early this year when they offered the new S Class it was selling for $266.000. To give you an idea, the new Audi TT 2.0T is going for $95K here. A Maybach is somewhere in the 600K region. But if you’ve read my comments regarding the CVT you would’ve already known that I’m not in US (anymore).

And really, you don’t have to be a “gangsta” to be able to buy those kind of rides cash. You just have to do business with oil companies. I’m about to purchase 92 brand new Toyotas totalling close to $3 million. Part of business of course, so I don’t actually lose any money like when you use leasing. But feel free to call it BS if you want.

BTW, I have nothing against Volvo. In fact, their cars have very unique features and little details that can’t be found in other European brands. But really, I don’t think anyone else here would want to drive one let alone own one simply due to bias. As for the DSG, it’d probably be useful only for their bigger engines.

That’s better, Veda. There are 54 comments on here. I can’t read every single one of them. Some are too long and blabbling on and on. Sorry.

Please, don’t buy 92 new Toyotas. Get Ford or Chrysler or whatever. Enjoy ur business.

I love the DSG, dual-tronic, dual-clutch, etc. It works and I’ve driven all variants available in the US. Like it so much that if the car doesn’t have it, I don’t really want it. Is it perfect? No but nothing ever is. It’s better than anything else, however, in my opinion.

So this announcement simply puts Volvo on the radar for me. Good job.

Huck,

It’s pretty obvious that you know little about DSGs. Let’s take Volkswagen for example. All VWs with DSGs are drive-by-wire. Shifts are preselected based on throttle input. You are on the throttle, and the next highest gear is preselected. If the throttle is sensed to be moving quickly, the next LOWEST gear is selected and ready to apply by the time the engine begins to apply the demanded additional power.

Please go and drive one of these transmissions in a VW before criticizing it based on limited knowledge and paper-based statistics. It responds faster and more fluid than any automatic transmission I have ever come across.

“There is something to be said for real-world experience. Anyone can be a bench racer.”

The manual transmission is dead.

“No word on when, or if, the new transmission will make it to the U.S.”
With the new fuel economy laws and Volvo competing in some very tough segments, this must come to the U.S. Then drop it into some Mazda and Ford models to spread the wealth around. Less than 330 lb-ft of torque would make it able to handle all the V6’s and 4 cylinders in the Ford universe.

actually looks pretty sweet. twin-wet clutches sounds nice…

If, and big IF . . . Ford hasn’t sold Volvo by then.

“Huck: The problem is that the two shafts/two clutches arrangement is also DSG’s biggest drawback. DSG cannot read driver’s mind nor road conditions, it cannot really make accurate predictions on what gear to preselect. In normal driving, DSG is pretty good in making these decisions, but DSG is marketed as a sporty transmission, and here is where DSG fails. Let’s take a typical situation. Let’s say you start from a traffic light with average push on the throttle pedal. Due to road conditions you decide to change lanes and you need to accelerate. The trouble is that at that point DSG wants to upshift (it already preselected the upper gear), while you need to downshift. It will downshift if you tell to do so, but the lag is very much noticeable, and you won’t get the acceleration push when you need it.”

Me: ’08 A3 DSG driver for 4 months: This has happened to me twice, at first I thought something broke. It took seconds before I had a gear since I let off the accelerator and then went on, a true WTF moment. It took like 4 or 5 seconds to calm down and pick a gear. I blame myself since I “confused” it and since I learned what was going on I drive just a little different now. Both times were making a turn from a stop and not wanting to get rear-ended BTW. It would be better if this did not happen… However the DSG, other than this has been superb. I would not trade it for a manual, automatic, CVT, or any other “current” transmission.

As far as accurate it is +99%… I am able to start slow and change my mind and want to downshift as long as I really want to downshift by giving the accelerator more than a normal gentle push. Very cool schematics at the VW site showing the slidy input shaft which is magic. No clunking, no lag, no unpleasantness in downshifts or upshifts (99% of the time). I am in 3rd gear almost always before I get through any intersection when driven normally.

Also you do have 100% control if you want to use the paddles + for up and – for down or by placing the shift selector in the console into the + - area to tap whatever gears you want.

I haven’t driven a DSG yet. The two biggest problem I’ve had with other ‘manu-matics’ are:
1. Not being able to go directly to a gear (say 5th to 3rd downshift) without going through the in-between gears;
2. No easy way to engage neutral (for example, cruising through a sweeping curve and then blasting out of the apex in 2nd).

Regardless of your guys opinion about this technology it will not be available to us in US anytime soon. As well as diesel. Ford sucks!

Cheese monkeys will take over the world!

Drove an Audi TT with a dual clutch manumatic and it was seriously cool. I couldnt find any downside to it. The shifting was the cats ass. This type of transmission should be available on everything.

global_lilghting, cruising in neutral is not efficient anyways.

I agree with gbb, I’ve test-driven TT’s and GTI’s with this transmission and really liked it. However, I love the 6-speed manual on my Z4. As long as I don’t live in a traffic-ridden city (Indianapolis is not bad at all) I will continue to buy cars with a proper clutch.

47mpg not bad.