New 245 manual or dsg?

[DavidY]

32 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

The worse thing about auto is the lack of engine braking, you will go through a more brakes. 

 

I don't understand what you're getting at re: lack of engine braking comment for a DSG? Surely it's a clutch so stays in gear except at low speeds.

(And Eco mode but even then it's easy enough to touch the brakes to put it into gear.)

 

[teescom09]

4 minutes ago, DavidY said:

 

I don't understand what you're getting at re: lack of engine braking comment for a DSG? Surely it's a clutch so stays in gear except at low speeds.

(And Eco mode but even then it's easy enough to touch the brakes to put it into gear.)

 

Because they don't change down quick or early enough in my experience. The Ford one is better on gradients, it seems to know, but the vag one a bit more reluctant to change down to provide enough engine braking, you can use your flappy paddles if you want. My brakes are still original and were 75% front and 80% rear at 40k. My A6 Quattro was 50% with 15k on

Edited 4 February, 2019 by teescom09

[teescom09]

16 minutes ago, ahenners said:

 

 

So the auto doesn't emit more co2 than the manual equivalent then? 

NO sorry using ****e Skoda web site, the manual is still more economical and less co2. You have to keep clicking the engine/box type to get the correct info to appear.  Its actually the same figures but in favour of the manual.  

[ahenners]

13 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

No not now, somehow they have magically switched it around if the web site is correct "this week" Although it doesn't seem to work properly but I think thats what it now says. 

 

Just now, teescom09 said:

NO sorry using ****e Skoda web site, the manual is still more economical and less co2. You have to keep clicking the engine/box type to get the correct info to appear.  Its actually the same figures but in favour of the manual.  

 

I'm curious as to why you believe the modern auto equivalent of a manual is always less economical and emits more CO2?

 

The VRS Challenge 245 which has only just been announced, and therefore presumably only just tested, shows the DSG variant both in the PDF brochure and on the configurator as emitting 13g/km less CO2 than the manual variant. Both have undertaken the same standardised test, under the exact same conditions, and the auto produced a lower figure. If I look at the figures for the new BMW 3 Series which has only just been released, again the 8 speed auto variants have between 5 and 11g/km lower figures than the 6 speed manuals.

 

Are you suggesting the test favours automatic gearboxes, and if so how?

[DavidY]

10 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

NO sorry using ****e Skoda web site, the manual is still more economical and less co2. You have to keep clicking the engine/box type to get the correct info to appear.  Its actually the same figures but in favour of the manual.  

In the downloadable spec document, the manuals are consistently worse than autos for CO2 (but better for fuel economy).

But... the CO2 figures are old-style NEDC, when the mpg are WLTP and I suspect that's the difference? (Given CO2 and fuel usage are intrinsically linked if they were measured in the same cycle.)

 

Edit: However I don't understand why they can't make DSGs better than manuals by better programming though.
Also, I note there are some models (eg. SE L 4x4s) which are *only* available in DSG. If the manuals are always more economical, why no manual versions of them? Could it be that the manuals would have been thirstier so they didn't bother even selling those models?

Edited 4 February, 2019 by DavidY

[teescom09]

7 minutes ago, ahenners said:

 

 

I'm curious as to why you believe the modern auto equivalent of a manual is always less economical and emits more CO2?

 

The VRS Challenge 245 which has only just been announced, and therefore presumably only just tested, shows the DSG variant both in the PDF brochure and on the configurator as emitting 13g/km less CO2 than the manual variant. Both have undertaken the same standardised test, under the exact same conditions, and the auto produced a lower figure. If I look at the figures for the new BMW 3 Series which has only just been released, again the 8 speed auto variants have between 5 and 11g/km lower figures than the 6 speed manuals.

 

Are you suggesting the test favours automatic gearboxes, and if so how?

The Skoda configurator shows as I said. Are you looking at NEDC CO2??? As I just checked BMW and the manual petrol 2 series I looked at was also more economical wltp but the CO2 was NEDC which is irrelevant however still used up to next year. Some print the wltp and NEDC some don't. Its a mine field and you have to be careful. 

Edited 4 February, 2019 by teescom09

[teescom09]

5 minutes ago, DavidY said:

In the downloadable spec document, the manuals are consistently worse than autos for CO2 (but better for fuel economy).

But... the CO2 figures are old-style NEDC, when the mpg are WLTP and I suspect that's the difference? (Given CO2 and fuel usage are intrinsically linked if they were measured in the same cycle.)

Learn about NEDC and WLTP. No point me trying to explain it. 

[shyVRS245]

3 minutes ago, DavidY said:

In the downloadable spec document, the manuals are consistently worse than autos for CO2 (but better for fuel economy).

But... the CO2 figures are old-style NEDC, when the mpg are WLTP and I suspect that's the difference? (Given CO2 and fuel usage are intrinsically linked if they were measured in the same cycle.)

According to latest Feb 2019 Price List Data the 245 manual hatch has combined 36.7mpg with 154 co2, yet the DSG hatch combined is 35.8mpg yet lower 142 co2 which doesn't make sense as higher consumption should also result in higher co2 as they are linked.

[DavidY]

Just now, shyVRS245 said:

According to latest Feb 2019 Price List Data the 245 manual hatch has combined 36.7mpg with 154 co2, yet the DSG hatch combined is 35.8mpg yet lower 142 co2 which doesn't make sense as higher consumption should also result in higher co2 as they are linked.

 

That was my point - if they're measured under different test methods it's probably why one figure for autos goes up when the other goes down.

[DavidY]

3 minutes ago, teescom09 said:

Learn about NEDC and WLTP. No point me trying to explain it. 

 

I think I understand them. Can you point out the flaw in what I said?

[teescom09]

12 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

According to latest Feb 2019 Price List Data the 245 manual hatch has combined 36.7mpg with 154 co2, yet the DSG hatch combined is 35.8mpg yet lower 142 co2 which doesn't make sense as higher consumption should also result in higher co2 as they are linked.

They are using NEDC for CO2 still but wltp for economy. Skoda do have the WLTP CO2 figures online which are exactly as you would expect if you can get the thing to work, you have to click the engine type a few times. 

Audi and Seat of all people last time I checked were still using NEDC economy figures, unbelievable. 

[teescom09]

17 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

According to latest Feb 2019 Price List Data the 245 manual hatch has combined 36.7mpg with 154 co2, yet the DSG hatch combined is 35.8mpg yet lower 142 co2 which doesn't make sense as higher consumption should also result in higher co2 as they are linked.

 

15 minutes ago, DavidY said:

 

I think I understand them. Can you point out the flaw in what I said?

No flaw. Sounds good to me. 

[teescom09]

27 minutes ago, DavidY said:

In the downloadable spec document, the manuals are consistently worse than autos for CO2 (but better for fuel economy).

But... the CO2 figures are old-style NEDC, when the mpg are WLTP and I suspect that's the difference? (Given CO2 and fuel usage are intrinsically linked if they were measured in the same cycle.)

 

Edit: However I don't understand why they can't make DSGs better than manuals by better programming though.
Also, I note there are some models (eg. SE L 4x4s) which are *only* available in DSG. If the manuals are always more economical, why no manual versions of them? Could it be that the manuals would have been thirstier so they didn't bother even selling those models?

One reason is your always on the throttle during changes, your not with a manual and another is the drag  and probably the most likely, more losses through the box. Effectively driving two gearboxes so one is spinning away taking a little power while not in use.  The odd make has them pretty equal or even a fraction ahead but the majority I have looked at a couple of mpg down

[Ootohere]

^^^ You do talk some sharn.  Any driver can get a DSG to drive efficiently, and not all drivers are competent with a manual and clutch.

Best go back and check WLTP results not that they have anything to do with passengers and luggage in a vehicle.

Fuely more liable to show what drivers are getting with the latest DSG's compared to manuals.

[teescom09]

46 minutes ago, DavidY said:

Edit: However I don't understand why they can't make DSGs better than manuals by better programming though.
Also, I note there are some models (eg. SE L 4x4s) which are *only* available in DSG. If the manuals are always more economical, why no manual versions of them? Could it be that the manuals would have been thirstier so they didn't bother even selling those models?

It's down to demand, most people seem to want auto these days. But there is another much bigger reason, they have to get wltp approval for every version. They also have to have an overall average CO2 of every version no higher than 130gms wltp. And I believe that drops to 115 grms next year or so. So two high emitters for the sake of a gearbox just won't happen anymore. Hence no 130 version etc. The manual probably would be marginally more economical and produce less co2, but they have to sell em! 

[teescom09]

10 minutes ago, Skoffski said:

^^^ You do talk some sharn.  Any driver can get a DSG to drive efficiently, and not all drivers are competent with a manual and clutch.

Best go back and check WLTP results not that they have anything to do with passengers and luggage in a vehicle.

Fuely more liable to show what drivers are getting with the latest DSG's compared to manuals.

Really? Any person can drive a slush box badly too. The test is based on someone that can drive properly whether manual or auto, its an accurate comparison based on a standard cars in like for like situations, something we haven't had for a long time. And going by the numbers it's looking pretty dam accurate. 

[Ootohere]

The discussions was manuals or Automated Manuals so DSG's, nobody asked about a Slush Box Auto.

[Sliceman]

Manual every day for me. Total control, never in the wrong gear and a more involving driving experience. Where i live has little traffic so that helps too but each to their own !

[nidza]

On 02/02/2019 at 15:03, Gherkin said:

Hi everyone, 

 

I'm about to order a new octavia vrs 245 challenge and can't decide between manual or dsg version. I've read that the dsg in the 245 can be a bit slow to react and clunky? Can anyone help me out? 

 

Thanks 

 

The answer is: YES!

 

Difference between both good choices, EVERYONE neglects, is that manual is ~20% shorter with gear ratios and more fun. It accelerates better in the same gear, but DSG changes gears faster.

 

[Scotty72]

3 minutes ago, nidza said:

 

The answer is: YES!

 

Difference between both good choices, EVERYONE neglects, is that manual is ~20% shorter with gear ratios and more fun. It accelerates better in the same gear, but DSG changes gears faster.

 

The manual is also lacking one gear ratio  DSGs on 245s are 7 speed, its like comparing chalk and cheers on gear ratios given this.

[nidza]

Just now, Scotty72 said:

The manual is also lacking one gear ratio  DSGs on 245s are 7 speed, its like comparing chalk and cheers on gear ratios given this.

 

Oh yes, you are right! Now they come up with an extra gear. Forget my remark, it is damn obsolete. Applies for DSG 6. 

[teescom09]

8 hours ago, nidza said:

 

The answer is: YES!

 

Difference between both good choices, EVERYONE neglects, is that manual is ~20% shorter with gear ratios and more fun. It accelerates better in the same gear, but DSG changes gears faster.

 

And also means the auto is changing gear a hell of lot more often, wasting fuel with excessive gear changes. They seem to be forever changing gear, little wonder they have suspect reliability long term. DC gearboxes need the extra ratios to reduce the slip on the clutches, Ford learned this the hard way on their dry clutch versions, but so have vag. Manuals do NOT need more gears, 6 is more than enough with a turbo engine, too many in most circumstances. I often go 1 - 2 -5 - 6th when in traffic flow or similar, same changing down, you can't do that with an auto.  Its a personal choice, in a bigger  heavy car i would have auto slush box, in a smaller hot hatch, I wouldn't want auto by choice but it wouldn't stop me getting me one if I really wanted the car itself. 

 

BMW are swaying back to Slush boxes as they have caught up with DC boxes for manual control and have better refinement, some say their slush box might actually make its way into the M cars, just about the only ones using DCT. The vast majority wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a slush box and a Dual clutch. Especially the VAG versions as they have similar characteristics, still creep etc. 

[shyVRS245]

All well and good the 7 speed DSG ticking over at 1,800rpm at 70mph on the motorway but way below the 2,600 actual torque maximum so demand a quick burst of acceleration and it will kick down one or even 2 gears to give you the acceleration you expect in a Vrs. My manual sits at 2,300rpm at 70mph just below the max torque and provides instant acceleration even in 6th gear. No unnecessary downchanging and wasting of fuel.

[themanwithnoaim]

WHoTF GAF about fuel, emissions or the price of road tax, the DSG is faster WTF more do you need to know

 

Ps. As some have comment, yes my brakes will soon required replacing, the rear discs are lipping quite badly & getting server noise under prolonged hard braking. Reducing 60, 70 or even 80mph requires brake pumping !!!

[Ootohere]

VW said they were going 10 speed, and came to their senses or stopped spinning stories, but that would have almost been CVT.

There are 8 and 9 speed Automatics around and driving very nicely changing gears up and down to 70 mph, or even 9 gears in 60 mph or less.

 

The future with Hybrid and EV's is never going to be manual boxes so anyone happy with them might as well stick with them while available.

 

The DSG's in the Golf GTE are pretty damn good.

& these.