Is it a mistake in the acceleration figures that the 2.0 DSG and manual both show 9.6 secs for 0-62 mph? Wouldn't the DSG be a bit slower. It is for the other engines.

DSG = pretty much as fast as a good/very good driver shifting through the gears, it's not like a conventional auto box. Also IIRC there is a minor difference in the engine tuning but I'm probably wrong on that last one (per usual )

This is an old chestnut, I have a DSG Elegance and would have to slow down to get 9.6 secs as would anyone with a manual, the published figures are purely marketing IMHO.

DSG is damn quick at changing gear although initial take off is not as fast as amanual unless you try fooling the box at the risk of breaking something. A colleugue with a manual Octy prefers my DSG now he has driven it, although we havn't yet managed to go side by side to see if there is much difference.

Taz

DSG suffers no loss of momentum thro' the gears as it shifts quicker than the very best of humans.

Also this form of auto box doesn't sap power the same way as a traditional auto

DSG suffers no loss of momentum thro' the gears as it shifts quicker than the very best of humans.

Also this form of auto box doesn't sap power the same way as a traditional auto

It still has a power penalty though as two gears are in constant mesh, I doubt in the real world this would make a difference.

The pickup from 1st to 2nd especially from a turn has nearly caught me out on more than one occasion, it really is damn quick in changing.:eek:

The overall fuel economy suggests something is draining power as after 12k for a manual and 8k in my DSG the manual is 4mpg better off and I consider my colleugue a faster driver.

Taz