Formula One drivers in the early 90s were the only ones really able to come close, with shift times between 150 and 200ms. The average person is more around 300 - 400ms when shifting aggressively. You can be faster than 300 - 400ms, but not with 100% consistency, especially on downshifts, and especially with some transmissions with odd clutch engagement points or shift levers that require more deliberate effort.
A modern DCT, like Porsche's 2nd generation PDK, has a shift time of 150ms. Porsche's 3rd generations are even faster -- the PDK-S in the new GT3 is 100ms. The version in the 918 Spyder is 50ms. All of these are perfectly rev-matched, every time.
I've driven many tremendously good manual transmissions. However, generation two PDK is good enough that after four test drives (two with a 6-speed, two with PDK + Sport Chrono) I've actually decided to order my Cayman S with PDK since it's unquestionably better. The only thing I wish is it had the "burnout/donut mode" of the 3rd gen.
Did you find DCT to be at least as fun as manual? I think I'd miss the feeling of nailing the revs perfectly on a downshift while braking for a turn on the track.
Any thoughts?
As for the Cayman S, it's a damn serious car. My load out hits 60 in 4.1-4.2s with launch control, and the 1/4 mile in around 12.6-12.7 @ 110mph (and 175mph in ~49 seconds). A set of Michelin Pilot Super Sports will get it to hold around 1.1g of lateral grip (sustained, not peak). You can't go anywhere near its limits on public roads, except in a straight line. If you want sideways fun, there's the MX-5 and BRZ/FR-S for exactly that.
In a more powerful car (trust me, 325HP is still a lot in a 2900lb car!), DCTs give you a nice quick immediate jolt from the power surging in almost immediately. It keeps a wonderful engine note (and boy does a Cayman S with sport exhaust make some noise) uninterrupted and always on boil. Once Porsche changes its PDK shift levers to those like the GT3 (pull to upshift), those who want to think they're in a racing car with a sequential box can. If I could get PDK-S in a Cayman S, I would and would mostly use the shift lever.
I find most detractors of a good DCT haven't driven a car with one. Additionally, not all manuals are great to begin with, which can be frustrating when you're trying to be quick. The MX-5 is ridiculously good for what the car cost. The Type 997 911 had a great 6-speed as well. My Lancer Evolution VIII MR had an extremely heavy clutch, and I'd say the last few BMW M cars have had a heavier clutch than I'd prefer (and dev money was mostly spent on DCTs). Corvette Z06s and Vipers (last drove a third gen/ZB) require a very deliberate use of the shift lever.
That's not correct. When the GT-R first came out I read a great article about why it was so damn quick down the 1/4 compared to super cars that are 2-6x more expensive. The reasons were:
1. Most of them dyno at around 480hp AT THE WHEELS. So it's making more power than Nissan claims.
2. It's the first car to get all the electronics (stability control, etc. etc.) good enough to actually make it faster, not just get in the way
3. The dual-clutch gearbox changes were so fast, they did a comparison of how long the GT-R is in neutral during the 1/4 compared to other supercars with regular manual gearboxes. I remember the time difference being in the .4-.8 second range. That was the #1 reason it was so fast - it spends an extra 0.5 seconds actually putting power to the road, which is obviously huge in a ~12 sec 1/4.
I don't see how your first two points are relevant to what I said, or your original post. You can love the GTR all you want, I don't mind, and I never claimed that there was anything wrong with it.
As for point 3, if you were to compare to a theoretical manual transmission GTR, that half a second of extra power would still only net you a couple tenths advantage, since acceleration and aerodynamic drag are nonlinear.
And I stand by my claim that a couple tenths on a 12 second quarter mile is 'not much faster.'
They're not, I just wanted to include them for the curious.
> You can love the GTR all you want, I don't mind, and I never claimed that there was anything wrong with it.
It's an amazing car, but it's not like I have one or even want one.
>As for point 3, if you were to compare to a theoretical manual transmission GTR, that half a second of extra power would still only net you a couple tenths advantage, since acceleration and aerodynamic drag are nonlinear. And I stand by my claim that a couple tenths on a 12 second quarter mile is 'not much faster.'
You've never tried to build a 12 second car have you? A couple of tens is HUGE for a well behaved road car with a sound system, air conditioning and creature comforts. You could easily spend tens of thousands on a drag car in an attempt to get that. (I just looked it up, Motor Trend ran an 11.6, which is F-A-S-T)
Reminds me of that episode with May saying something on the lines of "We're going at 400kmph... and we've got air-conditioning and radio". Now, that is serious engineering.
I would expect something like the GT-R to have much less crank/flywheel angular mass than the average car, as well as beefed up transmission components. Even so, IIRC they had to dial things back a bit because transmissions were blowing up.
DCTs get rid of the delay from matching the input and output shafts of a conventional manual. Very helpful, but not a cure-all. My car (automated manual, non-DCT) spends much more time matching the engine to the input shaft than the input to the output shaft.