Would like to see that article...I absolutely agree with you, and on top of these arguments have to add that a Golf V-GTI edition 30 (same engine as the Cupra-slightly detuned to 230hp) with DSG gearbox has been tested slower in 1/4 mile and 0-160 km/h than a standard Cupra ...
As here in the uk, Autocar magazine have tested both 0-100 with the Cupra managing a 15.3 and the Edition 30 dusting it off in 14.8.. So they have it the other way round... I would say they'd be pretty close...
The "factory time" for the Volkswagen DSG is:
6,9sec Golf GTI DSG (7,2sec for the 6MT)
7,0sec A3 2.0T S-tronic (7,1 for the 6MT)
7,2sec FR DSG (7,3 for the 6MT)
7,3sec Skoda RS (only in 6MT)
I´m pretty sure the estimated times has to do with VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda politics and marketing strategies because it cannot be right.
Why would DSG cut 0,3sec only on the GTI but not on the other two? Of course it has to do with marketing. The Seat can´t be as quick as "the big brother", thats for sure
The Seat weighs a couple of pounds more than the GTI though, but so little it could be evened out by the driver and how much gas in the tank.
Where did you get this 7,5seconds? Source?
How do you propose a car with 40bhp (or 20%) less power than another identical car is going to be faster? Yes a DSG will change gears faster to the tune of 2/10ths of a second per gear at the absolute most. There is one gear change required from 0-60mph. The cupra is one full second faster to 60 than an FR. Take the 2/10ths of a second off the second slower time and hey presto, still 8/10ths of a second slower. On the off chance you need two changes, you are still 6/10ths of a second slower.
Now try 0-100mph. This needs 3 changes. Is there 6/10ths of a second difference between a Cupra and FR from 0-100mph? No. You are now even further ahead in the Cupra.
You are right about this not being what the original post was about, but had to say something when I saw someone say that they though a standard FR TFSi DSG would be as fast or faster than standard Cupra. In two words, no chance.
To be honest, even if the DSG box was available in the Cupra I would not have it as it is not my cup of tea. Yes I have driven a DSG, but as much as people want to say they can drive it in manual mode, it still changes up at high rpm for you and it still changes down if you go too slow.
For the amount of money DSG costs on an FR TFSi, you are looking Cupra money pretty much and with it superior brakes, uprated engine, bigger turbo etc etc but more importantly more power and no less mpg. Fair enough if you want or need an automatic, but dont kid yourself that the less powerful car is as fast or faster despite the magic gearbox. The Cupra would still be faster in accelaration and have a higher top speed than an FR DSG. Remap the FR, and that would most likely no longer be the case, but a standard Cupra would not be miles behind it
That because the DSG will change gear to avoid hitting the rev limiter or stalling it is less involving?!
statement I broadly agree with you horace... A stock FR no matter what the transmission is never going to be as fast as the Cupra.
"Ive just looked futher into it , and it seems the FR is 7.3 sec 0-60 which still not as fast as the Cupra!"
What do you mean? Nobody has said that a FR is faster than a Cupra when you put it like that.
The question was about a REMAPPED LEON FR 2.0T AUTOMATIC vs. a stock Cupra, get it?
Meeoow
Each to their own, if we all had the same car it would be boring...
I was about to make a funny comment on the Leon but that wouldnt get us anywhere would it
On the original question, I dont think therw would be much in it, a DSG FR being fractionally quicker than the Manual FR to give it more of a change.
Yep. But then S3's are being quoted at over 270bhp in standard form at rolling roads just like the Cupra and Ed30s are quoted at over their respective 240bhp and 230bhp figures. A stock S3 should therefore have 20-30bhp more than a mapped 2.0T A3
![[B)]](/forums/styles/seatcupra/oldforumsmileys/shades.gif "Cool [B)]")
