Drivetribe: BMW M3 ZCP vs Giulia QV vs C63 S Multi-Part Comparison

[996ttelise]

Originally Posted by adc

Of course HPDE, these are street cars not race cars. What would you do with them?

The M3 is a heavier car than a 911, and runs puny 255/275 tires stock. On the OEM PSS you can never get more than 2 clean fast laps before they start to run off, if you are fast. Pyrometers aren't really needed for HPDE and street tires, and the M has a tire pressure and temp display that you can keep on screen on track (mine is always on). If you are fast, the stock PSS just won't last in the dry. Too much weight, too much speed.

And what does your experience racing a 911 race car have to do with the street cars, since everything is different? Anyway on the M3, people are running measurably faster lap times on wide R comps. It's not a debate, it's fact.

Something like a 911 GT3 is already pretty maxed out tire wise, is it not? I agree with you that few people will try to go wider than the stock 305's, there is not much point.

My argument is that on an M3 there is a lot of incentive to go wider, you are simply faster, as the stock setup is not optimized towards the fastest lap time, but rather towards making the car "playful".

Pyrometers are used to determine heat dispersement and location of primary heat patch so you can adjust pressures to ensure even heat dispersion across the entire tread (i.e., even and optimal contact patch). This comment alone tells me you are at a very novice level.

Not just racing, I spent a lot of time in street cars on track as a nationally certified PCA instructor since 90s, instructed at the PDE headquartered at Barber and for Skip Barber at Laguna Seca. Also instructed for BMW CCA, Chin, PBOC Racing (BMW) and Audi for 10 + years and spent a lot of time in various street cars, M cars and BMW race cars throughout the years. This includes "classroom" instruction. Different tires and tires sizes is always a common topic.

Of course cars can be quicker on stickier tires, but that translates to all cars, not just M3s.

I spent many years playing with different tire compounds, brands and sizes on cars to see what works best, last longest, less fall off, most heat cycles and etc. for street cars driven on the track. We used data loggers to examine lines, entry and exit speeds and segment speeds to determine which compounds and sizes worked best at dialing out understeer and holding lateral grip.

You made comments on driving characteristics of 911s which were not correct and your assertion that M closes the gap on a 911 on the track when both are shrouded with the largest sized Rs is perhaps mere wishful thinking without any valid or objective basis.

Speaking of street car experience, we wrung this Muira Homage (1 of 12 in US) absolutely out yesterday . . . what a blast. You gotta appreciate stuff like this if you are a car guy like me.

[Wills2]

I think the CP does OK against the more powerful cars, you can't argue with another 60hp gives that extra second advantage 150mph.

The biggest thing I noticed going from my old F10 M5 to F80 was the pull over 100mph but that's licence losing territory, up to 100mph it's pretty close to the QF and C63S.

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by adc

It doesn't matter if it adds 5lbs per corner, car will still be faster due to the extra grip. End of story.

I have driven a GT3 RS and it's harder to slide than an M3, WTH are you talking about. And an M3 runs 1.5 negative camber stock, it's not at all aggressively aligned, you have no idea what you are saying.

Keep thinking that. It's obvious you don't understand that all cars can benefit from stickier tires to a degree.
I never claimed to be an expert in all things track related either. You on the other hand seem to think you are and most everything you're saying isn't correct.
I'll stick to deferring to someone who has believability in the topic like 996ttelise given the experience he has.
My experience was that the RS was able to power oversteer especially in lower gears very easily.
I also think 1.5 neg camber seems pretty aggressive when a stock 911 runs .4-.9 and even the 2011 GT3 RS only ran .9 neg camber IIRC. My shop set my car up at 1.5 and that's what I used to run my 911 when doing track days. Any of my friends with m3s seemed to be running neg 2-3 by comparison.

[No Boost]

....again

[Java99]

Originally Posted by ///Mikey F80

Sooo back to the actual topic of the thread,

Has anyone noticed the praise for the Alfa's drivetrain seems... I dunno, misplaced? Like seemingly every reviewer seems to oggle over it simply because it has "Ferrari DNA", but honestly it doesn't impress me that much and the sound is honestly just as bad if not worse **IN MY OPINION** than the F80, which seemingly every reviewer has mentioned as a sticking point on the F80. So basically it seems like just because a car shares "DNA" with a Ferrari it automatically makes it great? Sorry no it doesn't.. Like I get it, it's cool and something to brag to your friends about, and I get that it's a 2.9L making more power than BMWs slightly bigger displacement I6, but I don't see why it's so much better to the point that they mention it universally as awesome, but yet the very similar sounding and performing BMW drivetrain got universally sh!t on by seemingly every US and UK reviewer.

///Mike

Why is it hard to imagine it has Ferrari DNA. Alfa QV suspiciously shares bore and stroke measurements with the eight cylinder Ferrari California T sans 2 less cylinders. Ferrari engineers were obviously involved in QV development.
They put resources into the QV (Unlike the 4c) and QV is not perfect but has the potential to be a great car. I am sitting out the first year but would seriously consider a 2nd yr or 3rd yr car if the quirks gets worked out.

QV has faster, better steering than M3 and rides more comfortably. I am on BMW train too but you've got to admit when a rival is an equal or maybe better. This is the same rubbish we heard when GTR came out from 911 Guys. First there is denial, then reality sets in and then acceptance :-)

Guess what, Porsche was better for the GTR competition and actually made much better cars since the GTR and you can thank the GTR for that. BMW needs to take the Alfa seriously. I am sick of the awful exhaust noise, numb steering, fork over $$$$ for ZCP for better handling car when the car should come from factory that way - unacceptable.
The things we blindly accept from BMW and they get away with it all the time because we stay sileint. Serious competition will change that..

Alfa interior is still rubbish, cheap and reliability is a huge question mark if they improve just a little bit and get things sorted out, some of us will jump ship for sure and i know and few people like me that are just waiting for the right time to do so. I still have my other BMW i will still drive but I can appreciate an effort from Alfa.

[///Mikey F80]

Originally Posted by Java99

Why is it hard to imagine it has Ferrari DNA. Alfa QV suspiciously shares bore and stroke measurements with the eight cylinder Ferrari California T sans 2 less cylinders. Ferrari engineers were obviously involved in QV development.
They put resources into the QV (Unlike the 4c) and QV is not perfect but has the potential to be a great car. I am sitting out the first year but would seriously consider a 2nd yr or 3rd yr car if the quirks gets worked out.

QV has faster, better steering than M3 and rides more comfortably. I am on BMW train too but you've got to admit when a rival is an equal or maybe better. This is the same rubbish we heard when GTR came out from 911 Guys. First there is denial, then reality sets in and then acceptance :-)

Guess what, Porsche was better for the GTR competition and actually made much better cars since the GTR and you can thank the GTR for that. BMW needs to take the Alfa seriously. I am sick of the awful exhaust noise, numb steering, fork over $$$$ for ZCP for better handling car when the car should come from factory that way - unacceptable.
The things we blindly accept from BMW and they get away with it all the time because we stay sileint. Serious competition will change that..

Alfa interior is still rubbish, cheap and reliability is a huge question mark if they improve just a little bit and get things sorted out, some of us will jump ship for sure and i know and few people like me that are just waiting for the right time to do so. I still have my other BMW i will still drive but I can appreciate an effort from Alfa.

I think you missed my point, but that might have been my fault...

I'm not saying it's hard to imagine it has Ferrari DNA, I know that it does. What I'm saying is ridiculous is that this Alfa drivetrain is universally praised as amazing, seemingly only because of the fact that it has Ferrari DNA. It sounds just as bad (again, in my opinion) as the F80 does, a reason that has been given time and time again by reviewers of the F80 when they speak on the negatives of the car, but where are those same comments in these reviews about the Alfa? It makes more horsepower yes, but obviously not enough to make a difference on the track. Basically, what I'm saying is that it seems like just because there is Ferrari DNA in the QV, that the reviewers are ignoring the same stuff they sh!t on the F80 for.

The Alfa is a great car, and it's competition like this and the others that have upped their game in recent years that has me excited. I'm hoping BMW doesn't just sit there and write them off, and actually try to raise the bar. It will make for truly amazing M cars if they do. I'm all for competition

///Mike

[adc]

Originally Posted by 996ttelise

Pyrometers are used to determine heat dispersement and location of primary heat patch so you can adjust pressures to ensure even heat dispersion across the entire tread (i.e., even and optimal contact patch). This comment alone tells me you are at a very novice level.

Not just racing, I spent a lot of time in street cars on track as a nationally certified PCA instructor since 90s, instructed at the PDE headquartered at Barber and for Skip Barber at Laguna Seca. Also instructed for BMW CCA, Chin, PBOC Racing (BMW) and Audi for 10 + years and spent a lot of time in various street cars, M cars and BMW race cars throughout the years. This includes "classroom" instruction. Different tires and tires sizes is always a common topic.

I haven't been at a novice level for about 12 years. At the "very novice" level you are talking about, people don't know what a pyrometer is, and aren't adjusting any tire pressures on their cars. Perhaps the PCA novices are more sophisticated than BMWCCA novices, I wouldn't know.

Perhaps rather than belittle me you could instead offer useful advice. It's what an instructor should do, and I always appreciate an opportunity to learn.

With street tires and stock suspension, I didn't think the detailed information a pyrometer would give you would yield in any significant adjustment changes.

The OEM Michelin PSS has a very soft and sticky outer edge that has a different compound than the rest of the thread. When it degrades or simply wears out, it is very visible and easy to observe with the naked eye.

So currently I'm using two sources of information: the almost-realtime tire pressure and temp display in iDrive during the sessions, and post-session visual wear analysis (and double checking pressure with a gauge).

I use the PSS as my track rain tire, and Nitto NT01 as dry track tire. On the PSS, wear is very easy to analyze visually. On the Nittos, less so (minimal grooving, wider tire, even compound across the tread). Hence my comment about relative usefulness of a pyrometer on street vs track tires.

Anyway I stand to be corrected, and hopefully not just chided.

Of course cars can be quicker on stickier tires, but that translates to all cars, not just M3s


You made comments on driving characteristics of 911s which were not correct and your assertion that M closes the gap on a 911 on the track when both are shrouded with the largest sized Rs is perhaps mere wishful thinking without any valid or objective basis.

The initial conversation was in the context of the 718 Cayman vs the M3. I am convinced that replacing the stock Michelin PSS on the Cayman with say Pilot Cup 2 would yield better lap times right out of the box. But the difference would mainly come from the stickier compound (and perhaps a little from the stiffer sidewalls), because tire width would remain similar. That's because many Porsches come with very wide tires from the factory already, so the increases you can get with aftermarket tires are small.

But on an M3, you can go from 275 to 315 in the rear which is a significant jump in width. For the sake of the argument, if you replaced the stock 255/275 PSS with 295/315 PSS on an M3, I.e. maxing out the tire footprint in the first stage, you would immediately see faster lap times. Then again keeping the max footprint but changing to a Cup 2 you'd again see a decrease in lap times.

Stage 1: increase footprint, bigger gains on the M3 than on a Porsche.
Stage 2: stickier tire, similar gains on the M3 and Porsche.

Switching to the 911 : the GT3 comes with Pilot Sport Cup and posts some arbitrary lap time on some track. You jump in the stock M3, and post a slower lap time. Then you swap the stock 255/275 PSS tires in the M with 295/315 Pilot Sport Cups, jump back in, and immediately post a faster lap time than before. So you close the gap on the GT3.

But you can't do the same 2 stage improvement on the GT3, since it already wears the biggest footprint that makes sense, and it already was on sticky track tires from the very beginning.

Going back to the 718 Cayman. At that British track, it was 1 second quicker than a stock M3 ZCP. I say that, for example, if you swapped the stock 265/285 PSS on the M3 with 295/305 (or even 315) PSS, you would close the gap to the Cayman, say to half a second for the sake of the argument.

If that is not the case, please make a reasoned argument.

[adc]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I agree with many of your points, but have you ever driven or seen a GT3 lap on Hoosiers? Pretty sick

Oh yes. I've seen them in open sessions, and it's a different story.

That is why I am not discussing slicks, since the stock suspension on the M3 is not optimized for that. You'd have to run a lot more camber and especially at the front, or else wear out the outer edge very quickly.

Anyway I have zero experience running the M3 on slicks so I won't discuss that.

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by adc

I haven't been at a novice level for about 12 years. At the "very novice" level you are talking about, people don't know what a pyrometer is, and aren't adjusting any tire pressures on their cars. Perhaps the PCA novices are more sophisticated than BMWCCA novices, I wouldn't know.

Perhaps rather than belittle me you could instead offer useful advice. It's what an instructor should do, and I always appreciate an opportunity to learn.

With street tires and stock suspension, I didn't think the detailed information a pyrometer would give you would yield in any significant adjustment changes.

The OEM Michelin PSS has a very soft and sticky outer edge that has a different compound than the rest of the thread. When it degrades or simply wears out, it is very visible and easy to observe with the naked eye.

So currently I'm using two sources of information: the almost-realtime tire pressure and temp display in iDrive during the sessions, and post-session visual wear analysis (and double checking pressure with a gauge).

I use the PSS as my track rain tire, and Nitto NT01 as dry track tire. On the PSS, wear is very easy to analyze visually. On the Nittos, less so (minimal grooving, wider tire, even compound across the tread). Hence my comment about relative usefulness of a pyrometer on street vs track tires.

Anyway I stand to be corrected, and hopefully not just chided.



The initial conversation was in the context of the 718 Cayman vs the M3. I am convinced that replacing the stock Michelin PSS on the Cayman with say Pilot Cup 2 would yield better lap times right out of the box. But the difference would mainly come from the stickier compound (and perhaps a little from the stiffer sidewalls), because tire width would remain similar. That's because many Porsches come with very wide tires from the factory already, so the increases you can get with aftermarket tires are small.

But on an M3, you can go from 275 to 315 in the rear which is a significant jump in width. For the sake of the argument, if you replaced the stock 255/275 PSS with 295/315 PSS on an M3, I.e. maxing out the tire footprint in the first stage, you would immediately see faster lap times. Then again keeping the max footprint but changing to a Cup 2 you'd again see a decrease in lap times.

Stage 1: increase footprint, bigger gains on the M3 than on a Porsche.
Stage 2: stickier tire, similar gains on the M3 and Porsche.

Switching to the 911 : the GT3 comes with Pilot Sport Cup and posts some arbitrary lap time on some track. You jump in the stock M3, and post a slower lap time. Then you swap the stock 255/275 PSS tires in the M with 295/315 Pilot Sport Cups, jump back in, and immediately post a faster lap time than before. So you close the gap on the GT3.

But you can't do the same 2 stage improvement on the GT3, since it already wears the biggest footprint that makes sense, and it already was on sticky track tires from the very beginning.

Going back to the 718 Cayman. At that British track, it was 1 second quicker than a stock M3 ZCP. I say that, for example, if you swapped the stock 265/285 PSS on the M3 with 295/305 (or even 315) PSS, you would close the gap to the Cayman, say to half a second for the sake of the argument.

If that is not the case, please make a reasoned argument.

Here's the thing. That 718 was a manual. The m3 zcp was a DCT. Put a PDK in the 718 and that gap grows to 2-3 seconds. R compounds are good for what roughly 1 second per minute on the track? So say the M3 can make up 1.75 seconds with R compounds, it is still slower than a 718 with PDK and that's before the 718 also gets R compounds. So by and large there is still a large gap when comparing same transmission and in fact even if the 718 was a manual on R compounds it would still be a similar gap to that of the test. You are also omitting the fact that the stock tire sizes on a 718S are only 235/265 so skinnier than the m3/4 and by going to 265/295 or larger you gain even more on that car than an m3/4 and thus increase the gap over it.
Look, I track casually and don't claim that anything at an HPDE is anything
more than who has more experience and is a better driver. Has very little of ever anything to do with the car. I'll be out in the new GT3 in a couple weeks though
And you can certainly go to a wider tire on just about any Porsche. Many guys I know who run their GT3 run 265/325.

[adc]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

Here's the thing. That 718 was a manual. The m3 zcp was a DCT. Put a PDK in the 718 and that gap grows to 2-3 seconds. R compounds are good for what roughly 1 second per minute on the track? So say the M3 can make up 1.75 seconds with R compounds, it is still slower than a 718 with PDK and that's before the 718 also gets R compounds. So by and large there is still a large gap when comparing same transmission and in fact even if the 718 was a manual on R compounds it would still be a similar gap to that of the test. You are also omitting the fact that the stock tire sizes on a 718S are only 235/265 so skinnier than the m3/4 and by going to 265/295 or larger you gain even more on that car than an m3/4 and thus increase the gap over it.
Look, I track casually and don't claim that anything at an HPDE is anything
more than who has more experience and is a better driver. Has very little of ever anything to do with the car. I'll be out in the new GT3 in a couple weeks though
And you can certainly go to a wider tire on just about any Porsche. Many guys I know who run their GT3 run 265/325.

Good point on the transmission. But the gap may be smaller with the new gen big torque turbocharged engines than with the high revving NA engines.

I was surprised at how much less shifting is required with the F80 compared to anything I've had before. But you're right, on some tracks I'm slowed down by my skill limitations for manual shifting more than on others (VIR vs Watkins Glen).

In any case I'd love to see side by side lap times comparisons between stick vs PDK (or DCT).

[BimmerBahn]

I haven't watched the videos yet (reading this thread on an aero plane). However, while I always enjoy these comparison videos, it's all really subjective. You have a completely new platform from Alfa against two platforms developed 3+ years ago. It will be more interesting to see how the G20 chassis performs against the Alfa and AMG in a few years. The fact that Alfa has again entered the RWD sport saloon market is fantastic for everyone.... competition is good!

In reality, all three cars are great....boils down to personal preference on styling, etc. I know a big question is around quality and reliability. Only time will tell. I'm pulling for FCA in that regard. I'd hate for a platform as great as the Giulia to be marred by reliability problems.

I'd love to have a QV in the stable and just might next go around....

Cheers,

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by adc

Good point on the transmission. But the gap may be smaller with the new gen big torque turbocharged engines than with the high revving NA engines.

I was surprised at how much less shifting is required with the F80 compared to anything I've had before. But you're right, on some tracks I'm slowed down by my skill limitations for manual shifting more than on others (VIR vs Watkins Glen).

In any case I'd love to see side by side lap times comparisons between stick vs PDK (or DCT).

Dual clutches are much quicker. While I am sure this isn't the case for every manual vs dual clutch it does show that advantage can be big. I think Porsche said dual clutch in their testing was worth 12 seconds on the Ring over their manual in a 911.

Here's some (what I think) is good reading on R&T. Result was 1.4 second delta on a 50 second lap.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.roada...ift-gearboxes/

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

Dual clutches are much quicker. While I am sure this isn't the case for every manual vs dual clutch it does show that advantage can be big. I think Porsche said dual clutch in their testing was worth 12 seconds on the Ring over their manual in a 911.

Here's some (what I think) is good reading on R&T. Result was 1.4 second delta on a 50 second lap.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.roada...ift-gearboxes/

That R&T test is not representative of a lap on a "real" track. It is a very low speed tight course and is initiated with a standing start. The lower the road speed, the greater the advantage of DCT.

While DCT/PDK advantage over MT around a track is real, it is not as great as what the R&T article depicts. I reckon the advantage of DCT/PDK over a MT is between 0.2 to 0.5 seconds per minute lap depending on the track.

Find below results from a test Autobild did with the E9X M3:

[Captain Unknown GT4]

The new gen.2 GT3 with PDK was only 3 seconds faster than the gen.2 GT3 manual car on long nurburhring. Even It was Lars Kern setting the officiell Porsche fast GT3 laptimes these days.

It was old tester Timo Kluck who tested pdk vs manual.

[996ttelise]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

That R&T test is not representative of a lap on a "real" track. It is a very low speed tight course and is initiated with a standing start. The lower the road speed, the greater the advantage of DCT.

While DCT/PDK advantage over MT around a track is real, it is not as great as what the R&T article depicts. I reckon the advantage of DCT/PDK over a MT is between 0.2 to 0.5 seconds per minute lap depending on the track.

Find below results from a test Autobild did with the E9X M3:

Some of you guys may now BMWs quiet well, but do you really have any real world first hand experience in the Porsche line . . . forget that, extensive real world first hand experience in Porsches and then in Porsches on race track?

In Porsches, there is about a 1.5 second difference in lap times between pdk and manual which equates to about 100 to 150 pound penalty.

It is not about small incremental gains in the upshift. PDK provides significant gains on the down shift, especially for less skilled drivers where time is lost heel towing, completing the downshift, balancing the car and roll speed through entry to apex and picking throttle back up. PDK permits even pro drivers to focus 100% on line, traffic and going faster when entering and exiting corners.

I have seen figures as high as 30% better focus on line, braking and speed when the downshift part of the equation is removed from a professional driver's responsibilities according to data I have seen from professional racing coaches that instruct the professional racers and entities I used to race with such as TRG. The difference becomes even more glaring with weekend warriors and HPDE guys.

On Barber with an open track, I can run 10 consecutive laps within perhaps a 10th of a second or less when in a groove. My PDK times are about 2.0 seconds quicker whether I am in a Cayman, Boxter or a 911 when playing around in the PDE cars and those we instruct there can be twice that or more if they are really unskilled with the 3rd pedal and heel toe.

Lastly, you cannot lump PDK and DCT together in any conversation like you do. Doesn't DCT also use different gearing than the MT?

Look, I am old school ( . . . having to admit age now to make a point . . .) and grew up racing 3 pedals and dog boxes. I was very resistant to automatic shifting in racing because I felt my pedal work gave me a huge advantage over most drivers in completion. My ego also thought my time would not improve significantly because I so good with manual shifting . . . I was wrong.

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by 996ttelise

Some of you guys may now BMWs quiet well, but do you really have any real world first hand experience in the Porsche line . . . forget that, extensive real world first hand experience in Porsches and then in Porsches on race track?

In Porsches, there is about a 1.5 second difference in lap times between pdk and manual which equates to about 100 to 150 pound penalty.

It is not about small incremental gains in the upshift. PDK provides significant gains on the down shift, especially for less skilled drivers where time is lost heel towing, completing the downshift, balancing the car and roll speed through entry to apex and picking throttle back up. PDK permits even pro drivers to focus 100% on line, traffic and going faster when entering and exiting corners.

I have seen figures as high as 30% better focus on line, braking and speed when the downshift part of the equation is removed from a professional driver's responsibilities according to data I have seen from professional racing coaches that instruct the professional racers and entities I used to race with such as TRG. The difference becomes even more glaring with weekend warriors and HPDE guys.

On Barber with an open track, I can run 10 consecutive laps within perhaps a 10th of a second or less when in a groove. My PDK times are about 2.0 seconds quicker whether I am in a Cayman, Boxter or a 911 when playing around in the PDE cars and those we instruct there can be twice that or more if they are really unskilled with the 3rd pedal and heel toe.

Lastly, you cannot lump PDK and DCT together in any conversation like you do. Doesn't DCT also use different gearing than the MT?

Look, I am old school ( . . . having to admit age now to make a point . . .) and grew up racing 3 pedals and dog boxes. I was very resistant to automatic shifting in racing because I felt my pedal work gave me a huge advantage over most drivers in completion. My ego also thought my time would not improve significantly because I so good with manual shifting . . . I was wrong.

Great post. As I mentioned above, 1-2 seconds per lap with PDK. And yes, DCT is not in the same league as PDK. Not only isn't ratios but also the tuning that Porsche painstakingly does in house to ensure it is up to their standard, same as they have done with brakes all these years. While PDK continues to evolve, DCT has fallen off and it makes sense given BMW wants to go to Auto boxes.

[auf Deutsch]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

DCT has fallen off and it makes sense given BMW wants to go to Auto boxes.

Because the DCT has "fallen off", BMW is switching to automatic transmissions in their vehicles.

Sorry, I had to type that out in an attempt to wrap my brain around that reasoning.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

Great post. As I mentioned above, 1-2 seconds per lap with PDK. And yes, DCT is not in the same league as PDK. Not only isn't ratios but also the tuning that Porsche painstakingly does in house to ensure it is up to their standard, same as they have done with brakes all these years. While PDK continues to evolve, DCT has fallen off and it makes sense given BMW wants to go to Auto boxes.

That's ridiculous.

PDK will not provide a quatifyable difference in lap times relative to DCT. I just dont see a technical explanation that can justify this.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by 996ttelise

Some of you guys may now BMWs quiet well, but do you really have any real world first hand experience in the Porsche line . . . forget that, extensive real world first hand experience in Porsches and then in Porsches on race track?

In Porsches, there is about a 1.5 second difference in lap times between pdk and manual which equates to about 100 to 150 pound penalty.

It is not about small incremental gains in the upshift. PDK provides significant gains on the down shift, especially for less skilled drivers where time is lost heel towing, completing the downshift, balancing the car and roll speed through entry to apex and picking throttle back up. PDK permits even pro drivers to focus 100% on line, traffic and going faster when entering and exiting corners.

I have seen figures as high as 30% better focus on line, braking and speed when the downshift part of the equation is removed from a professional driver's responsibilities according to data I have seen from professional racing coaches that instruct the professional racers and entities I used to race with such as TRG. The difference becomes even more glaring with weekend warriors and HPDE guys.

On Barber with an open track, I can run 10 consecutive laps within perhaps a 10th of a second or less when in a groove. My PDK times are about 2.0 seconds quicker whether I am in a Cayman, Boxter or a 911 when playing around in the PDE cars and those we instruct there can be twice that or more if they are really unskilled with the 3rd pedal and heel toe.

Lastly, you cannot lump PDK and DCT together in any conversation like you do. Doesn't DCT also use different gearing than the MT?

Look, I am old school ( . . . having to admit age now to make a point . . .) and grew up racing 3 pedals and dog boxes. I was very resistant to automatic shifting in racing because I felt my pedal work gave me a huge advantage over most drivers in completion. My ego also thought my time would not improve significantly because I so good with manual shifting . . . I was wrong.

I agree with some of your points. DCT/PDK will provide a greater benefit to a lesser skilled driver. DCT/PDK will allow a good driver to be more consistent. Keeping both hands on the wheel and full focus on the line are definitely solid benefits over multiple laps. Another important benefit of DCT/PDK is the ability to shift mid-corner.

I don't agree with the greatest benefit being in the downshift though. I personnaly don't see much challenge in heel-and-toeing an MT. I also don't see how PDK can technically be much faster than DCT in terms of lap times. "1.5 seconds difference per lap" statement is also moot as there are many variables depending on the track, such as track length, amount of shifts per lap, average speed, etc... that will affect how much advantage can be had.

When swapping cars with my buddy a few years back, he had a 6MT CP E92 M3 while I had a base DCT E92 M3, both on the same exact same square NT01 setup, I was about 1.5 seconds off my pace on a ~2 min lap. Considering I was not pushing as hard because it wasn't my car, I likely could have bridged the gap a little more.

And yes, DCT has different gearing than MT on ///M cars. I find that the DCT gearing was better than MT on the E9X while I find it worse on the F8X.

Don't get me wrong, I am a true believer in the benefits of dual clutch transmissions over MT regarding performance, that's why my two last cars are DCT.

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by auf Deutsch

Because the DCT has "fallen off", BMW is switching to automatic transmissions in their vehicles.

Sorry, I had to type that out in an attempt to wrap my brain around that reasoning.

Meaning that BMWs DCT isn't near the top of the pack when it comes to dual clutches. It hasn't evolved much if at all compared to PDK or the others in comparison. And I'm guessing since they are moving to autos there hasn't been much in terms of evolving a transmission bmw has said will no longer be used long term.

[auf Deutsch]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

Meaning that BMWs DCT isn't near the top of the pack when it comes to dual clutches. It hasn't evolved much if at all compared to PDK or the others in comparison. And I'm guessing since they are moving to autos there hasn't been much in terms of evolving a transmission bmw has said will no longer be used long term.

They're using the ZF8 in the new M5 because it's smoother and more optimally geared. Without doing any research, I'd say VERY few people track their M5s. Therefore, a faster shifting DCT won't be needed nor very beneficial for street usage. I had the ZF8 in my previous 435. I considered it quick only while upshifting in auto mode WOT. Manual, as well as auto gear changes were slow as molasses compared to the M-DCT.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

Meaning that BMWs DCT isn't near the top of the pack when it comes to dual clutches. It hasn't evolved much if at all compared to PDK or the others in comparison. And I'm guessing since they are moving to autos there hasn't been much in terms of evolving a transmission bmw has said will no longer be used long term.

I am curious to see the if the next gen M3/4 will maintain DCT or will go wiht a planetary auto.