I have heard there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the dual clutch trans in the Fiesta and Focus. More complaints that its operation left much to be desired versus actual malfunctions. That said I am very interested in replacing my 2000 Focus with a new model. My problem is the lack of examples at the dealerships with the manual trans. Does one have to or can one special order a car equipped the way you want it. A salesman at the local Ford dealer told me the days of walking in and setting down with an order sheet, leaving a hefty deposit and ordering the exact car you want is over. The best I can do is let him search surrounding dealers to see if they have any on the lot close to what I want. He told me it wouldn't be easy as very few of the Focus models are being produced with standard trans. Is this true?
Dual clutch vs. standard trans.
- Thread starter Autografe
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
I wouldnt want a DCT. Especially in an econobox car. If I was driving a Porsche, Ferrari, Vette, etc., where I want every last 0.01 seconds of acceleration to be the quickest, I can see it (and would have the money for it), in an econobox or regular car scenario, the lifecycle costs are not compelling.
A DCT costs $1000-1500 more in general.
The VW DCT, as an example, needs servicing every 30-36k, IIRC, and the fluid and service isnt cheap.
It is a clutch, just like in an MT, but there are two. So when the clutch wears out, you get to replace twice as many.
The clutches are generally held just at the point of connection, not sure if being so close and slippage characteristics could equal premature wear.
Lots of ?, nothing but increased costs.
A DCT costs $1000-1500 more in general.
The VW DCT, as an example, needs servicing every 30-36k, IIRC, and the fluid and service isnt cheap.
It is a clutch, just like in an MT, but there are two. So when the clutch wears out, you get to replace twice as many.
The clutches are generally held just at the point of connection, not sure if being so close and slippage characteristics could equal premature wear.
Lots of ?, nothing but increased costs.
Go to another dealer, you can still special order a new car. Unless something changed since May 2011...and I would also recommend a traditional manual. These DCT are still too new...let the bugs get worked out.
First, the days of ordering the car you want are NOT over. I did just that with a Focus in December. If the dealer you have contacted won't order one for you, go elsewhere. Getting one produced with a manual transmission should be no problem at all.
Second, the DCT is fundamentally a good transmission but Focuses built up through August had unfortunate software installed. The software choice seems to have been a boneheaded move by Ford and they now have easily applied updates that largely solve the problems. Unfortunately, the auto press reacted to the earlier software and gave the DCT poor marks. Even now, there are lots of owners driving around without the software update and they may not be the happiest of souls.
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count. It is also well
screwed-together, is built with high-quality components and feels like a car a class or two above its US
segment. The DCT does feel different than a conventional automatic - you can feel the clutch engage and the 1/2 and 2/3 shifts are not quite as smooth. It also goes through and adjustment period for the first thousand miles or so as the clutches break-in and the software adjusts to them. Finally, the DCT in the Focus is a fairly simple device; I would be surprised if was more expensive to produce than a conventional automatic.
If you want a manual transmission, order one. If you're thinking about a DCT, drive a couple and decide if you like it.
Second, the DCT is fundamentally a good transmission but Focuses built up through August had unfortunate software installed. The software choice seems to have been a boneheaded move by Ford and they now have easily applied updates that largely solve the problems. Unfortunately, the auto press reacted to the earlier software and gave the DCT poor marks. Even now, there are lots of owners driving around without the software update and they may not be the happiest of souls.
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count. It is also well
screwed-together, is built with high-quality components and feels like a car a class or two above its US
segment. The DCT does feel different than a conventional automatic - you can feel the clutch engage and the 1/2 and 2/3 shifts are not quite as smooth. It also goes through and adjustment period for the first thousand miles or so as the clutches break-in and the software adjusts to them. Finally, the DCT in the Focus is a fairly simple device; I would be surprised if was more expensive to produce than a conventional automatic.
If you want a manual transmission, order one. If you're thinking about a DCT, drive a couple and decide if you like it.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Danh
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count.
Which is a function of the gear ratios selected, and not the transmission itself. ATs for example, are heavier and less efficient in most scenarios than an MT, but poor selection of gear numbers and ratios creates a different situation.
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count.
Which is a function of the gear ratios selected, and not the transmission itself. ATs for example, are heavier and less efficient in most scenarios than an MT, but poor selection of gear numbers and ratios creates a different situation.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Danh
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count.
Which is a function of the gear ratios selected, and not the transmission itself. ATs for example, are heavier and less efficient in most scenarios than an MT, but poor selection of gear numbers and ratios creates a different situation.
No. the DCT gets better fuel economy than a standard torque converter automatic for the same reason that a manual gets better mileage. Lighter, simpler, and no torque converter.
Originally Posted By: Danh
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count.
Which is a function of the gear ratios selected, and not the transmission itself. ATs for example, are heavier and less efficient in most scenarios than an MT, but poor selection of gear numbers and ratios creates a different situation.
No. the DCT gets better fuel economy than a standard torque converter automatic for the same reason that a manual gets better mileage. Lighter, simpler, and no torque converter.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Danh
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count.
Which is a function of the gear ratios selected, and not the transmission itself. ATs for example, are heavier and less efficient in most scenarios than an MT, but poor selection of gear numbers and ratios creates a different situation.
No. the DCT gets better fuel economy than a standard torque converter automatic for the same reason that a manual gets better mileage. Lighter, simpler, and no torque converter.
Right. Plus no energy to pump fluid in the Focus DCT and the thing is always in neutral when stopped. It does better than a conventional manual because the shifts are programmed for efficiency, which only a handful of manual drivers will duplicate.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Danh
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count.
Which is a function of the gear ratios selected, and not the transmission itself. ATs for example, are heavier and less efficient in most scenarios than an MT, but poor selection of gear numbers and ratios creates a different situation.
No. the DCT gets better fuel economy than a standard torque converter automatic for the same reason that a manual gets better mileage. Lighter, simpler, and no torque converter.
Right. Plus no energy to pump fluid in the Focus DCT and the thing is always in neutral when stopped. It does better than a conventional manual because the shifts are programmed for efficiency, which only a handful of manual drivers will duplicate.
I wouldn't trust that dealer. He's probably just trying to clear out his own stock. Conveniently for him, he'd probably somehow not be able to find any other stock the way you want it from another dealer. Apparently there's excessive inventory of that car and they've been doing a lot of recent fleet sales. I'd need to have at least three different Ford dealers tell me that I can't order a vehicle the way I want it before I'd even consider that it might be true.
Even the Titanium trim level will likely soon be available with a manual transmission. I believe all other trims have always had the manual available.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/01...manual-control/
Even the Titanium trim level will likely soon be available with a manual transmission. I believe all other trims have always had the manual available.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/01...manual-control/
We've computerized the Volkswagen Automatic Stickshift
I still haven't driven a DCT that I like.
The throttle tip in is weird. I guess it's something you have to get used to. The newer ones are being programmed to more closely duplicate a traditional torque converter but that seems to me like it would wear faster. Like the driver who holds his car on a hill with the clutch. Tip out is often weird too while the car tries to figure out when to disengage.
I do like the lightning fast up and downshifts, but a well programmed auto/manual does it pretty fast too. (My Aisin is much faster to respond to manual inputs than my 41TE or Hyundai and higher end cars like the Lexus IS/F's Aisin are even faster)
I still haven't driven a DCT that I like.
The throttle tip in is weird. I guess it's something you have to get used to. The newer ones are being programmed to more closely duplicate a traditional torque converter but that seems to me like it would wear faster. Like the driver who holds his car on a hill with the clutch. Tip out is often weird too while the car tries to figure out when to disengage.
I do like the lightning fast up and downshifts, but a well programmed auto/manual does it pretty fast too. (My Aisin is much faster to respond to manual inputs than my 41TE or Hyundai and higher end cars like the Lexus IS/F's Aisin are even faster)
I still haven't run across an automatic car that gets real-world fuel mileage like a manual car. I bought a manual Cruze for added control over engine revs and better real-world fuel economy. It's perfectly happy at 1100 RPM in 5th going 30 mph on flat ground with next to no throttle being applied. No automatic transmission I've run across would do that.
I was looking at a Focus hatchback. The lack of a manual transmission on the trim level corresponding with my Cruze was a major turn-off. The only ones available with a MT when I was in the market 6 months ago were base models that needed to be special-ordered.
Glad to hear Ford's made the MT available on most trim levels now. Not everybody who wants to row their own wants a bare-bones car.
I was looking at a Focus hatchback. The lack of a manual transmission on the trim level corresponding with my Cruze was a major turn-off. The only ones available with a MT when I was in the market 6 months ago were base models that needed to be special-ordered.
Glad to hear Ford's made the MT available on most trim levels now. Not everybody who wants to row their own wants a bare-bones car.
I have never driven one in a less expensive car, but a dual clutch in a nicer car is pretty amazing.
Porsche and Ferrari have awesome flappy gear boxes that shift faster than you can think.
OTOH a stick is more fun.
In the end its all what you want, I wouldn't want one in a less expensive commuter car like a Ford because the added complexity and expense is just not needed. Problem is when they break its like $3k-$4k if your lucky, vs a regular old 4spd which is less than half that.
Porsche and Ferrari have awesome flappy gear boxes that shift faster than you can think.
OTOH a stick is more fun.
In the end its all what you want, I wouldn't want one in a less expensive commuter car like a Ford because the added complexity and expense is just not needed. Problem is when they break its like $3k-$4k if your lucky, vs a regular old 4spd which is less than half that.
Last edited:
Many DCT designs have a pump to circulate fluids. Some appear to be splash lubed. The point is they are DIFFERENT.
You can't say DCT's are all better, or all blue, etc. Wildly differing designs combined with radically different programming means huge differences in your driving experience.
You can't say DCT's are all better, or all blue, etc. Wildly differing designs combined with radically different programming means huge differences in your driving experience.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Danh
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count.
Which is a function of the gear ratios selected, and not the transmission itself. ATs for example, are heavier and less efficient in most scenarios than an MT, but poor selection of gear numbers and ratios creates a different situation.
No. the DCT gets better fuel economy than a standard torque converter automatic for the same reason that a manual gets better mileage. Lighter, simpler, and no torque converter.
See Steve's comment just above. In your analysis, it is all the TC and mass. However, a DCT should be heavier than a regular MT. And, the lack of pumping losses, if indeed the case, would be the same DCT vs MT.
The reason why the numbers are higher on a dct vs MT is selection of gearing.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Danh
The real benefit to the DCT is fuel economy and my Focus does very well on this count.
Which is a function of the gear ratios selected, and not the transmission itself. ATs for example, are heavier and less efficient in most scenarios than an MT, but poor selection of gear numbers and ratios creates a different situation.
No. the DCT gets better fuel economy than a standard torque converter automatic for the same reason that a manual gets better mileage. Lighter, simpler, and no torque converter.
See Steve's comment just above. In your analysis, it is all the TC and mass. However, a DCT should be heavier than a regular MT. And, the lack of pumping losses, if indeed the case, would be the same DCT vs MT.
The reason why the numbers are higher on a dct vs MT is selection of gearing.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I wouldnt want a DCT. Especially in an econobox car. If I was driving a Porsche, Ferrari, Vette, etc., where I want every last 0.01 seconds of acceleration to be the quickest, I can see it (and would have the money for it), in an econobox or regular car scenario, the lifecycle costs are not compelling.
A DCT costs $1000-1500 more in general.
The VW DCT, as an example, needs servicing every 30-36k, IIRC, and the fluid and service isnt cheap.
It is a clutch, just like in an MT, but there are two. So when the clutch wears out, you get to replace twice as many.
The clutches are generally held just at the point of connection, not sure if being so close and slippage characteristics could equal premature wear.
Lots of ?, nothing but increased costs.
I totally agree on this one. Good thing there are plenty of others that are willing to be test mules on their own dime
I wouldnt want a DCT. Especially in an econobox car. If I was driving a Porsche, Ferrari, Vette, etc., where I want every last 0.01 seconds of acceleration to be the quickest, I can see it (and would have the money for it), in an econobox or regular car scenario, the lifecycle costs are not compelling.
A DCT costs $1000-1500 more in general.
The VW DCT, as an example, needs servicing every 30-36k, IIRC, and the fluid and service isnt cheap.
It is a clutch, just like in an MT, but there are two. So when the clutch wears out, you get to replace twice as many.
The clutches are generally held just at the point of connection, not sure if being so close and slippage characteristics could equal premature wear.
Lots of ?, nothing but increased costs.
I totally agree on this one. Good thing there are plenty of others that are willing to be test mules on their own dime
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The reason why the numbers are higher on a dct vs MT is selection of gearing.
From my personal experience with the DCT in my car, I do not think gearing plays a large role in the fuel economy differences. The DCT is still going to have less "overhead" when compared with a conventional torque converter automatic. There is definitely some efficiency lost between a good old fashioned manual transmission but, a DSG is certainly more efficient than the conventional automatics.
In my car, the gearing between the 6MT and the 6DSG versions are the same. The biggest win for the DSG is that even on a 4cylinder it shifts very early. When I am driving on level ground with a light throttle, the transmission will often shift before 1800RPM. By the time I am up to 35mph I'm already in 6th gear! Try that with a manual, you'd be working your arm off to shift that frequently. That's where the fuel economy win comes from, the ability of DSG to quickly and effortlessly kick off shifts without breaking power to the wheels. In addition, shifting that early means that the turbo never spools so the engine management doesn't have to add in extra fuel to accommodate for the increased boost.
The biggest issue with DSG equipped cars for most folks will be getting used to how they drive. They DO NOT drive like a conventional automatic. Yes, they might have PRNDS on the gear selector but that's where the similarities end. I find I have to drive with softer throttle inputs and anticipate when I will need to accelerate at lower speeds to allow the logic in the transmission to select the right gear. If I just jam my foot on the throttle like I could with a conventional automatic, DSG will try to respond quickly which means instantly finding a gear and snapping the clutch, which can make the car lurch forward, just like you would in a manual transmission under the same circumstances. I am very pleased with DSG transmissions and I do think they will be the future in the automotive world however, they need to be approached from a different perspective compared to a conventional torque converter automatic.
The reason why the numbers are higher on a dct vs MT is selection of gearing.
From my personal experience with the DCT in my car, I do not think gearing plays a large role in the fuel economy differences. The DCT is still going to have less "overhead" when compared with a conventional torque converter automatic. There is definitely some efficiency lost between a good old fashioned manual transmission but, a DSG is certainly more efficient than the conventional automatics.
In my car, the gearing between the 6MT and the 6DSG versions are the same. The biggest win for the DSG is that even on a 4cylinder it shifts very early. When I am driving on level ground with a light throttle, the transmission will often shift before 1800RPM. By the time I am up to 35mph I'm already in 6th gear! Try that with a manual, you'd be working your arm off to shift that frequently. That's where the fuel economy win comes from, the ability of DSG to quickly and effortlessly kick off shifts without breaking power to the wheels. In addition, shifting that early means that the turbo never spools so the engine management doesn't have to add in extra fuel to accommodate for the increased boost.
The biggest issue with DSG equipped cars for most folks will be getting used to how they drive. They DO NOT drive like a conventional automatic. Yes, they might have PRNDS on the gear selector but that's where the similarities end. I find I have to drive with softer throttle inputs and anticipate when I will need to accelerate at lower speeds to allow the logic in the transmission to select the right gear. If I just jam my foot on the throttle like I could with a conventional automatic, DSG will try to respond quickly which means instantly finding a gear and snapping the clutch, which can make the car lurch forward, just like you would in a manual transmission under the same circumstances. I am very pleased with DSG transmissions and I do think they will be the future in the automotive world however, they need to be approached from a different perspective compared to a conventional torque converter automatic.
A manual driver with a torquey engine can also skip-shift. I find myself going 1-2-3-5 around town in the Cruze, and 3-4-6 accelerating onto the highway. It's not much extra effort to skip-shift when not needing the acceleration from the higher gear. That makes up a little for the inherent efficiency of a dual-clutch automatic since it's saving a shift once at speed.
It all boils down to preference and ability. A dedicated driver in a manual transmission car can wring great fuel economy from it. Likewise with a dual-clutch auto car.
It all boils down to preference and ability. A dedicated driver in a manual transmission car can wring great fuel economy from it. Likewise with a dual-clutch auto car.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
A manual driver with a torquey engine can also skip-shift. I find myself going 1-2-3-5 around town in the Cruze, and 3-4-6 accelerating onto the highway. It's not much extra effort to skip-shift when not needing the acceleration from the higher gear. That makes up a little for the inherent efficiency of a dual-clutch automatic since it's saving a shift once at speed.
It all boils down to preference and ability. A dedicated driver in a manual transmission car can wring great fuel economy from it. Likewise with a dual-clutch auto car.
Skipping gears doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Isn't an engine at its most efficient near its torque peak? And therefore, wouldn't you want to use every gear in order to maximize the amount of time you spend near the torque peak?
A manual driver with a torquey engine can also skip-shift. I find myself going 1-2-3-5 around town in the Cruze, and 3-4-6 accelerating onto the highway. It's not much extra effort to skip-shift when not needing the acceleration from the higher gear. That makes up a little for the inherent efficiency of a dual-clutch automatic since it's saving a shift once at speed.
It all boils down to preference and ability. A dedicated driver in a manual transmission car can wring great fuel economy from it. Likewise with a dual-clutch auto car.
Skipping gears doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Isn't an engine at its most efficient near its torque peak? And therefore, wouldn't you want to use every gear in order to maximize the amount of time you spend near the torque peak?
His torque peak begins VERY low, like 1700 rpm or such.
Also a turbo set up like he has has more like a table than a peak. That torque is available across a huge swath of the rev range.
Also a turbo set up like he has has more like a table than a peak. That torque is available across a huge swath of the rev range.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
His torque peak begins VERY low, like 1700 rpm or such.
Also a turbo set up like he has has more like a table than a peak. That torque is available across a huge swath of the rev range.
Makes sense. Sorry to derail the conversation!
His torque peak begins VERY low, like 1700 rpm or such.
Also a turbo set up like he has has more like a table than a peak. That torque is available across a huge swath of the rev range.
Makes sense. Sorry to derail the conversation!
That's why I specified a torquey engine. I wouldn't drive a NA car the same way I drive my turbo'd car. Then, I'd definitely not be skip-shifting.
Skip-shifting makes sense with a large selection of gears and in certain driving situations. In town, there's no reason to stay in a higher gear unless acceleration is desired.
I think the point I was trying to convey was that a MT driver has options like skip-shifting to make up for any losses while accelerating. When done correctly, a skip-shift can allow a MT car to get into higher gears faster than an automatic transmission.
Skip-shifting makes sense with a large selection of gears and in certain driving situations. In town, there's no reason to stay in a higher gear unless acceleration is desired.
I think the point I was trying to convey was that a MT driver has options like skip-shifting to make up for any losses while accelerating. When done correctly, a skip-shift can allow a MT car to get into higher gears faster than an automatic transmission.
- Status
