Focus DCT question

mapper wrote: It is pretty much an auto without the power sapping torque converter.

Except for every time it slips one of the clutches to mimic a torque converter, or similarly downshifts unnecessarily when it thinks you need moar powah...Multiple times I ran into a scenario on a slight grade where if I let off the throttle enough to get it into the higher (desired) gear it continued to lose speed, but if I gave it any more throttle than that it downshifted and without changing throttle position would continue to accelerate the car to well beyond the intended speed. Of course as soon as you came off the throttle even the slightest amount, it would upshift and continue slowing down again. It was an all-or-nothing type of proposition. The only solution was to manually select the lower (less fuel efficient) gear so that it wouldn't upshift when using the amount of throttle necessary to maintain the desired speed, and even then it would occasionally still keep unnecessarily slipping the clutch on me. Sure pretty much every automatic I've driven for any period of time has done something sort-of similar, where the conditions are just right to prevent it from picking a gear and sticking with it...But never in recent memory where it was even close to the degree that this was, with it being physically impossible to come anywhere close to maintaining the desired speed, unless overriding the computer. I would have had to have really, really, ridiculously low expectations of the car to not find this totally unacceptable.

I really do like the Focus otherwise and had high hopes for the Powershift transmission, as DCT's are capable of being an absolutely fantastic technology...But would never be able to tolerate owning one with it, since in my experience it offers no significant benefit, and even some drawbacks, when compared to the current torque converter automatics.

In reply to Driven5:

I don't disagree with most of what you said except I have driven a lot four cylinder automatic cars and despise them deeply. I hope Ford improves on the system because I see it as the way to go versus a traditional automatic.

Mazda 3 Skyactiv 6 speed box works pretty well in my experience. Hold gears to redline in manual mode.

Brett_Murphy wrote:

OldGray320i wrote: Looks like on the newer ones it's an option for the SE... http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/trim/se5door//viewall/

That changes gears with a button on the shifter, not paddles up by the wheel. Why not a 5 speed? I'm still looking for a car that my wife can drive that will also not make me hate life by not being able to control when and how the car shifts.

My wife hates manual gear shift cars because they're a PIA to drive (so she says), but with the Focus she said it was very easy to drive - don't discount it out of hand unless the wife has already tried and declared it not to be...

OldGray320i wrote: My wife hates manual gear shift cars because they're a PIA to drive (so she says), but with the Focus she said it was very easy to drive - don't discount it out of hand unless the wife has already tried and declared it not to be...

If I can't control what gear it is in, I'm not interested, though. I want to bounce on the rev limiter if that is what I want to do at the time.

It seems like only VW is offering a dual clutch that will do close to what I want it to do.

Brett_Murphy wrote:

OldGray320i wrote: My wife hates manual gear shift cars because they're a PIA to drive (so she says), but with the Focus she said it was very easy to drive - don't discount it out of hand unless the wife has already tried and declared it not to be...

If I can't control what gear it is in, I'm not interested, though. I want to bounce on the rev limiter if that is what I want to do at the time. It seems like only VW is offering a dual clutch that will do close to what I want it to do.

Oh, no, I meant my wife found my 5sp easy to drive and she hates manuals - have your wife try the 5sp. If she finds it as easy to drive as mine did, you might be good to go.

Oh, and by the way, with these cars, or at least mine, it isn't a bounce off the limiter type thing so much as it is a "where's the gas/ignition and why has it stopped". My e30, that bounces of the rev limiter. This one not so much.

But you can still rev it to around 7, so it's all good.

Full throttle, it goes to redline before it shifts. Regardless of the shifter choice. Much better engine braking than a TC automatic.

In reply to Driven5:

Sorry, but this is the last place I would take any considerations of how an auto trans should shift. They are so hated here, and the goal for the system would be fast shifting just like a manual.... yea, I'll go with the more average customer who does like the creep, and the softer shifts. They are the ones paying the bills.

Being that I saw quite a few VW's and Audi's around when the system was developed, the developers are fully aware of what theirs did. But the actual reviews from real customers must have said something different.

In reply to alfadriver:

I respectfully disagree. Many enthusiasts very much prefer driving a manual, but they are also far more sensitive and in tune to what is actually happening with the car, and what it's doing that they do or don't like. As opposed to average customers who tend to either simply accept whatever they're experiencing regarding mechanicals and driving dynamics without question, or have absolutely no idea what is actually causing their good/bad feelings about the experience.

I don't know about other enthusiasts, but I have also rarely had a problem with "how" a newer auto trans shifted in a daily driving use...The problem has always been with the who, what, where, when, and why of the shifts, but not the how. Even more importantly to me, is the same regarding the torque converter...Which from what I've read, without having experienced it yet, Mazda may actually be one of the first manufacturers finally coming to their senses with the "Skyactive" automatic transmission keeping the torque converter locked much more of the time and under a significantly wider range of circumstances.

The biggest complaint I'm aware of with even the VW DCT has always been starting from a stop and at parking lot speeds, and not nearly as much at road speeds where it may be quick shifting but is also still smooth. But it's unfair to assume that conventional automatics are necessarily any better just because of the torque converter. The reality is that many autos are nearly as bad as, and sometimes even worse than, the VW DCT system at in its worst conditions. For instance, my Fit has an surprisingly touchy throttle with surprisingly grabby transmission off the line, so much so that smooth starts can actually be somewhat difficult to achieve without extra effort. On the other extreme our RAV4 V6 has a tendency to do very little initially until you 'give it the beans' so to speak, where upon it then takes off like a rocket if you're not careful. This is not just a problem that I have, but that my non-enthusiast wife has noticed with both vehicles without having been able to put her finger on it at first. And don't even get me started on the 3 second lag in getting ANY power off the line in a Prius. But these shortcomings in the automatic transmissions, just as with the VW DCT (and Powershift), are simply the type of things that average people merely come to accept in order to get the car that has the looks and other features they actually care about.

I'm kind of with Alfa on this. Most drivers don't want noise or bumps or anything like that. They want to press on the gas however hard it is they think they need to at the time and have the car respond in a predictable manner.

Most people would love a silent CVT. Heck, Nissan is banking on this.

In reply to Brett_Murphy:

I agree with your statement 100%. But this applies equally to both DCT's and autos, it's just easier to achieve with a conventional auto than a DCT. It really boils down to the execution over the type between the two, as DCT's can be the best of both worlds or the worst of both worlds.

alfadriver wrote: Being that I saw quite a few VW's and Audi's around when the system was developed, the developers are fully aware of what theirs did. But the actual reviews from real customers must have said something different.

I personally don't believe that is the only plausible explanation for their decisions on the Powershift transmission. There are at least two other possibilities, both of which are very common occurrences within every major industry:

1) Bad data: crap in = crap out

2) People who didn't really understand the data were allowed to interpret it and/or make decisions based on it...Or worse yet, neglect it entirely for any of numerous potential reasons.

In reply to Driven5:

The point more is that I don't think taking enthusiest data for an auto trans is valid. That's all.

As far as I know, our customers are defining based on what they are complaining about. If you think that the ones paying the bills for the lights is crap, well, tough.

Iceracer's experience seems quite a bit different than yours, and is a 2014 car. So I'll take that, since it reflects more of an updated output of the situation.

I won't say that there isn't bad interpretation of the data (people are human, just like you), but I will say that the data leans far toward the typical auto performance of a generic car buyer than an enthusiest. That's just reality. I learned that view a good 15 years ago, and is probably why a miata like product never showed up with a Lincoln or Mercury badge on it.

And if it matters, the Focus is our 3rd best selling car, and is doing very, very well. So if it's really crap, the buyers don't seem to think so.

For what it is worth. The Powershift has a break in period and the control module learns your driving and adapts. I have been a manual transmission driver for ever. When Ford came out with the dct, I checked up on it, drove one for over an hour. Bought one, then another one. For a DD it works out well. Hey, it's not a race car. Although I have autocrossed it a couple of times and thinking of doing a track day.

In reply to alfadriver:

Detroit: Where the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Driven5 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

after writing a comeback, and deleting, whatever....

I rented a '13 Focus for a few weeks about a year ago and one behavior of the DCT really annoyed me. When gently switching from engine braking to driving, like hitting the bottom of a rolling hill and starting to climb again, the revs would rise 250rpm or so, then clunk back down as if the car briefly slipped the clutch. It did it consistently whether the cruise was on or my foot was on the gas. I was commuting in rolling hill country in Nowhere Indiana, so I had daily opportunity to observe the phenomena.

This was noted in multiple Foci (as a group, I recall we had 3 of them).

I don't understand the point of engineering a superior item, then dumbing it down to act like the item it replaced. Same deal with the CVTs that are programmed with "gear" steps...You loose the advantages of the new design and are just stuck with all of the drawbacks.

Why not just sell the car with a cheaper, easier to maintain fluid drive automatic if that is what the people want?

bgkast wrote: I don't understand the point of engineering a superior item, then dumbing it down to act like the item it replaced. Same deal with the CVTs that are programmed with "gear" steps...You loose the advantages of the new design and are just stuck with all of the drawbacks. Why not just sell the car with a cheaper, easier to maintain fluid drive automatic if that is what the people want?

Again, what you call drawbacks, people who are paying for the cars call them features. Just the way it is. Everyone who has had some kind of clever trans has found this out, sometimes the hard way.

Is that really that hard to accept?

I think there is a difference here, but the difference is in the goals.

When the auto was invented, it sure didn't drive like a manual, but that was the goal.

When the DCT was invented, it didn't drive like an automatic, but that was not the goal. The goal was to increase fuel economy, and you don't want to lose a sale because the car suddenly 'drives funny'. So keep the fuel economy and make sure it doesn't 'drive funny'.

Another aspect entirely is how much work would be put in by dealerships all across the country when people start bringing their 'automatic' cars in for service because 'its not shifting right'. I bet manufactures would get hit pretty hard on reliability indexes as well for these 'transmission issues'.

alfadriver wrote: Again, what you call drawbacks, people who are paying for the cars call them features. Just the way it is. Everyone who has had some kind of clever trans has found this out, sometimes the hard way. Is that really that hard to accept?

It is hard to accept, because tons of people don't even test drive cars before buying them. They want them to look pretty, get good mmm pee gees, and not break on them. The average car buying public does not buy a car, or option it with a transmission based on how it shifts, which I think is a fair opinion to have considering it is exactly the same as yours, just applied to the majority of car buyers instead of the niche car enthusiasts.

HiTempguy wrote: They want them to look pretty, get good mmm pee gees, and not

Drive funny.