JD15

I believe that the DSG is developed by Borg Warner and licensed by VAG, so it isn't like Audi is designing it from the ground up on its own. Additionally, Audi is already using a DSG for the A4/A5 and switched from the ZF8 to a DSG for the 2019 A6/A7. Regardless, the ZF8 has proven to be a reliable, robust transmission, so its inclusion in the S4 and S5 doesn't both me.

Glisse

As I said in post #25, the C7 A6 and A7 using the 3.0TFSI engine used the DL501 dual sequential S tronic transmission in most of the world. Including my A7. Only North America used the ZF8HP with the supercharged 3.0TFSI, because it was smoother, which apparently better suits drivers from North America who are more used to torque converter transmissions. Saying this, I am not sure what transmission was being used in China.

As JD15 noted, most of the initial reviews and release information contained comments from Audi spokespeople stating the S tronic couldn't handle the additional torque of the turbocharged 3.0TFSI/EA838 engine. Here's a quote from Jalopnik:
From this article:
https://jalopnik.com/the-new-audi-s4...sio-1730778195

It has nothing to do with "unable to handle the torque", and everything to do with "unable to handle the torque in a pleasant manner". The ex-head of BMW M Division more transparently cited this as the reason M Division are progressively moving away from dual sequential transmissions to torque converters.

And I doubt if moving to a ZF8HP was done for cost savings. It is only used where the torque ceiling and quattro drivetrain render use of an S tronic unsuitable.

Yes, the DSG was initially developed by Borg Warner, but DSG is a Volkswagen Cars acronym for DirektSchaltGetriebe, which fortuitously translates to Direct Shift Gearbox. It seems many here must have owned VW's in the past. The DSG transmissions are transverse designs, and use the DQ prefix within VAG. The longitudinal dual sequential transmissions, which use the DL prefix, were designed by Audi, and most parts are built at the specialised VW Kassel plant. Most of the later DQ designs were also further developed by Audi, as that is where most of VAG's engineering resources resided. They had over 10,000 engineers, but that will have changed dramatically in the last 12 months.

adg44

This.

Not this. The ZF 8-speed is an expensive transmission.

JD15

Total cost != solely production or procurement cost. The ZF8 requires no R&D expenditures for Audi.

adg44

JD15

Using the ZF8 requires the same or greater R&D expenses compared to developing a new longitudinal DSG for higher torque applications? Please explain.

Wires

Only expense for Audi on the ZF would be mapping for shift pressures on the gear changes to change the driver experience. All software, almost zero risk stuff. If the ZF was so expensive, and cheaper for OEM's do their own, my BMW 340 wouldn't have the same ZF8 AT as my Audi SQ5. The days of mfr's doing 100% proprietary designs are gone since it really makes no sense. Let transmission experts build transmissions. Let brake experts design brakes. My SQ5 has the same memory seat controls as my BMW 340 as well.

adg44

You said it takes no R&D. Not that it takes less R&D. And just because there is a ZF 8 speed doesn't mean it's an off the shelf transmission for every car. Even between applications (example S5 to RS 5) there are differences in the gears and torque converter.

Wires

That amount of R&D is almost negligible though. Audi (or whatever brand) would just spec what their gear spacing and converter engagement RPM is. There isn't a series of prototype, destructive testing, new molds, prototype, etc which is expensive.

JD15

You can't dispute my overall point, so you're resorting to pedantry to win the argument. You still haven't addressed which option is lower overall cost for Audi and implied that the ZF8 is more expensive than developing a new DSG for the platform. Do you stand by that argument?