Power brake is slang for holding the brake and the gas to build power. If the RPMs fall off you are not in LC and probabaly have not disabled traction and stability control. You should see the car crashing symbol on your dash ☺
True the modified RWD cars are already spinning the tires so they dont need a harder launch but AWDs could use more.
But I did disable both, very clearly: "Ding!" followed c. three seconds later by "Ding! Ding!" and the disabled icon is on, in the upper left part of the dash. When I did all of my subsequent quick starts, with and without LC, I left the traction and stability control off. I only restarted both when I moved to speed experiments, deeming both a good idea if I was going to be romping down a narrow two lane road well in excess of 100 MPH!
I've read that Sport puts as much as 80% of the power to the rear wheels. Surely this would max out during LC. And if any other way of accelerating at maximum capacity is tried, the stability and traction control should also be dispensed with; it seems logical anyway. To leave either stability or traction control on would interfere with an even distribution of power. But taking that system out of the picture would allow the full "undiluted" 80% to the rear wheels. This would simulate RWD closely, while also getting some power to the front tires to help pull that extra weight. The net effect could/should be a trade off so that the AWD doesn't suffer in a raw contest of rapid acceleration. At least, this would make the two types of drive trains as alike in performance as possible. We are only talking about a few hundredths of a second difference, which only matters to "duelists", not someone putting their foot down to pass or get up a freeway on ramp before the two lanes merge, etc.
The Jeep SRT is only .3s faster on 0-60 for at least 20k more MSRP, and the Hellcat has double the HP...hardly fair comparisons lol.
I believe he was comparing the launch control systems, not the actual cars.
I find that hard to believe personally. Bone stock and .6s faster than quoted time? Something else is up. Even the Stinger is .2-.3s faster than quoted. That's believable.
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. The whole point of this entire thread is that different launch configurations WILL affect the quickness of the Stinger depending on how they are implemented. As the LC is implemented currently, it makes the car not as quick as it could be. Quick and fast are not interchangeable terms. (i.e. My quarter mile elapse time was a quick 12.39 seconds, and my speed was a fast 112 mph.) How fast a car is has very little to do with the launch control. How quick a car is to 60 ft has everything to do with launch control. As for the times being different than quoted times, manufacturers often sandbag so that cars tested in less than ideal situations aren't slower than their published times. Very rarely, if ever, will a manufacturer put out their best time. KIA as an example, has likely underrated their horsepower/torque from the factory on the Stinger.
Is the Merc a dual-clutch gearbox? It should be fun. Some manufacturers do it better than others. Porsche and Audi seem to have the formula down.
Not boring at all. My Lexus ISF boasted one of the first applications of an 8-speed automatic torque converter transmission in a performance car. As implemented in the ISF, the transmission boasted 0.1s shift times with a lockup torque converter in all gears after 1st gear. It did all of this with the silky smooth luxury start of a torque converter. As you said, the pendulum is swinging back to torque converter transmissions with advances being made that put them back in the lead for overall performance.
