RE: Porsche 911 GT3 RS 4.0 Revealed
Discussion
k-ink said:
You really need two of these. One to rag everywhere. Another to store with zero miles, for when they will be worth multiples of RRP.
But you know what. It won't! For when 991 GT3RS 4.5 (or whatever) is launched in 3 years time this car will instantly become as desireable as an orginal iPhone.baron bashoneov said:
nice upgrade but i will stick with my slightly slower GT3 gen 2
When is the 991 likely to be launched?
Only then will i start to get excited about the new GT3 model
Revealed in September, deliveries to customers in Feb / March next year for C2 / C2S. GT3 version probably 2013.When is the 991 likely to be launched?
Only then will i start to get excited about the new GT3 model
Rich_W said:
But you know what. It won't! For when 991 GT3RS 4.5 (or whatever) is launched in 3 years time this car will instantly become as desireable as an orginal iPhone.
But that is assuming they make another hardcore RS. I had a horrible thought. What if the next generation are hybrids?! 
PunterCam said:
No stupid automatic gearbox, thank the lord. The whole auto craze that's swamped sports-cars is a horrible thing, and it's good to see someone shun it. Why on earth anyone would buy a sports car with an automatic is beyond me. Double clutch or not, still an auto, no excuse.
Depends on what you define as 'sports car'. If it is going to be tracked then auto will generally be faster, maybe not as fun to some, but faster nonetheless.I agree I wouldn't choose an auto if I was buying a weekend car or something like this Porsche (which I'm not). However, some do people want auto for daily driving and a semi-auto mode gives a little more involvement when giving it the beans. Don't forget those who need an automatic due to health issues, they can be PHers too!
big_rob_sydney said:
I think the RGV250 used to put out around 60bhp. So 240 bhp per litre is possible in production machinery. Mind you, they didnt last long though... *cough*
Still, not a bad effort for machines built about a thouand years ago. I'd expect with modern manufacturing techniques they could last longer today.
As for this car, yeah, its ok I guess. Personally I dont like new cars at all (depreciation), and by the time this was 3-5 years old, I'd be looking at it like it was just another car in a sea of "specials" to be considered.
And if I'm honest, I'd be looking at cheaper cars, thinking "what if I stuck an exhaust / intake / tune" on the car, and I'd probably go that route. Better still, I'd look at a turbo, because turbos are ridiculously easy to get power from, and see if the handling and braking could be improved.
Nerd mode on - the RGV's quoted crank output was 65bhp or 260bhp/litre. Mind you as memory serves the service life on the pistons is 10k miles. But it's a two-stroke so not really fair to compare.Still, not a bad effort for machines built about a thouand years ago. I'd expect with modern manufacturing techniques they could last longer today.
As for this car, yeah, its ok I guess. Personally I dont like new cars at all (depreciation), and by the time this was 3-5 years old, I'd be looking at it like it was just another car in a sea of "specials" to be considered.
And if I'm honest, I'd be looking at cheaper cars, thinking "what if I stuck an exhaust / intake / tune" on the car, and I'd probably go that route. Better still, I'd look at a turbo, because turbos are ridiculously easy to get power from, and see if the handling and braking could be improved.
If you want to compare bike engines to cars then the current crop of 1000cc bikes are quoting 200bhp. They run cats etc and I suspect that the engines would last reasonably well (certainly compared to an RGV).
I thought that this 911 would be a bit more 'special'. I don't like all the aero stuff (on pretty much ANY road car in fairness) but had they copied the RSR cars at least they could claim the motorsport link which is (for me) the valid reason for all the wings.
I'm not quite sure where the analogue comments come from either. Yes the gearbox is manual and it isn't turbocharged but otherwise it has all the good Porsche gizmos - PASM etc. I should add I think that's a good thing!
On the plus side this should also save me £4 as now I don't have to buy the evo magazine car of the year edition later on this year.
CrisW said:
big_rob_sydney said:
I think the RGV250 used to put out around 60bhp. So 240 bhp per litre is possible in production machinery. Mind you, they didnt last long though... *cough*
Still, not a bad effort for machines built about a thouand years ago. I'd expect with modern manufacturing techniques they could last longer today.
As for this car, yeah, its ok I guess. Personally I dont like new cars at all (depreciation), and by the time this was 3-5 years old, I'd be looking at it like it was just another car in a sea of "specials" to be considered.
And if I'm honest, I'd be looking at cheaper cars, thinking "what if I stuck an exhaust / intake / tune" on the car, and I'd probably go that route. Better still, I'd look at a turbo, because turbos are ridiculously easy to get power from, and see if the handling and braking could be improved.
Nerd mode on - the RGV's quoted crank output was 65bhp or 260bhp/litre. Mind you as memory serves the service life on the pistons is 10k miles. But it's a two-stroke so not really fair to compare.Still, not a bad effort for machines built about a thouand years ago. I'd expect with modern manufacturing techniques they could last longer today.
As for this car, yeah, its ok I guess. Personally I dont like new cars at all (depreciation), and by the time this was 3-5 years old, I'd be looking at it like it was just another car in a sea of "specials" to be considered.
And if I'm honest, I'd be looking at cheaper cars, thinking "what if I stuck an exhaust / intake / tune" on the car, and I'd probably go that route. Better still, I'd look at a turbo, because turbos are ridiculously easy to get power from, and see if the handling and braking could be improved.
If you want to compare bike engines to cars then the current crop of 1000cc bikes are quoting 200bhp. They run cats etc and I suspect that the engines would last reasonably well (certainly compared to an RGV).
I thought that this 911 would be a bit more 'special'. I don't like all the aero stuff (on pretty much ANY road car in fairness) but had they copied the RSR cars at least they could claim the motorsport link which is (for me) the valid reason for all the wings.
I'm not quite sure where the analogue comments come from either. Yes the gearbox is manual and it isn't turbocharged but otherwise it has all the good Porsche gizmos - PASM etc. I should add I think that's a good thing!
On the plus side this should also save me £4 as now I don't have to buy the evo magazine car of the year edition later on this year.
rev to 12000rpm, make peak torque and power at around 11500..have no low down torque and be a sh!te road car with horrible gearing
Dagnut said:
If you were just after peak output I'm sure 200bhp per litre would be possible but it
rev to 12000rpm, make peak torque and power at around 11500..have no low down torque and be a sh!te road car with horrible gearing
Not sure where you are going with this but no it wouldn't necessarily. If we lived in a fantasy world where everything was linear (as you seem to be suggesting above) then certainly not. If my 200bhp/litre was coming from a six litre engine then I suspect that the low down torque would be quite reasonable. Assuming a linear increase then it would have in excess of 240lb/ft at ~2,000rpm. The fact that it revved to 12,000rpm is no bad thing. Gearing could be applied to suit the engine. The fact that the engine would pull 6,000rpm at 70mph (say) would be irrelevant if this was 50% of the rev range. My petrol car pulls approx 1,000rpm more at 70 than our diesel. This doesn't make the petrol engine worse.rev to 12000rpm, make peak torque and power at around 11500..have no low down torque and be a sh!te road car with horrible gearing
The real reason is that power doesn't scale with engine capacity (as was noted previously in the thread). I am not aware of any 'large' engines which produce anything like 200bhp/litre without some other factor coming into play (FI, fuel). The closest thing I can think of is an F1 engine but they make bike engines look like low revving, reliable lumps.
Comparing specific outputs between engines is only of interest if the engines are pretty similar in the first place. Otherwise you might as well just look at turbochanged engines, two-strokes, rotaries et al.
CrisW said:
Dagnut said:
If you were just after peak output I'm sure 200bhp per litre would be possible but it
rev to 12000rpm, make peak torque and power at around 11500..have no low down torque and be a sh!te road car with horrible gearing
Not sure where you are going with this but no it wouldn't necessarily. If we lived in a fantasy world where everything was linear (as you seem to be suggesting above) then certainly not. If my 200bhp/litre was coming from a six litre engine then I suspect that the low down torque would be quite reasonable. Assuming a linear increase then it would have in excess of 240lb/ft at ~2,000rpm. The fact that it revved to 12,000rpm is no bad thing. Gearing could be applied to suit the engine. The fact that the engine would pull 6,000rpm at 70mph (say) would be irrelevant if this was 50% of the rev range. My petrol car pulls approx 1,000rpm more at 70 than our diesel. This doesn't make the petrol engine worse.rev to 12000rpm, make peak torque and power at around 11500..have no low down torque and be a sh!te road car with horrible gearing
The real reason is that power doesn't scale with engine capacity (as was noted previously in the thread). I am not aware of any 'large' engines which produce anything like 200bhp/litre without some other factor coming into play (FI, fuel). The closest thing I can think of is an F1 engine but they make bike engines look like low revving, reliable lumps.
Comparing specific outputs between engines is only of interest if the engines are pretty similar in the first place. Otherwise you might as well just look at turbochanged engines, two-strokes, rotaries et al.
F1 engines are the perfect example, anything approaching that would be horrible in a road car.
The capro is producing around 165 bhp per litre from a 3.5 V8.. that's about as extreme as it gets for a road car..the Atom V8 pretty similar.
k-ink said:
Rich_W said:
But you know what. It won't! For when 991 GT3RS 4.5 (or whatever) is launched in 3 years time this car will instantly become as desireable as an orginal iPhone.
But that is assuming they make another hardcore RS. I had a horrible thought. What if the next generation are hybrids?! 
zakelwe said:
Great stats, no doubt drives well, but that rear wing is too much and the colour scheme is not very good.
I'd rather have the boring 997 Turbo S with PDK.
Andy
Very different cars. Turbo even the s is much softer. The gt3 is close to perfection this version must be amazing. I'd rather have the boring 997 Turbo S with PDK.
Andy
Good that porsche are sticking with their commitment to put a drivers gearbox in a drivers car. Pdk is technically much better, faster and easier but it spoils the experience
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff