Tuscan S v's 911 Turbo
Discussion
i had a tuscan 2s with nitrons and powers wheels and now have a 997 turbo. first impressions the turbo was far too quiet so i had the exhaust changed and a remap so it now has a crisper sound under load. handling and braking (ceramic brakes) is superior you can carry a lot more speed when cornering, initial acceleration is similar but it does leave the tvr behind. as a car the tvr is an event, the porsche while capable is not easy to gel with but if you do it is rewarding.
Some of the figures also look odd. Although they could be down to gearing.
996 tt Tuscan
1 mile (est) 31.0 s @ 161 mph 31.5 s @ 187 mph
At that rate the Tuscan has started covering ground quicker and will shortly over take the Porsche.. But it looks slightly dubious, aside from the fact the Tuscan would become airborne
996 tt Tuscan
1 mile (est) 31.0 s @ 161 mph 31.5 s @ 187 mph
At that rate the Tuscan has started covering ground quicker and will shortly over take the Porsche.. But it looks slightly dubious, aside from the fact the Tuscan would become airborne
Yeah, I clocked that one, too... It's just 'bench racing' after all - they probably tapped some basic parameters into www.torquestats.com
Common sense would dictate that the Porsche would murder the TVR from 0-60 and maybe to 100 by way of its four wheel traction, in the 'middle' speed range the Tuscan would take over due to its superior power/weight and at the top end it would be a battle of outright bhp against drag x frontal aspect... well at least until the Tuscan lifts off at the front
Common sense would dictate that the Porsche would murder the TVR from 0-60 and maybe to 100 by way of its four wheel traction, in the 'middle' speed range the Tuscan would take over due to its superior power/weight and at the top end it would be a battle of outright bhp against drag x frontal aspect... well at least until the Tuscan lifts off at the front
donutsina911 said:
Quote from Facebook...'a 911 Turbo would muller the Tuscan S'
Chap is referring to a 996 flavour Turbo - anyone owned driven both?
I own both. The 996 would not "muller" the Tuscan... although in the hands of any man on the street it would be faster point to point in almost every circumstance, although my (4.5) Tuscan rebalances things a little.Chap is referring to a 996 flavour Turbo - anyone owned driven both?
No prizes for guessing which is the most fun to drive, gets the most looks, sounds the best and gets the best mpg. The other was made in Germany and costs a lot less to run/service
I owned a Tuscan for 6 years, and have now owned a 996 Turbo S for the past 2 years (with a '7 GT3 in between).
The Tuscan started life as a baby 3.6, but for the last couple of years was a TVR Power 4.3 dyno'd at 420bhp or thereabouts. As a 4.3 it was just bonkers in a straight line, and after having some suspension work was also pretty fun in the corners. I have a dim recollection of chasing a Ferrari Enzo, which was admittedly slowed down by quiet country roads, but the Tuscan wasn't far behind. I loved that car :-)
When family duties necessitated something less demanding in terms of maintenance and TLC, I dallied around with a 997 GT3 for a year, then bought the 996 Turbo S. It's one of the last off the line with a conservative 450bhp and 457lb.ft (in practice they are normally a bit higher; Stuttgart horses seem to be bigger than Blackpool or Coventry horses). However it weighs about the same as the Ark Royal, at over1500kg, so power to weight is about the same or a bit worse than a factory Tuscan 4.0, assuming real-world rather than claimed TVR power outputs. Nothing like as good as the mental 4.3 though.
In terms of straight line speed, the 996 is probably a whisker behind the Tuscan. However off the line, it would destroy the TVR for most drivers; the rear engine traction and 4wd make quick getaways quite spectacular, just sidestep the clutch and you're propelled to the horizon and rev limiter with indecent haste. An automatic 996 Turbo would be even more consistent, albeit less fun. Point to point, it's almost too easy to drive the 996 quickly. The 4wd system isn't sophisticated by modern standards, but you can feel it shuffling (up to 40% of) the torque forwards at times, and grip through and out of corners is hilarious. Combined with massive 6 pot ceramic brakes that have loads of feel, ABS, and stability control, and you have something that would outrun a Tuscan almost every day of the week. Only in dry ideal conditions, with a sh*t hot driver, would the Tuscan be as quick.
Having said all of that, I miss my Tuscan terribly. It was such an event to drive, whereas the Porker is much more clinical. Yes, I can drive the 996 200 miles and not feel tired, but you do have to absolutely cane it for it come alive. The TVRs all felt fun at 30mph as well as at the national speed limit. The Tuscan drew a crowd wherever I left it, even in Maranello, whereas the 996 is just another Porsche to the man on the street. Cars used to practically leap out of the way on the motorway when I was in the Tuscan, the Porsche doesn't have the same effect unless you're really motoring with the headlamps ablaze - not so practical on the M40!
Horses for courses is the short answer :-)
Pete
The Tuscan started life as a baby 3.6, but for the last couple of years was a TVR Power 4.3 dyno'd at 420bhp or thereabouts. As a 4.3 it was just bonkers in a straight line, and after having some suspension work was also pretty fun in the corners. I have a dim recollection of chasing a Ferrari Enzo, which was admittedly slowed down by quiet country roads, but the Tuscan wasn't far behind. I loved that car :-)
When family duties necessitated something less demanding in terms of maintenance and TLC, I dallied around with a 997 GT3 for a year, then bought the 996 Turbo S. It's one of the last off the line with a conservative 450bhp and 457lb.ft (in practice they are normally a bit higher; Stuttgart horses seem to be bigger than Blackpool or Coventry horses
). However it weighs about the same as the Ark Royal, at over1500kg, so power to weight is about the same or a bit worse than a factory Tuscan 4.0, assuming real-world rather than claimed TVR power outputs. Nothing like as good as the mental 4.3 though.In terms of straight line speed, the 996 is probably a whisker behind the Tuscan. However off the line, it would destroy the TVR for most drivers; the rear engine traction and 4wd make quick getaways quite spectacular, just sidestep the clutch and you're propelled to the horizon and rev limiter with indecent haste. An automatic 996 Turbo would be even more consistent, albeit less fun. Point to point, it's almost too easy to drive the 996 quickly. The 4wd system isn't sophisticated by modern standards, but you can feel it shuffling (up to 40% of) the torque forwards at times, and grip through and out of corners is hilarious. Combined with massive 6 pot ceramic brakes that have loads of feel, ABS, and stability control, and you have something that would outrun a Tuscan almost every day of the week. Only in dry ideal conditions, with a sh*t hot driver, would the Tuscan be as quick.
Having said all of that, I miss my Tuscan terribly. It was such an event to drive, whereas the Porker is much more clinical. Yes, I can drive the 996 200 miles and not feel tired, but you do have to absolutely cane it for it come alive. The TVRs all felt fun at 30mph as well as at the national speed limit. The Tuscan drew a crowd wherever I left it, even in Maranello, whereas the 996 is just another Porsche to the man on the street. Cars used to practically leap out of the way on the motorway when I was in the Tuscan, the Porsche doesn't have the same effect unless you're really motoring with the headlamps ablaze - not so practical on the M40!
Horses for courses is the short answer :-)
Pete
Walford said:
Richie C said:
Walford said:
LS Tuscan
also is the lightest
best balanced
most indestructible
*Yawn*also is the lightest
best balanced
most indestructible
yawn yawn yawn ********
I'm sure it is a great car but so is a 911 that has been played with.
pete said:
I owned a Tuscan for 6 years, and have now owned a 996 Turbo S for the past 2 years (with a '7 GT3 in between).
The Tuscan started life as a baby 3.6, but for the last couple of years was a TVR Power 4.3 dyno'd at 420bhp or thereabouts. As a 4.3 it was just bonkers in a straight line, and after having some suspension work was also pretty fun in the corners. I have a dim recollection of chasing a Ferrari Enzo, which was admittedly slowed down by quiet country roads, but the Tuscan wasn't far behind. I loved that car :-)
When family duties necessitated something less demanding in terms of maintenance and TLC, I dallied around with a 997 GT3 for a year, then bought the 996 Turbo S. It's one of the last off the line with a conservative 450bhp and 457lb.ft (in practice they are normally a bit higher; Stuttgart horses seem to be bigger than Blackpool or Coventry horses). However it weighs about the same as the Ark Royal, at over1500kg, so power to weight is about the same or a bit worse than a factory Tuscan 4.0, assuming real-world rather than claimed TVR power outputs. Nothing like as good as the mental 4.3 though.
In terms of straight line speed, the 996 is probably a whisker behind the Tuscan. However off the line, it would destroy the TVR for most drivers; the rear engine traction and 4wd make quick getaways quite spectacular, just sidestep the clutch and you're propelled to the horizon and rev limiter with indecent haste. An automatic 996 Turbo would be even more consistent, albeit less fun. Point to point, it's almost too easy to drive the 996 quickly. The 4wd system isn't sophisticated by modern standards, but you can feel it shuffling (up to 40% of) the torque forwards at times, and grip through and out of corners is hilarious. Combined with massive 6 pot ceramic brakes that have loads of feel, ABS, and stability control, and you have something that would outrun a Tuscan almost every day of the week. Only in dry ideal conditions, with a sh*t hot driver, would the Tuscan be as quick.
Having said all of that, I miss my Tuscan terribly. It was such an event to drive, whereas the Porker is much more clinical. Yes, I can drive the 996 200 miles and not feel tired, but you do have to absolutely cane it for it come alive. The TVRs all felt fun at 30mph as well as at the national speed limit. The Tuscan drew a crowd wherever I left it, even in Maranello, whereas the 996 is just another Porsche to the man on the street. Cars used to practically leap out of the way on the motorway when I was in the Tuscan, the Porsche doesn't have the same effect unless you're really motoring with the headlamps ablaze - not so practical on the M40!
Horses for courses is the short answer :-)
Brilliant, thanks for taking the time to post this...may put a linky to it
Pete
The Tuscan started life as a baby 3.6, but for the last couple of years was a TVR Power 4.3 dyno'd at 420bhp or thereabouts. As a 4.3 it was just bonkers in a straight line, and after having some suspension work was also pretty fun in the corners. I have a dim recollection of chasing a Ferrari Enzo, which was admittedly slowed down by quiet country roads, but the Tuscan wasn't far behind. I loved that car :-)
When family duties necessitated something less demanding in terms of maintenance and TLC, I dallied around with a 997 GT3 for a year, then bought the 996 Turbo S. It's one of the last off the line with a conservative 450bhp and 457lb.ft (in practice they are normally a bit higher; Stuttgart horses seem to be bigger than Blackpool or Coventry horses
). However it weighs about the same as the Ark Royal, at over1500kg, so power to weight is about the same or a bit worse than a factory Tuscan 4.0, assuming real-world rather than claimed TVR power outputs. Nothing like as good as the mental 4.3 though.In terms of straight line speed, the 996 is probably a whisker behind the Tuscan. However off the line, it would destroy the TVR for most drivers; the rear engine traction and 4wd make quick getaways quite spectacular, just sidestep the clutch and you're propelled to the horizon and rev limiter with indecent haste. An automatic 996 Turbo would be even more consistent, albeit less fun. Point to point, it's almost too easy to drive the 996 quickly. The 4wd system isn't sophisticated by modern standards, but you can feel it shuffling (up to 40% of) the torque forwards at times, and grip through and out of corners is hilarious. Combined with massive 6 pot ceramic brakes that have loads of feel, ABS, and stability control, and you have something that would outrun a Tuscan almost every day of the week. Only in dry ideal conditions, with a sh*t hot driver, would the Tuscan be as quick.
Having said all of that, I miss my Tuscan terribly. It was such an event to drive, whereas the Porker is much more clinical. Yes, I can drive the 996 200 miles and not feel tired, but you do have to absolutely cane it for it come alive. The TVRs all felt fun at 30mph as well as at the national speed limit. The Tuscan drew a crowd wherever I left it, even in Maranello, whereas the 996 is just another Porsche to the man on the street. Cars used to practically leap out of the way on the motorway when I was in the Tuscan, the Porsche doesn't have the same effect unless you're really motoring with the headlamps ablaze - not so practical on the M40!
Horses for courses is the short answer :-)
Brilliant, thanks for taking the time to post this...may put a linky to it
Pete
Gassing Station | Tuscan | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff