Tuscan S v's 911 Turbo
Discussion
rens914 said:
yep, and he's right and wrong in the same time.
in the straight line untill the 120mph line the tuscan S will be the better car but above that and handling wise the porker beats the tuscan with a mile
Cheers - I'm thinking on a track rather than the mythical B road blast or traffic light grand prix and I can't find too many lap time comparisons...I would expect the Porker to be quicker, but not quick enough to warrant 'muller'...in the straight line untill the 120mph line the tuscan S will be the better car but above that and handling wise the porker beats the tuscan with a mile
Brew said:
I've owned a Tuscan mk3 S and a 997 Turbo and your mate on bookface is spot on. The Turbo was not just quicker than the Tuscan, but also most other things on the road. Although very capable and very very quick was a bit too clinical (well for me anyway).
Cheers - he's talking about the 996 but I'm guessing much the same applies?m4tti said:
Whats interesting is that the 996 turbo "only" has 284 bhp per ton.
A standard Tuscan is 327 bhp per a ton assuming 360 bhp and 1100kg, a modified speed six with 420bhp is about 380bhp/ton. The 4.3/4.5 and FFF cars should be much closer.
That's what I was kind of thinking...the power to weight of an 'S' is better than the Turbo... A standard Tuscan is 327 bhp per a ton assuming 360 bhp and 1100kg, a modified speed six with 420bhp is about 380bhp/ton. The 4.3/4.5 and FFF cars should be much closer.
m4tti said:
They're 4wd though with plenty of electronic trickery going on.
Performance stats here:
0 - 60 3.6 (x50)
http://www.stevecarter.com/911turbo.htm
That's an X50 though. He was referring to a standard Turbo. Torquestats shows the 'S' quicker to 100 and quicker 60-100 so not seeing the 'mullered' in his comment...probably just being hyper defensive about the new toy Performance stats here:
0 - 60 3.6 (x50)
http://www.stevecarter.com/911turbo.htm
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