X50 - 996 turbo

[steve singh]

Quick question, do you noticeably feel the additional 30bhp of the x50 vs. standard 996 turbo?

Thanks

[sportsandclassic]

Hi Steve,

YES. It is more the torque I notice when driving them. Even when we have had standard 996TT mapped they still do not kick you in the back like a standard X50 car.

Mike

[thelandIord]

Hi Steve,

I have a x50 tip and people say they are a bit laggy,it can be when driven in manual in the wrong gear but in auto the kickdown and takeoff is very much instant,now my 250bhp impreza is laggy even in the right gear.

Just to add as well i would never buy another manual after having the tip and i've stopped going out on my bike and will sell it as it doesnt give the thrill anymore compared to a 3 gear kickdown.

[shantybeater]

I'll agree with the statements above, test drove a few non-x50 cars included a mapped one and although i was impressed with their laggless power even a mapped car had less kick. Can't imagine what a mapped x50 would feel like!

[steve singh]

Thanks guys - narrows the search down as i want the fastest possible, so x50 it is !

[Rockster]

IIRC one magazine found the X50 slower at certain speed ranges compared to the standard Turbo. Check out Total 911 and its Turbo issue which has the times to accelerate from a moving speed of say 30mph to 60mph for both models back to back.

[acf69]

I have a mapped X50, it is very quick

[666TUR]

I recently went for a driving weekend in Wales in my non x50 in a group , there was another 996tt that was a x50, we were doing very tight hill roads, lots of corners, with me following him, on a number of occasions I felt he was slowing me up as we were coming out of corners etc, i put it down to his additional lag, once the roads straightened out I could see he had the edge. in my view cross country there was nt much in it.

[RWD cossie wil]

Big difference between lag & boost threshold, are people actually talking about real lag here or the X50 not coming on song until later in the rev range? I suspect an X50 in the correct gear would (and should) better a boggo turbo pretty much everywhere?

[Rockster]

RWD cossie wil said:

Big difference between lag & boost threshold, are people actually talking about real lag here or the X50 not coming on song until later in the rev range? I suspect an X50 in the correct gear would (and should) better a boggo turbo pretty much everywhere?

Well, that is not what I recall. Side by side (figuratively speaking) during some roll on acceleration tests the regular 996 Turbo was quicker than the X50 Turbo.

But in all other comparisons the X50 came out on top. Clearly the extra power/torque was there and made a positive impact on the X50's performance over the standard Turbo.

However, I just looked for the magazine I thought I had read this in and I can't find it. I had thought it came from a Total 911 issue but I checked a few likely candidate issues (specifically covering the Turbos) and one Turbo special issue and one Porsche super car issue and didn't find any side by side comparison of the standard and X50 Turbos. I do recall though there were tables for times listed for acceleration runs from 0mph up through various speeds and times listed for acceleration runs from a rolling start to a target speed and in some of the latter acceleration runs the standard Turbo was a bit quicker.

Assuming my memory is better than my filing system, and I'm remembering right, would this put me off a Turbo S? Hardly.

[Angelus]

acf69 said:

I have a mapped X50, it is very quick

Mine too

[StuB]

Angelus said:

acf69 said:

I have a mapped X50, it is very quick

Mine too

with GT2RS inter coolers, is very impressive.

[kencom]

I had a manual X50 & a friend bought a standard car at the same time 3 years ago.

Both manual with Milltek exhaust & 200cel cats.

We had several runs through the gears as well as standing starts and mine was quicker, by a reasonable amount.

We both has EPL remote recaps from the US. His was much faster with his new 1bar tune and with my 1.1bar tune Mine was also quicker, but not by the same margin. I was more interested in keeping lag to an absolute minimum that outright power!

Side by side runs resulted in me being very slightly quicker, to the point where you could call it irrelevant really.

I still like the fact my car was X50 though, and when I came to sell recently, it went in 1 day! And I believe that was down to the fact that it was X50 & manual, but you never really know.

But I did like the fact that I had run one of the greatest cars made at the time of creation for a measly £2k in depreciation in over 3 years!!! and it was extremely reliable....

Get one bought, life is toooooo short.

[RWD cossie wil]

Rockster said:

RWD cossie wil said:

Big difference between lag & boost threshold, are people actually talking about real lag here or the X50 not coming on song until later in the rev range? I suspect an X50 in the correct gear would (and should) better a boggo turbo pretty much everywhere?

Well, that is not what I recall. Side by side (figuratively speaking) during some roll on acceleration tests the regular 996 Turbo was quicker than the X50 Turbo.

But in all other comparisons the X50 came out on top. Clearly the extra power/torque was there and made a positive impact on the X50's performance over the standard Turbo.

However, I just looked for the magazine I thought I had read this in and I can't find it. I had thought it came from a Total 911 issue but I checked a few likely candidate issues (specifically covering the Turbos) and one Turbo special issue and one Porsche super car issue and didn't find any side by side comparison of the standard and X50 Turbos. I do recall though there were tables for times listed for acceleration runs from 0mph up through various speeds and times listed for acceleration runs from a rolling start to a target speed and in some of the latter acceleration runs the standard Turbo was a bit quicker.

Assuming my memory is better than my filing system, and I'm remembering right, would this put me off a Turbo S? Hardly.

It makes perfect sense, at say 2000rpm in a roll on test, the std turbo will have the advantage as its smaller turbos will spool faster with less exhaust gas than the bigger turbos on the X50, that will no doubt require a few hundred RPM more to be into the boost threshold. Of course the X50 driver would soon learn to keep the revs higher or maybe even be in a lower gear than the std turbo to negate the difference. It all depends on how much of a compromise you are willing to make between ease of driving & outright power.

No real losers in this battle anyway

[cheshire911]

I have an X50 with manual. It is definitely the extra torque that gives you that kick in the back. Accelerating in 3rd gear is awesome - to warp speed and beyond. When the turbos whoosh it just takes off.

Don't let any theoretical argument about bigger turbos mean more turbolag convince you not to pay the premium - it is theoretical becasue the practical performance is an enormous thump in the back and stomach that a non-X50 does not give. The extra torque is easily felt.

[Fantomx]

I have a 2002 X50 tiptronic that's been mapped and I have a nuvolari exhaust 100 cell fitted, it's just silly really, the map has the effect of real boost coming a lot sooner than the normal 3k revs. I honesty don't think I'd like to try and change gear manually on full boost... It's more speed than you need for UK roads!

[Fantomx]

I have a 2002 X50 tiptronic that's been mapped and I have a nuvolari exhaust 100 cell fitted, it's just silly really, the map has the effect of real boost coming a lot sooner than the normal 3k revs. I honesty don't think I'd like to try and change gear manually on full boost... It's more speed than you need for UK roads!

[APOLO1]

steve singh said:

Quick question, do you noticeably feel the additional 30bhp of the x50 vs. standard 996 turbo?

Thanks

had 2 of these.....its not just the BHP but the extra torques, yes definitely