gt2 v turbo speed comparison
Discussion
just came across this in a review of the gt2 in the telegraph on line section...
It's [the GT2] also the quickest 911 to date - 0-62mph in 4.1sec, 0-100mph in 8.5sec - and has the ability to accelerate from zero to 186mph (300kph) and then brake back to a standstill before the Turbo has finished the acceleration stage of the run.
that's quite quick then. wonder what guy's car does...
It's [the GT2] also the quickest 911 to date - 0-62mph in 4.1sec, 0-100mph in 8.5sec - and has the ability to accelerate from zero to 186mph (300kph) and then brake back to a standstill before the Turbo has finished the acceleration stage of the run.
that's quite quick then. wonder what guy's car does...
911nutter said:
just came across this in a review of the gt2 in the telegraph on line section...
It's [the GT2] also the quickest 911 to date - 0-62mph in 4.1sec, 0-100mph in 8.5sec - and has the ability to accelerate from zero to 186mph (300kph) and then brake back to a standstill before the Turbo has finished the acceleration stage of the run.
that's quite quick then. wonder what guy's car does...
Vary impressive indeed, but could well be a very different comparison in the wet, especially against an X50 model turbo.
Glenn McMenamin said:
just came across this in a review of the gt2 in the telegraph on line section...
It's [the GT2] also the quickest 911 to date - 0-62mph in 4.1sec, 0-100mph in 8.5sec - and has the ability to accelerate from zero to 186mph (300kph) and then brake back to a standstill before the Turbo has finished the acceleration stage of the run.
that's quite quick then. wonder what guy's car does...
Vary impressive indeed, but could well be a very different comparison in the wet, especially against an X50 model turbo.
Don't see why that's relative.
Think GT 2 would still beat the turbo even if the test was wet. What' the X50 output 450BHP?
Check out this link. X50 Turbo, 0 - 60 in 3.6, 0 - 100 8.5 Sounds like it ought to give the GT2 a run for its money !!!
www.stevecarter.com/911turbo.htm
www.stevecarter.com/911turbo.htm
bumcrack said:
Glenn McMenamin said:
911nutter said:
just came across this in a review of the gt2 in the telegraph on line section...
It's [the GT2] also the quickest 911 to date - 0-62mph in 4.1sec, 0-100mph in 8.5sec - and has the ability to accelerate from zero to 186mph (300kph) and then brake back to a standstill before the Turbo has finished the acceleration stage of the run.
that's quite quick then. wonder what guy's car does...
Don't see why that's relative.
Think GT 2 would still beat the turbo even if the test was wet. What' the X50 output 450BHP?
I think wet would make quite a lot of difference, as the Turbo would be able to put the power down more quickly/effectively, even at speeds upto 50-60mph, which should give a slight head start IMO.
This would be obviously gradually lost over the time taken to get to top speeds.
As long as we're talking about standard GT2's, and not the likes of Guy's etc.
The quote sounds very impressive, but the braking time would only be a minor percentage of the overall time required to get to the top speed.
With that said, an X50 (yes 450BHP) would probably be hitting the brakes not long after, if not at a similar time to the GT2 thus closing the time gap considerably.
In which case, the quote could not be justified.
>> Edited by glenn mcmenamin on Monday 6th June 19:38
>> Edited by glenn mcmenamin on Monday 6th June 19:40
>> Edited by glenn mcmenamin on Monday 6th June 19:41
Mine is standard and should be there..... and having come out of an X50 Turbo into the GT2, I'm sorry to say the turbo doesn't stand a chance, sorry.
Saw a rolling road comparison between a 550hp Turbo and a standard GT2 with a sports exhaust and the GT2 had 50hp MORE at the wheels.... 4wd is heavier and burns loads of power...
Saw a rolling road comparison between a 550hp Turbo and a standard GT2 with a sports exhaust and the GT2 had 50hp MORE at the wheels.... 4wd is heavier and burns loads of power...
GT2 will be faster at lower speeds due to lower transmission losses, very slight extra power and lower weight.
However at higher speeds the X50 would start to catch up, as it has a lower drag co-efficient (0.32 vs 0.34).
I would not be surprised if given a long enough distance that an X50 would not be capable of actually going to a top speed slightly higher than the GT2, by perhaps 1-2mph.
GuyR said:
GT2 will be faster at lower speeds due to lower transmission losses, very slight extra power and lower weight.
However at higher speeds the X50 would start to catch up, as it has a lower drag co-efficient (0.32 vs 0.34).
I would not be surprised if given a long enough distance that an X50 would not be capable of actually going to a top speed slightly higher than the GT2, by perhaps 1-2mph.
On that basis, sounds like a really good, close competition. Look forward to hearing the result
Ben the only thing on the car not standard is an alloy gearshift linkage, replacing the crappy original plastic one which broke.
If you remember when mart1n sued to bring his X50 with spoiler kit to the earlier VMAXs, there was usually only one or two mph difference between our cars, which was caused by the additional downforce of the spoiler kit on his car.
Oh, it's always run on optimax, or 98+ when in Europe.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Tuesday 7th June 16:40
If you remember when mart1n sued to bring his X50 with spoiler kit to the earlier VMAXs, there was usually only one or two mph difference between our cars, which was caused by the additional downforce of the spoiler kit on his car.
Oh, it's always run on optimax, or 98+ when in Europe.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Tuesday 7th June 16:40
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff