Why is the 996 mk1 faster than the Cayman S?
Discussion
With the advances of technology, it always seemed to me that, all other things remaining equal, newer cars were faster. Below is an example where things are opposite:
Porsche 996 Mk 1 (1997-2001)
Weight: from 1,320 to maybe 1,390Kg
Power: 300bhp à 6,800rpm
Torque: 350Nm à 4,600rpm
From full stop to 1Km: 24"2
0 à 100 km/h: 5"2
0 à 200 km/h: 18"9
Maximum speeed: 280Km/h
Cayman S:
Weight: 1,340Kg
Power: 295bhp à 6,250rpm
Torque: 340Nm à 4,400rpm
From full stop to 1Km: 24"3
0 à 100 km/h: 5"4
0 à 200 km/h: 18"6
Maximum speeed: 275Km/h
I found that fact interesting.. Especially since I found the torque available on second gear at lower revs on a 280bhp Boxster S more impressive than the same on a 996 mk1. Now what I need to do, is to compare gear ratios, which may explain it. Also it was raining when I was trying the Boxster S, causing it to spin and drift all over the place, which, as some of you may know, increases the perception of power that the driver gets, since he is slightly scared.
But one explanation may be that the 911 has its engine sitting directly on the wheels, increasing grip, which has always been the reason why it competed on the 0-100 with more powerful models.
Kay
Porsche 996 Mk 1 (1997-2001)
Weight: from 1,320 to maybe 1,390Kg
Power: 300bhp à 6,800rpm
Torque: 350Nm à 4,600rpm
From full stop to 1Km: 24"2
0 à 100 km/h: 5"2
0 à 200 km/h: 18"9
Maximum speeed: 280Km/h
Cayman S:
Weight: 1,340Kg
Power: 295bhp à 6,250rpm
Torque: 340Nm à 4,400rpm
From full stop to 1Km: 24"3
0 à 100 km/h: 5"4
0 à 200 km/h: 18"6
Maximum speeed: 275Km/h
I found that fact interesting.. Especially since I found the torque available on second gear at lower revs on a 280bhp Boxster S more impressive than the same on a 996 mk1. Now what I need to do, is to compare gear ratios, which may explain it. Also it was raining when I was trying the Boxster S, causing it to spin and drift all over the place, which, as some of you may know, increases the perception of power that the driver gets, since he is slightly scared.
But one explanation may be that the 911 has its engine sitting directly on the wheels, increasing grip, which has always been the reason why it competed on the 0-100 with more powerful models.
Kay
Dr S said:
Two reasons for this:
Might be, I'm going to look the gear ratios up sometime. However the "full stop to 1km" time (which I always found extremely revealing, to avoid gear ration tricks, is also worse with the Cayman.- Cayman S gearing has been set such that it's a bit slower to 100 km/h as it could be to preserve some model range hierarchy
Davey S2 said:
Thats like saying why is your brand new car not faster than an 18 year old F40
When I have the time, I'm going to dig up cars that have similar power/weight ratios, from 10 or 15 years back, with a car today. I'm sure the new car will be faster, but let's make sure first.Kay
The problem with these 'maximum' power performance comparisons is they don't take in to account the power under the curve - i.e. all the bhp and torque a car has throughout it's rev range.
OK standing starts are mainly about outright bhp but you've still got to rev the car through the gears and the amount of time you're car is producing it's quoted maximum is minute.
This is why high torque cars accelerate faster that they're relative bhp figures would suggest. I think it would also explain why a modern car with the same power to weight as an older one would be faster - it would have a flatter power curve with variable cam timing, EFI, computer controlled boost etc.
Why have 911's and particularly 911 turbos always been effectively the fastest thing on the road, even against cars with similar weight and power? IMO it's power under the curve (plus porsche horses of course
)
OK standing starts are mainly about outright bhp but you've still got to rev the car through the gears and the amount of time you're car is producing it's quoted maximum is minute.
This is why high torque cars accelerate faster that they're relative bhp figures would suggest. I think it would also explain why a modern car with the same power to weight as an older one would be faster - it would have a flatter power curve with variable cam timing, EFI, computer controlled boost etc.
Why have 911's and particularly 911 turbos always been effectively the fastest thing on the road, even against cars with similar weight and power? IMO it's power under the curve (plus porsche horses of course
)kennyboy said:
The problem with these 'maximum' power performance comparisons is they don't take in to account the power under the curve - i.e. all the bhp and torque a car has throughout it's rev range.
OK standing starts are mainly about outright bhp but you've still got to rev the car through the gears and the amount of time you're car is producing it's quoted maximum is minute.
This is why high torque cars accelerate faster that they're relative bhp figures would suggest. I think it would also explain why a modern car with the same power to weight as an older one would be faster - it would have a flatter power curve with variable cam timing, EFI, computer controlled boost etc.
Why have 911's and particularly 911 turbos always been effectively the fastest thing on the road, even against cars with similar weight and power? IMO it's power under the curve (plus porsche horses of course)
I agree with you, the reason why modern cars with similar power to weight ratios are faster is because of a better torque curve. But still... I am confident (from the torque figures) that a Cayman S has a better torque curve than a 996 mk1. But I just looked at the performance of many Porsches, the 911 is always faster. OK my verdict is: it's the engine sitting on the rear wheels.OK standing starts are mainly about outright bhp but you've still got to rev the car through the gears and the amount of time you're car is producing it's quoted maximum is minute.
This is why high torque cars accelerate faster that they're relative bhp figures would suggest. I think it would also explain why a modern car with the same power to weight as an older one would be faster - it would have a flatter power curve with variable cam timing, EFI, computer controlled boost etc.
Why have 911's and particularly 911 turbos always been effectively the fastest thing on the road, even against cars with similar weight and power? IMO it's power under the curve (plus porsche horses of course
)Kay
I’ve owned both
I loved both cars and overall I think I prefer the Cayman S in the dry, in the wet I’d say 911 was better (more traction).
Redlining both cars through the gearsthe 996 had a bit more pace(half a second or so), but the Cayman S engine did have more pull in the low revs and didn’t require as much cog swapping when driving normally.
A to B driving, I’d probably pick the Cayman as the quickest out of the two; the front end is much more pointy/connected and nimble. The Cayman S also rides better, enabling you to use more of the power (being able to use the power more often is also the 996’s party piece btw).
I’m a bit suspicious about the Evo lap time for the 993, because according to Evo, a 987 Boxster S with PASM is faster than a basic 997 on the track. So something doesn’t add up. I suspect the 993 did a lot more laps to get the best possible lap time and than the Cayman was just razzed round a couple of times. The 993 was on the Evo fleet at the time.
I loved both cars and overall I think I prefer the Cayman S in the dry, in the wet I’d say 911 was better (more traction).
Redlining both cars through the gearsthe 996 had a bit more pace(half a second or so), but the Cayman S engine did have more pull in the low revs and didn’t require as much cog swapping when driving normally.
A to B driving, I’d probably pick the Cayman as the quickest out of the two; the front end is much more pointy/connected and nimble. The Cayman S also rides better, enabling you to use more of the power (being able to use the power more often is also the 996’s party piece btw).
I’m a bit suspicious about the Evo lap time for the 993, because according to Evo, a 987 Boxster S with PASM is faster than a basic 997 on the track. So something doesn’t add up. I suspect the 993 did a lot more laps to get the best possible lap time and than the Cayman was just razzed round a couple of times. The 993 was on the Evo fleet at the time.
Edited by Bumcrack on Thursday 7th June 17:58
Edited by Bumcrack on Thursday 7th June 21:17
Davey S2 said:
Top Gear did a feature on original cars and their modern versions and I think it was about 50 / 50 as to which ones were faster.
The original Golf GTI was quicker than the lardy MK5 IIRC
Hardly a controlled experiment, they could have picked anything to prove a point or not.The original Golf GTI was quicker than the lardy MK5 IIRC
The figures from the 3.4 Porsche 911 in Autocar are suspect. It was faster than when they tested a current 911S which has significantly more power and a higher power to weight ratio.
Talksteer said:
Davey S2 said:
Top Gear did a feature on original cars and their modern versions and I think it was about 50 / 50 as to which ones were faster.
The original Golf GTI was quicker than the lardy MK5 IIRC
Hardly a controlled experiment, they could have picked anything to prove a point or not.The original Golf GTI was quicker than the lardy MK5 IIRC
The figures from the 3.4 Porsche 911 in Autocar are suspect. It was faster than when they tested a current 911S which has significantly more power and a higher power to weight ratio.
Acceleration
0 - 40 Km/h 1,4 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,3 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 Km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 Km/h 6,8 s
0 - 140 Km/h 8,8 s
0 - 160 Km/h 11 s
0 - 180 Km/h 14,2 s
0 - 200 Km/h 17,9 s
Top Speed
Vmax 280 Km/h
Elasticity
4.Gear 5.Gear 6.Gear
80 - 100 Km/h 2,4 s 3,7 s 4,6 s
80 - 120 Km/h 5,5 s 7,2 s 9,6 s
80 - 160 Km/h 10,8 s 14 s 19,5 s
80 - 180 Km/h 13,6 s 17,5 s 25,1 s
80 - 200 Km/h 17 s 21,7 s 30,7 s
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff