996 Carrera -how fast?

996 Carrera -how fast?

Author
Discussion

uktrailmonster

4,827 posts

145 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
Doesn't make sense. With 40% more power and 4WD the Turbo will annihilate the C2 from the word go, or certainly should do.
If you take the average 0-100 mph time from the various road tests linked to above, it's 9.5s v 10.9s. Obviously the Turbo is quicker and feels quicker, but they are both very quick cars in the real world. Anyone who says a 3.6 996 is slow (or a 3.4 for that matter) is talking bks.

Crimp a Length!

5,697 posts

168 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
uktrailmonster said:
Bezza1969 said:
Either way, the 996 stacks up well as an 11 year old car on a bangs for bucks basis!!
I can't verify the accel figures, but a new 991 made zero ground on my 3.6 996 C2 from Silverstone to Towcester on the A34. They are quick enough in the real world and faster than most people seem to think.
You be careful of the Rozzers and speed cameras on that stretch i've had a ticket on there mate.

Johnfrancis

370 posts

95 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
911p said:
The 3.6 996 C2 is very quick, we couldn't believe the pace of it when we had one. The 996 turbo doesn't gain much ground on it at all below three figure speeds.
Doesn't make sense. With 40% more power and 4WD the Turbo will annihilate the C2 from the word go, or certainly should do.
Oh yes it does make sense, theres not much difference between fast cars and very fast cars, power is good, lightness is king!

jakesmith

4,734 posts

116 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
Looking at the stats, the only real standout is the 997 turbo, all the others are fairly close together in most metrics

monthefish

19,354 posts

176 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
Johnfrancis said:
REALIST123 said:
911p said:
The 3.6 996 C2 is very quick, we couldn't believe the pace of it when we had one. The 996 turbo doesn't gain much ground on it at all below three figure speeds.
Doesn't make sense. With 40% more power and 4WD the Turbo will annihilate the C2 from the word go, or certainly should do.
Oh yes it does make sense, theres not much difference between fast cars and very fast cars, power is good, lightness is king!
So, what you are saying is 'power to weight' should be a good attribute to look at...

(the turbo is quite a bit better, circa 10%)

cayman-black

8,072 posts

161 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
They are quick. I had a new carrera 3.4 in 99 changed it for a Modena,it felt no faster to me.

Johnfrancis

370 posts

95 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
monthefish said:
Johnfrancis said:
REALIST123 said:
911p said:
The 3.6 996 C2 is very quick, we couldn't believe the pace of it when we had one. The 996 turbo doesn't gain much ground on it at all below three figure speeds.
Doesn't make sense. With 40% more power and 4WD the Turbo will annihilate the C2 from the word go, or certainly should do.
Oh yes it does make sense, theres not much difference between fast cars and very fast cars, power is good, lightness is king!
So, what you are saying is 'power to weight' should be a good attribute to look at...

(the turbo is quite a bit better, circa 10%)
10% is not a lot, and power to weight is NOT everything, weight on its own, will effect cornering and braking, as much as acceleration and speed, where power is irrelevant.
The turbo, and most modern cars are lardy, go and drive a true lighweight car, you will then understand my first comment.

monthefish

19,354 posts

176 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
Johnfrancis said:
10% is not a lot, and power to weight is NOT everything, weight on its own, will effect cornering and braking, as much as acceleration and speed, where power is irrelevant.
The turbo, and most modern cars are lardy, go and drive a true lighweight car, you will then understand my first comment.
10% difference in power to weight is quite a lot.

The bottom line is Porsche wouldn't be bothering developing a turbo variant if there wasn't a significant performance advantage over the Carrera. (and you might also say that the marketing department wouldn't allow them to release a turbo that was only marginally quicker than the Carrera, much like some say they 'hold back' in the development on the Cayman so there's no overlap between it and the 911)



p.s. I've driven Caterhams a few times and have had a decent go in an Atom - light enough for you?
I've also spend quite a bit of time with Sports bikes on track. I know, and appreciate, the benefits of lightness, but the 996 turbo is no porker (so to speak!)


Also, everyone raves about how good the original GT3 was.....

....it was heavier than the Carrera. laugh

911p

2,290 posts

125 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
monthefish said:
Indeed.

But if the turbo driver releases the handbrake, then it's quite a different story....
biggrin
hehe

But in all seriousness, 9.5 vs 10.1 seconds is nothing in real terms. Granted, the Turbo does have an extra 100bhp, but then you have an extra 200kg to pull along, longer gearing, extra drag, turbos to keep on boost, etc, which all narrows the gap.

There's no doubting the Turbo will destroy a Carrera as you move into higher speeds, but at lower speeds the C2 holds its own well.

RatBoy M3CSL

1,490 posts

141 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
..1/4 mile times will be a 13.0 ish at 105mph... not a cat in hells chance of a 10, or 11 possibly a 12.75 on a perfect day and grip juice on the tarmac..

Johnfrancis

370 posts

95 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
monthefish said:
Johnfrancis said:
10% is not a lot, and power to weight is NOT everything, weight on its own, will effect cornering and braking, as much as acceleration and speed, where power is irrelevant.
The turbo, and most modern cars are lardy, go and drive a true lighweight car, you will then understand my first comment.
10% difference in power to weight is quite a lot.

The bottom line is Porsche wouldn't be bothering developing a turbo variant if there wasn't a significant performance advantage over the Carrera. (and you might also say that the marketing department wouldn't allow them to release a turbo that was only marginally quicker than the Carrera, much like some say they 'hold back' in the development on the Cayman so there's no overlap between it and the 911)



p.s. I've driven Caterhams a few times and have had a decent go in an Atom - light enough for you?
I've also spend quite a bit of time with Sports bikes on track. I know, and appreciate, the benefits of lightness, but the 996 turbo is no porker (so to speak!)


Also, everyone raves about how good the original GT3 was.....

....it was heavier than the Carrera. laugh
But not the turbo?

monthefish

19,354 posts

176 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
Johnfrancis said:
monthefish said:
Johnfrancis said:
10% is not a lot, and power to weight is NOT everything, weight on its own, will effect cornering and braking, as much as acceleration and speed, where power is irrelevant.
The turbo, and most modern cars are lardy, go and drive a true lighweight car, you will then understand my first comment.
10% difference in power to weight is quite a lot.

The bottom line is Porsche wouldn't be bothering developing a turbo variant if there wasn't a significant performance advantage over the Carrera. (and you might also say that the marketing department wouldn't allow them to release a turbo that was only marginally quicker than the Carrera, much like some say they 'hold back' in the development on the Cayman so there's no overlap between it and the 911)



p.s. I've driven Caterhams a few times and have had a decent go in an Atom - light enough for you?
I've also spend quite a bit of time with Sports bikes on track. I know, and appreciate, the benefits of lightness, but the 996 turbo is no porker (so to speak!)


Also, everyone raves about how good the original GT3 was.....

....it was heavier than the Carrera. laugh
But not the turbo?
"not the turbo" what?

Johnfrancis

370 posts

95 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
Not heavier than the Turbo?

F3RNANDO

5,180 posts

123 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
911p said:
monthefish said:
Indeed.

But if the turbo driver releases the handbrake, then it's quite a different story....
biggrin
hehe

But in all seriousness, 9.5 vs 10.1 seconds is nothing in real terms. Granted, the Turbo does have an extra 100bhp, but then you have an extra 200kg to pull along, longer gearing, extra drag, turbos to keep on boost, etc, which all narrows the gap.

There's no doubting the Turbo will destroy a Carrera as you move into higher speeds, but at lower speeds the C2 holds its own well.
All true...

Only an exceptionally talented driver could keep a NA Carrera near a turbo, the way the two cars accelerate in a straight line is poles apart.

Callughan

6,280 posts

137 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
3.6 and definately 3.8 almost side by side against until 80+ mph then turbo says later.(Based on my experiences)

Edited by Callughan on Monday 3rd December 21:45

IceBoy

2,308 posts

166 months

Monday 3rd December 2012
quotequote all
Hi All,

Just thought I would add my 2p.

I have never owned a 911 but have driven back to back a 996TT & 996C2.

Acceleration at any speed was night and day. Make no mistake the 996TT is a seriously quick car and the C2 is quick.

Both cars were very well looked after cars, with immaculate histories....but I couldn't bite the bullet......sometime soon though.

I remember posting on here, when I drove the 996TT manual for the first time......it was the only car which made everything go blurly.

IceBoy

andy102

130 posts

114 months

Tuesday 4th December 2012
quotequote all
The 996c2 is a quick car, personally felt the 3.4 was a little faster than the 3.6.

Obviously the turbo is quicker than both, but very similar to the GT3. Its just easier to drive the turbo fast.

uktrailmonster

4,827 posts

145 months

Tuesday 4th December 2012
quotequote all
Crimp a Length! said:
uktrailmonster said:
Bezza1969 said:
Either way, the 996 stacks up well as an 11 year old car on a bangs for bucks basis!!
I can't verify the accel figures, but a new 991 made zero ground on my 3.6 996 C2 from Silverstone to Towcester on the A34. They are quick enough in the real world and faster than most people seem to think.
You be careful of the Rozzers and speed cameras on that stretch i've had a ticket on there mate.
Yes, it's my home patch. Rozzers always on the look out for Silverstone trackday warriors. You do see some really nice cars living near there.

Porka986

4 posts

14 months

Wednesday 11th September
quotequote all
One of the main reasons Chris Harris struggled to extract a much better performance level from the GT3 vs the Carrera of the 996 generation was the character of their engines.

The Mezger unit had no variable cam timing and was a rev happy peak horse power unit, which with the added weight of the GT3 only added about 35hp per tonne more, but it's all right at the top of the power band where a race car needs it.

The M96 Variocam 3.4L lump was a torque monster in comparison down low, but not producing the same peak power numbers, 35hp per tonne difference at the top isn't going to feel much different to the sledge hammer torque of the Variocam system.

So yeah the 3.4L M96 Carrera cars were doing 4.9 to 60 and the GT3 was doing 4.8 it's just how it was with the 996.. But the Gen 2 GT3 was significantly more powerful, it was about 35hp more and a lighter car.

Sorry to revive an old thread, but it was bugging me.

jakesmith

4,734 posts

116 months

Wednesday 11th September
quotequote all
Porka986 said:
Sorry to revive an old thread, but it was bugging me.
Can't have been bugging you that much!