RE: 997 Turbo

Author
Discussion

identti

2,380 posts

224 months

Sunday 7th May 2006
quotequote all
JenkinsComp said:
mflinkenberg said:
The power wars are about to become interesting again. The 911 turbo was the fastest accelerating production car from 1978 to 1985 - the difference between Porsche and other makers is the quoted power/performance figures are "bang on". Ferrari and other rivals have always been willing to "lie" about their cars' performance and put out brittle, easy-breakable products. Drop an engine to change a cam belt? At Ferrari dealership prices? No thanks.

If manufacturers make cars with mega power then all the mechanicals that to go with it should be capable of handling this power. For instance, a McLaren F1 needs a new clutch every 3,000 miles! Porsche would never do that and that's why I love 'em.

With the power figures rising we're go to start seeing some brittle cars appear on the market with more performance than the new 911TT but nowhere near the reliability.




...apart from the £40,000 cheaper Corvette Z06, which matches or betters the Porsches performance in every department, with rock solid build quality. It's about the only realistic competitor the Porsche has, and if you want 4 seats, even the Corvette can't compete. However, it has a huge boot, unlike the 911.
The 911 Turbo is a great motor, but the Z06 is more unique in Britain at least.
I see so many 911s on my way to work, they are as common as a Mondeo, and I'm just bored of seeing them. Nothing wrong with them though if you want to drive every day and not break down (apart from lack of cylinders and engine in wrong place etc, yawn).


So you've seen 100s of 997 turbos? I thought not. And a Z06 does 0-60 in 4 secs, and the 997TT in 3.7 - in performance car terms thats a big difference, and on any twisties the 997 will be so much more composed and could go on at top speed for much longer than the vette. Also, you can't get the vette in right hand drive> I do agree the vette is more rare, but thats the ONLY advantage it has.

abarber

1,686 posts

240 months

Sunday 7th May 2006
quotequote all
kiko said:
abarber said:
karll said:
abarber said:
600 sports bike quick from ten years ago, maybe..


erm most sport bikes from today !


Hardly, try 100mph in 5.03 seconds for a GSXR1000 in the autocar test.


Thats from 0 to 100, if its a rolling start from say 80mph (3rd gear) and up a 05' Kawasaki ZX9 R can't keep up with me and when I get into 5th I'm already a bus length ahead and this is straight line performance of course because if you mix turns in the equation the result is a HUGE difference in pace.

I drive an RS tuning 996 Turbo (508bhp/760Nm) which should be close to 997 Turbo performance


I didn't think they made a ZX-9R in 2005, it's a very old design and *miles* slower than a GSXR100, ZX10R or whatever. Anyway, this is a car board, so lets forget the pointless bike comparisions eh?

kiko

269 posts

225 months

Sunday 7th May 2006
quotequote all
The bike itself might not be a 05' but the number plate was thats what lead me to say it was a 05'its probably an import or a late licensed bike.
No problem we can leave the bike conversation aside but you were the one who started it and said a Porsche would be as fast as old "600" and I just wanted to tell you not so... and that at least mine (and therefore a 997TT) would be considerably faster on a rolling start than a NOT 05' ZX-9R for the simple fact that this was the only bike which I ever tested against. (and of course all of this in a straight line...)

corradoboy1983

100 posts

231 months

Sunday 7th May 2006
quotequote all
abarber said:
karll said:
abarber said:
600 sports bike quick from ten years ago, maybe..


erm most sport bikes from today !


Hardly, try 100mph in 5.03 seconds for a GSXR1000 in the autocar test.


But that's quoting one bike. 3.7 seconds is equal if not better than a lot of sportsbikes on the market.
And anyway, i know it's a performance metric, but where the hell does 0-60 come into real performance? I'm willing to be that round a circuit, one of these Porsches would easily match or even beat a box-stock GSXR1000...

4wd power, with immense grip...

Mr Whippy

28,944 posts

240 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
identti said:
And a Z06 does 0-60 in 4 secs, and the 997TT in 3.7 - in performance car terms thats a big difference, and on any twisties the 997 will be so much more composed and could go on at top speed for much longer than the vette. Also, you can't get the vette in right hand drive> I do agree the vette is more rare, but thats the ONLY advantage it has.


0-60 time is pretty irrelevant when the times are 4 sec vs 3.7 sec. Impressive difference, yes, but really does it make the Vette quake in it's boots?

Look at the Ring C6 Z06 times, it's a VERY quick car. Preconceptions about the Corvette's inability to cover ground swiftly are deep set for good reason, but ultimately wrong with regards to the newer model. I know which one would *entertain* more and thats where my money would go if I had it!

Dave

wrn

432 posts

228 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
Mr Whippy said:
0-60 time is pretty irrelevant when the times are 4 sec vs 3.7 sec. Impressive difference, yes, but really does it make the Vette quake in it's boots?

I disagree. 0-60 times are a very strong indicator of a car's overall performance (hence they are the constantly quoted stat) and today's cars are such high performance that the difference between 3.7 seconds and 4.0 seconds is massive. This performance difference will be noticeable throughout the drive, speed and rev ranges.

Will

jjr1

3,023 posts

259 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
0-60 means absolutely nothing.

It is an indicator of how long a car takes to reach a particular speed not how far it has travelled. So two cars with identical 0-60 times may not be neck and neck at 60mph.

So it is a total load of bollox.

If you must have a standing start indicator of performance compare a 1/4 mile time but 0-60 or any other 0-xxxmph is just a meaningless number.

Mr Whippy

28,944 posts

240 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
wrn said:
Mr Whippy said:
0-60 time is pretty irrelevant when the times are 4 sec vs 3.7 sec. Impressive difference, yes, but really does it make the Vette quake in it's boots?

I disagree. 0-60 times are a very strong indicator of a car's overall performance (hence they are the constantly quoted stat) and today's cars are such high performance that the difference between 3.7 seconds and 4.0 seconds is massive. This performance difference will be noticeable throughout the drive, speed and rev ranges.

Will


Their overall 0-60 shows very little. The Porsche is 4wd so you'd expect it to dip under 4sec.

Once at 60mph though, the Vette doesn't have 4wd weighing it down or generating drivetrain power losses for no real gain, so straight away it claws back at the 911TT.

Compare 0-100mph and I would think the two cars would be very close.

50-100mph might even be quite embarrasing for the Porsche.

Ring times prove the new C6 Z06 is a damn capable car, and like I say probably very entertaining too! It did very well vs alot of machinery twice the price in Evo's last magazine!

The Porsche may well be a technical tour de force, but it's still no quicker in experienced hands than a Z06. So what is that saying, the 911TT is good for inexperienced drivers to go quicker? Hardly a plus point for an enthusiast who wants a challenge! Just the Vette is LHD, when will they learn?

Dave

rumplestiltskin

1,084 posts

221 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
wrn said:
So what is that saying, the 911TT is good for inexperienced drivers to go quicker?


No change there then !!

R.

mikeyboy

5,018 posts

234 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
jjr1 said:
0-60 means absolutely nothing.

It is an indicator of how long a car takes to reach a particular speed not how far it has travelled. So two cars with identical 0-60 times may not be neck and neck at 60mph.

So it is a total load of bollox.

If you must have a standing start indicator of performance compare a 1/4 mile time but 0-60 or any other 0-xxxmph is just a meaningless number.



My limited maths tells me you can't be right. Even if a car is slower to 30 than its rival but is the same to 60 the difference in distance is equalled out by the more rapid acceleration over the last 30 mph.
And as the formula for calculating distance travelled is a version of the same formula for working out speed then both cars will have travelled exactly the same distance and there's no way in the world they couldn't have. oh unless they started at different points.

You can work it out for your self if you want.

Speed=distance/time or time=distance/speed or distance=time X Speed

>> Edited by mikeyboy on Monday 8th May 12:55

>> Edited by mikeyboy on Monday 8th May 12:56

Top Trump

1,588 posts

220 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
mikeyboy said:
jjr1 said:
0-60 means absolutely nothing.

It is an indicator of how long a car takes to reach a particular speed not how far it has travelled. So two cars with identical 0-60 times may not be neck and neck at 60mph.

So it is a total load of bollox.

If you must have a standing start indicator of performance compare a 1/4 mile time but 0-60 or any other 0-xxxmph is just a meaningless number.



My limited maths tells me you can't be right. Even if a car is slower to 30 than its rival but is the same to 60 the difference in distance is equalled out by the more rapid acceleration over the last 30 mph.
And as the formula for calculating distance travelled is a version of the same formula for working out speed then both cars will have travelled exactly the same distance and there's no way in the world they couldn't be.

You can work it out for your self if you want.

Speed=distance/time or time=distance/speed or distance=time X Speed

>> Edited by mikeyboy on Monday 8th May 12:55


You're right - if two cars accelerate from exactly the same point at standstill and reach 60mph in exactly the same length of time then they will both have covered exactly the same distance, regardless of one car being faster to 30mph.

jjr1

3,023 posts

259 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
Two cars both have a 0-60 time of 5 seconds.

Car A accelerates to 50 in 4 secs and then takes a further 1 sec to get to 60

Car B takes 1 sec to get to 50 and then a further 4 secs to get to 60

Are you guys telling me that the above two cars have travelled the same distance?

A bit of an extreme example

Top Trump

1,588 posts

220 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
jjr1 said:
Two cars both have a 0-60 time of 5 seconds.

Car A accelerates to 50 in 4 secs and then takes a further 1 sec to get to 60

Car B takes 1 sec to get to 50 and then a further 4 secs to get to 60

Are you guys telling me that the above two cars have travelled the same distance?

A bit of an extreme example


On second thoughts...

I see what you mean now. Car B reaches 50mph in next to no time. In the 4 seconds from 50mph to 60mph it is going at a higher speed for longer than Car A, therefore it covers more ground.

In other words, Car A is spending more time at lower speeds than Car B reducing the distance travelled.

mikeyboy

5,018 posts

234 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
I humbly apologise. Even if you use a flawed accelerative calculation (i.e. the car is goes from 50-60 without a gradual increase in speed)the second car covers 290 (?) to car As 260 (?)
As I said it is limited maths!

Mikeyboy

silver993tt

9,064 posts

238 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
Top Trump said:
jjr1 said:
Two cars both have a 0-60 time of 5 seconds.

Car A accelerates to 50 in 4 secs and then takes a further 1 sec to get to 60

Car B takes 1 sec to get to 50 and then a further 4 secs to get to 60

Are you guys telling me that the above two cars have travelled the same distance?

A bit of an extreme example


On second thoughts...

I see what you mean now. Car B reaches 50mph in next to no time. In the 4 seconds from 50mph to 60mph it is going at a higher speed for longer than Car A, therefore it covers more ground.

In other words, Car A is spending more time at lower speeds than Car B reducing the distance travelled.


Using the formula: distance = 0.5 (Start Velocity + End Velocity) * time taken (seconds)

(MPH converted to Kmh for easier calculation):

For Car A:

0-80kmh in 4 secs(0-50mph):

distance = 0.5 * (0+80) * 4 = 160m

80-100kmh in 1 sec (50-62mph):

distance = 0.5 (80+100) * 1 = 90m

Total distance covered = 250m


For Car B:

0-80kmh in 1 secs(0-50mph):

distance = 0.5 * (0+80) * 1 = 40m

80-100kmh in 4 secs (50-62mph):

distance = 0.5 (80+100) * 4 = 90m


Total distance covered = 360m

>> Edited by silver993tt on Monday 8th May 13:49

>> Edited by silver993tt on Monday 8th May 14:34

jjr1

3,023 posts

259 months

Monday 8th May 2006
quotequote all
I am a genius

Cheers for the formula as well as I might have been struggling to prove it mathematically

dinkel

26,884 posts

257 months

Tuesday 9th May 2006
quotequote all
PH said:
At around £100,000 in the UK, the new Porsche Turbo is not cheap. But this most complete supercar of the lot leaves you with significant money in the bank compared to obvious rivals like the Ferrari F430 and Lamborghini Gallardo.


That might be true . . . but the 430 / Gall are totally different beasts though . . . and for looks this is just another 911 variation, and you gotta love that.

I'm sure it's a huge performer with immense capacities. But for me it lacks the raw sexiness of those 70s RS's . . . sorry.

andysgriff

913 posts

259 months

Friday 12th May 2006
quotequote all
silver993tt said:
[quote=Top Trump][quote=jjr1]Two cars both have a 0-60 time of 5 seconds.

For Car A:

0-80kmh in 4 secs(0-50mph):

distance = 0.5 * (0+80) * 4 = 160m

80-100kmh in 1 sec (50-62mph):

distance = 0.5 (80+100) * 1 = 90m

Total distance covered = 250m


For Car B:

0-80kmh in 1 secs(0-50mph):

distance = 0.5 * (0+80) * 1 = 40m

80-100kmh in 4 secs (50-62mph):

distance = 0.5 (80+100) * 4 = 90m


Total distance covered = 360m

>> Edited by silver993tt on Monday 8th May 13:49

>> Edited by silver993tt on Monday 8th May 14:34


Crikey, I thought this thread started off discussing the new 911 Turbo,, get back to the car.. All this bulls..t pub talk 0-60, faster than a, x slower than z etc.. is academic and gets away from the fact that this is a very serious and capable motor. I'm just annoyed that I can't afford one..

Well done Porsche - keep raising the bar!


jjr1

3,023 posts

259 months

Friday 12th May 2006
quotequote all
andysgriff said:
silver993tt said:
[quote=Top Trump][quote=jjr1]Two cars both have a 0-60 time of 5 seconds.

For Car A:

0-80kmh in 4 secs(0-50mph):

distance = 0.5 * (0+80) * 4 = 160m

80-100kmh in 1 sec (50-62mph):

distance = 0.5 (80+100) * 1 = 90m

Total distance covered = 250m


For Car B:

0-80kmh in 1 secs(0-50mph):

distance = 0.5 * (0+80) * 1 = 40m

80-100kmh in 4 secs (50-62mph):

distance = 0.5 (80+100) * 4 = 90m


Total distance covered = 360m

>> Edited by silver993tt on Monday 8th May 13:49

>> Edited by silver993tt on Monday 8th May 14:34


Crikey, I thought this thread started off discussing the new 911 Turbo,, get back to the car.. All this bulls..t pub talk 0-60, faster than a, x slower than z etc.. is academic and gets away from the fact that this is a very serious and capable motor. I'm just annoyed that I can't afford one..

Well done Porsche - keep raising the bar!




We were just saying that all this talk about 0-60 is irrelevant as it is not a good indicator of a cars performance. Are you a bit stupid and can not follow two lines of thought in one thread?

rumplestiltskin

1,084 posts

221 months

Friday 12th May 2006
quotequote all
0-60 is a good indicator. Its not the best indicator (a little like top speed) but its a good indicator of a cars overall performance.
With very few exceptions, if say a car does 0-60 in under 4 secs its seriously fast in all other areas (in gear acceleration for example)

Show me a car that does 0-60 in less than 4 secs but is slower from 60-120 than a car that does 0-60 in 6 secs. Don't think there is one.

R.