m42racer

Well sort of. In reading my latest R/T mag, I see the new 996TT beat the old mark by just 0.2 secs. This by the way was set in 1996 by an 89 930 with no ABS.

The 0-100 time was not beaten. The 930 still rules this part. If you were to take the 930's 0-100 time, add the 996's 100-0 time(add ABS to the 930) then the 930 is right there with the ENZO. Not bad for a 14 year old old beater. Us 930 owners can still take pride in our cars.

L8Apex

?? What issue? From what I read was the 94 3.6t was 3 seconds slower 0-100-0 in the last test. I never saw an 89 930 in the test.

m42racer

The August 2003 issue of R/T has the latest test results. The new 991 T with the optional power package was the fastest. It was timed 0-100 in 8.8secs, 05 secs transistion, and 4.2 braking time. The overal was 13.5 secs. According to the history, this time beat the old mark set in 1996 by an 89 930, which set the time of 13.7 secs. It has to be noted that the 930has no ABS and from the write up about this test, the braking time showed this. From my memory, the 930 did a time of 7.6 secs 0-100, but the lack of ABS on a slippery dragstrip added to the braking time of 6.1 secs. I do not have the issue from 1996, but I'm sure others here will know it.

In this new issue, the Enzo was privately tested and posted the times of 6.9secs 0-100, 0.8 secs transistion, and 4.0 100-0. This gave an overal of 11.7. So from my math, if we put the 930's 0-100 time with the 996's transistion and braking times, the overal would be 12.3 secs. If we further discount the transistional timeof 0.5 secs, as this was not figured into the 1996 tests, this would lower the time to 11.8 secs. anyway you look at it, not bad for a 1989 930 turbo.

BJJones

That concept is completley warped, it is like saying if we ignore all the medical advances we where better doctors in the 1800's

I love my 930, love the way it delivers. Hovever my M3 is quicker in virtualy every situation, that is the reality of it.

I still love driving the 930, look foward to it more than the BM but you have to keep some perspective.

You cannot say somthing is as good or better than somthing else as long as you ignore all the parts that arent as good or better!

m42racer

Then, if your BM is quicker, R/T must have made a typo' and left out your car form the results.

I KNOW I'm stretching things here, but the fact remains, the 930 is still quicker 0-100, than all of the cars tested since.

Eric 930

Regardless thats pretty impressive for our old 930's. Even more so when you consider that a 78 930 would do virtually the same as the 89 and that would make it a 25 year old design competing with a new TT. I'll put my 930 against a M3 any day. Don't get me wrong their fine cars but their not a 930. They feal like I'm driving my wifes sedan. And as far as technology goes Porsche was definitely ahead of their time when they came out with the 930. Thats why its taken company's like BMW 25 years to come up with something that you can consider competing against a 930. Eric

m42racer

Eric,

I with you all the way. I have driven all of the 911's up to and including the new GT2. There is no way I could afford any of these new ones, but my 930 still will outdrive them. Yes, we don't have ABS, but we do have superior quality and workmanship. Our cars were built when Porsche still had pride.

I just think its really something that a 1989 car still holds the 0-100 time, and in 1996 it beat the best that was offered up against it, and it still stands today.

Eric 930

Gota love these old Turbo's. Eric

Geoffrey

Its probably the 5spd transmission that made the difference.

PorschePhD

LMAO....Now that is bad!

ZCAT3

Geoffrey - you are such a snob! I actually heard the extra shift added a few tenths to the overall time which is why the 6 speed 993TT and 996TT have yet to beat that old 0-100 mark.

BJJones

Put your bone stock 930 on any track which requires you to go around corners and use the brakes against an M3 and you will see what I mean, technology marched on..................it kinda does that! If it didnt then why does everyone not still race 930 turbo's.

Like I said I love my 930 wanted one since I was a kid but you have to be realistic and keep some perspective.

A stock Eurp M3 has 340 bhp, six gears, a modern suspension platform, power delivery without lag and will beat a 930 every time. I think the US spec M3 is less poerfull so may explain why you would think a 930 was quicker, trust me I have both and it aint.

reed

No way is an unmodified '89 930 "right there" with the Ferrari Enzo from 0-100 MPH. I just checked a contemporary R & T test of the 930 from 1989. Their 0-60 time was 4.6 seconds and the 0-100 time was 11.9 seconds, both of which seem about right to me. Now I don't know what 930 they tested in '96 but if they got a 7.6 time to 100, it was not stock.

This is not a debate about pride in our vehicles, just about the reality of the advancement in performance over the past fifteen years.

Geoffrey

I have to agree that a stock 930 of any year is slow compared to any of the newer turbos.

Bill, the comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Magown

I've got that issue of R&T. The title was something like 0-100-0 #2. The 930 was a highly modified slant. There was nothing stock about it.