Apparently our 964 C4's go 0-60 in 4.5 sec..
07-27-2010, 10:09 PM
#1
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Apparently our 964 C4's go 0-60 in 4.5 sec..
Funny, I haven't been able to get under 4.8 sec! I guess I need more practice!
See youtube Motorweek episode at 1:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAfL...eature=related
See youtube Motorweek episode at 1:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAfL...eature=related
07-27-2010, 10:14 PM
#2
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-27-2010, 10:55 PM
#4
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: on the waterfront, Kobe, Japan
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
generally without being brutal....lo 5's is ascribed.
by their own admission Car&Driver beat on a 92 C2 in a 7/92 4 page review & did manage a 4.9....but that was a wide *** (america roadster).....no doubt narrow body C2 coupe faster.....(have the full article scanned if anyone cares!).
most certainly....let the debate begin a C4 would be slower (as most learned experts agree, streather included, unless of course on ice/snow/gravel)
by their own admission Car&Driver beat on a 92 C2 in a 7/92 4 page review & did manage a 4.9....but that was a wide *** (america roadster).....no doubt narrow body C2 coupe faster.....(have the full article scanned if anyone cares!).
most certainly....let the debate begin a C4 would be slower (as most learned experts agree, streather included, unless of course on ice/snow/gravel)
Last edited by raspberryroadster; 07-27-2010 at 11:06 PM. Reason: spell
07-28-2010, 12:12 PM
#5
Rennlist Member
That show is unbelievably brutal. It's a testament to doing the bare minimum...20 years later and they use the exact same shots. Or at least they did the last time I saw it...is it still around?
07-28-2010, 12:20 PM
#6
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
[QUOTE=raspberryroadster;7769062]generally without being brutal....lo 5's is ascribed.
by their own admission Car&Driver beat on a 92 C2 in a 7/92 4 page review & did manage a 4.9....but that was a wide *** (america roadster).....no doubt narrow body C2 coupe faster.....QUOTE]
4.9 seems awfully fast (lucky). Maybe there were going down hill, with a tailwind, and race fuel.
I'm estimate the SC 3.6 could pull in the 4s range, depending on who was driving and who was paying for and rebuilding the transmission. LOL
by their own admission Car&Driver beat on a 92 C2 in a 7/92 4 page review & did manage a 4.9....but that was a wide *** (america roadster).....no doubt narrow body C2 coupe faster.....QUOTE]
4.9 seems awfully fast (lucky). Maybe there were going down hill, with a tailwind, and race fuel.
I'm estimate the SC 3.6 could pull in the 4s range, depending on who was driving and who was paying for and rebuilding the transmission. LOL
07-28-2010, 12:40 PM
#7
Rennlist Member
I love watching these old episodes, I remember getting up early on Saturday to watch them on our local PBS station...hoping to see some Porsche content.
Obviously the new cars are more powerful and have better times (especially with PDK), but what I find interesting is that the breaking distances haven't improved.
Both cars took 112 feet to stop from 60mph!
Obviously the new cars are more powerful and have better times (especially with PDK), but what I find interesting is that the breaking distances haven't improved.
Both cars took 112 feet to stop from 60mph!
Trending Topics
07-28-2010, 12:45 PM
#8
Three Wheelin'
Over the years C & D has been notorious for using brutal, high-rev side-step the clutch starts in their road tests....great for low numbers and high repair bills.
07-28-2010, 01:50 PM
#10
Burning Brakes
generally without being brutal....lo 5's is ascribed.
by their own admission Car&Driver beat on a 92 C2 in a 7/92 4 page review & did manage a 4.9....but that was a wide *** (america roadster).....no doubt narrow body C2 coupe faster.....(have the full article scanned if anyone cares!).
most certainly....let the debate begin a C4 would be slower (as most learned experts agree, streather included, unless of course on ice/snow/gravel)
by their own admission Car&Driver beat on a 92 C2 in a 7/92 4 page review & did manage a 4.9....but that was a wide *** (america roadster).....no doubt narrow body C2 coupe faster.....(have the full article scanned if anyone cares!).
most certainly....let the debate begin a C4 would be slower (as most learned experts agree, streather included, unless of course on ice/snow/gravel)
07-28-2010, 02:16 PM
#11
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
