k9doog

Part 1: http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...ned-by-singer/

Part 2: http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...ned-by-singer/

911Jetta

0-100 in 8.2!
0-60 time matches the 2015 Corvette Z06, and the Porsche is only 0.2 sec. slower in the 1/4.
Stopped 40 feet shorter from 80 mph than a 1990 C2! (I question their '90 braking data)

This review is pure gold for Singer!

evoderby

Cool! Thanks for posting....1.35 puts it in McLaren & 458 territory, albeit on slicks.

BTW I'm surprised the combo of Ohlins dampers, wide Fuchs and Hoosier slicks only pulls .93 G on the skidpad vs. .85 for a bog standard 964 C2 tested back in '91.

Vandit

Is there a vid of all this? It is really going to be a shame if they did all this testing and racing and there's no vids of the action.

Anyone got a ballpark price tag on a 4.0l naturally aspirated air-cooled motor pushing 400hp?

mfinanthony

Great to see these test numbers behind the Singer cars. Very impressive.

On a side note, I'd like to see an RWB car bench marked with the same testing. This could be an interesting comparison =P

JV911

After a morning's testing, Keen popped a 1:35.5. That's 7.5 seconds off the fastest lap in Laguna's last 911 GT3 Cup race, but 0.75 second quicker than we've seen a Ferrari 458 Italia lap with a pro driver at the wheel.


For a further comparison, the 918 did a 1:29.89

There is no comparison

~$75k

4.0 crank, xtreme heads, Pauter rods, Motec, Jenvey ITBs, GT3 plenum, GT3 oil pump, custom pistons etc etc

Mondrian

What was the weight of the car?

Vandit

2743lbs

jcs_911

Except for that first line that says MODIFICATIONS ONLY....$575,000

race911

Couple of things I note, and got heat over on the 993 Forum where I called it out.

First, I just can't see why Road & Track put on the cover "Chasing The Clock" as what about this car is performance you can't modify into any 964? You're paying for detail in construction--a 3D piece of art.

Now, onto Laguna Seca. Friend has a slightly warmed over C6 Z06 he runs on RA1s. He's in his 70's, though campaigned a Formula Ford in his young adult days. He runs consistent 1:38s pretty much without trying. Specific to Porsche, one time in our Club Races there Chris Cervelli showed up with a stock class 993 and was sub-1:40--3300+ lbs/300HP in race form. I never went much below 1:42 with my stock class RS America (and that car was stock enough that it still had the catalytic converter installed.) Couple of 964 Cups that came out that year (Jerry Greene and Tom McGlynn) were just over 1:40. I'll throw my faux 993RS in the mix, but the revised gearing sucks for Laguna, so I can't even break 1:40 even on OK Hoosiers.

986

I agree.

You can get the same performance for $150k including gearbox and suspension and the remaining $400k goes to (very beautiful) coachwork.

And very little of that $400k went to the door pull

Bill Verburg

For performance you can certainly do a better job

W/ turbo flares you should be able to get at least 9 & 11s
a more efficient aero package would do wonders as would a better suspension
the trans is really odd, 1 is lower than a stock 993 due to the 4.00 cwp but all the other gears are taller than the already too tall 993 gearing

the best part of the car is that motor, which I covet. The carbon fiber body panels are nice too

all the cosmetic fooforaw they can keep as far as I am concerned

GTgears

Bill,
I don't follow. According to that chart, they are running stock G50/20 ratios with a PMNA 4.00cwp set?

I'm disappointed they failed to give credit for the LSD in the article. The folks at Singer assured me that we would be mentioned by name.

Bill Verburg

My bad, that's what happens when I cut and paste w/o following all the threads is the ss.

So my new evaluation,
first is even more ridiculously low than in a stock 993, the rest are reasonable

Quadcammer

ugh, that article is unreadably cheesy. Now I remember why i haven't read R&T in a decade.