2018 GT3 vs 2016 GT3 RS
#2
I will let you know when my GT3 comes in a month. IMO if nothing else the RS has more eyeball. But I like spoilers.
#4
RS has a bigger coffee table wing.
#6
Race Car
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The way to hell is paved by good intentions “Wenn ich Purist höre...entsichere ich meinen Browning” "Myths are fuel for marketing (and nowadays for flippers too,,,)" time to time is not sufficient to be a saint, you must be also an Hero
Posts: 4,446
Received 422 Likes
on
250 Posts
btw on RL ppl that sold RS and later bought .2GT3 say the opposite. (so the Ring time despite thinner front rear rubbers)
Trending Topics
#8
Nordschleife Master
Nothing wrong with the RS 4.0. Still epic. Still makes the little hairs on the the back of your neck stand up when you make it scream. Goes like stink too.
#9
#10
Rennlist Member
Yeah, there is a lot of "I can tell the minute difference between these motors because I was practically one of the people who developed it given the info I heard from my cleaning lady" crew here. IMHO, the 16 RS is one of the most epic cars Porsche has ever made when it comes to mixing technology and visceral experience (vs trying to go grassroots like with the 911r), and I'm rather confident the new GT3...while super cool and superior etc etc...doesn't hold up nearly enough to make it the more thrilling car.
#11
Rennlist Member
Every new Porsche, and GT3 for that matter, will be a better performer. However, RS will still be "special" no matter the performance. My incoming .2 GT3 is better in all measurable performance figures than a 1973 RS. Not sure why that damb old car costs so much, go figure.
#12
I haven’t driven the .2 but love my .1 RS. I’m not on any list but don’t feel shortchanged in any way. Every brand, every manufacturer, new products are always improved technically but it doesn’t necessarily make them better cars when the dust settles. As others have said, the RS will always be an RS - the huge tyres, the massive aero, the styling, the aggression. To someone like me, who will probably not own many of these cars, getting the full hit was worth the extra. No doubt the .2 is a brilliant car in its own right and seems to be a significant improvement.
That ring time is curious. The RS has much more rubber, much more downforce, very similar power and less weight. I can’t believe gearbox shift speed makes any difference (though ratios might?) and similarly the braking system seems not to be more powerful on the newer car. The only two things I can think of are that it’s marketing/driver/track condition differences, or its suspension.
The first needs no real explanation - it is what it is and it probably sells cars. The second perhaps also plays a part. The Nürburgring is not like a normal track, really it is a road. A very fast one. I noticed the Manthey RS that went significantly quicker than the standard car actually had softened suspension to get its time (pretty sure that’s correct). That makes a lot of sense to me since I think there are occasions when my RS seems too stiff for some UK road surfaces. A little more pliancy would yield a quicker car in those instances. But this is a track-focused car. For most tracks, which are much smoother than roads, the extra body control from stiffer suspension is valuable.
Maybe there are people here who have tracked both cars, same day, who could either back up the Nürburgring time to say the new car is definitely quicker than the old RS? If it is, it would be interesting to know which part of the car gains the time because the physics on the RS (tyre size, aero) seem to favour it.
That ring time is curious. The RS has much more rubber, much more downforce, very similar power and less weight. I can’t believe gearbox shift speed makes any difference (though ratios might?) and similarly the braking system seems not to be more powerful on the newer car. The only two things I can think of are that it’s marketing/driver/track condition differences, or its suspension.
The first needs no real explanation - it is what it is and it probably sells cars. The second perhaps also plays a part. The Nürburgring is not like a normal track, really it is a road. A very fast one. I noticed the Manthey RS that went significantly quicker than the standard car actually had softened suspension to get its time (pretty sure that’s correct). That makes a lot of sense to me since I think there are occasions when my RS seems too stiff for some UK road surfaces. A little more pliancy would yield a quicker car in those instances. But this is a track-focused car. For most tracks, which are much smoother than roads, the extra body control from stiffer suspension is valuable.
Maybe there are people here who have tracked both cars, same day, who could either back up the Nürburgring time to say the new car is definitely quicker than the old RS? If it is, it would be interesting to know which part of the car gains the time because the physics on the RS (tyre size, aero) seem to favour it.
#13
Zeperfs compares performance results from various Euro mags. An interesting tool. It seems to suggest the RS is quicker. Obviously not always a measure of track speed, but again, makes it all the more interesting to understand why the GT3 is quicker around the ring. I also note the new GT3 is actually lighter by a little than the RS too.
#14
SJW, a Carin' kinda guy
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
GT3 991.2 has a newer spec tire which is probably 90% of the ring time difference (if not all of it). RSUV the chart you posted compares to a manual GT3 so not too meaningful.