So you want a manual transmission?
03-07-2013, 07:38 AM
#46
Rennlist Member
I am saying that this is a GT3, not an RS. Lets make equal comparisons. Second, the new 991 C2S has less hp than the old GT3 and matches its 'Ring times. The new GT3 has more hp and beats the old GT3 by ~10 seconds. If I had to guess I would guess that the new RS will handily beat the old RS.
Seems like a very fair comparison to me and yet all these advances in technology only match the 4.0RS running flintstones technology
As NJ-GT rightly pointed out, weight is key and they have failed in this department. They can't really go any wider with the new RS so its only likely benefits other than a tweak to 500+hp, will be gearing and it must shed serious weight or it will be a disappointment. Loading a car up with batteries, electric motors and gizmos isn't going to give the kind of weight savings required to get lap times down. Shedding 100 kgs is going to produce more performance improvements than a pdk box. The pdk box just closes the gap between the times of a pro driver and the average joe...The only outright performance improvement that pdk has provided is 0-100km/h time which in my view is a measure of how quickly one loses their license... 3.5secs or 4.0secs, either way you'll be walking for a while...
Last edited by 911rox; 03-07-2013 at 07:58 AM.
03-07-2013, 08:32 AM
#47
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Compared to the old RS, what exactly are you claiming that the new GT3 lacks? It's now even a wide body car... Better aero than the old Gt3 which would put it at old RS aero level, what else? Apart from the fact that someone has been feeding the 991 GT3 lots of Krispee Kreme donuts, effectively body wise it is equally as good as the old RSs with superior trans (according to some) and superior chassis...
Seems like a very fair comparison to me and yet all these advances in technology only match the 4.0RS running flintstones technology
As NJ-GT rightly pointed out, weight is key and they have failed in this department. They can't really go any wider with the new RS so its only likely benefits other than a tweak to 500+hp, will be gearing and it must shed serious weight or it will be a disappointment. Loading a car up with batteries, electric motors and gizmos isn't going to give the kind of weight savings required to get lap times down. Shedding 100 kgs is going to produce more performance improvements than a pdk box. The pdk box just closes the gap between the times of a pro driver and the average joe...The only outright performance improvement that pdk has provided is 0-100km/h time which in my view is a measure of how quickly one loses their license... 3.5secs or 4.0secs, either way you'll be walking for a while...
Seems like a very fair comparison to me and yet all these advances in technology only match the 4.0RS running flintstones technology
As NJ-GT rightly pointed out, weight is key and they have failed in this department. They can't really go any wider with the new RS so its only likely benefits other than a tweak to 500+hp, will be gearing and it must shed serious weight or it will be a disappointment. Loading a car up with batteries, electric motors and gizmos isn't going to give the kind of weight savings required to get lap times down. Shedding 100 kgs is going to produce more performance improvements than a pdk box. The pdk box just closes the gap between the times of a pro driver and the average joe...The only outright performance improvement that pdk has provided is 0-100km/h time which in my view is a measure of how quickly one loses their license... 3.5secs or 4.0secs, either way you'll be walking for a while...
I am not saying it lacks anything. I am saying that you should compare GT3 to GT3 and RS to RS. Considering that Porsche has brought each car to the level of the model above it in the previous gen line up, I don't know what everyone is complaining about other than they all want the new car to be slower...
991 C2S = 997 GT3
991 GT3 = 997 RS
991 RS = ?
Is that really what everyone is complaining about? The car is ~10 seconds faster than the last one? Like I said, y'all are giving that poor engineer in Germany fits wondering why you all want a slower car.
03-07-2013, 08:45 AM
#48
Rennlist Member
Any complaints about the GT cars being slow need to be directed at Porsche for their lack of weight savings and horsepower... The box was not the reason for any perceived diasadvantage...
A GT2 RS which has the benefit of 120 hp over the 4.0RS (same chassis, similar aero) and was still running a manual box and managed NBR times in the mid 7min 10's, faster than the priliminary lap times set by the all new 918!!!... If Porsche's concern was keeping up with the Jone's, how about giving us a little more than 20hp improvements and some real weight savings?...
A GT2 RS which has the benefit of 120 hp over the 4.0RS (same chassis, similar aero) and was still running a manual box and managed NBR times in the mid 7min 10's, faster than the priliminary lap times set by the all new 918!!!... If Porsche's concern was keeping up with the Jone's, how about giving us a little more than 20hp improvements and some real weight savings?...
03-07-2013, 08:50 AM
#49
Race Director
Porsche 911 GT2 RS 7:18.00
Porsche 911 GT3 RS 4.0 7:27.00
Porsche 911 GT3 RS 7:33.00
Porsche 911 GT3 7:40.00
the new 991 GT3 is "well under" 7:30
03-07-2013, 08:56 AM
#50
Rennlist Member
03-07-2013, 09:09 AM
#51
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Any complaints about the GT cars being slow need to be directed at Porsche for their lack of weight savings and horsepower... The box was not the reason for any perceived diasadvantage...
A GT2 RS which has the benefit of 120 hp over the 4.0RS (same chassis, similar aero) and was still running a manual box and managed NBR times in the mid 7min 10's, faster than the priliminary lap times set by the all new 918!!!... If Porsche's concern was keeping up with the Jone's, how about giving us a little more than 20hp improvements and some real weight savings?...
A GT2 RS which has the benefit of 120 hp over the 4.0RS (same chassis, similar aero) and was still running a manual box and managed NBR times in the mid 7min 10's, faster than the priliminary lap times set by the all new 918!!!... If Porsche's concern was keeping up with the Jone's, how about giving us a little more than 20hp improvements and some real weight savings?...
I am not saying the new GT3 is slow. I am saying it would not be as fast if given a manual trans that some here want. I am not sure how anyone can claim the car lacks feel or involvement without actually driving it. The difference between you and me is that I know the PDK box would make me faster and am not afraid to admit it, you think you are better than it or better than me at shifting, or you want to be slower, I am not sure...
I am also not sure why you brought up the GT2, are you surprised that a car with that much more HP and Torque is faster?
Some here want Porsche to compete with other car makers, but when they do, you complain...
03-07-2013, 09:41 AM
#52
Rennlist Member
Let me clarify my early point: Any complaints about the older GT cars being slow need to be directed to Porsche for their lack of weight saving measures and lack of horsepower...The 6 speed box was not the reasonfor any perceived disadvantage... I was not referring to the 991...
My point is very simple... Put a 475hp mezger/ 6speed manual into a 991 chassis and the gap would NOT be 10 seconds plus as you keep on pointing out... The chassis will account for a portion of the difference, the 40+hp will account for another big whack and the pdk contribution will be....?
And for that matter, the purpose of the GT3 in the past has been based around being a driver's car... Given a healthy dose of hp like the turbo or GT2, it would easily have dealt with its competitio. For that matter, the turbo has always been the 0-100, 1/4 mile comparison to the competition as its always been the faster accelerating car etc... Why the changing of the guard now?
My point is very simple... Put a 475hp mezger/ 6speed manual into a 991 chassis and the gap would NOT be 10 seconds plus as you keep on pointing out... The chassis will account for a portion of the difference, the 40+hp will account for another big whack and the pdk contribution will be....?
And for that matter, the purpose of the GT3 in the past has been based around being a driver's car... Given a healthy dose of hp like the turbo or GT2, it would easily have dealt with its competitio. For that matter, the turbo has always been the 0-100, 1/4 mile comparison to the competition as its always been the faster accelerating car etc... Why the changing of the guard now?
03-07-2013, 12:33 PM
#56
Burning Brakes
At 9:25 on the EVO video AP states " a good tad below 7:30"
"a good tad" is a curious expression....but clearly means under...as to whether that is "Well under".....we shall see.
"a good tad" is a curious expression....but clearly means under...as to whether that is "Well under".....we shall see.
03-07-2013, 01:09 PM
#59
Race Director
ok perhaps i heard wrong, but its was under 7:30. the gt3 rs is 7:33 according to the site i googled.
now if its actually closer to the 7:27 mark of the gt3 4.0 it would be impressive.
now if its actually closer to the 7:27 mark of the gt3 4.0 it would be impressive.
