991 GT3 vs. 997.2 GT3 performance difference
07-03-2013, 09:55 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
Rad: glad to FINALLY see an intelligent discussion on the 991 board. At least you started it that way.
No doubt the new RS will be stonking fast--I'm guessing a 7:20 ring time when it comes out... below that? That'll be bold. Not that we'd disklike the bragging rights
RWS disabling itself when the nannies get turned off? I get the logic--off with one, off with all. It's another validation of PAG's intention for this car (and has been since the 997.2): it's meant to be driven with systems ON. Days of us getting an unadulterated analog car are truly over with the 991. It's pointless to ask for analog, pure mechanical interaction when the whole package is DESIGNED to be electronic from steering, suspension geometry and throttle map.
No doubt the new RS will be stonking fast--I'm guessing a 7:20 ring time when it comes out... below that? That'll be bold. Not that we'd disklike the bragging rights
RWS disabling itself when the nannies get turned off? I get the logic--off with one, off with all. It's another validation of PAG's intention for this car (and has been since the 997.2): it's meant to be driven with systems ON. Days of us getting an unadulterated analog car are truly over with the 991. It's pointless to ask for analog, pure mechanical interaction when the whole package is DESIGNED to be electronic from steering, suspension geometry and throttle map.
07-04-2013, 05:55 AM
#32
Race Car
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
How is 7:25 an approximate time? There is no word around like around, over, under as there was for the previous mentioned times.
It's only approximate in your Porsche bubble because it doesn't fit your agenda. You will argue facts starting you straight in the face. You must be a lawyer.
Mike please read english. NONE OF THEIR .000 times happened in real life on a hot lap. They placed segment times together and got a TBL (and then rounded it to .00), which anyone who drives on a track knows does not count. But that has not stopped them from claiming the times anyways. Whatever they claimed for the 997 GT2 (non RS) was still slower than the GTR, ZR1, ACR and a host of other cars in spite of. You can't argue that it's not because Porsche uses TBL's instead of ACTUAL LAP TIMES. Slower is slower.
Same principal applies here even though you don't want it to.
It's only approximate in your Porsche bubble because it doesn't fit your agenda. You will argue facts starting you straight in the face. You must be a lawyer.
Mike please read english. NONE OF THEIR .000 times happened in real life on a hot lap. They placed segment times together and got a TBL (and then rounded it to .00), which anyone who drives on a track knows does not count. But that has not stopped them from claiming the times anyways. Whatever they claimed for the 997 GT2 (non RS) was still slower than the GTR, ZR1, ACR and a host of other cars in spite of. You can't argue that it's not because Porsche uses TBL's instead of ACTUAL LAP TIMES. Slower is slower.
Same principal applies here even though you don't want it to.
I'm not "acting" like anything. I didn't say CH was unreliable. He no doubt reported what he was told. If he was told who was driving and whether the car was a production car or a test mule or any other details, however, he didn't disclose that. Seems to me that kind of info would be important especially for someone like you who wants to see actual times and videos for everyone who tracks their car.
Show me where I said Porsche would be releasing preliminary testing results to the press. What I said was that when Porsche did release hard numbers, as in when they decide to do a published test like the one with the 991 S, or when anyone did a test with hard numbers, then we'd have something legitimate to talk about.
Christophorus magazine issue 359 pgs 60-64 for the 991S test. I didn't say detailed setup, I said details which means options and equipment on the car, driver, and precise specific times as opposed to no details and approximate times which is what we have for the time CH quoted.
That's confusing. Are you now saying the 7:25 time (which ends in .00 BTW) DID NOT HAPPEN? In that case, how can you use a time which didn't happen or is an approximation to compare to the Z06? It's probably just me, but if someone claims something happened when it really didn't that makes them unreliable. Maybe you have a different understanding of what unreliable means....
I'm not introducing doubt or pushing a "case". To the contrary, I'm suggesting we dispel doubt. Bottom line, I simply said that to have a meaningful comparison between the 991 GT3 and the Z06 we need a meaningful and probably independent test of the 991 GT3, which we don't yet have. Somehow you found a way to disagree about that. Incredible....
Show me where I said Porsche would be releasing preliminary testing results to the press. What I said was that when Porsche did release hard numbers, as in when they decide to do a published test like the one with the 991 S, or when anyone did a test with hard numbers, then we'd have something legitimate to talk about.
Christophorus magazine issue 359 pgs 60-64 for the 991S test. I didn't say detailed setup, I said details which means options and equipment on the car, driver, and precise specific times as opposed to no details and approximate times which is what we have for the time CH quoted.
That's confusing. Are you now saying the 7:25 time (which ends in .00 BTW) DID NOT HAPPEN? In that case, how can you use a time which didn't happen or is an approximation to compare to the Z06? It's probably just me, but if someone claims something happened when it really didn't that makes them unreliable. Maybe you have a different understanding of what unreliable means....
I'm not introducing doubt or pushing a "case". To the contrary, I'm suggesting we dispel doubt. Bottom line, I simply said that to have a meaningful comparison between the 991 GT3 and the Z06 we need a meaningful and probably independent test of the 991 GT3, which we don't yet have. Somehow you found a way to disagree about that. Incredible....
07-04-2013, 06:11 AM
#33
Rennlist Member
How is 7:25 an approximate time? There is no word around like around, over, under as there was for the previous mentioned times.
It's only approximate in your Porsche bubble because it doesn't fit your agenda. You will argue facts starting you straight in the face. You must be a lawyer.
Mike please read english. NONE OF THEIR .000 times happened in real life on a hot lap. They placed segment times together and got a TBL (and then rounded it to .00), which anyone who drives on a track knows does not count. But that has not stopped them from claiming the times anyways. Whatever they claimed for the 997 GT2 (non RS) was still slower than the GTR, ZR1, ACR and a host of other cars in spite of. You can't argue that it's not because Porsche uses TBL's instead of ACTUAL LAP TIMES. Slower is slower.
Same principal applies here even though you don't want it to.
It's only approximate in your Porsche bubble because it doesn't fit your agenda. You will argue facts starting you straight in the face. You must be a lawyer.
Mike please read english. NONE OF THEIR .000 times happened in real life on a hot lap. They placed segment times together and got a TBL (and then rounded it to .00), which anyone who drives on a track knows does not count. But that has not stopped them from claiming the times anyways. Whatever they claimed for the 997 GT2 (non RS) was still slower than the GTR, ZR1, ACR and a host of other cars in spite of. You can't argue that it's not because Porsche uses TBL's instead of ACTUAL LAP TIMES. Slower is slower.
Same principal applies here even though you don't want it to.
7.25 is an "approximate" time simply because its not yet appeared in any Porsche literature as a definitive time. CH says in his review that AP said in the morning debrief the car posted 7.25 at the Ring. That's all we know for now.
If you would like to PM I will provide you with the details of a conversation that took place with a kiwi engineer that was at the Ring late last year when the car was being tested. The car has posted quicker times than 7.25 in testing. These were full timed laps not TBLs.
Mate if I'm a Lawyer you must be a Professional Race Driver LOL! Playstation doesnt count...
07-04-2013, 07:21 AM
#34
Race Car
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Champ. Im not even sure why you are posting on this board. Are you really in the market for a 991 GT3 or GT3RS?
7.25 is an "approximate" time simply because its not yet appeared in any Porsche literature as a definitive time. CH says in his review that AP said in the morning debrief the car posted 7.25 at the Ring. That's all we know for now.
If you would like to PM I will provide you with the details of a conversation that took place with a kiwi engineer that was at the Ring late last year when the car was being tested. The car has posted quicker times than 7.25 in testing. These were full timed laps not TBLs.
Mate if I'm a Lawyer you must be a Professional Race Driver LOL! Playstation doesnt count...
7.25 is an "approximate" time simply because its not yet appeared in any Porsche literature as a definitive time. CH says in his review that AP said in the morning debrief the car posted 7.25 at the Ring. That's all we know for now.
If you would like to PM I will provide you with the details of a conversation that took place with a kiwi engineer that was at the Ring late last year when the car was being tested. The car has posted quicker times than 7.25 in testing. These were full timed laps not TBLs.
Mate if I'm a Lawyer you must be a Professional Race Driver LOL! Playstation doesnt count...
I post on this board because I can. Whether you like it or not.
You have been claiming secret sources nonsense for weeks now, sorry but I don't buy it (and from the looks of it no one else does either). When Porsche claim a faster time, one with .000 no doubt, but almost certainly not an actual timed lap with video, then we can talk about the new TBL. But for now you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. And no one else has bought into your story either. Notice the lack of replies to your claims.
lol.
07-04-2013, 08:00 AM
#35
Rennlist Member
You dont like my secret sauces? Damn. No future for me on Master Chef then!
I confess my mate at the factory Claus (Santa is his first name) doesnt exist - so he couldnt possibly tell me RWS is no disengaged by using TC off button. I had to post the factory tech blurb instead. But my kiwi mate who's a tyre/chassis engineer does exist, however even if you spoke to him you wouldn't believe him in any case.
Im not too concerned about you not thinking me credible. I wont loose any sleep. As for others on this board - well I hardly think you've done a good job of winning anyones respect with your personal attacks on others.
I confess my mate at the factory Claus (Santa is his first name) doesnt exist - so he couldnt possibly tell me RWS is no disengaged by using TC off button. I had to post the factory tech blurb instead. But my kiwi mate who's a tyre/chassis engineer does exist, however even if you spoke to him you wouldn't believe him in any case.
Im not too concerned about you not thinking me credible. I wont loose any sleep. As for others on this board - well I hardly think you've done a good job of winning anyones respect with your personal attacks on others.
07-04-2013, 08:20 AM
#36
Rennlist Member
Wanna911 your posts on on the 991 forum simply do not jive with your long history on RL. What happened... alien incursion, or are we all stupid and talking to some teenager in tighty-whities who hacked the account of our longtime contributor?
Ring times are what they are... nobody has driven the 991 so we're all hazarding our guesses here. But they're off known times (both full loop and BtG) from known drivers in published sources. Case in pt, Sabine Schmitz does around 7:30 flat with a passenger in her 997.2, and has mentioned something around 7:27 in interviews which is entirely believable. Plenty of other sites with verified laps from named drivers. Need we harass one another on this point?
Believe it or not I actually don't think the posters here (at least the old timers) have a secret agenda. The OP's seen through 5 iterations of the GT3 since his 996.1. Me, 3. Some have placed orders (I spoke with my dealer just today). There is no "Mezger/3-pedal" fundamentalists out there unless one chooses apply such a prism to everyone else.
That said I admit to being a whiner, esp. with things old and sentimental. Doesn't stop me from recognizing the trend is automation and the new car will be fast. I'm simple but not THAT simple
Ring times are what they are... nobody has driven the 991 so we're all hazarding our guesses here. But they're off known times (both full loop and BtG) from known drivers in published sources. Case in pt, Sabine Schmitz does around 7:30 flat with a passenger in her 997.2, and has mentioned something around 7:27 in interviews which is entirely believable. Plenty of other sites with verified laps from named drivers. Need we harass one another on this point?
Believe it or not I actually don't think the posters here (at least the old timers) have a secret agenda. The OP's seen through 5 iterations of the GT3 since his 996.1. Me, 3. Some have placed orders (I spoke with my dealer just today). There is no "Mezger/3-pedal" fundamentalists out there unless one chooses apply such a prism to everyone else.
That said I admit to being a whiner, esp. with things old and sentimental. Doesn't stop me from recognizing the trend is automation and the new car will be fast. I'm simple but not THAT simple
07-04-2013, 08:33 AM
#37
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,363
Received 4,550 Likes
on
2,585 Posts
Since the Vette was brought into the discussion, we should really be comparing with the new Vette, not a previous one. And the new Vette is a competitor for the 991 GT3, just as Vettes have always been competitors for 911s. Doesn't really matter which is a bit faster, because both will be crazy fast, and neither is a race car. But people will prefer one or the other for the usual reasons, the Vette mainly because of its value, the 911 because it's a Porsche. And now, manual being offered on the Vette is likely to shift some sales to it.
07-04-2013, 11:40 AM
#38
Burning Brakes
and from wanna911:
"You have been claiming secret sources nonsense for weeks now, sorry but I don't buy it (and from the looks of it no one else does either)"
well colour me foolish then..coz I believe Macca....
and I ain't a newby...no Mezger GT3 experience lad (two in fact)....although I do have a 991GT3 on order...albeit mulling whether to wait the 991 GT3RS....
Still I would like to see a return of the civility that has hitherto (somewhat) characterised Rennlist...
07-04-2013, 01:11 PM
#40
Race Director
How is 7:25 an approximate time? There is no word around like around, over, under as there was for the previous mentioned times.
It's only approximate in your Porsche bubble because it doesn't fit your agenda. You will argue facts starting you straight in the face. You must be a lawyer.
Mike please read english. NONE OF THEIR .000 times happened in real life on a hot lap. They placed segment times together and got a TBL (and then rounded it to .00), which anyone who drives on a track knows does not count. But that has not stopped them from claiming the times anyways. Whatever they claimed for the 997 GT2 (non RS) was still slower than the GTR, ZR1, ACR and a host of other cars in spite of. You can't argue that it's not because Porsche uses TBL's instead of ACTUAL LAP TIMES. Slower is slower.
Same principal applies here even though you don't want it to.
It's only approximate in your Porsche bubble because it doesn't fit your agenda. You will argue facts starting you straight in the face. You must be a lawyer.
Mike please read english. NONE OF THEIR .000 times happened in real life on a hot lap. They placed segment times together and got a TBL (and then rounded it to .00), which anyone who drives on a track knows does not count. But that has not stopped them from claiming the times anyways. Whatever they claimed for the 997 GT2 (non RS) was still slower than the GTR, ZR1, ACR and a host of other cars in spite of. You can't argue that it's not because Porsche uses TBL's instead of ACTUAL LAP TIMES. Slower is slower.
Same principal applies here even though you don't want it to.
1) I don't have an agenda on this. The GT3 may or may not be slower; if it is so be it. I already said that about a dozen posts back. The thing is that we don't have independent proof whether it's slower or not, and I think we should have that proof before we make definitive statements. Which brings me to the fact that...
2) You've made my point for me. You're the one saying that none of Porsche's times "happened in real life on a hot lap". You don't offer proof of that statement, but if it's true, then why do you insist on using 7:25, a time that you say has been artificially contrived using segment times, as a standard to compare with the Z06? Wouldn't it make more sense to get what by your definition would be legitimate times from Sport Auto or Autocar or even a full lap Porsche video like the one they did with the 991S and compare that?
To repeat, AFAIC this discussion isn't about whether the 991 GT3 is a faster/slower car than the Z06. At this point I don't care, as it has no impact on which car I'd rather own and I'm under no illusion that I'm going to change your mind. It's a discussion about the relevance of getting unambiguous times before making a definitive statement one way or another.
BTW, I've found Macca to be a straight shooter.
Have a good 4th. Honestly.
Last edited by Mike in CA; 07-04-2013 at 03:08 PM.
07-04-2013, 03:22 PM
#41
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowhere else would more than a few eccentrics actually substitute a Corvette for a GT3 if they had the choice and could afford one.
They aren't really competitors except on the race track and in American car magazines. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Bentley.
More realistically, the Corvette can be compared to the Viper or GTR while the GT3 must be compared to the MP4-12 and 458.
07-04-2013, 03:42 PM
#42
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,363
Received 4,550 Likes
on
2,585 Posts
Only in America!
Nowhere else would more than a few eccentrics actually substitute a Corvette for a GT3 if they had the choice and could afford one.
They aren't really competitors except on the race track and in American car magazines. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Bentley.
More realistically, the Corvette can be compared to the Viper or GTR while the GT3 must be compared to the MP4-12 and 458.
Nowhere else would more than a few eccentrics actually substitute a Corvette for a GT3 if they had the choice and could afford one.
They aren't really competitors except on the race track and in American car magazines. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Bentley.
More realistically, the Corvette can be compared to the Viper or GTR while the GT3 must be compared to the MP4-12 and 458.
07-04-2013, 04:13 PM
#43
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True that I'm focusing on the US and track use, and assuming that cost is a consideration. I'm cross-shopping the Vette and GT3. But the McLaren and 458 are well beyond my price range, particularly considering the risks of track use. I guess the Viper is an option too, but I've always had a thing for the Vette. The GT-R doesn't interest me because it has too many aids and I'd much rather have the 991 GT3 if I have to have double-clutch.
On the reputation of the prior models, I can't imagine anyone who actually goes to the track taking a Viper (no steering feel, snap over-steer, no traction, no stability even under braking, horrible gearbox, etc) over a Vette.
07-04-2013, 04:36 PM
#44
Rennlist Member
Since the Vette was brought into the discussion, we should really be comparing with the new Vette, not a previous one. And the new Vette is a competitor for the 991 GT3, just as Vettes have always been competitors for 911s. Doesn't really matter which is a bit faster, because both will be crazy fast, and neither is a race car. But people will prefer one or the other for the usual reasons, the Vette mainly because of its value, the 911 because it's a Porsche. And now, manual being offered on the Vette is likely to shift some sales to it.
Only in America!
Nowhere else would more than a few eccentrics actually substitute a Corvette for a GT3 if they had the choice and could afford one.
They aren't really competitors except on the race track and in American car magazines. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Bentley.
More realistically, the Corvette can be compared to the Viper or GTR while the GT3 must be compared to the MP4-12 and 458.
Nowhere else would more than a few eccentrics actually substitute a Corvette for a GT3 if they had the choice and could afford one.
They aren't really competitors except on the race track and in American car magazines. It's like comparing a Cadillac to a Bentley.
More realistically, the Corvette can be compared to the Viper or GTR while the GT3 must be compared to the MP4-12 and 458.
991 is electronic faster less ability needed, less proven, less involving in the shifting and steering dept. like MP4 and 458. Getting expensive to track and IMPH too expensive in depreciation.
True that I'm focusing on the US and track use, and assuming that cost is a consideration. I'm cross-shopping the Vette and GT3. But the McLaren and 458 are well beyond my price range, particularly considering the risks of track use. I guess the Viper is an option too, but I've always had a thing for the Vette. The GT-R doesn't interest me because it has too many aids and I'd much rather have the 991 GT3 if I have to have double-clutch.
Make sure you drive both on track or at least go for passenger laps in both before buying. I found the prior Z06 to have that same disconnected feeling as the Turbo. I'm hoping the 991 GT3 is an edgier and more exciting track car.
On the reputation of the prior models, I can't imagine anyone who actually goes to the track taking a Viper (no steering feel, snap over-steer, no traction, no stability even under braking, horrible gearbox, etc) over a Vette.
On the reputation of the prior models, I can't imagine anyone who actually goes to the track taking a Viper (no steering feel, snap over-steer, no traction, no stability even under braking, horrible gearbox, etc) over a Vette.
Corvette may feel piggish, but I can't stand PDK to well see if perhaps I can learn to stomach PDK plus and left for braking.
Some love Vipers, a lot can be setup I think.
DE can be fun in different ways. A cheap throwaway car can be a blast even if its not fast or handles great...
I thing Chevy earned at least my dollars to give them a courtesy checkout test ride for a few track events, while at a base of 130k PDK only Porsche does not.
Still first in line for RS, but the gt3 will have to be proven on track and on the depreciation curve first or I might skip on the RS euro delivery and wait for them to come down in price. Than there is that PDK fear..
07-04-2013, 04:46 PM
#45
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I'm very worried about getting bored driving the PDK box on the weekends and around town. I've got myself convinced that if I keep it in manual mode it won't be. However, if it proves to only be exciting at the track - and I know it will be exciting at the track - then I may have to sell it after the first season and take the $25k depreciation hit or whatever it is.