isv

Again, just look at the power graphs posted above previously. Exactly how is the .2 gt3 so different in power delivery from the older engine especially at the top end over the final 2000rpm to make the older engine seem like a 'soft and fluffy turbo'? There's journalistic licence and there's complete hogwash and this seems rather like the latter imo.

mass27

Deleted

Waxer

Bingo. Zactly.

Moreover the .2 Ring time to be taken with a grain of salt vs. RS since RS had poor weather conditions, inferior older Cup2's.

Lets run an RS in perferct weather, with updated Cup 2's and see. RS wears wider shoes and has better aero.

All marketing blather.

Waxer

And be myopic like you? Pass. LOL.

The OP is quoting a clip from Prosser's Evo review wherein he is providing us his subjective characterization of the power delievery as he is experiencing it at the top of the range in the .2GT3 and dramatizes the comparison to the .1 4.0 at the top end. Hyperbole at its best since the power charts don't lie. Nearly identical.

Do I think there is a little more umph in mid range and at the top? Sure.

He also said the 3.8 in its poer delievery is more "intoxicating" So is the 3.8 "better" in some respects?

I look at cars as a whole. They are more then the engine and the sum of their parts. If I wanted the absolute fastest street/track car out there I would own a Viper ACR. Its faster than the RS, more powerful than the RS, cheaper than the RS but as a whole its not as desireable at least to me.

While the .2GT3 no doubt has some engineering imiprovements and advances the performance curve of the .1 4.0 itss no where enough to convince a vast majority of RS owners to give up their RS for it. Even wtih an MT.

If I didn't succeed with my last post on the other thread that you clearly had no ability to refute I don't expect you to follow or understand. Clearly.

golfnutintib

this thread is the rennlist version of housewives of atlanta

Drifting

LOL, and that's being kind.

bccars

Why don't we just wait a few weeks until the first cars are in the hands of rennlisters ? We'll soon know if the engine indeed sounds and feels that much more aggressive than the 991 RS ...

C.J. Ichiban

I'm hard pressed to comprehend how a 4.0L 500hp engine can feel so drastically different than a 4.0L 500hp engine.

I can say that the 6 speed and LWFW is a different experience than a 7 spd PDK but is a dual mass flywheel and a 6 spd going to be magical?

Will it feel like a freight train hitting a mountain?

When I shift up from 3-4 in the cup car I don't feel unicorn farts or dragon spunk shooting out the back. It feels like I am going really fast and I am going faster.

As some of you guys know, these cars accelerate less and less the faster you go. So when I read about some magical engine that takes you to light speed with 330 lb/ft it is hard to avoid the LOL. Let's reserve that for a turbo/GT2 type of car that makes 600 lb/ft

TRAKCAR

^^ exactly, but sometimes on a very cold day I can almost smell the unicorn farts..

sgroer

Thats not the unicorn, Peter.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GZnn_mKs2cM

Petevb

Actual speed and our sensation of it are far more disconnected than one would think. If you tilt your seat 90 degrees backwards you're feeling 1g of acceleration- pretty boring. What we're good at is sensing the change in acceleration, which is why a fast turbo feels so dramatic: the boost just keeps shoving us further into our seat, where a Viper might pull just as hard but feel less impressive by giving us a hard shove and then slowly relenting.

Thus the feel of a powerband is largely a psychological game where small tweaks count. Noise is critical to that phychology, while the relative increase or decrease in torque is far more important than the actual number. The valleys in the GT4's powerband are hugely annoying even if on paper they're higher than the peaks of the Cayman S's. My take is that Porsche has gotten better at building the crescendo like a composer- the result is a different sensation even if the absolute numbers are similar, and in the end unless we're racing it's the sensation that counts.

As for the messily 330 lb-ft I wouldn't sell it short: the 500 wtq when the GT2 RS's turbos come in at 3.5k feels amazing (in large part because of the way it builds) but keep in mind that the RS 4.0's 325 wtq @ 6k rpm is doing significantly more to actually accelerate the car. And the NA GT motors are tuned specifically to overcome that feel of falling off at the high end you mention- much of what reviewers are raving about.

It will be interesting to get the cars on the dyno when they come, as I'm curious if there's more to the raves than acoustics and clever power delivery psychology. On paper the power curves are very similar, but Porsche is not beyond taking significant liberties with their published curves. GT2 RS dynos had that car making more torque to the wheels than Porsche advertised at the crank, for example- Porsche (and BMW, etc) have a history of playing phychological games with the spec sheets when it serves their purposes (E90 M3 vs 1M is a good recent example).

Mika911

I agree with you objectively. But I can see how the new unit seems to scream so much more just because it can run to 9000rpm. I don't doubt this is now possible due to improvements, but the RS is imv too restricted at 8600rpm in most gears. Though it makes nought difference to laptime, looking at the power curves, I can imagine the extra 400rpm are intoxicating when driving through a mountain pass.

porschemeister

thanks for saying that :-) guys here get way to carried away due to some magazine articles

mass27

Everyone can agree the engine is an improvement over the .1GT3, .1RS, and R. That should be the focus - evolution.

Footsoldier

Agree, and interested to know how much of the sensation is coming from revisions to PDK software, some exhaust tuning and maybe some reduction in sound deadening.

Clearly seeme to be a step forward though, via a combination of tweaks of varying degrees, just as you would expect.