Anyone else a little underwhelmed by the new GT3RS?
03-09-2018 | 11:54 PM
#62
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,300
Likes: 1,277
From: West Vancouver and San Francisco
In fact, it's much faster than its power-to-weight would suggest, so the layout is not that bad. Also, most successful mid-engined cars built from scratch without 911's "baggage" have 58-60% on the rear wheels anyway (compared to Porsche's 60-61), so not that much difference. Oh, and on polar moments of inertia - cars actually pivot around the point slightly behind the rear axle, not around the center of gravity, because they are not fidget-spinners.
Where rear engine layout causes real problems is aero - with the engine there, it's impossible to make a powerful and effective underbody/splitter system. Hence the need to reverse the whole thing in race cars.
03-10-2018 | 12:38 AM
#63
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 17,317
Likes: 12,255
Are you being sarcastic? Where Porsche is lagging is the POWER of the engine compared to the competition - what does lacking 100-200hp have to do with the location of the engine?
In fact, it's much faster than its power-to-weight would suggest, so the layout is not that bad. Also, most successful mid-engined cars built from scratch without 911's "baggage" have 58-60% on the rear wheels anyway (compared to Porsche's 60-61), so not that much difference. Oh, and on polar moments of inertia - cars actually pivot around the point slightly behind the rear axle, not around the center of gravity, because they are not fidget-spinners.
Where rear engine layout causes real problems is aero - with the engine there, it's impossible to make a powerful and effective underbody/splitter system. Hence the need to reverse the whole thing in race cars.
In fact, it's much faster than its power-to-weight would suggest, so the layout is not that bad. Also, most successful mid-engined cars built from scratch without 911's "baggage" have 58-60% on the rear wheels anyway (compared to Porsche's 60-61), so not that much difference. Oh, and on polar moments of inertia - cars actually pivot around the point slightly behind the rear axle, not around the center of gravity, because they are not fidget-spinners.
Where rear engine layout causes real problems is aero - with the engine there, it's impossible to make a powerful and effective underbody/splitter system. Hence the need to reverse the whole thing in race cars.
So a 100 hp rear engine car is probably "more 100 hp" than a 100 hp front engine car.
03-10-2018 | 01:08 AM
#64
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,960
Likes: 349
From: Florida
Are you being sarcastic? Where Porsche is lagging is the POWER of the engine compared to the competition - what does lacking 100-200hp have to do with the location of the engine?
In fact, it's much faster than its power-to-weight would suggest, so the layout is not that bad. Also, most successful mid-engined cars built from scratch without 911's "baggage" have 58-60% on the rear wheels anyway (compared to Porsche's 60-61), so not that much difference. Oh, and on polar moments of inertia - cars actually pivot around the point slightly behind the rear axle, not around the center of gravity, because they are not fidget-spinners.
Where rear engine layout causes real problems is aero - with the engine there, it's impossible to make a powerful and effective underbody/splitter system. Hence the need to reverse the whole thing in race cars.
In fact, it's much faster than its power-to-weight would suggest, so the layout is not that bad. Also, most successful mid-engined cars built from scratch without 911's "baggage" have 58-60% on the rear wheels anyway (compared to Porsche's 60-61), so not that much difference. Oh, and on polar moments of inertia - cars actually pivot around the point slightly behind the rear axle, not around the center of gravity, because they are not fidget-spinners.
Where rear engine layout causes real problems is aero - with the engine there, it's impossible to make a powerful and effective underbody/splitter system. Hence the need to reverse the whole thing in race cars.
03-10-2018 | 01:34 AM
#65
Pro
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 556
Likes: 181
From: Texas
Totally agree
I would like to get a .2GT3RS if I can get an allocation and don't have to bend over (too much). I love the WP. If they are hard to get (as I predicted) allocations will be tough and ADMs will be crazy (again).
The .1RS values will actually go back up slightly in the above scenario. .1RS will be the better "all arounder" between street and occassional track duty. I can tell you that for me when I put my suspension in "sport" it is too stiff for the street for my taste. My wife agrees.
They just upped the spring rates on the .2RS. Whoopee. No fancy "rose jointed" suspension bits or alloy parts etc...
.1 4.0 is a great lump. Rev's lightening fast imho. With a tune and headers it is a beast. You can get the same power out of a .1RS. They are both 4.0's. Also with BBi's performance suspension kit (new springs, control arms with rose joints) is $7000 and new MPCS and your .1RS is there and beyond.
.1RS Ring time of 7:20 was on the old rubber and in damp conditions.
I would want to see the .1RS and .2RS go same day on the same rubber and same conditions. No doubt the .2RS will be faster but not $100K faster if you don't have a MSRP allocation and nothing that can't be made up time wise with a tune and BBi's track kit.
I just want the WP. Love it. Other than that can muddle along with my Salmon Sloth if no msrp allocation comes my way.
The .1RS values will actually go back up slightly in the above scenario. .1RS will be the better "all arounder" between street and occassional track duty. I can tell you that for me when I put my suspension in "sport" it is too stiff for the street for my taste. My wife agrees.
They just upped the spring rates on the .2RS. Whoopee. No fancy "rose jointed" suspension bits or alloy parts etc...
.1 4.0 is a great lump. Rev's lightening fast imho. With a tune and headers it is a beast. You can get the same power out of a .1RS. They are both 4.0's. Also with BBi's performance suspension kit (new springs, control arms with rose joints) is $7000 and new MPCS and your .1RS is there and beyond.
.1RS Ring time of 7:20 was on the old rubber and in damp conditions.
I would want to see the .1RS and .2RS go same day on the same rubber and same conditions. No doubt the .2RS will be faster but not $100K faster if you don't have a MSRP allocation and nothing that can't be made up time wise with a tune and BBi's track kit.
I just want the WP. Love it. Other than that can muddle along with my Salmon Sloth if no msrp allocation comes my way.
03-10-2018 | 01:35 AM
#66
Race Director
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 13,162
Likes: 3,886
Originally Posted by djcxxx
Some of these posts are quite amusing because as we all know Porsche has been falling further behind with an underwhelming rear engine design since the 911 was saved from extinction in 1981.
03-10-2018 | 07:56 AM
#68
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 41
From: Europe
Imo .2GT3 is near identical performance (maybe even slghtly better) to .1RS. .2RS will perform significantly better than .1RS.
03-10-2018 | 04:45 PM
#72
Drifting
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,300
Likes: 3
From: QC, CA / Abaco BS
03-10-2018 | 05:44 PM
#73
Racer
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 342
Likes: 49
And anyone interested in owning a RS and not getting a .1 RS surely can't be disappointed if the .2 is "only" as good as the .1 they wanted?
And anyone else not owning/not planning to own a RS is disappointed because?
Just curious!
03-10-2018 | 07:30 PM
#74
Pro
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 683
Likes: 32
They went further than I expected - a major overhaul of the suspension, with the first race-style suspension in GT family and probably the only one among the comparable mass-produced cars. Also, improved aero puts in above most peers. What else is important for a track car? Engine power is more than sufficient already and would be one of the last priorities on the list. So for a track car, let's say you compare RS to Perfomante - RS is ahead on suspension, total aero, brakes, tire size, and weight. It's only down on engine power, which is definitely more than sufficient to make the car fun (and scary) at the track.
I do want them to go to carbon fiber and shave extra 300-400lbs, but that would be too much to expect from .2 refresh. Even 992 will not get us there, unfortunately.
I do want them to go to carbon fiber and shave extra 300-400lbs, but that would be too much to expect from .2 refresh. Even 992 will not get us there, unfortunately.
