Notices
991
Sponsored by:

991 "Factoids"

 
Old 04-14-2009, 03:53 AM
  #16  
Sadiq
User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 614
Default

Originally Posted by boolala View Post
You don't think that an extra 45 HP is good for an extra 9 mph top speed then?
The hp you need to approach higher speeds increases exponentially with speed. I was reading in Autoweek about the Koenigsseg (sp) CCX, and they mentioned something like the difference between getting 214mph and 215mph is something like 100hp. I don't remember if the exact numbers are right, but it's something along those lines. So yea, I wouldn't assume that 45HP is good for an extra 9mph up to 195mph.
Sadiq is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 04:55 AM
  #17  
Alan Smithee
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Alan Smithee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,741
Default

Originally Posted by boolala View Post
Why not?

Top speed of the 997.1 S with 355 HP is 186 mph.

45 more HP should be worth 9 mph, no? Especially since they are constantly working on weight savings.
No. Consider that top speed of the 997.2 S with 30 more hp only increases top speed by 2mph to 188, the 997.1 GT3 with 415hp does 193mph, and the 997.2 GT3 with 435hp is 194mph. Even the F430 with 483hp and the Z06 with 505hp don't reach 195mph.

As others pointed out, top speed isn't about weight. And these cars can't get much more aerodynamic; as power and speeds increase, wider tires and required downforce decrease aero efficiency (as do intakes for engine cooling, brake cooling, etc. that are required with higher power and higher speeds).
Alan Smithee is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 10:20 AM
  #18  
9elf S
User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 217
Default

I knew I should have stayed awake in Physics class.
9elf S is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 10:29 AM
  #19  
bucking
User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 106
Default

Originally Posted by Edgy01 View Post
Hot off the PCA presses. some insight into what we can expect from Porsche on the next "New 911" due out in MY12.

From Porsche Panorama, the line will split into a 'base' 911 known as the 911S with a 3.4 liter engine (350PS) and then the upper end model will be the "Carrera RS" with the 3.8 liter engine (400PS) capable of 195 mph while getting 30 mpg. Wheelbase will go up 100mm, track a bit wider, with overhangs a bit shorter. They are also looking to abandon conventional side mirrors with small rear-looking cameras with small swiveling tv screens in the A-pillars. The 7-speed PDK tranny may ultimately do away with the 6-speed manual.
The brief article on page 59 of the April 2009 issue of Parorama does NOT say the PDK will replace the 6-speed manual transmission. The article says "[A]nd a very efficient "seven-step" CVT (continuously variable transmission) MAY replace the manual." The PDK is NOT a CVT transmission; the PDK is a dual clutch twin-shaft geared transmission. A CVT is completely different in that it has no gears with gear changes or steps unless imposed artifically for purposes of feel.
bucking is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 11:30 AM
  #20  
Charlie C
Porsche Nut
Rennlist Member
 
Charlie C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: CA
Posts: 2,328
Default

Originally Posted by Edgy01 View Post
... The 7-speed PDK tranny may ultimately do away with the 6-speed manual.
If they ever did that, I'd NEVER buy another new one and I know I'm not alone.
Charlie C is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 12:11 PM
  #21  
djcxxx
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
djcxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,463
Default

Sounds like a good rumor to encourage sales of the current model.
djcxxx is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 12:37 PM
  #22  
OCBen
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Back in the OC
Posts: 15,017
Default

Originally Posted by Edgy01 View Post
They are also looking to abandon conventional side mirrors with small rear-looking cameras with small swiveling tv screens in the A-pillars.
That will likely never see the light of day.

Think of the potential lawsuits from electronic glitch failures. Side mirrors are a safety feature. Eliminating them to potentially make a street car go faster is absurd.

There's a better chance of them doing away with the silly stickers on the sun visors - and that ain't ever gonna go away.

Those are mainly pipe dream speculations of the uninformed. Far from being facts at this point.
OCBen is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 05:42 PM
  #23  
useridchallenged
User
 
useridchallenged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hillsborough, CA
Posts: 183
Default

How many of you actually have driven your cars at top speed? I think you're paying for bragging rights if you're focusing on top speed. I've driven both my 996 and 997 (non-S) up to 155 MPH, but I've never found an environment where I could take it all the way to top speed.

Bragging rights are important, though! Just be aware that top speed may not be something you get to do everyday with your car (unless you are extremely lucky!). Which is why I don't drive an S - I get plenty of ya-ya's out of the straight up Carrera.

Personally, I'd invest the extra dollars into racing school and experience (autocross or track) until you, the driver, are no longer the performance bottleneck.
useridchallenged is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 07:00 PM
  #24  
Edgy01
Poseur
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
Edgy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 17,492
Default

I don't think that many 997 drivers are that immature to be concerned with bragging about hitting the limit on their cars. Most are responsible adults who simply appreciate the quality of the engineering and manufacturing excellence. I think the personalized plate of a good friend of mine summed it up well: "O2GO162" (He had a 1985 930 Turbo).
Edgy01 is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 11:01 PM
  #25  
fpena944
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
fpena944's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,041
Default

I just read the Panorama article and did a search here on Rennlist to land on this topic. Do any of you think this is a Panorama April Fool's joke?

Seriously to potentially eliminate a manual transmission for a CVT that belongs on an economy car? And the electronic screens in lieu of mirrors? Sounds like someone pulling our legs. Anyone else think the same?
fpena944 is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 11:11 PM
  #26  
ADias
Super User
 
ADias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 7,252
Default

Originally Posted by fpena944 View Post
I just read the Panorama article and did a search here on Rennlist to land on this topic. Do any of you think this is a Panorama April Fool's joke?

Seriously to potentially eliminate a manual transmission for a CVT that belongs on an economy car? And the electronic screens in lieu of mirrors? Sounds like someone pulling our legs. Anyone else think the same?
I don't know about the CVT but substituting cameras for mirrors and a longer wheelbase has been reported by several sources for a while. PCA is a serious organization and Panorama would not publish anything without some solid base.
ADias is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 11:23 PM
  #27  
Nugget
User
 
Nugget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Houston Texas USA
Posts: 1,887
Default

Originally Posted by OCBen View Post
Think of the potential lawsuits from electronic glitch failures. Side mirrors are a safety feature. Eliminating them to potentially make a street car go faster is absurd.
I think it's only a matter of time before side mirrors are gone from all passenger cars and trucks. Removing the side mirrors from a vehicle can make a dramatic improvement on drag coefficient which improves fuel economy and efficiency. It's not just to make the car go faster, but it's a useful technique for eking a few more mpg out of a car and improving range.

Several boutique electric and hybrid cars (like the Aptera) have this feature already, and I think they're just trendsetting. Even GM has incorporated camera rear view in prototype vehicles like the Cadillac Converj (built on the Chevy Volt guts). It's easy to imagine the next generation Prius or Insight doing it.

It's no more of a legal liability than drive-by-wire and I think we'd all better get used to seeing earless cars sooner rather than later.
Nugget is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 11:24 PM
  #28  
gota911
Newbies Hospitality Director
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
gota911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Posts: 18,088
Default

Originally Posted by ADias View Post
I don't know about the CVT but substituting cameras for mirrors and a longer wheelbase has been reported by several sources for a while. PCA is a serious organization and Panorama would not publish anything without some solid base.
Longer wheelebase on the 991? What wheelbase???
Attached Images  
gota911 is offline  
Old 04-15-2009, 12:44 AM
  #29  
OCBen
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Back in the OC
Posts: 15,017
Default

Originally Posted by Nugget View Post
I think it's only a matter of time before side mirrors are gone from all passenger cars and trucks. Removing the side mirrors from a vehicle can make a dramatic improvement on drag coefficient which improves fuel economy and efficiency. It's not just to make the car go faster, but it's a useful technique for eking a few more mpg out of a car and improving range.

Several boutique electric and hybrid cars (like the Aptera) have this feature already, and I think they're just trendsetting. Even GM has incorporated camera rear view in prototype vehicles like the Cadillac Converj (built on the Chevy Volt guts). It's easy to imagine the next generation Prius or Insight doing it.

It's no more of a legal liability than drive-by-wire and I think we'd all better get used to seeing earless cars sooner rather than later.
Here's what the Aptera looks like (from their website), for those not familiar with this electric car.


Don't confuse camera enabled rear viewers with side view camera viewers. Honda's had rear view cameras on their SUVs for some time now, but they never did away with the rear view mirror. It was simply to improve safety by augmenting the rear view mirror with a rear view camera while backing up.

The point I was making is that just because something is technically feasible, that doesn't mean it will ever see the light of day, what with the DOT regulations auto makers need to conform to, hence my example of the obnoxious stickers on the sun visors.

If by drive-by-wire you mean steering by wire and braking by wire; again, just because it's technically feasible that doesn't mean it will ever see the light of day in our ever increasingly nanny-type of government we currently live in, especially with the gradual left turn (some might say sharp left turn) the government is now taking.

When it comes to automobiles, the government will always choose safety over economy. Remember that. And the government will always mandate such things as mechanical steering instead of steering by wire, hydraulic braking instead of braking by wire, and ugly stickers on your sun visors to remind you that your car is equipped with air bags.
OCBen is offline  
Old 04-15-2009, 06:19 AM
  #30  
Spyderidol
User
 
Spyderidol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Mozambique
Posts: 393
Default

Originally Posted by ADias View Post
I suspect they are doing this to mount a mid-engine setup in 911-look-alike racing cars.
Not likely. The ACO regulation require the GT2 cars to be homologated to road going cars, so unless Porsche produce a road going mid-engined car, they can't race one.
Spyderidol is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 991 "Factoids"


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: