To those with X51 - did you special order?
08-06-2014, 12:47 AM
#33
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Cruising around town, or even on some mountain twisties, not so sure the benefits of the X51 can be appreciated, much less discerned in any notable fashion.
At high speeds, however, I think is where the X51 shines.
As one data point, I think it was MotorTrend that did a comparison between a C2S (no power kit) and a 911/50 and the C2S was actually a tenth of a second faster around their track.
At high speeds, however, I think is where the X51 shines.
As one data point, I think it was MotorTrend that did a comparison between a C2S (no power kit) and a 911/50 and the C2S was actually a tenth of a second faster around their track.
08-06-2014, 01:09 AM
#34
Three Wheelin'
I could see that happening at some tracks due to more efficient aerodynamics and weight but not all, also I have never seen a like for like comparison where both cars had the same performance options such as SPASM, ceramics etc.
08-06-2014, 10:42 AM
#35
I don't remember seeing that comparison. Can you be more specific. There WAS a comparison in one of the British magazines comparing a C4S to a C2S in wet conditions. I think the C4S had an x-51 and was faster. So yes, a C4S with x-51 is faster than. C2S in the wet. Quote the MT article showing a C2S is faster than a 911/50.
08-06-2014, 11:26 AM
#36
Drifting
08-06-2014, 11:45 AM
#37
Found the article and the C2S was .2 secs faster. They had no explanation but the C2S they were comparing was almost 2 years ago. Hard to know for sure unless they are tested in the same conditions. They also don't list the options in that C2S. You wouldn't expect a big difference with only 30HP and no torque difference. As always, testing is more meaningful if done the same day under the same conditions with the same driver.
08-07-2014, 02:15 AM
#38
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
MT is not exactly the bible of track excellence. I mentioned this before but they have had "Battle Royale" before between sports cars where the winner was decided by the size of the glove box. At least the sister mags Caranddriver and Roadandtrack make an attempt at some sort of empirical data sets SOMETIMES.
I mostly dismiss MT because with their cars/Trucks of the years the parameters they use arent the same from year to year and I think they start the whole article with
the winner based on advertising dollars and then make the article fit the results.
I mostly dismiss MT because with their cars/Trucks of the years the parameters they use arent the same from year to year and I think they start the whole article with
the winner based on advertising dollars and then make the article fit the results.