When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Two things in answer to your queries, snaphappy (which incidentally is a screen name better suited for an older air-cooled 911 driver ).
1) Came to 991 GTS from a 6M 911 Turbo. 0-60 is very close, because with LC and lighter weight and PDK you can just bang off the shifts and launch at high rpm. However... Rarely does anybody actually do this. Most full throttle experiences are from already rolling, or it's a stoplight run and even when you're "racing" the guy next to you, how many of us are crude enough to sit waiting for a green light with the car revving at 6500 or whatever LC is? So the result is that you usually are running 5-60 or 25-90 or something like that, which is a whole nother bottle of apples. The massive torque deficit between a 325tq 991S or GTS and a appx 450-550tq Turbo (depending on age and model) is very noticeable. For instance, the GTS launches just fine as a RWD car, but the Turbos simply wouldn't hook up as RWD only. So there is a much bigger difference in on-road use than there is in dragstrip numbers. Because of the massive torque of either a 911 Turbo or a V8 muscle car, you are able to get much closer to the dragstrip numbers on the street without an insane launch.
That said, I went in last February looking to replace the Turbo with another (991) Turbo and in the end fell in love with the naturally aspirated 911 again. To each his own of course.
2) On a long run back from our house at the shore to ATL this February in the GTS I got passed by a very brave gentleman in an unassuming black C230 or C250 entry-level MB sedan. He was running 95-105 so I stepped it up and kept him about 1/4 mile ahead on the lightly travelled interstate. A new 2015 Mustang GT 5.0 saw us and stepped out behind me. All was in harmony.
But every once in awhile the Benz would get through a rolling chicane of trucks and slow drivers and speed off into the distance, leaving me and the Mustang to catch up and close a mile or mile-and-a-half gap. We'd both nail it and run from 65 up to 115-130 till we closed the gap on the Benz. It pains me greatly to report this, but that Coyote is a hell of an engine. He could close on me till he had to back off (he was content to let me lead the way.) He couldn't close fast and the difference was tiny, but the Mustang was faster in that high-speed range our cars are supposed to dominate in. My brother had an 11 5.0 and then a 13 5.0 which I drove and I have to tell you, if they could have wrapped a car that I like around that motor I'd be a Mustang driver. It is sublime. Very revvy, too, certainly not a one-trick torque monster. I can't imagine how good the flat-plane crank model is.
my 991 carrera PDK SportChrono with Sharkwerks sport exhaust (x-pipe), stage 1 Cobb Accessport v3 on Michelin SuperSports 245/305 at 32/36 psi respectively. 60 degree weather. full tank of gas.
4.12s 0-60
12.09 @ 116mph 1/4 mile
Pulled .86 G off the line.
And if i had the time to work on it i bet she could have done even better. needless to say, this is all one practically "needs" in a street car. But of course if i had the means i would be first in line for a 911R just because... MORE!
=)
AFTER - Cobb Accessport V3 Stage 1 map 991 carrera PDK Sport chrono
Have a LS3 525hp/496tq, 6spd manual 928 that weighs in at 3083 lbs (all fluids, 3/4 tank of gas). Had a 50th 430hp/338tq with PDK that weighs in at approx 3200lbs (googled specs). Seat of the pants power coming from the LS is obvious especially down low and in the launch. Just installed a GPS speedo that tracks 0-60, 1/4 mile time/speeds in the 928 and should soon know how fast the 928 really is. Have been on a few spirited rides in the TX Hill Country following a PDK equipped C2S. As expected the 928 was faster in the straights and the C2S was superior in the turns. 50th is more refined and linear in it's power delivery. The LS powered 928 is somewhat brutish and without many of the nannies in the modern car. Both cars a blast to drive and polar opposites of each other. T
Two things in answer to your queries, snaphappy (which incidentally is a screen name better suited for an older air-cooled 911 driver ).
It pains me greatly to report this, but that Coyote is a hell of an engine. He could close on me till he had to back off (he was content to let me lead the way.) He couldn't close fast and the difference was tiny, but the Mustang was faster in that high-speed range our cars are supposed to dominate in. My brother had an 11 5.0 and then a 13 5.0 which I drove and I have to tell you, if they could have wrapped a car that I like around that motor I'd be a Mustang driver. It is sublime. Very revvy, too, certainly not a one-trick torque monster. I can't imagine how good the flat-plane crank model is.
Mustang is a decent sports car but I have a suspicion that your not operating the motor in its optimal rev range. Part of that is because your coming from a car that delivers it best performance way below redline. These engines don't wake up till beyond 6000 rpms. It may go against your better senses but dont worry your not going to break it.
Two things in answer to your queries, snaphappy (which incidentally is a screen name better suited for an older air-cooled 911 driver ).
1) Came to 991 GTS from a 6M 911 Turbo. 0-60 is very close, because with LC and lighter weight and PDK you can just bang off the shifts and launch at high rpm. However... Rarely does anybody actually do this. Most full throttle experiences are from already rolling, or it's a stoplight run and even when you're "racing" the guy next to you, how many of us are crude enough to sit waiting for a green light with the car revving at 6500 or whatever LC is? So the result is that you usually are running 5-60 or 25-90 or something like that, which is a whole nother bottle of apples. The massive torque deficit between a 325tq 991S or GTS and a appx 450-550tq Turbo (depending on age and model) is very noticeable. For instance, the GTS launches just fine as a RWD car, but the Turbos simply wouldn't hook up as RWD only. So there is a much bigger difference in on-road use than there is in dragstrip numbers. Because of the massive torque of either a 911 Turbo or a V8 muscle car, you are able to get much closer to the dragstrip numbers on the street without an insane launch.
That said, I went in last February looking to replace the Turbo with another (991) Turbo and in the end fell in love with the naturally aspirated 911 again. To each his own of course.
2) On a long run back from our house at the shore to ATL this February in the GTS I got passed by a very brave gentleman in an unassuming black C230 or C250 entry-level MB sedan. He was running 95-105 so I stepped it up and kept him about 1/4 mile ahead on the lightly travelled interstate. A new 2015 Mustang GT 5.0 saw us and stepped out behind me. All was in harmony.
But every once in awhile the Benz would get through a rolling chicane of trucks and slow drivers and speed off into the distance, leaving me and the Mustang to catch up and close a mile or mile-and-a-half gap. We'd both nail it and run from 65 up to 115-130 till we closed the gap on the Benz. It pains me greatly to report this, but that Coyote is a hell of an engine. He could close on me till he had to back off (he was content to let me lead the way.) He couldn't close fast and the difference was tiny, but the Mustang was faster in that high-speed range our cars are supposed to dominate in. My brother had an 11 5.0 and then a 13 5.0 which I drove and I have to tell you, if they could have wrapped a car that I like around that motor I'd be a Mustang driver. It is sublime. Very revvy, too, certainly not a one-trick torque monster. I can't imagine how good the flat-plane crank model is.
Thank you so much for your response, because I think I finally get it. A lot of guys have said exactly what you said, but the way you explained it helped me to really understand.
So you're saying, yes, the C2S can kill it off the line, but it's not realistic to launch it that way very often. Someone is going to reply "you're not going to hurt it - don't be afraid to use launch control." But I get it. If you own a stock C2S you don't launch at 4-6K often - it's your baby. A muscle car, on the other hand, is no problem to launch because of the low end torque.
Next up, the C2S is fantastic in the quarter mile because there's enough distance involved for the 911 to get up to 4k where the power kicks in, and most importantly, you're going to keep it above 4k for the duration of the 1/4 mile. So if you have space, the C2S kills it. But just at a stoplight you're likely to get smoked by an American V8 because UNLESS you want to launch at 3.5-4k to get right up into the power band.
Does all that sound correct? I think I get it.
And of course with the TT none of that matters because you have instant low end torque. That's one of the reasons why the Turbo is the ultimate everyday, or grand touring car, because it's so spectacular around town. As where, the C2S really shines in the canyons or on the track. I think I get it.
It pains me greatly to report this, but that Coyote is a hell of an engine. He could close on me till he had to back off (he was content to let me lead the way.) He couldn't close fast and the difference was tiny, but the Mustang was faster in that high-speed range our cars are supposed to dominate in. My brother had an 11 5.0 and then a 13 5.0 which I drove and I have to tell you, if they could have wrapped a car that I like around that motor I'd be a Mustang driver. It is sublime. Very revvy, too, certainly not a one-trick torque monster. I can't imagine how good the flat-plane crank model is.
+1. Nothing wrong with admitting it. We had a 13 5.0 and it was an absolute beast. Even with the stock gear ratio, that thing was amazing and had endless pull.
I wouldn't have thought that the 5.0 could actually pull on a GTS, though. That's news to me (but I'm not surprised). A close friend who has an M4 wants to line up soon, so I'm looking forward to that.
I did manage to get a couple of good launches and the G-Tech showed mid 4's in the 0-60 (4.64 and 4.58) and I closed out the quarter in under 12 seconds (11.8 and 11.7).
In a C2S? None of the mags have broken 12 seconds in that car, even with a run out. Sound odd that your 0-60 was much slower than the other tests, but your 1/4 time is faster. 991.1 is a 3.7-3.9/12.1-12.2 car in pretty much every test out there.
Mustang is a decent sports car but I have a suspicion that your not operating the motor in its optimal rev range. Part of that is because your coming from a car that delivers it best performance way below redline. These engines don't wake up till beyond 6000 rpms. It may go against your better senses but dont worry your not going to break it.
Lol, I can understand your thinking this since my immediately previous car was a turbo, but that is the only break in a long succession of high revving normally aspirated small displacement sports cars, including 2 race-prepped Miatas back in the day that had to live above 6500 RPM to even have a chance on the racetrack. I am an experienced racer, both fender-to-fender when young and hipo track days of late, and former club instructor. I also only run the pdk box in manual, always, so I'm fully in charge of exactly where the tach needle is.
Not busting on you at all -- I can totally see why you'd think I was trying to make power at 4500. But alas, such was not the case.
I wouldn't have thought that the 5.0 could actually pull on a GTS, though. That's news to me (but I'm not surprised). A close friend who has an M4 wants to line up soon, so I'm looking forward to that.
You may not be surprised but I was gobsmacked when it happened three or four times in a row. I don't think my brothers 13 could have done that. This new one is slick.
When you kit 4k rpm does it throw you back in the seat? Or is it smooth? Just curious!
That's another thing I've heard sbout the 2s, better exhaust note than the turbo, especially when both are aftermarket. I'm still 99% sure I'll pursue the turbo, but trying to make the smartest decision. An older driver told me most guys get the turbo for the numbers and bragging rights. He said the 2s is a much better all around car. Especially for middle class guys like me. I really appreciated his honesty.
In my opinion you will get pushed back some, again it is not the same as strong V8 torque but it is decent and you go.
The nice thing about the Carrera S with PDK and Sport Chrono package is that you get Sport Plus mode which is very much like a manual in how it shifts and holds the engine in the upper rpm ranges . Your ability to shift the PDK with shifters on the steering wheel will also influence your driving experience.
With my experience with mustang variants, no matter how nice they were they are one trick ponys so to speak..fast enough in a straight line, sort of marginal in the curves (the new GT 350s should be better) and the interiors are kind of plain. Here is a generalization that applies to most cars..it is hard to make heavy go fast and quick as compared to light...the exception maybe being the Nissan GTR. You just can't seem to get enough wheel and tire under the Mustang to take advantage of the horsepower and overcome the weight with the fender flare provided by the factory. Corvettes and Vipers are different as they are lighter weight.
A friend had a 997 Turbo and it was lightening fast. He eventually sold it for something else but said even on the highway he never got out of 3rd gear.
If you are not going to take it to the track the Carrera S is a good combination of performance, handling, interior and fuel economy...IMO. Again go take one or 3 for a test drive and see what you like.
Lol, I can understand your thinking this since my immediately previous car was a turbo, but that is the only break in a long succession of high revving normally aspirated small displacement sports cars, including 2 race-prepped Miatas back in the day that had to live above 6500 RPM to even have a chance on the racetrack. I am an experienced racer, both fender-to-fender when young and hipo track days of late, and former club instructor. I also only run the pdk box in manual, always, so I'm fully in charge of exactly where the tach needle is.
Not busting on you at all -- I can totally see why you'd think I was trying to make power at 4500. But alas, such was not the case.
Maybe there is something wrong with your car or the Mustang wasn't stock. I find it hard to believe that a car with well over a second deficit in the quarter mile even stands a chance at higher speed.
Ive had a similar experience only the tables were reversed and the car happened to be a Nissan GTR. On paper its suppose to be faster but alas that day it lost by a good margin and did i mention I drive a 7 speed. Guess there are many variables.
It's certainly possible the mustang wasn't stock, but it was less than a-year-old. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been modified. If so it was all engine and internals, because there was no exterior mods such as wheel tire combo's or anything else.
In a C2S? None of the mags have broken 12 seconds in that car, even with a run out. Sound odd that your 0-60 was much slower than the other tests, but your 1/4 time is faster. 991.1 is a 3.7-3.9/12.1-12.2 car in pretty much every test out there.
I'm using a dash mounted G-Tech, not a track with photo, laser, and radar based sensors. The purpose of my tests was to start base lining the car so I could get a good feel for mods. Doing the same thing with lap times at the track. Once I get some consistent averages with a low standard deviation I'll accept that as a good baseline - of course getting to that point requires consistency on my part - which is a whole lot of fun
04-11-2016, 04:33 PM
).
We had a 13 5.0 and it was an absolute beast. Even with the stock gear ratio, that thing was amazing and had endless pull. 
You may not be surprised but I was gobsmacked when it happened three or four times in a row. I don't think my brothers 13 could have done that. This new one is slick.
