991 Straight Line
04-11-2016, 08:15 PM
#31
04-11-2016, 08:52 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
I might take my C4s to the track in two weeks to get the real 1/4 numbers. (Manual)
Last edited by 9914s; 04-11-2016 at 09:50 PM.
04-11-2016, 09:29 PM
#33
Banned
Another possibility may be the fuel you may have used. These engines require only the highest octane avaible and a small drop in octane well set the engine back 20% if any knock is detected. One only needs to see the GTS dyno charts posted on the COBB website with 91 octane. As an example of power loss. Believe me. Stock for stock there is no way in the world that a Mustang has any chance.
04-11-2016, 09:52 PM
#34
04-11-2016, 11:26 PM
#35
The implication is that the cinematic stunt-driving would be applied to a bank-heist scene in narrow Italian streets. A series of fast, tight corners with the power oversteer of the heavy, sloppy American metal can undulate into pendulum-like behavior of the rear of the car with some resultant tank-slapping, wherein you hit a rear quarter-panel against something, but not hard enough to disable the car. It's a rally thing you might experience in a bunch of tight 2's and 3's on a downhill off-camber slippery, cliffside stage. Don't ask how I know.
PS - don't misunderstand me on the 'merican metal. It's fun. I am more into precise, but big 'n' sloppy can be fun.
04-12-2016, 10:22 AM
#36
Rennlist Member
I had a 2015 Z06 which pulled like crazy, almost scary fast as the rear broke loose every time. I now have a base 911 which I really need to wind out to get it moving, not a bad thing but feels much slower than a Z06. I took a 991.2S out yesterday and loved it. Low end torque is great, car was very quick and controllable. We have a Audi A6 3.0 which is quick as well but it jumps real fast where as the 991.2 was a more controllable sprint.
Eric
Eric
04-12-2016, 11:04 AM
#37
Race Director
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.
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.
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.
Maybe a super charger. Very common in the Mustang world. A very good friend once installed a 100 hp nos kit on a week old mustang so anything is possible.
Another possibility may be the fuel you may have used. These engines require only the highest octane avaible and a small drop in octane well set the engine back 20% if any knock is detected. One only needs to see the GTS dyno charts posted on the COBB website with 91 octane. As an example of power loss. Believe me. Stock for stock there is no way in the world that a Mustang has any chance.
Another possibility may be the fuel you may have used. These engines require only the highest octane avaible and a small drop in octane well set the engine back 20% if any knock is detected. One only needs to see the GTS dyno charts posted on the COBB website with 91 octane. As an example of power loss. Believe me. Stock for stock there is no way in the world that a Mustang has any chance.
Also, nice that your street car doesn't make any power under 6000rpm. Sounds like fun
04-12-2016, 11:36 AM
#38
Banned
04-12-2016, 12:49 PM
#39
Race Director
04-12-2016, 01:50 PM
#40
Drifting
Well, to be fair, I looked up the 2015 Mustang and C&D (notoriously fast testers) got 4.5 and 13.0@113, vs, 4.0 and 12.4@116 for a 2014 Carrera S.
So in those two contests the difference in favor of the stock 911 (non-GTS) over the stock Mustang is great enough that it overrides the fact they weren't involved in the same test on the same day.
However, 65-115 is a different beast. Three things make the Porsches better equipped for a 0-whatever drag race:
1) rear-engined traction advantage
2) several hundred pounds lighter weight
3) PDK shifts faster
In a 65-115 you have no traction advantage because neither car is in danger of losing traction at full throttle; lighter weight is still a factor but it's smaller because of the fact both cars are already rolling at significant speed and now horsepower and wind drag is a greater determinant of acceleration; I'm sure I shifted during those runs but probably only once, compared to twice or three times in the accel runs.
So I'm not throwing out the possibility that a stock car with the same hp and 75 more torks could slightly outrun the 911 during that set of circumstances.
So in those two contests the difference in favor of the stock 911 (non-GTS) over the stock Mustang is great enough that it overrides the fact they weren't involved in the same test on the same day.
However, 65-115 is a different beast. Three things make the Porsches better equipped for a 0-whatever drag race:
1) rear-engined traction advantage
2) several hundred pounds lighter weight
3) PDK shifts faster
In a 65-115 you have no traction advantage because neither car is in danger of losing traction at full throttle; lighter weight is still a factor but it's smaller because of the fact both cars are already rolling at significant speed and now horsepower and wind drag is a greater determinant of acceleration; I'm sure I shifted during those runs but probably only once, compared to twice or three times in the accel runs.
So I'm not throwing out the possibility that a stock car with the same hp and 75 more torks could slightly outrun the 911 during that set of circumstances.
04-12-2016, 01:56 PM
#41
Pro
Thread Starter
I had a 2015 Z06 which pulled like crazy, almost scary fast as the rear broke loose every time. I now have a base 911 which I really need to wind out to get it moving, not a bad thing but feels much slower than a Z06. I took a 991.2S out yesterday and loved it. Low end torque is great, car was very quick and controllable. We have a Audi A6 3.0 which is quick as well but it jumps real fast where as the 991.2 was a more controllable sprint.
Eric
Eric
04-12-2016, 03:01 PM
#42
Race Director
Well, to be fair, I looked up the 2015 Mustang and C&D (notoriously fast testers) got 4.5 and 13.0@113, vs, 4.0 and 12.4@116 for a 2014 Carrera S.
So in those two contests the difference in favor of the stock 911 (non-GTS) over the stock Mustang is great enough that it overrides the fact they weren't involved in the same test on the same day.
However, 65-115 is a different beast. Three things make the Porsches better equipped for a 0-whatever drag race:
1) rear-engined traction advantage
2) several hundred pounds lighter weight
3) PDK shifts faster
In a 65-115 you have no traction advantage because neither car is in danger of losing traction at full throttle; lighter weight is still a factor but it's smaller because of the fact both cars are already rolling at significant speed and now horsepower and wind drag is a greater determinant of acceleration; I'm sure I shifted during those runs but probably only once, compared to twice or three times in the accel runs.
So I'm not throwing out the possibility that a stock car with the same hp and 75 more torks could slightly outrun the 911 during that set of circumstances.
So in those two contests the difference in favor of the stock 911 (non-GTS) over the stock Mustang is great enough that it overrides the fact they weren't involved in the same test on the same day.
However, 65-115 is a different beast. Three things make the Porsches better equipped for a 0-whatever drag race:
1) rear-engined traction advantage
2) several hundred pounds lighter weight
3) PDK shifts faster
In a 65-115 you have no traction advantage because neither car is in danger of losing traction at full throttle; lighter weight is still a factor but it's smaller because of the fact both cars are already rolling at significant speed and now horsepower and wind drag is a greater determinant of acceleration; I'm sure I shifted during those runs but probably only once, compared to twice or three times in the accel runs.
So I'm not throwing out the possibility that a stock car with the same hp and 75 more torks could slightly outrun the 911 during that set of circumstances.
In-gear acceleration, especially at higher speeds, has a lot to do with pure horsepower, and in this case, they are pretty evenly matched.
04-12-2016, 03:09 PM
#43
Since R&T tested 3.5/11.8 on the 2012.5S, I would think the true tested figures should come out lower than that once the mags are able to do their instrumented tests.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...911-carrera-s/
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...911-carrera-s/
04-12-2016, 03:39 PM
#44
Pro
Thread Starter
I know one youtuber who does all his reviews at high elevation in the cold, he's usually a full second slower than anyone else on his 0-60 measurements. Is it possible R&T just had the perfect conditions? Maybe they were paid off haha
04-12-2016, 03:51 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
FWIW, my 2013 7MT Carrera S has done 0-60 in 4.3.
BMW m4 with DCT is capable of 3.9 but only with warm tires and road, it's likely going sideways if you don't use launch control.
BMW m4 with DCT is capable of 3.9 but only with warm tires and road, it's likely going sideways if you don't use launch control.