surquhar

Dewinator has no clue about ET's, Drag Racing, or anything about turbo cars. Kinda funny to watch. He/She should concede to that fact.

Dewinator

Thanks, just a C2S... it is amazing how fast the .2 has gotten across the range from the C2 to the GT3 and Turbo S.

R_Rated

I'd expect much higher traps for close to 100 extra bhp - that was one of my data points for questioning the tune. Maybe it gets off the line slower with a computer struggling to manage the newfound power.... but once the car gets rolling - trap speed is a big indicator of power. 991.1 C2S can trap 120 and a little change...

9914s

Do you have a slip from a track with a base.2?

R_Rated

It's not. Debatable aROUND a track but a GTS 3.8 traps much higher.

Valvefloat991

Road & Track tested a 991.1 C2 GTS M7 in 2015 and it ran 12.3 at 116 mph.
Car and Driver tested a 991.2 C2 M7 last year and it went 12.4 at 117 mph.

With PDK, C/D ran a 991.1 C2 GTS at 11.9 at 118.
A 991.2 C2 PDK went 11.9 at 118.

I'd say the two cars have the same performance. Even if you compare the acceleration to 150 mph, they're essentially the same. However, the earlier GTS does have 6-7 mph higher top speed.

9914s

Can we please stop quoting magazines times. Take your car to the track and then post the slip.

Valvefloat991

One more thing for historical perspective, the above performance is about what a 993 Turbo could do.

C/D tested one in 1995 and it ran 12.3 at 114 mph.

These figures suggest that a base 991.2 is making close to 400 hp in addition to its copious torque.

Valvefloat991

What do you have against magazine times? They are hardly perfect. But compared with random drivers of unknown ability and varying willingness to flog their personal cars, running at different drag strips with variable traction and a complete lack of correction for atmospheric conditions, magazines times represent the most consistent data we have.

9914s

Take your car to the track and try to match the magazine time and you will see what I mean. People are always quick to say my car runs this or does that because they read it on a magazine. Not real, take your car to the track and see what it runs. Yes you are correct we can't compare different track because weather and elevation make a big difference but it's the only war to truly know how fast or quick your car is.

Valvefloat991

I understand your points, but the problem with the track is a lack of traction. The typical drag strip surface, slathering with traction compound, works very well with racing slicks, heated up by burnouts. However, on cold street tires, the surface is very slippery.

Clean concrete, which is the typical surface used for magazine tests--and which more closely resembles the real world--is much grippier.

That's why matching magazine times at a drag strip is virtually impossible.

R_Rated

Boosted cars will have even more variation...

Take a turbo car and comparing in Denver vs Atlanta for example. Climate and altitude alone will make a >10% power deviation.

Dude174

I thought it was the opposite since turbos make their own atmosphere so to speak. At least in the old turbo/NA F1 days the Cosworth V8 drivers complained about high altitude tracks....

R_Rated

Turbos love high altituide. NA engines struggle to breathe in thinner air.

Ira Blumberg

Sorry, but this is incorrect.


While altitude does have some impact on turbo performance, properly implemented turbos are designed specifically to avoid performance loss at higher altitudes. Turbos were first invented to allow piston engine airplanes to fly at higher altitudes when NA engines simply could not draw in enough oxygen to produce adequate power.


Thus, NA cars will show far more variation in runs in Denver vs. Atlanta than will turbo cars.