babern

I just read the car & driver and motortrend reviews on the 991.2 targa and both said their testing indicated a 0-60 time of 3.3 seconds in a 4s with pdk and sport chrono. This seems to be much faster than the 3.8sec listed by porsche.

Does porsche notably publish conservative numbers or what?

Anyone with a targa have any commentary about these cars being THAT quick!

chuckbdc

There are so many varables across road tests - such as performance map selected fuel quality, ambient temperature, engine temperature, road surface, tire inflation pressure, test equipment- that such small differences are common, even from day to day tests.

Porsche knows that. I would guess that they pick a number based onreality taking account of advertising value and possibly a desire to not have naive customers disappointed.

Hurricane

Yes, Porsche is always conservative with it's performance numbers. Magazines nearly always beat those numbers.

And 3.3 seconds in a 4S, even a Targa, is insanely fast. Very impressive!

Archimedes

Porsche is always conservative and they also likely don't use the one foot rollout the mags use in their tests.

Valvefloat991

The better magazines do strive for some consistency. They typically test at factory spec tire pressure, full tank of premium fuel, and select the highest performance drive setting, though that usually doesn't make much difference at full throttle.

The biggest difference is the rollout. In order to come closer to the times one might get a drag strip, the magazines program a rollout of one foot. That means the clock doesn't start until the car has traveled a foot. A hard accelerating car achieves 3-5 mph in that foot, which is covered in 2-3 tenths of a second. That means that the published zero to 60 is more like a 3-60 mph time, and that accounts for a few tenths of the improvement over the factory claims.

The rest of it is probably Porsche conservatism.

surquhar

Just subtract one full second off of the 991.1 Targa time.

JCtx

Nobody mentioned CORRECTION factors. Remember almost everybody 'corrects' their figures to some ideal crap (sea level, 68ºF, perfect air density, etc... something you'll NEVER find in real life). And those corrections can be quite optimistic. And yes, if you quote 0-60, it should be 0-60, not with the foot rollout crap, meaning 3-60, or whatever. That's why I never pay attention to those statistics. Oh, and many times the surface gets prepped as well, making that great '0'-60 time even more unrealistic.

LehmanZ06

Porsche quotes inaccurate figures. Actual cars are MUCH faster.
They do this maybe for insurance reasons ? and possibly to sell you a faster car ?

Archimedes

Totally disagree, as what matters to me is how quickly the car feels after it starts to move. And as long as the testing is consistently applied, it really doesn't matter, as you're comparing apples to apples and it's independent of the manufacturers, which is key IMO.

The number that shocks me is the comparison of the .1 C2S with the .2. The .2 is .7 seconds quicker to 60. .7 seconds! That's a huge difference.

JCtx

THAT is the problem right there. Everybody does it differently, use different correction factors, launching methods, surfaces, tire pressures, etc, etc. Unless you compare cars from the same publication (and even that is not apples to apples many times, since testing conditions change a lot, especially in different seasons), it's irrelevant. If a publication wants to use a foot rollout, I wouldn't mind as long as they also publish the 0-60 time. Bottom line is unless the same person is comparing the cars you're interested in at the same time, numbers are mostly going to be irrelevant. I wouldn't make a decision on buying a car based on that. Finally, it depends what you want in a car. I personally HATE a turbo AND AWD in a sports car, so would never consider one with either of those (or both) ever again (had a new GTR, to give them a try), even when they're obviously quicker off the line due to higher low-end torque and/or traction. But it's an artificial power curve. Much rather have the finesse of linear throttle control than peak torque at less than 2K rpm. To each his own though. Nothing like a proper test drive; numbers be damned. If you live in Denver, you'll never see anything remotely close to a published number. And a NA engine might feel more lethargic at altitude than what numbers suggest, since as I said, they're always manipulated to reflect ideal conditions (sea level, etc). Have a good one.

falco1098

Given all of that, the best factor I find is the 1/4 trap speed. This let's you really know how fast a car is and takes away the advantages of a perfect launch and 4wd and rollout. Perfect example is the S6 that c&d compared to the M5 and E63. With awd and a great LC the s6 runs 60 3.8, 1/4 12.1@115. M5 3.7, 11.9@123 and E63 3.8, 12.0@124.

Looking at 0-60 and 1/4 ETs make you think the S6 is as fast as the other 2 but the trap speed tells a different story. S6 is a blazing quick 60ft but it doesn't maintain the acceleration force like the other 2.

Trap combined with 5-60 can really give you a better idea for performance over the headline 0-60 times.

That said, while the targa 4s is 0-60 in 3.3s better to look at its 4.3 5-60 and 119 trap.

Valvefloat991

Corrections to standard temperature and pressure (seal level at 60 degrees) add a measure of consistency to the test results and are hardly unrealistic. Anyone who lives in non-mountain country and experiences winter sees such conditions and even denser air for much of the year.

The rollout is perhaps obsolete, but it is included so that there is no inconsistency between the quarter-mile times and the times to speed. In other words, if a car, using the rollout achieved a quarter mile time of 13.0 seconds at 110 mph, then the zero to 110 time, without the rollout would likely be 13.3 seconds. I think most people would be confused by that apparent difference.

At least Road & Track the rollout times, I think.

bkrantz

Or Porsche is conservative in claimed hp/torque and 0 to 60 times to avoid lawsuits by disappointed owners (see Tesla in Norway).

kouzman

Cars are substantially fastet with a seasoned driver.

I was running consistently 12.0-12.1 quarter miles with my 997.2 4S at 114-115 mph with just an AWE x pipe... i never saw a magazine or Porsche getting even closer to that. The best publicized time was an 11.6 if i remember correctly. And i high doubt that the x pipe gave me 0.5 second improvement!

P-car fan

I ran a 11.5@120 the very first time down the 1/4 track in my 991.2 C2S PDK, which is right in line with Motor Trend and they did 0-60 in 3.2 on the same run.
So I'd say your 4S is at least 3.3