TheStanman

Car and Driver posted their instrumented test of the 992. Good performance all around.

C/D TEST RESULTS
Zero to 60 mph: 3.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 7.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 12.4 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.2 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.3 sec @ 125 mph
Top speed (drag limited, mfr's claim): 191 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 140 ft

SamD

How could a rolling start 5-60 mph take almost half again longer than from a dead stop?

iliveoncaffiene

Rolling start you're not in boost and not revved up like you would be with a launch control start.

pelucidor

Here is the actual C&D review. In it they mention why rolling start is 1.2 secs slower (4.2 vs 3.0) than launch control for 0-60mph. Also note it is a German spec 992 S being tested.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/

dkhm3

Hmm, my 991.2 c2s 5-60 is 3.9 sec... C and D numbers.

Chris3963

Also, you need to keep in mind that the US is unique in how it records 0-60 times. The time is not from a complete dead stop.

Rather, it allows for a 1 foot rollout which the ROW does not. This adds at least 0.3-0.5 of a second to the 0-60 time. If the time was genuinely recorded from a dead stop then it would be more like 3.3-3.5 secs.

stealthpilot

I checked this out and you are right. I thought it was just motortrend that did that, but it seems all US publications do that. Seems like cheating. with foot you are probably testing 5-60

subshooter

I'm amused at how they refer to the 991.2 GTS as "the old GTS". lol

Valvefloat991

This is done so that the quarter-mile times match what you would get a drag strip, where you get about a foot of rollout from the staging lights. Once you start using the rollout for the quarter-mile, you have to use it for everything to avoid any inconsistencies.

Europeans don't care about this because they don't have any drag strip heritage.

5-60 rolling start was developed to simulate a more real-world launch because few owners are willing to perform the 6000-rpm clutch drops that used to be required to extract maximum acceleration from older Porsches on the street. Developing a more moderate clutch drop that could be replicated consistently proved impossible, so the solution was to put the car in first gear, drive at a steady 5 mph, and then go full throttle and shift for maximum performance until 60.

chance6

Indeed, rolling start is meant to simulate 'real world' acceleration, which sometimes can expose a turbo heavy engine...

not4one

Confused. How would the foot of rollout better replicate 0-60 if, presumably, you can’t use the launch control while rolling? Or, can you use LC by letting off the brake only slightly for that first foot? Need help understanding.

chuckbdc

So much expertise, so much confusion.

Valvefloat991

Precisely. According to Car and Driver tests, the 991.2 GTS 0-60 (with the rollout) measured 3.4 seconds, while the 5-60 rolling start was 4.6 seconds.

Meanwhile, a C7 Corvette with the automatic did 0-60 in 3.7, while the 5-60 rolling start was only slightly slower at 3.9 seconds.

This, of course, is the worst case comparison, turbo/manual versus big NA V-8/auto. But it shows than any idiot can get the Corvette under 4.0 seconds by simply mashing the throttle to the floor. Achieving a similar time with the GT manual requires a degree of clutch slip and speedy shifting that might be beyond the abilities of willingness of many drivers.

chance6

Yep, one should look at the delta between 0-60 and 5-60 rollout and really decide which is more applicable to what they want. I think the 991.1 GTS PDK had 3.6 sec 0-60 and the 5-60 rollout was 4.2 sec.

not4one

Wait, aren't the "5-60", and the "0-60 with one foot of rollout" two different things? And isn't 5-60, simply 5-60 (i.e accelerating from a constant 5, then flooring it up to 60, without a so-called rollout)? Either wires are crossed here, or I'm totally confused, which is entirely possible.