CanAutM3

Comparing the “best possible” tuned C2S time with the “worst” TT-S time does not make the C2S “match” the TT-S…

C&D did their 2.1 on a non-prepped surface as is their standard practice.

CodyBigdog

C&D: 2.2 second with 0.2-0.3 sec rollout deduction.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...ng-zero-to-60/

Nevertheless, there are multiple reviews that list the time at 2.6. Is that the “worst”, or just the “normal”? No mention of whether they deduct rollout, or not? But suspect not. Porsche’s own time of 2.6 sec jives with those reviews.

YOU: “Comparing the “best possible” tuned C2S time with the “worst” TT-S time does not make the C2S “match” the TT-S…”

ME: You are delusional…learn to read.

I said: “I am looking forward to seeing what the M-Engineering bump does (I am considering having this done to my car) to these times. I suspect (hope) it’s going to push close to Turbo S times. Maybe ~ 2.7-sec 0-60? “

”I hope…pushing CLOSE to turbo S times” does not “MATCH” TT-S times. Geez. 😱 Oh, and as far as I am aware, nobody’s posted any 0-60 times after the M-engineering…so that’s why I said “hope”. But with all that said….that’s just one metric, so for you to presume I mean that the M-Engineering power pump on the S would transform that car into the TT-S is way off base.

RoughRider911

I believe it does.

Based on feel, the tuned C2S won’t match the Turbo S - not even close. I’ll get the numbers soon

CodyBigdog

Dragy does both. The default is with the 1ft deduction.

Define “not even close”?

Comparing apples to apples by using the Porsche listed times (ie, the testing conditions would be the same, and not subject to variabilities from independent media sources)…. has the 0-60 times for the C4S and TT-S as 3.2 sec and 2.6 sec, respectively. Delta of 0.6 sec. Based on the HP/Torque numbers for the M-Engineering bump, I think it’s not out of the realm of possibility, that a 150HP bump could result in a 0.3 sec reduction in 0-60 times, and maybe better? So, working the numbers, and without any rollout deductions, comparing documented Porsche numbers, the C4S could post 0-60 times of ~ 2.8/2.9 sec (no rollout deduction), versus 2.6 sec for the stock TT-S.

That’s why I am anxious to see people that have this bump, post their numbers. The more numbers, from different sources, the better.

​​​​​​…and to head off the people that don’t, or can’t read - none of this should be interpreted that I am inferring that with this bump, the C4S is in the same league as the TT-S. There is no such inference.

CanAutM3

See this one

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

You’ve stated the same 2.7s for the TT-S and tuned C2S wish of yours in later posts…

But regardless, the different numbers from various sources tend to show more of a 0.7~1.0s difference between a C2S and TT-S in 0-60mph or 0-100km/h runs when tested in the same conditions. Even the official Porsche numbers on the Canadian website are consistent with this. I have a hard time believing a tune alone will be able to bring a C2S anywhere close to a TT-S. A C4S will struggle a bit less with traction, but even then. The larger turbos and ~25% greater displacement are quite significant mechanical advantages. But I guess anyone can dream.

CanAutM3

It can be set either way. When folks post the screenshot of their run, you can see it from the plot. If the time starts at 0mph, then no roll out is excluded. If the time starts at 3-5mph, then the one foot roll out was excluded

CodyBigdog

Work on your reading skills, please 🤔.

The official 0-60 times listed by Porsche (that don’t use any artificial 1ft rollout time deductions) shows:
- TT-S 2.6sec
- 4CS 3.2 sec
- 2CS 3.3 sec

The aforementioned times do not necessarily represent the fastest times, but do represent standardized/controlled measured times from Porsche, with no rollout deductions. The deltas are +0.6sec and +0.7sec, for the 4CS and 2CS, respectively, compared to the TT-s. Since the 4CS and the TT-S are both all wheel drive for better grip, looking at these two represents a better, apples to apples, comparison. Now, with the Dyno results from M-Engineering on the 2CS, that show substantial power and torque gains from stock, I don’t think it unreasonable to expect reductions in 0-60 times on the 2CS of ~0.2 sec and on the 4CS of ~0.3 sec. If that holds true, then the delta will be reduced to ~0.3 sec for the 4CS and ~0.5 sec for the 2CS. That’s a far cry from the 1.0 sec differential you mentioned 😱. But we won’t know the real dro in times, until some Rennlisters with the M-engineering tune, start posting their draggy times. Preferable a few so we can get an average. And what I hope to do is be able to post before, and after tune times.

Finally, the ONLY thing I know to be true are times that I am able to replicate, myself, over and over again. Certified times. On my 2CS, I can replicate a 0-60 time of 3.1x sec all day long (that includes the dragy 0.2 sec rollout deduction)….and coincidentally, if I leave that off to get the true time, that takes me back to what Porsche publishes for my car, 3.3 sec. So I have some consistency, and it all makes sense. C&D has my C2S @2.9sec (with rollout deduction), but I highly doubt I will ever be able to replicate that before getting the tune.

Love to see your certified draggy report showing 2.1 sec?

As far as what some publications post…well, I doubt any of us will see these numbers replicated on their dragy….maybe not?? Maybe why many layperson runs on YouTube of the 992 TT-S measure the 0-60 times around ~ 2.6 sec, and not 2.1sec?

RoughRider911

I think 2.8-2.9 is reasonable to assume (again, we’ll find out soon). I still don’t consider that close, but as the below poster said, the difference between the tuned CS’s and the larger displacement Turbo S will really show in the 60-130 times. That said, all those who end up going the m-engineering route won’t be disappointed. The eagerness the car has changed quite drastically - I’d just like the torque of a 3.8.

CanAutM3

Hmmm….
And there’s no need to get insulting or make personal attacks…



From the Porsche USA website:





I don’t believe I’ll ever get close to a 2.1 with my base turbo, a 70hp deficit is quite substantial. But I did achieve a few 2.4s 0-60mph runs excluding the 1-foot roll out. For reference, the best 0-100km/h I did without excluding a rollout was a 2.7 (0.1s better than the Porsche claimed time for the TT and matching the TT-S Porsche claimed time). I believe it is also relevant to point out here that to achieve the best times in a turbo, PSM needs to be switched off. Many folks test their cars with PSM fully on or in PSM-Sport. Matt in the CarWOW video you posted also had PSM activated. Even PSM-Sport may limit slip too much for optimal times. The best 0-60 I achieved with PSM-Sport is a 2.6 (excl. 1-foot rollout), so PSM-Sport cost me 0.2s. I did not take screenshots of my runs, but I’ll attempt some other runs when the summer tires are back on.

CodyBigdog

I said “please”. 👍 Nevertheless, I will continue to say, “Learn to read”, so long as you continue to mis-quote what I said.

On the Porsche USA web site, look under technical and then performance…and you will see that the 4CS is listed at 3.2 sec and the 2CS is listed at 3.3 sec. Oh, and since I try to make an apples to apples comparison, all these numbers are with the chrono sports package + PDK. The TTS numbers you quote are measured with those, so the same rule applies to all comparisons). This should go without saying. Geez.

As a side note, my dragy times, excluding the rollout deduction, is SPOT on to what Porsche gives for my 0-60mph times, of 3.3 sec. Can I do better? I suspect I can with just the right conditions. With the rollout deduction (because this is what people like to compare), I have pulled 3.11, 3.10 and recently, 3.09 sec. All within the dragy quoted margin of error of 0.03 sec. But if I do what C&D (and others do), by truncating the number in the 100th decimal place…I end up 3.0 sec as my best (2CS, with sports chrono and PDK). Just tricks with numbers. But I’m happy to see that my pulls are exactly what Porsche claims they should be.

Yes, my “guesstimate” for the M-Engineering power bumped Carrera could be “2.6/2.7 sec”…so what? I clearly state, without any numbers, it’s only a guess/estimate. I arrived at the estimate from the Porsche official number of 3.2 /3.3sec (non-rollout deduction numbers), then I did the roll out number deduction (because that is the number that people seem to compare), and you are already at 2.9 sec…then, it seems a reasonable to assume that the significant power and torque bumps, could result in another 0.2-0.3 sec 0-60 time reduction. But even without the roll-out deduction, I will not be surprised if the Dragy time for the M-engineering power bump comes in at around 2.9 sec, which is only +0.3 sec higher than what Porsche lists for the TT-S, 2.6 sec (also with no roll-out deduction): https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/9...s/911-turbo-s/

But if you don’t like these higher numbers that Porsche uses in their own literature for the TT-S, then I suggest you take it up with them. I’ve never claimed that the Porsche numbers were the absolute best, just that they are useful to use, in that they provide some commonality in source, when making comparisons. I’m simply trying to do an apples to apples comparison by using numbers from the same source (ie, Porsche) for all the cars in the comparison.


Highly unlikely to think that PSM activated, or not, will make a 0.4-0.5 sec difference on the 0-60 times, ie, from the two two videos I linked that have the TT-S at 2.6x and the C&D time of 2.1 (or 2.2 sec).

Porsche has your car, ie. Non S TT, at 2.7 sec, with the sports chrono package + PDK. Let’s see the qualified Dragy times? Thanks, in advance.

CodyBigdog

If you reach 2.8-2.9 without the roll-out deduction, I would consider that “close” to the official, Porsche number for the TT-S of 2.6 sec, also without the rollout fudge factor deduction. Apples to apples…although unless you are comparing the 4CS to the TT-S, there is a difference on how effective the grip is, with a 2CS comparison.

I do agree with your statement about the 60-130 times. Please note that I have only mentioned 0-60 times, as the TT-S will truly shine at higher speeds. I get that.

To be very honest, I am surprised, if not disappointed that the M-Enginerring folk, or at least some of their customers haven’t posted time improvements….for any speeds?? I’ve looked and all I see are the HP/Torque numbers. While that’s all good, the real proof - for me - is how that translates into time improvements…any time improvements, at any speed.

As a side note, I probably won’t be interested in doing a power bump if there’s only minimal improvements in time - any times? “Minimal” for me means 0.1 sec or less…ie, comparable to the GTS times. Years ago I did a Dinan power bump on my M4. Only recently, after getting my Dragy, was I able to quantify what the additional power did to my times (as gleamed from car reviews on my car that didn’t have the Dinan).

Go Bruins

Exactly! Nor can most people tell the difference between a TTS and a Cayman. I was at PEC-LA recently, and a lot of people there (spectators and drivers alike) got them confused repeatedly.

CodyBigdog

That’s surprising. I never considered myself a Porsche-file, but the TT was always easy to spot, for me, at least. . I guess some people could confuse the cayman from the TTS because of the rear scoop? That said, I de-badge all my cars, including the PORSCHE, and I defy even a Porsche fan to determine whether my car is a GTS or base Carrera?

When I lived in SoCal, I was very big into street racing. Not as a participant, but as a spectator. Very popular spectator sport in a number of states/locales in Cal and Texas. That said, a month doesn’t go by, today (in my Porsche) where someone doesn’t want to race me…,and i don’t live in a state where street racing is a big thing. I hope, soon, to take my car to the track, but realistically, the nearest track is several hours away (maybe 4.5-5 hrs round trip), I have to have the car inspected before I track, etc….I honestly can’t see me committing this amount of time and effort more than a few times, each year, if that.

AlterZgo

A 992 turbo S is ridiculously quick and would still be noticeably quicker than a tuned 992 S/4S. That extra .8 liters of displacement and larger turbos makes a huge difference that a tune cannot make up. You’d need a turbo upgrade to get anywhere close to a stock Turbo S.

Here’s a video of a tuned 992 C4S w/ stage 1, downpipes and Akrapovic exhaust vs a stock 2014 991.1 Turbo S. Note that this 2 generation old Turbo S still walks the tuned C4S handily. A 992 Turbo S would demolish this tuned 992 C4S:

CanAutM3

Where did I ever state that PSM has a 0.5s impact? My limited personal experimentation gave me 0.2s difference. From the CarWOW video you reference, IIRC, Matt achieved a 2.55s run without the one foot rollout. So deduct -0.2s for the rollout and another -0.2s for PSM interference and you’re right at that 2.1-2.2s bracket.

I find it interesting that you discount the C&D TT-S times as being “unachievable by normal folks”, yet, you consider the best C&D C2S time as a reference. Confirmation bias maybe?

In truth, 0-60mph/0-100km/h times do not matter much to me. I just tested my car when I got it out of curiosity. I’d much rather be on a road course, that’s where my hobby resides. That being said, I might still go out and do some runs just to see the impact of the PSC2.