Road test 993 Turbo S 450PS
02-16-2007, 06:24 AM
#31
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
"300PS 996 at ~1470kg takes 25.2s 0-150mph"
Are you absolutely sure about these numbers? I find it difficult to believe that the 996 with 300 hp will do 0-150 mph only one second slower than the 993TT with 408 hp (25.2 secs vis 24.2 secs)
Are you absolutely sure about these numbers? I find it difficult to believe that the 996 with 300 hp will do 0-150 mph only one second slower than the 993TT with 408 hp (25.2 secs vis 24.2 secs)
Can you see the article I took the time to scan in for you ? You recognise the format ? It is Autocar.......
The numbers all flow right so it is not a typo - just an exceptionally quick test car with low weight (the early ones were lighter) with a healthy Porsche 300PS and a narrow very slippery 996 unspoilered body !
Here is the full page:
02-16-2007, 07:48 AM
#32
Now, don’t get your knickers in a twist...
The simple answer is that one of these 0-150 tests is flawed. Here’s the logic:
996 0-200 kph 300 hp, weight 1,400 kgs
Test 1 Sport Auto 17.9 secs
Test 2 AMS 19.3 secs
Average 18.6 secs
993TT 0-200 kph 408 hp, weight 1,504 kgs
Test 1 Sport Auto 16.8 secs
Test 2 AMS 15.1 secs
Average 16 secs
Therefore, according to your figures (124 mph=200 kmh)
For 0 - 150 mph
996 needs 25.2secs therefore 124-150 mph in 6.6 secs
993 TT needs 24.2 secs therefore 124-150 mph in 8.3 secs
According to your data, the weaker car - the 996 – does the 124-150 mph distance nearly 2 seconds quicker than the 993TT. When it’s known that power is critical at precisely these speeds. Simply not possible. One of these tests is flawed.
The 993TTS with another 42 hp but also an extra passenger (more weight), shaves 2.1 seconds off the 993TT 0-150 time (22.1 vis 24.2 secs). But the 996, being 108 hp down on the 993TT, is only 1 second slower? Makes absolutely no sense.
Since the 993 non vario needs 41.5 secs for 0-150 mph (nearly 16 seconds slower than the 996) being similar in weight to the 996 and only 27 hp down in power, it stands to reason that it’s the 996 Autocar test that’s flawed. The 996 figures are just too good to be true.
Cynical? Perhaps.
The simple answer is that one of these 0-150 tests is flawed. Here’s the logic:
996 0-200 kph 300 hp, weight 1,400 kgs
Test 1 Sport Auto 17.9 secs
Test 2 AMS 19.3 secs
Average 18.6 secs
993TT 0-200 kph 408 hp, weight 1,504 kgs
Test 1 Sport Auto 16.8 secs
Test 2 AMS 15.1 secs
Average 16 secs
Therefore, according to your figures (124 mph=200 kmh)
For 0 - 150 mph
996 needs 25.2secs therefore 124-150 mph in 6.6 secs
993 TT needs 24.2 secs therefore 124-150 mph in 8.3 secs
According to your data, the weaker car - the 996 – does the 124-150 mph distance nearly 2 seconds quicker than the 993TT. When it’s known that power is critical at precisely these speeds. Simply not possible. One of these tests is flawed.
The 993TTS with another 42 hp but also an extra passenger (more weight), shaves 2.1 seconds off the 993TT 0-150 time (22.1 vis 24.2 secs). But the 996, being 108 hp down on the 993TT, is only 1 second slower? Makes absolutely no sense.
Since the 993 non vario needs 41.5 secs for 0-150 mph (nearly 16 seconds slower than the 996) being similar in weight to the 996 and only 27 hp down in power, it stands to reason that it’s the 996 Autocar test that’s flawed. The 996 figures are just too good to be true.
Cynical? Perhaps.
Last edited by AVoyvoda; 02-16-2007 at 08:05 AM.
02-16-2007, 08:17 AM
#33
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
Now, don’t get your knickers in a twist...
The simple answer is that one of these 0-150 tests is flawed. Here’s the logic:
996 0-200 kph 300 hp, weight 1,400 kgs
Test 1 Sport Auto 17.9 secs
Test 2 AMS 19.3 secs
Average 18.6 secs
993TT 0-200 kph 408 hp, weight 1,504 kgs
Test 1 Sport Auto 16.8 secs
Test 2 AMS 15.1 secs
Average 16 secs
Therefore, according to your figures (124 mph=200 kmh)
For 0 - 150 mph
996 needs 25.2secs therefore 124-150 mph in 6.6 secs
993 TT needs 24.2 secs therefore 124-150 mph in 8.3 secs
According to your data, the weaker car - the 996 – does the 124-150 mph distance nearly 2 seconds quicker than the 993TT. When it’s known that power is critical at precisely these speeds. Simply not possible. One of these tests is flawed.
Since the 993 non vario needs 41.5 secs for 0-150 mph (nearly 16 seconds slower than the 996) being similar in weight to the 996 and only 27 hp down in power, it stands to reason that it’s the 996 Autocar test that’s flawed. The 996 figures are just too good to be true.
Cynical? Perhaps.
The simple answer is that one of these 0-150 tests is flawed. Here’s the logic:
996 0-200 kph 300 hp, weight 1,400 kgs
Test 1 Sport Auto 17.9 secs
Test 2 AMS 19.3 secs
Average 18.6 secs
993TT 0-200 kph 408 hp, weight 1,504 kgs
Test 1 Sport Auto 16.8 secs
Test 2 AMS 15.1 secs
Average 16 secs
Therefore, according to your figures (124 mph=200 kmh)
For 0 - 150 mph
996 needs 25.2secs therefore 124-150 mph in 6.6 secs
993 TT needs 24.2 secs therefore 124-150 mph in 8.3 secs
According to your data, the weaker car - the 996 – does the 124-150 mph distance nearly 2 seconds quicker than the 993TT. When it’s known that power is critical at precisely these speeds. Simply not possible. One of these tests is flawed.
Since the 993 non vario needs 41.5 secs for 0-150 mph (nearly 16 seconds slower than the 996) being similar in weight to the 996 and only 27 hp down in power, it stands to reason that it’s the 996 Autocar test that’s flawed. The 996 figures are just too good to be true.
Cynical? Perhaps.
Think 17" wheel with small tyres, no sunroof, no aircon - quite probably the Autocar test car's kerbweight was close to the 1320kg quoted -this puts it at least 80kg lighter than the other 996s whose numbers you quote above.
The weight makes a massive difference - in pure power to weight terms the 1320kg car has the equivalent of a 320hp (real Porsche hp) engine compared to the 1400kg 996.
These are narrow bodied 996s - way off comparing to 993s.
02-16-2007, 09:48 AM
#34
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At 120/150 mph aerodynamic drag is starting to become significant and will affect the acceleration numbers . Perhaps using the 150 mph time is becoming misleading as a power assesment ?
There certainly seems to be something odd happening here. Very interesting thread !
Geoff
There certainly seems to be something odd happening here. Very interesting thread !
Geoff
02-16-2007, 10:07 AM
#35
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
One other thing worth mentioning re the 996 test - it does 153 in 5th gear so there is one less gearchange to factor in against the 993/993tt - that is worth up to 0.5s 
02-16-2007, 10:58 AM
#36
All that you say TB993tt make perfect sense - except the "smaller wheels", don't see what real difference they would make - and I don't want to start an argument. It's just that the comparisons (even after the extra gear change and wider wheel arches of the TT) make little sense.
If these numbers were indeed true, then the best advice to a TT owner, is get rid of the turbo - right now - and buy a late model na 996, that's got even more power (320hp, vis the 300hp tested) and is, presumably, even faster. Cause, if 42hp results in a 2.1 sec improvement - as we have seen - then 20 hp would cut 1 second off the 996 time and presto: the 996 is as fast as the 993TT at 0-150 mph. Not possible.
If these numbers were indeed true, then the best advice to a TT owner, is get rid of the turbo - right now - and buy a late model na 996, that's got even more power (320hp, vis the 300hp tested) and is, presumably, even faster. Cause, if 42hp results in a 2.1 sec improvement - as we have seen - then 20 hp would cut 1 second off the 996 time and presto: the 996 is as fast as the 993TT at 0-150 mph. Not possible.
02-16-2007, 11:54 AM
#37
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
All that you say TB993tt make perfect sense - except the "smaller wheels", don't see what real difference they would make
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
- and I don't want to start an argument. It's just that the comparisons (even after the extra gear change and wider wheel arches of the TT) make little sense.
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
If these numbers were indeed true, then the best advice to a TT owner, is get rid of the turbo - right now - and buy a late model na 996
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
, that's got even more power (320hp, vis the 300hp tested) and is, presumably, even faster. Cause, if 42hp results in a 2.1 sec improvement - as we have seen - then 20 hp would cut 1 second off the 996 time and presto: the 996 is as fast as the 993TT at 0-150 mph. Not possible.
The narrow 996 C2s are fast cars to 150mph no doubt, check the numbers on the web,http://www.einszweidrei.de/
the 1451kg 320hp one tested in '03 beats the lightweight one in the above test to 160kph and matches it to 200kph so presumably at least matches it to 150mph !
Read what Red Rooster wrote above the 996 has a CdA of 0.582 compared to a tts 0.656
Edit: another thing worth considering is at 150mph 2 seconds represents 134metres
Last edited by TB993tt; 02-16-2007 at 01:38 PM.
02-16-2007, 01:37 PM
#38
Thanks for making my point! 0-200 kph for the second generation 996 (with 320hp) is 16.8 secs, nearly two secs faster than the first gen 300 hp 996, even after carrying an extra 68 extra kilos in weight (1,459 kgs vis 1,401 kgs). So, notwithstanding the extra weight, 20 more hp equals 2 seconds faster (16.8 vis 18.6 secs).
Since 20 hp means two seconds faster, take 2 seconds off the first gen 996 0-150mph time as tested by Autocar, and it becomes 23.2 seconds. Faster than the 993 TTT (24.2 secs) and not far off the 993 TTS (22.1 secs).
As you know, it’s easy to lose 80 kgs from the overall weight of a standard car. All you really need is a virtually empty fuel tank and some buckets. The 1,320kg “as tested” weight isn’t too different from the quoted DIN weight of the “normal” first generation 996 that assumes a full fuel tank and standard seats.
In summary then, your argument boils down to this:
That a second generation C2 996 with buckets and a nearly empty fuel tank, regularly beats a standard 993TT with a full tank to 150mph.
And you still maintain that the Autocar test wasn’t flawed?
Since 20 hp means two seconds faster, take 2 seconds off the first gen 996 0-150mph time as tested by Autocar, and it becomes 23.2 seconds. Faster than the 993 TTT (24.2 secs) and not far off the 993 TTS (22.1 secs).
As you know, it’s easy to lose 80 kgs from the overall weight of a standard car. All you really need is a virtually empty fuel tank and some buckets. The 1,320kg “as tested” weight isn’t too different from the quoted DIN weight of the “normal” first generation 996 that assumes a full fuel tank and standard seats.
In summary then, your argument boils down to this:
That a second generation C2 996 with buckets and a nearly empty fuel tank, regularly beats a standard 993TT with a full tank to 150mph.
And you still maintain that the Autocar test wasn’t flawed?
02-16-2007, 01:58 PM
#39
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
Thanks for making my point! 0-200 kph for the second generation 996 (with 320hp) is 16.8 secs, nearly two secs faster than the first gen 300 hp 996, even after carrying an extra 68 extra kilos in weight (1,459 kgs vis 1,401 kgs). So, notwithstanding the extra weight, 20 more hp equals 2 seconds faster (16.8 vis 18.6 secs).
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
Since 20 hp means two seconds faster, take 2 seconds off the first gen 996 0-150mph time as tested by Autocar, and it becomes 23.2 seconds. Faster than the 993 TTT (24.2 secs) and not far off the 993 TTS (22.1 secs).
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
As you know, it’s easy to lose 80 kgs from the overall weight of a standard car. All you really need is a virtually empty fuel tank and some buckets.
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
The 1,320kg “as tested” weight isn’t too different from the quoted DIN weight of the “normal” first generation 996 that assumes a full fuel tank and standard seats.
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
In summary then, your argument boils down to this:
That a second generation C2 996 with buckets and a nearly empty fuel tank, regularly beats a standard 993TT with a full tank to 150mph.
That a second generation C2 996 with buckets and a nearly empty fuel tank, regularly beats a standard 993TT with a full tank to 150mph.
) to help you understand
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
And you still maintain that the Autocar test wasn’t flawed?
The 1320kg/300hp car was about as quick to 150mph as the '03 AMS 1451kg/320hp 996 similar power to weight ratio in similar aero/geared cars = similar acceleration.......
02-16-2007, 03:00 PM
#40
You are missing the point, which was:
That a second generation C2 996 with buckets and a nearly empty fuel tank, regularly beats a standard 993TT with a full tank to 150mph.
I say, not possible.
That a second generation C2 996 with buckets and a nearly empty fuel tank, regularly beats a standard 993TT with a full tank to 150mph.
I say, not possible.
02-16-2007, 07:42 PM
#41
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 996 will not beat a 993tt but its getting close ! Maybe the clue comes from the maximum speeds ? A 993tt ( 408) is 290km/hr, the 300bhp 996 is 280 km/hr.
At 200 kms the difference is 3.5 secs -ish . As maximium speed is approached
the 993tts aerodynamics really show and the gap narrows .
A 996 has roughly the same drag coeff X area as a 964 . A 425bhp RUF 964
is 5.5 secs ahead of the 996 at 200kms and has a maximum speed of 315kms.
For 150mph racing put your motor in a 964 !!??
Geoff
At 200 kms the difference is 3.5 secs -ish . As maximium speed is approached
the 993tts aerodynamics really show and the gap narrows .
A 996 has roughly the same drag coeff X area as a 964 . A 425bhp RUF 964
is 5.5 secs ahead of the 996 at 200kms and has a maximum speed of 315kms.
For 150mph racing put your motor in a 964 !!??
Geoff
02-18-2007, 11:01 AM
#42
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boy, I expected to get seriously attacked for critising the 993tt aerodynamics !!
The silence makes me think that either its a stunned silence or beneath contempt !!!
Have a good Sunday,
Geoff
The silence makes me think that either its a stunned silence or beneath contempt !!!
Have a good Sunday,
Geoff
02-18-2007, 11:48 AM
#43
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Red Rooster, you told the truth!
In my case I am still hopelessly trying to understand the logic in some of the posts on this thread! There goes one more banghead!!
In my case I am still hopelessly trying to understand the logic in some of the posts on this thread! There goes one more banghead!!
02-18-2007, 01:38 PM
#45
Sorry gentlemen for my absence, I was traveling.
Taking all that was said, here's a table of what's known. The black mumbers are as above or the German magazine tests, the red numbers are my best estimates. Do they look realistic? Please note that the test weights assume full fuel and have been incremented by the weight of one driver, 80kgs.
Taking all that was said, here's a table of what's known. The black mumbers are as above or the German magazine tests, the red numbers are my best estimates. Do they look realistic? Please note that the test weights assume full fuel and have been incremented by the weight of one driver, 80kgs.
Last edited by AVoyvoda; 02-19-2007 at 07:52 AM.