Ran against a 986 Boxster S
11-21-2005, 02:34 PM
#1
Ran against a 986 Boxster S
99 C2 Cab 6 speed, PSE, stock 17" rims, no mother mods (+300lbs) vs 986 Boxster S (+200lbs).
First run: The Boxster sprinted from a dead stop from a traffic light stop and I was 4 car lengths behind coasting at 40mph in 3rd. Didn't downshift to 2nd, stayed in 3rd but couldn't pass - "big lazy mistake".
Both came to a stop at the next traffic light.
Second run: I was about half a car length behind at dead stop and the lights turned green. Off we go and just as I caught up while in 1st, I heard the Boxster upshift. I shifted close to redline and started pulling. At the end of 2nd, I was half a car length ahead and when I shifted into 3rd, I was 1 car length ahead.
I am not sure if I beat a 986 6 speed or Tip. Lesson learnt here is that the sweet spot of the 3.4 is above 5k rpm and the Boxster S with the newer VarioCam probably has a flatter torque curve that comes up quicker. In the end, 296/3400 > 258/3100. Regardless, the Boxster S is still a quick car and yeah, don't give it a half car length advantage.
How would a 99 C2 cab fare against a 02 C2 cab, both comparably equiped?
First run: The Boxster sprinted from a dead stop from a traffic light stop and I was 4 car lengths behind coasting at 40mph in 3rd. Didn't downshift to 2nd, stayed in 3rd but couldn't pass - "big lazy mistake".
Both came to a stop at the next traffic light.Second run: I was about half a car length behind at dead stop and the lights turned green. Off we go and just as I caught up while in 1st, I heard the Boxster upshift. I shifted close to redline and started pulling. At the end of 2nd, I was half a car length ahead and when I shifted into 3rd, I was 1 car length ahead.
I am not sure if I beat a 986 6 speed or Tip. Lesson learnt here is that the sweet spot of the 3.4 is above 5k rpm and the Boxster S with the newer VarioCam probably has a flatter torque curve that comes up quicker. In the end, 296/3400 > 258/3100. Regardless, the Boxster S is still a quick car and yeah, don't give it a half car length advantage.
How would a 99 C2 cab fare against a 02 C2 cab, both comparably equiped?
11-21-2005, 03:08 PM
#3
Pro
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by oceanbluecab
99 C2 Cab 6 speed, PSE, stock 17" rims, no mother mods (+300lbs) vs 986 Boxster S (+200lbs).
First run: The Boxster sprinted from a dead stop from a traffic light stop and I was 4 car lengths behind coasting at 40mph in 3rd. Didn't downshift to 2nd, stayed in 3rd but couldn't pass - "big lazy mistake". Both came to a stop at the next traffic light.
Second run: I was about half a car length behind at dead stop and the lights turned green. Off we go and just as I caught up while in 1st, I heard the Boxster upshift. I shifted close to redline and started pulling. At the end of 2nd, I was half a car length ahead and when I shifted into 3rd, I was 1 car length ahead.
I am not sure if I beat a 986 6 speed or Tip. Lesson learnt here is that the sweet spot of the 3.4 is above 5k rpm and the Boxster S with the newer VarioCam probably has a flatter torque curve that comes up quicker. In the end, 296/3400 > 258/3100. Regardless, the Boxster S is still a quick car and yeah, don't give it a half car length advantage.
How would a 99 C2 cab fare against a 02 C2 cab, both comparably equiped?
First run: The Boxster sprinted from a dead stop from a traffic light stop and I was 4 car lengths behind coasting at 40mph in 3rd. Didn't downshift to 2nd, stayed in 3rd but couldn't pass - "big lazy mistake".
Both came to a stop at the next traffic light.Second run: I was about half a car length behind at dead stop and the lights turned green. Off we go and just as I caught up while in 1st, I heard the Boxster upshift. I shifted close to redline and started pulling. At the end of 2nd, I was half a car length ahead and when I shifted into 3rd, I was 1 car length ahead.
I am not sure if I beat a 986 6 speed or Tip. Lesson learnt here is that the sweet spot of the 3.4 is above 5k rpm and the Boxster S with the newer VarioCam probably has a flatter torque curve that comes up quicker. In the end, 296/3400 > 258/3100. Regardless, the Boxster S is still a quick car and yeah, don't give it a half car length advantage.
How would a 99 C2 cab fare against a 02 C2 cab, both comparably equiped?
our back seats sure are expensive!
11-21-2005, 03:17 PM
#6
Originally Posted by oceanbluecab
I am not sure if I beat a 986 6 speed or Tip. Lesson learnt here is that the sweet spot of the 3.4 is above 5k rpm and the Boxster S with the newer VarioCam probably has a flatter torque curve that comes up quicker.
11-21-2005, 04:02 PM
#7
Three Wheelin'
Kevin, 0.2 seconds is the difference between a good launch and a great launch. Blinking could account for the difference. Let's put it this way: a well trained pilot in a Boxster S would take most of us in a 911 on the way to 100kph. I'd be much more interested in hearing anecdotal evidence on the way from 100 to 200kph.
Trending Topics
11-21-2005, 04:13 PM
#8
Originally Posted by nycebo
Kevin, 0.2 seconds is the difference between a good launch and a great launch. Blinking could account for the difference. Let's put it this way: a well trained pilot in a Boxster S would take most of us in a 911 on the way to 100kph. I'd be much more interested in hearing anecdotal evidence on the way from 100 to 200kph.
Just didn't see the rolling on the the floor part.
The time I quoted is from Porsche factory specs, that one could probably assume could be achieved by testing both cars at the same location, with the same driver, and under similar conditions.
The .2s delta probably a fairly realistic comparison of the two 996 versions taking the driver out of the equation.
11-21-2005, 04:35 PM
#9
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Paradise
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This comparison (racing on the streets) between the 996 and the BoxsterS is very unreliable. Take the car on a track where it's safe and more reliable to do such comparisons. .2 difference "by the book" is totally irrelevant. This time difference has no meaning unless you can take the subjective elements out of the equation: like driver skill, that particular run, fear of getting caught racing on the street, etc.
The BoxsterS is a great track car...and, frankly, I don't remember being passed by many by 996's...
The BoxsterS is a great track car...and, frankly, I don't remember being passed by many by 996's...
11-21-2005, 04:42 PM
#10
Three Wheelin'
Kevin and Agio,
That's exactly what I meant. I was rolling on the floor because I thought it was insane to split hairs over .2 seconds. I think tracks and driver skill are what matters most. Indeed, notice what happens on many tracks in motorcycle racing where 500cc bikes have the huge horsepower and speed advantages, but often just barely edge their 250cc brethren. Handling is the biggest plus, especially for daily driving. You won't use that .2 seconds often, but you'll clearly hug corners tightly on the twisties in the country.
That's exactly what I meant. I was rolling on the floor because I thought it was insane to split hairs over .2 seconds. I think tracks and driver skill are what matters most. Indeed, notice what happens on many tracks in motorcycle racing where 500cc bikes have the huge horsepower and speed advantages, but often just barely edge their 250cc brethren. Handling is the biggest plus, especially for daily driving. You won't use that .2 seconds often, but you'll clearly hug corners tightly on the twisties in the country.
11-21-2005, 04:45 PM
#11
Originally Posted by agio
This comparison (racing on the streets) between the 996 and the BoxsterS is very unreliable. Take the car on a track where it's safe and more reliable to do such comparisons. .2 difference "by the book" is totally irrelevant. This time difference has no meaning unless you can take the subjective elements out of the equation: like driver skill, that particular run, fear of getting caught racing on the street, etc.
The BoxsterS is a great track car...and, frankly, I don't remember being passed by many by 996's...
The BoxsterS is a great track car...and, frankly, I don't remember being passed by many by 996's...
The .2 delta I quoted is the factory time difference between 3.6L 996 and 3.4L 996 to 100kph.
Has nothing to do with Boxsters.
But I do agree with you that a well driven Boxster can be faster than a less well driven 996. I used to own a Boxster, btw; I love 'em, but prefer the 996 Cab.
11-21-2005, 05:35 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: So. California
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw the Cayman on Thur for the first time in person and I've got to say...... I'm not too impressed but that's only my opinion...... They had a nice silk-like cover to show off but hey I'd rather have seen my car under there.....
I didn't get a test drive.....
Now that I think about it, I didn't even ask. This one was not for sale though......
-Eli
I didn't get a test drive.....
Now that I think about it, I didn't even ask. This one was not for sale though......-Eli