blustem

I know there is a mathematician amongst us Porschephiles. My '01 996 manual says 0-62(100kph) is 5.2 sec. My biz partner is smart(thank god cuz I ain't) and he says 0-62 in 5.2 means 0-60 in a tiny hair over 5 sec. Who here is smart? Tell me the truth dammit, I must know! I Withdrew from calc. 115 at K.U. 3 times -I then changed major to liberal arts. Ive seen several posts and MANY an auto rag misquote this, Excellence among these. Your educated input would be appreciated. thanks, Blustem

Palting

I can't seem to sleep, so, lets see. I think I know what to do.

Acceleration rate varies the whole time the car is acceleraing from 0-62 mph. It's not as simple as 5.2 - [62/5.2 X (62-60)]. To calculate, you have to know not just the acceleration rate, but the acceleration rate that is occuring from 60 mph to 62 mph. From that rate, you will get the time it takes to go from 60 to 62 mph, acknowledging that the whole scenario started from 0 mph under full acceleration, with varying acceleration rates over the full range. You can then deduct the time from the 0-62 time to get the 0-60 time. However, what if the driver just shifted at 60-61 mph? Then the true 0-60 time would not be the 0-62 time minus the 60-62 time, but a number that would slightly be less, since the 60-62 time would certainly be longer than, say, the 58-60 time due to the slight delay in the shifting. What if he hit a patch of water? What if he had a gust of back wind just as he passed 60 mph?

Now I REALLY can't go to sleep. Why the h##l do you want to know, anyway?!!!! 0-60 time? Its a tad less than 0-62 time!!!!! Now just go drive your car, da##it!!!!

(Just kidding. .)

blustem

Palting, not much help but amusing nonetheless.By the way I cant sleep either -contemplating this purchase:'03 996 X-51, sport susp. aerokit etc... The reason I ask is an auto rag quoted "0-60 on an '02 coupe at 4.8 new and 4.6 w/40k mi. Thanks -blustem

Palting

Finally did get to sleep .

I saw your earlier post on the X51. IMHO, the X51 is good for bragging rights only. You do lose some mid-band power in exchange for the upper band power. In theory, so long as you keep the rpm in the upper range, you can take advantage of the power for better 0-60 times. Among equal drivers, it MIGHT make a difference on the track. In real life, the advantage of the X51 is the ability to make the statement in a gathering of car nuts or in the country club that "I have a Porsche (instant prestige), with X51 (double prestige)". Is it worth $13K? That's up to you. We are talking $80k+ to $100k+ cars, and not the $32k track trim 350Z.

Think you can't sleep trying to make a decision? Wait 'til you make the order, or the first time the car is in your hands!!!

Good luck!

TX 911

I don't know exact details but most of the road tests I've seen have resulted in about 0.2 sec quicker to 60 compared to 62 mph.

I think you can expect at least between 0.1 & 0.2 s quicker.

I agree with Palting about the X-51. I wouldn't want to give up anything on the low end.

Rohan Nath

blustem,

simplify the problem and assume a uniform rate of acceleration (i agree with Palting that the rate is not uniform but we are simplifying). the 0-60 time, inferred from 0-62 in 5.2 sec is 5.032 sec. This sure meets the "he says 0-62 in 5.2 means 0-60 in a tiny hair over 5 sec" test.

ask your business partner if that is what he ment.

cheers,

blustem

Rohan and fellows, thanks for the info. I always appreciate a reply to my sometimes silly and uneducated posts (however I am learning!!)
Thanks a bunch, Blustem

Carlos from Spain

Should be what TX 911 says, since 62mph is about 101km/h and since my manual I believe says 0-100km/h in 5.4secs it should be 0.2-0.3 secs more for 0-62mph than 0-60mph.

Ed Newman

First, 0-60 (or 62) is not a great basis for comparison on these cars. 0-100 or 0-124 (200 kph) is more realistic. Too much is dependent on traction, surface temp, tires, etc. This is part of why the X51 is more fairly compared at the 0-200 kph where it is a full second faster than a stock car. Where 0-60 it is only .1 or .2 faster. All fo this times are so dependent on the traction issues as well as driver, altitude (air density) etc. Regardless of all this, do you think you could tell the difference between a 0-60 in 4.4 or 4.8 seconds?

blustem

Very well put, Ed. Also,Thanks for the e-mail reply. As tou've already read I've decided to go with the '03 w/powerkit(no aerokit as I've decided not to spend $7,900 on something I don't know if I like -I LOVE the stock Carreras)I may do mods. later.I went to the dealer today and he wants my car NOW! 911 withdrawal!I won't see my '03 until early March -OUCH! He gave me what I considered a decent trade and he has no used inventory. Now I really won't be able to sleep!

Ed Newman

I played around with a couple 0-60 somthing jaunts tonight and found one key thing... the difference between 4's and 5's is probably all about how hard you can do the 1-2 shift. Keep in mind that the shift can represent 25-30% of the time. If you launch hard and slam the shift its going to be quite fast. I may drive the car very hard, but i am weary of abusing it. Need to find a good place to do some testing with this new G Tech Comp, but its a bit of a project to use so I don't want to do it on a busy street.

ZAMIRZ

[quote]Originally posted by Ed Newman:
<strong>I played around with a couple 0-60 somthing jaunts tonight and found one key thing... the difference between 4's and 5's is probably all about how hard you can do the 1-2 shift. Keep in mind that the shift can represent 25-30% of the time. If you launch hard and slam the shift its going to be quite fast. I may drive the car very hard, but i am weary of abusing it. Need to find a good place to do some testing with this new G Tech Comp, but its a bit of a project to use so I don't want to do it on a busy street.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Very true, if you power shift you could potentially even pull faster times than the magazines. The only problem is, if you miss powershift then the trans takes a royal a$$ beating. Also, launching techniques are very different. Many think that sinking the clutch at redline gives the fastest acceleration however that usually cooks the clutch rather than result in any meaningful forward momentum. And even if you manage to get the power to the wheels more often than not it'll just sit and smoke 'em (maybe not in a 911, but I've seen it done many times at the illegals by the domestic-heads in their F-bodies and Corvettes). Besides, the 911 is not a drag car and trying to do crazy straight-line stunts to get it to go faster down the 1/4 mile can drastically shorten the life of the drivetrain. I don't know why I responded to this post, just felt like adding my humble opinion. BTW, adding to my point about the 911 not being a drag car I think the X51 package emphasizes power in the upper rev range for those that desire a little bit more grunt in the twisties where it is possible to keep the car in a lower gear and high revs and pull faster times.

later,

amir

DonW-Cape Cod

Getting caught up on some posts...I agree with Ed Newman..the difference between 0-60 and 0-62 times is well within the range of different runs at 0-60 caused by all of the variables mentioned plus some, so the whole exercise has to be a hypothetical mathematical problem rather than a real life one...I guess. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Ed Newman

There is a term I have seen used in some of the euro magazines, I think they call it 'flexibility' ??? They measure from say 40 mph to 80 mph in top gear. Maybe we can implement this in for 60 to 100 in both 3rd gear to measure high rpm power and 6th for lower end torque.