Benjamin Choi

for me it's less about horsepower, and more about the feel (handling) and sound of the car. does it feel connected to your inputs like you'reone with the machine?

romping on the throttle surely provides some giggles and machismo, but at the end of the day, it's that connectedness in steering and the turns and braking that gets my $. thus the reason why i love the spirit of the GT3 more so than the powerful Turbo 911s.

c4s is just a stepping stone for me. ferrari is it.

9.8m/s/s

In a segment comparison, dollar per dollar, a 997 (or 996) is “underpowered.” But I don’t think anyone buys a 911 for it’s hp rating. Its about balance and usability. I love the idea of a car that is so much more efficient in its use of “power” that it only needs 2/3 the competition to compete. The only thing I disagree with is the pricing of the options…

nycebo

Almost fell out of my chair when I read this....

Benjamin Choi

What's so special about the 911 being more "efficient" with its use of power than any other car?

hwk72

There are a lot of reasons why Porsche needs less hp to perform better than other cars. First of all weight. a 3k lbs C2 with 300-320hp is much faster than nowadays G35s or Z4Ms that all weight at least 3.5k lbs. Second, the so much critizised rear engine helps to push the power on the wheels. Below is a great link to a comparison between the E92 M3, 997 GT3 and new Skyline that illustrates this effect. Third, the rear engine helps to balance weight under hard braking so the 911 with it's already great brakes can be stopped even more effectful due to the weight distribution. This gives his driver the freedom to drive more aggressive and brake later. The gear ratio, the clutch kit, the weight of the flywheel ... there are just much more components that make a fast powerful car than hp. Porsche was always dedicated to make sports cars whereas BMW, Honda, Nissan or even Dodge ... make everyday cars and pep-up some models with more hp. This formula doesn't automatically make a car fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo-ZFiF21SI

Benjamin Choi

-I don't see how the 300-320hp 996 is much faster than the Z4M because it's not

-You're comparing an outright GT coupe to a "sports car" that is the 911 in case of the Infiniti let alone one having more than double the sticker price original MSRP

-The GT3 and GTR absolutely, resoundingly kill the 996 Carrera along all fronts

-Porsche 911s have grown porkier over the years just as the other brands

C'mon, man.

Ray S

It's lighter than most of it's competition and the rear engine placement nets it less driveline loss and superior traction. That's why a 320hp 996 is quicker to 100 mph than a 333hp e46 M3 a 350hp C5, and a 380hp Vantage.

Benjamin Choi

Ray, what are you smoking, dude?

Line-up a bone stock E46 M3 next to a bone stock 3.6 996 Carrera... neck and neck, will be largely dependent on driver skills.

You guys get on this tip about the 911 being light... it's NOT light. A Lotus Elise is light. A water-cooled 911 is NOT light enough to call it out as evidence that it's more efficient than any other comparable car.

9.8m/s/s

Is the 3.6 996 faster around the “ring” than an E46 M3? If so, why?

Benjamin Choi

Do you enjoy QB armchair lap timing?

hwk72

Ben, just because your C4S is a tank, you don't need to think all 996 are heavy. I love BMWs and really considered a Z4 M Roadster but why should I trade my 3,083 lbs car* against a smaller car that weights more. There are not many 3k lbs cars out there with the performance of the 996.

* https://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/403389-weight-of-my-2000-c2-cab-3-083-lbs.html

Benjamin Choi

If we're going to get right down to outright QB racing styles and you think my "tank" or what I prefer to call it as my Pork4S is any slower than your "lightweight", please please step away from the keyboard and take a couple of shots of good espresso. 'Ring time QB racing, right? The C4S posted faster times than the narrowbody.

All I'm saying is the weight thing is a poor example of the 911 being more efficient than its competitors. It still fetches the same mpg and about the same lap times (armchair QB, right?) as the E46 M3 which is not much heavier nor slower than my Pork4S and your hollow-boned 3083 Carrera.

9.8m/s/s

How else would you suggest comparing the dynamic execution of a design?

If you re-read my post I didn’t disagree with the premise of this thread.

Having the engine weight over the drive wheels is a “special” part of the 911 design that Porsche readily exploits.

As for “Armchairing” isn’t that the idea of an internet thread discussion?

Full disclosure: I do not own a 911. Flame Suite: On

Benjamin Choi

9.8m, I couldn't care less whether you own a 911 or not. I'm not one of those. I know I got a lot of crap from some of the Rennlist idiots back when I came to provide input, but was readily dismissed cuz I wasn't an owner. Ridiculous attitude if you ask me.

Special can be good and bad. I like the rear engine thing, but can readily see why Porsche would outfit their one and only supercar with a mid-engine chassis.

Laptimes are a decent ballpark measure and a silly application in a case where weather conditions, driver skills, type of tires can easily switch up the outcome. Using it as an absolute is rather myopic and insecure.

9.8m/s/s

Thanks, I am currently in the yearlong search for my next car: a 996!

I agree that lap-times aren’t everything but how else do we measure how a 911 could have less hp then its competition and thrive?