is the 996 considered slow for today?
10-19-2009, 05:43 PM
#17
Guys, I don't think it's really legitimate to consider HP vs. weight as an indicator of acceleration from a standstill. Acceleration is about available torque at a given RPM, which is governed by engine design and gearing... and gearing is probably the more important of the two. Horsepower as an abstract number is next to useless in this context.
Porsches are meant to be fast at speed. In other words, they're meant to be able to accelerate, say, from 60 more than to 60. This suits their supposedly intended use, is the reason that normally aspirated Porsches tend to favour horsepower over torque, and is the reason that horsepower peaks at such relatively high RPMs. They are the right tool for that job, and the wrong tool for drag racing.
Accelerating from a stop requires the ability to overcome inertia. That's torque. Speed requires the ability to accomplish 'work'. That's what horsepower measures. The horsepower required to move a car through the air cubes with speed, IIRC. When I switched from the naturally torquey inline 6 of my BMWs (where almost 90% of the total torque was available at something like 2500 RPM) to the 996, I was struck by how comparatively docile the Porsche was at low speeds, and how overwhelmingly more powerful it was at high speeds, where it would just keep accelerating after the Bimmer hit the wall of wind. It's horses for courses.
Porsches are meant to be fast at speed. In other words, they're meant to be able to accelerate, say, from 60 more than to 60. This suits their supposedly intended use, is the reason that normally aspirated Porsches tend to favour horsepower over torque, and is the reason that horsepower peaks at such relatively high RPMs. They are the right tool for that job, and the wrong tool for drag racing.
Accelerating from a stop requires the ability to overcome inertia. That's torque. Speed requires the ability to accomplish 'work'. That's what horsepower measures. The horsepower required to move a car through the air cubes with speed, IIRC. When I switched from the naturally torquey inline 6 of my BMWs (where almost 90% of the total torque was available at something like 2500 RPM) to the 996, I was struck by how comparatively docile the Porsche was at low speeds, and how overwhelmingly more powerful it was at high speeds, where it would just keep accelerating after the Bimmer hit the wall of wind. It's horses for courses.
10-19-2009, 06:28 PM
#18
Rennlist Member
MK II C4S weighs more like 3350, because of the extra drive train and wider body, and bigger wheels and tires. If you really want a Porker Porsche get a C4S Cabriolet or Turbo Cabriolet with Tiptronic. Of course the Turbo has a lot more horsepower to work with...
Lightest 996 was the '99 Carrera 2 coupe with 6-sp. THAT is the car that weighs closer to 2950 you quote. But it has 295 HP, not 320 HP. Everything else newer weighs in well over 3,000lbs. And just to put that in perspective again, my '99 C2 coupe 6-sp weighs 2950 in the owners manual, but it weighs 3070 Lbs on the race scales at Roebling Road Raceway.
Lightest 996 was the '99 Carrera 2 coupe with 6-sp. THAT is the car that weighs closer to 2950 you quote. But it has 295 HP, not 320 HP. Everything else newer weighs in well over 3,000lbs. And just to put that in perspective again, my '99 C2 coupe 6-sp weighs 2950 in the owners manual, but it weighs 3070 Lbs on the race scales at Roebling Road Raceway.
10-19-2009, 07:55 PM
#19
Nordschleife Master
MK II C4S weighs more like 3350, because of the extra drive train and wider body, and bigger wheels and tires. If you really want a Porker Porsche get a C4S Cabriolet or Turbo Cabriolet with Tiptronic. Of course the Turbo has a lot more horsepower to work with...
Lightest 996 was the '99 Carrera 2 coupe with 6-sp. THAT is the car that weighs closer to 2950 you quote. But it has 295 HP, not 320 HP. Everything else newer weighs in well over 3,000lbs. And just to put that in perspective again, my '99 C2 coupe 6-sp weighs 2950 in the owners manual, but it weighs 3070 Lbs on the race scales at Roebling Road Raceway.
Lightest 996 was the '99 Carrera 2 coupe with 6-sp. THAT is the car that weighs closer to 2950 you quote. But it has 295 HP, not 320 HP. Everything else newer weighs in well over 3,000lbs. And just to put that in perspective again, my '99 C2 coupe 6-sp weighs 2950 in the owners manual, but it weighs 3070 Lbs on the race scales at Roebling Road Raceway.
Just got to add
The mk II C2 0-100 kph is 5.0 sec which equals 0-60 mph in 4.8
The C4S is slightly slower 0-100 in 5.2 which equals 0-60 in 5.0
10-19-2009, 08:10 PM
#20
Instructor
maybe i am magazine racing but is the porsche 996 sandbagging or is it just considered a slow car for its specs?
2920lbs and 320hp does 0-60 in 5 seconds and 1/4 in 13.5?
now a 335i with 700lbs more and 20hp less can do the exact same thing...
is there some sort of explanation for this?
2920lbs and 320hp does 0-60 in 5 seconds and 1/4 in 13.5?
now a 335i with 700lbs more and 20hp less can do the exact same thing...
is there some sort of explanation for this?
10-19-2009, 08:13 PM
#21
Am I in the wrong place?? Oops, my bad. I didn't mean to sign up to a drag racing or JDM forum. Sorry, I thought this was a Porsche forum 
...
Man, last time I heard "0-60" & "freeway roll-on" so many times was when I accidentally stumbled onto a "JDM boi racerz yee 2 FastZ 2 FiureeZZZ forum." I googled "Motul San Diego" & I guess those words were in a thread so the ungodly site showed up.
...Man, last time I heard "0-60" & "freeway roll-on" so many times was when I accidentally stumbled onto a "JDM boi racerz yee 2 FastZ 2 FiureeZZZ forum." I googled "Motul San Diego" & I guess those words were in a thread so the ungodly site showed up.
10-19-2009, 08:16 PM
#22
Instructor
oh when you post a compario please post the specs of both cars. we dont know what year, motor, EXACT model bmw your talking about.
PS if your looking for the best 0-60 car, go AWD. like a STi with a big turbo or something.
PS if your looking for the best 0-60 car, go AWD. like a STi with a big turbo or something.
10-19-2009, 09:00 PM
#23
This is hilarious! Porsche baiting. My 05 Lotus wasn't that fast in a straight line, but every little bmw 3-series that challenged it was modded to hell. You're right, stock m3's, or 330 based cars are never the one's picking the fight. It's always the ones that have 25 grand in friggin turbo upgrades that wanna play. Bastards.
10-19-2009, 09:10 PM
#24
Team Owner
Wow, tough crowd. FWIW, I don't get the impression that the OP is trolling, I get the impression that he's just trying to figure out why the 996 would be slower in a straight line considering the numbers. I would base it on the fact that the 335 is underrated by a decent amount and the lack of torque of the 996.
We all buy our cars for different reasons. One of the biggest factors in my decision was that the 996 was one of the few cars I was considering that had a back seat.
We all buy our cars for different reasons. One of the biggest factors in my decision was that the 996 was one of the few cars I was considering that had a back seat.
10-19-2009, 09:51 PM
#26
I'm sure it was an honest question, but just a slightly under-informed one.
The 335i claims 300 lb ft of torque, of which most is available by 1400 RPM, and the curve stays flat to about 5000 RPM. A monkey could win a drag race in this car.
My '00 996 is supposed to make something like 276 lb ft, which peaks at about 4500 RPM (sorry, this is from memory).
When you look at the numbers, it's astonishing that in most road tests, the 996 and the 335i are still neck and neck to 60. From a standing start, the Bimmer should leave us for dead.
The poster who said that BMW understated its output is in good company: Automobile magazine put one on a dyno, and got 300 lb ft at the rear wheels. That is some serious sandbagging.
The 335i claims 300 lb ft of torque, of which most is available by 1400 RPM, and the curve stays flat to about 5000 RPM. A monkey could win a drag race in this car.
My '00 996 is supposed to make something like 276 lb ft, which peaks at about 4500 RPM (sorry, this is from memory).
When you look at the numbers, it's astonishing that in most road tests, the 996 and the 335i are still neck and neck to 60. From a standing start, the Bimmer should leave us for dead.
The poster who said that BMW understated its output is in good company: Automobile magazine put one on a dyno, and got 300 lb ft at the rear wheels. That is some serious sandbagging.
10-20-2009, 01:36 AM
#28
BTW if you think your car is slow...try this on for size. I can outrun a new Nissan GT-R fairly easy...and the other day I was tinkering with a stock 996 and I didn't beat him too badly. Actually took a little oomph to catch him.
10-20-2009, 01:49 AM
#29
Rennlist Member
To the OP, why compare the car to the 335i when you can compare an 01 996 to an 01 M3? 296hp, 3.4L in the Porsche, 333hp, 3.2L in the BMW. A pretty close "NA straight line, similar vintage" comparison... both do 0-60 pretty close to 5.0, I believe the 996 is 5.0 and the M3 is 5.1...
10-20-2009, 02:07 AM
#30
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
maybe i am magazine racing but is the porsche 996 sandbagging or is it just considered a slow car for its specs?
2920lbs and 320hp does 0-60 in 5 seconds and 1/4 in 13.5?
now a 335i with 700lbs more and 20hp less can do the exact same thing...
is there some sort of explanation for this?
2920lbs and 320hp does 0-60 in 5 seconds and 1/4 in 13.5?
now a 335i with 700lbs more and 20hp less can do the exact same thing...
is there some sort of explanation for this?
A 335i is a heavy pig. Fine in a straight line, but the "sedan" size really shows up in the corners.