bob_dallas

Now this looks interesting...if the pictures and text are right it could be the ultimate sleeper. I'd be a little concerned about the lack of aero bodywork though in a car with this much power. I'm also not too sure how they squeezed the turbos and everything else in.

http://www.gemballa.com/Umr/G96_GT20...GT2003_sz.html

Here's the middle ground between the two - probably a more realistic car.

http://www.gemballa.com/Umr/G96_GT60...T600_3_sz.html

GuyR

Agreed. I don't see the point of widening a GT3 and adding turbos, that just makes a GT2, but one that is worth considerably less (the £45,000 conversion appears to be adding about £12,000 to the re-sale value).

Ruf will do narrow or wide-body and 2wd or 4wd, although the 'normal' RTurbo is 4wd and narrow body. The narrow body is worth about 10mph extra once one is travelling above 200mph, hence why Ruf achieve such great top speeds. The rwd Ruf is more expensive than the 4wd, since the GT2 gearbox is actually more expensive to buy.

Gemballa don't really do 'sleeper', maybe there is no word for 'subtle' in german........

brh986

I don't know but tires make ALL the difference in the world!! Imagine street tires vs slicks? Those calculator programs are pointless unless they say what kind of tires they are talking about as is any debate, test the car, see what it's capable of. Yes you can estimate times mathetically but in order for the estimate to be accurate there are way too many variables you wuold have to know that you would never have precise enough values to making a meaningful estimate. Just to name a few that are going to significantly effect the outcome, temperature, elevation, barometric pressure, tire grip, transmission losses, etc. Those calcuations programs don't have accurate data for all those numbers.

brh986

Pretty nifty, I wish I weren't mathematically retarded.

So you're saying 361 horspower (AT THE WHEELS RIGHT?) is the BARE MINIMUM a perfect driver could pilot a car with perfect grip weighing 3200 lbs down the 1/4 in 12.0 seconds. So in all reality no driver is perfect, no tire is perfect, etc. so you'd probably need damn near 400 at the wheels to do a 12.0 in a 3200 lb car, right?

johnfm

BRH

361 HP is what good 'ole phsics says! It doesn't have to be 'at the wheels'. If you strapped 361 horses to the front and yelled "YAH" or "GIDDIUP", the car would do a 12 sec quarter!

There are quite a few simulators out there that can take tyre slip, wind resistance, shift time, etc etc into account.


What is the most interesting is how much EXTRA HP you need to shave time off - every 0.1sec needs an extra 10 HP at t he wheels!

Marco Polo

I just finished the article, but I haven't read all of the posts in this thread. All in all, I thought it was a very fair and worthwhile comparision. The ranking is sort of beside the point: three different philosphies and price points is going to have to be something of an apples and oranges proposition. I think that if the GT3 had been equiped with the RS's Corsas, GT3 seats, and (if you will permit me) a B&M short shift, you could rewrite the article as it pertains to the Porsche. Not that those variations could close a 200hp/200ftlb gap with the Ford, but that's the charm of choice.

I will dump all over the Ford's styling, though. Personally, I think the GT40's styling (after the MKI, that is) was never beautiful. It was awkward and over-long, and the undersides of the front fenders too boat-like. The new car carries forward all of these "flaws." True, though, the 911 (with it's outward visibility and upright seating position) cannot contend with the Ford or Ferrari as an exotic-looking piece of automotive art. But I would suggest the Carrera GT as a more fitting design comparison in that category: each maker's efforts to project a new supercar from its truest roots. In that regard, the Porsche looks distinctly true to its marque but is not a literal recapitulation, and certainly not one at the expense of a new style of its own. In this respect, the GT40 has too much of a kit car look.

Since you asked.

gtdrei

Greg,

I believe that that the Challenge Stradale only comes with the F1 transmission, but I think it has launch control. The Tifosi can correct me if I'm wrong.

I also believe after years of reading R&T road tests that Ferrari HP is constantly overstated, while Porsche HP is consistenly understated by their respective factories.

Robin

Marco Polo

Furthermore...

The rationale for not using the GT2 is pretty weak. By C&D's analysis, the Ford would probably still come out on top, but not by such a large margin, as the GT2 would leap-frog over the Ferrari in the performance test results. They might still rank the Strad. 2nd on their stated grounds of handling predictability and panache, but the ranking would seem that much more irrelevant if they disregard clearly superior performance in favor of looks and user-friendliness. After all, the article is framed as a comparison of street-legal race cars for which we might presume a significant level of expertise for the model driver. The Ferrari's handling strengths are true perfomance strengths, they just shouldn't receive quite so much preference over the responsiveness and liveliness of the Porsche: the fact that a good driver must be continually watchful is not such a critical flaw for a race car.

Greg A

Robin,

That was a quote from my post on pg 1. Yes, it has launch control, but how well does it work and did C&D use it when they tested the car? My question is whether or not the car doesn't launch well from a standstill and if that is why the 0-xxx times are not better.

Greg A

bob_dallas

Quoting the article..

"Our car also had a launch-control system that greatly helped standing-start acceleration runs. Once you've pressed the right buttons to turn on launch control, you simply bring the engine revs to the desired level and lift off the brake. The computer then performs a perfect burnout on your behalf. After some experimenting we found that about 3000 rpm produced the quickest runs...We think we could have gone a little quicker with a fully manual system, but still, the Stradale's 4.0 second blast to 60 was .6 second quicker than the last 360 modena we tested"

C&D is usually pretty good at wringing out the max acceleration out of cars, and also fairly notorious for burning up clutches.

Greg A

bob_dallas,

Thanks for the info.

Greg A

1AS

Marco Polo, I agree that the "value" arguement for the GT3 is illogical. Since the GT3 finished last by their subjective standards, how much worse could the GT2 have fared?
The times at Gingerman weren't that great, and I think an X50 would also have been in the range. They were less than 2 seconds quicker than my Elise 190R on rock hard Yoko's. AS

Riz

I can't believe that the article said that the GT had better throttle response than the 360 CS or GT3. I've never driven a turbo/supercharged car that had better throttle response than a normally aspirated car. What do you guys think?

Jack

I love the GT3 (and most Porsches for that matter), but after recently driving the Stradale, I would have picked it over the GT3 too.

Flame suit on.

ADOGNY

I assume you mean if price werent the issue no? For 2x as much, I dont think you can argue with what the GT3 gives you in performace vs $$ against the 360's.