SteveD

Maybe you're right.. or perhaps it's the Carerra 2 that's become heavier. I certainly remember that the Mk 1 GT3 was heavier than the C2 at the time, but I was under the impression that the Mk2 GT3 was now lighter than the current C2.


p.s. I've checked again and perhaps I was wrong (my apologies). The figures I have are as below, do these seem right to everyone else?

1999 model C2 - 1320kg (DIN)
MK 1 GT3 - 1350kg (DIN)

2003 model C2 - 1370kg (DIN)
MK 2 GT3 - 1380kg (DIN)

SteveD

You crack me up MetalSolid, we seem to be in furious agreement that the GT3 has a better effective power/weight ratio so I'm not sure where this debate is going..

BMW are also modest with their performance figures although that's not always been the case for either company in the past. I once owned a Porsche 968 Sport that was supposedly able to produce 240bhp at the flywheel. I raced mine in the Pirelli Championship and as with other race teams we discovered that it only produced just under 220bhp. With a race exhaust, no cats and a modified ECU we only just managed to obtain 245bhp and Porsche later admitted to us that the production car had been a little less powerful than had been originally planned and they hadn't updated the figures for fear of it being perceived (rightly) as being little more powerful than the 944S2 that preceded it.

8-9seconds..?... dream on. Slicks? Have you looked at the softness ratings of the respective tyres (i.e. the Cups on the CSL and N2 MPS2 on the GT3) you will find they are very similar and no that wouldn't have made any difference to acceleration times. There is absolutely no wheelspin on the move when running the CSL on ordinary road tyres (I run mine on Bridgestone S-03s).

MetalSolid

You might wanna look from where this debate is coming... from your assumptions that your CSL has a similar power/weight ratio to the GT3. They're not even close; it's like comparing a Boxster to a Boxster S, then sticking semi slicks on the Boxster then proclaiming they're similar. Every fact shown, you have dismissed, declaring bad data or denounced with some anecdote.

I think everyone here knows the CSL is a good machine, but also the GT3 has superior performance, not similar. To continue this debate I'd be singing to the choir and preaching to the devil...

SteveD

You're clearly deluded my friend. There were many incorrect facts on this thread and hopefully there's now a bit more balance for those interested in both cars. I didn't start the thread, nor did I name it. Factually both cars have identical power/weight ratios and factually neither car runs on slicks. Do you even know what slicks look like? Since I've driven both and owned both, I had a point of view that was worth sharing.

I've said all along that the GT3 was quicker and is a great car, but you don't seem to be listening. To compare them as Boxster S to a Boxster would be fine, although are you even aware how close both Boxsters are in performance?

Using the theme of your analogy, let's just say Amen and agree to differ.

Konstantin

Steve D:
the weight on the 2003 car is NOT DIN but ECE (european coumunity norm that mean it is weighted WITH driver and a couple % of lugage.
it is well documented in every Porsche sale broshure. now you know which car is lighetr right?

and BTW not even think the CSL can come even close to the GT3 just go to the Nurburgring and you will see what I mean. just run both cars on the same tires.
the diference at the small course at Hockemnheim for the Michelin cup is about 2 sec faster and of course much faster for the Nurburgring.
An older GT3 on slicks with only 360 HP was much faster than a GT2 at Nurburging.

The CSL is worst on everything compared to the GT3. It has less HP, less torque, less cc, higher drag factor etc etc.
why do you think it will be faster? just because they testetd with semi slicks on the same track with a GT3??
have you ever checked the times for the GT3 at the same track from the Porsche Club Germany races. they also run either in full street tires (like conti SC2) or in semi slick like the michelin cup or on full slicks.

better do not check the times.
you will be dissapointed. believe me

Konstantin
PS the reason I replied to this thread is because i was looking to compare the crescent suzuki with the Gemaball TTP engine GTR EVO 750
Amazing even the fastest bike is slower from 0-180 (almost 2 sec!!!) than the GTR and also much slower if you compare the time for the 60-180 mph something that you can do on the autobahn every day if you want ( it is almost 4 sec slower !!!)

Konstantin

Sun Ra

konstantin/steve,

the unladen din in the UK is 1380 kg or 3036 #:

Unladen weight (DIN) 1,380 kg

Unladen weight (EC*) 1,455 kg


the "curbweight" USA is 3043 #

mds

This is a Porsche board. You'd think we'd know how Porsche measures the weights of their cars. Unladen weight (DIN). What does this mean? I think this is weight in full road trim with no fuel, no driver, no luggage. Can anyone confirm?

RyanPorsche

I wish i could compare the driving characteristics of each of these cars. But sadly, since i own neither a gt3 or an m3, I can't . One day though, one day.

Mr. RS

Mike,

I have in front of me the Porsche Product Guide for the GT3, this is what the sales guys get given and includes pretty much everything you would ever want to know on everything.

According to this might document

Unladen weight (DIN) in KG 1.380

Unladen weight (EC) in KG (with manual gearbox:inc 68KG for driver and 7KG for luggage) 1.450

This would seem to indicate that you are correct in your assumption and DIN is as you indicate.

P.

Roygarth

68Kg for driver ......er......where's the driver from?!

Mr. RS

Its probably Walter soaking wet

Seemed a bit odd to me but that is what it says in the info guide!

P.

W8MM

68 kg is 150 lbs.

What's so weird about 150 lbs for a "standard" driver?

Roygarth

Oops.....my miscalculation, never was any good at maths or math!