Made a few G-Tech runs...
10-02-2005, 03:53 PM
#17
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Den
That is some great acceleration, I guess if you were running pump gas you must have been around 550FWHP.
A 0-120mph at 10.3 (impressive) should get you in less than 11sec at 128mph for sure, 12.1sec at 130mph seems excessive. I sense a calibration issue with the G-Tech.
I guess this is where I am coming from...stock 2001 996GT2 numbers:
0-100mph: 8.2 sec (Similar to your numbers)
0-124mph: 12.2sec (you are about 1.5 seconds faster if compared to 120mph as you posted)
There seems to be a discrepancy in the numbers between 100mph and 120mph as 1.5 seconds is a substantial difference.
Just some thoughts.
Jean
That is some great acceleration, I guess if you were running pump gas you must have been around 550FWHP.
A 0-120mph at 10.3 (impressive) should get you in less than 11sec at 128mph for sure, 12.1sec at 130mph seems excessive. I sense a calibration issue with the G-Tech.
I guess this is where I am coming from...stock 2001 996GT2 numbers:
0-100mph: 8.2 sec (Similar to your numbers)
0-124mph: 12.2sec (you are about 1.5 seconds faster if compared to 120mph as you posted)
There seems to be a discrepancy in the numbers between 100mph and 120mph as 1.5 seconds is a substantial difference.
Just some thoughts.
Jean
Last edited by Jean; 10-02-2005 at 05:11 PM.
10-03-2005, 12:29 AM
#19
Advanced
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jean,
Interesting observation. But I just looked up #'s for the GT2 and it shows 0-100 8.9, and the 1/4 coming in 11.9@120.6mph. Based on those #'s I am getting to 100mph .8 seconds faster then the GT2. It takes the GT2 3 seconds flat to get another 20mph to 120mph - it's taking me 2.2 sec to go from 100-120 (see below) - that seems consistent to me.
The run I posted was on 100 octane and suppose to be 600hp but I haven't been to the dyno yet - due 10/8.
My car seems to perform the best at the midrange & high range - I don't feel a drastic difference off the line (probably due to a lot of weight issues with body kit, wheels, stereo equipment, and me). I have managed 0-60 runs of 3.6 to 3.8 but didn't take those all the way up to 130mph (wish I had to measure). My 1/4 time could be better but that will come with better launch in time. I think if I was along side a GT2 on a 60mph -130mph roll I would pull on it pretty hard - that's where it seems to perform it's best. You do have me thinking though about the fact that it took 1.8 sec to go from 120 to 130. Could of had a slower shift in there - like 80-90 was slower too.
Here are the other times to think about...
0-80 5.784
0-90 7.155
0-100 8.103
0-110 9.174
0-120 10.389
0-130 12.161
As far as the calibration - the rpms are right on. The weight wouldn't affect those times as mentioned earlier in the thread though I think I am very close to actual weight - won't know unless I get it on a scale.
Now that the temps are lower I bet I will get improved times - stay tuned!
Boost? 1.3-1.4
Interesting observation. But I just looked up #'s for the GT2 and it shows 0-100 8.9, and the 1/4 coming in 11.9@120.6mph. Based on those #'s I am getting to 100mph .8 seconds faster then the GT2. It takes the GT2 3 seconds flat to get another 20mph to 120mph - it's taking me 2.2 sec to go from 100-120 (see below) - that seems consistent to me.
The run I posted was on 100 octane and suppose to be 600hp but I haven't been to the dyno yet - due 10/8.
My car seems to perform the best at the midrange & high range - I don't feel a drastic difference off the line (probably due to a lot of weight issues with body kit, wheels, stereo equipment, and me). I have managed 0-60 runs of 3.6 to 3.8 but didn't take those all the way up to 130mph (wish I had to measure). My 1/4 time could be better but that will come with better launch in time. I think if I was along side a GT2 on a 60mph -130mph roll I would pull on it pretty hard - that's where it seems to perform it's best. You do have me thinking though about the fact that it took 1.8 sec to go from 120 to 130. Could of had a slower shift in there - like 80-90 was slower too.
Here are the other times to think about...
0-80 5.784
0-90 7.155
0-100 8.103
0-110 9.174
0-120 10.389
0-130 12.161
As far as the calibration - the rpms are right on. The weight wouldn't affect those times as mentioned earlier in the thread though I think I am very close to actual weight - won't know unless I get it on a scale.
Now that the temps are lower I bet I will get improved times - stay tuned!
Boost? 1.3-1.4
10-03-2005, 02:19 AM
#20
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Den
Regardless, you have a fast car. The source I used is this one, http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp . If you check out the GT2, it took 4.2 seconds to get from 100mph to 124mph while acceleration up to 100mph was quite close to yours.. The 996TT takes 5.1 seconds 100-124mph, the CGT 3.1 sec. These spreads are consistent with what I have personally seen as well and are substantially more than your numbers.
The best way I think is to check the G-Tech at the strip if you have one close by.
Cheers.
Regardless, you have a fast car. The source I used is this one, http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp . If you check out the GT2, it took 4.2 seconds to get from 100mph to 124mph while acceleration up to 100mph was quite close to yours.. The 996TT takes 5.1 seconds 100-124mph, the CGT 3.1 sec. These spreads are consistent with what I have personally seen as well and are substantially more than your numbers.
The best way I think is to check the G-Tech at the strip if you have one close by.
Cheers.
