997 C2S vs. 996 TT
05-30-2007, 10:00 AM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
997 C2S vs. 996 TT
Car and Driver says that the 997 C2S is only .2 secs slower 0-60 than the 996 Turbo (4.1 secs vs. 3.9 secs). Does that sound right? I would've thought that the 996TT would blow its doors off.
"Even with the rear axle tramping violently almost all the way through first gear, the Carrera S could be horse-whipped to a 4.1-second 60-mph run and a 12.6-second quarter-mile at 112 mph, slightly quicker than the slightly lighter 400-hp C6 Corvette [C/D, September 2004]. The old 911 GT3 with 380 horses was but a 10th quicker to 60 and the mighty 415-hp 911 Turbo just 0.2 second."
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...carrera-s.html
"Even with the rear axle tramping violently almost all the way through first gear, the Carrera S could be horse-whipped to a 4.1-second 60-mph run and a 12.6-second quarter-mile at 112 mph, slightly quicker than the slightly lighter 400-hp C6 Corvette [C/D, September 2004]. The old 911 GT3 with 380 horses was but a 10th quicker to 60 and the mighty 415-hp 911 Turbo just 0.2 second."
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...carrera-s.html
05-30-2007, 11:06 AM
#4
Yea, with a $700 flash you can add 90hp to a base TT.
Although nothing like a new car...
IMHO - The depreciation has already pretty much bottomed out on the 996TT- so you can pick one up, drive it for a year or two and not lose your ****!
Although nothing like a new car...
IMHO - The depreciation has already pretty much bottomed out on the 996TT- so you can pick one up, drive it for a year or two and not lose your ****!
05-30-2007, 01:49 PM
#5
Burning Brakes
I've driven a friend of mine's 997 C2S and although it is pretty damn fast it is not even close to the speed in my TT. Not sure what they did in their tests, but my butt-o-meter says it's not even close. We have not run side by side, but I think it's useless to do so.
05-30-2007, 02:37 PM
#6
Rennlist Member
Car and Driver and the likes don't own the press cars and don't really give a sh*t how they launch them. with that much axle tramping, I would say that the clutch and flywheel took a pretty severe beating.
Trending Topics
05-31-2007, 10:19 AM
#8
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by GBG
Car and Driver says that the 997 C2S is only .2 secs slower 0-60 than the 996 Turbo (4.1 secs vs. 3.9 secs). Does that sound right? I would've thought that the 996TT would blow its doors off.
But with regard to the stated 997 C2S versus the 996 Turbo, check out what each car's best 0-100 mph time is. I think you'll see that as both cars run towards higher speeds, the Turbo's advantage just grows. The best 0-100 time I've seen published for the 997 C2S is 9.6 sec, and the best time I've seen published for the 996 Turbo is 8.9 sec. So the 0.2 sec advantage the Turbo has to 60 mph is increased to 0.7 sec by 100 mpg.
And as mentioned above, the beauty of the Turbo is the ease with which it can be modified to produce much more power than the 997 C2S.
05-31-2007, 10:45 AM
#9
Rennlist Member
My 2 cents:
0-60 is a fairly insignificant benchmark in the era when traction limits performance more than hp.
Up to 30, it is all a question of traction, as a lesser car with slicks will defeat a more powerful car without them.
A rolling start is a much better measure of acceleration, and doesn't require trashing the drivetrain to get a best number.
All rear engined Porsches are poor 0-60 machines, as they all tramp the rear axle, have too short a first gear, and require a risky first-to-second shift with your right foot on the floor to duplicate magazine times. I will do none of those in my car, so the Mustang in the next lane can beat my tt across any intersection, any day, any time.
If you want 0-60 superiority, you don't need to spend money on a tt. Any rear drive American V8 with slicks and traction bars will do it for a fraction of the cost. On the other hand, you won't take your wife to dinner in it, try a twisty road, or drive to Indianapolis.
The C2 should be compared to the tt by cruising both at 60 mph and accelerating to 100 in your gear of choice. That duplicates real world performance, and there they will not feel similar. If youwant a better differentiator, try it in snow at 40 mph. AS
0-60 is a fairly insignificant benchmark in the era when traction limits performance more than hp.
Up to 30, it is all a question of traction, as a lesser car with slicks will defeat a more powerful car without them.
A rolling start is a much better measure of acceleration, and doesn't require trashing the drivetrain to get a best number.
All rear engined Porsches are poor 0-60 machines, as they all tramp the rear axle, have too short a first gear, and require a risky first-to-second shift with your right foot on the floor to duplicate magazine times. I will do none of those in my car, so the Mustang in the next lane can beat my tt across any intersection, any day, any time.
If you want 0-60 superiority, you don't need to spend money on a tt. Any rear drive American V8 with slicks and traction bars will do it for a fraction of the cost. On the other hand, you won't take your wife to dinner in it, try a twisty road, or drive to Indianapolis.
The C2 should be compared to the tt by cruising both at 60 mph and accelerating to 100 in your gear of choice. That duplicates real world performance, and there they will not feel similar. If youwant a better differentiator, try it in snow at 40 mph. AS
05-31-2007, 01:49 PM
#10
Well said. Perhaps my favorite part of the video on line of the BBC (Top Gear?) review of the 997TT is the 40 to 60 time in 3rd gear. 1s. He is a known big car guy and had a Ferrari at the time (Gallardo now). He was shocked....in ectasy. It was funny. A tt at 15ish to x speed is just scary fast. My opinion.
It is amazing. I had a 3.8L 993 with chip/intake/exhaust....the TT kills that stock, with my UMW software and flywheel.....it is just amazing.
Best.
Jeff
It is amazing. I had a 3.8L 993 with chip/intake/exhaust....the TT kills that stock, with my UMW software and flywheel.....it is just amazing.
Best.
Jeff
Originally Posted by Alexander Stemer
My 2 cents:
0-60 is a fairly insignificant benchmark in the era when traction limits performance more than hp.
Up to 30, it is all a question of traction, as a lesser car with slicks will defeat a more powerful car without them.
A rolling start is a much better measure of acceleration, and doesn't require trashing the drivetrain to get a best number.
All rear engined Porsches are poor 0-60 machines, as they all tramp the rear axle, have too short a first gear, and require a risky first-to-second shift with your right foot on the floor to duplicate magazine times. I will do none of those in my car, so the Mustang in the next lane can beat my tt across any intersection, any day, any time.
If you want 0-60 superiority, you don't need to spend money on a tt. Any rear drive American V8 with slicks and traction bars will do it for a fraction of the cost. On the other hand, you won't take your wife to dinner in it, try a twisty road, or drive to Indianapolis.
The C2 should be compared to the tt by cruising both at 60 mph and accelerating to 100 in your gear of choice. That duplicates real world performance, and there they will not feel similar. If youwant a better differentiator, try it in snow at 40 mph. AS
0-60 is a fairly insignificant benchmark in the era when traction limits performance more than hp.
Up to 30, it is all a question of traction, as a lesser car with slicks will defeat a more powerful car without them.
A rolling start is a much better measure of acceleration, and doesn't require trashing the drivetrain to get a best number.
All rear engined Porsches are poor 0-60 machines, as they all tramp the rear axle, have too short a first gear, and require a risky first-to-second shift with your right foot on the floor to duplicate magazine times. I will do none of those in my car, so the Mustang in the next lane can beat my tt across any intersection, any day, any time.
If you want 0-60 superiority, you don't need to spend money on a tt. Any rear drive American V8 with slicks and traction bars will do it for a fraction of the cost. On the other hand, you won't take your wife to dinner in it, try a twisty road, or drive to Indianapolis.
The C2 should be compared to the tt by cruising both at 60 mph and accelerating to 100 in your gear of choice. That duplicates real world performance, and there they will not feel similar. If youwant a better differentiator, try it in snow at 40 mph. AS
05-31-2007, 05:02 PM
#11
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Spring, Texas (The Woodlands)
Posts: 5,147
Received 10 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Dock
If Porsche continues to build the 911 there will be an N/A version sometime in the future that will be FASTER than the 996 Turbo.
EDIT: Car & Driver states 0-62 in 4.2 seconds for the GT3 RS.....slower than
a regular 997S.....???
05-31-2007, 05:21 PM
#12
Burning Brakes
How would a 996TT do against an 07 997 GT3 RS????
05-31-2007, 07:44 PM
#13
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by slant911
Despite what car and driver might say I think the new RS would beat a stock 996 TT to 60MPH. The HP rating on the RS is 415 HP (same as stock TT) and it's NA so zero turbo lag AND it's about 300 pounds lighter.
Originally Posted by slant911
Speed isn't everything
06-01-2007, 10:38 AM
#15
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 0-60 benchmark is seriously outdated. There are few places in the U.S. where you can't boogie at @80MPH on the highway for great distances. Here in the Northeast, which is the most congested section of the country, you'll get run over in the passing lane if you aren't in the 80MPH range.
As was also noted, the Car & Driver testers beat the crap out of the cars to get the 0-60 times. Not a realistic testing procedure.
The best test in the real world that I can think of is to pass a semi while going 70MPH in 2nd or 3rd gear. Stomp on it in any Turbo from 1991 on and the acceleration will plaster you to your seat and basically scare you into a smile. Its called Torque!
Do the same in a normally asperated 911 and it will be very quick, but it won't scare you. That insane level of torque is why most of us are addicted to Turbos!
As was also noted, the Car & Driver testers beat the crap out of the cars to get the 0-60 times. Not a realistic testing procedure.
The best test in the real world that I can think of is to pass a semi while going 70MPH in 2nd or 3rd gear. Stomp on it in any Turbo from 1991 on and the acceleration will plaster you to your seat and basically scare you into a smile. Its called Torque!
Do the same in a normally asperated 911 and it will be very quick, but it won't scare you. That insane level of torque is why most of us are addicted to Turbos!