0-60 MPH : 4.1s -- 1/4 Mile : 12.6s @ 112 MPH
10-09-2004, 09:20 AM
#17
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Porsche publish such a conservative number? 0.7 seconds is,in proportional terms, a very large gap. You would maybe expect, say, 0.4 -0.5, not 0.7. The report above seems indisputable it seems. 
10-09-2004, 12:11 PM
#18
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by itradem
C70Pete,
What RPM are you launching the 99 C2 at to hit a 13? Have you actually seen these numbers yourself? Not questioning the numbers... just want to be able to hit a 13 next time out to the track... also the first time out to the track with this car ('01 C2)
What RPM are you launching the 99 C2 at to hit a 13? Have you actually seen these numbers yourself? Not questioning the numbers... just want to be able to hit a 13 next time out to the track... also the first time out to the track with this car ('01 C2)
rims and overall weight have something to do with it... I raced my buddies 3.6 '02 from 60-120 mph and we were dead even... mind you he had 18" rims vs my 17"... hell I can feel a loss of power when I really boost up the pressure in my tires!! the car feels initially slightly less responsive..
but as we all know.. 1/4 mile runs are not the 911's forte... this is a track car and I caution those of you who consistently test 1/4 mile times ... you'll be replacing clutches soon!!!
10-09-2004, 03:23 PM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by frayed
3290lbs. Hmmm. It's a porker, and weightier than the 3131 curb weight that PAG quotes. 160lbs in options and fluids?
Hi Jeff,
are you referring to the 997's weight of 3290 or a previous 996 model... in any case.. as I'm typing this I'm looking on page 182 of my 1999 C2 porsche manual - "technical data"
Coupe: Empty Weight 2909.9 lbs to 3042.2 lbs (page 183)
yes the 2909.9 lbs weight is probably for c2 like mine with 17" rims and 6 speed manual tranny.... there IS a difference. Not only does the weight of bigger 18" rims come into play by adding to the total weight of the car but they increase the unsprung weight and have more rotational mass which effectively reduces (slightly but enough to make a difference) the horsepower of your engine.
3290/2910 = 1.13 - based on weight alone 13% more, hence the new 3.6 litre motor for the heavier 2002 and beyond...
regards,
Peter
Last edited by Tbred911; 10-09-2004 at 03:53 PM.
10-09-2004, 04:17 PM
#21
Race Car
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, the 997S. In the C&D article, they quote 3290. Porsche quotes 3131. Disappointing, but I suppose all the extra structural rigidity, sound deadening, and gadgets that $100k car buyers demand simply add weight.
10-09-2004, 05:20 PM
#22
Track Day
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Miami, Fl.
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, so you guys mean to tell me that the new S is FASTER than the 996 TT? I have a hard time believing that especially when Porsche claims a 0-62 time od 4.8, what gives?
10-09-2004, 08:02 PM
#23
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article mentions the gear ratios being more suited for quick starts, can anyone compare the different ratios on other models?
A mid Twelve Quarter is neck snapping acceleration and very few who have driven or owned the C2s have ever used anything close to those terms to describe the C2S performance.
A mid Twelve Quarter is neck snapping acceleration and very few who have driven or owned the C2s have ever used anything close to those terms to describe the C2S performance.
10-09-2004, 10:02 PM
#24
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by BigRobC4S
ok, so you guys mean to tell me that the new S is FASTER than the 996 TT? I have a hard time believing that especially when Porsche claims a 0-62 time od 4.8, what gives?
I don't think anybody said the C2S is faster than the TT... I think there was a go in the turbo forums that said the C2S was very quick... like the turbo (or almost as quick) but after 124 mph the turbo was way faster... (not to mention the easy extra 100hp you can extract from the turbo with simple mods)...
10-10-2004, 05:19 PM
#25
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by jcnesq
According to the Car and Driver article, the test car had 350 hp. Written before PAG decided the final hp ratings??
10-10-2004, 08:28 PM
#26
I got almost exactly the times out of my SMG M3 (360hp@3000lbs). My guess is that this particular 997 would dyno closer to 380hp if the weight is 3300lbs. The big surprise is actually the SRT10 numbers ~ I drove one a couple of weeks back and it is really FAST!!! IMO it can't even be compared to a 997. This particular one was just slightly modded though getting ready for a Supercharger.
10-10-2004, 09:09 PM
#27
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by quartermile
I got almost exactly the times out of my SMG M3 (360hp@3000lbs). My guess is that this particular 997 would dyno closer to 380hp if the weight is 3300lbs. The big surprise is actually the SRT10 numbers ~ I drove one a couple of weeks back and it is really FAST!!! IMO it can't even be compared to a 997. This particular one was just slightly modded though getting ready for a Supercharger.
seriously though how much work does it take to lose 600 lbs on an M3...
10-10-2004, 09:14 PM
#28
This test affirms my decision to order a new C2. The Porsche is a close second to only the Viper in performance, but is the least expensive car with the best gas mileage. Also, it's great looking (sorry, don't like the Viper, although the Jag is very nice), it's actually comfortable and reliable, you can drive it everyday (even in winter), and you can put your kids in the back seat.
10-10-2004, 10:03 PM
#29
Pete it was actually relatively easy to get the weight down. Getting 400+ hp out of the S54 motor would be VERY involved, which is why I went the GT3 route. You can go to the following website to get some idea what is involved in shedding the weight. Also the 3000lbs weight was prior to adding the cage and driver on a half tank of 100 octane fuel. The 997 numbers are truly impressive!
http://pw1.netcom.com/~sgalaba/m3e46/weight.htm#Weight
http://pw1.netcom.com/~sgalaba/m3e46/weight.htm#Weight
