did they say which cliff they pushed it off of to get that measurement?

 

Let me tell you how it does not come close. Coming out of the Hairpin turn, on one of the quickest straights, at Barber Motosports the 997S (with PCCB's) hit 120 mph before the braking zone...the Turbo S hit 145 mph. Same driver, same conditions. That is not only not close...its Blown Away.

Don't get me wrong the 997S is a great car but don't even try to compare it with the Turbo!

 

I saw Porsche information which now says the new S cab is faster than the orig. coupe information. I also have read 2 studies which say the S if faster than Porsche says it is. Could it be that they did not want to say that the new S is faster than the GT3 or the turbo because they are still building those as 996's? I think that is the deal. R & T does not need to overstate how fast a car is and tests them all so the method they use is probably very good.

 

Jeeva
Which R&T issue is that? I want a copy to show my friend who just purchased a corvette, not to rub it in his face or anything. That would be rude. I can't wait for my 997S to arrive. Thanks.

 

Umm BS. The quarter mile for the turbo is: +/- quarter-mile passes in 12.2 seconds at 116 mph (2004 caranddriver cab (sorry didn't find one for the coup)

Oh wait, the 997s from the top of this article has the 997s at 12.3. And then according to you the 997s stops working for the next 5-10 seconds while the turbo accelerates to another 25mph. Give me a break. I know (insert magazine name here) has outrageous numbers, but if we use the "my friend method" lets stop the discussion. I saw someone earlier say they had a 0-60 in 3.6 seconds for the 997s, am I quoting it? No...

 

No you got it wrong. What I'm saying is that the Turbo came out of the turn quicker, accelerated faster over the same piece of real estate and achieved a higher terminal velocity before the 997S. 'm not quoting any stats, simply one empirical observation.

 

Ahh, well sure, but that is really hard to understand. Maybe the guy was used to the turbo, didn't take the turn as fast in 997s...dunno...who knows?

All I am saying is that with professional drivers on a track the difference between the turbo and the 997s is 3-5 seconds out of 480 seconds (see me original posting) . The 0-60 and quarter mile are within tenths of a second and the skid pads are similar. If I had my choice of a 997 turbo or a 997s, I am sure I would hands down get the 997 turbo (haven't seen the specs but if a NA 997s this good I don't want to think about a turbo).

If I had my choice of the 996 turbo or the 997s, well I picked. Does it mean I think the 997s is better than the 996 turbo? For me yes. But some of my considerations were body (997 verus 996 - I love the new headlights), sport chrono (I hate the stop watch (but it is growning on me - but love the change the suspension on the fly), and N/A engine (no turbo lag). These things are not related to performance at all. I can see someone that feels the reverse on all three of those chosing the 996 turbo.

 

It was not my intention to get this "mine is a better porsche" direction to this thread...the previous best 0-60 for the 997S was 4.3 sec. (I don't have the article handy..so could be off by a bit) by the same mag., they were surprised by this 3.8 sec. 997S and had a dyno. done to verify output, and was within normal limits...and hence the presumption that the break-in had some thing to do with it.

My take on this, every porsche is special...it keeps getting better....0-60 really does not mean a lot...and this is a ver special 997S...it is NOT the norm...

Having said that...why is 993TT flaunted as a 3.7sec. car, when only one mag. had that number...and I call my C4S a 4.6 sec , as that was the number motortrend got....we know porsche numbers are conservative., well I've got to go back to work...I'll continue my rant later.

 

OK, let's put this disussion to rest... anyone who has driven both a 997S and a 993TT or 996TT knows that the TTs are plain faster, period. There is no question. The 997S pulls very smoothly and is quick, but is just not as quick as a TT - and I'm not talking just "seat of the pants, turbo effect making it feel faster," they ARE faster. That said, all of the above cars make my 993 NA feel slow by comparison. :-(

 

Having owned both cars (and quite a few other derivatives besides) I feel qualified to comment,

For me - on a real road, dry conditions, with similar driver ability.....there'd not be much in it!! However.........the 996TT often feels faster than it actually is because of the "shove in the back effect" from the forced induction, whereas the 997 has a much more linear power delivery.

Throw driver ability into the equation and you start to mix things up a bit - (hope I don't get flamed here) - 996 TT's are very quick car's - and are tolerant of "mediocre or average" driving ability - the Nurburgring track times are the acid test - it's a circuit I know well (over 150 laps under my belt - in cars - and 50 or so on bikes) - and it is not forgiving - the times belie the ability that went into achieving them - I'm getting to the point here! - Walter Rohl can turn in consistent and fast times in both cars (the man is a demi-god - I know I've sat next to him for two laps!) - mere mortals would be consistantly faster in the 996TT and would struggle to maintain a similar timing margin/difference in the 997S.

Throw some bad weather into the mix - and it's no contest - the 996TT would romp away!

What does this tell us (me) - well the 996TT is a car pretty much anyone can get in and be up to 9/10ths very quickly - the 997S, also has readily accesible performance, let's say to 8/10ths, but above that, and at the limit demands time, experience and ability. More so, I'm afraid than the 996TT, if perhaps less than a GT3.

Another interesting fact - a standard 997S lapped Pembrey circuit here in the UK (a circuit which demands high power and good traction) just 1.4 seconds slower than a Gallardo driven by the same race driver.

I love (and have loved) both P cars - they are just DIFFERENT - but one thing is for certain - for some VERY strange reason - Porsche are choosing to underplay the performance of the 997S!!!

 

It's the one I recieved this wknd., so should be the latest one. The same comparision, had you buddy's vette number 1, 997S finished third behind the boxterS and the vette.

dealmaker, a good write-up.

 

Caranddriver has a 4.1 0-60 and R&T apparently has 3.9 for the 997s. (Those are the two best I have seen, and they are highly circulated magazines)

 

3.4 seconds......LOL

 

The 997S is a fantastic handling car hence it's time around the ring, however anyone who believes that the 997S can hit 60 in 3.9 seconds should go and join Elvis for a coffee in the bar down yonder.
Having had an anniversary model, same 0-60 time as S in 4.8 (a lovely car) I can guarantee that a TT and obviously a TTX50 is faster, however with the lighter weight and normally aspirated engine the 997S may feel a little quicker than it actually is, a great asset...

The only other conclusion I can draw is that the very few cars factory dynoed that are way above the normal range of power output are selected for the test cars that journalists use.......this makes sense higher than expected performance could certainly lead to a huge increase in Sales.

Take for example the UK's E - type Jag with a bull**** top speed of 150mph... this was tested downhill with a gale force wind behind and driven by an anorexic midget, because of these false figures the car sold very well and became the classic that it is (nice torso as well)

DonnyJ

 

If you were a manufacturer selling car A and car B and car A performs nearly as well as car B but car B costs 40,000 dollars more, wouldn't you want to downplay the performance of car A?