schvetkaaks

What issue is this?

Sanjeevan

R&T march, 2005 issue.

Traffic53

the mags are always optimistic. this is a number that shouldn't really vary by 20%, under any circumstance. a couple of tenths- maybe. a full second seems silly. instead of putting the car on the dyno, how about putting the performance equipment on the bench. according to road/track the carrera s is just slightly slower than an enzo. come on.

Adam F.

i'm not sure i follow your meaning when you say the mags are optimistic. they're not guessing performance numbers, or projecting them based on some power to weight formula. they are hooking up a computerized 'fifth wheel' to the cars and recording results.

of course test numbers will vary, as there are a number of variables. the driver, particular example of each car, the altitude, air temp, traction available due to track surface etc etc. will all have a tremendous influence on the numbers you read in a magazine. some mags correct for this, some do not. also keep in mind that they may have a limited amount of time for some tests, while they have all the time in the world to go for a great result in others. give it a shot, take a car you've never driven to your local dragstrip and run some 1/4 miles, i'd be willing to bet you'll get widely varying results.

as for a the 997S being 'just slightly slower than an enzo', uh what? i don't have a road and track nearby, but from previous tests in road and track i've seen, these cars are seperated by 1+ seconds and 20+mph in the 1/4 mile. that's not even in the same league. i'm not sure anyone was trying to say a new 911 was going to hang with an enzo. if you see a test where a 911 gets a great hole shot, and an enzo doesn't then you might see a 60mph time that's kind of close. check out the rest of the acceleration figures and you'll see the real story.

Mongo

holy hell if thats really accurate, this would rival the 996 GT2 even!

Alan Smithee

As Adam mentioned, variables are infinite in acceleration testing, the biggest being driver ability/willingness to abuse a particular vehicle. The only valid comparisons are tests by the same magazine, as using the same testing facility/equipment/driver provides some consistency.

That said, 0-60 times are largely irrelevant when horsepower gets over about 250-300. At that point it's about traction. 0-100, 1/4 mile, etc. are better measures, and as it was mentioned the 911S is not in the same league as the Enzo. Car and Driver's 5-60 time is a good indication of typical street acceleration, as most sane people don't do high-revving clutch drops in the daily commute.

Traffic53

well...ok. i'm just saying i get enough of these mags to be able to conclude their test results often reflect the absolute best possible senario. while ferrari concludes that their car is capable of 3.6 to 60, r/t says they can do it in 3.3. if the factory could make the car acheive 60 in 3.3, why wouldn't they claim it? i believe the same folks who build and test grand prix cars every day are capable of accurately conducting a 0-60 test on their road cars. i think they don't claim 3.3 because it doesn't consistently do it! same with porsche. they say 4.8 for the new s. r/t says 3.9. what? the porsche factory is almost a full second off the actual capability of its car?

i know there are variables when testing- so do the car companies. my point is that r/t is outside the acceptable +/- for me. i put my money on the constructors test numbers. that's just me. my enzo/997s comment was based on ferrari's claim vs. r/t 997 claim -which is unfair. my bad.

riotgear

Porsche.com claims 4.6 for 997s and 4.8 for 997.

1999Porsche911

Unless they test the cars out on a normal roadway, the results are all bogus. There is no way a 997S is going to turn a 3.9 second run with stock tires. The 0 - 60 test depends too much on traction to be reliable. What is the 0 -100 number? I am sure it is the 10.5 - 11 second range or higher which is respectable, but hardly quick.

Billy Bob Dibble

The also claim 4.5 for the gt3. Why does no one have a problem with the gt3 0-60 in 3.9?

http://motortrend.com/features/perfo...e/index11.html

1999Porsche911

The also claim 4.5 for the gt3. Why does no one have a problem with the gt3 0-60 in 3.9?

The GT3 cannot do a 3.9 run on street tires either.

Billy Bob Dibble

235/40ZR18 91Y; 295/30ZR18 98Y Michelin Pilot Sport 2

They look like street tires to me.

1999Porsche911

Well, if you can show me a GT3 or a 996 or 997 (stock) that can do a 3.9 second 0 - 60 run on the street, I would be seriously impressed. It just cannot be done. I get a kick out of people who hunt for statistics and writeups showing impressive times. What do they do...keep the aticles in the glove box and show people when asked how fast their car is? If it can't do it on the street, the figures are meaningless.

Billy Bob Dibble

I love people that when provided with links to articles don't read them and shrug them off as meaningless. A stock gt3 on a track did a 0-60 in 3.9. Motortrend doesn't just make up numbers. Now you can argue the dropped the clutch or it was a really good track, but a stock gt3 did 0-60 in 3.9 seconds.

A stock 997s did 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. Did other magazines get different numbers sure one got 4.1 for the 997s. Is 4.1 the best time? No 3.9 is. I can't figure out why people always whine about good 0-60 times. I had a s2000. If you got a "perfect" launch you had a 0-60 that was .5-.7 seconds better than a normal launch. Does that make the perfect launch time wrong? NO!

I try to always post links so that instead of posting crap that is completely baseless people can see where I get my information. It takes <60 seconds to search for gt3 3.9 0-60 on google. This way I am providing value to other people rather than just wasting space with my (potentially wrong) opinion.

1999Porsche911

Well, like I said, if anyone wants to try and convince someone that their stock 996, 997 or GT3 can turn a 3.9 second run on the street, they better carry copies of Motor Trend's article with them. There is no other way to prove it. Most of us live in the real world and not in an artificial and controlled one.