Is your 997S a 3.9 sec to 60 mph ? (R&T)
02-08-2005, 06:22 PM
#76
I have continued to read with interest the various opinions on these test results. I finally got the Road & Track issue and thought it was interesting what they said regarding how they tested the cars. "As with previous tests that require specialized measurement, we relied on RacePak Data Systems. Using global positioning system V300S data loggers, we were able to measure actual velocity, lateral accelleration and track postiotion." Irregardless of "abusing the cars", etc. It sounds like the measurements were at least accurate and unbiased for the test results.
02-08-2005, 11:15 PM
#77
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand why people are so skeptical about magazine test data.
There is no way the Porsche test drivers are gonna pound the crap out of their cars and post the best possible time they achieved after numerous runs- why would they? They know magazines will do that for them. If they posted their best time, and a magazine or two couldn't duplicate it, the mags would say that Porsche is over-optimistic with their data and would thus be bad press. They state times that most drivers can duplicate, not their best possible time achieved, like R&T does.
Road and Track takes their cars to a test area and pounds on the car all day until they are satisfied (without a care in the world if the tranny or clutch explodes). Sometimes the weather is 80degrees, sometimes it's 50degrees. They do what they can on that given day. To think that it is "impossible" to duplicate is simply narrow minded, and... wrong.
If you practice enough, you will figure out the best possible combination of RPMs, clutch slip, and wheel spin to maximize your launch. ANYONE can do it if they feel like abusing their car. My car was shown as 5.4secs to 60, but I KNOW I have gotten a bit faster than that, simply because I've been driving it and practicing since day one. I know my car better than some magazine test driver who had it for the day.. Maybe they could beat me around a race track with all of their track experience, but line one up next to me at a red-light and I'll beat him.
They don't lie, or fudge the numbers- it's just that they don't have to pay for any damages out of their own pocket and can practice and beat on the car all day long.
There is no way the Porsche test drivers are gonna pound the crap out of their cars and post the best possible time they achieved after numerous runs- why would they? They know magazines will do that for them. If they posted their best time, and a magazine or two couldn't duplicate it, the mags would say that Porsche is over-optimistic with their data and would thus be bad press. They state times that most drivers can duplicate, not their best possible time achieved, like R&T does.
Road and Track takes their cars to a test area and pounds on the car all day until they are satisfied (without a care in the world if the tranny or clutch explodes). Sometimes the weather is 80degrees, sometimes it's 50degrees. They do what they can on that given day. To think that it is "impossible" to duplicate is simply narrow minded, and... wrong.
If you practice enough, you will figure out the best possible combination of RPMs, clutch slip, and wheel spin to maximize your launch. ANYONE can do it if they feel like abusing their car. My car was shown as 5.4secs to 60, but I KNOW I have gotten a bit faster than that, simply because I've been driving it and practicing since day one. I know my car better than some magazine test driver who had it for the day.. Maybe they could beat me around a race track with all of their track experience, but line one up next to me at a red-light and I'll beat him.
They don't lie, or fudge the numbers- it's just that they don't have to pay for any damages out of their own pocket and can practice and beat on the car all day long.
02-09-2005, 12:06 PM
#78
Pro
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand your point and can also see the standpoint of Porsche, but when I read a test I like to understand what and how they did things. Porsche mentions that they half load the car. I'm sure others don't do that, but what do they do? 0.5 seconds differences can be clarified pretty fast if you know what the testers did.
I'm skeptical about some of the test as they are not telling what they are doing: type of surface, tires (type, brand, status), wheels, how many runs, temperature, wet/dry, etc etc. Indeed, it will take more than a few runs or days to get the best times. Some magazines tell as boundary conditions that they were a little slower due to lack of time and so on, and that is fair if indeed they make that statement.
On the other hand: what is the value of 0-60 on its own, if the breaks are crap or the cornering is bad? There is a very nice test once a year where they test a series of cars on a track with all aspects included: 0-60 MPH, short and long cornering, breaking, 100-150 MPH, back to zero, etc. The total time is around 1 minute and the Porsches are always doing very good in that test, as they are top alround performers. I have to check when and where that test is, as the last time I read it, is more then a year ago.
I can see that not all the magazines have the time to test in all details necessary and just report the manufacturers numbers. That is OK too. If you report data, at least tell under which conditions and with what equipment on hand. It seems that R&T did that and that is great.
I can only guess how long the internal Porsche debate and tests took before they settled on a number to publish.
I'm skeptical about some of the test as they are not telling what they are doing: type of surface, tires (type, brand, status), wheels, how many runs, temperature, wet/dry, etc etc. Indeed, it will take more than a few runs or days to get the best times. Some magazines tell as boundary conditions that they were a little slower due to lack of time and so on, and that is fair if indeed they make that statement.
On the other hand: what is the value of 0-60 on its own, if the breaks are crap or the cornering is bad? There is a very nice test once a year where they test a series of cars on a track with all aspects included: 0-60 MPH, short and long cornering, breaking, 100-150 MPH, back to zero, etc. The total time is around 1 minute and the Porsches are always doing very good in that test, as they are top alround performers. I have to check when and where that test is, as the last time I read it, is more then a year ago.
I can see that not all the magazines have the time to test in all details necessary and just report the manufacturers numbers. That is OK too. If you report data, at least tell under which conditions and with what equipment on hand. It seems that R&T did that and that is great.
I can only guess how long the internal Porsche debate and tests took before they settled on a number to publish.
02-18-2005, 01:29 AM
#79
Cruisin'
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as 993TT's go, I have first hand experience in 0-60 and 1/4 mile at Great Lakes Dragway in Wisconsin. Stock car, official times on computer slip: 0-60 3.8 sec, 1/4 mile 12.3 @ 113.5mph. That was back in 1997 on street tires. It truly amazed everone there, including the guys working at the track. I did 2-3 other runs within 1/10 of a sec. As far as 996TT versus 997S, they're both great cars. I've been debating the same consideration: buy a used 996TT X50 for $85-90k or a 997S for similar dollars? Warranty, the latest greatest styling inside and out on the 997S makes it attractive. Or wait for the 997TT and then there's no debate.....other than $$$
02-18-2005, 02:49 AM
#80
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've loved this thread, but had to comment on the emphasis of 0-60 times. It's been mentioned, but there seems to me to be so much more to a car. I've driven the Corvette Coupe they used in that Road and Track March issue (I know it's not the Z06) and have to say that it is a fast car...and on a given day on given conditions, it might hang or beat the 911S; however, the two cars are miles apart. I'm as American as they come and wish we could build a sports car, but I'm wondering now if America's priorities are just different than Europeans'. We care about big engines, high horsepower and 0-60 times. Based on certain stats the Corvette and 911 look comparable, but if you drive both and can still tell me the cars are even in the same league, I'd think you're crazy. Even at 5, 10 and 20 mph around the city, there is just something about the Porsche that just feels right. It's just....something; but as undescribable as that something is, it is very real. I would think any driver could tell too.
Anyway, 0-60 mph times mean something to me, but not as much as they seem to mean to others, including car magazines. It's an easy statistic to compare for the light reader/enthusiast. But a rear/middle mounted balanced engine sports car made by and refined over 40 years by Porsche, just doesn't have an American competitor.
Anyway, 0-60 mph times mean something to me, but not as much as they seem to mean to others, including car magazines. It's an easy statistic to compare for the light reader/enthusiast. But a rear/middle mounted balanced engine sports car made by and refined over 40 years by Porsche, just doesn't have an American competitor.
02-18-2005, 10:01 AM
#81
Burning Brakes
I don't believe R&T times for a second! For every single car they test, their times are always at least 10% better than every other time I've ever seen, whether it's from another mag, TV show, manufacturer, etc. Come on, are they supposed to be the best 0-60 drivers in the world or something? 
You can't tell me that they somehow go faster 0-60 than everybody else. BS!
You can't tell me that they somehow go faster 0-60 than everybody else. BS!
02-18-2005, 12:00 PM
#82
Race Car
Actually, I find R&T's times to be the slowest of the Big Three auto mags in the US. Car and Driver usually gets the best times.
But I think I know why the times are faster. One the 997 was broken in (5000+ miles) and second, it was tested in the fall/winter months as opposed to the first round of tests that was duriing the hot summer months (for the fall issues).
Anyway, why discount a magazine's results just because you don't agree with it. 3.9 vs 4.2 is only a .3 difference!
But I think I know why the times are faster. One the 997 was broken in (5000+ miles) and second, it was tested in the fall/winter months as opposed to the first round of tests that was duriing the hot summer months (for the fall issues).
Anyway, why discount a magazine's results just because you don't agree with it. 3.9 vs 4.2 is only a .3 difference!
02-18-2005, 12:17 PM
#83
Race Car
Anyway, why discount a magazine's results just because you don't agree with it. 3.9 vs 4.2 is only a .3 difference!
Yeah, I guess an almost 8% difference in things doesn't really make any dfference. Let's see..... an 8% reduction in the HP of your 997 would make you lose about 30 HP. It would be nice to have your morgage rate go up by 8%, wouldn't it? How about having to pay 8% more in taxes or gain 8% in weight? Or you could simply reduce your lifespan by 8% and knock off about 7 years. An 8% reduction in intake air temps have a substantial boost to a combustion engine.
It is not a matter that I just disagree with the magazine's results, it is that they are not true in the real world. That's like saying that in 20 tries I finally made a return on a stock trade of more than 20%. Does that mean that I should expect a 20% return on each trade, or do I have to also take into account all the losses I have had? How about the magazines showing all the conditions surrounding the test along with ALL the results, including the 0 - 60 times of more than 4.5 seconds? Then we might be able to see what the true results are.
Yeah, I guess an almost 8% difference in things doesn't really make any dfference. Let's see..... an 8% reduction in the HP of your 997 would make you lose about 30 HP. It would be nice to have your morgage rate go up by 8%, wouldn't it? How about having to pay 8% more in taxes or gain 8% in weight? Or you could simply reduce your lifespan by 8% and knock off about 7 years. An 8% reduction in intake air temps have a substantial boost to a combustion engine.
It is not a matter that I just disagree with the magazine's results, it is that they are not true in the real world. That's like saying that in 20 tries I finally made a return on a stock trade of more than 20%. Does that mean that I should expect a 20% return on each trade, or do I have to also take into account all the losses I have had? How about the magazines showing all the conditions surrounding the test along with ALL the results, including the 0 - 60 times of more than 4.5 seconds? Then we might be able to see what the true results are.
02-18-2005, 12:34 PM
#84
Race Car
Apple to oranges my friend. Mortgage rates don't relate to 0-60 time one iota.
8%? Well within the variable of something as complex as getting 0-60 times. I'd even venture that 10% is an acceptable range for the delta.
Real world? How can you test in the real world? Would you do a slalom test on the freeway? Do a lateral g test in a Kmart parking lot? Do 1/4 miles down a neigborhood streeet? That is UNREALISTIC! Read your sig and take your own advice.
8%? Well within the variable of something as complex as getting 0-60 times. I'd even venture that 10% is an acceptable range for the delta.
Real world? How can you test in the real world? Would you do a slalom test on the freeway? Do a lateral g test in a Kmart parking lot? Do 1/4 miles down a neigborhood streeet? That is UNREALISTIC! Read your sig and take your own advice.
02-18-2005, 12:37 PM
#85
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1999Porsche911
Anyway, why discount a magazine's results just because you don't agree with it. 3.9 vs 4.2 is only a .3 difference!
Yeah, I guess an almost 8% difference in things doesn't really make any dfference. Let's see..... an 8% reduction in the HP of your 997 would make you lose about 30 HP. It would be nice to have your morgage rate go up by 8%, wouldn't it? How about having to pay 8% more in taxes or gain 8% in weight? Or you could simply reduce your lifespan by 8% and knock off about 7 years. An 8% reduction in intake air temps have a substantial boost to a combustion engine.
It is not a matter that I just disagree with the magazine's results, it is that they are not true in the real world. That's like saying that in 20 tries I finally made a return on a stock trade of more than 20%. Does that mean that I should expect a 20% return on each trade, or do I have to also take into account all the losses I have had? How about the magazines showing all the conditions surrounding the test along with ALL the results, including the 0 - 60 times of more than 4.5 seconds? Then we might be able to see what the true results are.
Yeah, I guess an almost 8% difference in things doesn't really make any dfference. Let's see..... an 8% reduction in the HP of your 997 would make you lose about 30 HP. It would be nice to have your morgage rate go up by 8%, wouldn't it? How about having to pay 8% more in taxes or gain 8% in weight? Or you could simply reduce your lifespan by 8% and knock off about 7 years. An 8% reduction in intake air temps have a substantial boost to a combustion engine.
It is not a matter that I just disagree with the magazine's results, it is that they are not true in the real world. That's like saying that in 20 tries I finally made a return on a stock trade of more than 20%. Does that mean that I should expect a 20% return on each trade, or do I have to also take into account all the losses I have had? How about the magazines showing all the conditions surrounding the test along with ALL the results, including the 0 - 60 times of more than 4.5 seconds? Then we might be able to see what the true results are.
A. Your analogy is not. Google "define:analogy"
B. I believe car and driver had 4.1 the difference between 3.9 and 4.1 could be 5% it also could be 3.94 versus 4.05 (2.7%). However, the real issue is that this is a race car not a stock or bond.
1. Road and Track with a stock model got a 0-60 in 3.9 seconds.
2. Car and Driver with a stock model got a 0-60 in 4.1 seconds.
1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. Given the conditions and the car at R&T they had a better 0-60. 3-5% is definitly within the margins of temperature, driver, car, track conditions,etc.
Making the baseless claim that they are wrong doesn't really move the discussion forward. If you have some facts/reasons/etc. point to it, otherwise stfu *grin*.
02-18-2005, 12:42 PM
#86
Race Car
Originally Posted by texas911
Apple to oranges my friend. Mortgage rates don't relate to 0-60 time one iota.
8%? Well within the variable of something as complex as getting 0-60 times. I'd even venture that 10% is an acceptable range for the delta.
Real world? How can you test in the real world? Would you do a slalom test on the freeway? Do a lateral g test in a Kmart parking lot? Do 1/4 miles down a neigborhood streeet? That is UNREALISTIC! Read your sig and take your own advice.
8%? Well within the variable of something as complex as getting 0-60 times. I'd even venture that 10% is an acceptable range for the delta.
Real world? How can you test in the real world? Would you do a slalom test on the freeway? Do a lateral g test in a Kmart parking lot? Do 1/4 miles down a neigborhood streeet? That is UNREALISTIC! Read your sig and take your own advice.
Better carry the magazine article with you at all times because that is the only way you will have to convince people that your car is that fast.
02-18-2005, 12:50 PM
#87
Race Car
Making the baseless claim that they are wrong doesn't really move the discussion forward. If you have some facts/reasons/etc. point to it, otherwise stfu *grin*.
No need to prove that they are wrong. It is for those who own the 997S to prove they are right, isn't it. I can claim that my car does 0 -100 in 8.0 seconds and I guess it becomes the truth unless you can prove me wrong? Would't you want ME to prove I was right?
Don't believe evrything you read.
__________________
No need to prove that they are wrong. It is for those who own the 997S to prove they are right, isn't it. I can claim that my car does 0 -100 in 8.0 seconds and I guess it becomes the truth unless you can prove me wrong? Would't you want ME to prove I was right?
Don't believe evrything you read.
__________________
02-18-2005, 12:54 PM
#88
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1999Porsche911
Making the baseless claim that they are wrong doesn't really move the discussion forward. If you have some facts/reasons/etc. point to it, otherwise stfu *grin*.
No need to prove that they are wrong. It is for those who own the 997S to prove they are right, isn't it. I can claim that my car does 0 -100 in 8.0 seconds and I guess it becomes the truth unless you can prove me wrong? Would't you want ME to prove I was right?
Don't believe evrything you read.
__________________
No need to prove that they are wrong. It is for those who own the 997S to prove they are right, isn't it. I can claim that my car does 0 -100 in 8.0 seconds and I guess it becomes the truth unless you can prove me wrong? Would't you want ME to prove I was right?
Don't believe evrything you read.
__________________
02-18-2005, 01:12 PM
#89
Race Car
Wrong, because you are not in the business of testing cars and based on your posts have a credibility factor that is rapidly heading toward 0 ;-).
You are right! My example of an 8% difference was way off. The actual difference between Porsche's specs of 4.6 seconds 0 - 60 and the magazine's claim of 3.9% is not the 8% I claimed, but a wopping 15%+. I guess you will now do everything you can do justify that one too?
Credibility? When you get your 997S, I will put up $10,000 that you will not acheive a 0 - 60 mph time in 3.9 seconds with your stock 997S on street tires with a stock setup. You'll only have to reach that target 2 out the 3 tries. It should be an easy bet for you since the magazine says it is.
You are right! My example of an 8% difference was way off. The actual difference between Porsche's specs of 4.6 seconds 0 - 60 and the magazine's claim of 3.9% is not the 8% I claimed, but a wopping 15%+. I guess you will now do everything you can do justify that one too?
Credibility? When you get your 997S, I will put up $10,000 that you will not acheive a 0 - 60 mph time in 3.9 seconds with your stock 997S on street tires with a stock setup. You'll only have to reach that target 2 out the 3 tries. It should be an easy bet for you since the magazine says it is.
02-18-2005, 01:33 PM
#90
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1999Porsche911
Wrong, because you are not in the business of testing cars and based on your posts have a credibility factor that is rapidly heading toward 0 ;-).
You are right! My example of an 8% difference was way off. The actual difference between Porsche's specs of 4.6 seconds 0 - 60 and the magazine's claim of 3.9% is not the 8% I claimed, but a wopping 15%+. I guess you will now do everything you can do justify that one too?
Credibility? When you get your 997S, I will put up $10,000 that you will not acheive a 0 - 60 mph time in 3.9 seconds with your stock 997S on street tires with a stock setup. You'll only have to reach that target 2 out the 3 tries. It should be an easy bet for you since the magazine says it is.
You are right! My example of an 8% difference was way off. The actual difference between Porsche's specs of 4.6 seconds 0 - 60 and the magazine's claim of 3.9% is not the 8% I claimed, but a wopping 15%+. I guess you will now do everything you can do justify that one too?
Credibility? When you get your 997S, I will put up $10,000 that you will not acheive a 0 - 60 mph time in 3.9 seconds with your stock 997S on street tires with a stock setup. You'll only have to reach that target 2 out the 3 tries. It should be an easy bet for you since the magazine says it is.
On a seperate note, don't misquote the magines. They give (generally) their best 0-60 time. Not the time that they achive 66% of the time or better.