riotgear

I'm not sure if this is old or not, but C&D did a comparison between the base 997 and C6 with Z51 package. The Vette won by one point and the 997 lost 5 points in value. C&D stated that their 0-60 time in the base 997 is 4.3 seconds. Is Porsche conservative even with the base 997 numbers?

Car and Driver 997 vs C6 Z51 article

BD997

4.3 is not bad at all....ill take it... add an exhaust/cold air intake and shave another .1 off maybe... :-)

MMD

The Porsche lost because the Corvette was a better value.

There's something wrong with that reasoning and conclusion.

It means the Editors don't make enough money to afford a Porsche. Otherwise why would they be telling perfect strangers how best to spend their money?

"The best sportscar in the world would be the Porsche 997. However, since none of us here at C&D can afford to buy one, we think the Corvette is the better car."

ben in lj

dream on. C&D is always way faster than either any of the other magazines or factory numbers.

texas911

What's so hard to believe? I believe it. Road and Track got 3.9 seconds on an S.

ben in lj

not buying that either. that's among the best time recorded for the GT3 - ever, and the GT3 has a much higher reving motor with a wider power band and with less weight than a 911 S. porsche appears to have learned how to play the "ringer" game. given some of the lengths porsche marketing goes to in order to stretch the true, i don't think these results jive well with factory claims.

flatair

More telling is the 12.8 quarter mile at *109* MPH! That's alot faster than the 996 3.6's. Sounds fishy to me...

JohnnyBahamas

I've come to believe that those articles, especially those by Car and Driver and Road and Track, are full of not so subtle hints that the entire article is an "paid advertiser section" dressed up as journalism. You know, GM pressures them and they submit, while at the same time they throw Porsche AG a bone by tracking some incredible numbers AND saying things like, "It's twice the car, but I wouldn't pay twice the price" (quotation for example)... yet anyone willing to look will see it is not twice the price to begin with so the entire statement is superfluous. Little hints, little "read between the lines", all very tongue in cheek.

An example from the Road & Track sports car test from page 8 regarding the Porsche, "Sure, the asking price for this car is high. But you get what you pay for with the Porsche Carrera S, which is the best sports car in the world under $100,000." And the Porsche came in 3rd in the very same article to two cars also under $100,000.

None of it is meant to be believed... though my car is a 3.9 sec. car!

texas911

Well, whatever you guys want to believe, but Road and Track and Car and Driver are both very credible publications. Under the right circumstances, I do believe the S could go 3.9 seconds.

Have you guys ever been to a drag strip? Times are all over the place when you run.

ben in lj

sure, but i'm not sure i agree with measuring the 0-60 via dropping one off a cliff.

JohnnyBahamas

Isn't dragging a Porsche somthing like taking a $1,000 hooker to the movies? I mean you can do it, but that's not what she's best at.

SrfCity

These C&D drivers are ex race car and or drag racers that can squeeze every last drop out of a car. I'm sure they are accurate but it'd be hard pressed for most anyone else to achieve those numbers. I do believe that ad dollars play into the journalism.

riotgear

So Porsche pays C&D in an article that says their car is #2?

MetalSolid

Wouldn't be the first time C&D have used data from a similar model for another, either because of laziness or poor research...

SrfCity

Who do you think pays more in ad $, GM or Porsche?