Wrong again. This is NOT empirical data. That definition should be in your stats book as well......

FYI...you must not know 1999's car. I am quite sure it is faster than most of the 997's in here.

 

If the 997s runs a 3.9? What does a GT3 with 380 hp, an 8200 rpm redline that weighs 3000lbs run?

 

So that's it, the reason you guys don't believe it is because it out performs your cars? BTW, the 997 gearing is shorter hence the quicker 0-60 times.

 

As standard as economically feasable the magazines testing them are, I'm sure they can't test all the cars in the same place in the same venue in the same controlled conditions throughout the year. Get real!

So basically you guys are arguing that we should not even regard 0-60 times as a measure of performance. Especially since you don't agree with it? That's crap!

 

I am being real. No need to pop off with your wrong definition. By the way, standardization does NOT require same place testing nor controlled conditions. Go back and re-read the definition.

As for the 0-60 times I don't regard them. There are WAY TOO MANY $30K rice rockets that will destroy the 997 from 0-60. The TRUE measure of performance is elasticity (which Porsche reports) and performance handling.

But I will concede that the mags are fun to read when comparing multiple cars at the same locale. I just don't put much stock in the times they quote or the opinions they give. I much more value the opinions from fellow 'listers.

 

Hopefully we're all on the same page here!
We can argue about the semantics of standardized etc etc etc
Acceleration tests give you a rough idea of how these cars perform against other cars to a certain extent. A 1/2 sec difference here and there is negligible - let's be real!
Besides, in looking at performance cars a 0-60 test is only worth so much - tests like 0-100 mph or 0-200 kph are more meaningful,...and again, there will always be discrepancies between car mags for numerous reasons.
The bottom line is that the last few generations of p-cars are all great performers!
So don't get your panties in a bunch when some car mag says their Evo or Subaru is faster than a 911 !!

 

There you go, what Coochas said.

 

Well put Dave.

 

Agree with what you said Dave, EXCEPT the part tha a 1/2 a second is negligible. Would giving up 40 HP from your 997 C4S be negligible? That's a 12.5 percent dfference between a 4 second and a 4.5 second time.

 

Interesting topic but more interesting would be how it relates to real life non-track situations.
I have some cars that are more powerful than others but in my experience, the differences of even 1-2 secs are barely noticeable in the real world of on ramps and off ramps.
Years ago when I have my 92 NSX, I could not out accelerate a 240hp e36 m3 with five seats.
A few years later, my 98 540 auto sedan was only slightly slower in a canyon run than a similar but modded m3 my buddy has.
Don't laugh but most recently, my e46 m3 was barely catching up with a late model Maxima on the on ramp !!
And don't forget about reviews that outlined how a regular Civic can outrun the torque-less S2000 to the next light.

So true that there are many variables but the pertinent acceleration measurements in everyday life should be
(a) how fast to get up to 65 from an on ramp, (yes, without clutch dumping and assuming your grandma is the passenger)
(b) how fast accelerating from say 40 to 70 mph in the best gear. Of course assuming not everyone drives within the torque range or near redline all day long.

 

Perhaps I misrepresented what I wanted to say...a 1/2 sec IS important (it's 44 feet travelled at 60 mph) BUT a 1/2 sec difference between DIFFERENT TESTERS (i.e. the car mags, us, them, etc) is negligible.

Also, I won't disagree with you - every single pony is important, be it 10, 20, 30 or even 26. I've probably added about 40-50 hp over my stock 225 Audi engine and I wouldn't give it up,...it's a huge difference in the BUTTOMETER but probably only 3/4 sec less in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

 

Gee, I was hoping and waiting for a tangent there.

 

I expected one tooo.oh well. No bites.

 

"I've noticed that R&T's 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are usually lower for most cars that they test versus other car mags and manufacturer times. I am not sure why this is."

um, maybe they because they are very good drivers and no every trick in the book about going 0-60?? Maybe, they like to lie?? Maybe their stop watch doesn't work and just knocks a second off?? Personally, I love reading articles and the various facts and figures are always interesting but there is nothing like getting in the car and actually driving it! I know Ferrari's are incredibly fast, I was leant a 360 here in Tokyo and it was a pain to drive - couldn't get it anywhere near a 100MPH because of the roads (wet day) in my 997 I can get to 100MPH every day! Doesn't mean the Ferrari is crap - just I COULDN'T DRIVE IT properly - guess bit of nerves (not my car) not used to it's handling - the list goes on! Rather than 0-60 track times are more important in my eyes.

 

??