They weigh about the same, why the handling so different?
So even on a hot day it has 100hp and tons of to more.

No doubt with a little extra downforce and minimal suspension work it will be faster, even on tight short tracks.. Even Patrick thought the we're about as fast, so the extra speed is deceptive = boring? Mostly due to low rpm and no or little sound, but sound can be fixed right?

Thanks for posting Jimmy!

 

IMO it's really the sound, or lack thereof (compared with a GT3RS) that constituttes the major difference, and leads to being surprised just how fast it is. As Foust said in the first video, it has so little drama, we forget how damned fast it is!

 

The GMG WC GT2 exhaust sounds awesome.

 

Somebody get the man a GT2 to drive already!

 

The mass is similar. On similar tires, ultimate cornering speed by a pro should be the same on a track like Laguna. At Road Atlanta or Road America it wouldn't be that close at all. Not a surprise really. But if the GT2RS chassis is improved to the same extent as the power output over the 4.0l car then it's no contest anywhere on the track.

And yes, to a certain extent, sound can be "fixed."

 

The turbo's are at a considerable advantage at Laguna because of the long straights which are also usually uphill or steeply uphill. If you think of Laguna as being comprised of two parts: the "power" part starts at T11 going into start-finish, then continues from T4 thru T5, T6, T7 until going into the braking area above the Corkscrew. In a 1:30 to 1:40 lap, that's 1:00+ minute of driving ... give or take driver skill, the turbo can make a pass and make it stick on the "power" side and the n/a car doesn't get the opportunity to stay in touch, let alone reverse the pass before getting to the T11 hairpin only to watch the turbo walk away on the uphill main straight and end up 10 mph faster apexing the crest of T1.

The interesting thing for me was watching the GT2 RS pull away from the bow of my 3.8 RS, but not by great lengths. Conversely, the Carrera GT simply flies away and is "gone" ... I can't fully explain it, but in each case, the comparison was done deliberately, both drivers intending to get on the front straight and floor it (nose to tail, not side by side as a drag-race ... that tends to end in tears because of the crest at T1.) It's then difficult to compare lap times because nobody in a GT2 RS is accessing all of the car and absolutely no amateur driver in their right mind is trying to access the potential of a Carrera GT ...

 

One of the very few cars that remain on my Must Drive bucket list...

 

Yes, I agree between a 3.8RS and a GT2RS the turbo car had the advantage, but between the 4.0RS and the 2RS the difference is far less on a track like Laguna. Now at Road America that would be completely different. But in the end both cars have similar mass and are traction limited- on the same tires they should have similar cornering speed, and between T2-7 that is really more about gearing and cornering speed than outright acceleration. The same can be said from the corkscrew all the way to 11. So the only real advantage the turbo car has is- front straight up to 1, and between 6 and the top of the hill for the corkscrew. The NA car is less forgiving on gear errors whereas the turbo car is less forgiving on throttle error, so it depends on what skill may be lacking.

I know what you mean about T1. I've seen some idiots lose traction there and end up backwards at speed, probably because the ended up on the clag to the right instead of apexing the corner.

 

I will just leave this here:

"Despite this, Long was able to lap nearly 3 seconds a lap faster than the GT3 RS (2:02.52 versus 2:05.44) around a hot and sandy Miller Motorsports Park track. “With the turbos and all that horsepower at the rear, I thought the GT2 RS was really going to test my car control skills, but that wasn’t the case,” said Long.

Even more telling is the GT2 RS’ top speed down Miller’s long front straight: 157.97 mph. In contrast, the GT3 RS mustered 148.08 while the standard GT3 and Flying Lizard ALMS GT2 cars from our Ultimate GT Showdown cover story (November 2010) hit 146.49 and 155.97 mph, respectively.

If you keep in mind Miller’s 4400-ft. elevation that starves cars of much-needed oxygen, the ultimate capabilities of the GT2 RS are greater still. Thanks to its turbos and RS-pedigree suspension, the car is a certified track monster. Yet at the same time, it’s a practical everyday supercar."

and this:

"Yet in many sections at Miller, it was on par with or out-accelerated the Flying Lizard 2010-specification ALMS race car on slicks.

Consider the gravity of that. A fully developed street car that’s actually faster (in a straight line, at least) than the competition machine, and more functional to boot"

source: http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca...porsche-gt2-rs

I know, I know... magazines etc... But I did stumble across the line about the the GT2RS pulling harder dwon the straight than the RSR, re read it a few times, imagined a non pasm (moton, ohlins, motion control, etc) suspended Gt2RS... and I started getting frothy.

 

Like many, I prefer the direct power delivery from NA when I'm crappin my pants wondering how much throttle I can add mid corner without losing it. And with a turbo you've got to be ahead with the throttle in order to get a good exit but often you don't know how much throttle you want, so it's hard to be consistently ahead? I am not a big fan of slow in, so this complicates things.....

Just drove Sebring for the first time at the 48hrs, not in a turbo, but my guess is T10 and T13 would be lag frustration corners. That's because I wasn't consistent with my entries but I am imagine you're pretty consistent so it might not be an issue for you if you adjust your throttle application.

However, the GT2 is a freaking blast to drive! It's kinda silly to point out faults but I just wish it had better aero and "slightly" better balance. Oh....and it can eat rear tires and power loss in high ambient is

For me, the current price point for the 4.0 is prohibitive. If you think it will hold value as a collector car then okay. As simply a Trackcar that you'll flip in a year or so......I'd look for more depreciation in the current price.

^ my setup

In my experience, the RS Aero was most noticable for improved front end stability under high speed braking and less chatter on high speed kinks. But not as noticable in high speed cornering especially VIR/Glen esses.

Can't explain it but it feels and behalves heavier than a GT3. I agree with van Overbeek....the weight is noticable in the rear. I don't run with SC or TC, not because I think I am too good for it, it's just too invasive. It became more of an issue with the spring change even thou it wasn't drastic change in rates.

Btw, I know how you formulate your own opinion

 

Actually I think Turbo cars benefit from fast in with steady maintenance throttle to prevent scrubbing of speed, to also prevent squat and extreme balance transfer on exit, and to smoothen out the power application on exit as well. I like to carry as much speed as possible on the way in and then balance the car with very light throttle which also spools up the turbo's when you're already at 4500+ rpms and then when you exit, you really cannot tell that the car has Turbo's as the power is immediate.

Also where 100% throttle NA is needed on exit, you can put down that same power with 70% throttle on exit in a Turbo car, so a different driving style is needed, more patience on exit so as not to overload the tires that should already be near the limit of adhesion. This is the most challenging part to master, making that % consistent, but in the meantime, the Torque will make up for the lost time between apex and exit if there is any.

 

Couldn't agree more about balancing and maintainance throttle; which is what I meant by staying ahead of the throttle. I am just not good enough to progressively build boost in every type of corner but when I get it right

 

You nailed it man, Coming out of the GT2 and driving the GT3 on the track i'm always early on throttle with the GT3 and entering corners too fast thus loosing time (until i adapt the drving style) . While on the GT2 i enter corners faster, turn in , aim to the apex and full boost kicks in on corner exit..

I've always told the GT3 guys that the GT2 benefits from faster corner entrey speeds

 

Exactly! I'm still learning it too, when you do get it right, it's soooooooo sweet.

High revving NA engines bog/lag out of turns too, I see GT3's do it all of the time, 500-1000-1500-2000 rpm out of the power band, the car is asleep. The 996 GT3 you almost had to power shift it to keep it in the power band, the 997's are better, but will still bog down if you aren't on it. Then the gearing's all shortened up adding extra shifts for torque multiplication. More shifts = lost time if you aren't slamming that thing home.

It's a lot of fun, but driving the GT3's is a lot of work too if you expect to go fast in them.

Not to say I prefer Turbo's, I still like NA too, but I need Torque, gots to have it. And need hp so the Vette's and Vipers can't just drag race the straights and expect to get away.

Peter, GT2 FTW, and let's go mash some Vette's, Vipers and GT-R's together.

 

I haven't seen same-driver times for 4.0 vs 3.8 ... comparisons at other tracks suggest a thin margin to the 4.0 ... far thinner than I had hoped. As you point out, a sector by sector analysis (at least in my experience driving both turbo and n/a cars, sometimes, same day) draws attention to apex speeds, not "trap" or braking marker speeds. Here's where I see Laguna as a challenging track and others see it as a bit of a "once you've got it figured out, it's boring" sort of track. Laguna rewards the skill of the driver, more than the skill of the engine builder, the refinement of the suspension setup and tuning more than any other improvement. That said, in my amateur hands, I have little doubt my 2RS lap times at Laguna (should I ever be so fortunate to find out) will trounce my 4.0 RS times (proviso ditto.)


Here we differ in opinion. As I understand it (not bothering to check my facts ... : ) the 2RS is heavier and more rearward biased, less responsive to throttle adjustments and it will be working harder on the brakes (heavier, faster sooner.) I think of the "uphill" of Laguna (from T2 to T8) as the "power" half. I think of the downhill from braking into the 'screw until apexing T11 as the handling/experience/finesse half. I see this in cars and on bikes -- anyone with deep familiarity with Laguna can stretch out a lead from the top of the hill to the hairpin onto the main straight, only to be gathered up by a visitor with more firepower.

I think I follow you here, if you're saying that once you're below the "up on high doe" singing power band (say 5500 rpm to 8500) in the RS, you're either going to lose time downshifting or lose time waiting for revs to build. Conversely, if you're on boost, you've got a truck load of grunt in the 2RS almost from idle. I tend to be more concerned about the "in gears" feel and that's where the turbo is gear-limited. If you approach the rev-limiter in the turbo you are compelled to upshift because in the blink of an eye, you're on the limiter and progress halts abruptly. The advantage of the naturally aspirated RS is the rpm head room where you can stay in a gear (say between T10 and T11) and make time by avoiding the shift, where the turbo driver has to decide to be a gear higher through T10 or pay the price of a brief up-shift, only to be almost instantly coming back down to 2nd.

sidenote: This is where the humble PDK Carrera appears to fly ahead as it makes two shifts (!) at the red-line, then has the insanely fun downshift to 1st for the hairpin and the RS driver is left thinking (what the what?!) before catching up mid-straight and praying for the point-by before the bridge ... : )

The rpm range of the 996 GT3 is something that was a revelation to me and now it was a significant part of my decision to stay away from the 2RS.

I'll spare you my rant* on the bleak absence of innovation at Porsche, but it's disappointing that they set expectations so high for the 2RS only to immediately one-up it with the RS 4.0 (painted carbon fibre, tweaked handling and aero.) Had they not found some reason to "stop" at 610-620 hp (just look at the electronically horizontal torque curve) and instead built the engine to sing to 8500 rpm and avoided lag altogether (higher static compression, higher power/torque off boost above 5000 rpm) the 2RS would have been all things to all drivers. Then we'd just have to futz around removing the heavy bits to get the weight down and put on a real wing ... and maybe some oversized canards.

* no, this length of email does not constitute a rant or wall-of-words by my standards ... : )