A 4.0, a GT2RS and a CGT are having a drink...
02-02-2015, 11:03 AM
#106
Drifting
Lots of people like the 4.0 because it's easier to keep in the powerband than a turbo car. I like the idea that the GT2 RS is a faster car if I am good enough to drive it correctly.
02-02-2015, 11:24 AM
#107
The GT2 RS makes ~500 ft lbs at the wheels between 3500 and 6500. You'd need your right arm tied behind your back to fall out of that powerband. At 4k the RS 4.0 is making 215 hp at the wheels; the GT2 is making nearly double that.
Modern turbos are the lazy man's cars. It's high revving N.A. cars like the CGT or 4.0 that make you work for it.
02-02-2015, 12:17 PM
#108
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry?
The GT2 RS makes ~500 ft lbs at the wheels between 3500 and 6500. You'd need your right arm tied behind your back to fall out of that powerband. At 4k the RS 4.0 is making 215 hp at the wheels; the GT2 is making nearly double that.
Modern turbos are the lazy man's cars. It's high revving N.A. cars like the CGT or 4.0 that make you work for it.
The GT2 RS makes ~500 ft lbs at the wheels between 3500 and 6500. You'd need your right arm tied behind your back to fall out of that powerband. At 4k the RS 4.0 is making 215 hp at the wheels; the GT2 is making nearly double that.
Modern turbos are the lazy man's cars. It's high revving N.A. cars like the CGT or 4.0 that make you work for it.
High revving NA cars are easy to drive. They are docile and low powered. It doesn't matter how high you rev them. Worrying about shift points is silly since it never runs out of revs and there's no real powerband to speak of. NA is like infinite turbo "lag" as you people like to put it, like driving a turbo car without actually stepping on the GO pedal and transitioning into boost. NA is for people who, quite frankly, don't trust their throttle control.
02-02-2015, 12:34 PM
#109
High revving NA cars are easy to drive. They are docile and low powered. It doesn't matter how high you rev them. Worrying about shift points is silly since it never runs out of revs and there's no real powerband to speak of. NA is like infinite turbo "lag" as you people like to put it, like driving a turbo car without actually stepping on the GO pedal and transitioning into boost. NA is for people who, quite frankly, don't trust their throttle control.
And as for "no real powerband to speak of", I'd suggest you try a few more cars. "Docile"... chuckle.All else being equal, ie equal power to weight, NA wins every time for a full-on sports car. Unless you've got a rubber fetish, I suppose. $.02
Last edited by Petevb; 02-03-2015 at 02:59 AM.
02-02-2015, 12:53 PM
#110
Non turbo F1 cars produced monster power at 15-21K RPM. To each his own, but I think NA cars are more intellectually engaging since shifting at those RPMs and mitigating speed with various road conditions is not that easy.
Turbo cars, any gear will do in my experience.
Turbo cars, any gear will do in my experience.
02-02-2015, 01:21 PM
#111
Drifting
Sorry?
The GT2 RS makes ~500 ft lbs at the wheels between 3500 and 6500. You'd need your right arm tied behind your back to fall out of that powerband. At 4k the RS 4.0 is making 215 hp at the wheels; the GT2 is making nearly double that.
Modern turbos are the lazy man's cars. It's high revving N.A. cars like the CGT or 4.0 that make you work for it.
The GT2 RS makes ~500 ft lbs at the wheels between 3500 and 6500. You'd need your right arm tied behind your back to fall out of that powerband. At 4k the RS 4.0 is making 215 hp at the wheels; the GT2 is making nearly double that.
Modern turbos are the lazy man's cars. It's high revving N.A. cars like the CGT or 4.0 that make you work for it.
02-02-2015, 02:27 PM
#112
Transient response, precision. Balancing the chassis or steering with the rear wheels it helps if the instrument isn't dull. The way boost rolls in even if you're up in the rev range simply gives a driver less control, less spontaneity, and a less direct connection between man and machine.
I couldn't guess, given your handle.
I've had, and have, roughly equal numbers of each in many flavors. Love the 1M when the boost comes in, ditto the GT2, but both are sloppy relative to similarly powerful normally aspirated cars- you can dial a drift once the boost hits, but you'll hit the angle you want more repeatedly in a normally aspirated car. Take them to the autocross and you can't stab the throttle to balance the chassis in the same way, and the handycap is worth around 150 hp in a 996 apples to apples. There are great turbo cars and engines, don't get me wrong, and turbo engines can be more suited to certain types of cars than normally aspirated ones. At the outer limit of sports cars, however, I still feel boost is what you resort to when you can't hit your power targets with normal aspiration. Exhibit A, McLaren F1, exhibit B, GT2, F40, MP4-12C, etc...
I couldn't guess, given your handle.
I've had, and have, roughly equal numbers of each in many flavors. Love the 1M when the boost comes in, ditto the GT2, but both are sloppy relative to similarly powerful normally aspirated cars- you can dial a drift once the boost hits, but you'll hit the angle you want more repeatedly in a normally aspirated car. Take them to the autocross and you can't stab the throttle to balance the chassis in the same way, and the handycap is worth around 150 hp in a 996 apples to apples. There are great turbo cars and engines, don't get me wrong, and turbo engines can be more suited to certain types of cars than normally aspirated ones. At the outer limit of sports cars, however, I still feel boost is what you resort to when you can't hit your power targets with normal aspiration. Exhibit A, McLaren F1, exhibit B, GT2, F40, MP4-12C, etc...
02-02-2015, 03:45 PM
#114
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NA peeps can't get it through their heads that it takes more ability to drive a turbo car fast whereas it takes little ability to do so with NA. Response, feel, etc. all excuses for SLOW.
If you think you are a better driver because you can get through a corner quick with "response" and "feel" the GT2RS drivers must be so much better skilled, for doing the same without said "feel" and "response." Doing more, with more, so to speak, over an entire lap. After all, Pat Long laps a GT2RS 3 seconds a lap quicker than a 3.8lRS at Miller and most people say the 4.0l isn't appreciably faster than it's smaller displacement NA sibling.
And for what it's worth I have NA sports cars, and I race NA two strokes at the national level. NA is slow and lacks power compared to the turbo cars but forum bias here refuses to acknowledge it which makes most opinions a joke.
If you think you are a better driver because you can get through a corner quick with "response" and "feel" the GT2RS drivers must be so much better skilled, for doing the same without said "feel" and "response." Doing more, with more, so to speak, over an entire lap. After all, Pat Long laps a GT2RS 3 seconds a lap quicker than a 3.8lRS at Miller and most people say the 4.0l isn't appreciably faster than it's smaller displacement NA sibling.
And for what it's worth I have NA sports cars, and I race NA two strokes at the national level. NA is slow and lacks power compared to the turbo cars but forum bias here refuses to acknowledge it which makes most opinions a joke.
02-02-2015, 04:33 PM
#115
This attitude, that speed is the only thing that matters, that response, feel etc should be discounted is an... interesting... point of view. One that I do not share.
You seem to respond to every point with "but it's faster". Less responsive, less connection, less feel, doesn't sound as good, etc... "but it's faster".
The GT2 RS turned the fastest ring time of the bunch. We know that already. But some value other things. A decade from now it's going to be a relatively slow car, with the quickest Cayenne likely to roughly equal its 'ring time. In fact with the GT-R running a 7:08 to some extent it's already a relatively slow car.
After it's no longer faster, what then? "But it was faster?"
A couple final thoughts:
1. I'll contend that at an autocross the GT2 will get its hat handed to it by a 4.0 or the new 991 GT3. In my personal experience a ~650 whp fully SCCA prepped GT2 with national level driver is about a half second slower than a stock GT3 RS 3.8. Response, control, etc occasionally count for something.
2. Anyone who says the 4.0 isn't appreciably quicker than the 3.8 has not had the chance to experience them properly. Tested them back to back over a couple days- zero debate.
No question many turbos are great cars, and the GT2 RS is clearly one of the best. I don't understand how pointing out real issues with it is biased, however. Is it really the forum that's biased here?
You seem to respond to every point with "but it's faster". Less responsive, less connection, less feel, doesn't sound as good, etc... "but it's faster".
The GT2 RS turned the fastest ring time of the bunch. We know that already. But some value other things. A decade from now it's going to be a relatively slow car, with the quickest Cayenne likely to roughly equal its 'ring time. In fact with the GT-R running a 7:08 to some extent it's already a relatively slow car.
After it's no longer faster, what then? "But it was faster?"
A couple final thoughts:
1. I'll contend that at an autocross the GT2 will get its hat handed to it by a 4.0 or the new 991 GT3. In my personal experience a ~650 whp fully SCCA prepped GT2 with national level driver is about a half second slower than a stock GT3 RS 3.8. Response, control, etc occasionally count for something.
2. Anyone who says the 4.0 isn't appreciably quicker than the 3.8 has not had the chance to experience them properly. Tested them back to back over a couple days- zero debate.
No question many turbos are great cars, and the GT2 RS is clearly one of the best. I don't understand how pointing out real issues with it is biased, however. Is it really the forum that's biased here?
Last edited by Petevb; 02-02-2015 at 05:14 PM.
02-03-2015, 11:08 AM
#116
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple final thoughts:
1. I'll contend that at an autocross the GT2 will get its hat handed to it by a 4.0 or the new 991 GT3. In my personal experience a ~650 whp fully SCCA prepped GT2 with national level driver is about a half second slower than a stock GT3 RS 3.8. Response, control, etc occasionally count for something.
2. Anyone who says the 4.0 isn't appreciably quicker than the 3.8 has not had the chance to experience them properly. Tested them back to back over a couple days- zero debate.
Last edited by P_collector; 02-04-2015 at 08:53 AM.
02-03-2015, 11:24 AM
#117
Google is your friend... As for your doubt, you're forgiven, particularly assuming you don't.
02-04-2015, 08:57 AM
#119
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, discussion closed..- on this aspect - but anyhow: 4.0, GT2RS or C-GT are unlikely to appear in autocross anyway..not matter where on the world..I think we are likely to agree on that..
02-04-2015, 09:39 AM
#120
Rennlist Member
This attitude, that speed is the only thing that matters, that response, feel etc should be discounted is an... interesting... point of view. One that I do not share.
You seem to respond to every point with "but it's faster". Less responsive, less connection, less feel, doesn't sound as good, etc... "but it's faster".
...
You seem to respond to every point with "but it's faster". Less responsive, less connection, less feel, doesn't sound as good, etc... "but it's faster".
...
And that's the biggest same in this whole situation....