smjjpres

Just read the 997tt vs the competition comparison in both R&T and C&D...

The performance #'s were way different - 3.9s to 60 versus 3.4s? 12.3s 1/4 mile vs 11.7s?

How could the swing be that significant? How fast is this car really? Has anybody put it up to the 996 yet?

Just curious - trying to decide if it is worth the money for the 'performance upgrade' to go from my 996tt to the 997tt.

SM

mastiffdog

I think the decision to buy the 997TT should not be solely predicated on its drag racing capability. You always get fuzzy math on the the 0-60 times and the quarter mile because of fuzzy drivers, so I take all of these tests with a grain of salt. All I can say is the car is pretty darn quick and handles like a dream.

There are many other attributes to the car that should be considered. The car has changed in many ways over the 996TT. The new interior is substantially more beautiful and cleaner in my opinion. It even casts a flavor of the charm found in the older 993TT dashboard. I believe that the exterior, all though minor, has new features that make the car more attractive, for example, I like the new front end and the bumper design and its departure from sharing the front end with the Boxster. You either love the new wheels are hate them. I like them. In fact, I love the way they look and they are easy to clean.

Although I am not much of an expert on the new engine, the car has considerably more HP and the obvious change of the VTG.

I am sure others can add more reasons, good luck with your decision.

B-Line

Hey SM,

Here is my thoughts. If you are thinking of upgrading solely because of the performance differences between a 996TT and a 997TT, I would hold onto your 996TT. First off, there has been more time to experiment with the 996TT and you could probably easily mod the car and make it much faster than the 997TT which does not have mods yet.

Also, lets be honest here. Once your in a 911 Turbo, be it a 996, 993, 997, if the car is stock, the performance differences have reached a point of diminished returns. A .5 sec here, a full second there.. They all feel pretty fast. If you are worried about drag racing against the Z06 or something and need every last bit of performance to beat it, maybe you might want to consider a Z06.

I am a performance driver, I track often and like to push vehicles near the limit. Even though I haven't driven a 997TT yet, I am sure it's going to be a monster, as is the 996TT.

So before you go running to trade in your perfectly good 996TT just realize the performance differences are not that prolific.

However, should you have more money than brains (sure wish I had more money than brains..) Keep your 996TT and maybe wait for a Turbo S or GT2 or just mod your 996TT.

B

amaist

The drag strip is not a laboratory. There are too many variables. Air temperature, humidity, track temperature, track condition, how many beers did the driver have, the exact batch of gasolite that was used, state of the tires, etc. etc.

Note how 1/4 mile time is only .6 differen when 0-60 time is .5 different. This tells me that the faster run had a much better launch from the line.

In any case using a 911 Turbo for such purposes will ruin the car very quickly. The drive train is not built for that. American muscle is much more suited for this.

smjjpres

Thx for all the posts. Naturally I know there are many other positive attributes that the 997 maintains.

I am by no means a drag racer...I certainly would like the car to be as fast as it could be (obviously and within reason). The purpose of this post was merely to see if anybody could provide a good explanation of why the discrepancy in the acceleration tests were so vast. A 15% difference to 60mph seems quite large to me especially given both drivers were pros.

I have modded my 996tt fairly decently. I drove a regular 996tt a few weeks ago and could not believe the difference...I have yet to drive the 997tt and am eager to do so to compare...

SM

amaist

15% is not that much of a difference when you are doing sub 4 seconds 0-60 times. In my opinion that test is getting to be useless for evaluating fast cars. It's all about the launch and the conditions.
A much better test is a standing kilometer. Most German magazines use this test. The car gets a chance to show what it can do in high gears unlike the 1/4 mile test where nobody goes beyond 4th.

Bob Rouleau

R&T has published the fact that they do not abuse cars during their acceleration tests in order to produce fast times.
C and D is known to slip clutches, torque against the brakes etc. to produce faster times than other magazines. As others have observed, the track surface and weather conditions play an important role - tubos do not like high air temps and humid air for example.

To get a better feel, look for the 5-60 (or whatever measure they use) to get a better feel for real world performance. The "roll on" test eliminates abusive techniques used to launch a car from rest .. things that we would never do to our own cars. That's why the 5-60 test usually shows times which are slower that 0-60.

Regards,

1AS

The thing you feel is not truely measured. Accelerative G force in a given gear is what provides the sense of power. Our tt's benefit from the awd quirk of an amazing 1.5 second launch, if you are willing to trash the driveline. I'd rather know how hard it pulls in second and third.
5-60 is a better comparison, if you dont need a shift in there. I think the Ford GT willhit 60 in first, but we need a shift before that. Therefore, the Ford(or for that matter the ZO6) will benefit due to the saved .2 seconds, but will give it up at 61mph. AS

allegretto

NOT!!!

Some of these guys are true wannabes, don't kid yourself. Spend some time learning to drive fast and you'll be a better driver (and faster) than at least 50% of them.

jason952

c/d also does all their own testing, other mags often use mfr numbers