boolala

The lap times of the GT2 and GT3 have always trumped the turbo at the ring. Those are dedicated track cars. The turbo serves a different type of car buyer--someone who wants to use his car as a daily driver. So what's surprising about that?

In fact the new turbo is within 1 sec of the previous generation car and considering that it brand new we'll see how the numbers stack up when more data points are available as people get used to superior driving dynamics and technology of this car.

More to the point-- how important is straight line performance? Welll I would say in a practical sense it is far more important to daily driving than any track numbers would indicate. Most of these cars are overwhelmingly street rather than track driven. For the great majority of people top speed and NBR times have no practical significance and are only valuable for bragging rights.

911rox

And how is it any different for 0-60mph times??? Its a measure of how quickly you'll be in lose your license territory ... I'd rather have 3.7s to decide if I want to lose it rather than 3.2s...

Being able to change gears in milliseconds with PDK is useless on the streets... It is only of benefit on the track where every second counts. So yet again, your arguments are flawed...

OldGuy

Whats interesting to me is supposedly the new Turbo engine is the new 9A1 with just Turbos and ECU.
I would guess the PDK would be beefed up too.
I was a dyed in the wool GT1 motor fan. But when I drove the new PDK C2S I was blown away.
Its that good. From what I have seen the development of the motor was to ensure that the 9A1 will be up to the rigors of the track.
Alot of the costs of the GT1 964 block motor was the number of parts and the amount of time to assemble. I would love to see that motor go on but from what I read the 9A1 is a step forward
technologically. As a engineer I was satisfied that the 9A1 was put through its paces. Of course we dont have a history on it, but like the video said the fuel economy is just STUPID. In my 997.2 C2S I dont go to the gas station half as much as I used to.
It will be interesting to see how this motor goes on and how its reliability plays out.
I had huge reservations about the 996 motor. I dont have those reservations about this motor
Heck I bought one.

ltc

Could you please repeat that?

If, as you stated, the GT2 and GT3 are "dedicated track cars", exactly what would you classify the GT3 Cup car?

The GT2 and GT3 are street cars, fully capable of daily driver status (oh, BTW, one is normally aspirated and one is a "Turbo").

Just out of curiosity...

A. Have you ever driven a GT2?
B. Have you ever driven a GT3?
C. Have you ever driven a Cup car?
D. Exactly how long have you been a fan of the Porsche marque?

Still waiting for the Admin to permit "safety off" .....

Coochas

'Tis the season to hunt trolly. Tralala Tralala Troll lala.

boolala

Very few people find the GT2 or GT3 an acceptable daily driver. I'm not saying it can't be done. I knew a surgeon at work who had a GT2.

BTW the latest Motor Trend has an article on the new turbo. They think it's sensational and a definate improvement over the outgoing model.

Just saying.....

ltc

OK, so you have gone from "GT2 and GT3 being dedicated track cars" to now being capable of "acceptable daily drivers".

And you still failed to answer a single one of the questions I posed, so please allow me to take the opportunity to ask again:

A. Have you ever driven a GT2?
B. Have you ever driven a GT3?
C. Have you ever driven a Cup car?
D. Exactly how long have you been a fan of the Porsche marque?

And I will add yet another:
E. Have you ever driven a 99x Turbo?
(you get extra credit for seat time in both a 993 and 996/997 Turbo)

Do you have any actual (no, not PS3, XBox or PC) seat time in a 99x Turbo, GTx or Cup car?

You continue to put forth the argument that the 'new' Turbo (engine/transmission/chassis)is an improvement over the 'old' turbo based on magazine articles and that owners/buyers of the 'last generation' were mistaken and misguided.

Do you have any personal basis to support your persistent claims that "dry sump enthusiasts" are wrong?

Just saying...

boolala

Yes plenty of evidence has been presented in this thread that this "wet sump" engine is quite cabable and does not suffer from oil starvation. It's lighter, has greater horsepower, is higher revving, more fuel efficient etc. Similarly there is no comparison between the PDK and 6 speed. The latter is simply an anachronism. Even hard core 6 speed fans have been quite impressed with this transmission and many (with NA engines) have switched over. How do you explain that? As I recall you stated in another thread that Porsche made a huge mistake in introducing this transmission. I think that you have been proven wrong about this in short order.

I think the fact that I own neither a gen 1 or 2 997 turbo, if anything, makes me even more objective. Owners of of the previous generation turbo are naturally trying to justify (to themselves) their expensive purchace and so I think that may cloud their perspective somewhat.

BTW if would like me to refresh your memory about your PDK comments here it is: https://rennlist.com/forums/6441762-post15.html

Bob in NY

ltc

OK,
So we have established that you have:

A. never driven a 99x Turbo.
B. never driven a GT2
C. never driven a GT3
D. never driven a Cup car.
E. never owned a dry sump equipped car
F. never owned a 99x Turbo
G. have no personal experience with any of the items being discussed (dry sump/M64, PDK, etc)
H. have concluded based on your reading that owners of any previous generation Turbo are simply ignoring the "obvious" truth.

OK, I figured it out....

Your real name is Al Gore.
The 9A1 engine is your next "project" now that Global Warming (or Global Climate change...or Global Weather) is pretty much under control.

There are LOTS of other forums on Rennlist that you are MUCH more qualified to go play in.

Oh, and BTW, trust me when I say there are real concerns inside PAG...er, sorry, VAG, regarding the reliability/longevity (re: warranty period liability/exposure) regarding the PDK at the higher HP/torque levels of the aforementioned cars....but that's not really the (primary) topic of this thread, it's based on the end of the dry sump and the dawn of the "whatever sump it's called".

And since you have no experience with a dry sump, I won't even ask why the dry sump was invented in the first place, in light of your statement "that this "wet sump" engine is quite cabable and does not suffer from oil starvation"

So, to summarize:

קיינמאָל טיינען מיט אַן ידיאָט, זיי שלעפּן איר אַראָפּ צו זייער גלייך און שלאָגן
אייַך מיט פּראַקטיק

ltc

Wait until morning when he wakes up and finds out what his new "user title" has been changed to

911rox

ltc, I think you've hit the dumbass (I mean "the nail") on the head!

boolala

Still curious as to whether you are holding firm on your prediction that PDK was a mistake? https://rennlist.com/forums/6441762-post15.html

boolala

With that unfailing logic you should consider driving a Prius. That should give you ample time (10 - 11 sec) to reconsider actions that may cost you your license LOL...

911rox

Says he with the logic and mentality that "the new car is best because Porsche and the car magazines said so...." Taken another look at your arguments as to why the turbo shouldn't be faster around a track with its flash new motor and pdk? Talk about unfailing logic...

Unfortunately, when arguing with morons, you must use moronic arguments... And you're giving me plenty of practise... Thanx