Pan S vs 4S - is Porsche deliberately detuning the S?
03-15-2010, 03:01 AM
#33
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Hi,
I'd advise caution in taking one example and then overly extrapolating from that.
As an example, take a look at the 3.4L 996 C2 performance results at the following URL:
http://www.weissach.net/996-997_RoadTestSummary.html
For supposedly the same car, the 60-100 results vary from 6.7 seconds to 7.3 seconds, depending on which particular test you look at. Of couse there's all sorts of reasons to explain this, including:
1) Conditions and drivers vary (as has been mentioned by other posters)
2) Cars themselves vary (e.g. HP varies from one engine to another due to manufacturing tolerances).
RUF said they saw a 20 HP difference from one M96 engine to another (when they were doing the Boxster conversions). It's possible the 4S used in the test might have been a "strong" example.
Or... the 4S really is quicker than a S in back to back testing.
But the results from one test really isn't sufficient to answer that. I suggest we wait for more test results to come in and then see where the consensus lies.
Karl.
I'd advise caution in taking one example and then overly extrapolating from that.
As an example, take a look at the 3.4L 996 C2 performance results at the following URL:
http://www.weissach.net/996-997_RoadTestSummary.html
For supposedly the same car, the 60-100 results vary from 6.7 seconds to 7.3 seconds, depending on which particular test you look at. Of couse there's all sorts of reasons to explain this, including:
1) Conditions and drivers vary (as has been mentioned by other posters)
2) Cars themselves vary (e.g. HP varies from one engine to another due to manufacturing tolerances).
RUF said they saw a 20 HP difference from one M96 engine to another (when they were doing the Boxster conversions). It's possible the 4S used in the test might have been a "strong" example.
Or... the 4S really is quicker than a S in back to back testing.
But the results from one test really isn't sufficient to answer that. I suggest we wait for more test results to come in and then see where the consensus lies.
Karl.
