Crown

Board: Porsche - 911 - 997 - Turbo Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Re: Nordschleife 7.49

    Quote:
    Branimir said:
    Very good find Nic!
    So, 7.49min with normal tires and 7.42min(!!) with semi-slicks... In the hand of W.Rohrl I guess? If this times were achived by W.Rohrl that Sport Auto times by Horst von Saurma will be little bit slower(again, I am guessing).
    One other hint according to my friend who works at P. this times are for 997 Turbo manual with optional LSD... And TIP version is few seconds slower on Ring.



    I really hope that all these rumours are unfounded. 7:49 for manual with LSD would be a major disaster.

    The 996TT did 7:56 back in 2001. Now if you add x50 and x73 and recent tire technology the 996TT would be close to 7:50 i bet. This would imply that 7:49 would be no improvement at all

    I hope that all those rumours are wrong. Otherwise my bad feelings about the performance of the 997TT would be confirmed also on the NBR.

    Re: Nordschleife 7.49

    I spoke to an employee of the PAG. He told me that the 997tt covers the PAG test track at the same time as the CGT!
    Isn't this an argue for the performance of the 997tt!?

    don't know the tires, driver, setup etc.

    Re: Nordschleife 7.49

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    Branimir said:
    Very good find Nic!
    So, 7.49min with normal tires and 7.42min(!!) with semi-slicks... In the hand of W.Rohrl I guess? If this times were achived by W.Rohrl that Sport Auto times by Horst von Saurma will be little bit slower(again, I am guessing).
    One other hint according to my friend who works at P. this times are for 997 Turbo manual with optional LSD... And TIP version is few seconds slower on Ring.



    I really hope that all these rumours are unfounded. 7:49 for manual with LSD would be a major disaster.

    The 996TT did 7:56 back in 2001. Now if you add x50 and x73 and recent tire technology the 996TT would be close to 7:50 i bet. This would imply that 7:49 would be no improvement at all

    I hope that all those rumours are wrong. Otherwise my bad feelings about the performance of the 997TT would be confirmed also on the NBR.



    Throw in the optional LSD (which was available for the 996TT), along with the X50 and X73 and one can seriously ask himself - where's the improvement?
    MKSGR, save yourself a lot of money and buy the optional LSD for the TT. You'll be just as fast.
    However, if the time is for a totally stock 997TT, preferably with the slower transmission, then it's a very good result.
    Also, not to forget, the 7:52 time for the Gallardo has been achieved with the 500 HP model.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry guys, but why should these 7.49 be a valid time?? we dont know which car spec or setup was used, dont know the driver, dont know the measurement procedures, the tyres etc!!!!
    this claim, though it looks realistic at first glance is at least as unsubstantiated as the 7.42 of the z06!
    It's waste of energy to write dozen of posts on these kind of rumours. unlike for the z06 we do not even have an objective measurement of the 997tt performance times, only factory claims.

    so just relax and wait for a test from a decent magazine, then we'll talk again!



    It's more valid, since we can compare it to previous Porsche times, such as the 7:56 for a stock Turbo with the mushy suspension (997TT dramatically improved in that area), or the 462 HP GT2 with 7:46. The 7:49 seems entirely realistic, considering the car has more horsepower than the Mk1 GT2, the same brakes, better torque curve and an advanced AWD, which doesn't sap power. On the other hand, we have the C6 Corvette with a time of 8:15, while the claimed time was somewhere in the 7:50's.



    As I just said the 997tt time looks very well possible, but it's not proven at all and therefore it's not a valid claim, just speculation.
    As much as the 7.42 of the z06 is speculation (and rather admittedly improbable) as nobody knows the details of that run.
    Still that car at least has proven it's surprising performance against all sceptics in the recent AMS test, a thing which hasnt happened with the 997tt yet. The burden of proof re performance lies with the Porsche this time...



    Why is it that anytime a Vette has a quicker time than a Porsche, it is either unsubstantiated, speculation, improbable, or so on and so forth. As far as the 06 Z06 claim of 7.429 at the ring, let me offer this:
    Read this:
    http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y&gID=6&fID=3185&tID=48489&mID=1404211&l=d


    Furthermore, Dave Hill stated both in Corvette Quarterly and in Motor Trend (Sept. 05 issue) that the FINAL tweaking mentioned in the above article(including standard runflats) on the Le mans Blue Z that Magnusson drove was the same (suspension and engine tuning) used to start the building of the production cars. Hill also stated that the achieved time of 7:429 was achieved from a dead start. I guess this is good enough for me, until someone can PROVE otherwise.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry guys, but why should these 7.49 be a valid time?? we dont know which car spec or setup was used, dont know the driver, dont know the measurement procedures, the tyres etc!!!!
    this claim, though it looks realistic at first glance is at least as unsubstantiated as the 7.42 of the z06!
    It's waste of energy to write dozen of posts on these kind of rumours. unlike for the z06 we do not even have an objective measurement of the 997tt performance times, only factory claims.

    so just relax and wait for a test from a decent magazine, then we'll talk again!



    It's more valid, since we can compare it to previous Porsche times, such as the 7:56 for a stock Turbo with the mushy suspension (997TT dramatically improved in that area), or the 462 HP GT2 with 7:46. The 7:49 seems entirely realistic, considering the car has more horsepower than the Mk1 GT2, the same brakes, better torque curve and an advanced AWD, which doesn't sap power. On the other hand, we have the C6 Corvette with a time of 8:15, while the claimed time was somewhere in the 7:50's.



    As I just said the 997tt time looks very well possible, but it's not proven at all and therefore it's not a valid claim, just speculation.
    As much as the 7.42 of the z06 is speculation (and rather admittedly improbable) as nobody knows the details of that run.
    Still that car at least has proven it's surprising performance against all sceptics in the recent AMS test, a thing which hasnt happened with the 997tt yet. The burden of proof re performance lies with the Porsche this time...



    Why is it that anytime a Vette has a quicker time than a Porsche, it is either unsubstantiated, speculation, improbable, or so on and so forth. As far as the 06 Z06 claim of 7.429 at the ring, let me offer this:

    Read This:
    http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...=1404211&l =d

    Furthermore, Dave Hill stated both in Corvette Quarterly and in Motor Trend (Sept. 05 issue) that the FINAL tweaking mentioned in the above article(including standard runflats) on the Le mans Blue Z that Magnusson drove was the same (suspension and engine tuning) used to start the building of the production cars. Hill also stated that the achieved time of 7:429 was achieved from a dead start. I guess this is good enough for me, until someone can PROVE otherwise.


    I'm glad you are happy.However,like many others on thios board, I'm sick and tired of the Corvette Vs 997TT back and forth . Each to his own. Time to move on to some other topic.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    crayphile said:
    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry guys, but why should these 7.49 be a valid time?? we dont know which car spec or setup was used, dont know the driver, dont know the measurement procedures, the tyres etc!!!!
    this claim, though it looks realistic at first glance is at least as unsubstantiated as the 7.42 of the z06!
    It's waste of energy to write dozen of posts on these kind of rumours. unlike for the z06 we do not even have an objective measurement of the 997tt performance times, only factory claims.

    so just relax and wait for a test from a decent magazine, then we'll talk again!



    It's more valid, since we can compare it to previous Porsche times, such as the 7:56 for a stock Turbo with the mushy suspension (997TT dramatically improved in that area), or the 462 HP GT2 with 7:46. The 7:49 seems entirely realistic, considering the car has more horsepower than the Mk1 GT2, the same brakes, better torque curve and an advanced AWD, which doesn't sap power. On the other hand, we have the C6 Corvette with a time of 8:15, while the claimed time was somewhere in the 7:50's.



    As I just said the 997tt time looks very well possible, but it's not proven at all and therefore it's not a valid claim, just speculation.
    As much as the 7.42 of the z06 is speculation (and rather admittedly improbable) as nobody knows the details of that run.
    Still that car at least has proven it's surprising performance against all sceptics in the recent AMS test, a thing which hasnt happened with the 997tt yet. The burden of proof re performance lies with the Porsche this time...



    Why is it that anytime a Vette has a quicker time than a Porsche, it is either unsubstantiated, speculation, improbable, or so on and so forth. As far as the 06 Z06 claim of 7.429 at the ring, let me offer this:

    Read This:
    http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...=1404211&l =d

    Furthermore, Dave Hill stated both in Corvette Quarterly and in Motor Trend (Sept. 05 issue) that the FINAL tweaking mentioned in the above article(including standard runflats) on the Le mans Blue Z that Magnusson drove was the same (suspension and engine tuning) used to start the building of the production cars. Hill also stated that the achieved time of 7:429 was achieved from a dead start. I guess this is good enough for me, until someone can PROVE otherwise.


    I'm glad you are happy.However,like many others on thios board, I'm sick and tired of the Corvette Vs 997TT back and forth . Each to his own. Time to move on to some other topic.



    My point is that its the Porschephiles that bring up, on this board, the Z06 Vette, compare the 997TT times to the Z06 Vette, bitch when the 997TT may not be as quick or have as much HP, then say any Vette numbers are not substantiated, and finally bitch when someone such as myself answers back. You can't have it both ways. So I guess the only solution to your problem is to either live with it, or don't read the posts that do not appeal to you, or complain to Porsche that they should build a 997 that can match or beat the numbers posted by the Z06 Vette. There you have it!

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    The zo6 is a great car but

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry guys, but why should these 7.49 be a valid time?? we dont know which car spec or setup was used, dont know the driver, dont know the measurement procedures, the tyres etc!!!!
    this claim, though it looks realistic at first glance is at least as unsubstantiated as the 7.42 of the z06!
    It's waste of energy to write dozen of posts on these kind of rumours. unlike for the z06 we do not even have an objective measurement of the 997tt performance times, only factory claims.

    so just relax and wait for a test from a decent magazine, then we'll talk again!



    It's more valid, since we can compare it to previous Porsche times, such as the 7:56 for a stock Turbo with the mushy suspension (997TT dramatically improved in that area), or the 462 HP GT2 with 7:46. The 7:49 seems entirely realistic, considering the car has more horsepower than the Mk1 GT2, the same brakes, better torque curve and an advanced AWD, which doesn't sap power. On the other hand, we have the C6 Corvette with a time of 8:15, while the claimed time was somewhere in the 7:50's.



    As I just said the 997tt time looks very well possible, but it's not proven at all and therefore it's not a valid claim, just speculation.
    As much as the 7.42 of the z06 is speculation (and rather admittedly improbable) as nobody knows the details of that run.
    Still that car at least has proven it's surprising performance against all sceptics in the recent AMS test, a thing which hasnt happened with the 997tt yet. The burden of proof re performance lies with the Porsche this time...



    Why is it that anytime a Vette has a quicker time than a Porsche, it is either unsubstantiated, speculation, improbable, or so on and so forth. As far as the 06 Z06 claim of 7.429 at the ring, let me offer this:
    Read this:
    http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y&gID=6&fID=3185&tID=48489&mID=1404211&l=d


    Furthermore, Dave Hill stated both in Corvette Quarterly and in Motor Trend (Sept. 05 issue) that the FINAL tweaking mentioned in the above article(including standard runflats) on the Le mans Blue Z that Magnusson drove was the same (suspension and engine tuning) used to start the building of the production cars. Hill also stated that the achieved time of 7:429 was achieved from a dead start. I guess this is good enough for me, until someone can PROVE otherwise.



    Unfortunately, Dave Hill stated many things (e.g. the lap time of the C5) which are strongly contradicted by independant test results.

    Dave Hill does not appear to be a credible source

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time


    Dave Hill does not appear to be a credible source



    Exactly. therefore it is needless to discuss times we do not know achieved under conditions we do not know either. Let's wait for some indipendent reviews; none of them will be perfect either, but certainly more credible than manufacturers claims put out there as marketing gimmicks. I'm confident that
    both Porsche and Corvette have done their homework this time and probably will be running head to head for the best time.
    It will then be everybodies own choice where to put his money,

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    rhino said:
    The zo6 is a great car but



    And the optimum setup that GM finally used to get the ring time of 7.429 is the same setup used in the production car!

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    If i remember right, the Z06 uses a different suspension for the european cars?

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry guys, but why should these 7.49 be a valid time?? we dont know which car spec or setup was used, dont know the driver, dont know the measurement procedures, the tyres etc!!!!
    this claim, though it looks realistic at first glance is at least as unsubstantiated as the 7.42 of the z06!
    It's waste of energy to write dozen of posts on these kind of rumours. unlike for the z06 we do not even have an objective measurement of the 997tt performance times, only factory claims.

    so just relax and wait for a test from a decent magazine, then we'll talk again!



    It's more valid, since we can compare it to previous Porsche times, such as the 7:56 for a stock Turbo with the mushy suspension (997TT dramatically improved in that area), or the 462 HP GT2 with 7:46. The 7:49 seems entirely realistic, considering the car has more horsepower than the Mk1 GT2, the same brakes, better torque curve and an advanced AWD, which doesn't sap power. On the other hand, we have the C6 Corvette with a time of 8:15, while the claimed time was somewhere in the 7:50's.



    As I just said the 997tt time looks very well possible, but it's not proven at all and therefore it's not a valid claim, just speculation.
    As much as the 7.42 of the z06 is speculation (and rather admittedly improbable) as nobody knows the details of that run.
    Still that car at least has proven it's surprising performance against all sceptics in the recent AMS test, a thing which hasnt happened with the 997tt yet. The burden of proof re performance lies with the Porsche this time...



    Why is it that anytime a Vette has a quicker time than a Porsche, it is either unsubstantiated, speculation, improbable, or so on and so forth. As far as the 06 Z06 claim of 7.429 at the ring, let me offer this:
    Read this:
    http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y&gID=6&fID=3185&tID=48489&mID=1404211&l=d


    Furthermore, Dave Hill stated both in Corvette Quarterly and in Motor Trend (Sept. 05 issue) that the FINAL tweaking mentioned in the above article(including standard runflats) on the Le mans Blue Z that Magnusson drove was the same (suspension and engine tuning) used to start the building of the production cars. Hill also stated that the achieved time of 7:429 was achieved from a dead start. I guess this is good enough for me, until someone can PROVE otherwise.



    Unfortunately, Dave Hill stated many things (e.g. the lap time of the C5) which are strongly contradicted by independant test results.

    Dave Hill does not appear to be a credible source



    Isn't it soooo easy just to say that things Dave Hill said in writing have been contridicted by independent test results, and, therefor Dave Hill is not a credible source!
    But instead of saying it, why don't you show me in writing
    all of the "other" contridictory test results. Then I may say that there may be some credibility in what you have to say. The bottom line...

    You can't handle the truth.


    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:

    My point is that its the Porschephiles that bring up, on this board, the Z06 Vette, compare the 997TT times to the Z06 Vette, bitch when the 997TT may not be as quick or have as much HP, then say any Vette numbers are not substantiated, and finally bitch when someone such as myself answers back. You can't have it both ways. So I guess the only solution to your problem is to either live with it, or don't read the posts that do not appeal to you, or complain to Porsche that they should build a 997 that can match or beat the numbers posted by the Z06 Vette. There you have it!



    I stand by my claims. Until we get independent results, I don't buy it. I like the Vette, it's a great straight-line performer, but it's actually the Corvette fans that are blinding yourselves.
    What was the stated Nring time for the standard C6? 7:55? What was the Sport Auto result? Oh, yeah, I remember that one: 8:15 .
    Porsche has always had its times corroborated by independent magazines. Chevy, on the other hand, hasn't. The 7:56 time for the C5 Z06 was claimed by Chevy and never confirmed by an independent test. The C6 time was claimed as somewhere around 7:55 and WAS confirmed by magazines; the confirmation came, that Chevy couldn't estimate the time it takes to boil an egg.
    We have valid previous data to base our hpotheses on. You don't.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:

    My point is that its the Porschephiles that bring up, on this board, the Z06 Vette, compare the 997TT times to the Z06 Vette, bitch when the 997TT may not be as quick or have as much HP, then say any Vette numbers are not substantiated, and finally bitch when someone such as myself answers back. You can't have it both ways. So I guess the only solution to your problem is to either live with it, or don't read the posts that do not appeal to you, or complain to Porsche that they should build a 997 that can match or beat the numbers posted by the Z06 Vette. There you have it!



    I stand by my claims. Until we get independent results, I don't buy it. I like the Vette, it's a great straight-line performer, but it's actually the Corvette fans that are blinding yourselves.
    What was the stated Nring time for the standard C6? 7:55? What was the Sport Auto result? Oh, yeah, I remember that one: 8:15 .
    Porsche has always had its times corroborated by independent magazines. Chevy, on the other hand, hasn't. The 7:56 time for the C5 Z06 was claimed by Chevy and never confirmed by an independent test. The C6 time was claimed as somewhere around 7:55 and WAS confirmed by magazines; the confirmation came, that Chevy couldn't estimate the time it takes to boil an egg.
    We have valid previous data to base our hpotheses on. You don't.



    Motor Trend Magazine September 05 issue
    Sports Car Magazine Current Issue

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Sorry Ronnie, but you are loosing it a bit here, and actually with two people who probably are more inclined than others to believe that the z06 could pull off a great time. i think it's just plainly logical to wait for some third party test results and to comment then. taking mr. hill statements for granted is as wrong as taking mr wiedekings or röhrls for such...

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry Ronnie, but you are loosing it a bit here, and actually with two people who probably are more inclined than others to believe that the z06 could pull off a great time. i think it's just plainly logical to wait for some third party test results and to comment then. taking mr. hill statements for granted is as wrong as taking mr wiedekings or röhrls for such...



    Hey, if the Z06 actually pulls off a 7:42.9 in stock form and beats the 997TT (which doesn't seem impossible, we just lack hard data), I'll be the first to congratulate him.

    In any case, Ronnie, you have one hell of a sports car, regardless of what I, or anyone else thinks. Take our opinions with an open mind. We're not here to bash the Corvette.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry Ronnie, but you are loosing it a bit here, and actually with two people who probably are more inclined than others to believe that the z06 could pull off a great time. i think it's just plainly logical to wait for some third party test results and to comment then. taking mr. hill statements for granted is as wrong as taking mr wiedekings or röhrls for such...



    The bottom line, dudes, is that either Dave Hill (and all of the other folks from Chevy and others whom were at the ring at the time of the test, including Jan Magnusson) are lying or they are not. If they are lying, then all (and I mean at least 6-8 magazines minimum) who printed the results don't have much credibility. But maybe, just maybe, is it possible that the Z ran the ring in 7.429 and everyone there whom witnessed it is telling the truth???
    As I said before...show me one article IN WRITING that showed Dave Hill or anyone else with Chevy stating incorrect data regarding the Z06, C6, C5Z or C5. I OWN a
    C6Z...I KNOW how fast this car is and how great it handles...I have owned Porsches....I have driven my buddys
    05 996 TTS and raced him. The Z BLOWS THE DOORS OFF of the 996 TTS on the straights and curves. I know this is hard to swollow...the plastic yankmobile beating the almighty
    German gold standard! In Germany no less!!! And on the ring!!! But alas....its true.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry Ronnie, but you are loosing it a bit here, and actually with two people who probably are more inclined than others to believe that the z06 could pull off a great time. i think it's just plainly logical to wait for some third party test results and to comment then. taking mr. hill statements for granted is as wrong as taking mr wiedekings or röhrls for such...



    The bottom line, dudes, is that either Dave Hill (and all of the other folks from Chevy and others whom were at the ring at the time of the test, including Jan Magnusson) are lying or they are not. If they are lying, then all (and I mean at least 6-8 magazines minimum) who printed the results don't have much credibility. But maybe, just maybe, is it possible that the Z ran the ring in 7.429 and everyone there whom witnessed it is telling the truth???
    As I said before...show me one article IN WRITING that showed Dave Hill or anyone else with Chevy stating incorrect data regarding the Z06, C6, C5Z or C5. I OWN a
    C6Z...I KNOW how fast this car is and how great it handles...I have owned Porsches....I have driven my buddys
    05 996 TTS and raced him. The Z BLOWS THE DOORS OFF of the 996 TTS on the straights and curves. I know this is hard to swollow...the plastic yankmobile beating the almighty
    German gold standard! In Germany no less!!! And on the ring!!! But alas....its true.



    Again: you have no proof that it actually DID achieve that time in standard conditions. I really wish it would, though. Might give Porsche something to think about. Then again, let's wait for the results.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry Ronnie, but you are loosing it a bit here, and actually with two people who probably are more inclined than others to believe that the z06 could pull off a great time. i think it's just plainly logical to wait for some third party test results and to comment then. taking mr. hill statements for granted is as wrong as taking mr wiedekings or röhrls for such...



    The bottom line, dudes, is that either Dave Hill (and all of the other folks from Chevy and others whom were at the ring at the time of the test, including Jan Magnusson) are lying or they are not. If they are lying, then all (and I mean at least 6-8 magazines minimum) who printed the results don't have much credibility. But maybe, just maybe, is it possible that the Z ran the ring in 7.429 and everyone there whom witnessed it is telling the truth???
    As I said before...show me one article IN WRITING that showed Dave Hill or anyone else with Chevy stating incorrect data regarding the Z06, C6, C5Z or C5. I OWN a
    C6Z...I KNOW how fast this car is and how great it handles...I have owned Porsches....I have driven my buddys
    05 996 TTS and raced him. The Z BLOWS THE DOORS OFF of the 996 TTS on the straights and curves. I know this is hard to swollow...the plastic yankmobile beating the almighty
    German gold standard! In Germany no less!!! And on the ring!!! But alas....its true.



    Again: you have no proof that it actually DID achieve that time in standard conditions. I really wish it would, though. Might give Porsche something to think about. Then again, let's wait for the results.



    I am more than happy to wait for the results. But if we were in a formal sanctioned debate (and I have studied debate) you would be far behind in points. This is because
    I have writen confirmation of my statements, and you do not have writen confirmation to the contrary. By you stating that i have "no proof that it actually DID achieve that time in standard conditions" would not win you any points.
    A debate judge would take my published statements AS PROOF
    until you can PROVE otherwise.

    GM ads continually stated 4 sec 0-60 for the C5Z

    and every magazine I ever saw or read stated that they could not reproduce those claims

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry Ronnie, but you are loosing it a bit here, and actually with two people who probably are more inclined than others to believe that the z06 could pull off a great time. i think it's just plainly logical to wait for some third party test results and to comment then. taking mr. hill statements for granted is as wrong as taking mr wiedekings or röhrls for such...



    The bottom line, dudes, is that either Dave Hill (and all of the other folks from Chevy and others whom were at the ring at the time of the test, including Jan Magnusson) are lying or they are not. If they are lying, then all (and I mean at least 6-8 magazines minimum) who printed the results don't have much credibility. But maybe, just maybe, is it possible that the Z ran the ring in 7.429 and everyone there whom witnessed it is telling the truth???
    As I said before...show me one article IN WRITING that showed Dave Hill or anyone else with Chevy stating incorrect data regarding the Z06, C6, C5Z or C5. I OWN a
    C6Z...I KNOW how fast this car is and how great it handles...I have owned Porsches....I have driven my buddys
    05 996 TTS and raced him. The Z BLOWS THE DOORS OFF of the 996 TTS on the straights and curves. I know this is hard to swollow...the plastic yankmobile beating the almighty
    German gold standard! In Germany no less!!! And on the ring!!! But alas....its true.



    Again: you have no proof that it actually DID achieve that time in standard conditions. I really wish it would, though. Might give Porsche something to think about. Then again, let's wait for the results.



    You and I both know that Porsche could care less... unless they could profit from it or charge extra.

    The days where they stood alone as kings (993TT) are long gone... welcome the new BMW/Mercedes.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    I just saw the VID: 997tt at Weissach and that was probably the best testament for Porsches great engineering on the 997TT. Big ups to Pcar

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    These debates are garbage. Just wait it out for comparative independent tests.

    Corvette drivers comming on these forums to bash Porsche drivers about their inferior specs need to spend more time driving their cars instead of talking about their cars.

    Porsche drivers spitting back at them in a condescending matter are only fueling the fire.

    Z06 threads are always the least favorable

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    Hurst said:

    Z06 threads are always the least favorable



    Z06 threads are the universal " worm " of EVERY enthusiast sports car board, it seems .

    BTW , here's the Vette that did the recent 7:42 at the Ring with Jan Magnussen driving . Looks totally stock to me, so the rumors that it was tweaked should finally be laid to rest.


    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Can someone point where I can find the latest times set on the Ring?

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    This Porsche 911SC with a Corvette V8 engine crushes both new Z06's and 996 GT2s.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    JimFlat6 said:
    This Porsche 911SC with a Corvette V8 engine crushes both new Z06's and 996 GT2s.



    is right...you have any more info on this car??

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    What you see in that image is a Corvette LS1 motor installed into a 1980 911SC. Its not rocket science to do. Corvette engines actually weigh less and you can choose factory crate engines between 345hp to 505hp with a GM warranty. With just a 345hp motor the car is very fast, with 500hp it is diabolically fast.

    If you think the Corvette conversion to a 911 is something, the 60's Oldsmobile Toronado 455 cu V8 conversions for 4cyl Porsche 912's were even more shocking for a very bizarre reason-the 3 spd Oldsmobile automatics' transaxle output stubs fit perfectly with 912 halfshafts and the Porsche 912 muffler flanges/bolt hole patterns were a perfect match up with the Oldsmobile V8's two 4 into 2 headers.

    Maybe since Porsche and Chevrolet did the Corvair together, some wierd Porsche cross engineering voodoo on GM parts makes Chevy engines fit so stupidly easy into Porsches.

    There are several companies doing Corvette conversions for Porsches. Google it. The 911/Corvette in the picture is owned by a guy in Texas.

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:
    Quote:
    turbolite said:
    Sorry Ronnie, but you are loosing it a bit here, and actually with two people who probably are more inclined than others to believe that the z06 could pull off a great time. i think it's just plainly logical to wait for some third party test results and to comment then. taking mr. hill statements for granted is as wrong as taking mr wiedekings or röhrls for such...



    The bottom line, dudes, is that either Dave Hill (and all of the other folks from Chevy and others whom were at the ring at the time of the test, including Jan Magnusson) are lying or they are not. If they are lying, then all (and I mean at least 6-8 magazines minimum) who printed the results don't have much credibility. But maybe, just maybe, is it possible that the Z ran the ring in 7.429 and everyone there whom witnessed it is telling the truth???
    As I said before...show me one article IN WRITING that showed Dave Hill or anyone else with Chevy stating incorrect data regarding the Z06, C6, C5Z or C5. I OWN a
    C6Z...I KNOW how fast this car is and how great it handles...I have owned Porsches....I have driven my buddys
    05 996 TTS and raced him. The Z BLOWS THE DOORS OFF of the 996 TTS on the straights and curves. I know this is hard to swollow...the plastic yankmobile beating the almighty
    German gold standard! In Germany no less!!! And on the ring!!! But alas....its true.



    Again: you have no proof that it actually DID achieve that time in standard conditions. I really wish it would, though. Might give Porsche something to think about. Then again, let's wait for the results.



    I am more than happy to wait for the results. But if we were in a formal sanctioned debate (and I have studied debate) you would be far behind in points. This is because
    I have writen confirmation of my statements, and you do not have writen confirmation to the contrary. By you stating that i have "no proof that it actually DID achieve that time in standard conditions" would not win you any points.
    A debate judge would take my published statements AS PROOF
    until you can PROVE otherwise.



    What you have is an article about factory testing, that lasted over TWO WEEKS. I've never studied debate and don't really care for it, but lagging behind isn't what I would describe my arguments. Fact is, Porsche has many cars under 8:00 on the Nring, while there are NO Corvettes. Like I said, it may be as fast, but let's wait for proof. Until then, we'll look at our slow luxo barges .

    Re: here's one source for the Z06 time

    Quote:
    RonnieC6Z said:

    Dave Hill does not appear to be a credible source



    Isn't it soooo easy just to say that things Dave Hill said in writing have been contridicted by independent test results, and, therefor Dave Hill is not a credible source!
    But instead of saying it, why don't you show me in writing
    all of the "other" contridictory test results. Then I may say that there may be some credibility in what you have to say. The bottom line...

    You can't handle the truth.





    You can simply buy the relevant issue of sportauto. You do not appear to be too well informed

     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA 2/14/19 1:26 AM
    watt
    331099 2045
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 2/21/19 10:38 AM
    RCA
     
     
     
     
     
    218592 1125
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: 991.2 GT3 RS (2018) 2/15/19 11:05 AM
    RCA
    146190 2579
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: The new Porsche 992 – a design icon and high-tech sports car 2/21/19 10:06 AM
    SportCarGroup
    62354 817
    Porsche Sticky Paint protection film 2/18/19 9:28 AM
    RCA
    16322 149
    Porsche Sticky Child seats in a 991 11/29/18 3:43 PM
    RCA
    14690 35
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: 992 Carrera Cabriolet 2/18/19 11:28 AM
    RCA
    10251 127
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 2/18/19 8:51 PM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    3289 60
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991 Turbo and Turbo S 1/4/19 7:02 PM
    Topspeed
    486939 4255
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 GT3 (2017) 2/19/19 11:40 PM
    4trac
    422612 5222
    Porsche 992 (Next 911 generation 2019/2020) Thread Closed 11/29/18 11:38 AM
    RCA
    318116 3195
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 12/31/18 2:19 AM
    DJM48
    286723 2598
    Porsche Cayman GT4 2/19/19 8:00 PM
    dreamcar
    280890 2760
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 1/30/19 3:10 AM
    ha
    219652 2777
    Ferrari 488 GTB/GTS 1/17/19 8:13 PM
    GoHardGT3RS
    195639 1789
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 2/18/19 10:28 AM
    RCA
    191693 3355
    Others Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016 model) - Review (updated Feb 13th 2017) 12/17/18 12:42 PM
    RCA
    157861 2491
    Porsche Boxster Spyder (981) 8/31/18 10:25 AM
    WAY
    144629 757
    Ferrari Ferrari F12 Berlinetta / 599 GTO Successor 5/22/18 9:16 PM
    RCA
    113032 789
    Others VW caught cheating emissions tests 5/3/18 7:52 PM
    CGX car nut
    107941 871
    Porsche Porsche Mission E - the future of Porsche? 2/18/19 1:00 PM
    RCA
    99174 1370
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 12/7/18 10:15 PM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    68855 673
    Others Tesla Roadster 2/21/19 10:40 AM
    RCA
    57550 1730
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Carrera GTS models 11/3/18 11:09 AM
    bluelines
    48442 477
    Others Tesla Model X Thread Closed 2/23/18 3:41 PM
    RCA
    43587 1122
    AMG AMG GT R 11/30/18 4:10 PM
    RCA
    43149 605
    Lambo Aventador and SV 11/19/18 8:31 AM
    RCA
    40873 472
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Turbo S Exclusive Series (2017) 12/4/18 3:17 PM
    BiTurbo
    40635 650
    AMG Mercedes E63 S AMG (2018) - Short Review (updated on a regular basis) 2/14/19 1:44 PM
    RCA
    40305 387
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New Porsche Carrera T 12/13/18 2:27 PM
    RCA
    39232 804
    270 items found, displaying 1 to 30.