Crown

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

Forum - Thread


    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Here you go:

    0-50kph: 1.5s
    0-100: 3.4s
    0-160: 6.7s
    0-200: 9.8s
    0-250: 15.4s
    0-300: 24.8s

    Please note that these numbers relate to the AWD version with a max-speed of >350kph.

    You can order a shorter gearing (reducing max-speed to ca. 330kph) which improves 0-300 by about 2s.

    You can also order RWD which also reduces 0-300 by about 2s.

    Thus, the Rt12 does 0-300 in 21s to 25s, depending on the above mentioned specs.



    My post earlier might be invisible, but whoever gave you those numbers at RUF does not know what he is talking about, with all my sincere respects to them. A change from 4WD to 2WD will not get you 2 seconds over a 300kph run, and CERTAINLY shorter gearing will not give you those 2 seconds either.

    Area under the curve is not as important in high speed acceleration runs, it is HP talking, and you can have one bloody peeky (sp) HP curve and be much faster than any fat torque curved car. Take a look at those "1000hp" turbo engines being built in the US and their acceleration numbers...0-250kph in less than 10 seconds? Compare that to the RT12...Irrespective of how long they last or not debate, which I agree upon.

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    LAT said:
    Can someone post the numeric results from Autobild on the RT12 0-60 0-200 etc.



    Here you go:

    0-50kph: 1.5s
    0-100: 3.4s
    0-160: 6.7s
    0-200: 9.8s
    0-250: 15.4s
    0-300: 24.8s

    Please note that these numbers relate to the AWD version with a max-speed of >350kph.

    You can order a shorter gearing (reducing max-speed to ca. 330kph) which improves 0-300 by about 2s.

    You can also order RWD which also reduces 0-300 by about 2s.

    Thus, the Rt12 does 0-300 in 21s to 25s, depending on the above mentioned specs.



    So how much does the Rt12 in 330 km/h AWD trim cost? *prepares for severe heart attack*



    Not more than the 350kph version

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    GT2ETR said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Here you go:

    0-50kph: 1.5s
    0-100: 3.4s
    0-160: 6.7s
    0-200: 9.8s
    0-250: 15.4s
    0-300: 24.8s

    Please note that these numbers relate to the AWD version with a max-speed of >350kph.

    You can order a shorter gearing (reducing max-speed to ca. 330kph) which improves 0-300 by about 2s.

    You can also order RWD which also reduces 0-300 by about 2s.

    Thus, the Rt12 does 0-300 in 21s to 25s, depending on the above mentioned specs.



    My post earlier might be invisible, but whoever gave you those numbers at RUF does not know what he is talking about, with all my sincere respects to them. A change from 4WD to 2WD will not get you 2 seconds over a 300kph run, and CERTAINLY shorter gearing will not give you those 2 seconds either.

    Area under the curve is not as important in high speed acceleration runs, it is HP talking, and you can have one bloody peeky (sp) HP curve and be much faster than any fat torque curved car. Take a look at those "1000hp" turbo engines being built in the US and their acceleration numbers...0-250kph in less than 10 seconds? Compare that to the RT12...Irrespective of how long they last or not debate, which I agree upon.



    Honestly, I would kindly ask you to explain your above statements.

    Do you imply that my information is completely wrong, as I believe you write...

    The specs in my post are from Ruf directly. They are the basis of a potential purchase of this car and were provided in writing. Thus, if they told me downright nonsense that would cause Ruf legal problems.

    Now, I am waiting for your explanation

    P.S.: A personal advice - you may profit more from reading about certain facts than posting unfounded statements

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    LAT said:
    Less than a used CGT



    Another argument for the Ruf Rt12 (Although I am afraid that the Rt12's depreciations is much higher than for the CGT )

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    LAT said:
    Less than a used CGT



    Another argument for the Ruf Rt12 (Although I am afraid that the Rt12's depreciations is much higher than for the CGT )




    Dunno about that, the CGT dropped 30% in a very short time frame and my CTR-2 is still holding its value after 10 years.

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:

    Honestly, I would kindly ask you to explain your above statements.

    Do you imply that my information is completely wrong, as I believe you write...

    The specs in my post are from Ruf directly. They are the basis of a potential purchase of this car and were provided in writing. Thus, if they told me downright nonsense that would cause Ruf legal problems.

    Now, I am waiting for your explanation

    P.S.: A personal advice - you may profit more from reading about certain facts than posting unfounded statements



    MKSGR

    I am not implying anything really, I am confirming that if RUF told you that by going with a shorter 6th gear you can gain 2 seconds on a 0-300kph, they are wrong. To do that , your final gear would need to be much shorter than 300kph. I can give you the right number (top speed achievable), it will take me sometime to calculate it.

    Obviously I have noting to prove, you can take it as an opinion, but if you would like to have certainty, I suggest you go for the change, put the datalogger in your car, measure, and if the numbers are right, then you have won 2 seconds, if they are not, have them compensate you, sounds fair?

    RUF are some of the best out there and will honour their claims, but they need to be challenged, just like any other business.

    As far as reading is concerned, I hope I can learn things here, and also hope I can dispute some of the data I disagree with. Thank you

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    GT2ETR said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:

    Honestly, I would kindly ask you to explain your above statements.

    Do you imply that my information is completely wrong, as I believe you write...

    The specs in my post are from Ruf directly. They are the basis of a potential purchase of this car and were provided in writing. Thus, if they told me downright nonsense that would cause Ruf legal problems.

    Now, I am waiting for your explanation

    P.S.: A personal advice - you may profit more from reading about certain facts than posting unfounded statements



    MKSGR

    I am not implying anything really, I am confirming that if RUF told you that by going with a shorter 6th gear you can gain 2 seconds on a 0-300kph, they are wrong. To do that , your final gear would need to be much shorter than 300kph. I can give you the right number (top speed achievable), it will take me sometime to calculate it.

    Obviously I have noting to prove, you can take it as an opinion, but if you would like to have certainty, I suggest you go for the change, put the datalogger in your car, measure, and if the numbers are right, then you have won 2 seconds, if they are not, have them compensate you, sounds fair?

    RUF are some of the best out there and will honour their claims, but they need to be challenged, just like any other business.

    As far as reading is concerned, I hope I can learn things here, and also hope I can dispute some of the data I disagree with. Thank you



    One interesting fact regarding the shorter gearing: I exchanged information with a guy who has a car specced like a Rt12 (same engine, drive train, AWD etc.). This chap has the shorter gearing installed in his car. And indeed, his car is faster than a Rt12 with longer gearing. 2s translates into 4-5 car lengths. This is basically confirmed by him...

    In essence, the 2s advantage seems to be reliable

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    GT2ETR said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:

    Honestly, I would kindly ask you to explain your above statements.

    Do you imply that my information is completely wrong, as I believe you write...

    The specs in my post are from Ruf directly. They are the basis of a potential purchase of this car and were provided in writing. Thus, if they told me downright nonsense that would cause Ruf legal problems.

    Now, I am waiting for your explanation

    P.S.: A personal advice - you may profit more from reading about certain facts than posting unfounded statements



    MKSGR

    I am not implying anything really, I am confirming that if RUF told you that by going with a shorter 6th gear you can gain 2 seconds on a 0-300kph, they are wrong. To do that , your final gear would need to be much shorter than 300kph. I can give you the right number (top speed achievable), it will take me sometime to calculate it.

    Obviously I have noting to prove, you can take it as an opinion, but if you would like to have certainty, I suggest you go for the change, put the datalogger in your car, measure, and if the numbers are right, then you have won 2 seconds, if they are not, have them compensate you, sounds fair?

    RUF are some of the best out there and will honour their claims, but they need to be challenged, just like any other business.

    As far as reading is concerned, I hope I can learn things here, and also hope I can dispute some of the data I disagree with. Thank you



    One interesting fact regarding the shorter gearing: I exchanged information with a guy who has a car specced like a Rt12 (same engine, drive train, AWD etc.). This chap has the shorter gearing installed in his car. And indeed, his car is faster than a Rt12 with longer gearing. 2s translates into 4-5 car lengths. This is basically confirmed by him...

    In essence, the 2s advantage seems to be reliable



    Soooo... Black-on-black 2008 Rt12 with shorter gearing, adaptive sport seats and a Hessenian behind the wheel, right?

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Maybe...

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Maybe...




    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    One interesting fact regarding the shorter gearing: I exchanged information with a guy who has a car specced like a Rt12 (same engine, drive train, AWD etc.). This chap has the shorter gearing installed in his car. And indeed, his car is faster than a Rt12 with longer gearing. 2s translates into 4-5 car lengths. This is basically confirmed by him...

    In essence, the 2s advantage seems to be reliable


    MKSGR

    4-5 car lengths is certainly the right answer! if this is what RUF told you, they are right! however, 2 seconds at 300kph are around 45 car lengths, not 5, (it is around 150 meters).

    If a change in 6th gear could provide such an advantage, there would be no need for more than stock HP on any 997TT, gearing would take care of it..

    During a 0-300kph run, the RT12 will start accelerating in 6th. gear at ca 265kph (around 5900RPMs) from 5th., all the way to 300kph. It takes 6 1/2 seconds to go from 265kph to 300kph in 6th gear. If a shorter 6th. shaves 2 seconds off this 6 1/2 seconds time, it equates to an additional 200HP or more.

    If all gears have been spaced differently in the gearbox, then the 2 seconds could be more likely, but still very difficult to explain.

    Back to the original discussion, the 993 car that was discussed earlier must have 650BHP + RUF equivalent power to reach those numbers.

    Anyway, everyone and I apologize for the diversion.

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    GT2ETR said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    One interesting fact regarding the shorter gearing: I exchanged information with a guy who has a car specced like a Rt12 (same engine, drive train, AWD etc.). This chap has the shorter gearing installed in his car. And indeed, his car is faster than a Rt12 with longer gearing. 2s translates into 4-5 car lengths. This is basically confirmed by him...

    In essence, the 2s advantage seems to be reliable


    MKSGR

    4-5 car lengths is certainly the right answer! if this is what RUF told you, they are right! however, 2 seconds at 300kph are around 45 car lengths, not 5, (it is around 150 meters).

    If a change in 6th gear could provide such an advantage, there would be no need for more than stock HP on any 997TT, gearing would take care of it..

    During a 0-300kph run, the RT12 will start accelerating in 6th. gear at ca 265kph (around 5900RPMs) from 5th., all the way to 300kph. It takes 6 1/2 seconds to go from 265kph to 300kph in 6th gear. If a shorter 6th. shaves 2 seconds off this 6 1/2 seconds time, it equates to an additional 200HP or more.

    If all gears have been spaced differently in the gearbox, then the 2 seconds could be more likely, but still very difficult to explain.

    Back to the original discussion, the 993 car that was discussed earlier must have 650BHP + RUF equivalent power to reach those numbers.

    Anyway, everyone and I apologize for the diversion.



    There we have the explanation for our disagreement: A 2s reduction of the 0-300kph time does indeed translate into 4-5 car lengths, not more.

    A rough estimate: 10s equal 150m. I have done some sample calculations based on the acceleration of 997TT (0-300 in ca. 41s), 599GTB (0-300 in ca. 31s) and Rt12 (0-300 in ca. 23s, assuming the shorter gearing).

    When the 997TT reaches (real) 300kph @ ca. 2430m, the Rt12 has covered a distance of ca. 2790m. At this point in time, the 599GTB has covered a distance of ca. 2570m.

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    GT2ETR said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    If all gears have been spaced differently in the gearbox, then the 2 seconds could be more likely, but still very difficult to explain.




    Indeed, they do not only change the 6th gear

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    There we have the explanation for our disagreement: A 2s reduction of the 0-300kph time does indeed translate into 4-5 car lengths, not more.



    Two cars do the 0-300kph side by side, one crosses the line 2 seconds after the other -2 seconds at 300kph is 166m so more like 35+ car lengths.....
    Am I missing something

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    There we have the explanation for our disagreement: A 2s reduction of the 0-300kph time does indeed translate into 4-5 car lengths, not more.



    Two cars do the 0-300kph side by side, one crosses the line 2 seconds after the other -2 seconds at 300kph is 166m so more like 35+ car lengths.....
    Am I missing something



    Yes, you do

    Your 35+ car lengths calculation assumes that the slower car is not moving at all. In reality, even the slower car will travel at quite a substantial speed.

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    There we have the explanation for our disagreement: A 2s reduction of the 0-300kph time does indeed translate into 4-5 car lengths, not more.



    Two cars do the 0-300kph side by side, one crosses the line 2 seconds after the other -2 seconds at 300kph is 166m so more like 35+ car lengths.....
    Am I missing something



    Yes, you do

    Your 35+ car lengths calculation assumes that the slower car is not moving at all. In reality, even the slower car will travel at quite a substantial speed.



    The "slower" car will travel 2 seconds further at or near 300kmh - hence the approx. 166 metre advantage. 4-5 car lengths at 300kmh would take a fraction of a second to cover.

    Going back to the RT12 - nobody is disputing how terrific it is, simply that 650hp (even 720) isn't enough power to achieve this kind of performance. Perhaps 850-900 will do it? How can it be that much faster than a CGT with only slightly more power?

    Anyway, please let us know the results once you get it, and enjoy it in good health.


    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    There we have the explanation for our disagreement: A 2s reduction of the 0-300kph time does indeed translate into 4-5 car lengths, not more.



    Two cars do the 0-300kph side by side, one crosses the line 2 seconds after the other -2 seconds at 300kph is 166m so more like 35+ car lengths.....
    Am I missing something



    Yes, you do

    Your 35+ car lengths calculation assumes that the slower car is not moving at all. In reality, even the slower car will travel at quite a substantial speed.


    Yes, MKSGR is right. Another car may be in 280km/h and accerlating. The different is only 20km/h (5.56m/s) even the slower car is kept at 280km/h.

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Well unlike most of the keyboard sprinters here I have a datalog of my 993tt running 520hp and can give you the following facts:
    0-300kph is around 33s
    During the last 2 seconds before 300kph is hit the car travels from 294kph to 300kph and the distance travelled is 165 metres.
    Does this clear it up

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Well unlike most of the keyboard sprinters here I have a datalog of my 993tt running 520hp and can give you the following facts:
    0-300kph is around 33s
    During the last 2 seconds before 300kph is hit the car travels from 294kph to 300kph and the distance travelled is 165 metres.
    Does this clear it up



    Not quite However, these facts are very interesting anyhow (in particular the excellent 0-300 performance of your 993TT)

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    TB993tt said:
    Does this clear it up


    Yes sir. My bad. Now, I need to find out where I can run the test...

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    OK, I realise I was getting nowhere there

    Here is a data trace of GuyR's (poster here -thanks Guy)996 GT2 Ruf with ~620hp versus my 993tt with ~520hp going from 160kph to 300kph.
    It takes Guy's car 21.5s and my car 23.2s so 160-300kph his car is 1.7s quicker.
    The graph below shows the distance travelled to get to 300kph from 160kph you can see that Guy's car is 130 metres ahead of mine at 300kph.....
    Are we getting somewhere you keyboard sprinters

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    mp said:
    Going back to the RT12 - nobody is disputing how terrific it is, simply that 650hp (even 720) isn't enough power to achieve this kind of performance. Perhaps 850-900 will do it? How can it be that much faster than a CGT with only slightly more power?




    There are two major factors in explaining why the Rt12 has a quicker straight-line acceleration than the CGT:

    - Aerodynamics - the CGT has a CwXA of about 0.76, the 996TT and 997TT (don't know the corresponding data point for the Rt12) are in the range of 0.6. At high speeds that does make a difference.
    - hp diagram: the shape of the hp curve is important in determining the "effective hp output" during acceleration. While the CGT varies between 600hp, 612hp and some 570hp when shifting from 5th to 6th gear the Rt12 has an extremely flat hp curve. Thus, when shifting from 5th to 6th, the hp output of the Rt12 engine varies between estimated 685 and 700 (or 705 )... Thus, the "effective" hp delta between the two cars is more like 100hp than 38hp as one could assume based on the official specs.

    The combination of both factors explains why the Rt12 accelerates quicker than the CGT.

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    tb993tt; Can you provide your run up number for example these were the ones posted for the RT12

    0-50kph: 1.5s
    0-100: 3.4s
    0-160: 6.7s
    0-200: 9.8s
    0-250: 15.4s
    0-300: 24.8s

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    LAT said:
    tb993tt; Can you provide your run up number for example these were the ones posted for the RT12

    0-50kph: 1.5s
    0-100: 3.4s
    0-160: 6.7s
    0-200: 9.8s
    0-250: 15.4s
    0-300: 24.8s


    Hi LAT
    I have only ever done rolling starts and then estimate using 0-100kph in ~3.9s or whatever.
    In the chart above when I was running approx 520hp and 1570kg 2WD in GT2 bodied (sans bi plane)
    They are possibly not directly comparable since my starts were in 3rd gear so avoiding a second gear change which would land right about 110kph and put ~0.4s on the times.... but some are:
    100-300kph: 26.8s
    100-250kph: 14.2s
    250-300kph: 12.6s
    From these one guestimate at 0-300kph at around 31s

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    LAT
    Out of interest running the 993tt 2WD near 580hp at 1490kg 20degC ambient the 100-250kph time comes down to 12.5s.
    I haven't managed to time a 300kph run but would expect under 30s unless the areo really is THAT bad !

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Good data TB993TT, I hope this helps clear the confusion about the distance and speed debate. I am afraid I will not be able to change MKSGR's mind about the 2 seconds difference.

    CGT vs RT12, simply... the CGT's drag at 300kph is a handicap of ca 60HP+ vs. the 997TT (the RT12 even more I am sure) and the CGT has 38BHP (factory rated) less than the RT12 (650BHP) there goes the equivalent of 100BHP difference at least between them...

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    I believe your 993tt or my CTR-2 which also has 580 PS should run 29's to 300kph.

    Auto Motor Sport tested a CTR-2 with 520 PS in 1997 achieved the following

    0-100 3.6
    0-160 7.6
    0-200 11.6

    Unfortunately they did no go beyond 200 kph

    What is your 100-200 kph time.

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:


    There are two major factors in explaining why the Rt12 has a quicker straight-line acceleration than the CGT:

    - Aerodynamics - the CGT has a CwXA of about 0.76, the 996TT and 997TT (don't know the corresponding data point for the Rt12) are in the range of 0.6. At high speeds that does make a difference.
    - hp diagram: the shape of the hp curve is important in determining the "effective hp output" during acceleration. While the CGT varies between 600hp, 612hp and some 570hp when shifting from 5th to 6th gear the Rt12 has an extremely flat hp curve. Thus, when shifting from 5th to 6th, the hp output of the Rt12 engine varies between estimated 685 and 700 (or 705 )... Thus, the "effective" hp delta between the two cars is more like 100hp than 38hp as one could assume based on the official specs.

    The combination of both factors explains why the Rt12 accelerates quicker than the CGT.


    One has to look at the Cd rather than CdXA to see why the CGT drags at higher speed:
    CGT Cd: 0.396
    996tt Cd: 0.31
    The CGT is aerodynamically built for downforce and will pull its 330/334kph top speed at ~8200rpm. Since it is still producing near 600PS at the 8400rpm limiter one can see it is the drag holding it back since 600PS in a slippier Porsche can go to 350+kph.
    As a matter of interest RS Tuning's stage 1 tune for the CGT gives it 690PS and a claimed top speed of 350kph.
    The RT12 has 650 Porsche style hp, despite what the engine dyno tells them, Alois knows how to rate his engines IMO

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    LAT said:
    What is your 100-200 kph time.


    Done that one a few times
    varies from best of about 6.1s running 2WD 1460kg 11DegC
    to current trim 4WD 1530kg 20DegC 6.7s

    Re: Cargraphic powerkit

    Quote:
    GT2ETR said:
    Good data TB993TT, I hope this helps clear the confusion about the distance and speed debate. I am afraid I will not be able to change MKSGR's mind about the 2 seconds difference.

    CGT vs RT12, simply... the CGT's drag at 300kph is a handicap of ca 60HP+ vs. the 997TT (the RT12 even more I am sure) and the CGT has 38BHP (factory rated) less than the RT12 (650BHP) there goes the equivalent of 100BHP difference at least between them...



    GT2ETR, you don't understand. What Markus has stated is completely correct. A car travelling at 300 km/h is covering 83,1 metres per second, thus your 166,2 m difference speculation. However, there is a huge problem with such speculation. First of all, your deduction demands that the first car is doing 300 km/h while the other vehicle is standing still - things just don't work this way.

    If we use linear formulas, we will get 914,1 metres travelled for the short-geared Rt12 and 837,925 metres for the standard Rt12 in 22 seconds (the time it takes the shorty Rt12 to reach 300 km/h).

    That would equate a difference of 76,125 metres.

    However, since acceleration is not linear and the cars will probably accelerate quite evenly until over 200 km/h (shifting, lack of traction, etc.), a distance of 30 metres (around 5 car lengths) seems conceivable to me and Ruf are most likely telling the truth.

    Please, correct me if I missed anything.

     
    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 1/17/18 5:15 PM
    martini964
    262777 1682
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New 991.2 GT3 (2017) 1/17/18 2:59 PM
    throt
    259316 4017
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 1/17/18 5:26 PM
    Grant
    88002 1347
    Porsche Sticky 992 (Next 911 generation 2019/2020) 1/12/18 7:11 PM
    the-missile
    67215 673
    Porsche Sticky Porsche Mission E - the future of Porsche? 1/3/18 8:32 PM
    CGX car nut
    39770 468
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Turbo S Exclusive Series (2017) 11/28/17 12:15 AM
    EnglishManInNY
    23891 332
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New Porsche Carrera T 12/1/17 7:24 PM
    crayphile
    13683 243
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Porsche 718 GTS models (Oct. 2017) 10/24/17 12:19 PM
    amazon
    7115 19
    Porsche 918 latest news Thread Closed 11/6/17 10:43 AM
    RCA
    547533 5574
    Porsche 991 GT3 RS 1/9/18 1:43 PM
    Kimi
    455941 5816
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991 Turbo and Turbo S 10/26/17 1:33 PM
    NSXER
    445768 4239
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 2016 Porsche Carrera 911 [991.2] Facelift 3/24/17 12:49 PM
    RCA
    254528 1382
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 1/4/18 9:14 PM
    wurlie
    247359 2558
    Porsche 997 GT3 RS 4.0 3/15/17 10:40 PM
    noone1
     
     
     
     
     
    231082 737
    Porsche Cayman GT4 12/30/17 11:07 AM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    212771 2482
    Porsche 991 GT2 RS (2017) - Rumors, speculations and gossip Thread Closed 7/3/17 2:04 PM
    RCA
    175370 1699
    Porsche The moment I've been waiting for... 11/13/17 2:32 AM
    Pilot
     
     
     
     
     
    164502 874
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Turbo and Turbo S 12/15/17 1:44 PM
    RCA
    164069 1072
    Ferrari 488 GTB/GTS 12/15/17 11:32 AM
    RCA
    139742 1190
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 1/8/18 12:32 PM
    rhino
    138842 2855
    Porsche 991.2 GT3 Thread Closed 3/7/17 11:47 AM
    RCA
    124844 1651
    Porsche Boxster Spyder (981) 12/29/17 8:31 AM
    dreamcar
    110248 692
    Porsche Collected my 997 GTS today 1/22/17 7:32 AM
    BiTurbo
     
     
     
     
     
    108103 801
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New Panamera (2016) 1/6/18 10:41 PM
    Wonderbar
    107979 1284
    Others Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016 model) - Review (updated Feb 13th 2017) 1/17/18 3:27 PM
    Lars997M
    105199 1861
    Ferrari Ferrari F12 Berlinetta / 599 GTO Successor 12/5/17 3:29 PM
    RCA
    86807 765
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 718 Boxster (2016) 10/20/17 11:17 AM
    DaveGordon
    81649 732
    Others VW caught cheating emissions tests 7/10/17 2:36 PM
    RCA
    81005 861
    Porsche 991 GTS 4/3/17 4:27 PM
    bluelines
    68212 247
    Porsche OFFICIAL: Cayenne (958) Facelift 2014 3/2/17 4:22 PM
    RCA
    66691 163
    373 items found, displaying 1 to 30.