Crown
Board: Porsche - 911 - 997 - Turbo
Language: English
Region: Worldwide
Close
CloseForum - Thread
Re: 4 8 3
483 would make sense as this is the 996 GT2 figure.
They stayed below the GT3 figure with the 997S and 997S powerkit models even if the current 997S engine is probably worth 400 BHP, so probably they take a similar approach for the TT and try not to damage the GT2 too early.
However, there are not many GT2s around and those already had a big depreciation hit. I would not have expected many angry people if the new TT would get more HP than the GT2.
They stayed below the GT3 figure with the 997S and 997S powerkit models even if the current 997S engine is probably worth 400 BHP, so probably they take a similar approach for the TT and try not to damage the GT2 too early.
However, there are not many GT2s around and those already had a big depreciation hit. I would not have expected many angry people if the new TT would get more HP than the GT2.
Re: 4 8 3
Quote:
yah said:
483 would make sense as this is the 996 GT2 figure.
They stayed below the GT3 figure with the 997S and 997S powerkit models even if the current 997S engine is probably worth 400 BHP, so probably they take a similar approach for the TT and try not to damage the GT2 too early.
However, there are not many GT2s around and those already had a big depreciation hit. I would not have expected many angry people if the new TT would get more HP than the GT2.
Based on rumours there have been only 50-100 996GT2 Mk2 sold to date.
Therefore, I am not sure Porsche should focus too much on the sentiments of those few buyers...
Jan 4, 2006 4:03:54 PM
- easy_rider911
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: London , United Kingdom
- Posts: 22190, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 8, 2004
-
Reply to:
RC
Re: 4 8 3
Thanks RC.
It's interesting to note that if the 483 bhp figure is correct then the difference between the 997TT and the 997S is 128bhp (483-355) whereas the difference between the 996TT and the 996 C2 is 100bhp (420-320).
From what I've seen, Porsche positions its cars in the market (in respect of their relative horse power) with a very deliberate and conscious decision.
It seems to me that the competition from the Gallardo and the F430 'forced' Porsche to offer 483 whereas the lack of 2 door coupe models directly competing against the 997S (the AMV8 is not in the same price bracket while the current M3 is 343bhp) means that Porsche did not have to make a special effort to give more than 355 bhp even though they could easily have made the 997S with X51 as the standard 997S.
With the new M3 coming in 2006/2007, I wonder if Porsche will raise bhp of the 997S for the MY2008 facelift?
It's interesting to note that if the 483 bhp figure is correct then the difference between the 997TT and the 997S is 128bhp (483-355) whereas the difference between the 996TT and the 996 C2 is 100bhp (420-320).
From what I've seen, Porsche positions its cars in the market (in respect of their relative horse power) with a very deliberate and conscious decision.
It seems to me that the competition from the Gallardo and the F430 'forced' Porsche to offer 483 whereas the lack of 2 door coupe models directly competing against the 997S (the AMV8 is not in the same price bracket while the current M3 is 343bhp) means that Porsche did not have to make a special effort to give more than 355 bhp even though they could easily have made the 997S with X51 as the standard 997S.
With the new M3 coming in 2006/2007, I wonder if Porsche will raise bhp of the 997S for the MY2008 facelift?
Jan 4, 2006 4:31:33 PM
- Grant
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: Denver, CO , United States
- Posts: 12586, Gallery
- Registered on: Aug 21, 2002
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Re: 4 8 3
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:It's interesting to note that if the 483 bhp figure is correct then the difference between the 997TT and the 997S is 128bhp (483-355) whereas the difference between the 996TT and the 996 C2 is 100bhp (420-320).
Actually, the first year of 996, the C2 had 296hp, so the increase was 124 hp (pretty much the same)...
Jan 4, 2006 7:32:02 PM
- Grant
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: Denver, CO , United States
- Posts: 12586, Gallery
- Registered on: Aug 21, 2002
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Re: 4 8 3
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Thanks pcosta & Grant for adding some necessary perspective to my analysis!
No Problem. For a bit more history, here's some other USA C2 vs. base Turbo (not S) comparisons from memory (correct me if I'm wrong):
1976: 150hp vs. 260hp (biggest difference by percentage)
1978: 180hp vs. 300hp
1986: 200hp vs. 282hp
1987: 214hp vs. 282hp (smallest difference)
1991: 250hp vs. 320hp (smallest diff. by percentage)
1994: 250hp vs. 355hp
1996: 285hp vs. 400hp
2001: 300hp vs. 420hp
2007?:325hp vs. 483hp (biggest difference in hp)
Re: 4 8 3
Quote:
Grant said:Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Thanks pcosta & Grant for adding some necessary perspective to my analysis!
No Problem. For a bit more history, here's some other USA C2 vs. base Turbo (not S) comparisons from memory (correct me if I'm wrong):
1976: 150hp vs. 260hp (biggest difference by percentage)
1978: 180hp vs. 300hp
1986: 200hp vs. 282hp
1987: 214hp vs. 282hp (smallest difference)
1991: 250hp vs. 320hp (smallest diff. by percentage)
1994: 250hp vs. 355hp
1996: 285hp vs. 400hp
2001: 300hp vs. 420hp
2007?:325hp vs. 483hp (biggest difference in hp)
good info! thanks!
Forum
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
