Quote:
thuggy said:Quote:
denn said:
I believe the CCR has 655HP/1000kg and the CGT 438HP/1000kg, and still the CGT is faster despite the 50% difference.
CCR 817 PS/1180kg & CGT 612PS/1380kg. 438HP?
May 23, 2008 1:34:47 PM
Quote:
ResB said:
It might have more power but it's being able to put all that power down to the tarmac that's important. Didn't the CCX/CCR undergo some design changes when "the Stig" lost control on a bend due to lack of downforce?
May 23, 2008 3:42:20 PM
Quote:
JoeRockhead said:Quote:
thuggy said:
Also isnt the factory claim for the 997 Turbo 7:40 and HvS at 7:54?
Motortrend apparently got the 997TT around the 'ring in 7:40.
The is funny, I didn't know the F430 did so poorly! Only 1 second faster than a 996TT, and 4 seconds faster than a 997S... no wonder nberry is so bitter:
Radical SR8 6:55
Porsche 996 GT2 modified 7:16
Carrera GT (Rohl) 7:28
Carrera GT (Sport Auto) 7:32
Pagani Zonda F (Sport Auto) 7:33
Koenigsegg CCR (Sport Auto) 7:34
Mclaren Mercedes SLR (Autobild) 7:40
Porsche 997 Turbo (Motortrend) 7:40
Ford GT (Octane magazine) 7:42
C6 Corvette Z06 7:43
Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar) 7:43.5
Pagani Zonda S (Sport Auto) 7:44
Porsche 996 GT2 (Sport Auto) 7:46
Porsche 997 GT3 7:46
Porsche 996 GT3RS (Sport Auto) 7:47
Audi RS4 V8(Sport Auto) 7:49
BMW E46 M3 CSL (Sport Auto) 7:50
Ford GT (Sport Auto) 7:52
Lamborghini Gallardo (Sport Auto) 7:52
Ferrari F430 (Sport Auto) 7:55
Porsche 996GT3 (Rohl) 7:56
Porsche 996 Turbo (Sport Auto) 7:56
Audi RS4 V8 (Frank Stippler) 7:58
Porsche 997S (Rohl) 7:59
Aston Martin V8 Vantage (Sport Auto) 8:03
Lamborghini Diablo GT (Sport Auto) 8:04
Porsche 997 Carrera S (Sport Auto) 8:05
Quote:
AUM said:
Sorry if these EVO laptimes at Bedford are a repost:
Gumpert Apollo - 1:19.4
Caterham R500 - 1:20.2
Ariel Atom 3 - 1:21.5
Brooke Double R - 1:22.5
Carrera GT - 1:23.3
Porsche 997 GT2 - 1:23.5
Nissan GTR - 1:23.6
Mitsubishi Evo X SST - 1:29.3
Nissan 350Z - 1:30.0
Impreza WRX STi - 1:30.2
Quote:
deathnell said:Quote:
AUM said:
Sorry if these EVO laptimes at Bedford are a repost:
Gumpert Apollo - 1:19.4
Caterham R500 - 1:20.2
Ariel Atom 3 - 1:21.5
Brooke Double R - 1:22.5
Carrera GT - 1:23.3
Porsche 997 GT2 - 1:23.5
Nissan GTR - 1:23.6
Mitsubishi Evo X SST - 1:29.3
Nissan 350Z - 1:30.0
Impreza WRX STi - 1:30.2
The gtr is only 0.3SEC slower than the CGT over this lap.That's quite fast.And 2sec slower than the CGT on Nurburgring seems reasonable.
But I don't think it can really reach 290km twice on one lap.
Quote:
Crash said:
I seriously doubt it can even reach 290 km/h once. The GT2 only reaches 293 km/h and is much faster than the 997TT, which is also faster than a GT-R, especially above 250 km/h...
Quote:
Crash said:
I seriously doubt it can even reach 290 km/h once. The GT2 only reaches 293 km/h and is much faster than the 997TT, which is also faster than a GT-R, especially above 250 km/h...
Quote:
TB993tt said:Quote:
Crash said:
I seriously doubt it can even reach 290 km/h once. The GT2 only reaches 293 km/h and is much faster than the 997TT, which is also faster than a GT-R, especially above 250 km/h...
Crash
Do you have any data to give us the GTR acceleration over 250kph ? I read the anecdotal stuff in EVO (was it EVO ? one of the mags anyway) which described how the 997tt pulled away at very high speed....
"If" the Cd quoted for the GTR of 0.27 is correct and comparable to the 997tt Cd (a big "if" IMO since windtunnels seem to give slightly different measurements and aero stuff is almost in the "black art" catagory) then it should be the GTR which has the advantage at speeds over 250kph with the same hp as the 997tt since the weight does not make so much of a difference to very high speed accelration ?
I am very interested in this particular aspect as the 250-300kph acceleration will indicate how well the GTR holds onto its hp when things get hot (something we take for granted in our Porsches)- although I guess a 7.29 puts that one to bed !
Forgetting the first 290 which does look like wheels in the air, the data trace does appear to show ~290kph where the other fast cars, CGT, GT2, GT Street are also in this ball park..... do you have real data
Quote:
Crash said:
I compared some 0-1000 m data in one of the previous threads, in which the Turbo was several km/h faster at the end. Actually, when you look at it, if the car really has only the stated 480 horsepower, it needs shorter gearing to offset its weight at lower speeds, thus leading to suboptimal gearing at higher speeds. Also, the coefficient of drag isn't everything. Surface area is also important and the GT-R is absolutely huge, even compared to the Turbo. I would like to see end figures for aerodynamics, not just the Cd. That's about all I have, so if you can think of anything else, that would be great.
May 25, 2008 12:44:36 PM
Quote:
AUM said:
Sorry if these EVO laptimes at Bedford are a repost:
Gumpert Apollo - 1:19.4
Caterham R500 - 1:20.2
Ariel Atom 3 - 1:21.5
Brooke Double R - 1:22.5
Carrera GT - 1:23.3
Porsche 997 GT2 - 1:23.5
Nissan GTR - 1:23.6
Mitsubishi Evo X SST - 1:29.3
Nissan 350Z - 1:30.0
Impreza WRX STi - 1:30.2
May 26, 2008 7:30:15 PM
Quote:
nberry said:
Carlos, I did not claim everything Newton espoused was wrong. All I said was Einstein proved Newton wrong. I did not state on which theories until Fritz called me on it. I then proceeded to show where Einstein proved Newton wrong.
May 26, 2008 7:41:29 PM
Quote:
nberry said:
Joe, the GT-R is a car designed by Nissan to produce world class performance at a very reasonable price very much like the Porsche. When you stack the two up against one another it is no contest. The GT-R spanks the Porsche in every category. Ferrari does not have any interest in Ring times.
May 26, 2008 11:57:35 PM
May 27, 2008 6:18:39 AM
Quote:Nope. The world beyond Lo Jolla is not flat and everyone who lives in San Francisco isn't necessarily related to each other.
nberry said:
Are you related to David of SF?
Quote:Ok, this is a good one, how do you answer Yes or No to a True or False question? Only Nick could set up such a scenario. If this is a serious question, I'll defer to my earlier posts which answer it already.
nberry said: True or false, Einstein proved Newton wrong? Please no "but" just YES or NO?
Quote:I could be wrong but I know there was a period when you were criticizing more than how they market their cars. Didn't you have a Cayenne that had a throttle tip-in design flaw in your opinion and you were vexed that Porsche said in effect "Too bad, zees ees how der car vaz deezined"? I thought you were either suing them over it or lobbying for additional complainants for a class action suit or something. In any event, your memory seems a bit faded if all you admit to is a disagreement with the marketiing of their cars. I'd add that you also don't much like their car's looks, design philosophy, sales numbers, lack of hi tech technology like flappy paddle gearboxes, etc. No harm meant by this post. You enjoy your Fiat, and I'll enjoy my Beetle.
nberry said:I harbor no grudge against Porsche. I just happen to disagree with their approach to marketing cars. Clearly my views do not coincide with Porsche success, so they know their customers very well. I am no longer one because I have become more discriminating when spending over $100,000 for a car.
BTW, I have no idea as to what your referring to regarding suing Porsche. Is it possible I am suing Porsche and I do not know it.
May 27, 2008 11:03:39 PM
Quote:
nberry said:
Dynamics of a rear engine car are totally different than a front engine. An engine sitting behind the rear axle is at a distinct disadvantage.
May 28, 2008 4:29:41 AM
Quote:
Jeff (in SF) said:Quote:
nberry said:
Carlos, I did not claim everything Newton espoused was wrong. All I said was Einstein proved Newton wrong. I did not state on which theories until Fritz called me on it. I then proceeded to show where Einstein proved Newton wrong.
By analogy, better measuring accuracy and computers have enlightened us to know that "P"i is more accurately described as 3.1516.........(insert thousands of digits here after the decimal point),