Crown

Board: Porsche Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    I put this in a seperate post so the initial thread wouldn't get bogged down. I'm about to go out to the discotheque, but tomorrow or Sunday when I have some free time, I'll apply some More physics (a little more judiciously at that) and we can get at some concrete answers!

    Part 1: Drag and top speed

    Here, I found some data by sleuthing around. I'm not sure if this is offical factory specs, but they seem to be reputable:

    Coeffecient of Drag for compared cars:

    Carrera GT: .39
    F50: .372
    McLaren Mercedes SLR: .37
    Enzo: .36
    F40: .34
    F430: .33
    996TT: .32
    McLaren F1: .32
    997TT: .31
    Konneiksegg: .297
    997 Carrera: .28
    C6 Corvette: .28

    --------

    Now lets compare the drag, power and weight issues for the three supercars (Enzo, CGT, SLR) and see what the difference in the drag will count for at the very top end (275+ kmph):

    This is an adapted physics formula I took from a physics website for vehicles attempting to hit 200mph:

    Power = 8.702 x 10**(-6) x Cd x A x V**3
    where Cd = coefficient of drag
    A = square feet of frontal area of the vehicle
    V = Velocity, in miles per hour

    They offer an example of a car that hits 200mph:
    Bill Gordon's Norwood Autocraft 8.2L 288-GTO 308 conversion, assuming a Cd of .33, a frontal area of 20.5 square feet, and assuming a target speed is 200 mph. I'm not sure what the weight of this guy's car was, but we are going to standardize weight in comparison, because when we utilize the formula we will be comparing the Enzo and the CGT, which vary in aprox 40 lbs of weight.

    Through testing, the car needed 600bhp, which translates to around 480 at the wheels to get to 200mph. The forumla verifies this as such:

    Required Power = (8.702 x 10**(-6) x.33 x 20.5 x 200**3
    Required Power = 0.000008702 x .33 x 20.5 x 8,000,000
    Required Power = 472whp

    --------------------

    The only variable we are missing for this equation is the surface area of each car (SLR, CGT, Enzo); the exaggerated nose of the Enzo appears to give it an edge in this department, followed by the SLR and finally the more staunch CGT.

    However, with the Manufacturers claim to the top speed, we can calculate the surface area, because having the top speed (x amt) and a rough estimate of WHP (estimated 18.5% loss of power at crank) leaves us with just one variable: area. We could extract this via the Manufacturers claim of top speed, but the formula is a thicket of *&^# that I don't really have the brain to go through anymore (when was the lass time I took a math/physics class?) But for those who are interested, F=.5CdApv^2 where p is the density of the air (we will use standardized .0801 which equates to , and we will keep it constant for all cars.
    We are trying to find out A:
    Furthermore, this formula will solve F in terms of pounds which we multiply the force of air resistance by speed (in feet per second, converted from miles per hour), and divide by 550, to convert foot-lb/sec to horsepower.


    The Good Stuff:

    Let's use Gordon's formula and look at the approximated power needed for each of these cars to yeild 200mph. I adjusted his baseline A value because when doing it, I found that each of these cars achieves it much easier than is stated, thus their A value must be lower. I will only compare the CGT and the Enzo because they have comperable weight. The weight handicap of the SLR will throw the equation out of wack and I don't feel like retooling it!


    CGT:
    Required Power = 0.000008702 x .39 x 17.75 x 8,000,000
    Required Power = 481.96whp to achieve 200mph. The car tops out at aprox 205 mph, and the estimated WHP for the CGT is 498.5. I'm no Max Planck, but that seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Enzo:
    Required Power = 0.000008702 x .36 x 17.75 x 8,000,000
    Required Power= 444.845whp to achieve 200mph! Look at the sheer difference in BHP (aprox 45hp less!) to achieve 200mph for the Enzo! The car tops out at 217 mph or so (aprox 350kmph) so I think there is adequate power left for it from 445 to its max peak at 660bhp (538whp) and achieve ~220mph!

    ------------------

    Thus, I think the difference of .03 Cd plays a huge part in the Enzo's abilities above 270kmph. I'm about to go out, but later, I'll fiddle around with velocity formulas to see how big the difference REALLY is.

    P.S. It would be great if we could get some official specs on the surface area for both of these cars? Ha, would you mind calling your dealer or shooting an email looking for this fact?

    More to come later...

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    Hurst said:
    I put this in a seperate post so the initial thread wouldn't get bogged down. I'm about to go out to the discotheque, but tomorrow or Sunday when I have some free time, I'll apply some More physics (a little more judiciously at that) and we can get at some concrete answers!

    Part 1: Drag and top speed

    Here, I found some data by sleuthing around. I'm not sure if this is offical factory specs, but they seem to be reputable:

    Coeffecient of Drag for compared cars:

    Carrera GT: .39
    F50: .372
    McLaren Mercedes SLR: .37
    Enzo: .36
    F40: .34
    F430: .33
    996TT: .32
    McLaren F1: .32
    997TT: .31
    Konneiksegg: .297
    997 Carrera: .28
    C6 Corvette: .28

    --------

    Now lets compare the drag, power and weight issues for the three supercars (Enzo, CGT, SLR) and see what the difference in the drag will count for at the very top end (275+ kmph):

    This is an adapted physics formula I took from a physics website for vehicles attempting to hit 200mph:

    Power = 8.702 x 10**(-6) x Cd x A x V**3
    where Cd = coefficient of drag
    A = square feet of frontal area of the vehicle
    V = Velocity, in miles per hour

    They offer an example of a car that hits 200mph:
    Bill Gordon's Norwood Autocraft 8.2L 288-GTO 308 conversion, assuming a Cd of .33, a frontal area of 20.5 square feet, and assuming a target speed is 200 mph. I'm not sure what the weight of this guy's car was, but we are going to standardize weight in comparison, because when we utilize the formula we will be comparing the Enzo and the CGT, which vary in aprox 40 lbs of weight.

    Through testing, the car needed 600bhp, which translates to around 480 at the wheels to get to 200mph. The forumla verifies this as such:

    Required Power = (8.702 x 10**(-6) x.33 x 20.5 x 200**3
    Required Power = 0.000008702 x .33 x 20.5 x 8,000,000
    Required Power = 472whp

    --------------------

    The only variable we are missing for this equation is the surface area of each car (SLR, CGT, Enzo); the exaggerated nose of the Enzo appears to give it an edge in this department, followed by the SLR and finally the more staunch CGT.

    However, with the Manufacturers claim to the top speed, we can calculate the surface area, because having the top speed (x amt) and a rough estimate of WHP (estimated 18.5% loss of power at crank) leaves us with just one variable: area. We could extract this via the Manufacturers claim of top speed, but the formula is a thicket of *&^# that I don't really have the brain to go through anymore (when was the lass time I took a math/physics class?) But for those who are interested, F=.5CdApv^2 where p is the density of the air (we will use standardized .0801 which equates to , and we will keep it constant for all cars.
    We are trying to find out A:
    Furthermore, this formula will solve F in terms of pounds which we multiply the force of air resistance by speed (in feet per second, converted from miles per hour), and divide by 550, to convert foot-lb/sec to horsepower.


    The Good Stuff:

    Let's use Gordon's formula and look at the approximated power needed for each of these cars to yeild 200mph. I adjusted his baseline A value because when doing it, I found that each of these cars achieves it much easier than is stated, thus their A value must be lower. I will only compare the CGT and the Enzo because they have comperable weight. The weight handicap of the SLR will throw the equation out of wack and I don't feel like retooling it!


    CGT:
    Required Power = 0.000008702 x .39 x 17.75 x 8,000,000
    Required Power = 481.96whp to achieve 200mph. The car tops out at aprox 205 mph, and the estimated WHP for the CGT is 498.5. I'm no Max Planck, but that seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Enzo:
    Required Power = 0.000008702 x .36 x 17.75 x 8,000,000
    Required Power= 444.845whp to achieve 200mph! Look at the sheer difference in BHP (aprox 45hp less!) to achieve 200mph for the Enzo! The car tops out at 217 mph or so (aprox 350kmph) so I think there is adequate power left for it from 445 to its max peak at 660bhp (538whp) and achieve ~220mph!

    ------------------

    Thus, I think the difference of .03 Cd plays a huge part in the Enzo's abilities above 270kmph. I'm about to go out, but later, I'll fiddle around with velocity formulas to see how big the difference REALLY is.

    P.S. It would be great if we could get some official specs on the surface area for both of these cars? Ha, would you mind calling your dealer or shooting an email looking for this fact?

    More to come later...



    That was a great explanation! I didn't know the CGT was that much of a drag . But geez, a Cd of .39? A normal sedan nowadays has a Cd below .30. I wonder how the CGT would perform against an SL65 above 250 km/h. My guess is, it would lose .

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    I wonder how the CGT would perform against an SL65 above 250 km/h. My guess is, it would lose .



    The SL is probably slower: remember the A in the above formula...Those big cars (like the SL) do have a major disadvantage at high speeds.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    I wonder how the CGT would perform against an SL65 above 250 km/h. My guess is, it would lose .



    The SL is probably slower: remember the A in the above formula...Those big cars (like the SL) do have a major disadvantage at high speeds.



    Didn't a German mag recently accel test an '07 S65? I recall S65's drag to be 0.26....

    Also need to consider the almost certain mfg variances w/tested Enzos and CGTs....400 and ?1500 produced....w/likely material mfg variances btwn early produc copies and late-cycle copies.....

    Our German pals need to buy (or go to their dealer to test-drive ) more Enzos, CGTs, and 65s to do real-world, informal 200-300KPH accel tests on AB, to educate the US/Lond buyers who live vicariously through our German friends....

    Would be intrigued to see comparo of 100-200 and 200-300KPH times btwn Enzo, CGT and S65, to better understand roles of hp/tq/gearing/drag/A/wt, etc.....I suspect top speed will always be a fuzzier datapoint.....

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    With regards to the Enzo's downforce, I have read in several sources that at high speeds (Such as 300km/h), the onboard computer actively adjusts the spoilers to reduce the rate of increase in drag with respect to velocity. However, I have not yet located an authoritative page which describes precisely what is done, and how much this affects downforce (And stability), at this speed.

    It seems that when the velocity is so high, even small adjustments like this could make a large difference in high speed acceleration.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    luke said:
    With regards to the Enzo's downforce, I have read in several sources that at high speeds (Such as 300km/h), the onboard computer actively adjusts the spoilers to reduce the rate of increase in drag with respect to velocity. However, I have not yet located an authoritative page which describes precisely what is done, and how much this affects downforce (And stability), at this speed.

    It seems that when the velocity is so high, even small adjustments like this could make a large difference in high speed acceleration.



    Yes. For the Veyron, one must activate a "high speed mode" by putting their key in a special slot in the door sill. This changes the angles of the spoilers and lowers the car by several millimeters.



    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Didn't a German mag recently accel test an '07 S65? I recall S65's drag to be 0.26....





    Remember, having the lowest drag is not the end all be all; it severely hampers stability, leading to lift (e.g. CLKR in LeMans 2001?) making high speed runs theoretically very high, but practically very unstable (McLaren knows something about high speed wind tunnel testing, via the F1 and their Formula "Un" Team. Why would they produce the SLR to have a much higher Cd than the SL65, which is very comperable in design).

    Formula 1 cars have Cds VERY HIGH, somewhere around .7 (depending on what their downforce setup is via the racetrack). They can still achieve blistering top speed because of their incredulous weight/hp ratios, their super sticky tyres etc etc Also, I believe the surface area for their cars are very very small compared to conventional road going cars.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    Crash said:
    I wonder how the CGT would perform against an SL65 above 250 km/h. My guess is, it would lose .



    The SL is probably slower: remember the A in the above formula...Those big cars (like the SL) do have a major disadvantage at high speeds.



    Didn't a German mag recently accel test an '07 S65? I recall S65's drag to be 0.26....




    0.26 is Cd. However Cd is multiplied by A (the front area of the vehicle). And A is "huge" for those big cars...

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Our German pals need to buy (or go to their dealer to test-drive ) more Enzos, CGTs, and 65s to do real-world, informal 200-300KPH accel tests on AB, to educate the US/Lond buyers who live vicariously through our German friends....




    The German economy is weak We cannot afford such expensive toys

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Our German pals need to buy (or go to their dealer to test-drive ) more Enzos, CGTs, and 65s to do real-world, informal 200-300KPH accel tests on AB, to educate the US/Lond buyers who live vicariously through our German friends....




    The German economy is weak We cannot afford such expensive toys



    Spoken by a man, who is looking at the 599 and the Murcielago .
    Regarding the drag, I do realize the huge frontal area these cars have, but when the Cd is .26 versus .39, I doubt that the much bigger frontal area would hamper its high-speed acceleration. Remember, the SL55 with the SLR engine did 0-300 km/h in 32 seconds during the Nardo test. Couple that with the slower 0-200 km/h acceleration and you get quite a convincing performer at high speeds.
    Of course everything would be over at the first corner, but it would be quite unnerving being forced to move out of the way of an SL65 - while driving the Carrera GT, even if only on the straights.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    The fact theat you are about to go to a discotheque really casts doubt on your numbers.Your in a time warp.

    In your last post on this thread, you point out that weight/hp ratio tires is the ultimate determiner of top speed. It is exactly what out posted on the thread that started this discussion.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    What are you talking about Nick?
    My quote is in direct response to your quote, both taken from the other thread.
    I think you are talking about yourself

    Quote:
    nberry said:
    I know gearing, suspension and tires plays a role in some of these races but at the end of the day hp and weight rules.



    Quote:
    Hurst said:
    I think we are neglecting the Coeffecient of Drag. Rumor has it that the CGT has a poor Cd, because it was more downforce/design oriented. I'd love to see the technical specifications of each cars in terms of their Cd.

    I believe the scientific explanation says that for each .1 more Cd, it takes 50hp more (same weight and tyres provided) to yeild 200mph? Plus, the size of the massive rubber on the CGT as well as the unsprung weight has to be taken into account.... The CGT is a Roadster/T-Top (what have you).

    There are a lot of variables here, besides weight and hp.


    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Our German pals need to buy (or go to their dealer to test-drive ) more Enzos, CGTs, and 65s to do real-world, informal 200-300KPH accel tests on AB, to educate the US/Lond buyers who live vicariously through our German friends....




    The German economy is weak We cannot afford such expensive toys






    Look at the upside of a "weak" economy in a land of AB....a legitimate-appearing potential buyer can easily obtain extended test drives of whatever F/P/L/MB, etc desired in an arguably more real-world setting than any "runway-limited" racetrack.....

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Our German pals need to buy (or go to their dealer to test-drive ) more Enzos, CGTs, and 65s to do real-world, informal 200-300KPH accel tests on AB, to educate the US/Lond buyers who live vicariously through our German friends....




    The German economy is weak We cannot afford such expensive toys






    Look at the upside of a "weak" economy in a land of AB....a legitimate-appearing potential buyer can easily obtain extended test drives of whatever F/P/L/MB, etc desired in an arguably more real-world setting than any "runway-limited" racetrack.....



    You might be right.

    P.S.: My dealer even offered me a test ride in the 599GTB without being asked (no kidding...)

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Our German pals need to buy (or go to their dealer to test-drive ) more Enzos, CGTs, and 65s to do real-world, informal 200-300KPH accel tests on AB, to educate the US/Lond buyers who live vicariously through our German friends....




    The German economy is weak We cannot afford such expensive toys



    Spoken by a man, who is looking at the 599 and the Murcielago .
    Regarding the drag, I do realize the huge frontal area these cars have, but when the Cd is .26 versus .39, I doubt that the much bigger frontal area would hamper its high-speed acceleration. Remember, the SL55 with the SLR engine did 0-300 km/h in 32 seconds during the Nardo test. Couple that with the slower 0-200 km/h acceleration and you get quite a convincing performer at high speeds.
    Of course everything would be over at the first corner, but it would be quite unnerving being forced to move out of the way of an SL65 - while driving the Carrera GT, even if only on the straights.



    IMO, top speed is a fairly academic, fuzzy value useful for marketing spin but little else....

    Would argue that, even on AB, 200-300KPH+ accel; highest cruising speed achievable w/confidence-inspiring stability; and repeated braking capabilities from 300KPH+ (even ABs in Podunk have traffic and wayward lane-changers) are far more important than any academic/theoretic top speed achieved on a track....

    I certainly lack signif driving expce at 200KPH+, but even in my modest travels at around 200KPH, have observed, for ex., that 996TTS is less stable/confidence-inspiring than SL55 on days w/heavy cross-winds or on bumpier stretches of fwy ....I suspect jaded German owners of Enzo/CGT/65, etc may have interesting perspectives (which may confound status of any anointed top speed "winner") re: which cars feel most stable at highest speeds on AB w/real-world cross-winds, traffic, road imperfections, etc....

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    [
    I certainly lack signif driving expce at 200KPH+, but even in my modest travels at around 200KPH, have observed, for ex., that 996TTS is less stable/confidence-inspiring than SL55 on days w/heavy cross-winds or on bumpier stretches of fwy



    The important question is how stable the car feels at >250kph in AB bends

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    [
    I certainly lack signif driving expce at 200KPH+, but even in my modest travels at around 200KPH, have observed, for ex., that 996TTS is less stable/confidence-inspiring than SL55 on days w/heavy cross-winds or on bumpier stretches of fwy



    The important question is how stable the car feels at >250kph in AB bends



    Some are and some cant! No way will a SL keep up at 250kph
    in AB bends with a Porsche. SLs need more glue!

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    VKSF said:
    Our German pals need to buy (or go to their dealer to test-drive ) more Enzos, CGTs, and 65s to do real-world, informal 200-300KPH accel tests on AB, to educate the US/Lond buyers who live vicariously through our German friends....




    The German economy is weak We cannot afford such expensive toys






    Look at the upside of a "weak" economy in a land of AB....a legitimate-appearing potential buyer can easily obtain extended test drives of whatever F/P/L/MB, etc desired in an arguably more real-world setting than any "runway-limited" racetrack.....



    You might be right.

    P.S.: My dealer even offered me a test ride in the 599GTB without being asked (no kidding...)



    Don't doubt you at all....

    Amazing how different F availability is btwn US and EU....tale of 2 economies and artificially underallocating cars to US....

    Interestingly, rumors are that a well-known German software billionaire who's a car nut w/numerous F/P/MB, who primarily lives in SilicVy, brought one of his Euro-spec 599s to his SilicVy house (first US-spec 599s arrive in SF in Oct)....curious re: his perspective on 599 on US's fastest urban fwy (280 fwy in SilicVy) vs what he's observed re: 599 on AB in Podunk....

    I suspect he may be one of the ?5 guys in Germany w/extensive AB expce w/Enzo, CGT, etc to opine re: which is most stable at highest speeds.....

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Hurstm did you write this?

    " Formula 1 cars have Cds VERY HIGH, somewhere around .7 (depending on what their downforce setup is via the racetrack). They can still achieve blistering top speed because of their incredulous weight/hp ratios, their super sticky tyres etc etc Also, I believe the surface area for their cars are very very small compared to conventional road going cars."

    This is what I wrote in an earlier thread.

    I know gearing, suspension and tires plays a role in some of these races but at the end of the day hp and weight rules.

    I think we are saying the something. Maybe your dancing is rattling your head.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    nberry said:
    Hurstm did you write this?

    " Formula 1 cars have Cds VERY HIGH, somewhere around .7 (depending on what their downforce setup is via the racetrack). They can still achieve blistering top speed because of their incredulous weight/hp ratios, their super sticky tyres etc etc Also, I believe the surface area for their cars are very very small compared to conventional road going cars."

    This is what I wrote in an earlier thread.

    I know gearing, suspension and tires plays a role in some of these races but at the end of the day hp and weight rules.

    I think we are saying the something. Maybe your dancing is rattling your head.



    Not the dancing, the drinking and womanizing

    We can't compare two different beasts. F1 cars are not bred to be drag strip burners. Take a $150k Indy car and outrun a $14Million F1 car anyday.
    Their Cd has been tuned down to negate the effects of lift via downforce, because they are weaving through highly technical tracks.
    Back in the 50s, F1 cars had really low drag and high hp, they burned real fast into the high high speeds, but they also crashed into the hairpins

    I thought we were talking about straight line acceleration here

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    It amazes me how many so called Porsche enthusiasts just
    Dont understand the CGT.

    Maybe it to raw and visceral for them. Maybe they were prejudiced by the reports of hack journos about it.

    I think its the best sports car ever built and will become a classic sought after car in the pantheon of high end sports cars.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    I understand what you're saying Jim. Top end is completely irrelevant when you're building a race car (how many mid-class race cars ever hit 200mph on any given track? What type of track has a straight long enough to hit it in cars of this caliber!!)

    Nevertheless, this was an interesting excersize in physics and it really goes ot show what the marketing aspect of cars really amounts to (i.e. the veritable importance of 0-60, 0-200, Nring, Hheim, Top Speed).

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    JimFlat6 said:
    It amazes me how many so called Porsche enthusiasts just
    Dont understand the CGT.

    Maybe it to raw and visceral for them. Maybe they were prejudiced by the reports of hack journos about it.

    I think its the best sports car ever built and will become a classic sought after car in the pantheon of high end sports cars.



    You are right, the Carrera GT is an outstanding sportscar (see track performance).

    They should only have installed an engine on par with its competitors. The limited power is responsible for all the dissatisfaction. The rest of the car is just perfect

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Few interesting data from AMS high speed testing at Nardo in Italy...

    Ferrari Enzo

    0-100km/h: 3.6s
    0-200km/h:10.3s
    0-300km/h:26.1s
    Max: 355km/h

    Mercedes SL65 AMG

    0-100km/h: 3.9s
    0-200km/h:12.0s
    0-300km/h:31.9s
    Max: 338km/h

    Porsche CGT

    0-100km/h: 3.8s
    0-200km/h:10.7s
    0-300km/h:34.2s
    Max: 334km/h

    They also tested max. speed and Mercedes SL65 was without any blocade.

    BTW, new 997 Turbo was also put to the Mardo test, it will be published in about one month in AMS. Accleration is pretty excellent till around 250km/h(around 21s) but, after that it is not that good. It needs around 43s to 300km/h and top speed is 311km/h. It was a manual version, TIP is little bit slower till 300km/h...

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    KresoF1 said:
    Few interesting data from AMS high speed testing at Nardo in Italy...

    Ferrari Enzo

    0-100km/h: 3.6s
    0-200km/h:10.3s
    0-300km/h:26.1s
    Max: 355km/h

    Mercedes SL65 AMG

    0-100km/h: 3.9s
    0-200km/h:12.0s
    0-300km/h:31.9s
    Max: 338km/h

    Porsche CGT

    0-100km/h: 3.8s
    0-200km/h:10.7s
    0-300km/h:34.2s
    Max: 334km/h

    They also tested max. speed and Mercedes SL65 was without any blocade.

    BTW, new 997 Turbo was also put to the Mardo test, it will be published in about one month in AMS. Accleration is pretty excellent till around 250km/h(around 21s) but, after that it is not that good. It needs around 43s to 300km/h and top speed is 311km/h. It was a manual version, TIP is little bit slower till 300km/h...



    Hmmm. 43s would be around 3s slower than I expected... Do you know by chance ( ) which other cars they tested in this high-speed test of the 997TT?

    P.S.: Given the recent test figures of the S65 the SL65 performance AMS stated seems rather impossible. I guess the tested car was far from standard (i.e. specially prepared for the test, the top-speed proves that it was non-standard BTW...). Personally, I would not expect the SL65 to be (signficantly) faster than 40s up to 300kph.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    KresoF1 said:
    Few interesting data from AMS high speed testing at Nardo in Italy...

    Ferrari Enzo

    0-100km/h: 3.6s
    0-200km/h:10.3s
    0-300km/h:26.1s
    Max: 355km/h

    Mercedes SL65 AMG

    0-100km/h: 3.9s
    0-200km/h:12.0s
    0-300km/h:31.9s
    Max: 338km/h

    Porsche CGT

    0-100km/h: 3.8s
    0-200km/h:10.7s
    0-300km/h:34.2s
    Max: 334km/h

    They also tested max. speed and Mercedes SL65 was without any blocade.

    BTW, new 997 Turbo was also put to the Mardo test, it will be published in about one month in AMS. Accleration is pretty excellent till around 250km/h(around 21s) but, after that it is not that good. It needs around 43s to 300km/h and top speed is 311km/h. It was a manual version, TIP is little bit slower till 300km/h...



    Hmmm. 43s would be around 3s slower than I expected... Do you know by chance ( ) which other cars they tested in this high-speed test of the 997TT?

    P.S.: Given the recent test figures of the S65 the SL65 performance AMS stated seems rather impossible. I guess the tested car was far from standard (i.e. specially prepared for the test, the top-speed proves that it was non-standard BTW...). Personally, I would not expect the SL65 to be (signficantly) faster than 40s up to 300kph.



    Like it has been said before, atmospheric engines are harder for MB to tune than big turbocharged/supercharged engines . However, the 32-second time to 300 km/h seems to be legit. The SLR did it in 30 flat with similar power, a bit less weight, and higher drag. It is a monster. No match for the CGT in the curves (I'd take it over 10 SL65s, if I had to choose), but an impressive performer in the straight line.

    VKSF:
    I know what you mean by the perception of stability. The E55 felt more stable at first glance, compared to the 996TT at high speeds, but that is only a perception, brought upon your senses by the sheer momentum that comes with the car's weight. The second something goes wrong at 250 km/h, you'll see which car is truly more stable. The AMG cars don't hold a candle to Porsches in high-speed cornering.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    SL65 AMG

    Test in ams 13/2004
    Gewicht 2057 kg
    0 - 80 km/h 3,0 s
    0 - 100 km/h 3,9 s
    0 - 120 km/h 5,1 s
    0 - 130 km/h 5,9 s
    0 - 140 km/h 6,6 s
    0 - 160 km/h 8,2 s
    0 - 180 km/h 10,1 s
    0 - 200 km/h 12,6 s

    These results have been obtained with spinning all the way past 100 km/h (probably over 160, as some owners have reported). The 12-second time is probably achievable with good asphalt and temperatures.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    Hurst said:
    I understand what you're saying Jim. Top end is completely irrelevant when you're building a race car (how many mid-class race cars ever hit 200mph on any given track? What type of track has a straight long enough to hit it in cars of this caliber!!)

    Nevertheless, this was an interesting excersize in physics and it really goes ot show what the marketing aspect of cars really amounts to (i.e. the veritable importance of 0-60, 0-200, Nring, Hheim, Top Speed).



    Would argue a major part of why CGT was an utter failure from a mkg standpoint is its racecar-like ground clearance, making it difficult/impossible to get into perhaps 50%+ of gas stations/pkg garages/dvwys in key mkts like SF/Greenwich/LA, which buy prob 75% of any $150K+ car in US...and US bought some 55% of global CGT produc (only after deep-discounting and many struggles and image issues for P vs high-end buyers who are accustomed to colleague's/their own Enzos w/lift mechs allowing occasional commuting duty )....

    P needs to better understand high-end cust base in US....prob younger than ever before...and more likely to demand to be able to use any alleged supercar as a daily commuter car when in mood....after all, guys of means can easily get an FXX if they want a true racecar w/o silly street car compromises.....IMO, poorly conceived/executed mongrels like the CGT have been rightfully scorned by the mktplace in an era of daily-driveable Enzos and easily available, NetJets-like-convenient racecars like FXX....

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Quote:
    Crash said:
    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    KresoF1 said:
    Few interesting data from AMS high speed testing at Nardo in Italy...

    Ferrari Enzo

    0-100km/h: 3.6s
    0-200km/h:10.3s
    0-300km/h:26.1s
    Max: 355km/h

    Mercedes SL65 AMG

    0-100km/h: 3.9s
    0-200km/h:12.0s
    0-300km/h:31.9s
    Max: 338km/h

    Porsche CGT

    0-100km/h: 3.8s
    0-200km/h:10.7s
    0-300km/h:34.2s
    Max: 334km/h

    They also tested max. speed and Mercedes SL65 was without any blocade.

    BTW, new 997 Turbo was also put to the Mardo test, it will be published in about one month in AMS. Accleration is pretty excellent till around 250km/h(around 21s) but, after that it is not that good. It needs around 43s to 300km/h and top speed is 311km/h. It was a manual version, TIP is little bit slower till 300km/h...



    Hmmm. 43s would be around 3s slower than I expected... Do you know by chance ( ) which other cars they tested in this high-speed test of the 997TT?

    P.S.: Given the recent test figures of the S65 the SL65 performance AMS stated seems rather impossible. I guess the tested car was far from standard (i.e. specially prepared for the test, the top-speed proves that it was non-standard BTW...). Personally, I would not expect the SL65 to be (signficantly) faster than 40s up to 300kph.



    Like it has been said before, atmospheric engines are harder for MB to tune than big turbocharged/supercharged engines . However, the 32-second time to 300 km/h seems to be legit. The SLR did it in 30 flat with similar power, a bit less weight, and higher drag. It is a monster. No match for the CGT in the curves (I'd take it over 10 SL65s, if I had to choose), but an impressive performer in the straight line.

    VKSF:
    I know what you mean by the perception of stability. The E55 felt more stable at first glance, compared to the 996TT at high speeds, but that is only a perception, brought upon your senses by the sheer momentum that comes with the car's weight. The second something goes wrong at 250 km/h, you'll see which car is truly more stable. The AMG cars don't hold a candle to Porsches in high-speed cornering.



    Interesting view, Crash

    Are you saying that an '07 SL55/65 v2 is materially less stable than a 997TT in emgcy handling/braking on AB at 200/250/300KPH? Is this based on anecdotes from seasoned drivers who've navigated both cars in emgcy maneuvers at those speeds...or just speculation?

    I don't yet have a view either way (haven't had chance to extensively drive 997TT in varying conds yet), but have heard from much better drivers than me (and who also own various F/P/MB) that they actually prefer '07 SL55/65 for routine <200KPH use in CA vs more fidgety sportscars....and have also heard the criticism of P PCCB in wet vs 55/65 (w/MB's auto drying mechanism).....(rarely rains in CA in non-winter, so no one I know can opine on '07 55/65 vs 997TT in wet conds yet)

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    I would argure that the CGT is not an utter failure ( by a long shot). The failure (US) of this car was due to a confluence of circumstances, i.e. increased price, increased production levels and Dealer greed (trying to mark up the car and keeping it out of the hands of the real buyers) killing genuine demand.

    The holdover of cars in the US is due to the airbag exemption , which Porsche wrongly thought could not be extended to 06, therefore more cars than the market could absorb were pulled into MY 05.

    The CGT is more user friendly (and gas station) than the GT2 etc., so any disatisfaction from the car is more related to the extensive demands it makes on the driver (rather that it's deficiencies) and their level of unpreparedness and intimidation.

    Re: CGT vs Enzo 270+kmph: Let's dig why

    Crash, need to also consider that few anywhere have extensive expce w/near-misses at high-speed on a routine basis....correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect vast majority of 997TT/65, etc in Germany are used primarily in low-speed urban driving and occasional wkend early AM AB blitzes when traffic is light....

    Arguably, SF's 280 fwy is world's fastest urban fwy w/various upscale, "time-sensitive" commuters, w/80MPH rush-hr flow w/clumps of typically inept, cell phone-addicted, always eating/drinking obese US drivers in their SUVs....and an "unusual" concentration of new, $150K+ P/MB/F just trying to get to the office or a mtg in SilicVy .....lots of near-misses/evasive maneuvers to assess each new P/F/MB's relative strengths/weaknesses in real-life, daily emgcys....

    But still highly value the German perspective....at perhaps much higher speeds....

     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 5/18/22 6:36 PM
    Pilot
     
     
     
     
     
    690331 1306
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New Porsche 911 Turbo S (2020) 1/29/23 2:19 AM
    watt
    322878 1192
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 1/26/23 4:09 PM
    W8MM
    221671 1340
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 1/28/23 3:45 AM
    Spyderidol
    206321 465
    Porsche Sticky Porsche Taycan Turbo S - Short Review 10/6/22 12:37 AM
    WhoopsyM
    187645 580
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Cayman GT4 RS (2021) 1/20/23 10:57 PM
    Pilot
    133025 58
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Porsche 911 (992) GT3 RS - 2022 11/30/22 2:30 PM
    GnilM
    58450 68
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 2/1/22 10:14 PM
    SSO.
    524169 3954
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 12/25/22 1:02 AM
    CGX car nut
    483781 2663
    Porsche 992 GT3 1/31/23 2:38 PM
    RCA
    479153 3798
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 1/21/23 3:51 PM
    CGX car nut
    234192 1491
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 9/30/22 6:31 PM
    Grant
    232220 774
    AMG AMG GT R 3/13/22 8:52 PM
    spudgun
    202208 834
    Lambo Aventador and SV 5/20/22 5:24 PM
    Topspeed
    198339 710
    Others Tesla 2 the new thread 1/31/23 2:42 PM
    WhoopsyM
    197040 2046
    Porsche GT4RS 12/30/22 1:28 AM
    JAMS
    192565 1194
    Motor Sp. [2021] Formula 1 4/19/22 10:08 PM
    Leawood911
    165132 1590
    Others Bugatti Chiron 8/30/22 4:31 PM
    Josef
    162182 525
    Ferrari Ferrari 812 Superfast 6/12/22 5:09 PM
    watt
    158288 535
    BMW M BMW M2 Rumors 2/28/22 7:42 PM
    Topspeed
    144840 409
    Porsche Red Nipples 991.2 GT3 Touring on tour 1/3/23 10:08 PM
    blueflame
    141950 509
    Lambo Urus (SUV) 6/7/22 1:20 PM
    Topspeed
    139650 593
    Others Corvette C8 7/18/22 12:40 PM
    WhoopsyM
    138691 443
    Porsche Dave and Gnil @ Nürburgring Nordschleife 7/4/22 10:42 PM
    DaveGordon
    137158 722
    Motor Sp. [2022] Formula 1 1/13/23 3:57 PM
    Leawood911
    129531 1572
    Others Toyota Yaris GR 4/13/22 8:33 PM
    Grant
    108506 640
    Lambo Huracán EVO STO 7/21/22 8:37 AM
    RCA
    107353 335
    AMG Mercedes E63 S AMG (2018) - Short Review (updated on a regular basis) 10/24/22 7:42 AM
    RCA
    105137 402
    Ferrari Wandered to the dark side 8/29/22 9:35 AM
    BiTurbo
    80318 418
    Ferrari Ferrari Roma 4/18/22 4:33 PM
    watt
    32649 438
    166 items found, displaying 1 to 30.