Crown

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

Quote:
Hurst said:

Z06 threads are always the least favorable

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

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.

Quote:
RonnieC6Z said:

Dave Hill does not appear to be a credible source