May 18, 2005 1:03:20 AM
- Silver Bullet
- Veteran
- Loc: Canada
- Posts: 1126, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 24, 2004
May 18, 2005 1:03:20 AM
May 18, 2005 1:19:21 AM
Quote:
Mike S said:
if i'm not mistaken on our porsche website it says the C4S is a tiny bit slower than the C2S in 0-100, vice versa for the C2 and C4
May 18, 2005 10:48:06 AM
May 18, 2005 10:51:45 AM
Quote:
I would like to know how the heavyer C4S does the same time as the C2S?
May 18, 2005 1:57:22 PM
May 18, 2005 2:03:04 PM
May 18, 2005 2:05:46 PM
Quote:
Silver Bullet said:
Here, cut and pasted, is what the North American website says:
"Powered by the proven 3.6-liter six-cylinder engine, which has an output of 325 hp (SAE), the Carrera 4 accelerates from 0 to 60 mph (0-96 km/h)in 4.6 seconds and has a top track speed of 174 mph (280 km/h). The Carrera 4S is equipped with a larger 3.8-liter engine that develops 355 hp (SAE) and accelerates the car from 0 to 60 mph (96 km/h) in 4.6 seconds and to a top track speed of 179 mph (288 km/h)."
May 18, 2005 2:16:28 PM
Quote:
Silver Bullet said:Quote:
I would like to know how the heavyer C4S does the same time as the C2S?
Part of what determines acceleration is power to weight ratio. Another important part is how that power is delivered to the road. The C4S has 4 wheels providing traction, and, perhaps most importantly, fatter rear tires, making for more efficient transmission of the engine's power. Bottom line: I suspect the answer is traction.
May 18, 2005 2:46:57 PM
Quote:
Mike S said:Quote:
Silver Bullet said:Quote:
I would like to know how the heavyer C4S does the same time as the C2S?
Part of what determines acceleration is power to weight ratio. Another important part is how that power is delivered to the road. The C4S has 4 wheels providing traction, and, perhaps most importantly, fatter rear tires, making for more efficient transmission of the engine's power. Bottom line: I suspect the answer is traction.
When there is AWD then shouldn't the need for the rear tires to be fatter be less?!
May 18, 2005 8:16:10 PM
May 18, 2005 9:37:31 PM
Quote:
bluelines said:
3.8 seconds is just stupid. R&T is clearly clueless. Please stop this thread now.
May 19, 2005 2:17:29 PM
Quote:
Mike S said:
When there is AWD then shouldn't the need for the rear tires to be fatter be less?!
May 19, 2005 3:22:14 PM
May 19, 2005 3:23:08 PM
May 19, 2005 8:42:13 PM
May 19, 2005 11:24:03 PM
Quote:
Niko said:
The 0-60 figure supplied by car manufacturers is meant to be the fastest that can be achieved from this car. This means dropping the clutch as extreme revs and having no sympathy in the gear changes (changing without clutching properly).
You will find very difficult to achieve the figures that the manufacturer has supplied.
Quote:
PS CA said:Quote:
Niko said:
The 0-60 figure supplied by car manufacturers is meant to be the fastest that can be achieved from this car. This means dropping the clutch as extreme revs and having no sympathy in the gear changes (changing without clutching properly).
You will find very difficult to achieve the figures that the manufacturer has supplied.
Porsche seems to use conservative numbers. Every auto magazine has achieved faster 0 to 60 numbers that those quoted by Porsche. The most extreme example is Road & Track magazine that quoted a 0 to 60 time of 3.9 seconds for a 997S coupe. Porsche says 0 to 60 in 4.6 seconds. So in this case I don't think the manufacturer achieved the faster speed available from the car.
Phil
May 20, 2005 2:22:18 PM
May 20, 2005 9:28:26 PM
Quote:
Niko said:
I have been trying very hard to achieve the manufacturer's 0-60 figures for my 225 TTC. Audi claims that they can do it in 6.6 secs...but simply not possible. I have tested this on a timed track (1/4 track).
I did rev the engine and dropped the clutch at 3500 revs..but it won't do it. And this is not just me saying this, but other people too. So how can Audi do it then?
Maybe Porsche is different, but Audi is as described above.
May 23, 2005 9:08:42 PM