Powershifting is the act of shifting without releasing throttle. I find it to be quite unnecessary, and sometimes counter-productive as hitting the rev-limiter can cause the ECM to retard timing, fuel pressure, and all sorts of things that can cause a minute power-rob in the ensuing gear.
Speedshifting takes more hand-foot coordination, and is my technique of choice. The act of clutch release/engagement is properly timed with a small release of throttle, enough to keep the throttle up in the power curve but without nailing the rev-limiter. This all happens so fast, that you either have the coordination and ability to do it well, or you don't. When done properly, the act of shifting a gear takes no longer than it takes to stab and release the clutch pedal as fast as your leg can zip it. Everything your shift-hand, and both legs are doing, are done in concert, as one fluid motion simultaneously, as fast as you can swing the levers. The shift lever is leaving the existing gear as the clutch is traveling down, and it is entering the new gear as the clutch is swinging up. As fast as you can stab that clutch pedal, you can time a shift to blend perfectly, with the clutch disengaged from the pressure plate only for the nano-second it takes to engage the next gear.
Anybody who shifts in conscious "steps", as in, "1. let off the gas, then 2. depress the clutch, then 3. shift into the next gear, then 4. release the clutch pedal and 5. apply gas"... ANYBODY who goes through that thought process and physical progression when they drive a manual shift car, needs to get off the drag strip, put their keys in their pocket, and watch from the stands and have a beer. In all due respect, you're hopeless out there. Just don't assume that EVERYBODY is as inept as you, and try to convince everybody that there's no way to beat an auto-shift car. I've never driven Ferrari's F1 paddle-shift system, but I hear it's fast. I HAVE driven BMW's, on an M3, and it is pathetically slow. I could shift a John Deer tractor with a coffee in-between my legs faster than BMW's paddle-shift setup. If you think the BMW is a fast shifter, again, you're not likely ever going to be a maistro with a manual gearbox.
With that all said, and I realize that I'm just outlining the obvious to those out there who are handy with a shifter and a clutch pedal, The Autoweek test does indeed lend more credibility to the Road & Track 3.9 second figure. 4.33 seconds, in the summer heat, launching at 3500 rpm. First off, in a rear engine 997 with such fat tires and a torque curve that would do better with a higher rpm launch, that is a CONSERVATIVE launch. There's at least a couple tenths to be had with a more aggressive launch. And yes, you would be really hammering on the driveline, and taking a risk, no doubt. But it's possible, nonetheless. Also, take at least another tenth for hot humid weather. In the 1/4 mile run, I typically run 3 to 4 tenths slower than the dryest coolest days in the winter in Florida. So one tenth in 0-60 is a conservative given.
Anyhow, those are my observations. Lastly, to toot my own horn a bit more!! LOL
, I've got to tell you that beating magazine times at the dragstrip is no big deal. To suggest that nobody here can compete with the drivers at the magazines is to set the bar REALLY LOW for us non-magazine drivers. They test cars using driving techniques that are easily duplicated again and again, so that their statistics stand up to internal comparison between makes and models, and so that they have a level of standardization. Out on the dragstrip in your own car, it's anything-goes, and you can experiment with any number of techniques to realize gains in time. I've never owned a new car that I couldn't beat the best magazine time out there, in 100% stock form. This fall, when temps cool down in Florida, I'll head up to Gainesville Raceway (it's an NHRA sanctioned, top-quality track that I've competed at most of my life) with my fully-broken-in 997S and give her a few passes. I've got the R&T 12.30-something @ 114.7 (I'm quoting from memory here) to beat, which will be a sonofabitch to best, I'll admit right now. That was one hell of a run that R&T laid down. This is one case where I may choose to abort mission if I determine after the 1st couple passes that it will require overt abuse to my drivetrain to get a launch that will give me the needed elapsed time. It would be the 1st time I've failed to take the magazine's best times, and smoke 'em. But I'll give her a shot and see what happens.
Yes, all these times are irrelevant if you're not able to duplicate them in your own car, with you driving. My purpose in my post was to explain, that, many of us have no problem getting those times, and typically use the magazine performance figures as "worst-case-scenarios" when shopping for a new car.
