Crown

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
Al Pettee said:

Quote:
69bossnine said:
Whenever I see 0-100kph discussions, or 0-60 mph discussions, I'm compelled to toss-in my "who cares" post. For any car with over 300 h.p., let alone 500+, 0-100 or 0-60 represents nothing more than a "launch". Let's wait to see a full 1/4 mile run, with trap speed, or 0-200 kph, to see what the real nature of the car is. Why worry about 0-100, are you planning on street racing against Honda Civics and VW Golfs?? Leave the dinky sprints for the dinky cars, 0-100 doesn't do you much good when a REAL car just reels you in and spits you out!

Yes, I agree that launch times alone won't tell the whole performance story, but a car's 0-60mph or 0-100mph or 40-110mph (a trendy measure reported more frequently) times do quantitate a car's functional power and torque, similar to 'Ring times. Knowing that a baseball pitcher can throw a 100mph fastball doesn't completely convince the scouts that he can succeed in the majors, since pitch selection, control (accuracy), and ability to change speeds (such as throwing a slider at 90mph and a hard breaking curve at 75mph with lots of movement) obviously are just as important. So, a 997TT that is ECU-limited to peak HP and Nm torque of, say, 480/640, instead of, say, 508/680, will be slower which will show up in its 0-60mph/0-100mph times, 'Ring times, as well as quarter times with trap speed. All the reason I want to see the 997TT full specs. and performance #'s.

I seriously doubt it will only have 640 Nm. The 996TT X50/TTS already had 650 Nm. I don't think we should expect less than 700 Nm.

Actually (based on USA specs.), the 996X50/TTS has only 457 pound-feet of torque or only 620 Newton-meters (1 lb-ft = 1.355818 Nm). So 620 to 640Nm for the 997TT, while just a number for comparison, is not impossible if P sticks to their incrementalist history, BUT I do agree 700Nm would be awesome.

Quote:
RC said:

Quote:
Crash said:
I seriously doubt it will only have 640 Nm. The 996TT X50/TTS already had 650 Nm. I don't think we should expect less than 700 Nm.

You guys still don't read all posts...what a shame. Because if you would read them all...

...we would know that we are idiots to expect anything less than 1500 Nm, jet propulsion and hyperdrive

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
RC said:

Quote:
Crash said:
I seriously doubt it will only have 640 Nm. The 996TT X50/TTS already had 650 Nm. I don't think we should expect less than 700 Nm.

You guys still don't read all posts...what a shame. Because if you would read them all...

...we would know that we are idiots to expect anything less than 1500 Nm, jet propulsion and hyperdrive

Crash, he was relating the CF's recent post...

Quote:
MKSGR said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
RC said:

Quote:
Crash said:
I seriously doubt it will only have 640 Nm. The 996TT X50/TTS already had 650 Nm. I don't think we should expect less than 700 Nm.

You guys still don't read all posts...what a shame. Because if you would read them all...

...we would know that we are idiots to expect anything less than 1500 Nm, jet propulsion and hyperdrive

Crash, he was relating the CF's recent post...

I know. Just trying to use my nonexistant sense of humor

Gents a dumb question, what is PDK? IS it like the F-1 technology?

Quote:
edz61 said:
Gents a dumb question, what is PDK? IS it like the F-1 technology?

It's Porsche's designation for DSG.

Quote:
Al Pettee said:

Quote:
69bossnine said:
Whenever I see 0-100kph discussions, or 0-60 mph discussions, I'm compelled to toss-in my "who cares" post. For any car with over 300 h.p., let alone 500+, 0-100 or 0-60 represents nothing more than a "launch". Let's wait to see a full 1/4 mile run, with trap speed, or 0-200 kph, to see what the real nature of the car is. Why worry about 0-100, are you planning on street racing against Honda Civics and VW Golfs?? Leave the dinky sprints for the dinky cars, 0-100 doesn't do you much good when a REAL car just reels you in and spits you out!

Yes, I agree that launch times alone won't tell the whole performance story, but a car's 0-60mph or 0-100mph or 40-110mph (a trendy measure reported more frequently) times do quantitate a car's functional power and torque, similar to 'Ring times. Knowing that a baseball pitcher can throw a 100mph fastball doesn't completely convince the scouts that he can succeed in the majors, since pitch selection, control (accuracy), and ability to change speeds (such as throwing a slider at 90mph and a hard breaking curve at 75mph with lots of movement) obviously are just as important. So, a 997TT that is ECU-limited to peak HP and Nm torque of, say, 480/640, instead of, say, 508/680, will be slower which will show up in its 0-60mph/0-100mph times, 'Ring times, as well as quarter times with trap speed. All the reason I want to see the 997TT full specs. and performance #'s.

No, 0-60 mph and 0-100 kph become exponentially worse "quantifiers of a car's functional power and torque" as power and torque increases, because the more power and torque involved, the more that those measures are affected and compromised by TRACTION. With a low-power car you have the ability to wring every last ounce of potential out of it, right from the standstill, because full throttle and full power will translate straight to the ground, with no wheelspin or clutch slip. But when you get into more powerful stuff, the launch compromises one's ability to utilize full power and potential from a dead-stop, because it can overpower the tires or the clutch if you try to launch it at the heart of its peak power. My 507 h.p. Saleen cannot go 0-60 mph ANY faster than a 300 h.p. Mustang would with the same tires and gearing, because the tires won't hold traction at full throttle up to 60 mph. So, in my S351, the 0-60 sprint is just a measure of traction, not power. 0-60 is absolutely NO indicator of how much power and torque the car REALLY has, or how fast it can accelerate once it's reached a velocity where the tires will hold firm at full-throttle. Admittedly, my Saleen is an extreme example of really disasterous traction problems, but it illustrates my point perfectly. Similarly, 0-60 in an SL65 tells you NOTHING about how the car can really pull, so for a car of its power, 0-60 is a rather worthless benchmark for comparison.

Yes, I know, if you can't hook it up, it's of very little use. But, all the same, I still look at small sprints as being primarily a test of tires and chassis, not a test of power and torque. Of course, the 997TT is AWD, so it really doesn't have the traction problem. But OTHER cars don't have AWD, so the Porsche would look deceivingly "faster" in comparison, when in fact it's advantage is not power, it's traction.

Case-in-point is how the 997S managed to wallop the C6 Corvette in 0-60 sprints. Kids reading magazines who idolize 0-60 times would deduce that the 997S is a faster car. They would then be seriously disappointed when they were riding in their uncle's 997S, and had a C6 pull up next to them on an empty highway at 45mph, and proceed to walk them like a dog.

"How is that, Uncle? Your car is faster 0-60??"

"Nephew, the answer is that 0-60 times are just the beginning of a race, and on street-tires have more to do with traction than they due all-out power potential. If your car is quick due to superior traction, you'd better make sure all your races start from a dead standstill..."

The new 997TT will no doubt have amazing 0-60 times. Probably quicker than just about EVERYTHING street legal on the road, short of a Bugatti Veyron. HOWEVER, I wouldn't start placing bets, based on 0-60 times, on whether a 997TT would win from A 30 mph ROLL against a Ford GT, or a Z06. Using 0-60 as a measure, every teenager on earth will believe that the 997TT is king of the road. Out on the road, from a roll, that won't be the case.

'Course, this is all straight-line speak, drag racing stuff. Getting into twisties is a totally different subject, and one that the 997TT will likely be unbelievable.

Quote:
69bossnine said:

Quote:
Al Pettee said:

Quote:
69bossnine said:
Whenever I see 0-100kph discussions, or 0-60 mph discussions, I'm compelled to toss-in my "who cares" post. For any car with over 300 h.p., let alone 500+, 0-100 or 0-60 represents nothing more than a "launch". Let's wait to see a full 1/4 mile run, with trap speed, or 0-200 kph, to see what the real nature of the car is. Why worry about 0-100, are you planning on street racing against Honda Civics and VW Golfs?? Leave the dinky sprints for the dinky cars, 0-100 doesn't do you much good when a REAL car just reels you in and spits you out!

Yes, I agree that launch times alone won't tell the whole performance story, but a car's 0-60mph or 0-100mph or 40-110mph (a trendy measure reported more frequently) times do quantitate a car's functional power and torque, similar to 'Ring times. Knowing that a baseball pitcher can throw a 100mph fastball doesn't completely convince the scouts that he can succeed in the majors, since pitch selection, control (accuracy), and ability to change speeds (such as throwing a slider at 90mph and a hard breaking curve at 75mph with lots of movement) obviously are just as important. So, a 997TT that is ECU-limited to peak HP and Nm torque of, say, 480/640, instead of, say, 508/680, will be slower which will show up in its 0-60mph/0-100mph times, 'Ring times, as well as quarter times with trap speed. All the reason I want to see the 997TT full specs. and performance #'s.

No, 0-60 mph and 0-100 kph become exponentially worse "quantifiers of a car's functional power and torque" as power and torque increases, because the more power and torque involved, the more that those measures are affected and compromised by TRACTION. With a low-power car you have the ability to wring every last ounce of potential out of it, right from the standstill, because full throttle and full power will translate straight to the ground, with no wheelspin or clutch slip. But when you get into more powerful stuff, the launch compromises one's ability to utilize full power and potential from a dead-stop, because it can overpower the tires or the clutch if you try to launch it at the heart of its peak power. My 507 h.p. Saleen cannot go 0-60 mph ANY faster than a 300 h.p. Mustang would with the same tires and gearing, because the tires won't hold traction at full throttle up to 60 mph. So, in my S351, the 0-60 sprint is just a measure of traction, not power. 0-60 is absolutely NO indicator of how much power and torque the car REALLY has, or how fast it can accelerate once it's reached a velocity where the tires will hold firm at full-throttle. Admittedly, my Saleen is an extreme example of really disasterous traction problems, but it illustrates my point perfectly. Similarly, 0-60 in an SL65 tells you NOTHING about how the car can really pull, so for a car of its power, 0-60 is a rather worthless benchmark for comparison.

Yes, I know, if you can't hook it up, it's of very little use. But, all the same, I still look at small sprints as being primarily a test of tires and chassis, not a test of power and torque. Of course, the 997TT is AWD, so it really doesn't have the traction problem. But OTHER cars don't have AWD, so the Porsche would look deceivingly "faster" in comparison, when in fact it's advantage is not power, it's traction.

Case-in-point is how the 997S managed to wallop the C6 Corvette in 0-60 sprints. Kids reading magazines who idolize 0-60 times would deduce that the 997S is a faster car. They would then be seriously disappointed when they were riding in their uncle's 997S, and had a C6 pull up next to them on an empty highway at 45mph, and proceed to walk them like a dog.

"How is that, Uncle? Your car is faster 0-60??"

"Nephew, the answer is that 0-60 times are just the beginning of a race, and on street-tires have more to do with traction than they due all-out power potential. If your car is quick due to superior traction, you'd better make sure all your races start from a dead standstill..."

The new 997TT will no doubt have amazing 0-60 times. Probably quicker than just about EVERYTHING street legal on the road, short of a Bugatti Veyron. HOWEVER, I wouldn't start placing bets, based on 0-60 times, on whether a 997TT would win from A 30 mph ROLL against a Ford GT, or a Z06. Using 0-60 as a measure, every teenager on earth will believe that the 997TT is king of the road. Out on the road, from a roll, that won't be the case.

'Course, this is all straight-line speak, drag racing stuff. Getting into twisties is a totally different subject, and one that the 997TT will likely be unbelievable.

Based on Sport Auto test, I seriously doubt a C6 would walk a 997S. I agree with everything else, although hopefully the 997TT WILL be a good match for the C6Z.

There's nothing to doubt. Keep in mind, I'm not talking lap times, I'm talking straight-on acceleration. The C6 posts faster trap-speeds in the 1/4 mile than the 997S in every publication that has tested them both. Trap speed is a stronger indicator of power/weight than elapsed time.

Besides, the bottom line is that both cars weigh about the same, but the Corvette has 45 more h.p. and a ton more torque over a broader range. Unless you're saying the Porsche is helped along by a "higher power", I'm not sure what basis any debate would have.

Dig into your Sport Auto, and you'll see that after 50 kph, the Porsche begins losing ground and struggles to maintain its lead after 150 kph.

Boss 69, The 76 Porsche Turbo Carrera was slower to 30mph than a 76 Chevy Vega, but after that the Porsche shot off like a rocket.

It would be interesting to see some 50mph or 70 mph to 130mph times. Some cars can be equal up to 140mph, and then the story changes.

Gearing, aerodynamics, willingness of the engine to pull under high speed loads, tire size and vehicle weights all effect outcomes that 0-60mph times and 0-100mph times don't show.

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Boss 69, The 76 Porsche Turbo Carrera was slower to 30mph than a 76 Chevy Vega, but after that the Porsche shot off like a rocket.

I really think it would be interesting to see some 50mph or 70 mph to 130mph times. And some cars can be equal up to 140mph, and then the story changes.

Gearing, aerodynamics, willingness of the engine to pull under high speed loads, tire size and vehicle weights all effect outcomes that 0-60mph times and 0-100mph times don't show.

BINGO. Thank you Jimflat6. My point exactly. In fact, my stepdad had a highly modified '76 Turbo. It had a weak clutch, so you couldn't boost it to launch. And then, it had so much turbo lag, it took forever for it to light-up and go. I raced him in my little 5.0 Mustang way back then, and beat him easily to the 1/8 mile mark. Of course, right after that, he blew by me like I was standing still, leaving me behind to cough his exhaust fumes, and saying "JeeeeeSuuuuusssssss" under my breath...

Quote:
69bossnine said:

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Boss 69, The 76 Porsche Turbo Carrera was slower to 30mph than a 76 Chevy Vega, but after that the Porsche shot off like a rocket.

I really think it would be interesting to see some 50mph or 70 mph to 130mph times. And some cars can be equal up to 140mph, and then the story changes.

Gearing, aerodynamics, willingness of the engine to pull under high speed loads, tire size and vehicle weights all effect outcomes that 0-60mph times and 0-100mph times don't show.

BINGO. Thank you Jimflat6. My point exactly. In fact, my stepdad had a highly modified '76 Turbo. It had a weak clutch, so you couldn't boost it to launch. And then, it had so much turbo lag, it took forever for it to light-up and go. I raced him in my little 5.0 Mustang way back then, and beat him easily to the 1/8 mile mark. Of course, right after that, he blew by me like I was standing still, leaving me behind to cough his exhaust fumes, and saying "JeeeeeSuuuuusssssss" under my breath...

Corvette C6 Coupé

Supertest in sport auto 08/2005
Gewicht 1492 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,8 s

Carrera S

Supertest in sport auto 05/2005
Gewicht 1461 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,8 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,0 s


I took the Vette's best recorded time from the Sport Auto tests (the worse time recorded a 15,6 second sprint from 0-180 km/h). I'd say the cars are about equal in a straight line.

Quote:
69bossnine said:

'Course, this is all straight-line speak, drag racing stuff. Getting into twisties is a totally different subject, and one that the 997TT will likely be unbelievable.

I think that's what makes the 997TT a very nice commodity; It has the traction and launch for 0-60 times due to AWD and persumably some nice stock tires. But, unlike many lumbering 4WD cars, it will track very nicely as well (especially with the flattened power curve and a decrease in turbo lag).

It strengthens its weaknesses severely making it a real nice car.

Quote:
Crash said:
Corvette C6 Coupé

Supertest in sport auto 08/2005
Gewicht 1492 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,8 s

Carrera S

Supertest in sport auto 05/2005
Gewicht 1461 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,8 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,0 s


I took the Vette's best recorded time from the Sport Auto tests (the worse time recorded a 15,6 second sprint from 0-180 km/h). I'd say the cars are about equal in a straight line.

Mmmmm, I'm skeptical... Considering that Car & Driver, Road & Track and Motor Trend ALL had the Corvette pulling a faster trap-speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, and extending that trend as speeds increased up to 150. One of those three, I remember them mentioning in the article that during the comparison test that they engaged in a spontaneous "drag race" from a 60 mph roll, and that the Corvette steadily pulled off. They said something like "from a roll, it's obvious that the 997S is no match for the Corvette", and all of the mags attributed the 997S's barely-quicker 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times to it's advantage out-of-the-hole. Those times you've posted from Sport Auto run counter to every test I've ever seen, AND RUN COUNTER TO SIMPLE PHYSICS, and I wonder if there's some funny business there.

Yes, the cars are close. No denying that. Was the Sport Auto test done with a Z-51 6-speed??? If not, it suffered from a poorer rear axle ratio. Or, was it simply an automatic?? OR, consider the fact they were tested 3 months apart. Different weather, possibly a different venue altogether? That makes any comparison futile. You've got to compare cars at the same place, same time, same weather, same wind.

Hey, when I finally take an opportunity to run my 997S at the local drags, I'll take on a C6. I can outdrive my way to a victory. But, driver's equal, I wouldn't be gambling money on that race against a car packing more power, and not hardly any extra weight.

Quote:
69bossnine said:

Quote:
Crash said:
Corvette C6 Coupé

Supertest in sport auto 08/2005
Gewicht 1492 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,8 s

Carrera S

Supertest in sport auto 05/2005
Gewicht 1461 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,8 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,7 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,0 s


I took the Vette's best recorded time from the Sport Auto tests (the worse time recorded a 15,6 second sprint from 0-180 km/h). I'd say the cars are about equal in a straight line.

Mmmmm, I'm skeptical... Considering that Car & Driver, Road & Track and Motor Trend ALL had the Corvette pulling a faster trap-speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, and extending that trend as speeds increased up to 150. One of those three, I remember them mentioning in the article that during the comparison test that they engaged in a spontaneous "drag race" from a 60 mph roll, and that the Corvette steadily pulled off. They said something like "from a roll, it's obvious that the 997S is no match for the Corvette", and all of the mags attributed the 997S's barely-quicker 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times to it's advantage out-of-the-hole. Those times you've posted from Sport Auto run counter to every test I've ever seen, AND RUN COUNTER TO SIMPLE PHYSICS, and I wonder if there's some funny business there.

Yes, the cars are close. No denying that. Was the Sport Auto test done with a Z-51 6-speed??? If not, it suffered from a poorer rear axle ratio. Or, was it simply an automatic?? OR, consider the fact they were tested 3 months apart. Different weather, possibly a different venue altogether? That makes any comparison futile. You've got to compare cars at the same place, same time, same weather, same wind.

Hey, when I finally take an opportunity to run my 997S at the local drags, I'll take on a C6. I can outdrive my way to a victory. But, driver's equal, I wouldn't be gambling money on that race against a car packing more power, and not hardly any extra weight.

I took the best times of both cars. I don't know what kind of axle ratio the Vette had, but I'm willing to bet it was the Z51. How else would one explain the 15,6 seconds it took for a 404 HP C6 to reach 180 kph in one test, while the supposedly identical car reaches the same speed in 13,6 seconds in another test? I'd be betting my money on the 997S by a small margin.

Its so easy to manipulate those numbers. The driver can do so, intentionally or unintentionally.

Walter Rorhl would be my choice to milk the last hundredth of a second from any Porsche, but not to get the best launch or the best lap times from a Vette.

I doubt that German auto testers have the same experience, respect and any real incentive to launch and drive Vettes with the same verve and gusto as other testers might.

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Its so easy to manipulate those numbers. The driver can do so, intentionally or unintentionally.

Walter Rorhl would be my choice to milk the last hundredth of a second from any Porsche, but not to get the best launch or the best lap times from a Vette.

I doubt that German auto testers have the same experience, respect and any real incentive to launch and drive Vettes as other testers might.

I would think they would, as one of the most respected car mags in the world.

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Its so easy to manipulate those numbers. The driver can do so, intentionally or unintentionally.

Walter Rorhl would be my choice to milk the last hundredth of a second from any Porsche, but not to get the best launch or the best lap times from a Vette.

I doubt that German auto testers have the same experience, respect and any real incentive to launch and drive Vettes with the same verve and gusto as other testers might.

If there is one guy one can trust, it is Horst von Saurma, the editor-in-chief of SPORT AUTO. He is not only respected among Porschephiles but also among Ferraristi and other sportscar enthusiasts. He isn't arrogant and he loves cars. And it shows. Of course it can't be excluded that he is more talented on a certain type of car than on the other. But he usually also mentions little details in his tests and people get pretty fast a clue about how the car really was. I always hear absolutely fabulous performance times for the Corvette, not only straight line but also handling-wise. The problem with these numbers: I never saw a "confirmed" track time on the Nordschleife, just bla bla here and bla bla there. But considering the performance of the C6, I think that the Z version is pretty much at par with the F430 but definetely not better.

Quote:
RC said:
But considering the performance of the C6, I think that the Z version is pretty much at par with the F430 but definetely not better.

Well, that's not bad for 1/3 the price

Quote:
69bossnine said:
One of those three, I remember them mentioning in the article that during the comparison test that they engaged in a spontaneous "drag race" from a 60 mph roll, and that the Corvette steadily pulled off. They said something like "from a roll, it's obvious that the 997S is no match for the Corvette",

Well, there is a major difference between a fairly subjective statement as "it is obvious that ..." and the numbers above (which are the unbiased results of a sound test procedure)...

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Its so easy to manipulate those numbers. The driver can do so, intentionally or unintentionally.

Walter Rorhl would be my choice to milk the last hundredth of a second from any Porsche, but not to get the best launch or the best lap times from a Vette.

I doubt that German auto testers have the same experience, respect and any real incentive to launch and drive Vettes with the same verve and gusto as other testers might.

Well, that would imply that you could say the same about american car testers driving a Porsche

Quote:
MKSGR said:
Well, that would imply that you could say the same about american car testers driving a Porsche

Quote:
RC said:

Quote:
MKSGR said:
Well, that would imply that you could say the same about american car testers driving a Porsche

Sorry, its not equivalent.

Corvettes are crude compared to the refined 997, so even a American tester can get a good lap time from a 997.

A 997's abilities are easier to exploit because the car
is so well developed, balanced and refined with great traction. It simply has much better margins of driver comfort at speed.

When pushed hard Corvettes get frkkn scary fast. They are a completely different kind of beast to tame. Raw handling with lots of raw power. 400ft lbs of torque starting at low rpms in a 3100lb car is not the mechanical profile of your typical European sports car. The performance capability is there. But if you are not used to Vettes you arent going to get maximum performance out of one, and it will scare the
crap out of you from even wanting to.

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:

Quote:
RC said:

Quote:
MKSGR said:
Well, that would imply that you could say the same about american car testers driving a Porsche

Sorry, its not equivalent.

Corvettes are crude compared to the refined 997, so even a American tester can get a good lap time from a 997.

A 997's abilities are easier to exploit because the car
is so well developed, balanced and refined with great traction. It simply has much better margins of driver comfort at speed.

When pushed hard Corvettes get frkkn scary fast. They are a completely different kind of beast to tame. Raw handling with lots of raw power. 400ft lbs of torque starting at low rpms in a 3100lb car is not the mechanical profile of your typical European sports car. The performance capability is there. But if you are not used to Vettes you arent going to get maximum performance out of one, and it will scare the
crap out of you from even wanting to.

Well, that to me represents an inferior road car. Not in performance but all-around. If I am scared gutless to try and drive the car at more than 7/10s it just isn't fun

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
When pushed hard Corvettes get frkkn scary fast. They are a completely different kind of beast to tame. Raw handling with lots of raw power. 400ft lbs of torque starting at low rpms in a 3100lb car is not the mechanical profile of your typical European sports car. The performance capability is there. But if you are not used to Vettes you arent going to get maximum performance out of one, and it will scare the
crap out of you from even wanting to.

Now I understand why european testers always talked about bad setup in the past and I also understand now why GM is bringing their cars to the Nordschleife to make them "fit" for us european drivers. I suppose they make them slowlier, add softer shocks/springs and add a more intrusive anti-slip system to them. C'mon, Jim...you can't be serious.
It is no secret that the euro versions of the Corvette get a sportier setup, one reason GM brings a huge number of cars over here for testing.

I never said the Corvette is superior, it's definitely an inferior overall car. After all, I ponied up the dough for the 997S, when I could have just as easily bought a loaded-out C6 and pocketed $40 grand.

I'm just a guy who's done alot of amateur drag racing, won my share of trophies along the way, and had alot of cars run through my hands. As such, I know that you've got to keep your magazine bench-racing in proper context and perspective.

One need only look at the power, the torque, and the curb weight, to figure out what's going to happen if you pull away from a toll-booth, and as you're entering 2nd gear, you realize you've got a challenger grinning over at you. It's at that moment, that you may as well use your magazines for lighting your yule log. Yes, as speeds get high, aerodynamics play an important part, but not too many grudge matches head up into stratospheric speeds.

Magazine tests..... Here's a single example, a Corvette example. When I bought my '93 C4 6-speed, of course, I read every magazine road test I could get my grubby hands on, and kept them. The fast 1/4 mile time in ANY of the major mags here in the U.S., for my car with my 3.42 gearing, was 13.8 @ 102 mph. Most were in the 13.9-14.1 range, similar mph, 101-102.

I drove my C4 out to the drag strip with 1,700 miles on the clock, factory oil in the crankcase, and not a single wrench turned under the hood. Bone-friggin stock. 1st run, 13.71 @ 105. Second run, 13.41 @ 107.2. Those were my test runs. When elimation rounds began, I shoe-polished a 13.29 dial-in on my window, and went on to WIN the "Sportsman" class that night, with 70 other cars in that class competing against me. Once I had figured out the right launch on my 2nd pass, the car was nailing 13.30-13.39 at 107+ mph like clockwork. 1/2 second and 5 mph faster than most of the magazines and their "professional" drivers.

Sometimes I take a new car to the dragstrip and I obliterate all the magazine times, other times I have a hard time matching them, but I always eventually manage to match or barely better them. But I find the mags to be a mixed bag, good for getting an idea, but nothing to start placing wagers on.

Corvette C6:

Factory curb weight - 3179 lbs.
Factory h.p. - 400
Factory torque - 400 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm

997S

Factory curb weight - 3131 lbs.
Factory h.p. - 355
Factory torque - 295 @ 4,600 rpm


Now honestly, regardless of what ONE magazine accomplishes in two different test, 3 months apart, how is the 997S going to surmount that deficite in horsepower, and CHASM in torque?? Well, in some part it does it with perfectly-matched gearing and precision driveline. But that still doesn't wipe out the huge gulf in the math.

The cars are very close, yes. And where one suffers, the other excels, such that they run very similar lap times. However, you're blinded by your allegiance to Porsche if you think that when you're exiting a hard-left sweeper, onto a long straightaway, and you've got a C6 right on your tail, that he's not going to be staring at you through your side-window mid-way down that straight. On torque alone, he's going to reel you in a bit right off the exit.

I'll reiterate.... two different tests, 3 months apart, NO COMPARISON.

The U.S. mags did direct comparisons, and here's what I found:

Automobile - "Drag coefficients and frontal areas are within a smidgen. Only four pounds of weight separate the two (score one for the Corvette). What the 911S lacks in power-to-weight ratio it makes up for in gearing, rpm range, and traction.

Piston displacement overrules lesser variables in the fight against inertia and the wind, so the Corvette wins both the 30-to-70-mph passing race and the sprint to 140 mph (by a mere 2.3 seconds). The riled Porsche parries with superior braking and cornering scores."

Motor Trend, Corvette on the left, 997S on the right:

Test Data
Acceleration, sec to mph
0-30 mph 1.8 1.5
0-40 mph 2.5 2.2
0-50 mph 3.5 3.2
0-60 mph 4.4 4.2
0-70 mph 5.5 5.6
0-80 mph 6.9 7.1
0-90 mph 8.4 8.6
0-100 mph 10.1 10.7
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.6 @ 113.2 12.6 @ 111.1

See, how both get to the end of the quarter mile at the same time, but the Corvette is going faster? Also, note the advantage in 0-100 mph.. Same track, same day..


All the other mags don't have their comparo tests online anymore (too old), and I don't have the paper mags in my office. But I know they all show the same story. Similar E.T.'s, but the 'Vette carrying more speed at the end of the run, which is a display of superior power.

Sorry so long!!! I'm no Corvette pusher, I think they steer like mud, are cheaply built, and ugly.

Just don't get so high on your Porsche that you think you're gonna show one your taillights in a straight line from a roll. Ain't gonna happen, unless you've got a little bottle of n2o behind your seat!!

Quote:
69bossnine said:
I never said the Corvette is superior, it's definitely an inferior overall car. After all, I ponied up the dough for the 997S, when I could have just as easily bought a loaded-out C6 and pocketed $40 grand.

I'm just a guy who's done alot of amateur drag racing, won my share of trophies along the way, and had alot of cars run through my hands. As such, I know that you've got to keep your magazine bench-racing in proper context and perspective.

One need only look at the power, the torque, and the curb weight, to figure out what's going to happen if you pull away from a toll-booth, and as you're entering 2nd gear, you realize you've got a challenger grinning over at you. It's at that moment, that you may as well use your magazines for lighting your yule log. Yes, as speeds get high, aerodynamics play an important part, but not too many grudge matches head up into stratospheric speeds.

Magazine tests..... Here's a single example, a Corvette example. When I bought my '93 C4 6-speed, of course, I read every magazine road test I could get my grubby hands on, and kept them. The fast 1/4 mile time in ANY of the major mags here in the U.S., for my car with my 3.42 gearing, was 13.8 @ 102 mph. Most were in the 13.9-14.1 range, similar mph, 101-102.

I drove my C4 out to the drag strip with 1,700 miles on the clock, factory oil in the crankcase, and not a single wrench turned under the hood. Bone-friggin stock. 1st run, 13.71 @ 105. Second run, 13.41 @ 107.2. Those were my test runs. When elimation rounds began, I shoe-polished a 13.29 dial-in on my window, and went on to WIN the "Sportsman" class that night, with 70 other cars in that class competing against me. Once I had figured out the right launch on my 2nd pass, the car was nailing 13.30-13.39 at 107+ mph like clockwork. 1/2 second and 5 mph faster than most of the magazines and their "professional" drivers.

Sometimes I take a new car to the dragstrip and I obliterate all the magazine times, other times I have a hard time matching them, but I always eventually manage to match or barely better them. But I find the mags to be a mixed bag, good for getting an idea, but nothing to start placing wagers on.

Corvette C6:

Factory curb weight - 3179 lbs.
Factory h.p. - 400
Factory torque - 400 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm

997S

Factory curb weight - 3131 lbs.
Factory h.p. - 355
Factory torque - 295 @ 4,600 rpm


Now honestly, regardless of what ONE magazine accomplishes in two different test, 3 months apart, how is the 997S going to surmount that deficite in horsepower, and CHASM in torque?? Well, in some part it does it with perfectly-matched gearing and precision driveline. But that still doesn't wipe out the huge gulf in the math.

The cars are very close, yes. And where one suffers, the other excels, such that they run very similar lap times. However, you're blinded by your allegiance to Porsche if you think that when you're exiting a hard-left sweeper, onto a long straightaway, and you've got a C6 right on your tail, that he's not going to be staring at you through your side-window mid-way down that straight. On torque alone, he's going to reel you in a bit right off the exit.

I'll reiterate.... two different tests, 3 months apart, NO COMPARISON.

The U.S. mags did direct comparisons, and here's what I found:

Automobile - "Drag coefficients and frontal areas are within a smidgen. Only four pounds of weight separate the two (score one for the Corvette). What the 911S lacks in power-to-weight ratio it makes up for in gearing, rpm range, and traction.

Piston displacement overrules lesser variables in the fight against inertia and the wind, so the Corvette wins both the 30-to-70-mph passing race and the sprint to 140 mph (by a mere 2.3 seconds). The riled Porsche parries with superior braking and cornering scores."

Motor Trend, Corvette on the left, 997S on the right:

Test Data
Acceleration, sec to mph
0-30 mph 1.8 1.5
0-40 mph 2.5 2.2
0-50 mph 3.5 3.2
0-60 mph 4.4 4.2
0-70 mph 5.5 5.6
0-80 mph 6.9 7.1
0-90 mph 8.4 8.6
0-100 mph 10.1 10.7
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.6 @ 113.2 12.6 @ 111.1

See, how both get to the end of the quarter mile at the same time, but the Corvette is going faster? Also, note the advantage in 0-100 mph.. Same track, same day..


All the other mags don't have their comparo tests online anymore (too old), and I don't have the paper mags in my office. But I know they all show the same story. Similar E.T.'s, but the 'Vette carrying more speed at the end of the run, which is a display of superior power.

Sorry so long!!! I'm no Corvette pusher, I think they steer like mud, are cheaply built, and ugly.

Just don't get so high on your Porsche that you think you're gonna show one your taillights in a straight line from a roll. Ain't gonna happen, unless you've got a little bottle of n2o behind your seat!!

The problem I see with these times is that the C6 is faster in this test than in ANY european test I've seen, be it Auto Bild or Sport Auto. I am actually very fond of the Corvette and have always been (the absolutely best bang for the buck - you can buy a true sports car for $40.000!), but something tells me GM is playing it dirty with this one (*ring* *ring*). Now, I wouldn't really care whether a Corvette is faster than a 911 (the faster it is, the more work Porsche has got to do), but the numbers just don't support what the US mags are saying. Nice talking to you

I've seen plenty of C6's run the 1/4 mile, IN REAL LIFE, at a sanctioned NHRA track 1/2 hour up the road from my house. Those numbers are pretty much spot-on for the 1/4 mile, both e.t., and speed, with some running quicker and slower, depending on the aptitude of the driver. Most 6-speeds I've seen run do 12.8-12.5 @ 112-115, depending on car/driver/weather.

So, if there's any foul-play afoot, it's the Euro-mags sand-bagging the 'Vette for whatever reasons they might have, or just not kicking it the right way to get the best performance. The horsepower and torque and weight figures don't lie, and if they did, there would be Corvette internet forums FURIOUS because they would be getting soft results from privately done chassis-dyno tests...

Quote:
69bossnine said:
I've seen plenty of C6's run the 1/4 mile, IN REAL LIFE, at a sanctioned NHRA track 1/2 hour up the road from my house. Those numbers are pretty much spot-on for the 1/4 mile, both e.t., and speed, with some running quicker and slower, depending on the aptitude of the driver. Most 6-speeds I've seen run do 12.8-12.5 @ 112-115, depending on car/driver/weather.

So, if there's any foul-play afoot, it's the Euro-mags sand-bagging the 'Vette for whatever reasons they might have, or just not kicking it the right way to get the best performance. The horsepower and torque and weight figures don't lie, and if they did, there would be Corvette internet forums FURIOUS because they would be getting soft results from privately done chassis-dyno tests...

Are you sure they didn't have anything done to them? Exhaust, headers, cams? I know that Vettes are really cheap to modify and even small mods can bring a sizable improvement in performance (while Porsche gets X51 ).