Jan 31, 2017 2:26:27 PM
Interesting. Not sure what this really means in the big picture, but it is curious. I don't imagine they will compare similarly in depreciation though. But of course that's not really the point is it? (Except maybe for a subset of the GT3RS buyers). I'm sure this is very track dependent. I recall the 991.1GT3 comparing favorably to the 991.1GT3RS in some applications (where the downforce wasn't really that valuable...?) I assume EVO did this just for the interest of the experiment, and not as a sales promotion for the new .2TS?
How common has it been in the past for the .2TS to compare similar to the .1GT3RS like this? Anyone recall a similar comparison on the 997 platform? Seems like I recall the 997.2GT3 being comparable to the 997.1GT3RS (overall performance figures that is, not driving feel).
Feb 1, 2017 12:36:06 AM
davew (cincy):Interesting. Not sure what this really means in the big picture, but it is curious. I don't imagine they will compare similarly in depreciation though. But of course that's not really the point is it? (Except maybe for a subset of the GT3RS buyers). I'm sure this is very track dependent. I recall the 991.1GT3 comparing favorably to the 991.1GT3RS in some applications (where the downforce wasn't really that valuable...?) I assume EVO did this just for the interest of the experiment, and not as a sales promotion for the new .2TS?
How common has it been in the past for the .2TS to compare similar to the .1GT3RS like this? Anyone recall a similar comparison on the 997 platform? Seems like I recall the 997.2GT3 being comparable to the 997.1GT3RS (overall performance figures that is, not driving feel).
This is from a test last year involving the .1 Turbo S , they just paired the videos together . The .2 is as fast or faster than the RS at pretty much any track( Porsche claims it is at the big ring as well. Waiting to see the Sport Auto supertest .) . Heck a non S .2 ran a faster lap at Hockenheim on pzero street tires than the RS on cup 2's ( 1:08.2 vs 1:08.5). The .2 is an impressive handling car , and is no longer just a fast straight line car .
Feb 1, 2017 7:09:55 AM
davew (cincy):I assume EVO did this just for the interest of the experiment, and not as a sales promotion for the new .2TS?
The video is still based on the old turbo s (before Facelift). This is interesting as the 991.2 turbo S should be faster than the car in the video.
Pointless discussion since they just measure over 1 lap - the weight and powerdelivery would kill the tires over a longer distance - there is a reason for why weight is everything.....- such comparisons are "Stammtisch" for those having no clue.....- I have seen RS6 with 700 HP that distroyed 1 set street tires in 2 fast laps.....
BjoernB:Pointless discussion since they just measure over 1 lap - the weight and powerdelivery would kill the tires over a longer distance - there is a reason for why weight is everything.....- such comparisons are "Stammtisch" for those having no clue.....- I have seen RS6 with 700 HP that distroyed 1 set street tires in 2 fast laps.....
I did a fast lap in my R8 (street tires, PZero) and after the tire temp hit 60°C, they started to feel so smeary (don't know the right English word for it), I had to stop before I would "destroy" them.
RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet (2015), Porsche Cayenne S Diesel (2017), Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016), Mini JCW (2015)
DriveTribe: Honda NSX vs Porsche 911 Turbo vs Nissan GT-R
Part 1 Honda NSX vs Porsche 911 Turbo vs Nissan GT-R: RUNNING THE NUMBERS
Part 2 HONDA NSX VS PORSCHE 911 TURBO VS NISSAN GT-R: Race to 150mph
Part 3 Honda NSX vs Porsche 911 Turbo vs Nissan GT-R: On the limit
Feb 12, 2017 9:09:58 PM
Feb 13, 2017 7:56:06 AM
Topspeed:DriveTribe: Honda NSX vs Porsche 911 Turbo vs Nissan GT-R
Part 1 Honda NSX vs Porsche 911 Turbo vs Nissan GT-R: RUNNING THE NUMBERS
Part 2 HONDA NSX VS PORSCHE 911 TURBO VS NISSAN GT-R: Race to 150mph
Part 3 Honda NSX vs Porsche 911 Turbo vs Nissan GT-R: On the limit
911 Turbo (not S) 0-125 mph (200 kph) in 8.8 seconds? Good joke.
RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet (2015), Porsche Cayenne S Diesel (2017), Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016), Mini JCW (2015)
BjoernB:it was dynoed ...... so ?
Bad test equipment or not really calibrated?
Under 9 seconds is impossible, even for the 991.2 Turbo S.
RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet (2015), Porsche Cayenne S Diesel (2017), Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016), Mini JCW (2015)
BjoernB:well it also made 2.8 to 100 km/h - maybe Mk2 Software tweeks
There isn't much difference between the Turbo and the Turbo S from 0-100 kph but to 200 kph, things are different.
I just think their test equipment was not well calibrated or whatever.
RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet (2015), Porsche Cayenne S Diesel (2017), Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016), Mini JCW (2015)
The data looks spot on to me , they use a vbox 20 Hz logger similar to what i use , it is very very accurate. Here is some more of my data verified by an independent site to rule out "miscalibration" . The Turbo S is around 1.5 seconds faster to 150 mph than the turbo in this test, so given the power delta it makes sense. If you notice the 0-200 km/hr time of this run was an impossible 8.8 seconds ;). The .2 is faster than you guys give it credit for, especially the revised LC combined with the new tire compound with better up top speed. Yes I know I have an exhaust but without a tune that makes no power.
Let me guess: Tank was almost empty, you removed all dampening material and the rear seats and you weight less than my wife?
RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet (2015), Porsche Cayenne S Diesel (2017), Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016), Mini JCW (2015)
RC:Let me guess: Tank was almost empty, you removed all dampening material and the rear seats and you weight less than my wife?
Lmao . No I am 200 pounds , and the car weights 3570 with a full tank of gas , nothing was removed and I have the glass roof option . For the run I was at a half tank of 93 octane .
G
KMM:Are these rolling starts? Most of them show starting speed as ~5 MPH.
The verification program uses NHRA rules , I.e a 1-foot rollout , just like at the drag strip . Without it adds approx .2 seconds to the times, I posted the 1/4 mile without rollout . I'd be happy to post the non rollout ones too . US vs Europe thing , all mags use 1-foot rollout over here . The 0-60 mph was 2.5x , The 0-100km/hr time without rollout was 2.7 seconds and 0-200 was 9 flat . In that comparo video they have a 0-60 time of 2.8 seconds not 0-100km/hr (0-62 ).
G
KMM:Are these rolling starts? Most of them show starting speed as ~5 MPH.
None of the German car magazines do rolling starts, so...
I am not surprised the numbers don't add up.
Also, most German car magazines (exception is Auto Zeitung...I think) are not using a drag strip or a road with a grippy compound for testing. AMS/Sport Auto for example use two persons (driver and passenger) in the car with a full fuel tank.
--
RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet (2015), Porsche Cayenne S Diesel (2017), Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016), Mini JCW (2015)
Standing start numbers for the same run
0-60 mph 2.55 sec
0-100 km/hr 2.7sec
0-200 km/hr 9.0 seconds
0-150 mph 13.9 seconds
1/4 mile was without rollout 10.28 @132,6 mph with a 1.5 second 60ft
these numbers were not from a prepped surface, and doing tests with a random weight passenger is silly in my opinion lol . The British test in this case was without rollout on a non prepped surface as well thus the 2.8 second 0-60 .
gmd2003:Standing start numbers for the same run
0-60 mph 2.55 sec
0-100 km/hr 2.7sec
0-200 km/hr 9.0 seconds
0-150 mph 13.9 seconds
1/4 mile was without rollout 10.28 @132,6 mph with a 1.5 second 60ft
these numbers were not from a prepped surface, and doing tests with a random weight passenger is silly in my opinion lol . The British test in this case was without rollout on a non prepped surface as well thus the 2.8 second 0-60 .
Impressive numbers When doing these runs do you switch from "Sport+" to "Sport" during the acceleration to improve aerodynamics at higher speeds?
RC:The numbers are impressive but not comparable to reviews in car magazines I'm afraid.
One problem with the car magazines seems that they test in "sport+" (probably thinking this would be quickest...). But I agree, these numbers are better than those in the press to date
MKSGR:gmd2003:Standing start numbers for the same run
0-60 mph 2.55 sec
0-100 km/hr 2.7sec
0-200 km/hr 9.0 seconds
0-150 mph 13.9 seconds
1/4 mile was without rollout 10.28 @132,6 mph with a 1.5 second 60ft
these numbers were not from a prepped surface, and doing tests with a random weight passenger is silly in my opinion lol . The British test in this case was without rollout on a non prepped surface as well thus the 2.8 second 0-60 .
Impressive numbers When doing these runs do you switch from "Sport+" to "Sport" during the acceleration to improve aerodynamics at higher speeds?
I used Sport plus but retracted the aero. As far as this being comparable to mags , I am using a 20hz Vbox data logger on a dead flat non prepped road ( so using a higher fidelity instrument than most mags that use a 10 hz on a known slope surface ) . I live on the coast so being at sea level certainly helps my air conditions be optimal. Bottom line is on flat road, on 93 octane , the .2 did 0-293 km/hr in 22.x seconds and has consistently trapped in 1/2 mile events close to 8 mph more than .1 'S (158-160 vs 150-52) . IT IS faster than a .1 stock by a large margin up top , at least US cars lol .