Apr 30, 2009 11:43:52 PM
- porschephile1
- Junior
- Loc: Texas , United States
- Posts: 65, Gallery
- Registered on: Apr 23, 2009
- Reply to: porschephile1
Apr 30, 2009 11:43:52 PM
May 4, 2009 11:04:21 AM
Oh no, my car is sooooooooooooooooo slow in that collection....lol Need a new faster one.
May 5, 2009 1:27:09 PM
Jun 4, 2009 5:01:39 PM
Jun 15, 2009 9:11:04 PM
Jun 30, 2009 9:44:23 PM
Alex, here's some more data for you:
997GT2, RS exhaust manifolds, 200 cell CG cats, aerospace intercooler, ECU tune.
Ambient temperature for the run 22 degC IAT at 302kph 48.7DegC
What sort of hp do we reckon ?
100-300kph 22.56s
200-300kph 15.91s
2009 997 GT2 RS Tuning 542PS/736NM
Jun 30, 2009 10:36:34 PM
Well Toby,
Its faster than an RT-12 cab! But being a GT-2 you are lighter than an RT-12 so I would guess about 640-650 crank hp or roughly 560 whp. Your times are very close to a Wimmer GT-2.
What kind of tuning did you add?
What is that crazy let off in acceleration in the middle of the graph?
Jun 30, 2009 11:21:59 PM
Toby nice run, but why would your 4th gear long accel g's be higher than 3rd gear? The 4th gear run seems awfully short as well?
Jul 1, 2009 11:10:00 AM
TB993tt:
Alex, here's some more data for you:
997GT2, RS exhaust manifolds, 200 cell CG cats, aerospace intercooler, ECU tune.
Ambient temperature for the run 22 degC IAT at 302kph 48.7DegC
What sort of hp do we reckon ?
100-300kph 22.56s
200-300kph 15.91s
Toby, I will try to add you to the chart later today/tomorrow when I get a little time.
What was your 100-200 time by the way?
Jul 1, 2009 11:30:22 AM
Jul 2, 2009 1:05:45 PM
Table updated on first page.
I have guessed at 600 bhp for your Toby. There are a few odd numbers about there:
Car | 0-100 | 0-200 | 0-300 | 100-200 | 100-300 | 200-300 | Power (PS) | Weight (kg) | PS/ton |
997 Ruf RT12 | 3.4 | 9.8 | 24.8 | 6.4 | 21.4 | 15.0 | 650 | 1573 | 413 |
997 Turbo Protomotive VTGs + CG | 6.5 | 1585 | |||||||
997 Turbo Cargraphic 624 RSC 3.6 | 3.3 | 9.8 | 28.2 | 6.5 | 24.9 | 18.4 | 624 | 1495 | 417 |
993 Turbo RS-Tuning | 6.6 | 26.8 | 19.4 | 520 | 1510 | 344 | |||
997 GT2 + Mod manifolds/cats/IC/ECU | 6.7 | 22.6 | 15.9 | 600 | 1440 | 417 |
I don't see how the Cargraphic 624 Turbo can be slower 100-300 and 200-300 than your car but the 100-200 be faster. Your car must just be ballistic after 200kph!
Jul 2, 2009 1:10:12 PM
Jul 2, 2009 1:43:11 PM
The 6.4s is a "best" 100-200kph using third as a start - I think this is what Eclou also quotes ? through the gears using 2nd as a start I also saw 6.4s once but didn't log it.
The 6.7s you calculated is correct but that is the time it took on that particular 0-300kph run, remember all runs are slightly different, if I had managed a 6.4s on the 0-300kph run then the 0-300 may have been even quicker ......... I think even magazines tend to quote the best runs now days ?
I have no doubt that at Bruntingthorpe on the rough runway the 0-300 will be significantly slower, maybe by 3 seconds...... we shall see.
Regarding the CG 624PS car, this car just came second to a 700PS Techart 997GT2 wearing sport cups (CG car had street Dunlop Maxes) by 0.6s or was it 0.06s ? round the circuit - so this car is very healthy and alledgedly uses Secans - It is definately not as fast as one would expect 200-300kph, I did ask CG and RS at the time but didn't really get a satisfactlry response - RS said it was the higher drag of the spoilers, but then my GT2 is similarly draggy..... My guess is that the RS engine is mapped much more conservatively than than this "tune" I have, quite what that means for the long run practically I don't know but my car will never be subject to the thrashing that CG car gets....
The RT12 MUST suffer from higher IATs at very high loads, Ruf doesn't use any special cores so I would imagine the 650PS loses up to 50PS over ~270kph under full load ?
--
2009 997 GT2 RS Tuning 542PS/736NM
Jul 2, 2009 2:24:11 PM
Excellent, I will update.
Incidentally I saw the article about how the TechArt cars cleaned up at the Tuners GP 2009 event; so I asked Tech9 whether TA use an engine dyno too and was told that they do indeed, then they used chassis dynos and road testing to fine tune.
TECHART claims overall victory in the sport auto Tuner Grand Prix 2009 Top times for TECHART at this year's Tuner Grand Prix at the Hockenheimring race track in Germany. Behind the wheel of the TECHART GTstreet RS based on Porsche 911 GT2, racing driver Jörg Hardt left the competition with no chance and won the duel in the GT Turbo class. This meant that he was able to repeat last year's victory. The sport auto Tuner Grand Prix is one of the world's largest trial of strength in the tuning sector. The TECHART-modified 911 GT2 won with an average lap time of 1:08.037 minutes over five laps driven around the short circuit of the Hockenheimring race track. This means that the team drove precisely 0.604 seconds faster than the team in second place, and went on to claim overall victory for all the classes entered. Thanks to modified VTG turbochargers, the engine generates 700 bhp / 515 kW at 7,000 rpm and puts down a maximum torque of 860 Nm onto the tarmac at 4,500 rpm. The car is capable of top speeds of up 350 km/h. Besides the driving skills and high-performance engine, the decisive factor for this victory was above all the perfectly tuned suspension. In collaboration with the technology partners Bilstein and Michelin, the height-adjustable TECHART sports suspension was perfectly tuned to the circuit. For the time trial, the TECHART team opted for high-performance Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tyres. Running on the single-piece TECHART Formula GTS light alloy rims, dimensions 8.5Jx20 at the front and 12Jx20 at the rear, the Michelin tires ensured outstanding grip. The winning driver, Jörg Hardt, who has been racing successfully in motor sports for years, was utterly impressed: "The car had been prepared extremely professionally for the event. The tyres performed steady and kept a very high level during the whole competition". In addition to the victory in the GT Turbo class, Jörg Hardt and the TECHART team also performed exceptionally well in the Coupé / Cabriolet-turbo class. The TECHART GTstreet R Cabrio on the basis of the Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet took first place like last year. Achieving a time of 1:09.601, the car had a 3.186 second advantage over its competitors. |
--
Jul 2, 2009 2:53:01 PM
Jul 6, 2009 5:52:02 PM
Alex
The 100-200kph part of the 100-300kph run I posted was actually 6.55s (not the 6.7s it may look like on the graph )
What we have to remember when looking at these numbers is the conditions they are done in. For example SLOPE - on 6speedonline they list their 60-130mph achievements and allow a 3% slope which is in fact seriously downhill and makes a big difference.
In the graph below is a run I did down a 1.35% slope (which was obviously very downhill) 100-200kph in 6.09s !
2009 997 GT2 RS Tuning 542PS/736NM
TB993tt:What we have to remember when looking at these numbers is the conditions they are done in. For example SLOPE - on 6speedonline they list their 60-130mph achievements and allow a 3% slope which is in fact seriously downhill and makes a big difference.
LOL...
You realize that you are criticizing 6speed's 60-130 archive, when Alex's own table itself has no slope criteria.
Jul 7, 2009 8:26:32 AM
Most of my numbers are from reputable magazines who have nothing to gain by cheating. Only the Rennteam Pbox numbers are open for such abuse. But everyone here is pretty trust worthy, especially compared to the numties on 6speed who probably wouldn't recognozie a 3% slope if they fell down it!
LOL...
You realize that you are criticizing 6speed's 60-130 archive, when Alex's own table itself has no slope criteria.
Hence why I posted about the 6speed "tolerance"
As I posted on RL (thanks for your reply BTW, informative ) I didn't realise quite how downhill 3% is.....1.35% is an obvious big drop so 3% must look like a serious hill !!
Alex says magazine numbers are generally pretty reliable but any posted by RTers have to be open to questioning. The slope "criteria" is one of many, there are so many variables:
Slope
Surface
Ambient temp
Wind
Running weight
Fuel
Car's aero/Cd
At the end of the day I think as individuals we sort of get to know which posters we "trust" on these matters and which ones (maybe unintentionally through lack of understanding/over enthusiasm) may get "optimized" acceleration numbers
I have been interested in the effect of surface since a lot of my 300kph runs have been done at Bruntingthorpe which has a very rough surface which saps performance. A stock 997 GT2 was tested there recently and managed 174mph in 29s which is 3-4s slower than the SA test....... I reckon my 993tt listed in the table would manage 0-300kph in 26s given a smoother surface..... so the list is never completely definative unless one compares cars tested by quality magazines at same venue and take ambient conditions into account.....
--
2009 997 GT2 RS Tuning 542PS/736NM
Jul 7, 2009 2:59:35 PM
Alex_997TT:
Most of my numbers are from reputable magazines who have nothing to gain by cheating. Only the Rennteam Pbox numbers are open for such abuse. But everyone here is pretty trust worthy, especially compared to the numties on 6speed who probably wouldn't recognozie a 3% slope if they fell down it!
Alex, I know you've worked hard to compile this archive, however, it doesn't matter how reputable the magazine is. Remember...Toby brought this up this issue to bash 6speed...I'm simply making the playing field honest and even.
Like dynos, there are too many variables to compare...headwind, slope, aero, tailwind, number of passengers, weight of driver, etc. None of those magazines are accounting for the variable...if cars are being compared in an article that are run on the same day, I would consider that fair game. But compiling a list from various sources should be subject to scrutiny.
The column you highlight "100-200" is essentially equivalent to a 60-130 run...there are only two environmental factors that truly impact this short sprint...weight and slope (and for our turbocharged cars, temperature.) Yet, these independent variables are not corrected or reviewed. Like 6speed, magazine numbers are nice for generalizations, but can't be used for comparision.
I am making a simple criticism of your archived list, a window exists to make improvements...it is not meant to be an insult. But if you insist on comparing 6speed members to rennteam/rennlist people's trustworthiness and intelligence, one would only need to look back at some of the posts that have been made in the past on this forum.
bbywu
You seem to have the "speed's" trait of thinking it is all a competition, honest playing fields, giving each other respect and congratulations for "builds", US v Euro tuner wars etc etc....... hence why you consider I am "bashing" 6speed rather than simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to allow a 3% downhill when comparing acceleration......
In general RL and especially RTers really do not care about this stuff and the performance chart here is strictly for interest not for 6bling style high fives all round for the fastest accelerating explodamotor car - having said that - Alex would you please adjust my 100-200 to 6.09s, I have my verified run above
Edit
BTW, you may want to ask your 6speed buddy how a 750hp 997tt appears to take 21s to reach 270kph ? There is something seriously wrong with the 9ff GT2 - unsurprising given the rep of the tuner...
--
2009 997 GT2 RS Tuning 542PS/736NM
TB993tt:
bbywu
You seem to have the "speed's" trait of thinking it is all a competition, honest playing fields, giving each other respect and congratulations for "builds", US v Euro tuner wars etc etc....... hence why you consider I am "bashing" 6speed rather than simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to allow a 3% downhill when comparing acceleration......
LOL...When all else fails, demonize the forum member.
Seriously...if RT'ers and RL'ers don't care about performance, why bother criticizing another forum's data?
And yes...I would consider forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/997-turbo-forum/510590-6speedonline-60-130-a-joke.html a bash.
I rest my case.
Jul 7, 2009 6:41:34 PM
I think if we KNOW there was a big tailwind or a big slope then we should ignore the results. What would be best is if everyone did 2 runs in opposite directions on the same stretch of road and then took the average.
There is no 'prize' here for getting amazing results, the only prize is the feeling of G's when you use your own car.
As it's IMPOSSIBLE to put all the cars on a level playing field at the same time the best I can do is ignore anything that just doesn't look right. Yes, this is thumb up in the air stuff, but it's just bit of fun no more. I certainly wouldn't buy a car (or powerkit) based on the times someone else (even a manufacturer) claims. I would drive the myself car and see how it feels.
I am sure my table is much better than 6speed equivalents though. I wouldn't trust much written on that forum and I myself post there quite regularly! It's a bit like TopGear, it's there for enterainment, not accurate information. There's just lots of 'high-fiving' over the latest frankenstein of an aerodynamic bodykit combination someone has added to their car, or ooo I had a remap on a chassis dyno and now my car is 'faster'! The forums are there basically for vendors to encourage you to buy their products, no matter what they are. Ever wonder why no vendors drop in on Rennteam and try push their products here? I think the reason is that the RT community would rip their products to shreds, there are some seriously knowledgeable guys on here that would immediately point out the BS.
--
Jul 7, 2009 6:58:06 PM
TB993tt:
Alex would you please adjust my 100-200 to 6.09s, I have my verified run above
That's the one you said was down-hill Toby. I am not changing anything that I KNOW is better than it should be. Are you saying that your GT2 is now faster than your old Carrera GT?
I have put your 100-200 time as 6.5s secs and reordered the table in the meantime.
--
Jul 8, 2009 8:40:12 AM
Alex_997TT:
TB993tt:
Alex would you please adjust my 100-200 to 6.09s, I have my verified run above
That's the one you said was down-hill Toby. I am not changing anything that I KNOW is better than it should be.
You of course realize that was a joke
Are you saying that your GT2 is now faster than your old Carrera GT?
Yes quite a lot faster over 200kph......
--
2009 997 GT2 612PS
Jul 8, 2009 10:14:16 AM
If you have about 612PS in the GT2 then I suppose you would be about the same pace. I forgot that the GT2 is lighter than the CGT.
I would have thought though the CGT would be more aerodynamic than the GT2 though so should be faster above 200kph, not the other way around. Do you know the relative drags out of curiosity?
--
Jul 8, 2009 7:29:39 PM