Crown
Board: Porsche - 911 - 996
Language: English
Region: Worldwide
Close
CloseForum - Thread
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
It looks like C&D got one of the better engines in their test car, maybe a blue-printed special for the magazine testers. PAG is typically conservative in quoting performance numbers, I think partly due to the variation that can occur from car to car in engine and driveline performance. I don't remember all the factory numbers but I think it was:
4.5 sec 0-100 kph (62.1 mph)
9.4 sec 0-160 kph (99.4 mph)
which makes the C&D numbers truly amazing. Did they state where the test was run or the weather conditions? These can play a big factor on engine power and traction which could help explain some of the difference.
Karl
4.5 sec 0-100 kph (62.1 mph)
9.4 sec 0-160 kph (99.4 mph)
which makes the C&D numbers truly amazing. Did they state where the test was run or the weather conditions? These can play a big factor on engine power and traction which could help explain some of the difference.
Karl
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
K,
Why would you say C&D got one of the better cars?
I know with the 3.4L motor that some motors were making more hp than others, but I remember Ruf saying that the older GT3 motor made consistently the same hp which is why he used that car to make his RGT. The RGT incidentally was bored out to 3.8 litres to make 390hp.
Anyways, I know from back in the day that C&D always had lower 0-60 times, especially when compared to Road and Track.
As an example the 1986 Grand National had a 0-60 time of 5.0 seconds with R&T, but with Car and Driver it was stated at 4.6.
The reason I know this was that at that time I did have a Grand National and I read as much info on the vehicle as I could.
Why would you say C&D got one of the better cars?
I know with the 3.4L motor that some motors were making more hp than others, but I remember Ruf saying that the older GT3 motor made consistently the same hp which is why he used that car to make his RGT. The RGT incidentally was bored out to 3.8 litres to make 390hp.
Anyways, I know from back in the day that C&D always had lower 0-60 times, especially when compared to Road and Track.
As an example the 1986 Grand National had a 0-60 time of 5.0 seconds with R&T, but with Car and Driver it was stated at 4.6.
The reason I know this was that at that time I did have a Grand National and I read as much info on the vehicle as I could.
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
The cars in Italy were there for a major press review. If you've seen most of the magazines, they all have pictures of the same SY car. It wouldn't be the first time that a car manufacturer sent specially prepared and blue-printed cars to a press review. The fact that the numbers are so much better than the factory quotes under less than ideal conditions makes me suspicous.
Karl
Karl
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Quote:
Car & Driver (known for abusing clutches) got some startling numbers at the strip for the 2004 GT3:
0-60 4.0
0-100 8.8
0-130 14.8
1/4 mile 12.3 @ 118mph
Pretty serious stuff (and significanly faster than factory numbers)
I highly doubt these numbers but hey, maybe they had the new RS engine inside the car.
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
There is write up in Panorama I believe and had one of the Weissach engineers saying that the engines are making more than what Porsche is quoting. Porsche always gives conservative performance numbers. The GT3 engine is a detuned race motor with much higher tolerences. I'd say those CD numbers are very valid ones. Wait till the light weight GT3 RS road car comes out. Walter Rorhl stated that the the 2004 GT3 will be 5-10 seconds faster around the Nurburbring Id say the GT3 is one very fast car.
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
A little GT3 "background":
You guys really are believers, aren't you?
First at all, the GT3 engine is not a detuned race engine.
It is a very very good and reliable engine used in the 996 Turbo and GT2 too. It has been overworked completely for the new GT3 and it is capable of a very good performance on the track and in a modified version on real race cars.
The first GT3 (first GT3 series!) had power problems, most engines didn't deliver the promised 360 HP.
I already read two road tests from two different car magazines over here in Germany and performance numbers were around 0-100 kph (62 mph) 4.6 sec., 0-160 kph (100 mph) in 9.6 sec. and 0-200 kph (125 mph) in 14.4 sec..
There is no way how the new GT3 performs better than the 996 Turbo, performance is practically the same at all speeds with a slight advantage for the Turbo from standstill because of the 4WD. And this is what I heard from a very reliable source.
Regarding the rumored RS street version: don't expect much lower weight, expect a little bit more power and definetely expect a very limited number of cars.
I understand your enthusiasm, guys but don't get too excited until we see the new GT3 on the track. My disappointment with the GT2 isn't forgotten yet.
You guys really are believers, aren't you?
First at all, the GT3 engine is not a detuned race engine.
It is a very very good and reliable engine used in the 996 Turbo and GT2 too. It has been overworked completely for the new GT3 and it is capable of a very good performance on the track and in a modified version on real race cars.
The first GT3 (first GT3 series!) had power problems, most engines didn't deliver the promised 360 HP.
I already read two road tests from two different car magazines over here in Germany and performance numbers were around 0-100 kph (62 mph) 4.6 sec., 0-160 kph (100 mph) in 9.6 sec. and 0-200 kph (125 mph) in 14.4 sec..
There is no way how the new GT3 performs better than the 996 Turbo, performance is practically the same at all speeds with a slight advantage for the Turbo from standstill because of the 4WD. And this is what I heard from a very reliable source.
Regarding the rumored RS street version: don't expect much lower weight, expect a little bit more power and definetely expect a very limited number of cars.
I understand your enthusiasm, guys but don't get too excited until we see the new GT3 on the track. My disappointment with the GT2 isn't forgotten yet.
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
The new GT3 motor is not just a turbo motor. From the Porsche site:
The ultra - lightweight titanium con rods and weight - optimised pistons help minimise the oscillating masses in the engine, thereby enabling a more dynamic and immediate response. The valve gear also benefits from Porsche race engineering. The new lightweight valves, for example, are actuated by means of self - adjusting tappets that are 42% lighter than the previous generation of components. By minimising inertia in the valve gear, the engine can rev to between 8,000 and 8,200 rpm depending on gear selection. This in turn enables a closer ratio gearbox offering much faster acceleration.
This motor is an improvement over the older GT3 motor. Its also closer to the GT3 race motor than say a 911 Turbo motor. You were disappointed with the GT2? Man 7:46 around the Nurburgring is awesome! Your a tuff man to please
The ultra - lightweight titanium con rods and weight - optimised pistons help minimise the oscillating masses in the engine, thereby enabling a more dynamic and immediate response. The valve gear also benefits from Porsche race engineering. The new lightweight valves, for example, are actuated by means of self - adjusting tappets that are 42% lighter than the previous generation of components. By minimising inertia in the valve gear, the engine can rev to between 8,000 and 8,200 rpm depending on gear selection. This in turn enables a closer ratio gearbox offering much faster acceleration.
This motor is an improvement over the older GT3 motor. Its also closer to the GT3 race motor than say a 911 Turbo motor. You were disappointed with the GT2? Man 7:46 around the Nurburgring is awesome! Your a tuff man to please
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Quote:
The new GT3 motor is not just a turbo motor. From the Porsche site:
The ultra - lightweight titanium con rods and weight - optimised pistons help minimise the oscillating masses in the engine, thereby enabling a more dynamic and immediate response. The valve gear also benefits from Porsche race engineering. The new lightweight valves, for example, are actuated by means of self - adjusting tappets that are 42% lighter than the previous generation of components. By minimising inertia in the valve gear, the engine can rev to between 8,000 and 8,200 rpm depending on gear selection. This in turn enables a closer ratio gearbox offering much faster acceleration.
This motor is an improvement over the older GT3 motor. Its also closer to the GT3 race motor than say a 911 Turbo motor. You were disappointed with the GT2? Man 7:46 around the Nurburgring is awesome! Your a tuff man to please
I love it when the marketing department let's technical data to speak for itself, especially when it sounds that spectacular. But it isn't.
Check out the new race cars based on the current GT3 street version and you'll be surprised that a lot of parts in the engine have different part numbers and are available through Porsche Motorsport only.
Regarding the 996 Turbo engine: it costs around 20% more than the GT3 engine as far as I remember. And around 500% more than the 996 engine. But maybe you're right...
I am and I was disappointed with the GT2 because of several reasons, mainly:
1. too heavy and difficult to strip down
2. difficult to control compared to the GT3
3. PCCB doesn't keep up to it's theoretical advantages/promises (it is my understanding that this issue has been addresses with an overworked PCCB version on newer cars)
4. fast on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife (where power counts most) but highly disappointing in Hockenheim. The Lamborghini Murcielago with 1.8 t weight is faster. How come?
My theory regarding the GT2: since Porsche stopped the GT3 production, they needed a top model for the track. The worldwide economy was strong by that time and what was better for them, especially financially, to build a turbo charged GT3 for a premium price. Unfortunately the car got too heavy and they made too many compromises to be able to sell this car to their most important market, the US, too.
I know a few GT2 owners who love their car and there is nothing wrong with it. The GT2 is a very fast beast and definetely a highlight in Porsche's model range. But if you take an experienced 996 Turbo driver and an experienced GT2 driver (I'm not talking about pro drivers!) and put them together on the track, the 996 Turbo will surely outrun the GT2. Whoever went to Hockenheim over here in Germany knows very well that the 996 Turbo and old 964 RS rule the track, it is unbelievable. So yes, I am disappointed with the GT2 but I also hope that the new GT3 will stand to it's promise. Unfortunately the "RS" rumor indicates that this might not be the case and that Porsche might offer a "RS" version to please hardcore track addicts too. Time will tell.
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Grant, I don't necessarily call the Cup series a serious race car series but maybe I'm too spoiled.
Yes, the street version engine and the Cup version share almost the same parts with some little differences.
But so do the 996 Turbo/GT2, both engines are of similar construction. With the Cup cars, the big difference is weight. Aprox. 250 kg less weight make a difference.
Not to forget about the suspension and drivetrain.
Right now it is difficult to compare the new GT3 street version to the race cars because the current GT3 Cup and GT3 RS are still based on the "old" GT3 in many points.
I think I don't have to point out that the GT3 RS engine has a lot of different parts compared to the GT3 street version. Parts which are mainly available through Porsche Motorsports.
Not to speak about the different gearbox, different suspension, different body with enforcements, different brake system, different...
Yes, the street version engine and the Cup version share almost the same parts with some little differences.
But so do the 996 Turbo/GT2, both engines are of similar construction.
With the Cup cars, the big difference is weight. Aprox. 250 kg less weight make a difference. Not to forget about the suspension and drivetrain.
Right now it is difficult to compare the new GT3 street version to the race cars because the current GT3 Cup and GT3 RS are still based on the "old" GT3 in many points.
I think I don't have to point out that the GT3 RS engine has a lot of different parts compared to the GT3 street version. Parts which are mainly available through Porsche Motorsports.
Not to speak about the different gearbox, different suspension, different body with enforcements, different brake system, different...
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Of course the street GT3 will have different parts than the full race motor. My point is that this street motor is much closer to its race brother than say a 996Turbo to a GT1. An unrestricted GT3 race motor like the ones in the Daytona prototypes make around 485HP. So says MR haywood. This street motor is making around 390 thats darn good. I agree with RC on the weight issue regarding the GT2. Most fans would like less weight but the GT2 is a beast already imagine it weighting 2700lbs. What were the time differences at Hockenheim vs the GT2 and Lambo? Hockenheim is a very high speed track where weight isn't as much as a factor as say the Nring. The Murcielago makes 580HP vs 460 with the GT2, thats 120HP difference! The Nring is a much greater test for cars and the GT2 shines there, 120HP or not!
What were the time differences at Hockenheim vs the GT2 and Lambo? Hockenheim is a very high speed track where weight isn't as much as a factor as say the Nring. The Murcielago makes 580HP vs 460 with the GT2, thats 120HP difference! The Nring is a much greater test for cars and the GT2 shines there, 120HP or not!
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
RC is referring to the new short (and tight) Hockenheimring. The old one that went through the forest at very high speed has been destroyed (over a year ago) - a real shame. Here's a site with number at the Nurburgring and new Hockenheim:
http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp
http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Thanks for the link, Grant. The guys from Track Challenge are using the real life test data from german car magazine SPORT AUTO. Highly interesting, especially for buying decisions.
Yes, the Hockenheim Ring (Kleiner Kurs) is no high speed track where power counts. The Lamborghini Murcielago did a pretty impressive job for it's weight.
The fun part: the fastest times achieved by Porsche cars are times achieved by tuned 996 Turbo.
Regarding the GT3 engine: the new engine has been overworked completely, it is now nearer to the current GT2/996 Turbo engine as it was before. So if somebody wants to sell the GT3 engine as a race engine and the 996 Turbo/GT2 engine as an "ordinary" engine, this is dead wrong.
The only "ordinary" engine is the 996/986 engine which is not based on the old 993/GT1 engine. But as I said before: Porsche marketing does a great job by advertising the engines.
At least they don't advertise the 996 engine as an engine with "race roots" anymore. Because the truth is: this engine never has been used by Porsche in pro racing.
Yes, the Hockenheim Ring (Kleiner Kurs) is no high speed track where power counts. The Lamborghini Murcielago did a pretty impressive job for it's weight.
The fun part: the fastest times achieved by Porsche cars are times achieved by tuned 996 Turbo.
Regarding the GT3 engine: the new engine has been overworked completely, it is now nearer to the current GT2/996 Turbo engine as it was before. So if somebody wants to sell the GT3 engine as a race engine and the 996 Turbo/GT2 engine as an "ordinary" engine, this is dead wrong.
The only "ordinary" engine is the 996/986 engine which is not based on the old 993/GT1 engine. But as I said before: Porsche marketing does a great job by advertising the engines.
At least they don't advertise the 996 engine as an engine with "race roots" anymore. Because the truth is: this engine never has been used by Porsche in pro racing.
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
In Antwort auf:
Whoever went to Hockenheim over here in Germany knows very well that the 996 Turbo and old 964 RS rule the track, it is unbelievable. So yes, I am disappointed with the GT2 but I also hope that the new GT3 will stand to it's promise. Unfortunately the "RS" rumor indicates that this might not be the case and that Porsche might offer a "RS" version to please hardcore track addicts too. Time will tell.
is this true? Did you forget about the old Opel Kadett C?
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
I have the new GT3 since the end of March.
After 4 track events, amongst which Dijon and the new Magny Cours :
* Suspension is way too soft even for Pirelli P0Corsa . Softer than the previous GT3.
Engine perf and brakes are excellent but they cannot compensate the very soft suspension. Braking becomes in fact delicate due to attitude changes, weight and high speeds at beginning of braking. Car is overall slower than well prepared (stock springs+cup shocks) previous GT3s with same or equivalent drivers and also slower than very highly prepared 964RS.
I have received a set of cup shocks but I doubt this will be enough. As our regulations do not allow for spring and roll bar changes, just shock absorbers, I may well go back to the 993RS not yet sold.
On the road :
Perfect with factory chassis setup.
With track chassis setup it is not better than the 993RS with track chassis setup and needs constant attention as usual.
Front discs already good for a change..... They seem to last less than on a 2002 GT3Cup although they are the same. Probably a result of the extra weight and too soft suspension with very high speed at the end of straights. According to my teammate who races a 2001 GT3Cup in GTFFSA acceleration feels stronger on the new GT3 despite the extra weight.
My conclusion :
Engine and brakes easily compensate the car's overweight but the overall result is not as good as 964RS/993RS or previous GT3 due to a suspension choice which may be due to the fact that the US market is now targeted (the previous models were not available there).
After 4 track events, amongst which Dijon and the new Magny Cours :
* Suspension is way too soft even for Pirelli P0Corsa . Softer than the previous GT3.
Engine perf and brakes are excellent but they cannot compensate the very soft suspension. Braking becomes in fact delicate due to attitude changes, weight and high speeds at beginning of braking. Car is overall slower than well prepared (stock springs+cup shocks) previous GT3s with same or equivalent drivers and also slower than very highly prepared 964RS.
I have received a set of cup shocks but I doubt this will be enough. As our regulations do not allow for spring and roll bar changes, just shock absorbers, I may well go back to the 993RS not yet sold.
On the road :
Perfect with factory chassis setup.
With track chassis setup it is not better than the 993RS with track chassis setup and needs constant attention as usual.
Front discs already good for a change..... They seem to last less than on a 2002 GT3Cup although they are the same. Probably a result of the extra weight and too soft suspension with very high speed at the end of straights. According to my teammate who races a 2001 GT3Cup in GTFFSA acceleration feels stronger on the new GT3 despite the extra weight.
My conclusion :
Engine and brakes easily compensate the car's overweight but the overall result is not as good as 964RS/993RS or previous GT3 due to a suspension choice which may be due to the fact that the US market is now targeted (the previous models were not available there).
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Sounds like it would be really fast with stiffer springs/shocks (sorry rules don't allow you to change). I wonder if it would've been a good idea to have adjustable damper valving like PSS9 Bilstein (9 different settings of firmness), so we could adjust between street & track.
Re: rc -- gt2 issues
RC: said
I am and I was disappointed with the GT2 because of several reasons, mainly:
1. too heavy and difficult to strip down
2. difficult to control compared to the GT3
3. PCCB doesn't keep up to it's theoretical advantages/promises (it is my understanding that this issue has been addresses with an overworked PCCB version on newer cars)
4. fast on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife (where power counts most) but highly disappointing in Hockenheim. The Lamborghini Murcielago with 1.8 t weight is faster. How come?
RC please explain your comments
1] gt3 is less than 100# lighter
2] for who? you?
3] i love pccb on my gt2
4] pls explain with lap times, i am only familair w/ N ring times.
Thank you for your knowledge!!!!
I am and I was disappointed with the GT2 because of several reasons, mainly:
1. too heavy and difficult to strip down
2. difficult to control compared to the GT3
3. PCCB doesn't keep up to it's theoretical advantages/promises (it is my understanding that this issue has been addresses with an overworked PCCB version on newer cars)
4. fast on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife (where power counts most) but highly disappointing in Hockenheim. The Lamborghini Murcielago with 1.8 t weight is faster. How come?
RC please explain your comments
1] gt3 is less than 100# lighter
2] for who? you?
3] i love pccb on my gt2
4] pls explain with lap times, i am only familair w/ N ring times.
Thank you for your knowledge!!!!
Re: rc -- gt2 issues
Quote:
RC: said
I am and I was disappointed with the GT2 because of several reasons, mainly:
1. too heavy and difficult to strip down
2. difficult to control compared to the GT3
3. PCCB doesn't keep up to it's theoretical advantages/promises (it is my understanding that this issue has been addresses with an overworked PCCB version on newer cars)
4. fast on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife (where power counts most) but highly disappointing in Hockenheim. The Lamborghini Murcielago with 1.8 t weight is faster. How come?
RC please explain your comments
1] gt3 is less than 100# lighter
2] for who? you?
3] i love pccb on my gt2
4] pls explain with lap times, i am only familair w/ N ring times.
Thank you for your knowledge!!!!
Oh boy, why isn't it always difficult to explaint certain "flaws" to owners of that specific car?
1. the "old" GT3 is around 90 kg lighter than the GT2.
Now strip down 90 kg from your car (if you can
) and you'll understand the difference. But that's not the whole story: you can strip down a GT3 to almost 1150 kg but try to do the same with the GT2. Good luck.
2. the GT2 is much more delicate to control during extreme driving situations due to it's turbo charged engine.
Take the same driver (semi-pro) and I bet he does almost the same time on the track in both cars. The GT2 is a great car for track pros but most who think they are, aren't.
I've seen enough GT2 being outrun by GT3 and even 996 Turbos. A pro like Walter Roehrl however will be always faster in the GT2. But again, how many of us are real pros? 3. most PCCB owners I know hate it and would love to get rid of it but can't because Porsche doesn't seem to want to retrofit the steel brake which is available too (first series of GT2 has been delivered to customers with the steel brake).
I'll never forget the black GT2 at Werk 1 standing on 4 supporters (no kidding!) in the middle of the parking lot without brakes (nothing!) and wheels. The owner did some track racing and destroyed the PCCB. He was so unhappy about PCCB that he really got mad. I think one of his friends is even on this board. And I know about a lot of similar stories. But I you're happy with your PCCB, that's fine to me.
There is a rumor that Porsche installs a second PCCB generation to the GT2 and 996 Turbo right now but I didn't hear too many good things about this "new" PCCB.4. the Hockenheim Ring usually doesn't give advantages to powerful cars but to good suspension setups. The all new GT3 did slightly over 1 min 13.2 seconds in Hockenheim, the GT2 is only 0.6 seconds faster.
The Nuerburgring is a different story, it is a very long track (slighly over 20 km) and poweful cars always have an advantage.Or to make it short: the new GT3 is almost as fast as the GT2 on the Hockenheim Ring (0.6 sec. difference) but much slower on the Nuerburgring (as far as I remember there are 8 seconds difference between both).
Please take my "knowledge" with a grain of salt and please be also aware that most GT3, GT2, 996 Turbo on tracks out there around the world aren't stock. And unfortunately a lot of owners lie (or just don't tell) about their setups. This makes it very difficult to compare one car to the other.
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Quote:
Car & Driver (known for abusing clutches) got some startling numbers at the strip for the 2004 GT3:
0-60 4.0
0-100 8.8
0-130 14.8
1/4 mile 12.3 @ 118mph
Pretty serious stuff (and significanly faster than factory numbers)
Sport Auto (like many other german car magazines) recently tested the GT3 at 9.7 seconds from 0-100 mph.
Almost 1 second slower than C&D, how come?
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Car and Driver is notorious for getting faster acceleration times than any other magazine. This is because:
1) they test a high traction drag strip for superior hook-up at launch
2) they rev the engine way up and just dump the clutch. This technique may get the best time but eats up clutches and could not be done with any consistency on the street
C&D is very open about this and even tells their readers not to try and replicate their times. Their logic is they want to report the absolute best time, even though it is not really reflective of what a normal driver can get in the real world.
Karl
1) they test a high traction drag strip for superior hook-up at launch
2) they rev the engine way up and just dump the clutch. This technique may get the best time but eats up clutches and could not be done with any consistency on the street
C&D is very open about this and even tells their readers not to try and replicate their times. Their logic is they want to report the absolute best time, even though it is not really reflective of what a normal driver can get in the real world.
Karl
Re: rc -- gt2 issues
rc,
thanks so much for your response!!! i will be interested to compare my gt3 with my gt2 when it arrives [july build] from your comments, it may perform equally or better in my usage which is up and down the mountians where i live in malibu.
the gt2's torque is very nice coming out of tight steeply uphill corners, which is where i'm thinking the gt3 will be slower [i have lots of steep uphill]. but your comments make me realize i may be very pleasantly surprised by the gt3.
ps i meant the new 2003/4 gt3 is only 3129-3036 100 pounds light than a gt2.
thanks so much for your response!!! i will be interested to compare my gt3 with my gt2 when it arrives [july build] from your comments, it may perform equally or better in my usage which is up and down the mountians where i live in malibu.
the gt2's torque is very nice coming out of tight steeply uphill corners, which is where i'm thinking the gt3 will be slower [i have lots of steep uphill]. but your comments make me realize i may be very pleasantly surprised by the gt3.
ps i meant the new 2003/4 gt3 is only 3129-3036 100 pounds light than a gt2.
Re: WOW! C&D acceleration test of GT3!
Quote:
Car and Driver is notorious for getting faster acceleration times than any other magazine. This is because:
1) they test a high traction drag strip for superior hook-up at launch
2) they rev the engine way up and just dump the clutch. This technique may get the best time but eats up clutches and could not be done with any consistency on the street
C&D is very open about this and even tells their readers not to try and replicate their times. Their logic is they want to report the absolute best time, even though it is not really reflective of what a normal driver can get in the real world.
Karl
German car magazines actually do the same but they do 5-10 acceleration runs back to back and use the middle value of all runs, not the best one. Sound fair to me.
Forum
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
