eBay 996 build thread

[Nathan]

As per YFBR

Very optimistic 0-60 time ?

[NotoriousREV]

As per YFBR

Very optimistic 0-60 time ?

This test was from back in the days when magazines figured the cars themselves on a track under repeatable conditions. If you look at the facts table it shows all the acceleration figures and the speedo vs true speed reading etc. I miss this style of review.

EDIT: The book 0-60 for the 3.4 C2 was 4.8, IIRC.

[Nathan]

Admittedly these figures are for 0-62 MPH

Bold numbers at TG Mags own timed figures, otherwise manufacturers claims

January 1999



June 2001

[nuttinnew]

Iirc Autocar test two up with a full tank of fuel (I haven't read the scan to check yet, sorry Mike!).
Different test surfaces and/or weather comditions?
Never mind that though, how come the Carrera 4 does 15% more mpg than the 2 ?!

[GG.]

Nothing to do with 0-60s (or 62s for that matter) but the mags also chronically incorrectly report PS as BHP. The 996 3.4 is 300PS and 296bhp. Equally the 997 is 355PS and 350hp and 997.2 385PS and 380HP. All reported wrongly more often than right.

[Mike1215]

Iirc Autocar test two up with a full tank of fuel (I haven't read the scan to check yet, sorry Mike!).
Different test surfaces and/or weather comditions?
Never mind that though, how come the Carrera 4 does 15% more mpg than the 2 ?!

I'm genuinely surprised that people are surprised about a 911 setting such times - they've pretty much always had strong horses, great traction off the line etc

The Carrera PDK tested a few years after only had about 45bhp more, weighed 150-ish kg more and was slightly quicker to 60 and a ton with a higher v-max.
Plus years before the Carrera RS had a bit less weight, 50 bhp less .....and was similarly quick to 60 and a ton
Not to mention the 1991 Turbo with 20bhp more, another 150kg weight .....and an even faster 60 time than Rev's 996.

I think that for all the Porsche loving on EVO and here, the numerous road tests etc some people just haven't been paying attention......

[unzippy]

Excellent stuff Dave, did you say you're collecting this week?

[NotoriousREV]

Excellent stuff Dave, did you say you're collecting this week?

Yep, Wednesday. MrsREV says I’m driving her mental.

[Nathan]

Iirc Autocar test two up with a full tank of fuel (I haven't read the scan to check yet, sorry Mike!).
Different test surfaces and/or weather comditions?
Never mind that though, how come the Carrera 4 does 15% more mpg than the 2 ?!

I'm genuinely surprised that people are surprised about a 911 setting such times - they've pretty much always had strong horses, great traction off the line etc

....I think that for all the Porsche loving on EVO and here, the numerous road tests etc some people just haven't been paying attention......

I just don't recall it being a sub 5.0 second car !

Having revisited some old stats, I am genuinely impressed how the C4 does the 1/4 mile within 0.5 of the Turbo - that's pretty amazing really. Never realised it before.

[JLv3.0]

Also had 5s in mind however I don't want to anger Mike any more than we have already.

[unzippy]

Excellent stuff Dave, did you say you're collecting this week?

Yep, Wednesday. MrsREV says I’m driving her mental.

Lucky you've got the day off

[NotoriousREV]

I don't have time for a job these days

[Broccers]

Did you get a figure to keep the golf on Dave.... just in case you need it

[Jimmy Choo]

Did you get a figure to keep the golf on Dave.... just in case you need it

He's not buying an Alfa!

[Mike1215]

Also had 5s in mind however I don't want to anger Mike any more than we have already.

Not angry James..........just disappointed

Seriously though, putting 300 bhp onto the tarmac with barely a squeak from the tyres and buzzing off into the distance has always been the rwd 911’s party piece

Allow me to illustrate with road tests over the years

The 260bhp Carrera with skinnier rear tyres and less weight than Rev’s 911 - sub 5s




320bhp 911 Turbo with skinnier tears and more weight than Rev’s 996




50bhp more, more weight and fatter rears than Rev’s 996




20bhp more, slightly more weight and fatter rears than Rev’s 996




40bhp more, lot more weight and fatter rears than Rev’s 996




They’re all in much the same ballpark - 4->5secs to 60, 10->11secs to the ton.

This is no way is to detract from Rev’s 996 purchase - what a great car for 8 grand - more to say it’s pretty much what I’d expect acceleration-wise for a 300-ish bhp 911 of that weight

[Rich B]

1st one is a Carrera RS though - what does the normal 964 Carrera do?

[Mike1215]

1st one is a Carrera RS though - what does the normal 964 Carrera do?

It was more to show the strong acceleration Rich of 911s with similar-ish power to weight

Sub 5s with 260bhp and one really fat bloke less than Rev’s 996

A 250bhp Carrera with skinnier rears and more weight than Rev’s 996 will be a couple of tenths slower ( still 5.1 though )

[Rich B]

1st one is a Carrera RS though - what does the normal 964 Carrera do?

Sub 5s with 260bhp and one really fat bloke less than Rev’s 996

c.200kgs less, and lightweight flywheel coupled to the G50/10 transmission with closer ratios, asymmetrical Limited Slip Differential and steel synchromesh.....

[dan]

asymmetrical Limited Slip Differential and steel synchromesh

I don't know what either of these things are and i'm not being facecious, can you explain?

[dan]

asymmetrical Limited Slip Differential and steel synchromesh

I don't know what either of these things are and i'm not being facecious, can you explain?

Well i've learnt one thing new today already, steel baulk rings, who knew. I thought they were all brass.

Still don't know what an asymetric diff is though