Very optimistic 0-60 time ?
eBay 996 build thread
- NotoriousREV
- Posts: 6437
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:14 pm
Re: New Car
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.
Middle-aged Dirtbag
Re: New Car
Admittedly these figures are for 0-62 MPH
Bold numbers at TG Mags own timed figures, otherwise manufacturers claims
January 1999
June 2001
Bold numbers at TG Mags own timed figures, otherwise manufacturers claims
January 1999
June 2001
Re: New Car
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 ?!
Different test surfaces and/or weather comditions?
Never mind that though, how come the Carrera 4 does 15% more mpg than the 2 ?!
Re: New Car
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.
Re: New Car
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......
Re: New Car
Excellent stuff Dave, did you say you're collecting this week?
The Evo forum really is a shadow of its former self. I remember when the internet was for the elite and now they seem to let any spastic on
IaFG Down Under Division
IaFG Down Under Division
- NotoriousREV
- Posts: 6437
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:14 pm
Re: New Car
I just don't recall it being a sub 5.0 second car !Mike1215 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:04 amI'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......
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.
Re: New Car
Also had 5s in mind however I don't want to anger Mike any more than we have already.
Re: New Car
Lucky you've got the day off
The Evo forum really is a shadow of its former self. I remember when the internet was for the elite and now they seem to let any spastic on
IaFG Down Under Division
IaFG Down Under Division
- NotoriousREV
- Posts: 6437
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:14 pm
Re: New Car
Did you get a figure to keep the golf on Dave.... just in case you need it
- Jimmy Choo
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:43 am
Re: New Car
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
Re: New Car
1st one is a Carrera RS though - what does the normal 964 Carrera do?
Re: New Car
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 )
Re: New Car
c.200kgs less, and lightweight flywheel coupled to the G50/10 transmission with closer ratios, asymmetrical Limited Slip Differential and steel synchromesh.....
Re: New Car
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