kumar75150

"We clocked the Turbo automatic to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds and through the quarter mile in 12.6 seconds at 112 mph. That's only 0.3 second slower than the manual 911 Turbo we tested last September, although the gap does increase at higher speeds."


That means the manual was timed at less than 4.2 seconds. You just proved me right.


edit: looks like someone else that knows what he is talking about beat me to this post

BnB-S2K

"Just put it in "D" and off you go -- as fast as you dare. We clocked the Turbo automatic to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds and through the quarter mile in 12.6 seconds at 112 mph. That's only 0.3 second slower than the manual 911 Turbo we tested last September"

If you're going to quote something, be accurate... They are refferring to the 1/4 mile time, and a .3 second difference in a quarter mile, with a trap speed of about 110, would translate to a .1-.15 second difference in a 0-60 time, still putting it above 4 seconds.

And yes Kumar, I have seen all the reviews and times of the S... and yes, 13.8 is just about the best you can get, unless you have absolutely perfect running conditions, and your car is running flawlessly... in which case you might possibly be able to get down to the mid to high 13.6's.


"That means the manual was timed at less than 4.2 seconds. You just proved me right"

Actually no, If you had read the article properly, and done the math before you responded... you'd come to the same conclusion I did in this post, unless of course you did the math wrong... which you probably would.

To end all this, I'm not competing with you kumar, I'm sure you know a lot about something, though Im not certain what that would be... I was trying to help the guy who started this post with his question, because I have recent experience which is actually relevent here. And in case you forgot, I've actually driven the 911 turbo, I know what its capable of, and I know what the average driver will be able to get out of it... but you go ahead and stick with you're "hopes and dreams" method of judging cars, I'll trust experience and published numbers.

kumar75150

would translate to a .1-.15 second difference in a 0-60 time


Wait a sec; you said the 911 was a 4.6 sec car.

I said it was 3.8-3.9

The article you provided makes it seem like its a 4.1 second car.

Even using your information and your logic, I was closer. I didn't start out wanting to compete with you. Its just that I don't like it when people refuse to admit when they were wrong.

BTW, go to www.car-stats.com and check out the times for the 911 if you really care.

BnB-S2K

would translate to a .1-.15 second difference in a 0-60 time

Wait a sec; you said the 911 was a 4.6 sec car.
---
Like I said, I've actually driven the car, that was my estimate of what the average person could get for a 0-60 time.

I said it was 3.8-3.9
---
so you did...

The article you provided makes it seem like its a 4.1 second car.

Even using your information and your logic, I was closer. I didn't start out wanting to compete with you. Its just that I don't like it when people refuse to admit when they were wrong.
---
For someone who doesnt want to compete, you sure care a lot about who was closer... And btw, I am more than willing to admit it when I'm wrong, but in this case, I'm not. Like I said before, I trust real world experience, and published numbers... 4.6s is a realistic estimate based on the numbers provided by various sources, and my own experience driving the car. If you remember, my origional reason for bringing the 911 into this conversation was to compare it to the z06... not to start an argument about its exact capabilities. Maybe a 911 turbo driven by someone who has intimate knowledge of how to drive the car, could beat a Z06 with the same type of driver... but my point was that the average person would be able to get more out of a Z06 than the 911.




BTW, go to www.car-stats.com and check out the times for the 911 if you really care.
---
Like I said in regard to the point you made about s2000 1/4 mile times, there will always be a few "perfect" runs, that took place under the "perfect" circumstances, but they are not an accurate indication of what will happen most of the time. Im sure if my friend learns the best driving method for a z06, takes it out at 3 am, on tarmac (which is most likely what car-stats did, and it wouldnt surprise me if they were using 100 octane gas, compared to the 92 ot, that road / track, and car / driver use), and makes a perfect run... the 0-60 time will be less than 3.8 seconds.

honda606

Then you really didn't look hard enough at all. A Z06 for $70k...never heard of it. If you friend was willing to pay it, what would he buy the new Viper for?? $110k maybe? What about the GT2? $300k maybe? Some people just have no patience or rich parents.

Fanman

Hate to disagree with BnB but regular new Carrerras are doing mid 4's. (new), not the turbos. The most common #'s I see are 3.9 to 4.2 sec. The only test I have ever read where the 911 Turbo went up against the Z06 came in Nov. 2000 in Road & Track. The 911 TT ran a 4 sec/11.9 sec 1/4, while the 385 Z06 ran a 4.5/12.6 sec. 1/4. This was in the same environment, same drivers. I have seen Z06's run low 12's but without a 911TT next to it, no way to tell that one is faster or the other. In the article they said they did those 911 TT #'s were repeated easily & consistently. Given the AWD, and the fact the engine happens to be sitting on top of the drive wheels it is much easier to get 1/4 mi. & 0-60 times. The Corvette will burn through it's tires if launched too hard (I saw one in Palmdale do that). I actually think the average person would perform much better in a TT, because I am (in my estimation) a average sports car driver. The Z06 would be a good car to tool around in, but the 911TT is just as easy to drive. If going from a Japanese car to an American car it would take him a bit to get used to the torque characteristics, and vice versa. I damn near killed myself in the Viper going around corners. From my personal experience.

Chris S

Thanks to all of you for your input, and sorry to have such a simple question develop into a heated Z06 vs. 911TT debate. A couple of points:

1) I'd take a 911T anyday over a Z06 regardless of its relative performance...
2) but unfortunately, it's way over my price range
3) I'd have no prob. w/ Z06 torque, since I had a Z28 and a BPU++ Supra Turbo
4) Although the Porsche is unique in having AWD, the Z's traction control and active handlng is pretty awesome and useful.

Fanman

Sorry Chris, we seem to have gotten a bit off the subject. I think you will enjoy the Z06 if you had a Camaro. It is revvier, but very similar to a Camaro in terms of engine charateristics (vs. extremely high revving VTEC's). The Prosche's version of traction control/skid control/limited slip is Porsche Stability Management (PSM). If you price range is $50K the Z06 is probably the best bang for the buck, bar none. Less maybe the Cobra or last of the Camaro SS's.

BnB-S2K

[QUOTE]Originally posted by honda606
[B]

BnB-S2K

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fanman
[B]Hate to disagree with BnB but regular new Carrerras are doing mid 4's. (new), not the turbos.