Approx times?

------------------ CGT--------------------Stage 4
0-60
1/4
Track

I'm not sure if any satge 4's have been officially tested on the same track as a CGT, maybe someone here knows.

 

My guess is that from a full stop launch the Stage 4 would be as fast to 60 mph. An X50 Turbo was tested by MT and it did 3.7 sec in the 0-60 run. My guess is the Stage 4 is a little faster than the X50. In the quarter mile, I think the CGT would be a little faster.

In a street encounter though all bets are off, since the ability of the driver, the road conditions, and the unlikely chance of an even start would wash out either car's advantage.

 

Ben i wholeheartedly agree 180mph is shifting, however there is nothing absoluetley nothing like pinning the speedo needle where the car wont go any faster, it is the greatest rush. The trick is making it as safe as possible for yourself and anyone around(i.e deserted autobahn on a summer morning)

best
adam

 

Cool!!

 

Auto Motor Sport Test 0-300kph:

26.1 - Ferrari Enzo
30.6 - MB SLR McLaren
34.2 - Porsche Carrera GT
37.6 - Lamborghini Murcielago

I think Ruf RTurbo was tested at about 32 seconds, I'm trying to dig it out. The high downforce/drag set-up hurts the CGT at high speed, hence why it is 10mph slower despite having more hp.

All the cars were tested on the same day, at the same track (Nardo), by the same driver, and using the same timing gear.

FINAL NOTE: The base McLaren F1 road car (non LM or other race versions) performs the same test in 21.5 seconds.

 

Guy,

If I'm not mistaken, the Gemballa EVO750 GTR (850 hp) was clocked on some airport run way in England at just over 18 seconds (0-300 kph).

 

Chad,

I think I recall reading that the Gemballa when timed by AMS did 0-300kpg in 28 seconds and was not as fast as many people had expected.

0-300kph is good performance stat for supercars in my opinion.

The record in Japan is the Veilside Skyline GTR, a few years ago which did:

0-100km/h 2.76
100-200km/h 3.86
200-300km/h 6.38
0-300km/h 13.00

Sadly there is an absence of decent statistics for serious supercars and tuned cars, with too many people focusing on the fairly irrelevent 0-60mph and also on quarter-mile (which is heavily driver and traction influenced and also track-dependent).

Guy

 

Yeah, I remember reading an article about that Skyline in 2001. Over 1400HP and completely gutted. I´d love to get my hands on an F1 though

 

the video of that run is awesome

 

Guy, I would have to guess that your RGT-2 is probably even faster than an R Turbo as the drivetrain of the GT2 is more efficient and puts more power to the ground than AWD. Especially from 0-300km I suspect you may be sub 30seconds....

As for Killer Angel, we are all waiting in anticipation for it to finally unveil itself. Although how many people would still prefer it to a Carrera GT? I know I wouldn't.

I also guarantee KA won't be as reliable as a CGT. You yourself said that KA needed rebuilds after 20,000 miles or something like that. I bet a CGT could run a 24 hour enduro without any problem or go run ORR in the desert. Could really say the same think about KA running over 1000hp?

Chad, if you dumped $300K in mods into a Carrera GT or even half that, I'm sure it would make Killer Angel seem "primitive." Food for thought? Maybe it's time for you to stop beating a dead horse like the 996 Turbo and buy the best base product Porsche has to offer.

I know that my Protomotive 996 Turbo was way faster than a Carrera GT especially at higher speeds. But so what? I prefer my GT2 over it, let alone a Carrera GT.

 

actually he said the new engine should require rebuild after 30 to 50 hours. the previous engine (regardless of total miles) recently bent the rods. the reason the total miles are irrelevant is because the motor wasn't under the same stress since new because the power being put to it before it blew was a culmination of effort over several thousand progressively higher stressed miles owing to continuous mods. putting the final mods prior to failure on a new engine would most likely have failed much much sooner than 20k.

 

Tyson,

It is all relative. They are different cars. Besides I have had a CGT for over fifteen years. Actually it is a CGT RS. One of two built by Porsche that ran at Le Mans. I purchased it directly from the Porsche library. I don't believe the new CGT would stand a chance against it. The car looks street legal........... from a distance, but I cannot use it on the street. Had to sign certain papers when I imported it into the US.

As for the new CGT, that project should start late this year.

Tyson, if you have to choose, then you have to make a decision of one over another. If you don't, then get all of them. After all they are all different. As for the GT2, I love the car, but KA has everything a GT2 offers with one exception ....... the awd. Yes, it was expensive to accomplish. I wanted the awd because set up properly it offers more performance in most areas. It would have been more expensive to buy a GT2 and then install the awd. It would really be unfair to compare KA to any stock GT2. For the price of KA's new motor and tranny I could have bought a GT2.

Again, stress, I love the GT2. It's lighter than a stock turbo, better suspension than a stock turbo and it is better looking among other things.

 

chad, are you anticipating any trouble with the AWD system being mixed with 1k hp?

btw, the fact you have a bazillion cars puts your KA project into the proper perspective. i don't know about anyone else, but until recently i thought you were doing the KA project as your only sports car.

 

You are right. They are all different.

I love the GT3 so much, but no way would I get rid of the GT2. So now I have both (in matching color schemes nonetheless).

I can't wait to see your CGT project, that should be cool.

 

what's the CGT project????