Any reason you chose to use the GT3s numbers instead of the 996TT or the 20 yr old Lambo in question? I found the GT3 every bit as impressive as the CGT at Leipzig. Like the Stradale is to the Enzo, so too is the GT3 to the CGT. Porsche makes no better car for the money than the GT3 IMO. As well, it's the only high revving NA motored car aside from the CGT. If I wasn't such a wussy about having emergency driving aids for my type of aggressive mountain driving, I would have much preferred picking up a GT3 instead of the Stradale at 2X it's price. Now, back to the 20 yr old Lambo and 996 TT...

"This has little effect on a smooth track or road, the situation we assumed and where braking tests are done. Rotational mass has a bigger effect, as I previously mentioned, but as we will see, this has a relatively little effect."

"Braking tests"? I'm not assuming the guys doing the test drive were under "braking test" conditions, but rather more like the real world situational conditions I've experienced both on the track and on the street (the later more similar to theirs). This is where the "magazine" numbers bench racing stuff becomes annoying as all I'm interested in is what I "experience" in real life in "most" conditions in which I find myself. That said, MAJOR efforts and money went into insuring rotational mass on the CGT was considerably lower than the two cars to which you were originally comparing (and I'm certain they succeeded in those lightening efforts).

"What? This is marginal at best."

To the contrary, when you have a car that is more sloppy with it's weight during weight transfer (ie: the 20 yr old Lambo and 996TT), that weight overwhelms the contact patches (and upsets the cars balance) much quicker in what is most certainly a more abrupt transfer. This will also create more "dive". Something else which adds greatly to stability during weight transfer heavy braking in the CGT is the huge track width as well as the very low center of gravity on the car. There are probably lots of other engineer type reasons. But, I don't make them, I only drive them.

"You are wrong yet again. The size of the contact patch DOES NOT change with wider tires (lets assume same brand). The shape of the contact patch does, but the area of the contact patch does not. So, assuming the same tires on the cars, at the same pressures, the contact patch on the turbo would be larger! (because it weighs more)."

I find that hard to believe that wider tires result in the same contact patch.

"I am not familiar with the tires so lets just get to straight data."

I am and 1/3 of the tire is in fact stickier.

As for the data, how is it that "stats" on two entirely different cars supports or negates the comments we've thus far made. Have you eliminated any and all other differences which could account for the "stats".

"Hardly staggering, in fact, the CGT pulls lower braking g’s. Hmmm! How wrong could you be?"

Do shorter braking times equate strictly and linearly with braking Gs?

"Well well, the CGT wins, but staggering? Me thinks not."

Look, if I run the car up to even 120 mph (your threshold), I "will" put you into the dashboard and quite possibly the windshield if you are an unbelted passenger in a CGT during very aggressive braking.

"At very high speeds, you may be more correct, and at the track, you probably are correct, that the brakes will function better, but I threw the caveot below 120 mph, and in normal street driving, there is very little difference as I have just proven."

We're talking about supercars and the like here. I'm assuming the guys (healthily) exceeded the "speed limits" during their test drive and am certain the braking Gs to which I am referring are NOT experienced during "normal street driving".

Again, I really and truly don't mean to be a dick. And again, please get your rear end into the driver or passenger seat of the CGT and do some hard braking from "non" normal street driving speeds and tell me if you find them both "staggering" and capable of causing injury or extreme discomfort to an unbelted passenger. All the "academic" and "magazine numbers" rhetoric aside, I'm merely asking you to get a little real world experience before referring to my comments about re: my experience as untruthful - it's fairly insulting.

 

FWIW Jack, I find the brakes on the Stradale every bit as good (if not better - certainly better on feel) as the CGT's.

 

I knew that would get a rise out of you Jack...As Ben mentioned, it appears the sound of these car(s) including mine vary drastically whether your inside or outside of the car. My car sounds much better outside. I have only heard the CGT rev from the outside and to me, that is the closest sounding motor to an F1 motor (I have been to a few F1 Grand Prix's). After all, the CGT motor is an actual detuned racing motor from Porsche's last aborted P class Le Mans effort. I don't believe there is any other motor in a Production car, Enzo inlcuded that is so little removed from a factory race engine. Some people won't find the F1 sound the utlimate...I do and the Ferrari sound clips I have heard, do not have that sound...

 

All he's saying is, when you hop into a CGT, be sure to put on your seatbelt!

-Awais

 

That must be why so many states now have a seat belt law. LOL!!!

 

Click-it or Ticket!*

* - Especially when you're in a CGT!

 

Ben, no doubt that the CGT is impressive. It is one of my favorite cars of all time. Hell, for its price, it's even a bargain compared to the Enzo.

I understand why you think the braking power is staggering. However, I don't really see how it would be much better than my GT2 with PCCB.

I know you don't think much of the GT2, but then again, I doubt you have ever been in one anywhere close to its limit. Even pro drivers find the car to be scary, I wonder why. You said that you found a GT3 to be more interesting, and I say you probably didn't have much seat time in a GT2. It is quite a different beast from the GT3 or Stradale, and TO ME, it is only second place to the CGT, in a tie with the almighty GT3-RS.

It is obvious that you are biased against Turbo cars.

See, your problem is that you made a HUGE jump from a supercharged 996, which to me is nowhere on the same planet as a GT3 or Stradale, let alone a Carrera GT.

I guarantee you that if you had come from a GT2, the Carrera GT's performance wouldn't be as big of a shock. As Jack says, at this level, there is indeed a law of diminishing returns.

You raved about the Stradale and how great it is, yet you haven't even had the Stradale that long, and like I once told you before, comparing that car to a CGT is a freaking joke. Now it seems you think so too.

By the way, 7:40 around the ring is a phenomenal time. But, did you know a street GT3-RS can do that too? Some food for thought...

 

Tyson,

I assume when you say "I guarantee you that if you had come from a GT2, the Carrera GT's performance wouldn't be as big of a shock." You're talking about the braking difference. Because accelaration wise, I was absolutely floored by the difference when I got my car.

I have to agree with you and others regarding the braking difference not being that different but since I got my CGT, the acceleration of the GT2, especially after second gear, is not as shocking as it use to be.

 

Did you guys get to take it through any corners?

 

Hey Tyson.

No, I'm not a big fan of turbo charged cars. The inability to smoothly modulate power is one of the reasons so many "pro" drivers have referred to the GT2 as "scary". The power delivery is unpredictible in the same sense it is in a NA motored car. As well, the GT3 "felt" lighter than the GT2 on the track (even though it only barely is). FWIW, I definetely didn't feel CGT or Stradale kind of braking in the GT2 on the track. I've no idea why the reaction to the braking in these two cars not happening when driving the GT2 in exactly the same manner. Then again, it's just one man's experience and opinion.

I didn't go from a 440 hp SC'd 996 to a CGT, but rather had the 425 hp Stradale as an interim vehicle. That said, 605 hp in a very much lightened 8400 RPM reving motor is always going to feel MUCH more powerful than the 425 hp in the high reving Stradale, or the 477 (new model) low reving GT2. All three of these cars are within a 100 or so lbs of each other. Amir is right, there is a world of acceleration difference between the CGT and the Stradale and GT2. The CGT is the first car that gives me cotton mouth when I drive it!!

FWIW, that 7:40 was a wet time wasn't it? Did a 7:30 in the dry get turned? Doesn't matter anyway cause I'm merely talking about my personal experience based on my reactions to each of these cars on the track (and otherwise).

The GT2 is a great car - one of Porsche's great bargains (if you buy used), but it is definetely my 3rd favorite Pcar.

Lastly, all you need to do is turn the key off on a running CGT to find out just how amazing the engine is. You will find no other street car with a motor with so little mass. This translates into incomparible throttle response and breath (saliva in my case) taking acceleration along with great track manners.

 

Amir, you are correct.

However, for me, I am not sure how much the acceleration would shock me considering the old Turbo I used to drive. I am certain that the Protomotive was a fair amount quicker than the CGT. I remember that when I first drove the GT2 it did feel considerably slower in the straights.

A stock GT2 is considerably slower than a CGT. It's quarter mile time difference is about 0.7seconds with the trap speed difference being about a good 12mph. Then again, it's two cars with similar weight and a 150bhp difference.

I would imagine that it would take a power upgrade like the Ruf R Turbo conversion and then the two cars would be a match in a straight line.

 

"Then again, it's two cars with similar weight and a 150bhp difference"

It's not just about HP only. The torque (# anyway) is very similar on both cars, but you have to remember the CGT has a much broader power band as it keeps ripping all the way to nearly 8500. As well, the CGT revs considerably faster owing to both the lightweight flywheel and low mass motor.

 

So you didn't really find any meaningful difference in breaking?

 

I would imagine they both break a fair amount

 

Ben, first of all, you cannot compare a Turbo and NA motor the same way.

Second, since when did the GT2 not have a broad torque band? Its area under the curve is likely fatter than the CGT. This is the advantage of having two turbos that are force feeding air, it makes for a nice, wide power band once the Turbos kick in. CGT makes up for it with more revs, displacement and cylinders.

This is also the reason why your Stradale is slow in the straights. NO TORQUE!!!

Without sidetracking this discussion too much, do you really understand how turbo engines work? Do you know how easy it would be for me to tune a GT2 to outrun a CGT in a straight line?

Or let's compare apples to apples, do you really think a CGT would destroy a properly setup 911 GT1 in any venue?