Modded for high 8's. Stock is high 9's/low 10's.

There seems to be as many Porsches on the road in the Twin Cities as corvettes.

I have C6 Z06 with the upgraded interior and a 996 GT2. The vette is way behind in terms of the interior and the fit and finish. The interior in the 2002 Porsche is dated but better quality than the 2008 Z06.

Now you are talking about non-production cars that are not street legal, the gt2rs is and the 599XX is not.

What about a dumb ass Porsche guy that thinks that if he has his brakes changed at the dealer for $3K that he is getting some sort of "extra" service on his car. This can go both ways.. I think my Z06 was one of the best cars I have ever owned. I see more posers driving Porsches.. At least the redneck dude can drive worth a sh%$ hilarious

I agree with everything that you mentioned above! I have enjoyed my Porsche very much. I do miss the long unpredictable burnouts in my Viper though..

Any videos of this race?

There was no race. This is just a comparison of times found in publications or on the internet, not a side by side comparison.

Here is a video of a stock ZR1 doing the Texas mile at 184mph (a little shy of 300 km/h) and the time seems to be in the 28-29 sec range. Not the best edited video, skip ahead to ~1.:40 for him to start his run. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxByt-DJMTs

PORSCHE THERE IS NOT SUBSTITUTE


Good info Scott,thanks

So now we are using the time counter on youtube videos to measure acceleration times? Talk about desperation. Try doing that on TWR to measure 1/4 mile times and see how far it gets you.:D

Not only that, but the time from 184-186.4 (300 km/h) is around a 1.5 seconds for a 184 mph car. So, even if your video was 100% accurate (which it's not), it would still be around 30-31 second mark.

Neil, no one is making fun of your Dad's ZR1. I think they are great cars. I'm simply saying that from the "measured, verifiable" data that exists, the GT2 RS is faster all the way to 186 mph.

For good measure, here's another ZR1 test. This one is 4 seconds slower than the first one I posted:

0-100 km/h: 3.4 sec
0-200 km/h: 11.7 sec
0-300 km/h: 36.6 sec

Scott, if they keep pissing you off, can you find a 40 second run?hilarious

You and I both know that set of data is ridicules for a ZR1. 11.7 sec to 124 mph? They must of had horrible traction issues. A ZR1 has made it to 133mph in almost a full second faster, which means that is made it to 124 (or 200km/h) in less than 10. And where in my post did I even refute your claim? It is a decent comparison based on the information available to you, but as shown by the post above it has a few people thinking that it is a true head to head comparison when it is not. The numbers are close enough that environmental differences from the different test days can be a factor, especially for a high speed run. The GT2 RS may very well be faster from a standing start to high speeds, but you need a head to head comparison with competent drivers for both cars to really put the issue to rest.

Quote:

---

So now we are using the time counter on youtube videos to measure acceleration times? Talk about desperation. Try doing that on TWR to measure 1/4 mile times and see how far it gets you.

---

I posted the Texas Mile video because there was a discussion earlier in the thread about the ZR1 running the standing mile and that was the only video of a stock one that I knew of. I never said that it showed that the ZR1 was faster than the GT2 RS, but I think is does show that it can run faster than 32.6. You can joke all you want but when you know his speed in the mile it is not that hard to get a time to speed accurate to about 1 sec from the video. We are not talking .1 or .01 of a sec here like you would argure over for 1/4 mile times.

I understand the point you are attempting to make. You're saying in the best conditions, with the best driver, the ZR1 is faster than these tests imply. You don't like the results, so you attribute the poor showing to enviromental factors and driver error. Got it. I also believe that you are somewhat correct. The reason I believe that is because your entire argument applies to the GT2 RS as well...

The GT2 RS's conditions were no better than the ZR1's. The driver was no better. The ZR1 even got a better launch than the GT2 and ran a quicker time from 0-100 km/h. Yet, the GT2 still ran a better 0-300 km/h time than the fastest ZR1 time I can locate. It flat ran it down. Hard.

I think with a better driver and more optimal conditions (like all of the ZR1's had when they trapped 133 mph), the GT2 RS would definitely show itself to be even faster than this test indicates.

More proof? Consider the video of a ZR1 vs a 997TT PDK here below. The 997TT is only rated at 500 HP, and weighs 3600 lbs, and runs 0-300 km/h in around 41 seconds.

Even with all that going against it, it still wins the first race, while the ZR1 wins the second. The cars seem pretty evenly matched from the looks of the video. Close enough that if the ZR1 driver makes one mistake, or loses traction for one second, the Porsche will win.

Now, imagine what a Porsche with 120 more HP, and 500 lbs less weight would have done to the ZR1? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCw88BNJAPM

The guy that I purchased my car from actually owns a stock '08 997 GT2 (not the RS) as well as a '09 ZR1. I spoke to him on the phone on Thursday and he told me that he and his drag-racing buddy raced both cars from a roll 2 or 3 times. Guess what? It was a dead heat everytime.

I don't know what to tell you. The ZR1 is a very fast car, no doubt. But it seems that the GT2 RS is faster.

Lastly, I'll be more than happy to lower the boost on my car to what the GT2 RS should be putting down based on it's 'claimed' crank HP (540-550'ish rwhp), and we'll do a few runs against your Dad's ZR1, pump gas to pump gas, and get it on video. My car weighs app. 150 lbs more than the RS does, but I'm happy to give you that advantage. Let me know.

What was the point of this thread again?hilarious

Neil is it really your dads car?hilarious

It is.

I don't want you guys to get the wrong impression. Neil's actually a good guy. Very polite and a true enthusiast.