I know some people claim they can blow another car away. However, in reality, most sports cars today are nearly the same.

For example, a stock GT2, which is a very fast car, does the 1/4-mile in 12.0 seconds at 121 MPH. And that's with a professional driver at Car & Driver magazine speed shifting faster then most people can.

Now, a stock Ferrari CS, for example, does the 1/4-mile in 12.4 seconds at 115 MPH. That's also about the same as a stock GT3 or a stock 996 turbo.

How far ahead will the GT2 be if you raced him from a dead stop to 115 MPH? The answer is there would be about 3 cars lengths between you and him. See how far that is in your driveway. Not very far, especially at that speed.

You can calculate this for other cars. Basically, if the slower car is going about 115 at the end of the quarter mile, the faster car will be about one car ahead for every .1 seconds difference in the 1/4 mile.

Now, if you make a .1 second mistake, you lost a car length. Add .1 seconds to each of your shifts, and the cars are about the same.

 

So what is your point? If your are trying to make sense of the "need for speed" don't bother. There is no "sense" in any of it.

 

Bill, you aren't factoring in the launch. For each .1 that you cut off of your 60ft, you gain about .2 secs on your ET in the 1/4 mile.

If I cut (done this a few times) a 1.79 60 ft and the other car (Ferrari 360) cuts a 2.1 60 ft, you are looking at about a 3 car difference on the launch. If the Modena doesn't have the power to pull and close the gap, it will only widen. However, if the Modena (or some other, faster car) closes the gap, then by 115mph both cars might be equal (the other car will have caught up), but one might be pulling ahead.

Make sense?

 

I agree with the basic point. These days, the difference between a fast car and a really fast car is not that pronounced. Even on a track, when I'm hot on the heels of a regular BMW 330 (as I was at the last track event), what feels like me screaming by him looks on the video like a gentle waft past a marginally slower car.

At the Top Gear track, the Carrera GT ran a lap time of around 1:19, and the BAR Honda F1 car ran 0:59. That's only 33% faster, for a car with 50% more power, less than half the weight, and gobs more downforce.

Having said that, I still get a kick out of the Top Gear vid where they ran a McLaren F1 against an EVO. The difference in that case was, er, significant.

 

Bill, it depends on ones perspective. Three car lenghts doesn't seem like much to many people. To others it can be eternity.

 

Definately!
Same with 1 second around a track. 20 seconds is a HUGE difference.

 

That's an *** kicking around here

 

Another angle to read what Bill is saying, is that if you just practice shifting, maybe a few more 996s will be going below 11seconds. A typical good driver needs about 0.4-0.5 seconds between shifts, a pro can do that in 0.2, there goes your sub 11's (4 shifts in a quarter mile?) and you will be leaving your friend's zillion hp 996GT2 behind you by 6 car lengths. I still think that the reason 996s are so slow in the quarter mile is maybe that the cable operated gearbox/shifter/clutch setup is not as good as the older cars, rather than having too much horsepower to put it to the ground. Why is Sharkster getting those times??

 

Thanks Ruiner. You are of course correct. However, few people are willing to launch their cars as well as you do! Car & Driver, however, is known to launch the cars harder than most other mags.

My point? On the street cars having 1/4-mile times within 0.5 seconds of each other will appear the same in almost all street encounters below 120 MPH. And, as I pointed out in the CGT thread, there is a limit on how fast you can go on the street. For example, a 12-second car will easily stay with an 11-second car the whole day. The streets just don't allow the faster car to get that much further ahead, unless the slower car is a major porker and can't take the turns!

Now, if you're satisfied that you car is faster because it was two or three cars ahead by 120 from a dead stop, that's another story. Personally, that's not enough to satisfy me. 10 cars ahead would be much better, even with slow shifts! Now you're getting into 1/4-mile differences of 1 second or more (like a CGT vs a stock 996 TT).

 

There is a significant "seat of the pants" difference btw that .4 seconds in the quarter...

 

maybe a 12.4 sec car is somewhat close to a 12.0 sec car ... but that also means a 12.8 sec car is close to a 12.4 sec car, where a 12.8 sec car will not even be close to a 12.0 sec car. etc.

 

Bill... what you say has some merit from a dead stop, but in more practical situation like a roll-on start, the GT2 can dust away a Stradale. The higher the speed, the more it can pull away.

In the middle of the desert, I did a comparo with a GT3 and even with the windows down I just walked away in the GT2 and kept pulling and pulling...

Problem with Stradale is its lack of torque. You and I both know that the CS would get absolutely annhilated by your 993, especially after the first quarter mile.

 

I agree with longer runs at higher speeds, like a desert run, there is no comparison. But under 120 or so, the cars are very similar. That's the norm for most people.

 

I suspect that some of that, such as 0-60, is traction limited.

Nowadays it seems that 0-60 times for most sports cars are within a half second of each other.

 

Yes. When the 1978 911 Turbo was introduced to the US, Motor Trend couldn't beleive it did 0-60 in 5 second! The closest production car, besides some real expensive exotics, was over 7 seconds!

Now the cars all seem to be doing around 3.5 to 4.0 seconds, not the 2 or 3 second variations we saw in the past.

That's why you really need to go pretty darn fast to see a real difference between the cars we usually buy. For example, at 180+ in the Ruf, the CS looks pretty small in the rearview mirror!