I Need To Go On A Diet
#32
Further info on GT2 drag coefficient:
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...rformance.html
Despite a monstrous rear wing and a low-riding front air dam, the drag coefficient of the GT2 has increased to 0.34 from the Turbo's 0.31. This increase results mainly from the bigger air intakes that channel more air to the brakes and to no fewer than three radiators and two intercoolers. The key aerodynamic improvement over lesser 911s is the larger center intake that guides air through the main radiator before sending it through a full-width duct to vents between the nose cone and hood. This substantially increases front-end downforce and, at the same time, reduces the amount of air that passes between the road and the floorpan by an impressive 60 percent. The ground-effects front end pays off at speeds of 80 mph and above, tying the nose down in a thoroughly convincing manner.
#33
Originally Posted by KPG
Marty, I am just organizing and graphing a whole battery of GPS data from 9Eleven's red GT2 with ECU programming to post today. The data makes it abundantly clear that weight hurts... and hurts a great deal.His car flew and although he beat my GPS times in some areas and I beat him in others it is clear that these 2 cars are dead even. Between these two cars at the drags it comes down to this.... the driver who makes a mistake loses, plain and simple. A 0-160 run is going to be posted My hat is off to 9Eleven. As for needing more power....why not? Kevin
#34
Originally Posted by F**K
A question for anyone out there who can answer...
If one were to ditch the steel roof (w/ sunroof, sunroof motor, etc) for a carbon fibre roof and new hole-less headliner, would it present a potential safety hazard on a street car?
If one were to ditch the steel roof (w/ sunroof, sunroof motor, etc) for a carbon fibre roof and new hole-less headliner, would it present a potential safety hazard on a street car?
#35
Originally Posted by sharkster
I ran 10s before I ran shark werks:P
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
#36
Originally Posted by iLLM3
Awesome man, can't wait to see his numbers and better yet use this thing myself if you are still offering it up to borrow, I would greatly appreciate it Question though, we obviously aren't all in the same elevation, incline of surface or w/e, does it vary the times if there isn't a complete flat surface? Might be a stupid question but there aren't many flat surfaces for miles I could test on here in NY
#37
Originally Posted by KPG
Martin, the satellites are always watching... If you go to the graphs on 9Eleven's runs it will show you slope deviation. I think on his 0-160 run he had a downhill slope deviation of 130ft... but the overall run was 2958.31 feet which is less than 12" for every 22ft. Close enough to get a good idea of the vehicles performance. If you cannot find a good level run...do it both ways and average the results.Kevin