Autoweek first to test CGT
Autoweek first to test CGT
0-60 mph: 3.5 sec
0-100 mph: 7.06
1/4 mile: 11:35 @ 129.5 mph
0-100-0: 11.6 sec, 882 ft
60-0: 104 ft
lateral acceleration (50 m skidpad): 0.95 g
"It is not quite as fast a a McLaren F1, .7 second shy to 100 mph, short by the same margin to 120 mph. But is there anything else out there that even comes close? Let's hope Ferrari will lend us an Enzo, and Mercedes an SLR McLaren to help us find out. Sure by any rational standard $440k is a ridculous amount to even think about paying for a car, even two or three cars. But after one day in the company of the Porsche Carrera GT, it really does begin to look dangerously like a bargain."
0-100 mph: 7.06
1/4 mile: 11:35 @ 129.5 mph
0-100-0: 11.6 sec, 882 ft
60-0: 104 ft
lateral acceleration (50 m skidpad): 0.95 g
"It is not quite as fast a a McLaren F1, .7 second shy to 100 mph, short by the same margin to 120 mph. But is there anything else out there that even comes close? Let's hope Ferrari will lend us an Enzo, and Mercedes an SLR McLaren to help us find out. Sure by any rational standard $440k is a ridculous amount to even think about paying for a car, even two or three cars. But after one day in the company of the Porsche Carrera GT, it really does begin to look dangerously like a bargain."
This is about the same as a 550 HP Ruf Turbo R, which will likely outperform the CGT on most streets because of it's shorter nose and greater ground clearance. In my opinion, the CGT is not that awesome. Other car mags mentioned that slightly modified turbos are as fast or faster. Also, how can you consider a convertible a serious performance car?
However, it's probably the most "bang-for-the-buck" for showing-off to the neighbors, especially for it's sound.
However, it's probably the most "bang-for-the-buck" for showing-off to the neighbors, especially for it's sound.
Last edited by Bill S; Apr 7, 2004 at 04:16 PM.
"Other car mags mentioned that slightly modified turbos are as fast or faster."
in a straight line, yeah maybe. haven't seen too many "slightly modified turbos" do 7.30 on the Ring either. in fact, haven't seen too many heavily modified turbos do it either. then again, you have to really wonder about reliability and driveability of a highly modified turbo with suspect one off R&D.
"Also, how can you consider a convertible a serious performance car?"
when it (with the top off) is 10% more rigid than a GT2...
in a straight line, yeah maybe. haven't seen too many "slightly modified turbos" do 7.30 on the Ring either. in fact, haven't seen too many heavily modified turbos do it either. then again, you have to really wonder about reliability and driveability of a highly modified turbo with suspect one off R&D.
"Also, how can you consider a convertible a serious performance car?"
when it (with the top off) is 10% more rigid than a GT2...
Originally posted by Bill S
This is about the same as a 550 HP Ruf Turbo R, which will likely outperform the CGT on most streets because of it's shorter nose and greater ground clearance. In my opinion, the CGT is not that awesome. Other car mags mentioned that slightly modified turbos are as fast or faster. Also, how can you consider a convertible a serious performance car?
However, it's probably the most "bang-for-the-buck" for showing-off to the neighbors, especially for it's sound.
This is about the same as a 550 HP Ruf Turbo R, which will likely outperform the CGT on most streets because of it's shorter nose and greater ground clearance. In my opinion, the CGT is not that awesome. Other car mags mentioned that slightly modified turbos are as fast or faster. Also, how can you consider a convertible a serious performance car?
However, it's probably the most "bang-for-the-buck" for showing-off to the neighbors, especially for it's sound.
Also, a convertible would imply a folding top, if anything the CGT could be called a targa, but I wouldn't even say that. Lastly, I would take a CGT over a turbo any day. If the CGT is actually worth the money it costs, that's a different question. It will definately out-perform any similarly powered car on the track also. So unless the turbo is making 650hp I doubt it would have a chance.
I'm not bashing the turbo here, it is the seconnd best car in the world. And we all know what the best one is.
Trending Topics
Sorry about the cornflakes. It's just my opinion as a collector. I seriously think a modded twin-turbo on a slightly bumpy winding mountain road will be as fast or faster. Some car mags have written that the CGT scrapes the front nose often under these conditions.
Wonder how it feels at 180+ with the top off?
Also, I think most will agree that the price is too high for 1,500 cars.
Wonder how it feels at 180+ with the top off?
Also, I think most will agree that the price is too high for 1,500 cars.
Last edited by Bill S; Apr 7, 2004 at 07:19 PM.
Originally posted by Bill S
Also, I think most will agree that the price is too high for 1,500 cars.
Also, I think most will agree that the price is too high for 1,500 cars.
..Hey, whatever it takes for Porsche to get back into serious, top-level racing.
They're not really going to fund the entire motorsports program with Cayenne's, are they?
Splitting hairs.
Some of you speak as though you can fully expoit the powers of such a car as the CGT or even a stock 911 Turbo and to say one wickedly fast car is going to be faster than the other wickedly fast car is all blabber. Can you do what Walter R. does? If you can, then please step up and show us what you got.
You spend $440K+ not by the mag numbers, but for the sheer experience dictated by the sum of its engineering.
Some of you speak as though you can fully expoit the powers of such a car as the CGT or even a stock 911 Turbo and to say one wickedly fast car is going to be faster than the other wickedly fast car is all blabber. Can you do what Walter R. does? If you can, then please step up and show us what you got.
You spend $440K+ not by the mag numbers, but for the sheer experience dictated by the sum of its engineering.
Originally posted by Benjamin Choi
Splitting hairs.
Some of you speak as though you can fully expoit the powers of such a car as the CGT or even a stock 911 Turbo and to say one wickedly fast car is going to be faster than the other wickedly fast car is all blabber. Can you do what Walter R. does? If you can, then please step up and show us what you got.
You spend $440K+ not by the mag numbers, but for the sheer experience dictated by the sum of its engineering.
Splitting hairs.
Some of you speak as though you can fully expoit the powers of such a car as the CGT or even a stock 911 Turbo and to say one wickedly fast car is going to be faster than the other wickedly fast car is all blabber. Can you do what Walter R. does? If you can, then please step up and show us what you got.
You spend $440K+ not by the mag numbers, but for the sheer experience dictated by the sum of its engineering.
I also agree 100% on the price factor. Probably one of the most advanced cars on the road today (if not the most advanced).
Originally posted by Frosty
I think the argument is the ability of the car, not of the driver. I understand your point, and 99% of people that will own that car probably won't be able to fully exploit its abilities.
I also agree 100% on the price factor. Probably one of the most advanced cars on the road today (if not the most advanced).
I think the argument is the ability of the car, not of the driver. I understand your point, and 99% of people that will own that car probably won't be able to fully exploit its abilities.
I also agree 100% on the price factor. Probably one of the most advanced cars on the road today (if not the most advanced).
But, again, the ability of the car is so... unreal it'll take unreal driving skills to begin to approach any type of "exploiting" of supercars such as the beloved CGT.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sdg1871
991 Turbo
267
Dec 24, 2015 12:22 PM





