100-200 km/h times: Stock_vs_Modified
#647
12-04-2011, 03:01 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Between Dubai UAE and Athens Greece
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0 
Milou wait for madsex to reply on that cause it is a common practice in Greek forums for people that they don't even exist on the map or they even have a bicycle, to throw mud on other people that are faster than them. 
#648
12-04-2011, 10:39 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Athens
Age: 47
Posts: 1,671
Rep Power: 133 
According to this page http://www.accelerationtimes.com/#02...&458da861dbf7c , you are beating stock 997turbo by 0.1sec (or your 100-200km/h performance is equal), right?
You are heavier, with less torque and power in power/torque curves than a stock 997turbo, BUT you still manage to reach its performance??
Also, as you can see, the stock M3 E92 100-200km/h performance is almost 11sec. Guess what... Wooow the almighty madsex343 improved the stock M3 E92 time by 2.7sec only with tune and exhaust!!
Come on, wake up or... tell the truth once in your life.
Peace
You are heavier, with less torque and power in power/torque curves than a stock 997turbo, BUT you still manage to reach its performance??
Also, as you can see, the stock M3 E92 100-200km/h performance is almost 11sec. Guess what... Wooow the almighty madsex343 improved the stock M3 E92 time by 2.7sec only with tune and exhaust!!
Come on, wake up or... tell the truth once in your life.
Peace
?
#649
12-04-2011, 01:20 PM
It seems like yoy are new in this forum and dont know the way each time is verified...every accel time posted in this forum is verified by mods that use the bdn file to examine slope,shifts so to be sure the time is real...your first post in this forum finds you very negative to madsex343 times...did he pass you with a porsche during the past?
?He signed up here to this forum that we have been (esteemed I like to think) members since 2007, ONLY to make his first post about me...
One could make several assumptions here, but I assure you guys: I AM AN ENGAGED MAN AND HAVE NEVER EVER PLAYED WITH ANOTHER MAN'S WOMAN....
p.s. it is not my fault my good friend with the GTR that you bought a car that a.you do not like and b.could not keep up with my 997tt...get over it for god's sake...
Now if you have any objections with my M3 time you can take it up with the moderators that have verified the times: Divextreme, Mbailey and Pencilgeek from M3post!
#650
12-04-2011, 01:36 PM
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Istanbul Turkey
Posts: 536
Rep Power: 47 According to this page http://www.accelerationtimes.com/#02...&458da861dbf7c , you are beating stock 997turbo by 0.1sec (or your 100-200km/h performance is equal), right?
You are heavier, with less torque and power in power/torque curves than a stock 997turbo, BUT you still manage to reach its performance??
Also, as you can see, the stock M3 E92 100-200km/h performance is almost 11sec. Guess what... Wooow the almighty madsex343 improved the stock M3 E92 time by 2.7sec only with tune and exhaust!!
Come on, wake up or... tell the truth once in your life.
Peace
You are heavier, with less torque and power in power/torque curves than a stock 997turbo, BUT you still manage to reach its performance??
Also, as you can see, the stock M3 E92 100-200km/h performance is almost 11sec. Guess what... Wooow the almighty madsex343 improved the stock M3 E92 time by 2.7sec only with tune and exhaust!!
Come on, wake up or... tell the truth once in your life.
Peace
With 1 post only, you have to go away and stop the BS!
Did Madsex beat your GTRRR?
#652
12-26-2011, 02:25 AM
I subscribed to this thread as it was nice to see how tunes pump the car up, but lately I think the values posted are getting REALLY HARD to believe. I am not trying to put anyone down here, but just trying to understand.
The basis for my statement is this:
Bugatti Veyron 100-200 5,8s
Panamera Turbo S 8,1s
Formula 1 car 2,7s
Pescarolo Judd 3,7s
Hayabusa 4,6s
Now people are posting 3 second times here, which are twice as faster as a Bugatti Veyron and equal that of a Formula 1 car and beat a race car?
Here is a Switzer 997 Turbo R900 =4.9s
G-Power E92 M3 (600Hp) =8.0s
Techart GT STreet 6,5s
Sportec GT2 SP 750 5,5s
9ff BT2 800 5,6s
9ff BT 1000 4WD 5,0s
Why arent any mags even with 1000bhp getting these kinds of results?
Why are these results so hard for me to believe...
The basis for my statement is this:
Bugatti Veyron 100-200 5,8s
Panamera Turbo S 8,1s
Formula 1 car 2,7s
Pescarolo Judd 3,7s
Hayabusa 4,6s
Now people are posting 3 second times here, which are twice as faster as a Bugatti Veyron and equal that of a Formula 1 car and beat a race car?
Here is a Switzer 997 Turbo R900 =4.9s
G-Power E92 M3 (600Hp) =8.0s
Techart GT STreet 6,5s
Sportec GT2 SP 750 5,5s
9ff BT2 800 5,6s
9ff BT 1000 4WD 5,0s
Why arent any mags even with 1000bhp getting these kinds of results?
Why are these results so hard for me to believe...
Last edited by kip; 12-26-2011 at 06:06 AM.
#657
12-26-2011, 06:07 AM
ANYONE care to clarify????? 
I subscribed to this thread as it was nice to see how tunes pump the car up, but lately I think the values posted are getting REALLY HARD to believe. I am not trying to put anyone down here, but just trying to understand.
The basis for my statement is this:
Bugatti Veyron 100-200 5,8s
Panamera Turbo S 8,1s
Formula 1 car 2,7s
Pescarolo Judd 3,7s
Hayabusa 4,6s
Now people are posting 3 second times here, which are twice as faster as a Bugatti Veyron and equal that of a Formula 1 car and beat a race car?
Here is a Switzer 997 Turbo R900 =4.9s
G-Power E92 M3 (600Hp) =8.0s
Techart GT STreet 6,5s
Sportec GT2 SP 750 5,5s
9ff BT2 800 5,6s
9ff BT 1000 4WD 5,0s
Why arent any mags even with 1000bhp getting these kinds of results?
Why are these results so hard for me to believe...
The basis for my statement is this:
Bugatti Veyron 100-200 5,8s
Panamera Turbo S 8,1s
Formula 1 car 2,7s
Pescarolo Judd 3,7s
Hayabusa 4,6s
Now people are posting 3 second times here, which are twice as faster as a Bugatti Veyron and equal that of a Formula 1 car and beat a race car?
Here is a Switzer 997 Turbo R900 =4.9s
G-Power E92 M3 (600Hp) =8.0s
Techart GT STreet 6,5s
Sportec GT2 SP 750 5,5s
9ff BT2 800 5,6s
9ff BT 1000 4WD 5,0s
Why arent any mags even with 1000bhp getting these kinds of results?
Why are these results so hard for me to believe...
#658
12-26-2011, 06:14 AM
It's been a long time, but i remember it was around 15 degrees celcius.
No brake boosting, started in 2nd gear.
No brake boosting, started in 2nd gear.
#659
12-26-2011, 07:03 AM
Kip,
My best 100-200 is 5.8' with pumpgas, no wind, no decline, (poor time here), my 997.1TT was dynoed 660hp/900Nm and 1560kg and killed almost all what it met today, only been killed by a Saleen S7R on the straight line of Le Mans track... (a true racing car came by truck)
Your comparison is nice, learning me new times, but remember guys here speak about "only" 100-200, that means they manage everything to improve this lonely time:
-we select our best starting gear after several tests vs you take your 100-200 times from an 0-300 accel where more gears are shifted, loosing precious and inutile time for the 100-200 range. (during a standing mile the 100-200 range needs to shift 2-3 and 3-4 where we shift only 3-4 or sometimes no gear at all, all in 4rth)
-some use race gas
-some use brake boost from 60kph to load at maximum the turbos
-some do it in a little decline...
-some do it with rear wind...
-some have other secrets...
-or all that mixed...
So you can't directly compare with your times from standing miles accels.
My best Standing Mile is 27.21' at 307kph trap speed and my 100-200 from this run is only about 6.8', remember, my best is 5.8' and consistent 6.0'...
Hope this helps...
P.
My best 100-200 is 5.8' with pumpgas, no wind, no decline, (poor time here), my 997.1TT was dynoed 660hp/900Nm and 1560kg and killed almost all what it met today, only been killed by a Saleen S7R on the straight line of Le Mans track... (a true racing car came by truck)
Your comparison is nice, learning me new times, but remember guys here speak about "only" 100-200, that means they manage everything to improve this lonely time:
-we select our best starting gear after several tests vs you take your 100-200 times from an 0-300 accel where more gears are shifted, loosing precious and inutile time for the 100-200 range. (during a standing mile the 100-200 range needs to shift 2-3 and 3-4 where we shift only 3-4 or sometimes no gear at all, all in 4rth)
-some use race gas
-some use brake boost from 60kph to load at maximum the turbos
-some do it in a little decline...
-some do it with rear wind...
-some have other secrets...
-or all that mixed...
So you can't directly compare with your times from standing miles accels.
My best Standing Mile is 27.21' at 307kph trap speed and my 100-200 from this run is only about 6.8', remember, my best is 5.8' and consistent 6.0'...
Hope this helps...
P.
#660
12-26-2011, 01:44 PM
Kip,
My best 100-200 is 5.8' with pumpgas, no wind, no decline, (poor time here), my 997.1TT was dynoed 660hp/900Nm and 1560kg and killed almost all what it met today, only been killed by a Saleen S7R on the straight line of Le Mans track... (a true racing car came by truck)
Your comparison is nice, learning me new times, but remember guys here speak about "only" 100-200, that means they manage everything to improve this lonely time:
-we select our best starting gear after several tests vs you take your 100-200 times from an 0-300 accel where more gears are shifted, loosing precious and inutile time for the 100-200 range. (during a standing mile the 100-200 range needs to shift 2-3 and 3-4 where we shift only 3-4 or sometimes no gear at all, all in 4rth)
-some use race gas
-some use brake boost from 60kph to load at maximum the turbos
-some do it in a little decline...
-some do it with rear wind...
-some have other secrets...
-or all that mixed...
So you can't directly compare with your times from standing miles accels.
My best Standing Mile is 27.21' at 307kph trap speed and my 100-200 from this run is only about 6.8', remember, my best is 5.8' and consistent 6.0'...
Hope this helps...
P.
My best 100-200 is 5.8' with pumpgas, no wind, no decline, (poor time here), my 997.1TT was dynoed 660hp/900Nm and 1560kg and killed almost all what it met today, only been killed by a Saleen S7R on the straight line of Le Mans track... (a true racing car came by truck)
Your comparison is nice, learning me new times, but remember guys here speak about "only" 100-200, that means they manage everything to improve this lonely time:
-we select our best starting gear after several tests vs you take your 100-200 times from an 0-300 accel where more gears are shifted, loosing precious and inutile time for the 100-200 range. (during a standing mile the 100-200 range needs to shift 2-3 and 3-4 where we shift only 3-4 or sometimes no gear at all, all in 4rth)
-some use race gas
-some use brake boost from 60kph to load at maximum the turbos
-some do it in a little decline...
-some do it with rear wind...
-some have other secrets...
-or all that mixed...
So you can't directly compare with your times from standing miles accels.
My best Standing Mile is 27.21' at 307kph trap speed and my 100-200 from this run is only about 6.8', remember, my best is 5.8' and consistent 6.0'...
Hope this helps...
P.