Every car magazine I've come across has tested the new 911 S, but I haven't seen any published independent magazine tests of the standard 911 Carrerra (non-S).

Porsche claims 0-60mph in 4.8 seconds for their cheapest 911 (the 911 S takes 4.6 seconds according to Porsche).

In Canada, the base 911 Carrera costs $104300 Cdn dollars, while the 911 Carrera S costs $119000, which is quite a jump in price!!

Not many people seem to talk about the base car also. I get the impression that you shouldn't even consider getting the standard Carrera if you get a 911.

Does anyone know of any independent tests of the standard 997 C2 (acceleration/handling numbers)?

 

Not enough difference to notice, in terms of speed. There are some limits to the 3.6L, such as no PSE (as I understand it, anyway). PASM is an option; it is standard on the S.

The 997C2 is a great car. I drove one for 10 months before getting a Club Coupe.

 

Maybe it is just me, but the way I see it is if you are going to spend $100k on a car then the last thing you want to do is regret not getting the S. Afterall, have you ever heard of anyone complaining that the s is too much or downgrading to the regular carrera? Whereas on the other hand it seems like a ton of guys upgrade to the s from the base carrera.

 

i think the standard carrera is a bit underpowered. drove a friend's recently and was not very impressed. get the S.

 

or get a standard 997 and get a GIAC chip flash and an EVO V-Flow intake.

you're power will be very close to the S model with more throttle response than the Sports Chrono provides. $1500 vs. $10k.

passenger stopwatch 0-60 @ 4.42 seconds in a 997 C4 with the above mods.

 

Considering the extra weight of the pasenger that's pretty darn good.

 

get the S. you might find a used one and then the price difference shouldn't mean much. Plus you get cool red brakes!!

 

The only C2 coupe road test that I can recall was this article about a year ago in CAR & DRIVER magazine pitting the regular 2005 C2 coupe vs. 2005 C6 Corvette. The C2 is no slouch. C&D did their usual drivetrain-abusing zero-to-sixty run, yielding 4.3 seconds for the C2.

(link to full article at the end of this post) -- an excerpt:

".... both of these cars are fantastic curve carvers. On the street, though, the nod goes to the 911.
We never found a patch of road that gave us even a whiff of that "Oh, %#$@!" feeling that precedes some type of midcorner correction or wheel sawing. Editor-at-large Pat Bedard calls this "path accuracy." At speed, how accurately can you place the car? With the 911, the answer is in fractions of an inch; with the Vette, it's in inches. This feeling likely is why the 911 went through the cones of our lane-change test 1.1 mph faster than the Vette. You can plant this car anywhere.
Although we were initially skeptical of the 911's variable-ratio steering, we're believers now. The ratio quickens the farther you turn the wheel, but you don't notice it. The effort is light, but the steering is wonderfully accurate.
Bumps have no effect on trajectory. The 911's suspension is nicely supple and not the least bit floaty. It's a lot like the suspenders of the BMW 3-series that we like so much. The 911 suspension is stiff enough to keep the chassis movements to a minimum and communicate irregularities to the driver but also resilient enough to absorb bumps and cushion blows. The 911 pulled 0.97 g on the skidpad, a tick less than the Vette's 0.98, but in every subjective handling category except one, the 911 outscored the Vette.
It also trailed the Vette in every speed contest except top-gear acceleration, where the Vette's hugely tall top gear puts the Chevy at a disadvantage. You have to grin and bear the gut-wrenching, axle-hopping launch to make the Porsche go its quickest, but the 911 seems to outperform its spec sheet. The power-to-weight ratio is 23 percent poorer than the Vette's, but the 911's rear weight bias keeps things close until speeds rise. At 60 mph, the Porsche's 4.3-second time is only 0.2 second slower than the Vette's, but at 150, the gap is 3.5 seconds."

Link to the entire article:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8774