11.4 @ 127.5 Stock
I don't see how you can call a 997 GT2 a lazy drivethemselfmobile. It may have PSM and TC, but that's not what makes it easier to drive than the CGT. The CGT is a very, very difficult car to drive to fast. The new GT2 is friendlier to drive mainly because of all the new suspension kinematics from the GT3.
I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions until the car is out and we've had seat time in it. Mine should be coming soon. If I don't sell it, I'll let you know soon enough.
Sounds to me like it's an amazing car this GT2.
I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions until the car is out and we've had seat time in it. Mine should be coming soon. If I don't sell it, I'll let you know soon enough.
Sounds to me like it's an amazing car this GT2.
Can't wait to hear your impressions, 996 GT2 staying or selling?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 440
From: Washington State
Rep Power: 38
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 440
From: Washington State
Rep Power: 38
Looks like MotorTrend tested a Euro version of the car.
Does anyone know if the rollcage may have made a difference in the handling numbers generated in comparison to a US version without a rollcage? Example: greater torsional rigidity perhaps? Or would it even be measurable? Of course there is the weight of the rollcage itself...hmm.
Does anyone know if the rollcage may have made a difference in the handling numbers generated in comparison to a US version without a rollcage? Example: greater torsional rigidity perhaps? Or would it even be measurable? Of course there is the weight of the rollcage itself...hmm.
Looks like MotorTrend tested a Euro version of the car.
Does anyone know if the rollcage may have made a difference in the handling numbers generated in comparison to a US version without a rollcage? Example: greater torsional rigidity perhaps? Or would it even be measurable? Of course there is the weight of the rollcage itself...hmm.
Does anyone know if the rollcage may have made a difference in the handling numbers generated in comparison to a US version without a rollcage? Example: greater torsional rigidity perhaps? Or would it even be measurable? Of course there is the weight of the rollcage itself...hmm.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 444
Rep Power: 41
We need to see what a US car does on 91 octane CA gas. I bet there's a big difference.
BTW, the GT2 would be expected to be faster than the CGT under 60 MPH because it has more power at low RPM. After that, the CGT's extra power shows. From Motor Trend:
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4 (US gas?)
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9 (European gas?)
60 to 130 in the GT2 is about 8.2 sec.
60 to 130 in the CGT is about 7.3 sec... almost a full second difference.
Regardless, Porsche has shown that a much simpler car (i.e., GT2) can be nearly as fast (or faster) than a much more complex and expensive car (CGT).
BTW, the GT2 would be expected to be faster than the CGT under 60 MPH because it has more power at low RPM. After that, the CGT's extra power shows. From Motor Trend:
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4 (US gas?)
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9 (European gas?)
60 to 130 in the GT2 is about 8.2 sec.
60 to 130 in the CGT is about 7.3 sec... almost a full second difference.
Regardless, Porsche has shown that a much simpler car (i.e., GT2) can be nearly as fast (or faster) than a much more complex and expensive car (CGT).
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 444
Rep Power: 41
BTW, when all the hype is over, you'll find that the new GT2 MAY be a tad faster than the old Z06 in straight line. According to Motor Trend:
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9
Z06: 11.5 @ 127.1
So, you're going to have to wait for the next model to blow the old Z06 away in a straight line.. and then you'll need to mess with something else.
In the curves... that's another story.
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9
Z06: 11.5 @ 127.1
So, you're going to have to wait for the next model to blow the old Z06 away in a straight line.. and then you'll need to mess with something else.
In the curves... that's another story.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,245
From: CT
Rep Power: 289
We need to see what a US car does on 91 octane CA gas. I bet there's a big difference.
BTW, the GT2 would be expected to be faster than the CGT under 60 MPH because it has more power at low RPM. After that, the CGT's extra power shows. From Motor Trend:
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4 (US gas?)
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9 (European gas?)
60 to 130 in the GT2 is about 8.2 sec.
60 to 130 in the CGT is about 7.3 sec... almost a full second difference.
Regardless, Porsche has shown that a much simpler car (i.e., GT2) can be nearly as fast (or faster) than a much more complex and expensive car (CGT).
BTW, the GT2 would be expected to be faster than the CGT under 60 MPH because it has more power at low RPM. After that, the CGT's extra power shows. From Motor Trend:
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4 (US gas?)
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9 (European gas?)
60 to 130 in the GT2 is about 8.2 sec.
60 to 130 in the CGT is about 7.3 sec... almost a full second difference.
Regardless, Porsche has shown that a much simpler car (i.e., GT2) can be nearly as fast (or faster) than a much more complex and expensive car (CGT).
you also have to take into account all the new tehcnology there has been since the CGT...CGT is what 4-5 year old technology. plus youre talking about an NA engine verses a turbod one, and we all know, no one does turbos better than Porsche.
Porsche set the bar extremely high with the GT2 and GT3...i really hope they come out with the 1000 hp GT1...it will be akin to zeus or some other god.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,930
From: ga
Rep Power: 552
Why should we see what it does on the WORST gas in the country, what will that proove. US gas is better per rating than european gas anyways from what I've heard, so our lower rated octane is as good as higher rated octane in europe, this has been discussed in detail.
How do you know what the 60-130 for the GT2 is when there has been no such test.
I agree that the CGT is faster, but your use of information is a little flawed.
How do you know what the 60-130 for the GT2 is when there has been no such test.
I agree that the CGT is faster, but your use of information is a little flawed.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,930
From: ga
Rep Power: 552
BTW, when all the hype is over, you'll find that the new GT2 MAY be a tad faster than the old Z06 in straight line. According to Motor Trend:
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9
Z06: 11.5 @ 127.1
So, you're going to have to wait for the next model to blow the old Z06 away in a straight line.. and then you'll need to mess with something else.
In the curves... that's another story.
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9
Z06: 11.5 @ 127.1
So, you're going to have to wait for the next model to blow the old Z06 away in a straight line.. and then you'll need to mess with something else.
In the curves... that's another story.
Since when has any Porsche been great at drag racing? Even the TT has underachieved for being AWD. The 08 viper beat the Z06 barely in the 1/4 mile, but completely left it in high speed runs.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 444
Rep Power: 41
How do you know what the 60-130 for the GT2 is when there has been no such test.
0-128: 11.4... so 60 to 128 is 8 seconds; add .2 seconds to reach 130.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 566
From: Los Angeles
Rep Power: 47
We need to see what a US car does on 91 octane CA gas. I bet there's a big difference.
BTW, the GT2 would be expected to be faster than the CGT under 60 MPH because it has more power at low RPM. After that, the CGT's extra power shows. From Motor Trend:
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4 (US gas?)
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9 (European gas?)
60 to 130 in the GT2 is about 8.2 sec.
60 to 130 in the CGT is about 7.3 sec... almost a full second difference.
Regardless, Porsche has shown that a much simpler car (i.e., GT2) can be nearly as fast (or faster) than a much more complex and expensive car (CGT).
BTW, the GT2 would be expected to be faster than the CGT under 60 MPH because it has more power at low RPM. After that, the CGT's extra power shows. From Motor Trend:
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4 (US gas?)
GT2: 11.4 @ 127.9 (European gas?)
60 to 130 in the GT2 is about 8.2 sec.
60 to 130 in the CGT is about 7.3 sec... almost a full second difference.
Regardless, Porsche has shown that a much simpler car (i.e., GT2) can be nearly as fast (or faster) than a much more complex and expensive car (CGT).
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,930
From: ga
Rep Power: 552
60-130 doesnt work that way, faster times are usually not achieved in drag situations. So your equation is going to fall a little short.
Do you live in California? If not who cares. How about we run them at Altiitude where NA suffers more? You can find a weak spot for any type of car, so attmetping to do so for one and not the other is pointless.
Do you live in California? If not who cares. How about we run them at Altiitude where NA suffers more? You can find a weak spot for any type of car, so attmetping to do so for one and not the other is pointless.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,122
From: Ridgcrest Ca
Rep Power: 97
I owned both the 996 GT3 (in Manthey clothes) and this 997 GT3
you can make the 997 GT3 just as raw as the 6 GT3 just by setting the
suspension to sport. Its just as raw without all the bad habits(Tramlining)
you can make the 997 GT3 just as raw as the 6 GT3 just by setting the
suspension to sport. Its just as raw without all the bad habits(Tramlining)
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,930
From: ga
Rep Power: 552
You cant get the same feel. No doubt the 7 GT3 is more refined and faster, but for pure feel and rawness, the 996 GT3 blew me away, the 997 GT3 feels more Turboish, except for the sound and rev limiter. A sport button cant transvarse that gap.
Again this is just my opinion, not a known fact by any means.
Again this is just my opinion, not a known fact by any means.