GT2 or GT3
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 490
Rep Power: 64
Originally posted by rockitman
There have been some recent defections from GT2 to GT3. They are different cars and to say one is superior to the other is wrong. Interesting how most bigtime racing invloves NA cars and not turbo cars. Linear acceleration through the rpm range is the hallmark of NA, not turbo...That is a preferred characteristic for going fast, safely...
There have been some recent defections from GT2 to GT3. They are different cars and to say one is superior to the other is wrong. Interesting how most bigtime racing invloves NA cars and not turbo cars. Linear acceleration through the rpm range is the hallmark of NA, not turbo...That is a preferred characteristic for going fast, safely...
With this type of logic, I guess the 917-30 was a mistake for Porsche
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,351
From: New York
Rep Power: 298
Originally posted by 0396
Rockitman,
With this type of logic, I guess the 917-30 was a mistake for Porsche
Rockitman,
With this type of logic, I guess the 917-30 was a mistake for Porsche
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 357
From: Santa Monica
Rep Power: 46
I have had both, the more that I drive the 3 the more I like it. NA is much better than a turbo for the type of driving that I like which is the track and canyons. The car is MUCH more nimble. The 2 is also a really fun car too.
Porsche Fiend
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,875
From: Malibu, CA
Rep Power: 139
Originally posted by rockitman
There have been some recent defections from GT2 to GT3. They are different cars and to say one is superior to the other is wrong. Interesting how most bigtime racing invloves NA cars and not turbo cars. Linear acceleration through the rpm range is the hallmark of NA, not turbo...That is a preferred characteristic for going fast, safely...
There have been some recent defections from GT2 to GT3. They are different cars and to say one is superior to the other is wrong. Interesting how most bigtime racing invloves NA cars and not turbo cars. Linear acceleration through the rpm range is the hallmark of NA, not turbo...That is a preferred characteristic for going fast, safely...
The current rules do not allow Porsche to produce a turbocharged flat 6 that will smoke the V8, V10, V12 competition in GTS without severe penalties.
Porsche Fiend
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,875
From: Malibu, CA
Rep Power: 139
Originally posted by Code Red
I have had both, the more that I drive the 3 the more I like it. NA is much better than a turbo for the type of driving that I like which is the track and canyons. The car is MUCH more nimble. The 2 is also a really fun car too.
I have had both, the more that I drive the 3 the more I like it. NA is much better than a turbo for the type of driving that I like which is the track and canyons. The car is MUCH more nimble. The 2 is also a really fun car too.
I don't think I can go from a GT2 to a GT3. Both are good, but the GT2 is the better car despite the fact that it's harder to drive fast. Nothing that a suspension geometry redo won't fix, albeit for big $$$.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,392
From: Way back in, New Zealand
Rep Power: 85
my current ratings for fun in the mountains, i n descending allure:
1- Ferrari CS -- the fastest overall on my roads - handling not power
2- GT2
3- RS Clone
4- GT3
if you lowered the gear ratios in GT3, it might move up to 2-, but it's too expensive.
1- Ferrari CS -- the fastest overall on my roads - handling not power
2- GT2
3- RS Clone
4- GT3
if you lowered the gear ratios in GT3, it might move up to 2-, but it's too expensive.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 357
From: Santa Monica
Rep Power: 46
Tyson, I hear what you are saying but trust me the 3 just feels so right, it is much easier to do the controlled slide type of driving the P cars are designed for. The 2 is a serious bomb of a ride but it isn't as good on a technical course so unless it is WSIR it just isn't as much fun. U should have come to the streets and used the skid pad U would understand what I mean.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,392
From: Way back in, New Zealand
Rep Power: 85
Originally posted by Hamann7
I bet you are faster uphill in the GT2 than the CS, especially on roads like Stunt.
I bet you are faster uphill in the GT2 than the CS, especially on roads like Stunt.
bottom to top of stunt, maybe the GT2 is faster, but bottom to top of piuma, the CS is faster
and as arling say: all ****** who go off cliff fall at same speed!!!
Porsche Fiend
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,875
From: Malibu, CA
Rep Power: 139
Watt are you pumping the CS market again?
My theory is that you think you're faster in the CS because it feels faster. The car is more visceral and involving, no doubt. But that doesn't mean it IS faster.
You should see the difference between GT2 and GT3 going uphill, the power and torque difference is quite noticeable.
A properly set up GT2 should not lose to a CS going uphill assuming same tires, period.
I can also assure you that the GT2 will fall over a cliff at a faster rate because it's a little heavier, and you are loading up a lot of G's (acceleration and letter) if you get to the point where the car lets go. Force=mass*acceleration, so Force/Mass=acceleration.
My theory is that you think you're faster in the CS because it feels faster. The car is more visceral and involving, no doubt. But that doesn't mean it IS faster.
You should see the difference between GT2 and GT3 going uphill, the power and torque difference is quite noticeable.
A properly set up GT2 should not lose to a CS going uphill assuming same tires, period.
I can also assure you that the GT2 will fall over a cliff at a faster rate because it's a little heavier, and you are loading up a lot of G's (acceleration and letter) if you get to the point where the car lets go. Force=mass*acceleration, so Force/Mass=acceleration.
Last edited by Hamann7; Feb 20, 2005 at 07:17 PM.