C6Z06 Intake and Tune compared to 996tt
#316
02-07-2009, 10:18 AM
I gave you positive rep.
On accident.
This is one time where your numbers will fail you. The 996 TT weighed 3495 lbs almost 400 lbs more with nearly the same hp and torque. So what was that about the numbers never lying again?
996 TT - 415 hp , 415 tq 3495 lbs
2003 + Z06 - 405 hp, 400 tq 3118 lbs
Both are under-rated
Both run mid-low 12's at ~115 mph with a decent driver
Both run high 11's at between 116-118 with a very good driver.
Never seen any track comparos, but I imagine it would be pretty close.
I agree that they are pretty much identical though. But I give the edge to the TT, and easily the X-50. But it's obvious the Porsche has a much better power curve making lots of power down low. I think the aero is better on the TT as well.
On accident.
This is one time where your numbers will fail you. The 996 TT weighed 3495 lbs almost 400 lbs more with nearly the same hp and torque. So what was that about the numbers never lying again?
996 TT - 415 hp , 415 tq 3495 lbs
2003 + Z06 - 405 hp, 400 tq 3118 lbs
Both are under-rated
Both run mid-low 12's at ~115 mph with a decent driver
Both run high 11's at between 116-118 with a very good driver.
Never seen any track comparos, but I imagine it would be pretty close.
I agree that they are pretty much identical though. But I give the edge to the TT, and easily the X-50. But it's obvious the Porsche has a much better power curve making lots of power down low. I think the aero is better on the TT as well.
No, it can't die. LOL
What did a 2001 996TT put down to the wheels in stock form?
If I recall right and even in 2001, the Z weighed in at a little over 3100 pounds and put down 360 to 365 to the wheels which show they were underrated for 2001 BHP numbers hence bumped to the 405 the following years.
Doesn't 996TT in stock form weigh in a little more than 3300 lbs?
I would think with the numbers and weights they are very close in a straight line from a stop. AWD Porsche is making up for the weight down low. All said and done, two different animals being compared and by saying one is quicker than the other is a bit overboard in my opinion. Even comparing 2001 years and 385 to 415 BHP... the difference at the wheels and weights and the numbers are right on top of each other for straight line performance.
Just my useless 2 cents of course.
And what's up with people giving me a bad rep for stating facts. Shaking my fist at this board.
What did a 2001 996TT put down to the wheels in stock form?
If I recall right and even in 2001, the Z weighed in at a little over 3100 pounds and put down 360 to 365 to the wheels which show they were underrated for 2001 BHP numbers hence bumped to the 405 the following years.
Doesn't 996TT in stock form weigh in a little more than 3300 lbs?
I would think with the numbers and weights they are very close in a straight line from a stop. AWD Porsche is making up for the weight down low. All said and done, two different animals being compared and by saying one is quicker than the other is a bit overboard in my opinion. Even comparing 2001 years and 385 to 415 BHP... the difference at the wheels and weights and the numbers are right on top of each other for straight line performance.
Just my useless 2 cents of course.
And what's up with people giving me a bad rep for stating facts. Shaking my fist at this board.
#317
02-07-2009, 10:44 AM
That's messed up!
Actually about the numbers not lying... I did mention the fact that the AWD helps the Porsche make up for the numbers in comparison with the weight difference.
By the way, where did you get the weights? For 2001 they list the Z at 3130 and the P car at 3395.
Actually about the numbers not lying... I did mention the fact that the AWD helps the Porsche make up for the numbers in comparison with the weight difference.
By the way, where did you get the weights? For 2001 they list the Z at 3130 and the P car at 3395.
I gave you positive rep.
On accident.
This is one time where your numbers will fail you. The 996 TT weighed 3495 lbs almost 400 lbs more with nearly the same hp and torque. So what was that about the numbers never lying again?
996 TT - 415 hp , 415 tq 3495 lbs
2003 + Z06 - 405 hp, 400 tq 3118 lbs
Both are under-rated
Both run mid-low 12's at ~115 mph with a decent driver
Both run high 11's at between 116-118 with a very good driver.
Never seen any track comparos, but I imagine it would be pretty close.
I agree that they are pretty much identical though. But I give the edge to the TT, and easily the X-50. But it's obvious the Porsche has a much better power curve making lots of power down low. I think the aero is better on the TT as well.
On accident.
This is one time where your numbers will fail you. The 996 TT weighed 3495 lbs almost 400 lbs more with nearly the same hp and torque. So what was that about the numbers never lying again?
996 TT - 415 hp , 415 tq 3495 lbs
2003 + Z06 - 405 hp, 400 tq 3118 lbs
Both are under-rated
Both run mid-low 12's at ~115 mph with a decent driver
Both run high 11's at between 116-118 with a very good driver.
Never seen any track comparos, but I imagine it would be pretty close.
I agree that they are pretty much identical though. But I give the edge to the TT, and easily the X-50. But it's obvious the Porsche has a much better power curve making lots of power down low. I think the aero is better on the TT as well.
Last edited by Almo; 02-07-2009 at 11:03 AM.
#319
02-07-2009, 11:09 AM
LOL, my bad that wasn't you, it was the other guy, the new guy that's acting like a T#### . I don't dish out neg. rep for differing opinions, just ignorance. You seem to be ok.
I guess it would be interesting to see the two from a roll race where traction is not an issue for the Z06. The 996 TT is hard to launch for the majority of people but is easy to get a 2.0 60' out of. I still think they are virtually even though roll, and all. The AWD will hurt the TT after 100 but the Z06 to have such a small frontal area is not that great in Cd.
Anyone have a vid of this. Has to have happened by now. Stock C5Z vs Stock 996 TT from a roll.
I guess it would be interesting to see the two from a roll race where traction is not an issue for the Z06. The 996 TT is hard to launch for the majority of people but is easy to get a 2.0 60' out of. I still think they are virtually even though roll, and all. The AWD will hurt the TT after 100 but the Z06 to have such a small frontal area is not that great in Cd.
Anyone have a vid of this. Has to have happened by now. Stock C5Z vs Stock 996 TT from a roll.
That's messed up!
Actually about the numbers not lying... I did mention the fact that the AWD helps the Porsche make up for the numbers in comparison with the weight difference.
By the way, where did you get the weights? For 2001 they list the Z at 3130 and the P car at 3395.
Actually about the numbers not lying... I did mention the fact that the AWD helps the Porsche make up for the numbers in comparison with the weight difference.
By the way, where did you get the weights? For 2001 they list the Z at 3130 and the P car at 3395.
#320
02-07-2009, 11:19 AM
That's messed up!
Actually about the numbers not lying... I did mention the fact that the AWD helps the Porsche make up for the numbers in comparison with the weight difference.
By the way, where did you get the weights? For 2001 they list the Z at 3130 and the P car at 3395.
Actually about the numbers not lying... I did mention the fact that the AWD helps the Porsche make up for the numbers in comparison with the weight difference.
By the way, where did you get the weights? For 2001 they list the Z at 3130 and the P car at 3395.
I could be mistaken but both weights are correct as I have seen them both listed. My guess is that the 3495 weight might be tiptronic maybe? but 3395 might be manual?
#322
02-08-2009, 03:42 PM
11/2000 motor trend shows curb weight of manual 996 turbo to be 3395 lbs. Road and track in 11/2000 shows test weight of a 996tt to be 3600 lbs, includes fuel and driver. Both were manual cars.
Car and driver 8/2005 shows curb weight of 996tt Cabriolet to be 3840 lbs supposedly a manual car.
2/2005 Car and Driver lists the Curb weight of the ZO6 at 3150 lbs
So there is a 245 lbs difference between a manual 996tt and ZO6.
I am sure these weights came from the manufacturer except the RT test weight.
Car and driver 8/2005 shows curb weight of 996tt Cabriolet to be 3840 lbs supposedly a manual car.
2/2005 Car and Driver lists the Curb weight of the ZO6 at 3150 lbs
So there is a 245 lbs difference between a manual 996tt and ZO6.
I am sure these weights came from the manufacturer except the RT test weight.
#323
02-08-2009, 04:16 PM
That weight for the manual must be a misprint. I'm fairly sure the 996 TT manual is 3495 and the tiptronic is well into the 3500's. The press release for the 997 TT said they were able to trim a few lbs off, like 3475 or something.
3395 cannot be right. I'd bet money there isnt a stock 996 TT that's weighed anywhere near that number.
Go look at the turbo weight list and you'll see guys with pretty extensive weight reduction mod lists that are barely under 3395.
My first time weighing my car with sport seats, lighter exhaust, and all the stuff (mats etc.) removed was 3450. Unless that was a dry weight Porsche posted, it's false.
Manalex weighed his car it was like 3600 lbs and it's a manual. Al norton has sunroof delete and his car was heavier than mine at one point with pretty much the same weight reduction stuff.
3395 cannot be right. I'd bet money there isnt a stock 996 TT that's weighed anywhere near that number.
Go look at the turbo weight list and you'll see guys with pretty extensive weight reduction mod lists that are barely under 3395.
My first time weighing my car with sport seats, lighter exhaust, and all the stuff (mats etc.) removed was 3450. Unless that was a dry weight Porsche posted, it's false.
Manalex weighed his car it was like 3600 lbs and it's a manual. Al norton has sunroof delete and his car was heavier than mine at one point with pretty much the same weight reduction stuff.
Last edited by heavychevy; 02-08-2009 at 04:29 PM.
#324
02-08-2009, 04:34 PM
These are pictures are of my 2003 911 Turbo Owners Manual. 1 pic is of the left side of the page showing the description, right side pic is the corresponding weight values. In black and white.
#326
02-08-2009, 05:04 PM
The book, not surprisingly, doesn't specify. The previous page shows capacities, but no weights for fluids. I would ASSUME, (yeah, I know) that these are wet weights with no fuel?
My car is completely stock, full weight. With me in it, it weighs 3630. I weighed 190 and had a little less than 1/4 of a tank when I weighed it. 3630 minus 190 is 3440. 3440 minus 3395 is 45. 45 divided by 8lb's? a gallon = 51/2 gallons or so? Pretty close? Just trying to help...
#328
02-08-2009, 05:30 PM
The book, not surprisingly, doesn't specify. The previous page shows capacities, but no weights for fluids. I would ASSUME, (yeah, I know) that these are wet weights with no fuel?
My car is completely stock, full weight. With me in it, it weighs 3630. I weighed 190 and had a little less than 1/4 of a tank when I weighed it. 3630 minus 190 is 3440. 3440 minus 3395 is 45. 45 divided by 8lb's? a gallon = 51/2 gallons or so? Pretty close? Just trying to help...
My car is completely stock, full weight. With me in it, it weighs 3630. I weighed 190 and had a little less than 1/4 of a tank when I weighed it. 3630 minus 190 is 3440. 3440 minus 3395 is 45. 45 divided by 8lb's? a gallon = 51/2 gallons or so? Pretty close? Just trying to help...
#329
02-08-2009, 05:33 PM
The book, not surprisingly, doesn't specify. The previous page shows capacities, but no weights for fluids. I would ASSUME, (yeah, I know) that these are wet weights with no fuel?
My car is completely stock, full weight. With me in it, it weighs 3630. I weighed 190 and had a little less than 1/4 of a tank when I weighed it. 3630 minus 190 is 3440. 3440 minus 3395 is 45. 45 divided by 8lb's? a gallon = 51/2 gallons or so? Pretty close? Just trying to help...
My car is completely stock, full weight. With me in it, it weighs 3630. I weighed 190 and had a little less than 1/4 of a tank when I weighed it. 3630 minus 190 is 3440. 3440 minus 3395 is 45. 45 divided by 8lb's? a gallon = 51/2 gallons or so? Pretty close? Just trying to help...
Here is my weight reduction list, everything has actually been weighed vs the stock parts except the tires.
Straight pipes - 42 lbs
Rear Seats - 22
Sachs clutch and 964 lwfw - 19 lbs
GT2 decklid - 10 lbs
Battery PC 680 - 37 lbs
Interior mats/spare etc. - 40 lbs
Sub - 12 lbs
1 Race Seat - 78 lbs
Yoko Advan slicks -12 lbs (guess)
Total 272 lbs
- GMG roll cage (35 lbs)
- 1/4 tank (20 lbs)
Adjusted total 217 lbs
Car weighed 3247 + 217 = 3467, and the sunroof delete wont save all that much weight (so about 35 lbs or so). A full tank of gas is only worth about 80 lbs and my weight accounts for empty.
Did you weigh on corner scales or truck scales?
My car weighed 3247 on corner scales.
Maybe an empty (gas) car, and no spare.
3495
-78 lbs (gas)
- 2X lbs ( no spare)
Still a pile of crap from Porsche, they are always full of it when it comes to weight of the cars. Who drives without gas? And what else did they take out to make that weight make sense? Had to be something other than gas.
Last edited by heavychevy; 02-08-2009 at 05:38 PM.
#330
02-08-2009, 05:40 PM
I agree it's way too heavy for a little dinky car, but I guess thats why it's solid and doesn't squeak and creak like every chevy I have ever owned
And I am a chevy guy...I just like Porsches too...
And I am a chevy guy...I just like Porsches too...