ive driven both and i completely agree, the 996tt seemed like it would torch the 997 S in torque only. but the debate is w/ the new tech of the 997 S and maybe better gearing, it could keep up better than most expect. i think that 5-60 mph is the real world acceleration we all want and appreciate (this case the 996tt would be the winner).

but R&T comes out w/ some published numbers, and one has to wonder. i was just "wow'ed" that under certain conditions/better driver, the 997 S actually posted a better 1/4 mile #. didnt think it was actually possible. see orig post 12.3 vs 12.4, in favor of the 997 S.

in any case, appreciate all the comments. my 1st week here at 6speedonline and you guys rock!!!!

 

I have to agree with you, having a FAT torque band kicking in suddenly (as with a TT 911) definitely contributes majorly in the "seat of the pants" FEEL of acceleration in a very bias way, making the car FEEL faster than it really is. Conversly, a linear N/A type powerband thats progressive actually accelerates you faster than you actual FEEL you're going. I believe this phenomenon is exactly whats going on between these two cars. A standard TT (if anything at all) may have a "slight" straight line advantage over a Carrera S. (may even get beatin' e.t. wise in the 1/4 "sometimes" by the carrera s). But if you jumped from one car to the other you would be thinking to yourself "what the heck, this TT feels much quicker." I also think the Carrera S with the X51 option would actually beat a standard TT everytime.

---Kevin


PS: ...all this is comparing stock-to-stock of course, once you dip into aftermark mods/chips and what have you its a whole other story.

 

All things being equal...I think the X51 would be a very good race for a 996 GT3, but still *slightly* slower than a TT.

Has one been performance tested yet?

 

You hit the nail on the head. It's very easy to be fooled by "butt dyno" readings that are heavily influenced by torque. The F430 and the GT2 run basically wheel-to-wheel but the GT2 *feels* faster. I'm sure the same applies to the TT and 997S.

Gary

 

This is not really true on the twin turbos as the toque comes on early. The older single turbo cars had the more violent thump due to the lag. The 996TT is at torque in the 2000s and much earlier than the 997S. The accelleration is hard throughout now, unlike Turbos of old.

The C2s are easier launch. I can probably get a whacked out reading like a low 4s in a C2 by doing what I call feathering the clutch. This cannot really be done on the AWD system in the turbo and I have old post from two or three years ago on rennlist talking about the shift points and exactly how to do this. Again, this will absolutely fry your clutch and there is fine line between just lcutch slip and doing it correct.

I fried a clutch in a 996 C2 with less than 4,000 miles on it trying to get 0 - 60s in the 4.4 to 4.5 range which I did a couple of times. The idea is to dump the clutch at about 4k and the split second before the clutch completely engages, but after it initiates engaging, hammer it when the clutch is abgout 80 to 90 percent engaged. The engine stays in the power band and hoovers around 5k RPM and steadily increases without anywheel spin or hop and never dips out of power. The problem is that the clutch is slipping and continues to slip ever so slightly until everything hooks up at close to the red line.

The key is not to much slip and absolutely no wheel spin while keeping the engine in the power and completely above 5k. It produces a strange sensation on takeoff and will yeild unreal 0 - 60 times. It will also absolutely kill the clutch quickly.

I fried two clutches on one of my older C2s in just a couple of months doing stuff like this back when we were rebuilding and experimenting with a stand alone fuel management system. I dynoed on numerous occassions after major changes, but we would go out and run 10 G-Tech or so when just changing out different exhaust combinations, intakes, and different chips before I went to the stand alone with more tuning points. To much of a pain to dyno after every little change.

 

This is such De Ja Vu between SC 330's and a stock M3 on e46fanatics

 

Let's see if all of us can be a little less subjective and more objective about this. If someone out there with a 996TT has a horsepower and torque chart, please post it. I can post the horsepower and torque charts for the 997S and X51. The X51 has more HP and more torque than a standard S at every RPM level (and HP and Torque increase all the way to 7,200, unlike a standard 997S, which is why they need to be distinguished). Also, if someone has a R&T with the MPH/Gear chart, I'd like to see it (TT and TT-S).

If someone our there in OC has a 996TT or 996TTS, and a place to run them, I'm game. I'm not game for street racing, though (now mandatory jail time).

It's a good discussion, but bold statements don't mean much without some supporting information.

p.s. I will swap cars for a test drive with a 996TT or 996TT-S. It could be cool and an eye opener for someone. Better yet, get all 4 cars together.

 

Here are some graphs at EVO site. Looks like 300 torque at the wheels is achieved on the TT at 3k RPMs where as about 225 is available on the 997S at 3k RPMs. More telling is the disparity at 3,600 RPMs where the TT looks to be 397 where as the 997S is at 225 and stays at 225 until about 4,300 RPMs.

A difference of 172 pounds is huge. The baseline 997 has about 210 torque at 3k RPMs.

I have tweaked my fair share of NA Porsche engines with various mods and the addition of another 25 hp and torque on top of base line numbers generally does not make a dramatic difference. The biggest diferences for accelleration purposes are usually made by increasing the area under the torque curve and this may come at the expense of upper rev hp on the NA flat sixes, at least it did at a point on the older air cooleds.

http://www.evoms.com/p996tt%20tuning%20L4.htm

http://www.evoms.com/997%20sc%20page.htm

Have you spent much time in 993TTs or 996TTs? I have not driven your car, but I think we would need to see more than an additional of 25 to 30 hp to make a dramatic difference in the baseline 997Ss I have driven (only 2).

I think launching is more a problem for the AWD TTs and the C2s are much easier to launch. The gearing in the TT is too short and they seem to have an electronic safety net built in to keep from murdering the drivetrain when hammering it from a dead stop. The AWD definitely hooks up though once under way.

 

And with that you have hit the nail on the head.

Some people buy sports cars based the car's stopwatch performance numbers...that is the "holy grail" to them. I have no problem with that; however, since I don't track my Turbo, and also refrain from street racing, the "stopwatch" numbers and/or the track/street racing results are not my primary consideration when deciding what sports car to buy. What's most important to me is how the car delivers the "driving experience", and considering that criteria, the Turbo wins hands down over the 997S (and any other sports car other than some of the Ferraris). A close friend has a modified Vette and a modified 280Z. The 280Z is loud a viseral - the Vette is more refined (relative). Although slower on the stopwatch, the 280Z is much more fun to drive, and "feels" faster than the Vette.

 

That's true, but what I was really referring to was the effect of a turbo or other hi-torque car making its power over a shorter rev span vs a high rpm n.a. motor. The same amount of accelerative force is being applied, but the hi-torque motor makes it over a short rev span, and feels faster because of that.

Gary

 

Around this board majority of the guys seem to be interested in straight line speed and bodykits... well I can't complain (driving a modded 996 turbo ).

Anyway about "the Turbo spanking the 997S" ...how many have raced 997S at the track? With a good driver even a basic 997 is quite fast!

Horst von Saurma (from Sport Auto, www.track-challenge.com) drove the Hockenheim with these times:

996 Turbo: 1.14.6
997 Carrera S: 1.14.3

At the 'Ring the Turbo was 9 secs faster...