I just read that the Black weighs over 3900lbs. I believe the 997TT is around 3600...

 

Based on - ahem - real world results the 996TT hangs with the E63 at fwy speeds plus.

 

yea the amg black weights over 3900 lbs and only ran a 12.6@112.X mph. to the original poster, if youre not familiar with porsche, a 997S is faster than that, in trap speed anyway!

 

C&D magazine tested the CLK63 Black in their August issue; 12.4 @ 116. 200-ft skidpad = .96 g. 70-0 braking, 161 ft. 0-150 in 23.1 seconds.

It's not quite a 997TT, but as C&D says "a formidable performer..." As AMG boss Volker Mornhinweg says "At the end of the day, it must still be a Mercedes". This refers to refinement, as well as muscle.

 

Lighter with respect to his E63 is what I meant. I think the Black edition is great, but for $130k Mercedes I would rather have an SL or CL63.

 

heres the one i saw from MT

<TABLE class=insettxt cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=1><TBODY><TR class=hdr><TD colSpan=2>TEST DATA </STRONG></TD></TR><TR class=hdr1><TD colSpan=2>Acceleration to mph </STRONG></TD></TR><TR><TD>0-30 </TD><TD>1.7 sec </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-40 </TD><TD>2.4 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-50 </TD><TD>3.2 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-60 </TD><TD>4.2 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-70 </TD><TD>5.4 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-80 </TD><TD>6.7 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-90 </TD><TD>8.2 </TD></TR><TR><TD>0-100 </TD><TD>10 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Passing, 45-65 mph </TD><TD>2 </TD></TR><TR><TD>Quarter mile </TD><TD>12.6 sec @ 112.6 mph </TD></TR><TR><TD>Braking, 60-0 mph </TD><TD>106 ft </TD></TR><TR><TD>Braking, 100-0 mph </TD><TD>306 ft </TD></TR><TR><TD>Lateral acceleration </TD><TD>0.95 g (avg) </TD></TR><TR><TD>MT figure eight </TD><TD>24.8 sec @ 0.78 g (avg) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Top-gear revs @ 60 mph </TD><TD>1800 rpm </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


i mean maybe its a bad test or C&D just thrashed their car more, but in terms of a 1/4 mile time, my M3 runs about that in terms of et and trap. obviously top end is a different story with that huge displacement v8 vs my I6.

 

Bill-S - it appears you are more into discrediting those who daily drive or weekend drive their 997TT's and know more than a butt-dyno what they have underneath their rears.

Take the AMG 63 hard into a corner and tell me that you worry about 60-120 when your slushbox is trying to find you salvation from physics. Yes I am in the BMW camp and Porsche Camp more so than AMG. I can respect all type of cars and their respective places in the market.

A lot of the data/feedback was presented to you - you come back with something else. Do they have a base to start with and a standard way to measure the times? How consistent are they and are they running side by side to show proof?

Paper racing as well as paper stats can't account for real world experience and real world stats. In the end that is what really matters.

Take the AMG63 and the 997TT(stock form) to a long track and let me know which one comes out on top.

My .2 cents

 

That's true, an M6 will slowly pull a 996 Turbo and the CLK is faster to 1/4 mile but I bet would be about even after 100 so the 996 Turbo would hang in there (i think) but that being said a stock 996 turbo is no match for a stock 997 turbo.

 

I suspect part of the reason for the post is the results of the Car & Driver test to determine the best street cars on the track. With respect to the 997TT, here are some of their comments;

"The lastest Porsche Turbo is terrific on the steet but disappointing on the track. The power is there but the car feels heavy and clumsy next to the 911GT3."

"The Turbo was a touch underwhelming, making us wonder where the model fits into the 911 range, now that the Carrera S is so good and the GT3 so much more extreme."

At the Virginis Racwway, a 4.2 mile track, the Z06 beat the 997TT by almost 8 sec. The Z06 beat the GT3 by 3 sec.

The point is that in the past when someone thought of Porsche Turbo the one thing that was undeniable that it was the fastest car on the street and track especially in its class. Today. for car magazines to find it dosappointing, clumsy, heavy and underwhelming is an indication that the model is probably better compared to heavy sedan with high hp. It is what it is.

 

I've driven all of these cars, so I kind of know how they perform (I currently own a Ruf 993 Turbo). I'm just trying to find out how fast the 997 TT really is. The last time I drove it it didn't feel very fast, and the latest US car tests are showing that. There just seems to be something wrong.

I guess my point is what's the definition of a fine GT and why is the 997 TT that much better a GT then some other cars out there, that are nearly as fast, but far more refined?

 

Yes. I agree. It's kind of turning into that kind of car. More refined, heavier, and slower. I suppose the GT3 is less refined, lighter and faster, and that's the "new" turbo.

 

A stock Turbo has always felt clumsy next to the comparable model GT3, while the Turbo has been dissapointing given it's pre launch title as a Z06 killer, it's not THAT bad to even be considered on the same level with a CLK63 or GT500 with it's handling capabilities and I still dont buy the R8 being faster especially being a car that's only a mid 12 sec car.


Once and for all if all you think the 997 Turbo can run on that track is a tie with a GT500 I hope you dont meet a good driver on the track with one because you will get raped. The Z06 is not 8 seconds faster per lap ON ANY TRACK ANYWHERE than the 997 Turbo when healthy and driven properly, this is a matter of fact.

 

I totally agree with you. The 911 turbo was supposed to be the ultimate sports car under the price of a Ferrari.


Now it has become overweight, laden with luxury crap, etc. It is still an AWESOME car, but turbo is supposed to represent the pinnacle of sports cars...


And now it's just a piglet. What's worse is that 50% of buyers buy the tiptronic.....


If it just weighed 100 lbs less I'd be happy. 3400. I realize the AWD and twin-turbo set-up weigh a lot also.

 

If the Turbo was much faster, it would beat the GT3, lighter weight, same power etc would make it too close to the GT2 and therefore useless. Turbo has long since been surpassed as the pinnacle of sports cars even under the Porsche label so I dont understand the confusion. There are THREE more focused Porsches so the Turbo is bound to be geared more towards the non-track Porsche people, especially if you see the GT3 gaining 200 lbs, it took some serious engineering to make it better than the 996 turbo with the added weight. Even the GT3 is getting softer, losing it's hard edge, but still able to mask that with great performance. The Turbo fills the spot it was intended to take.

 

It is a luxury car. Not enough HP, and WAY too heavy. Those of us that are serious have downgraded (upgraded?) to the GT3.