Manufacturer claims 0-60 times (997S) in 4.6 seconds. R&T claims 4.4 seconds, the latest Motor Trend claims 4.2 seconds, and C&D claims 4.3 (997). With respect to the 04 GT3 (3.9 sec) the 997S is on average 4/10's of a second slower !! I bet with a few tweaks (chip, intake and exhaust) the 997S could be just as fast as the latest GT3. I know C&D tests are usually exagerated for whatever reasons (they would probably claim 4.0 sec for the 997S), but R&T and Motor Trend are usually pretty accurate. The Lamborgini Gallardo, with 500 hp, did 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. The standard brakes on the 997S were amazing also, 60-0/107 feet. I wonder what the Ceramics are capable of?? I own a 997S w/ceramics and the deceleration g-forces are hair raising! Take care folks....

 

While magazine racing is always dubious at best, those numbers are really impressive. It was a pleasant surprise to see Motor Trend recommend the 997 over the C6 Vette.

 

Ceramics do not stop any faster then steel brakes, they just have no fade or heat issues. As well if you read all the tuner shootouts in the Euro mags it amazaes me that after all these people put the Brembo kits on there cars at costs from 8-20k that non of them ever manage a better distance then the OEM Porsche Ceramic brake.

As well the new 997s is very fast it will definitly have its day w/GT3 with a reporgrammed ECU.

 

The 0 - 60 time is more a test of the driver and not the car. A better measurement of quickness is the 0 -100. You can take the same car from 0 -60 ten seperate times and get substantial diiferences in time with each run.

 

Understood, but it is nice to know what a car is capable of....
Also, the above comment about the ceramic brakes not being any better (stopping wise) than the standard S brakes is not true. The ceramic brakes are 14" rotors all around with six piston calipers on front, whereas the standard brakes are 13" with four piston calipers. In addition the ceramics are way lighter which contributes to less unsprung weight. Less weight with larger rotor and larger clamping force should reduce stopping distances significantly. When I say significantly, I mean 3-5 feet.

 

I made the comment that ceramics dont stop any better then steel brakes, if you look at the distances published by the magazines or Porsche you wll see this, as well many of those setups that people put on there cars such as the Brembos and stoptechs like the tuners use stop the car in more distance then too the Ceramics from Porsche.

As well the Rotor size on the Ceramic I think is due to manufacture not related to stopping better, the steel brakes on the 997 vs a 997 w/Ceramics both stop in the same distance i reserched this very thorughly . The main resasons for Ceramics are as follows

reduction of unsprung weight
no cause of fade due to heat
and of course the "bling" factor"

 

Not quite sure I agree unless you can point to the magazine that says that. Also, how do you explain the amazing stopping capabilities of the Carrera GT and the Enzo that utilize ceramics with six piston calipers... I have yet to see test results of a 997S w/PCCB. If you have, please show me.

 

The Enzo and the Carrera GT are also ultra light cars. As far as that goes they are on par, but lets take a 996TT w/Ceramics vs 996TT w/ Steel brakes= same stopping distance...my research was done w/the help of Champion Motorcars.

 

Which magazines?? Also, the 997S is much lighter than the all wheel drive Turbo...

 

No magazines these are porsche factory specs i got from sales @ Champion. I did alot of research on this as i was ordering a GT3 last year and wanted to know the differences.

 

I will have to agree with Marc. As long as the brakes have enough force to lock the wheels, the stopping distance should just be a function of the amount of friction the tires can generate against the pavement. The feel, control and fade are different issues offcourse.

 

That is the lamest thing I've ever heard. Any brakes, if pressed hard enough will lock up the tires. That is why we have those sophisticated ABS systems. If your belief is true then the Viper which has the biggest footprint should be the best stopper, right?? Wrong! In addition, steel rotors cannot dissipate heat as well as Ceramics, therefore they will fade and increase your stopping distances. Remember, heat affects stopping capability. Ceramics are unaffected by heat therefore there is no fade and no reduction in stopping power. The Mercedes SLR Mclaren weighs over 3800 lbs and is able to stop from 60-0 in 103 ft thanks to its ceramic brakes. The CGT weighs 3043 lbs and stops 60-0 in 101 ft. thanks again to its ceramic brakes. Heavy or Light these cars depend on Ceramic brakes for their incredible stopping power.

 

I have driven a GT2 with ceramic brakes and my turbo with the GT3 RS Lemans rotors and calipers through the quarter mile at Infineron. I might note the turbo traps about 20 mph faster than the GT2. At the end of the quarter mile the turbo easily slows down enough to make the first turn out. The GT2 with the ceramics sometimes barely makes it and usually has to take the second turn out.

Both cars had 315's in the rear. The GT2 had 235's up front while the turbo had 265's. Was it the brakes or was it the tires?

 

From European car:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/longte...ec_porsche911/

"We've also come to love the PCCB brakes we'd installed a few months back. Although our testing showed that stopping distances weren't shorter than with the "standard" Turbo brakes, the ceramic brakes are vastly better in terms of feel and resistance to fade. Outside of some race cars, no brakes we've jabbed have provided such a clear path between the driver's right foot and the calipers. They're remarkably easy to modulate, too, allowing much more control when entering more deeply into corners."

 

huge contact patches. these cars also have significantly less dive and body roll. the dynamics of their mid engine design also contribute to the differences.