It's the cover story in the July Car & Driver, which I just got today. The GT3 wins 4 out of 5 handling tests, but the Cayman R holds its own despite lesser tires. I don't see the story yet on the C&D Web site, so check out the magazine for details.

 

Just downloaded the electronic version to my iPad, great article.

 

here is a scan of the article

http://www.germancarforum.com/intern...e-911-gt3.html

 

I always check what tires each car is running when I read these comparison tests because that makes a very big difference. Cayman R numbers are indeed very impressive when you consider that it is on street tires (BS RE050A) whereas GT3 is on R-compounds (MSPS). I think it could put up numbers on par with GT3 if running the same tires.

 

Wow, the GT3 is FAT. 3300 lbs.

N-spec MPSC are garbage.

 

Good article, but not surprised at the results. The sole win by Cayman R was in the wet where the tire advantage the GT3 had all but disappears. I don't think we'll ever see a factory offered Cayman beat a GT3. It's unfortunate but it's business, can't blame them.

 

Yeah a shame really. I'd love to be able to buy a lightweight Cayman with an engine and running gear like one would get in a GT3 RS 4.0

 

Yes, I'm planning on writing C&D a letter regarding the lack of 'good science' in the test. Since both of these cars are purchased frequently by enthusiasts, it's very likely that many of them will replace the stock tires with more aggressive ones (e.g. the PS Cup tires). And the tests are so close with the cars stock configuration that it's almost certain that if Cup tires were on both cars, the Cayman would come out on top in any test that doesn't measure pure power.
I do like the fact that they've run the static tests, because I've often gotten in to discussions with friends who are auto enthusiasts that measuring F/R balance alone does not inform you of the handling characteristics of a car. That is, with two cars of equal F/R weight bias (lets say 50/50 for the sake of argument), the one with a smaller polar moment (i.e. the weight it concentrated at the center versus the ends - like a mid-engine car is) will rotate more quickly, recover from unusual attitude more quickly (but also get the tail out more abruptly).
Anyway, a great article with some bad science or rather, some bad assumptions leading to bad science.
V

 

LOL, writing a letter? What do you think that will accomplish? C&D as well as all of the other magazines do hundreds of comparo's, do you expect them to buy a set of tires for each car in each comparo? The only good science is to drive the cars as they are delivered off the showroom floor because that is the accurate comparison. Even more enthusiasts buy Corvette's and Mustangs, you can't seriously expect them to buy tires for all those cars. Now the test becomes unscientific because the reader has to know that their car will perform a certain way ONLY IF they buy the same tires that are on the other car.


Not to mention the Cayman has several advantages, one being a 200 lbs weight advantage and the other being PDK. Both of which helped in this test. Besides, as I said, Porsche spec MPSC are not real R-compound tires other than their speed rating. They are not that great.

 

For the purposes of a magazine test, the only thing that makes sense is to compare stock-to-stock, including stock tires. Anything else is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Put MPSC tires on the Cayman? Why not Toyo R888's? How about different tires on the GT3? Why not add GT3 lower control arms to the Cayman and strip out interior pieces to lighten up the Cayman? And so on. Where do you draw the line on a comparison of non-stock vehicles?

The article does point out that different tires on the Cayman would move it closer in performance to the GT3. That's all that needs to be said.

 

This is the best reply I've read here and on rennlist regarding this C&D article

 

I guess I still choose to differ. I've read a number of C&D articles where they normalize the test by using the same tires on all of the cars. This doesn't seem like it should be any different. Surely if this was a test of 'mid-size 4-door sedans' the tire replacement notion would be out the door. But in this case, it's such a trivial and likely change, that it seems like it should be done.
Separately, the 'writing a letter' term is simply a turn of phrase unworthy of provoking a comment. You gotta be kidding.

 

The tire difference was so noteworthy that C&D lost objectivity in failing to TEST on equal footing. To mention that tires on the GT3 were more grippy is a bit disingenuous when the Bridgestone 050 are easily 3-4 seconds a lap slower at Willow Springs than the MPSC even as pointed out they are crappy.

I did write a letter errr email and expressed my surprise that they should bolted a set of Hoosier R6's and see if they got the same results with the superior handling of the GT3.

Jimmy

 

same tires or not, GT3 anyday