I bought the C4S for the same reason the CGT buyers bought the CGT - the way it makes me feel, and how much car I can afford (if I'd waited a little longer, I'd have a TT for what I paid for the C4S, but c'est la vie). But the same argument I make regarding the CGT relative to other quick cars applies just as well to my C4S, which is why its value today is as low as it is. There are a bunch more people who are willing to pay 50k for a Corvette than are willing to pay 90k for a C4S, and Porsche made enough C4S's that their used values are down where they are, as I suspect will be the case with the CGT.

If I had the money, I think it's highly likely I'd have a CGT in my garage. But I wouldn't buy it expecting to suddenly take every corner twice as fast as I could in the C4S. I'd buy it expecting to have a lot more fun going 6% faster, though.

 

PMac,

I assume you're an engineer of sorts, and I would have expected a more thorough analysis before you start throwing around statistics to support a conclusion. I'm not an engineer so I have an excuse for making calculation errors.

Consider the following:

What is the difference in tha accelaration times between "any car" and the CGT between 40-100MPH, ( 42.4 for the CGT) and apply it to the exit speed out of a corner, and then figure the differences in the braking distances into the next corner ( for the speed to be carried longer).

The analysis can be done for any range of speeds (i.e 70 to 130) and will yield a more meaningful result over any track you chose.

I'm sure you get the gist of the idea and would agree that the corner analysis ( in light of additional insight) is incomplete at best. So they are damned statistics..flat earth (track) or not!

Again, go drive "em!

 

No, I'm not an engineer, but I know my way around an equation. My original point was looking at modded TTs versus CGT, so I deliberately left out accelerative capability, as it's perfectly possible to build a TT that out-accelerates a CGT, and comes damn close to out-braking one.

Cornering capability is one area where I thought the CGT would have an unassailable advantage, which is why I focussed my argument on it. I'm also aware that steady-state cornering is only part of the ballgame, and in terms of transitional behavior, a modded TT is pretty well outgunned there, and there's no amount of suspension work that can move the engine location and drop 300lbs from the weight. Once we look at shaving weight from a TT, I think, we're leaving the realm of common mods people do to their TTs, and looking at building a track-only car, which becomes a meaningless comparison against a stock CGT street car.

Even with all that, the differences are measured in a few percent, a few mph, and a few seconds in lap times on regular 2-3 mile courses.

I'm not busting a nut trying to develop an all-inclusive in-depth analysis. I pulled some numbers of a semi-reputable website, did a few percentage calculations for my own edification, then shared the results as they came in closer than I anticipated.

I'm not trying to poke fun at y'all, but the pro-CGT lobby is sounding a bit more like stereotypical Ferrari drivers than genuine enthusiasts. The whole 'Don't show me numbers. It's a Ferrari. It does everything better than your car. It's basically an F1 car with a license plate. No, I don't want to race.' thing.

Bottom-line. A CGT on track with a modded TT will be faster, but not by much. If the TT driver is a little better, advantage TT. The CGT driver will go home feeling a lot more special, but if I've got a well-sorted TT with 750 hp, chances are my self-esteem will be pretty good, too.

 

Your genaralizations, mixed with specifics, are killing me!

 

What are you taking issue with? Do you contend that the CGT is substantially faster than a modded TT, and if so, what do you rest that on?

If you don't like my data, show me a better source of objective information.

The price of criticism is a better idea.

 

How much clearer could I be, "go drive 'em" and then opine.

I contend based upon real experience that the CGT is faster than a GT2 ( A modded TT by real experts....Porsche). Plus, it's a real world modification not some theoretical "hack" engineering to gain unsustainable or unreliable levels of HP. Afterall, we do want an apples to apples comparison, and stock to stock is the way to do it! Otherwise, let's turbo charge the CGT, then it becomes plain silly.

The reason I contend it is faster:

Better accelaration
Better Braking
Better Cornering
Better Weight


...and it felt faster (objective I know).

I don't have any issue with you, except your continued insistence on some hypothetical mods that are non-specific and unprovable (in the real world) in an attempt to compare the incomparable.

 

Wish I could, but I'm just a poor boy in the Midwest. As I've pointed out, I'm basing my analysis on the objective, bit the subjective. What do I gain by driving one, except for an appreciation of the subjective component?


Well, the GT2 is certainly a hotrod 911, but they still left something on the table. If I'm not mistaken, you can still pour 87 octane in your tank and not blow the engine, as you can with any factory Porsche.

Besides, I never said a modded TT/GT2 would be quicker, just nearly as quick (although I suspect there are a few 911s roaming the Earth that can wipe the floor with any stock car ever produced).

Stock-for-stock, sure. So what? My original point, lost as it has been in this debate over details, was that CGT values might decline because its performance, while superior, is not as superior as, say a 1986 959 over a 1986 930.

Well, subjective, actually But this raises an important point. Feels versus is. All this talk about feelings, I'm surprised Tim hasn't called you all evil liberals yet.

OK, I'll specify. Evo GT750 package (but it could be any of the higher-horsepower packages - I chose that one because I think it traps at about the same speed as the CGT in the 1/4, so that neutralizes the CGT's power advantage) + upgraded suspension (PSS9's, Motons, JRZ, whatever gives the quickest lap times in general track use) + TechArt aero upgrades (I chose them because IIRC, they add meaningful downforce). I'll ignore brake upgrades, as the stock brakes are pretty good, and we're not comparing endurance racers here, but we know there are brake upgrades available. I'll ignore tire choices, as a set of MSPCs will really tilt the balance, and it's unfair to compare the CGT when it's handicapped by slippery rubber. Now, throw that car on a dry track with a CGT, and it'll be pretty close. On a rainy day, the only time the TT driver sees the CGT's taillights is when he's about to lap him.

Anyway, I'm done arguing this. I'm still waiting for quantified objective data of some sort to contradict what I posted previously.

 

Doc -

I think you are ready for a JET. May I recommend the Javelin: http://www.avtechgroup.com/

 

Well, I've been lurking on this thread for a little while, but now can't resist. I live in the Midwest, too.

My observation is that after just driving my Carrera GT, and then taking my X50 996TT out for a spin, the TT seems more like a fast Corolla than a Porsche. The difference is that great! I drive the TT much, much less than I used to. But, it's not the TT's fault.

I like the X50 TT very much, and it used to seem really fast, but the Carrera GT is so far beyond it that anyone who thinks the differences are merely slight is badly misinformed or is posturing to his or her reputation's disadvantage.

Actually driving a CGT could do wonders for one's street cred.

 

^^Thata Baby Mike^^ Spoken with confidence and first hand knowledge.. No conjecture here strictly the facts.

 

I'm not disputing the subjective differences, merely the objective ones. Can anyone who has driven a CGT and TT back-to-back provide quantitative data as to how much faster the CGT is? I don't care about acceleration, because that's easily addressed aftermarket with a TT. It's the handling. Can we have a back to back comparisons of laptimes? W8MM, if you're in Cincy, have you taken both cars to Mid-Ohio, or any other track, and what's the difference in lap times?

I really don't feel that this is a credibility issue. I've provided data, and asked for a rebuttal with better data. So far, I've got nothing but seat-of-the-pants stuff, which is great, but doesn't address the original question. As for posturing, I'm the poor kid with the C4S. Exactly how much of a big dog should I anticipate being perceived as? I stand to gain nothing from this, other than refining my own understanding of the difference between good and great in the modern world.

Of course, if you're ever in St. Louis with the CGT, I'd be happy to eat every word I wrote in exchange for a little first-hand experience of my own

 

It doesn't get any more objective than this, if you know your way around an equation.

1. Figure out the effect of the differences in tire sizes

2. Look at the accelaration figures, 0-60, 30-60,etc., especially with respect to corner exit speeds.

3. Look at the braking stats on each car, apply them at theoretical speeds, obtained from corner exit to braking point (different for each car)

4. Look at the g force differences for mid engine versus rear engine ( though you believe you have already have credible data).

6. Apply the differences to any track you chose

Now for the result, and what anyone with a modicum of experience already knows!

There is no comparison (the CGT walks), and I made it simple for you, you didn't even have to take into account driver differences, track conditions or any other whimsical anomoly.

PMac, the 10% difference you proposed is not an objective assesment, by any stretch of anyone's imagination (or demonstrable calculation to date).

For you to continue to pretend (insist ) that your position is sustainable (attainable?) might undermine your opportunity to get an "objective" real world experience.

If I were you I'd start chewing, now!

 

So, the CGT has more absolute grip. We knew that, but that gap can be partially closed by slapping larger meats on a TT. How much of a difference remains?


For the umpteenth time, I don't care about linear acceleration! It's possible to build a TT motor that will decimate a CGT ina straight line. That was never what I was talking about.



The braking stats don't differ by much (i.e. <10%), so we're still within my estimated window.

And what are they? I'm still waiting for data. According to the data from track-challenge, the difference in mid-corner g-load (stock vs stock) is within the 10% figure. You seem to imply that my data are not credible. If not, why not, and what do you have that's better? I've asked this already, and you haven't answered the question.


Inter-track differences can be pronounced. There are tracks where a Boxster is faster than a 911, and vice versa, so let's talk about the NRing, where the stock difference between the CGT and TT is about 6% (7:56 v 7:28), or Hockenheim, where the difference is 9% (1:14.6 vs 1:08.6). Show me track where the CGT is more than 10% faster.

Well, that's under optimal conditions for the CGT. How many of them did Walter wreck in the wet during testing? AWD and PSM help performance in the wet, so that narrows the gap, but let's stick stock vs stock on a dry day. You're right that a CGT will walk away from a TT. In track terms, 6% is a big advantage in terms of outcome, but it's still less than 10%.



Err, yes it is. I can't find a way to give a CGT more than a 10% advantage in anything other than a straight line, and we're not comparing drag racers here.

You've criticized my estimates (in a very vague way, too.), and have failed to provide ANY data whatsoever to back up your counterargument.

I feel like this is turning into a 'PMac thinks the CGT's a dog turd' debate, which it's not. I think the CGT is magnificent. All I'm saying is that the performance margin between today's quick cars, and today's supercars is narrower than it used to be.


Well, maybe, maybe not. I'm not trying to be pig-headed here, but I raised a simple point, and I'm getting lots of people telling me I'm wrong, but no data to back it up. I'm not arguing the subjective merits. I'm just saying that the CGT's overall advantage in handling is <10%. On a track, that's significant. on the street, it's not huge, at all. We're comparing street cars, though.

 

Erik...sorry I didn't respond sooner..was out of town...
There are couple of websites that have pictures of it I guess....
I am assuming that's a prototype...it's still butt ugly!

http://www.rapidcars.com/rufsupercar.php