Comparison test between 997TT, GT3, GT3 RS and C2S w/ X51. Surprising results.
#32
08-25-2007, 09:41 PM
You can't measure everything on performance. There are a lot of intangibles. You know the Vette guys are saying the same thing about us!
#33
08-25-2007, 09:47 PM
Originally Posted by Mercedes Benz
Hahahhaaha 0-60 4.5 sec for the GT3? that alone shows these numbers are 100% not accurate. Something was up with that car or the driver. I think we can all agree we have ALL seen GT3s close enough to a full seconed faster then that to 60.
CP
#34
08-25-2007, 10:23 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 6,379
Rep Power: 344 
#35
08-25-2007, 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by seattle_sun
You can't measure everything on performance. There are a lot of intangibles. You know the Vette guys are saying the same thing about us!
#36
08-25-2007, 11:27 PM
Originally Posted by chunpng
Urrrr... 3.5 seconds for a GT3 to go 0-60? I don't think so. 4.5 seems a tad high, but I'm not sure the GT3 breaks into the 3 second range.
CP
CP
#37
08-26-2007, 02:37 AM
If the GT3's were on cups, that explains the slow 0-60 times. It's my understanding that Cups require some running to warm up. Then they become nice and sticky. Obviously you're not going to get that in quick 0-60 sprints. Put those same cars on PS2's and the times will go down, but the track times will go up. Put the TT on the same Cups and it's 0-60 times will go up and track times will go down. This does seem to be the best comparison so far, but no test/comparison is ever perfect and the fact that these cars were all on different tires proves it. But as mentioned, the added drag of the wing and the wider hips really shows in the triple digit speeds. Put the RS suspension onto the GT3 or TT and it would be very interesting to see what happens to track times in those vehicles.
#38
08-26-2007, 03:23 AM
Originally Posted by ScottKelly911
This does seem to be the best comparison so far
#39
08-26-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally Posted by ScottKelly911
Put the RS suspension onto the GT3 or TT and it would be very interesting to see what happens to track times in those vehicles.
#41
08-26-2007, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by SLATETT
Great compilation of stats. I wonder how a real race woud turn out.
#42
08-26-2007, 01:01 PM
I would take a GT3-RS over a 997TT any day.
Turbos are fast around the track because those VTG Turbos spool up fast and give you great response coming out of corners and pulling down the straights, but no way that its entry speed into corners matches the GT3/RS as it is much heavier and has an inferior suspension setup. The fact that the Turbo is fast enough to compensate for its weight and lack of handling does not necessarily make it a great track car. With the GT3, you can feel everything that is going on with the car, and for many drivers, they can easily yield better times in a GT3 because the handling characteristics can inspire more confidence.
The GT3-RS is worth the money for those who truly appreciate the car. Obviously many here do not. The car has a homologation-spec suspension which is used on the 997 RSR, which allows for minimal camber change even at lower ride height through the use of different carriers and multi-link "wishbone" setup. The wheel carriers are made of hollow cast magnesium and save several pounds per corner in unsprung weight, while providing optimal geometry through enhanced suspension pickup points.
Thr Turbo is a great everyday GT. The GT3 and GT3-RS are a better driver's car.
And I disagree with the statement that 0.6 seconds is insignificant around a short course where the lap time is around 1 minute and change. After two laps, it's 1.2 seconds. After 10 laps, it's 6 seconds... and that's a lot in racing! Do you have any idea what race teams would spend to shave 0.6 seconds off of their cars?
But who cares about all this nonsense when you can have the best of both worlds and buy a GT2 (or a Carrera GT)?
Turbos are fast around the track because those VTG Turbos spool up fast and give you great response coming out of corners and pulling down the straights, but no way that its entry speed into corners matches the GT3/RS as it is much heavier and has an inferior suspension setup. The fact that the Turbo is fast enough to compensate for its weight and lack of handling does not necessarily make it a great track car. With the GT3, you can feel everything that is going on with the car, and for many drivers, they can easily yield better times in a GT3 because the handling characteristics can inspire more confidence.
The GT3-RS is worth the money for those who truly appreciate the car. Obviously many here do not. The car has a homologation-spec suspension which is used on the 997 RSR, which allows for minimal camber change even at lower ride height through the use of different carriers and multi-link "wishbone" setup. The wheel carriers are made of hollow cast magnesium and save several pounds per corner in unsprung weight, while providing optimal geometry through enhanced suspension pickup points.
Thr Turbo is a great everyday GT. The GT3 and GT3-RS are a better driver's car.
And I disagree with the statement that 0.6 seconds is insignificant around a short course where the lap time is around 1 minute and change. After two laps, it's 1.2 seconds. After 10 laps, it's 6 seconds... and that's a lot in racing! Do you have any idea what race teams would spend to shave 0.6 seconds off of their cars?
But who cares about all this nonsense when you can have the best of both worlds and buy a GT2 (or a Carrera GT)?
#43
08-26-2007, 01:34 PM
This test was done in UK, right!?
Knowing how seldom it doesn't rain there, I bet it was raining that time and/or the track was damp. If so, it would yeild huge advantage for the PS2's vs. the cups AND the AWD of the tt...
Nice test, regardles! Thanks for posting!!
Knowing how seldom it doesn't rain there, I bet it was raining that time and/or the track was damp. If so, it would yeild huge advantage for the PS2's vs. the cups AND the AWD of the tt...
Nice test, regardles! Thanks for posting!!
#44
08-26-2007, 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Juha
This test was done in UK, right!?
Knowing how seldom it doesn't rain there, I bet it was raining that time and/or the track was damp. If so, it would yeild huge advantage for the PS2's vs. the cups AND the AWD of the tt...
Knowing how seldom it doesn't rain there, I bet it was raining that time and/or the track was damp. If so, it would yeild huge advantage for the PS2's vs. the cups AND the AWD of the tt...
