Why 414 HP?
#1
09-02-2007, 03:09 PM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Twisty San Diego
Posts: 223
Rep Power: 26 
Why 414 HP?
So the new M3 has 414. The R8 as 414. The GT3 has 414. Coincidence? Or is this some sort of German Gentleman's agreement?
Remember back when the Japanese all published their car at 280 HP (NSX, Skyline, etc...) and was some type of gentleman's agreement between the JDMs. People knew the Skyline made way over that.
Remember back when the Japanese all published their car at 280 HP (NSX, Skyline, etc...) and was some type of gentleman's agreement between the JDMs. People knew the Skyline made way over that.
#2
09-02-2007, 03:13 PM
So the new M3 has 414. The R8 as 414. The GT3 has 414. Coincidence? Or is this some sort of German Gentleman's agreement?
Remember back when the Japanese all published their car at 280 HP (NSX, Skyline, etc...) and was some type of gentleman's agreement between the JDMs. People knew the Skyline made way over that.
Remember back when the Japanese all published their car at 280 HP (NSX, Skyline, etc...) and was some type of gentleman's agreement between the JDMs. People knew the Skyline made way over that.
#4
09-02-2007, 05:19 PM
So the new M3 has 414. The R8 as 414. The GT3 has 414. Coincidence? Or is this some sort of German Gentleman's agreement?
Remember back when the Japanese all published their car at 280 HP (NSX, Skyline, etc...) and was some type of gentleman's agreement between the JDMs. People knew the Skyline made way over that.
Remember back when the Japanese all published their car at 280 HP (NSX, Skyline, etc...) and was some type of gentleman's agreement between the JDMs. People knew the Skyline made way over that.
#6
09-02-2007, 05:53 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 1,458
Rep Power: 78 
#7
09-02-2007, 06:27 PM
you are absolutely right... they weren't honest about it on the 996 either
Under rated of course.
Under rated of course.
Trending Topics
#9
09-03-2007, 10:00 AM
The KW conversion on the 414hp figure comes out to 309kW - so not exactly a round number. My guess is Porsche is happy to keep their claims conservative so as to surprise would-be bench racers with the over-performance of the actual car
The Japanese OEMs did have such an agreement up until 2005 when the gloves came off...and now we have 260hp Honda minivans...
http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/...6-hp-pact.html
The Japanese OEMs did have such an agreement up until 2005 when the gloves came off...and now we have 260hp Honda minivans...
http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/...6-hp-pact.html
#10
09-03-2007, 10:27 AM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Twisty San Diego
Posts: 223
Rep Power: 26 There are RWHP dynos floating around 390. If you factor the 15% trans lost, that would be around 458 HP at the crank? That's really close to the Turbo's numbers. Now if they are also conservative on the Turbo, then why not just bump the HP numbers to the real numbers. Porsche will get more respect that way.
#11
09-03-2007, 01:39 PM
There are RWHP dynos floating around 390. If you factor the 15% trans lost, that would be around 458 HP at the crank? That's really close to the Turbo's numbers. Now if they are also conservative on the Turbo, then why not just bump the HP numbers to the real numbers. Porsche will get more respect that way.
Last edited by Rob; 09-03-2007 at 01:46 PM.
#12
09-03-2007, 04:43 PM
I think the 415 number is pretty much correct for the GT3. The 997TT is significantly faster than the GT3, despite weighing 420+ lbs more and having significantly more drivetrain loss through its AWD system.
If the GT3 was actually making 440-450 BHP, the GT3 would smoke the TT, and the acceleration comparison below would look much different:
0-150 mph:
997 GT3 - 23.1
997TT (6-MT with Sport Chrono)- 19.0
100-150 mph:
997 GT3 - 13.2
997TT (6-MT with Sport Chrono)- 10.6
If anything, I think the 996 GT3's #'s were underestimated, while the 997 GT3's are right on the money (I think the 996 was/is making closer 400 BHP). The two cars are prety much identical in trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, which is a very accurate indication of actual HP to the ground. Their 1/4 mile E/T's are almost indentical as wel. This is not what should happen when a car that weighs essentialy the same gets an true increase of 40 HP and 15 ft lbs of torque.
Motor Trend / 996 GT3:
April 2004
12.1 @ 116
Car and Driver / 996 GT3:
June 2003
12.3 @ 118
Car and Driver / 997 GT3:
March 2007
12.0 @ 118
Edmunds.com / 997 GT3:
March 2007
12.2 @ 116
If the GT3 was actually making 440-450 BHP, the GT3 would smoke the TT, and the acceleration comparison below would look much different:
0-150 mph:
997 GT3 - 23.1
997TT (6-MT with Sport Chrono)- 19.0
100-150 mph:
997 GT3 - 13.2
997TT (6-MT with Sport Chrono)- 10.6
If anything, I think the 996 GT3's #'s were underestimated, while the 997 GT3's are right on the money (I think the 996 was/is making closer 400 BHP). The two cars are prety much identical in trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, which is a very accurate indication of actual HP to the ground. Their 1/4 mile E/T's are almost indentical as wel. This is not what should happen when a car that weighs essentialy the same gets an true increase of 40 HP and 15 ft lbs of torque.
Motor Trend / 996 GT3:
April 2004
12.1 @ 116
Car and Driver / 996 GT3:
June 2003
12.3 @ 118
Car and Driver / 997 GT3:
March 2007
12.0 @ 118
Edmunds.com / 997 GT3:
March 2007
12.2 @ 116
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 09-03-2007 at 04:57 PM.
#13
09-03-2007, 07:01 PM
I think the 415 number is pretty much correct for the GT3. The 997TT is significantly faster than the GT3, despite weighing 420+ lbs more and having significantly more drivetrain loss through its AWD system.
If the GT3 was actually making 440-450 BHP, the GT3 would smoke the TT, and the acceleration comparison below would look much different:
0-150 mph:
997 GT3 - 23.1
997TT (6-MT with Sport Chrono)- 19.0
100-150 mph:
997 GT3 - 13.2
997TT (6-MT with Sport Chrono)- 10.6
If anything, I think the 996 GT3's #'s were underestimated, while the 997 GT3's are right on the money (I think the 996 was/is making closer 400 BHP). The two cars are prety much identical in trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, which is a very accurate indication of actual HP to the ground. Their 1/4 mile E/T's are almost indentical as wel. This is not what should happen when a car that weighs essentialy the same gets an true increase of 40 HP and 15 ft lbs of torque.
Motor Trend / 996 GT3:
April 2004
12.1 @ 116
Car and Driver / 996 GT3:
June 2003
12.3 @ 118
Car and Driver / 997 GT3:
March 2007
12.0 @ 118
Edmunds.com / 997 GT3:
March 2007
12.2 @ 116
If the GT3 was actually making 440-450 BHP, the GT3 would smoke the TT, and the acceleration comparison below would look much different:
0-150 mph:
997 GT3 - 23.1
997TT (6-MT with Sport Chrono)- 19.0
100-150 mph:
997 GT3 - 13.2
997TT (6-MT with Sport Chrono)- 10.6
If anything, I think the 996 GT3's #'s were underestimated, while the 997 GT3's are right on the money (I think the 996 was/is making closer 400 BHP). The two cars are prety much identical in trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, which is a very accurate indication of actual HP to the ground. Their 1/4 mile E/T's are almost indentical as wel. This is not what should happen when a car that weighs essentialy the same gets an true increase of 40 HP and 15 ft lbs of torque.
Motor Trend / 996 GT3:
April 2004
12.1 @ 116
Car and Driver / 996 GT3:
June 2003
12.3 @ 118
Car and Driver / 997 GT3:
March 2007
12.0 @ 118
Edmunds.com / 997 GT3:
March 2007
12.2 @ 116
#14
09-03-2007, 07:11 PM
According to the official Porsche specs I've read, the 997 GT3 weighs 3,075 lbs....and the 996 GT3 weighs 3,043 lbs.
Are those numbers not correct?
Are those numbers not correct?
#15
09-03-2007, 07:35 PM
If anything, I think the 996 GT3's #'s were underestimated, while the 997 GT3's are right on the money (I think the 996 was/is making closer 400 BHP). The two cars are prety much identical in trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, which is a very accurate indication of actual HP to the ground. Their 1/4 mile E/T's are almost indentical as wel. This is not what should happen when a car that weighs essentialy the same gets an true increase of 40 HP and 15 ft lbs of torque.
For comparison.. the '08 Corvette LS3 Z51 with +36 hp and +28 ft. lbs. of torque is only running slightly better than the LS2 Z51:
12.8 @ 112.5 (LS2) to 12.8 @ 113.5 (LS3) (Road & Track)
12.7 @ 112.3 (LS2) to 12.5 @ 115.0 (LS3) (Motor Trend).
Not trying to argue.. who cares anyway. At the very least, Porsche probably under-rated the 997 GT3 a minimum of 5 - 10 horse just so they're not cutting it too close to published power ratings. So, if it's 420, then add the 10 horse ram air benefit.. about 430 hp max, at speed. I can believe that figure after driving the car for a few months.
Last edited by Rob; 09-03-2007 at 07:51 PM.