2010 911 turbo (0-60 in 3.0 seconds FLAT!!!)

[Submariner]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_porsche_911_turbo_-first_drive_review

Holy Banannas! 

[Eye of the Tiger]

This really doesn't make it anymore affordable.

[68_427]

It says estimated 0-60 time is 3.0 seconds.

[Secret Chimp]

It says estimated 0-60 time is 3.0 seconds.

If this were on anything but Car and Driver I wouldn't be skeptical about it. I really only hate Car and Driver's writing but that's just spilled over into everything else about them :P

[FlatBlackCaddy]

It says estimated 0-60 time is 3.0 seconds.

Estimates are sometimes HIGH!!!

[CALL_911]

Porsche estimates 3.2 seconds. They're usually rather conservative with their times. 

[sportyaccordy]

I don't understand

Does the car just leap off the ground????

[Minpin]

I have a love/hate relationship with the Turbo. On one hand I love how it looks and how quick it is, on the other hand, I hate that it's not a GT3/GT3RS.


Plus, a Sharkwerks GT3/RS sounds like sex, but a Turbo with some nice pipes sounds like a diesel.

[cawimmer430]

I take it in the next comparison test it will go up against the benchmark: the V6 Camry, eh? 

[giant_mtb]

[Pommes-T]

+1

[CALL_911]

 

This will rape the shit out of any SL65 that will come in its way.

[565]

There an interesting thing about the new Turbo and Porsche's Ring time claims.  You would think after crying so much about Nissan's ring claims that Porsche would be at least have some consistency on their own record keeping. 

Originally Porsche went around claiming this new Turbo was 10 seconds faster around the Ring than the old car.  Porsche also claimed that the old Turbo did a 7:38 the same day their purchased Nissan GT-R did a 7:54. 

http://www.autocar.co.uk/forums/p/9232/70713.aspx#70713

Which fueled the speculation that the new Turbo Mkii's claimed time would be around 7:28 or 7:27.

Indeed this became a well believed rumor.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/forums/p/9232/70713.aspx#70713

Later this proved to be a hoax.

But now the truth comes out concerning where this "10 seconds faster" claim comes from.

Porsche claims that in their own press material that the old Turbo's Ring time was 7:49,  not 7:38 as Porsche previously tried to claim.  They also claim this new car does 7:39 around the Ring, which would also be slower than the previous claim for the Turbo.  I guess Porsche was hoping everyone would forget about their previous claims.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/forums/p/9232/70713.aspx#70713

Interestingly the fastest the old Turbo was ever recorded to lap by independent sources was 7:52 by Sport Auto, a far far cry from the 7:38 recorded by Sport Auto from the GT-R.

Basically Porsche cries foul and claims that the old 911 Turbo was actually 16 seconds faster than the GT-R.  An independent German magazine later proves that the gap is actually 14 seconds in the GT-R's favor.  That's 30 seconds that Porsche was off by, a margin of error the difference between say, a Carrera GT and a Cadillac CTS-V.  That's a huge difference.  Then Porsche now claims the 911 Turbo ran 11 seconds slower than their previous claims, and that the new car is 10 seconds faster, still one second slower than the older claims.

Basically it's just one confusing mess now.

[Colonel Cadillac]

Plus, a Sharkwerks GT3/RS sounds like sex, but a Turbo with some nice pipes sounds like a diesel.

No      fucking       way

[r0tor]

ring times are all that is wrong with the modern sports car...

[Submariner]

There an interesting thing about the new Turbo and Porsche's Ring time claims.  You would think after crying so much about Nissan's ring claims that Porsche would be at least have some consistency on their own record keeping. 

Originally Porsche went around claiming this new Turbo was 10 seconds faster around the Ring than the old car.  Porsche also claimed that the old Turbo did a 7:38 the same day their purchased Nissan GT-R did a 7:54. 

http://www.autocar.co.uk/forums/p/9232/70713.aspx#70713

Which fueled the speculation that the new Turbo Mkii's claimed time would be around 7:28 or 7:27.

Indeed this became a well believed rumor.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/forums/p/9232/70713.aspx#70713

Later this proved to be a hoax.

But now the truth comes out concerning where this "10 seconds faster" claim comes from.

Porsche claims that in their own press material that the old Turbo's Ring time was 7:49,  not 7:38 as Porsche previously tried to claim.  They also claim this new car does 7:39 around the Ring, which would also be slower than the previous claim for the Turbo.  I guess Porsche was hoping everyone would forget about their previous claims.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/forums/p/9232/70713.aspx#70713

Interestingly the fastest the old Turbo was ever recorded to lap by independent sources was 7:52 by Sport Auto, a far far cry from the 7:38 recorded by Sport Auto from the GT-R.

Basically Porsche cries foul and claims that the old 911 Turbo was actually 16 seconds faster than the GT-R.  An independent German magazine later proves that the gap is actually 14 seconds in the GT-R's favor.  That's 30 seconds that Porsche was off by, a margin of error the difference between say, a Carrera GT and a Cadillac CTS-V.  That's a huge difference.  Then Porsche now claims the 911 Turbo ran 11 seconds slower than their previous claims, and that the new car is 10 seconds faster, still one second slower than the older claims.

Basically it's just one confusing mess now.

I have no doubt Porsche could make the 911 turbo a sub 7:30 car.

The question is, why haven't they?

[SVT_Power]

I have no doubt Porsche could make the 911 turbo a sub 7:30 car.

The question is, why haven't they?

because they probably know exactly where the limit of performance is with the RR/flat-6 engines and they don't want to get so close to the limit so that they can milk it for everything there's left before they have to come up with a new design?

[S204STi]

That or maybe making a streetable Turbo and making a track machine weren't totally compatible goals?  The GT2 is supposed to be their go-faster turbo car isn't it?

[TBR]

That or maybe making a streetable Turbo and making a track machine weren't totally compatible goals?  The GT2 is supposed to be their go-faster turbo car isn't it?

Yeah, though from rest it's probably actually slower since it's RWD.

[Tave]

I have no doubt Porsche could make the 911 turbo a sub 7:30 car.

The question is, why haven't they?

Because it would price the car out of its market and into GT2 territory?

[S204STi]

Yeah, though from rest it's probably actually slower since it's RWD.

Oh that's right, I forgot it was RWD.

Oh well, some Nissan is faster around a circle in Germany than the Turbo, big wow.  If I had the money it would go to the Turbo, sorry.

[SVT_Power]

Yeah, though from rest it's probably actually slower since it's RWD.

well it seems like the 09 GT2 was up 60 hp on the Turbo, but they had identical 0-60 times

[BimmerM3]

That or maybe making a streetable Turbo and making a track machine weren't totally compatible goals?

That's probably the best answer. I couldn't tell you if the GTR is more or less streetable than the 911 Turbo though.

[Tave]

well it seems like the 09 GT2 was up 60 hp on the Turbo, but they had identical 0-60 times

Traction only goes so far. The Lingenfelter Vettes and Hennessey Venoms never do 0-60 in .1 second despite having 1 billion horsies.

[GoCougs]

WOW - a 11.2 sec 1/4 mile is monster...

[Minpin]

No      fucking       way

So you're saying this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfIcb56a-c4        and      this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psGSTnCcqSU     don't sound a lot alike? 

And furthermore, that both of those sound better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96BrXF0A4Q8


Ok,  1  is not enough.

[Submariner]

So you're saying this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfIcb56a-c4        and      this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psGSTnCcqSU     don't sound a lot alike? 

And furthermore, that both of those sound better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96BrXF0A4Q8


Ok,  1  is not enough.

I couldn't watch that last clip.  The soulja boy was melting my brain matter. 

[Minpin]

I couldn't watch that last clip.  The soulja boy was melting my brain matter. 

Bad luck?

[eThirteen]

Traction only goes so far. The Lingenfelter Vettes and Hennessey Venoms never do 0-60 in .1 second despite having 1 billion horsies.

In several, pumped-up-aftermarket counterparts get an identical/slower 0-60 time just because the tires keep spinning. They make it up by the time the quarter-mile comes up though. I think the Hennessey Venoms get wheelspin all the way into 4th gear.

[sportyaccordy]

ring times are all that is wrong with the modern sports car...

Yep

I mean I bet a V6 Camry could beat an old Miata around the Ring... just like an F1 car could pretty much beat anything... doesn't really speak to much beyond track eprformance though