2010 Porsche Turbo S PDK 0-60 2.7 secs

[m10-power]

:nut:

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/03-magazine_covers/november_2010_magazine_cover_homepage_toc_right_rail/3864642-1-eng-US/november_2010_magazine_cover_homepage_toc_right_rail_large.jpg


Supercar comparison between MB SLS, Audi R8 V10, Aston Martin Vantage V12, Ferrari 458 and Porsche 997TT Turbo S PDK

Porsche smoked them, final score wasn't even close...

0-60 2.7 Sec
0-100 6.4 Sec < retarded for a stock car...let alone sport bikes
1/4 mile 10.8 at 129mph

Big document

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/f402b130222e6f98ef15ba1165617301.pdf

Now to sell a few cars...

http://www.carshowp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2011-Porsche-911-Turbo-S-Front-Side-View.jpg

[Team_Mclaren]

holy fuck 2.7:eek:

[Khalil.e]

Insanity...

[jsn]

damn that's fast. Quite surprised how large of a margin it won by. The 458 italia was second at 3.3:eek:

[arian_ma]

The new 911 is the best (and one of the only remaining) real sports car in the market for true enthusiasts.

[kvg]

Porsche got fed up with everyone nipping at their heals I see

[msommers]

What separates true enthusiasts from the not-so-enthusiast?

Lambo's new elemnto is proposed to be even faster than the 911 here at 2.5s...

Overall, I still like Porsche very much - Porsche's PDK tranny is just ridiculous. One day I'd like to get carrera S and eventually a 911 Turbo. What you're getting on paper compared to others in its class, Porsche tends to be cheaper. I think that has to do with how much automation is found in the factory compared to the others however.

Nonetheless, impressive results!

[kvg]

A Lamborghini is a super car

[Cos]

Jesus christ. Give it a couple years and you will have stock super cars running single digit quarter miles

[Neil4Speed]

Its really impressive, truly staggering that they can have performance figures like that in a mass produced production car like that. From what I understand, they are reasonably reliable as well, and "reasonable" to maintain.

In spite of those impressive numbers, I (as I am sure many others), would take any of the others in the comparison if given the option to own one (cost withstanding).

[Neil4Speed]

A bit surprising also is that even in spite of not having the best power to weight ratio of the bunch, it clubbed the Ferrari. Must be something to do with gearing? Or possibly the RWD ferrari has trouble getting the power to the ground?

[max_boost]

Holy fuck. I want. lol

[almerick]

:eek: Man that's fast!

[AaronK]

God thats amazing numbers to put up!!

[Mitsu3000gt]

The 911 Turbo has got to be the "cheapest" way to get that kind of performance in a total package type car (by that I mean a 1000hp civic doesn't count haha). When they added PDK they pretty much made the ideal supercar. It's hard to imagine what they will improve now, but they will find something I am sure.

Does anyone know what the reliability is like in general on the Turbo 911's? Pretty bulletproof? Anytime you have turbos, inter-coolers, and all that extra plumbing there is just that much more that can go wrong.

[Darkane]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
The 911 Turbo has got to be the &quot;cheapest&quot; way to get that kind of performance in a total package type car (by that I mean a 1000hp civic doesn't count haha). When they added PDK they pretty much made the ideal supercar. It's hard to imagine what they will improve now, but they will find something I am sure.

Does anyone know what the reliability is like in general on the Turbo 911's? Pretty bulletproof? Anytime you have turbos, inter-coolers, and all that extra plumbing there is just that much more that can go wrong.

They could always make a "Track Edition" or "R-type".

Knock off 200-300 pounds, up the boost 3-4lbs, add 50,000 and be untouchable. :dunno:

[arian_ma]

Originally posted by Darkane


They could always make a &quot;Track Edition&quot; or &quot;R-type&quot;.

Knock off 200-300 pounds, up the boost 3-4lbs, add 50,000 and be untouchable. :dunno:
They call it....the GT2 RS
:drool:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Darkane


They could always make a &quot;Track Edition&quot; or &quot;R-type&quot;.

Knock off 200-300 pounds, up the boost 3-4lbs, add 50,000 and be untouchable. :dunno:

They have the GT2 and GT2 RS, but I guess it's the AWD that is giving them the disgustingly good acceleration times.

They basically need to make the GT2 RS in AWD haha.

Also I didn't realize the Ferrari had a dual clutch tranny as well, that would be pretty amazing I'm sure. Also a 9k redline.

[Hakkola]

Here's the article
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q3/2011_aston_martin_v12_vantage_vs._2010_audi_r8_5.2_fsi_v10_2011_ferrari_458_italia_2011_mercedes-benz_sls_amg_2011_porsche_911_turbo_s-comparison_tests

[Tomaz]

Those numbers make me wet!

I am amazed production cars are hitting these numbers! Absolutely insane!

I want all these cars to be in the GT5. :bigpimp: (Seeing I wont own any of them in my life :( )

[max_boost]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
The 911 Turbo has got to be the &quot;cheapest&quot; way to get that kind of performance in a total package type car (by that I mean a 1000hp civic doesn't count haha). When they added PDK they pretty much made the ideal supercar. It's hard to imagine what they will improve now, but they will find something I am sure.

Does anyone know what the reliability is like in general on the Turbo 911's? Pretty bulletproof? Anytime you have turbos, inter-coolers, and all that extra plumbing there is just that much more that can go wrong.

Warranty my friend. haha

But a stock 10 sec car is fucking awesome.

Can you mod the 07-09 911 Turbo (480hp 0-60 in 3.3) or the 2010 (500hp 0-60 in 3.0) with PDK to get the same power as the "S" (530hp 0-60 in 2.7) or do you just buy the "S" version to start with? :rofl:

Not that it really matters.

Kulu has a black 07 6 speed and hmmm.....got me thinking with all this Porsche talk recently.

:love:

[Redlyne_mr2]

911 turbo will always be everyones hero.

[Skyline_Addict]

it was the most fuel efficient too!

[slinkie]

porsche coming out with some crazy stuff as usual, 918 spyder, gt2 rs, and this, something for the millionaires, and something for the 'ballers on a budget'


Originally posted by Tomaz

I want all these cars to be in the GT5. :bigpimp: (Seeing I wont own any of them in my life :( )

+1 ... we gotta think positive...maybe sell our livers in the third world

[xrayvsn]

Originally posted by max_boost


Warranty my friend. haha

But a stock 10 sec car is fucking awesome.

Can you mod the 07-09 911 Turbo (480hp 0-60 in 3.3) or the 2010 (500hp 0-60 in 3.0) with PDK to get the same power as the (530hp 0-60 in 2.7) or do you just buy the version to start with? :rofl:

Not that it really matters.

Kulu has a black 07 6 speed and hmmm.....got me thinking with all this Porsche talk recently.

:love:

The Turbo S 997.2 is the same mechanically as the non-S version. The difference in the ECU map, which allows the S to have peak boost of 14.7 psi vs 11.6 psi on the vanilla turbo.

You can definitely mod the 997.2 to make more power - there are several aftermarket companies that do this. The 997.1 turbo takes equally well to mods, but requires more modification to match the power output of the direct injected 3.8L of the 997.2 turbo.

For the average driver, it is probably a lot easier to whip off those 10 sec 1/4 mile times in the PDK 997.2 turbo consistently than manually rowing the 997.1 turbo 6 speed.

When are we going for a rip in my car? You'll be on the phone to Kulu in no time. haha

[max_boost]

LOL my roommate is itching to get a fun car and I've mentioned the idea of co-owning a 997 Turbo and he seems fairly receptive to it. I'm going to see how serious he is because I would be very serious. :burnout: haha

[jaysas_63]

Originally posted by max_boost
LOL my roommate is itching to get a fun car and I've mentioned the idea of co-owning a 997 Turbo and he seems fairly receptive to it. I'm going to see how serious he is because I would be very serious. :burnout: haha

co_owning a car?!?! sounds like things could get messy

lFxgaDT6mrk
http://
:rofl:

[JordanAndrew]

Sick car, I just need to win the 6/49 lotto tomorrow and I'm set to get one. :angel:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by max_boost
LOL my roommate is itching to get a fun car and I've mentioned the idea of co-owning a 997 Turbo and he seems fairly receptive to it. I'm going to see how serious he is because I would be very serious. :burnout: haha

I hope you both share exactly the same opinions on car care and treatment! That is a sweet idea though, cutting the cost in half.

[msommers]

Sharing a porsche? Man, no way in hell I could pull that off, too anal about my car!

Plus it sounds like a divorce settlement. I get it M/W/F and holidays and you get it T/Th/Weekend.....Fuck you I want weekends!...thanks for leaving me with an 1/8 of a tank dick...where did this scratch come from?!....would it kill you fill up the God damn windshield wiper fluid :drama: :rofl:

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

I heard in late 2011 your going to be able to order 911s with 7 speed manuals.

[m10-power]

Originally posted by max_boost


Warranty my friend. haha

But a stock 10 sec car is fucking awesome.

Can you mod the 07-09 911 Turbo (480hp 0-60 in 3.3) or the 2010 (500hp 0-60 in 3.0) with PDK to get the same power as the &quot;S&quot; (530hp 0-60 in 2.7) or do you just buy the &quot;S&quot; version to start with? :rofl:

Not that it really matters.

Kulu has a black 07 6 speed and hmmm.....got me thinking with all this Porsche talk recently.

:love:

I have ben researching it, with a flash and exhaust it would exceed the turbo s. Once the tuners get into them im sure 700hp on pump reliably wont be an issue. Unlike the gtr the tranny can take this just fine.

[m10-power]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo
I heard in late 2011 your going to be able to order 911s with 7 speed manuals.

Why when you can have a pdk version

[rage2]

Originally posted by xrayvsn
For the average driver, it is probably a lot easier to whip off those 10 sec 1/4 mile times in the PDK 997.2 turbo consistently than manually rowing the 997.1 turbo 6 speed.
A lot of the acceleration improvements come from the PDK transmission itself. Full throttle seamless shifts makes a huge difference, especially in the 0-60 times. It would be impossible for a manual transmission to match the PDK in acceleration, which is why everyone is going dual clutch.

The 997 Turbo S is going to rape everything in Calgary on the streets. Everything else in the comparo is NA, which will lose 100hp easy up here. The turbos in the 997 will lose a little bit of low end torque.

[JfuckinC]

Black series who? :D

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Originally posted by m10-power


Why when you can have a pdk version

Im just wondering if anyone else has heard that? I read it in CAR UK magazine I think. I would take the manual over the PDK still.

[MGCM]

Battle of the Supercars did the comparison of a modded 997 and a modded R8, the 997 walked away with an easy win.

[Seahorsepower1]

Want one :D

[Skyline_Addict]

fuck. i want this or a GTR....

[ericchoweg]

i want this

:burnout: :burnout:
:burnout: :burnout:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by MGCM
Battle of the Supercars did the comparison of a modded 997 and a modded R8, the 997 walked away with an easy win.

I watched that last night actually, the 997 is crazy. Tanner kept saying that he would do better if the air wasn't so thin though...that part confused me a bit because altitude should help turbo'd cars.

On an unrelated note, does anyone know if the 911 turbos suffer from heat soak? I remember with my old S4, on a hot day, the power loss was very noticeable.

[bwling]

I read the CD article just this past weekend. I was surprised at how much better the Turbo S scored compared to the 458...I figured it would be closer. Hats off to Porsche! :clap::thumbsup:

[msommers]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


I watched that last night actually, the 997 is crazy. Tanner kept saying that he would do better if the air wasn't so thin though...that part confused me a bit because altitude should help turbo'd cars.

I'm not 100% but wouldn't sea level equate to greater air density than at higher altitudes? Higher air density = more fuel = more power?

[Idratherbsidewayz]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
I watched that last night actually, the 997 is crazy. Tanner kept saying that he would do better if the air wasn't so thin though...that part confused me a bit because altitude should help turbo'd cars.

It won't help turbo cars, but it will limit the negative effects. Since the air is getting compressed anyways, the difference isn't as apparent as in NA where the air coming in is all you get. In that case, you only get as much oxygen as is in the air, which in the case of higher altitude, is significantly less.

Having said that, there's still a noticeable power difference in my WRX in Seattle vs. Calgary.


Originally posted by msommers
I'm not 100% but wouldn't sea level equate to greater air density than at higher altitudes? Higher air density = more fuel = more power?

Exactly.

[Mitsu3000gt]

So, they are only faster at high altitudes when compared to a similar N/A car? I guess thats where my confusion was. I always thought denser air = better too, and I understand that is why N/A cars are fastest at sea level, but people keep saying altitude was better for turbo'd cars so I got confused.

[m10-power]

Originally posted by Twin_Cam_Turbo


Im just wondering if anyone else has heard that? I read it in CAR UK magazine I think. I would take the manual over the PDK still.

Test drive a pdk and ill wager you'll change your mind. I've driven them in the city and at the race track. Its an incredible gearbox.

[msommers]

Hmm that's interesting. Maybe at higher altitudes they assumed the air is colder, and in conjuction of compression via the turbocharger, it might may allude to being better?

I know I'm looking forward to seeing how different the G's power is at sea level vs. here. I'm sure not earth shocking but at least somewhat noticeable:)

[rage2]

OK here's how it works.

At sea level, absolute pressure is 14.7psi.
N/A car - 14.7psi manifold pressure - 500hp.
Turbo car - 29.4psi manifold pressure (14.7psi boost) - 500hp.

At Calgary elevation, absolute pressure is 12.0psi.
N/A car - 12.0psi manifold pressure - 408hp.
Turbo car - 29.4psi manifold pressure (17.4psi boost) - 500hp.

Turbo car will run the turbo harder to maintain the same manifold pressure at higher elevations.

Now, there IS still some difference for turbo cars, it's not a complete free ride. At higher elevations, it takes more boost to maintain the same power, thus at lower rpm's it'll still make less power. Peak power (assuming turbo size is big enough) will remain the same, but the area under the curve is smaller.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Good explanation, thanks. Turns out I understood (roughly) how it worked all along haha. The key is comparing it to a NA car with equal HP.

[rage2]

More explainations...

BMW 335 N54 turbos have a higher rate of failure in Calgary than Vancouver, because they work much harder here, and running them near it's limits break them. The guys with the Dinan or other boost upgrades go through turbos like oil filters here because they're maxxed out 90% of the time.

In some parts of Colorado where it's something like 7000ft elevation, pretty much all turbo cars can't keep up, and will max out. So depending on how much headroom the turbo has, there will be a point in elevation where a turbo car will start to lose peak hp because the turbos can't compress any more air.

[Tomaz]

Now, what about superchargers. Seeing superchargers work on a mechanical system instead of a pressure system, are they affected in the same fashion as a NA car?

[rage2]

superchargers will make less HP at higher elevation. Unless it bleeds excess boost at sea level, but I don't think any stock S/C car does that.

S/C cars can run more timing tho so it can gain SOME of it back.

[Tomaz]

Excellent, I have it all straightened out in my head. Thanks!

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Originally posted by m10-power


Test drive a pdk and ill wager you'll change your mind. I've driven them in the city and at the race track. Its an incredible gearbox.

I probably wouldn't. I find that anything that isn't a true manual just seems a tad bit boring to me because to me it seems too easy. Sure you have an amazing car that's ridiculously fast but changing my own gears makes it more fun for me because its something else I have to focus on to make everything work together. Sure I would probably never be nearly as fast on a road course or in a straight line but I would have more fun overall, and there will always be someone who's faster anyway. I would buy a GT3 if I wanted a Porsche anyway.

(This coming from a guy who got to drive an R35 and thinks his 250WHP Nissan is just as much fun)

[slinkie]

rationalization

[boarderfatty]

Champion Motorsports Porsche Turbo (http://championmotorsportonline.net/?p=1)

Here is a way to get to 2.6 seconds. In an article done by excellence magazine they had this car down to 2.5 seconds. the only limit to the car right now they say is the transmission which they plan on beefing up, then adding boost and getting into low 2's

[Cos]

I still want 0.7 taken off that quarter mile. 9.9 baby.



although that is still fucking stupid :drool:

[94boosted]

:eek: That is a stupid fast time.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
The 911 Turbo has got to be the &quot;cheapest&quot; way to get that kind of performance in a total package type car (by that I mean a 1000hp civic doesn't count haha). When they added PDK they pretty much made the ideal supercar.

I'd say the ZR1 takes the title for that.

http://www.chevrolet.com/vehicles/2011/corvettezr1/overview.do

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by 89coupe


I'd say the ZR1 takes the title for that.

http://www.chevrolet.com/vehicles/2011/corvettezr1/overview.do

Far from it, in my opinion. While it's still a performance bargain, IMO it's missing some key things that I would include in the "total package". It's missing a dual clutch tranny, and it has a garbage interior. Two things that would piss me off if I was in the market for a $150k+ car, especially since the competition offers it. Compared to the 911 Turbo S, it is significantly slower 0-60, significantly slower in the 1/4 mile, and significantly slower 0-100. Both cars are ridiculous fast but even 0.5 second at those speeds is a huge difference.

Some of that is personal preference, I suppose, but I would MUCH rather have a 911 Turbo S PDK than a ZR1. Definitely debatable, I'm sure there is a large number of people who would take one over the other and vise versa.

So, I am still unaware of a car that has the total package and is cheaper than a 911 Turbo S that can best it's performance numbers in the "standard" speed tests, because the ZR1 can't. Maybe the Ariel Atom or something similar, but those aren't daily drivers.

[r3ccOs]

So based on calculation, you're seeing up to 22% power loss due to the the 2.7 ATMs of loss @ this altitude for all N/A cars?

What is the impact to fuel consumption, one would wonder.

Also, yea... why doesn't porsche just AWD their GT2 RS?

Is there anything preventing AWD from entering touring car circuits anymore other than BTR?

[C4S]

Yes ..

The new Turbo S is stupidly fast .. I couldn't believe how much it is faster then the previous 997 Turbo ...

I didn't believe the 2.7sec number until I drove them!

The regular 911 Turbo PDK is damn fast already, (2.9) but Turbo S ... just amazing, and so easy to drive fast!!

Best car for under $200K .. if there is one around ..

:nut:

[rage2]

Originally posted by r3ccOs
So based on calculation, you're seeing up to 22% power loss due to the the 2.7 ATMs of loss @ this altitude for all N/A cars?

What is the impact to fuel consumption, one would wonder.
Fuel consumption wouldn't change. You would need the same hp to maintain the same speed regardless of elevation, therefore same fuel consumption.

[Revhard]

Originally posted by rage2

Fuel consumption wouldn't change. You would need the same hp to maintain the same speed regardless of elevation, therefore same fuel consumption.

I'm not sure on the relationship, but the air gets thinner at higher elevations. This is easier to push the car through. At what speed this becomes a noticeable factor Im not sure, but based on my fuel consumption in higher elevation areas, it's lower than most think.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by Revhard


I'm not sure on the relationship, but the air gets thinner at higher elevations. This is easier to push the car through. At what speed this becomes a noticeable factor Im not sure, but based on my fuel consumption in higher elevation areas, it's lower than most think.

Not that you can really compare the two, but you sure notice the difference when driving a golf ball.