[rhudeboye]

[quote name='chris' post='28377' date='Nov 27 2006, 09:28 AM']An interesting read, but magazine racing is hardly indicative of real results. As mentioned before, things like driver skill play a huge factor.



In my G35 coupe, I regularly stomp on Mustang GT's...but most magazines say I have no chance <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />[/quote]



YES, this is what Im saying.



back to the XLR, isnt that 0-60 slower then our 68s? The XLR is 5.8 while ours is around 5.6? If thats so, then even on paper were quicker.



Man I want a peice of him now.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[wjk_glynn]

[quote name='chris' post='28377' date='Nov 27 2006, 08:28 AM']...In my G35 coupe, I regularly stomp on Mustang GT's...but most magazines say I have no chance <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />[/quote]



Turns out that the 1st-generation (280-bhp) G35 Coupe has very similar accleration to the 968 up to about 100-mph:







As speeds rise, HP-to-aerodynamic-efficiency starts to become more important than HP-to-weight-ratio, and you start to see the G35 pull away from the 968 (at over 100 mph).



But up to 100-mph, there's very little in it.



Karl.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[wjk_glynn]

[quote name='ds968' post='28376' date='Nov 27 2006, 08:02 AM']IIRC, Dan DeGruchy's PH968 was producing 500hp.[/quote]



Not quite that much, and then only on 100-octane gas. On the street with 91-octane gas, its about 400-bhp.



Repeating a quote from David Raines (owner of PH) listed above... "For reliability, I set the maximum boost at 1.0 bar for cars running 91 octane unleaded gas. At this setting, Dan’s car measured 338 bhp and 322 lb-ft at the rear-wheels on a Dynojet 248C. When we tested at 1.3 bar with 100 octane unleaded, his car made 400 bhp and 377 lb-ft at the rear-wheels."



When I drove Dan's car for the article, it was set at 1-bar (i.e. the 400 FWHP setting) and the car was crazy quick. Drove it on 280, skyline, 9, etc. (since you're from SF, you'll know those roads). It was brilliant. And it wasn't just the power. It was the suspension setup, brakes, seats, etc.



In fact, it make me all tingly just thinking back to that day.





[quote name='rhudeboye' post='28388' date='Nov 27 2006, 12:15 PM']back to the XLR, isnt that 0-60 slower then our 68s? The XLR is 5.8 while ours is around 5.6? If thats so, then even on paper were quicker.[/quote]



Out of 8x independant instrumented road tests that I've seen, only one (C&D) got it down to 5.6-seconds.



The average is about 6.1-seconds.



See http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTe...y.html#968Coupe for details...



Also, the XLR has an advantage in 1/4 trap speed (based on that single sample). Crossing the line, the 968 is averaging 97-mph, the XLR is doing about 102-mph. And the XLRs advantage should continue to grow as the speeds rise because PWR is less important as compared to absolute HP to fight wind resistance.



Karl.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[chris]

[quote name='rhudeboye' post='28388' date='Nov 27 2006, 03:15 PM']Man I want a peice of him now.[/quote]

Do it, you can take him! <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/cool.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='flash' post='28387' date='Nov 27 2006, 11:53 AM']yeah, but you're a nut, and i'll be most of those guys had never driven that fast before - you'd be amazed at how many people just don't push it, even when in such a situation - they very often leave a bit on the table, usually in the redline area - most people shift way too early for maximum acceleration and top speed[/quote]



Yes, all too true and I do not discount that it's factor, but in this particular case I've outrun two C4 cabs who I can assure you were all out, pedal to the floor ( though both might have been tiptronics ) and it's unlikley anyone taking their car up to 150mph is leaving anything on the table, up to that speeed anyway...however, he did bail out just around that mark, so your comment may be right on, in that respect..

My point is that based not on one, but three experiences with C4s I'm willing to bet that if I drove both cars in a race ( so no driver skill at play ) my 968 will edge the C4 any day, anywhere. Not by much mind you, but win, nonethelss. This in spite of tests and stats which should still give a decent margin to the Carrera, even with the xtra HP I have from the mods, and the weight I shed from dumping the oem exhaust and the spare tire.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the numbers i found just don't work - hard to fight physics



a C4 is heavier than a C2 , but it's still only 3020 lbs (cab a bit heavier), and with about 300hp - it's possible to be close up to that speed, depending on shifting and gearing, but then it's top speed capabilities would take over (the danged thing can go 174) - the aerodynamics of the C4 are far superior to ours (.30 vs our .34) - if the guy knew how and when to shift, he should kick your butt - he's got 10.2 lbs/hp, and in the best world, even with your mods, you have about 11.3 - a tip would be slower than the manual though, and might make it closer - for example, it's 0-60 is 6.2



seriously, i think the guys are just afraid of the edge, and you're a nut



but, i am sure i can set up a high speed run with a similar nut with a C4 from a shop here, the next time you are down

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

keep in mind, I have no idea what YEAR these C4s were - they looked fairly new ( 2000 - 2004 ish ), and there are material differences in performance from year to year for those cars. Heck, some of the earlier C4 models with barely 250 ponies and a lot more weight than ours are hardly a match for even a stock 968 with a flat tire.. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



[quote name='flash' post='28403' date='Nov 27 2006, 03:39 PM']but, i am sure i can set up a high speed run with a similar nut with a C4 from a shop here, the next time you are down[/quote]



hey, works for me ! <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[au968]

my 968 will edge the C4 any day, anywhere.

How about on a wet surface <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/biggrin.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



Of course you guys are talking about comparing your cars on a racetrack, you wouldn't be doing 150mph on a public road. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/ohmy.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



Michael

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

dan - as far as i can tell, the earilest 996 C4 had 296hp, and it went up from there



lol - michael - uh yeah - yeah - that's it - wink wink nod nod - like i said, he's a nut

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[wjk_glynn]

Test summaries for C2, C4, cabs, etc. can be found here...



http://www.weissach.net/RoadTestSummaries.html



Karl.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

you da man! cool

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Great reference chart Karl !!



Before seeing this I just typed in "carrera 4" and see them going way back to 1989 ( at least ? ) - that C4 had 247 HP.



Ha, on a wet surface the only chance I'd have against a C4 is if it was running on drag racing slicks <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



Yeah, track .. that's right. I would never even think about driving faster than 65mph on our nation's highways <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[rhudeboye]

[quote name='wjk_glynn' post='28393' date='Nov 27 2006, 02:38 PM']The average is about 6.1-seconds.



See http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTe...y.html#968Coupe for details...



Karl.[/quote]



This weekend I’m taking my Digital camera and a gtech for a ride to 60MPH. I just have to know. Now either my car is faster then the average 68, you guys are trigger shy or I simply have no true concept of speed. Man Im hoping its not the latter. By Sunday I will post the results and pics. Im shooting for a 5.5 and if I have to eat crow sobeit. But if Im right, ahhhh, then we all have something to smile about.



[quote name='chris' post='28396' date='Nov 27 2006, 03:24 PM']Do it, you can take him! <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/cool.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />[/quote]



<img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> thanx Chris, its nice to have someone in my corner.



Shoot, I just remembered something. My front tires are in pretty bad shape. The rears are looking good though so if I pull say a 5.6 on the 1st or 2nd run then I deserve more props OK.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[badberry68]

I agree with Flash, I wont drive that fast for that long. Anyway, I dont trust the Shelby GT 500 HP numbers. It runs 0--60 in 4.5 seconds and the quarter in 12.9. A BMW M6 is rated at 500 HP and runs the quarter in 12.4 seconds--and it weighs more!!??? Not convinced? How about Ford's own 03 Mustang Cobra 110 fewer horses, 216 fewer pounds and has the same 1/4 mile time. That is a 20-percent worse power to weight ratio.



Works Cited:



C & D July 06

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

remember too that our speedos read really high - at 60 it's reading 64 - at 130 it's reading 139! - could be a gearing thing, whereby the C4 isn't in a good spot

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

I tried a couple of runs using my chrono watch, but too much room for human error there - likley several fractions of a second either in jumping the start time and/or delayed reaction in pushing that button at 60, all the time while holding the wheel, shifting, looking at the speedometer....just can't trust my reflexes that much <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/dry.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> .



For whatever it's worth though, it was right in the middle of 5 and 6, so who knows what the real time might have been ..



As for speedo error, I'm wondering if MOST other cars suffer from the same illness ?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

next time we hook up, i'll stick my g-tech in there for you

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[wjk_glynn]

For anyone using a performance meter (e.g. G-tech, etc.), see http://www.caranddriver.com/features/9380/...eters-work.html



It's an interesting article.



Karl.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[sguy]

If your're going to use your speedometer for determining your 0-60 times, be sure to calibrate it first. I did this for my car when I picked up my car this year so I know how far off the speedometer was in case an officer needed to know. Drive a steady speed of 60 mph ( I found the cruise control works good on these cars and could be used) on a road with mile markers. I look at the time when the mile marker passes the "A" pillar. Each mile marker should come up in 60 seconds. However, mile markers can be off some and I do this for 5 or 6 miles to get an average, or cumulative reading. When I did this for my car, it was within 1 mph of actual 60 as I measured (running PS2's 255/40/17 rear tires). This can also be done at 120 mph when you get 30 seconds per mile marker (only on a track) <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/dry.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> . I do agree that driver ability and ambient conditions can highly influence 0-60 times.



Cheers,

Stephen

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[wjk_glynn]

There's something else to remember when doing timed runs and that's incline.



At a proper drag strip, its built to be level over the 1/4 mile. But lets say you pick a random piece of straight road (or even airport runway), it can have an incline that's not detectable from the driver's seat, but it can still have a significant affect on time (+/- 0.5-sec 0-60mph). And if you can detect even the tinyest (sp?) incline from the driver's seat, its guaranteed to have a significant effect.



That's why the professional testers do runs in both directions and average the peak from each direction.



Then there's the whole barometric & temperature compensation thing which I've never really gotten my head around. In theory its supposed to translate the measured results on the day (at the air pressure and temperature of the day) to some normalized set of conditions (sea level and some specificied temperature). Kinda like the "SAE-corrrected" results on a dyno.



But for amatures like ourselves who don't have easy access to the imperical models and the software to do the calculations, its hard to do those compensations.



Karl.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.