[ds968]

has anyone here tested the Q-mile performance of our coupes after the chip/airbox mods..or with the RS Barn complete package ? I'm curious if it could attain mid 13s or even low 13s ? Depending which car magazine tests you believe stock is supposed to be anywhere between 14.6 and 14.1, but I do not know if the extra 25 ponies from the chip & air mods are enough to shave off almost a second from the 1/4 mi time ? Too optimistic ?

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

[whakiewes]

No real times, but my G-Meter gave me 13.6-13.9 at 100-105. All on different days, different times, different everything.



Wes

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

[wjk_glynn]

[quote name='ds968' post='28256' date='Nov 24 2006, 08:49 AM']has anyone here tested the Q-mile performance of our coupes after the chip/airbox mods..or with the RS Barn complete package ? I'm curious if it could attain mid 13s or even low 13s ? Depending which car magazine tests you believe stock is supposed to be anywhere between 14.6 and 14.1, but I do not know if the extra 25 ponies from the chip & air mods are enough to shave off almost a second from the 1/4 mi time ? Too optimistic ?[/quote]



The fastest recorded independant 1/4 time for a 968 was 14.2-seconds by C&D in 1992. The average is around 14.6. See http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTe...y.html#968Coupe



The 3.2-liter 987 Boxster S does the 1/4 mile in around 13.5-seconds. That car makes 280-bhp and is a tad lighter than a 968 Coupe.



So my rough estimate is that a 968 would need to make 280-290 bhp to do the 1/4 mile in the mid-13s.



Karl.

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

[ds968]

I brought it up because I still find it amazing how much adverstising/marketing focuses solely on the hp of the car, when the hp/weight ratio means so much more.. take the new Shelby GT... this 4 banger of ours can cross the 1/4 mile line within a second ( or possibly even less..) behind a 500 hp, 480 ft/lbs muscle mania car. ( 13.1 sec ) I recognize that in racing, one second is a HUGE difference, but in real life, in my little world <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> being able to take off from a stand still and keep only a " thousand one..thousand two " count behind a GT is still amazing. Not to mention that, eventually, we'd overtake it since we're not governed to cut off at 155 <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/cool.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



Then again, there's the Lotus Elise with it's sub 200hp engine who can give Vettes and Vipers a good run for their money <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/ohmy.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

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

[wjk_glynn]

I've not done much reading on the GT500 but C&D (Jul-06) measured its 1/4 mile at 12.9-sec @ 112 mph -- so about 1.5-seconds faster than a 968 coupe on average.



Trouble is... 1/4 mile times vary a lot. You can take the same car and do repeated back to back runs and get quite a bit of variation due to all sorts of variables. However, the trap-speed tends to be more consistent and is (IMO) a more reliable predictor of true accelerative capability.



A 6-speed 968 coupe runs a 1/4 mile in an average time of about 14.6 seconds @ 97-mph (averaged results from 5x different independant tests). Using the trap-speed, this means the car pulls an average of 0.24 G over the 1/4 mile.



The GT500 with a (sample of one) 1/4 mile trap speed of 112-mph is pulling an average of 0.32 G over that distance.



This means the GT500 pulls about 33% harder than the 968 over the 1/4 mile. So while the timed difference is only 1-2 seconds, from the seat of the pants you're going to feel a third more push in the back in the GT500.



Another way to look at it is say you were drag racing a GT500. When he crosses the line at 12.9-sec doing 112-mph, you're about 150-ft behind doing maybe 93 to 94 mph (I'm estimating those numbers as I didn't have the time to sit down and workout the math. But I'd be surprised if I was way off).



So... if you challenge a GT500, be prepared to see only its tail lights as it rapidly pulls away from you.



Now, get on a twisty road and its a whole other story. You'll literally out brake and out corner the GT500 while arriving at your destination without having the daylights scared out of you.



Karl.

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

[968rz]

wjk_glynn wrote:

Now, get on a twisty road and its a whole other story. You'll literally out brake and out corner the GT500 while arriving at your destination without having the daylights scared out of you.

Now, isn't that what it's all about ? <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='wjk_glynn' post='28310' date='Nov 25 2006, 02:30 PM']So... if you challenge a GT500, be prepared to see only its tail lights as it rapidly pulls away from you.

Karl.[/quote]



<img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> he, I'm not quite that insane. besides, the 968 is really not an off the line car to begin with, so most of the fun I have is purely highway challenges. however, back to the GT, I did not realize how big that one second or so difference was until you translated it into distance..150 ft behind is pretty bad..

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

[rhudeboye]

[quote name='wjk_glynn' post='28310' date='Nov 25 2006, 03:30 PM']Another way to look at it is say you were drag racing a GT500. When he crosses the line at 12.9-sec doing 112-mph, you're about 150-ft behind doing maybe 93 to 94 mph (I'm estimating those numbers as I didn't have the time to sit down and workout the math. But I'd be surprised if I was way off).



So... if you challenge a GT500, be prepared to see only its tail lights as it rapidly pulls away from you.





Karl.[/quote]



You make a valid point and reading your post makes me proud to say we 68, S2 and 51 owners have so much car for the money.



Note; our cars should be out of their weight class when going up against a Mustang GT (4.6 L V8 vs. 3.0L I4) and we have no problems with these, even on the straights, even though our cars are over 10 years old. There’s not a lot of 15-year-old cars that you would fearlessly compare with modern cars pushing 300HP and above.



Now to come somewhat closer to apples to apples, we would have to install a turbo to help balance off the immense discrepancy of a 3.0L I4 NA vs. a 5.4L Supercharged V8 . I’d be interested to see the numbers on that.

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

[doster]

    ME TOO !



Hey Rhudeboy here's one for ya.

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

[ds968]

depends on the turbo. the "big daddy" Powerhaus turbo that a few 968-ers put on their cars turns that 3.0L 4banger into a rocket. it would be interesting to see the numbers. probably still not remarkable in the 0-60 range, but I'm guessing b/w 30-170 it will not only embarass a shelby GT, but THE Ford GT as well <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/unsure.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ?



Damn, where is Dan DeGruchy when you need him ?! Danno ? Danno ? ( one of the Powerhaus Ts in the Bay Area )

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

[wjk_glynn]

The torque-rich 968 Turbo S did a (claimed) 0-60 in about 4.8-seconds, and the 60-100 sprint in 5.7-seconds. In other words, almost as quick as the 1994 964 Turbo 3.6 -- which coincidenty does the 1/4 mile in almost identical time/speed as the GT500.



So a 400-bhp (on 91-octane) Powerhaus motor in a 968 should result in a car that accelerates more quickly than a stock GT500. I predict a Powerhaus engined 968 would have basically the same performance characteristics as a 993 TT or a bit better (same HP, but the 993's extra displacement, torque and traction should counter most of its weight disadvantage). But I don't think a PH 968 would beat a Ford GT. That Ford has a trap-speed in the low 120's at the end of the 1/4 mile (in other words, 6-7 mph faster than a 993 TT). It's hard to argue with 500-bhp and 500 ft-lb of torque.



One thing to note... you can buy a brand new 300-bhp 4.6L Ford Mustang GT off the lot for the same price as that Powerhaus engine (it costs $25K and you have to supply a 3.0L core).



And if the GT500 owner wishes, more power and torque are easily obtainable (for way less than the Powerhaus conversion).



The list price of a GT500 is $43K (they're getting quite a bit over sticker right now, but give it 6-months and it'll settle back down) -- about $2K less than the most basic entry level Boxster.



Karl.

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

[rhudeboye]

[quote name='wjk_glynn' post='28349' date='Nov 26 2006, 05:21 PM']The torque-rich 968 Turbo S did a (claimed) 0-60 in about 4.8-seconds, and the 60-100 sprint in 5.7-seconds. In other words, almost as quick as the 1994 964 Turbo 3.6 -- which coincidenty does the 1/4 mile in almost identical time/speed as the GT500.



So a 400-bhp (on 91-octane) Powerhaus motor in a 968 should result in a car that accelerates more quickly than a stock GT500. I predict a Powerhaus engined 968 would have basically the same performance characteristics as a 993 TT or a bit better (same HP, but the 993's extra displacement, torque and traction should counter most of its weight disadvantage). But I don't think a PH 968 would beat a Ford GT. That Ford has a trap-speed in the low 120's at the end of the 1/4 mile (in other words, 6-7 mph faster than a 993 TT). It's hard to argue with 500-bhp and 500 ft-lb of torque.



One thing to note... you can buy a brand new 300-bhp 4.6L Ford Mustang GT off the lot for the same price as that Powerhaus engine (it costs $25K and you have to supply a 3.0L core).



And if the GT500 owner wishes, more power and torque are easily obtainable (for way less than the Powerhaus conversion).



The list price of a GT500 is $43K (they're getting quite a bit over sticker right now, but give it 6-months and it'll settle back down) -- about $2K less than the most basic entry level Boxster.



Karl.[/quote]



PH gets their cars up around the 450HP range. The differnece in what the Mustang can do with that extra 50HP is suspect. Theres a 50HP difference between the GT and my stock 68 yet I walked away from one that was full throttle. Numbers dont mean as much to me as they use to as I run w/ many cars that are 300HP or better. A coworker of mine has the Caddy XLR which is 320. He gave me a ride and I know I got him beat. I do agree that 500HP is nothing to take lightly but neither is 450 in turbo charged 68 w/variocam if the Ford gets it hats off but my $ would be on the 68.



Money was never the issue but;

If power is all your looking for a GT or a Chrager with Hemi would suit you fine and IMO they also look pretty nice. But as I like to run through corners neithr is suited for me. A turbo is out of the question also, for as you mentioned its just too big of an investment. If I had my choice of cars in the 50K range, more then likely Id end up with something like this http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1999-355-Sp...1QQcmdZViewItem

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

[wjk_glynn]

[quote name='rhudeboye' post='28358' date='Nov 26 2006, 06:58 PM']PH gets their cars up around the 450HP range.[/quote]



If I'm not mistaken, the recommended street boost setting for PH 3.0L engines is 1.0 bar. That boost value is selected for engine longevity and use with street gas.



When I wrote the article on Dan's PH 968 for Excellence, I interviewed David Raines (owner of PH) and his exact words were: "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."



If we assume a 15% drivetrain loss, Dan’s car made an estimated 398 bhp at 1.0 bar and 471 bhp at 1.3 bar, at the flywheel.



Now if you're willing to crank up the boost, put 100-octane gas in the tank and do a few pulls, you can get (a lot) better results. Joe Cervantes' PH 3.0L 951 made an estimated 564 hp & 553 ft.lbs. torque (amazing, and scary!) at the flywheel. The fuel pressure was 50 psi and boost was set to 1.45 bar (21 psi) -- but again, it was done on 100-octane gas. I'd be curious to know if Joe's car also makes 400-bhp at the flywheel at 1.0-bar...



A few other non-PH examples are:



(1) KMR's turbocharged 968 made 360 HP on 92-octane and 479 HP on 110-octane.

(2) David Chen's 3.0L turbo motors make ~400 bhp on street gas.





[quote name='rhudeboye' post='28358' date='Nov 26 2006, 06:58 PM']Theres a 50HP difference between the GT and my stock 68 yet I walked away from one that was full throttle.[/quote]



All of the independant instrumented road tests I've seen to date show that the Mustang GT has an advantage (not huge, but its there) over the 968 in a straight line.



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



Mustang GT results (examples):

* http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8778...mustang-gt.html

* http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...article_id=1662

* http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=103665



However, you did out accelerate a GT with your 968. By chance do you happen to know the owner? I'd be curious to know if it was an auto, how aggressively he drove, whether he short-shifted, if the car was new (with a tight engine), etc. I have a friend with a 968 and I've pulled away from him in my S2 on occasion. But that's only because I got a drop on him (and because of the accumulating effect, a fraction of a second has a significant effect), or he didn't shift well, etc. But when the conditions are equal, he pulls on me.





[quote name='rhudeboye' post='28358' date='Nov 26 2006, 06:58 PM']A coworker of mine has the Caddy XLR which is 320. He gave me a ride and I know I got him beat.[/quote]



Not a lot of XLR road tests out there but even with its automatic, its been measured as being quicker than a 968. In fact, almost identical to a Mustang GT. See http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...;article_id=735





[quote name='rhudeboye' post='28358' date='Nov 26 2006, 06:58 PM']I do agree that 500HP is nothing to take lightly but neither is 450 in turbo charged 68 w/variocam if the Ford gets it hats off but my $ would be on the 68.[/quote]



It would be very close...



A Ford GT weighs about 3,400 lbs and has a PWR of 6.8 lbs/hp. Plus it has good inherent traction due to its rear weight bias.



For a 450-bhp 968 to have the same (or better) PWR, it would need to weigh 3,060-lbs (or less). However, I reckon a US-spec 968 with the additional turbo-bits would weigh in around 3,100-3,200 lbs (but I wouldn't bet the house on that guess). But a diet would get it down to equal par.



On the other hand, a supercharged 5.4L V8 has a torque curve like the great plains. Area under the curve and all that...





[quote name='rhudeboye' post='28358' date='Nov 26 2006, 06:58 PM']If I had my choice of cars in the 50K range, more then likely Id end up with something like this http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1999-355-Sp...1QQcmdZViewItem[/quote]



F355s are gorgeous. And it was the car that really put them back on the map.



Karl.

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

[KMR968Turbo]

I own the KMR 968 Turbo that was in Excellence magazine and look forward to being able to get the car to a dyno next summer. As for performance, I only drove it for a couple of months but I am happy so far with how it runs. The power is very linear - not at all like a lot of turbo cars. When I first went from my 305 rwhp 951 into the 968 I really couldn't see a huge difference. But I drove the 968 Turbo for about a week and then got back into the 951. I couldn't believe how dead the 951 felt. That was when I knew the 968 Turbo was a way more powerful machine. The interesting thing is that the 968 Turbo accelerates hard to the top of every gear unlike my 951 which is good up to about 130 mph and then the acceleration slows down considerably. I posted on Rennlist about a little run in I had with a Lamborghini Diablo. On a straight stretch of highway I saw him keeping pace with me about 5 car lengths back so I geared down and kept an eye on my rear view mirror. He nailed it and pulled into the passing lane attempting to perform a high speed pass. However, as soon as I saw the nose of his car lift I punched it too. Initially he gained about a car length but in short order I stopped his pull and he actually lost a car length before having to pull back in behind me - 5 cars back just like when he started. He didn't try coming any closer than that and didn't follow when I took another freeway. I was on boost setting #2 for this run.

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

[wjk_glynn]

[quote name='KMR968Turbo' post='28365' date='Nov 26 2006, 10:17 PM']I own the KMR 968 Turbo that was in Excellence magazine...[/quote]



You lucky dog! <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/biggrin.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



Karl.

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

[rhudeboye]

[quote name='wjk_glynn' post='28363' date='Nov 26 2006, 10:26 PM']Mustang GT results (examples):

* http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8778...mustang-gt.html

* http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...article_id=1662

* http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=103665



However, you did out accelerate a GT with your 968. By chance do you happen to know the owner? I'd be curious to know if it was an auto, how aggressively he drove, whether he short-shifted, if the car was new (with a tight engine), etc. I have a friend with a 968 and I've pulled away from him in my S2 on occasion. But that's only because I got a drop on him (and because of the accumulating effect, a fraction of a second has a significant effect), or he didn't shift well, etc. But when the conditions are equal, he pulls on me.

Not a lot of XLR road tests out there but even with its automatic, its been measured as being quicker than a 968. In fact, almost identical to a Mustang GT. See http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...;article_id=735

It would be very close...







Karl.[/quote]

Well. I admit that my thoughts on the matter are just that, Thoughts!



To answer your question, I dont know the owner of the GT and Man, I wish I did. I do have a friend with the 2002 cobra but I believe that around 380HP.



As I mentioned, numbers dont convince me of what would happen on the road. But note this quote from the article you linked above on the XLR.



"The engine lacks a little of the massive tip-in torque of the Mercedes or Maserati, but really charges as it builds through midrange and beyond, good enough for third-quickest in our 0-60 (5.8 sec.) and quarter-mile (14.1 sec.) acceleration runs. Nice engine, all around".



This report is dead on, and the point is also true of our engines before being chipped. But the XLR feels much slower as Ive been in both. The engine often sounds alive but isn’t really giving any true push till around 25MPH. When I go into 2nd hard my wheels chirp and I go. Again just my thoughts but I strongly feel I got him and if the GT carrys the smae number well, my apologies for sounding so haughty/arrogant but Id be surprised if he can beat me to 60 and equally surprised if he can catch me after 100.





see you after the big race <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

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

[ds968]

IIRC, Dan DeGruchy's PH968 was producing 500hp. He said nothing to date ( that was around two years ago ) has ever beat his car. No Lambos, no Vipers, nothing.. well, the Veyron was not on the road yet <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/dry.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> at that time. Must be fun, but I could not do it - NO Air Conditioner !

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

[chris]

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="" />

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

[ds968]

I agree on the magazine stats statement - so many things can influence results, although I'm sure the cars have to be reasonably close - I'm not saying you can put up a 5 sec car against a 7 sec car and hope the conditions will reverse the expected outcome <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> . But for example, I have consistently outrun several C4 ( there are so many around here, it's dowright annoying <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ) cabs, and stayed neck in neck with a C4 coupe all the way to 150mph, but if you look at the stats I'm also not "supposed to" be able to do that.. also, I don't think my driver skills was the only reason, I'm not that good, so there's probably a lot of things that come into play, which manufacturer or magazine tests never factor in..

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

[flash]

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



if you want to find out, pull them over or get an agreed start, let them know this is an all out race, and then have at it - you'll get a much better read



also, the need in power goes up geometrically with the increase in speed, so, given similar aerodynamics, gearing, etc, a 400hp car is not going to be all that different from 80-150 than a 250hp car - you'll see a winner, but it won't be by as much a you'd think



if you want a decent "magazine measurement" on what does what, look at 0-150 times - then look at 220 feet per second to see how far apart you would be at 150mph - you could do the same thing for 60-150 or whatever

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