4

11/2/2009 8:10:28 PM

4.1

11/4/2009 1:43:16 PM

^no. that would be 4.02

11/5/2009 9:55:24 AM

^^^^ (to the "porsche turbo quicker than mclaren f1" comments).

I'd like to establish a standard whereby any car that can do 0-60 in under 4 seconds or less no longer be "measured" (in the sense of establishing a rank) by its actual 0-60 time, because at this point, driver error (as well as lack of opportunity for such driver error) is such a huge factor in the actual time measurement as to obliterate the value of a precise measurement. I'd like to see either a "sustained accelerative g" or a measure for 'accelerative load variation performing the same test between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gear,' over these speeds. In other words, because the automotive world has essentially refused to accept a 5-60 standard to eliminate the role played by how easy a car is to launch, let alone normalizing for shift speed, I want to see the details of that time.

There's little argument that the new 911 turbo, as well as a nissan gtr for that matter, are getting their remarkable acceleration times because of the relentless pursuit of new technologies to reclaim the lost fractions of the test spent not accelerating, witnessed by amazing new dual-clutch gearboxes, launch control, 4wd systems with electronically controlled torque splits, rearward located transmissions, as well as the latest exotic tires, but I just can't accept that a 3500+ lb car with ~500 hp feels anywhere near as shocking as a 2600 lb car with 600+ hp. I also suspect that a 2nd gear launch from idle, if not rolling 5 mph, would have a mclaren f1 still getting to 60 in under 4 seconds while a 911 turbo would be over a second later. This is the car-acceleration equivalent of "teaching the test." Cars haven't gotten truly better at what the test is supposed to measure, they've just gotten better at taking the test. Therefore, just as when students get too good at taking the test, the testing standard needs to be changed.

1/4 mile is an interesting standard because while it still suffers from the time-improving skews such as launch and shift improvements, it also includes a terminal velocity standard. But 1/4 mile is too long. Cars with legitimately equally blistering daily-usable-speed-range accelerative fortitude will be denied the equal footing they deserve against cars whose power to weight ratio comes from an excess of power rather than a commendably low curb weight. For example: a Caterham R500 deserves higher praise for its acceleration than a mclaren, even if the performances are identical, because a Caterham manages the performance more through modesty of build rather than budgetless use of the most exotic materials and freedom to pursue a particular level of performance without regard to turning a profit or selling a bunch of them. Really, the Mclaren might as well have been built by NASA, as it was such a money-losing statement of ego justifiable only by sheer adventurous exploration of what is possible for mankind. (Don't get me wrong, I'm in love with the mclaren, but it's a science experiment, not a daily driver. Can you imagine taking it to the supermarket for a can of soup and then coming back out and seeing it parked next to a ragged out ford explorer parked diagonally in the next space and only 3 inches off your fender? I'd have such an anxiety attack that I might throw up).

So, something with both a time and velocity component, but shorter than a 1/4 mile. How about 1/8th mile as the new benchmark, but also encouraging taking speed trap data at increments along a distance up-to a quarter mile?

The only problem I can see is that most people have no basis of expectation for 1/8 mile. But adopting it would shortly eliminate that problem.

I really like this idea. I'm going to save this post in a txt file and fwd it on to car mags.
huzzah, Tww.

11/5/2009 10:46:39 AM

tl;dr

someone shorten that for me...

11/5/2009 10:51:12 AM

Hmm. Well how about the Lamborghini Murcielago SV? 3600lbs, 670hp, 0-60 in 2.8, 1/4 mile in 10.9 @ 129.4mph.

Even at $450k it's still less than 1/2 the price of the McLaren (which, don't get me wrong, I love the F1).

11/5/2009 11:08:38 AM

^ Where did you get that 0-60 time for the SV? I haven't seen it yet. Source plz.

11/5/2009 12:05:20 PM

Page 1
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=8383&page_number=1

Page 2, with the 2.8 sec claim.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=8383&page_number=2

^ Obligatory "you should google better next time"

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 12:27:56 PM

Thanks. And didn't even google... if I had, I would have found it. I just thought that if it pulled numbers like that, it would become well-known because that's approaching Veyron territory. So, I am suprised I didn't hear about it till now.

I will check the link now.

11/5/2009 12:31:40 PM

And about Porsche:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?AR=244386

Seven new Porsche models reportedly due over next four years... could there be more?

Quote :

"Now that it's part of the Volkswagen Group, sources expect Porsche to begin expanding its lineup even more, and British rag Autocar has what they're calling a comprehensive outline for seven new models in the works at Stuttgart that will arrive over the course of the next four years. Starting with next year, we should see V6 engines on offer in the Panamera, including gasoline and – in certain markets anyway – diesel-burning sixes. The same year should bring the new Cayenne, the third-generation model, with a more curvaceous body to look even more like a 911 on stilts. Two years from now in 2011, we should be seeing a hybrid version of the Panamera coupling either a V6 or V8 engine to an electric motor for green propulsion. An all-new 911 is due by the summer of 2012, and is expected to be a significant departure from the existing model, both longer and wider with an all-new design – but don't expect the rear-engine set-up to go anywhere. 2013 could see the debut of the so-called Roxster, a baby brother to the Cayenne likely to share its platform with the Audi Q5, as well as the anticipated successor to the 928, based on the Panamera and arriving in both coupe and convertible body-styles. To Autocar's list we'll add the electric sportscar currently under development, the Boxster Spyder that we previewed earlier this morning, and the rumored RS Spyder-based supercar to succeed the departed Carrera GT, giving the Germans a more grandiose expansion plan than we've seen in over 60 years."

11/5/2009 12:34:40 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn 4-6 months ago I read about a Cayman RS being in the works. Slightly more hp and a striped down body shedding quite a few pounds. Is that dead or have I just not heard anything lately?

11/5/2009 12:38:27 PM

lamborghini is making the murcielagos and selling them at prices so as to make a profit, so I don't consider them to be "cheating" in the way I implied for the mclaren, but again, it is awd and has launch control and the E-Gear computer-controlled single-clutch manumatic. btw, where'd you get find the 2.8s time? I don't doubt that some place managed it, I just want to know who/ what recorded that time.

"With a launch-controlled start, the E-Gear-equipped LP670-4 SV will sprint to 60 mph in just 3.2 seconds. The standing quarter is dispatched in 11.4 seconds at 125.8 mph. That's about what you'd expect."

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/exotic/112_0910_lamborghini_murcielago_lp670_4_superveloce_test/engine_performance.html#ixzz0W0HxV2GP

Don't get me wrong, I welcome the arrival of these technologies, but they do cause the precise 0-60 measurement to be somewhat irrelevant where the performed times are so amazingly low that the error between alternative specifications and even weather conditions creates as significant a difference in the measured outcome as a significant difference in absolute accelerative ability.

Does anyone remember back in like 1994 (turns out it was september 1994, article no longer online, but ref'd here: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/00q3/lamborghini_diablo_vt_6.0-first_drive_review) when the Diablo VT finally came to the U.S. and C&D recorded an embarassingly bad 0-60 of like 5.7 seconds and c&D poked fun at it, saying something like (I'm paraphrasing): "not even quick enough to terrorize an RX-7, let alone a 512TR" ? Don't get me wrong, that's a sad time, but I doubt that a stock 2004 Subaru wrx, capable of the same feat, really was as quick as that car on that day.

As for the latest uber-lambo, the LP-670 SV that manages ~3 second 0-60 times, I'm sure it's a more complete exotic car than the mclaren, and as ridiculous as it is to say about a lambo, even less of a science experiment in the scheme of cars-you'd-use-for-transportation-ever, but I'm sure the mclaren hits higher peak accelerative rates than the lambo, given the same amount of time to accelerate to a velocity, and therefore the 0-60 time is still misleading.

I mean, the best example is the Bugatti Veyron. 0-60 in 2.5, right?

here's c&D's test sheet:
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/0f3a34b4a749eefb19c3c28d9783da08.pdf

that says 4486 lbs for curb weight. And they all make more than 1010 hp, apparently. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/08q4/bugatti_veyron_16.4-road_test

so that's 4.44 lbs/hp

c&d's f1 test isn't online anymore, so I'm going with a different ref for that:
http://www.supercars.net/cars/1177.html
2513 lbs, 627 hp

that's 4.01 lbs/hp.

So if the bugatti can do 0-60 in 2.5 and the mclaren takes 3.2, I'm comfy calling the bugatti is safely "the more accelerative" car, especially given the torque delivery disparity:

922 lbft at 2200 rpm versus 479 lbft at 5600 rpm

4486/922= 4.87

2513/479= 5.25

.... but the 0-60 times at this point are still too low to provide as fair a basis for comparison as the raw engine specs, meaning that it's still a reasonable conclusion from this comparison to insist upon a different test. The bugatti is by far the quicker car according to the stopwatch, it's elapsed time being only 78% of the mclaren's time! but if the bugatti were helped by only 2 tenths in both launch delays and shift time, (assuming at least one shift before 60), then the gap becomes 2.9 versus 3.2, which then means an closer-apples-to-apples comparison of taking only 91% of the mclaren's time.

Since my correction would mean a disagreement in the figures of 16% (2.9 vs 2.5), we're talking about a deeply flawed metric. A 16% performance variation on this test is the same percent improvement between a car that can do 0-60 in a little over 5 seconds and a car that can do 0-60 in just under 6 seconds. So... let's call that the difference between a car that famously (according to jeremy clarkson about the first ones, anyway) couldn't go 0-60 in under 5, the aston martin vanquish (http://www.automobilemag.com/am/2003/aston_martin/vanquish/compare.html):

4045 lbs/460 hp= 8.79 lbs/hp

and a car that sometimes laughably punches above its mainstream-transportation weight, honda accord v6 (in this case an 08 v6 6 speed manual coupe tested by road and track, http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/3317/accordrz5.jpg), 0-60 in 5.9s

3545/268 = 13.22 lbs/hp.

So that's a difference in power to weight of 150%, which simply isn't the case between the mclaren and bugatti, meaning that 0-60 is a poor metric when cars achieve a certain level of performance. I really do think that the precise performance when performing 0-60 tests becomes meaningless once a car can do it around in around 4 seconds or less. At that point, there has to be higher reliance on a different stat.

And 1/4 mile bears this out:

bugatti veyron, http://www.bugattipage.com/ride.htm
"10.8 s, 140 mph"
http://www.dragtimes.com/Bugatti--Veyron-Drag-Racing.html
10.200*# 142.000
10.410*# 139.910

Mclaren F1, http://www.dragtimes.com/Mclaren--F1-Drag-Racing.html

"10.200 144.600
11.110 138.010
11.409 138.943
"

Aston Martin Vanquish, http://www.dragtimes.com/Aston-Martin--Vanquish-Drag-Racing.html
12.900*# 112.210 Aston Martin Vanquish V12 2003

Honda Accord v6 6spmanual, http://www.dragtimes.com/Honda--Accord-Drag-Racing.html
14.210*# 102.060 Honda Accord Coupe EX-L V6 2008 NA

In longer accelerative contests, particularly in terminal velocity, its easy to see that the bugatti is only marginally quicker than the mclaren, but there is a huge gap between the 2003 aston martin and the 2008 honda accord coupe.

But even so, at these velocities, this isn't an unassailable argument for the 1/4 mile, since drag is creating significant resistance at the velocities that these "too fast for 0-60 judgment" cars that even cars this quick are unlikely to see during normal use. Look at the effect on a car that is similarly "too fast for 0-60 judgment" but distinctly higher drag and lower power than the bugatti and mclaren:

2009 Caterham superlight R400, http://www.dragtimes.com/Caterham--Superlight-Drag-Racing.html
1) 12.610*# 106.020 Caterham Superlight R400

The caterham can do 0-60 in 3.8 (), but its 1/4 time is barely any better than the aston, and its terminal velocity through the quarter is barely better than the accord v6! So, in the intervening gulf between the ranges of speeds encountered in daily driving, and those achieved in a standing-start quarter-mile, enough drag can be created as to eliminate the 1/4 mile as a fair way to estimate the accelerative performance of these cars. There needs to be an accelerative metric for accurately judging and ranking cars in a way that implicitly normalizes for launch, shift time, drag, and grip. There is one for cars that barely crack 5 seconds to 60, the 0-60 test. But with less time than that, we've seen that it's too flawed to be an absolute reference.

(and while I've not mentioned it in this thread yet, it also can't be track times.... but that's another thread, I suppose, but I'm prepared to argue over that suggestion....)

Of further, closing, proof is the Caterham R500.
http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/showroom/superlightr500.html
Caterham claims 0-60 in 2.88.
263 hp on 506kg: 506kg* 2.2(lbs/kg)/264 hp = 4.22 lbs/hp.
1/4 mile?
http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=372
11.58@119 mph.

So this car can show its taillights to the mclaren and bear down on a bugatti, and still be nearly 20 mph behind in the quarter? That's all down to a pile of air that you simply wouldn't encounter on the way to Harris Teeter. 1/4 mile isn't it, and while 0-100 helps to flesh out launch and shift disparities better than 0-60, it still isn't good enough to use as a metric once a bunch of hypercars get down to the 6 second range of the mclaren and bugatti. I think velocity@distance is the set of numbers to look at, but 1/8 mile beats 1/4 mile.

11/5/2009 1:01:32 PM

Quote :

"btw, where'd you get find the 2.8s time? I don't doubt that some place managed it, I just want to know who/ what recorded that time."

It's from last month's Road & Track. shmorri2 posted the links 4 posts above yours (reading comprehension FML )

11/5/2009 1:21:25 PM

^yeah, I saw that after I posted because that info was posted while I was composing my next post, and I rarely reread a thread before posting but after composing. It tends to just be:
1. "hmm, I'll reply"
2. writewritewrite
3. hit "post reply!"
4. reread thread for new posts.

It'd be exceedingly anal of me to decide to do step 4 before step 3. Some of you might say this is further evidence that maybe I'm taking too long to reply, since I'm writing too much. And to that, I could only say that I disagree.

11/5/2009 1:26:34 PM

^something tells me that you'd love to come over and browse through my car magazine archives. All Car and Drivers from 1989 - present, as well as 10-12+ year runs of Motor Trend, Road & Track, and Automobile.

lol.

11/5/2009 1:28:24 PM

^ aren't some of those mine?!

11/5/2009 1:32:50 PM

^^you're probably right, if I didn't already have a "commit-him-already" collection of my own. I just bought a whole bunch of lateral files and moved all of it out of my apartment into our storage closet in our building's basement. I have 6 5 drawer lateral files now, taking up most of the room, in which to house my mags for probably the next decade, since I've only really filled up half of them, but yeah, when I get that room cleaned up and all the mags in order, I'll take pics and start a thread showing the extent of my case of our sickness.

11/5/2009 1:39:19 PM

I think 0-60 is quite relevant, perhaps more so than top speed. Shifting times do effect how the car responds to driver input. It's something you do very often, and fast shifting dual clutch transmissions reduce response time considerably. Also keep in mind as cars go up to 400-500hp and above, traction is still an issue at 20mph, much less 5mph... Anyway, I think it's quite the achievement what Nissan had done w/the GT-R, and even more so on this 911 Turbo (first use of variable vane turbos on a production gasoline motor). I've said this before, the DCT box transforms the AUDI A3, and I expect even more so the 911 Turbo. Numbers only tell a part of the story. I was very impressed with the 997 C2S I drove with PDK last year, and I very much look forward to checking out the new 911 Turbo with it...

11/5/2009 1:42:26 PM

PORSCHE REVEALS BOXSTER SPYDER

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20935



boxster S with 911-speedster/ carrera-GT style deck fairing, roof delete, a bit more power (10hp) , slightly better looking versions of existing boxster fascias and vents, new new-gt3-ish wheels but with 5 lugs instead of single central nut, and a "oh-crap-its-raining" slapdash top that probably wouldn't stay on above 60 mph. Still sexy though. I was hoping the spy photos of this car were for the next boxster so it would look this way but still have, you know, a full roof. oh well.

edit: ...and the windshield header looks lower and further back than on the boxster, but it may just be an illusion of the higher rear deck.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM. Reason : see "edit" dummy. I always hated this box]

11/5/2009 1:47:04 PM

oh, and its the lightest porsche available, at 2811 lbs. the 320 hp makes for 0-60 in 4.6 seconds.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS95036+05-Nov-2009+PRN20091105

Quote :

"The combination of 10 more hp and 176 pounds less weight than the award-winning Boxster S, plus an all-new sport suspension that lowers the Boxster Spyder 20 mm, a lower center of gravity, a standard limited slip differential, and exclusive wheels provides the kind of driving dynamics that back up the unique look. Aluminum door skins and lightweight interior door panels from the 911 GT3 RS contribute to the weight reduction. "

edit: this link: http://jalopnik.com/5397675/porsche-boxster-spyder-the-lightest-porsche-you-can-buy

ok, the weight savings just hit me. I forgot that the latest boxster S was nearly 3000 lbs. This is a pretty big weight drop! 2811/320= 8.78 versus (2811+176)/310= 9.64.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 1:53:55 PM

2811? weak sauce

11/9/2009 9:11:25 AM

[OLD]

But I wanted to share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rrVcinG8AY

Back on topic:

Quote :

"VW buys 49.9 percent stake in Porsche The Associated Press Germany's Volkswagen AG says it has purchased an initial 49.9 percent stake in fellow car maker Porsche AG - carrying out a move that it had been expected to make this week. VW, based in Wolfsburg, said Monday that it paid euro3.9 billion ($5.9 billion) for the stake. It has said that it hopes to take over Porsche in full in 2011. VW's shareholders last week approved plans to issue up to 135 million new shares, generating income to help finance the move."

Oh and more interesting:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/10/porsche-panamera-wins-inaugeral-bloomberg-car-of-the-year/

Quote :

"Porsche Panamera wins inaugural Bloomberg Car of the Year Normally when a vehicle wins a car of the year award, its merit is so obvious that all you have to do to justify the selection is say, "just drive one." However, with the Porsche Panamera, the excitement surrounding Porsche's first ever four-door sports sedan/car is so palpable all you must say is, "Just talk to someone that's driven one." The Panamera's that good. Our man Michael Harley's still heaping praise upon the Turbo in his sleep. In case you missed it – the Porsche Panamera rules. Then it comes as no surprise that Bloomberg News has selected the different looking Panamera as its inaugural Car of the Year. Says Bloomberg's auto-guy Jason H. Harper, "Like a lot of people I wasn't entirely sure what to expect of the Panamera, but sometime between having a six-foot eight-inch buddy in the back seat and hauling into deep corners around the track, it became clear. It's still a Porsche -- just a really versatile one." You will also no doubt remember that our colleagues over at Inside Line recently stuck the Panamera at the tippity top of their "Most Wanted" list. That's a lot of praise, particularly for a vehicle that has been so divisive aesthetically. Bloomberg also selected several other winners including Best Green Car (Ford Fusion Hybrid), Best Sports Car (Audi R8 5.2), Best Economy Car (Mazda3), Best Executive Sedan (Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG), Best People Mover and Family Car (Lincoln MKT EcoBoost) and Best All-Around Sports Utility Vehicle (Land Rover LR4). All good choices by the way, though this author might have swapped the E63 AMG for the Porsche and figured a way to sneak in the Ford Shelby Mustang GT500. Just sayin'. Press release after the jump. Bloomberg names the new Porsche Panamera its 2009 Car of the Year 'Sports car for four' is praised for its driving dynamics and comfort ATLANTA, Dec. 10, 2009 – Bloomberg News today announced the 2010 Porsche Panamera as its Car of the Year for 2009. This is Bloomberg's first-ever Car of the Year selections, with seven categories in all, including Car of the Year, Green Car, Economy, Family, All-Around SUV, Sports Car and Executive Sedan. All eligible contenders were evaluated by Bloomberg's weekly auto columnist, Jason H. Harper, who drives and tests hundreds of luxury, sports and alternative-fuel autos each year. The selectees were evaluated in terms of overall performance, intelligent design and smart style, desirability and build quality. To qualify, models must have been new or significantly revised for model year 2010, and be on sale by the first quarter of 2010 (article link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/spend/auto.html). "The Porsche Panamera has broken the sports-sedan category wide open, producing a truly desirable auto that combines the best elements of a sports car and comfortable four-door," Harper said. "Fast and fun, the Panamera is a car with real appeal." Porsche's first four-door car and the company's fourth model line went on sale in October, joining the company's successful stable of performance thoroughbreds: the mid-engine Boxster and Cayman, the Cayenne SUV and the iconic 911 Carrera. The Bloomberg recognition comes on the heals of the Panamera receiving an Edmunds Inside Line Editors' Most Wanted 2010 trophy at the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show (article link: http://www.insideline.com/features/2010-edmunds-inside-line-editors-most-wanted-awards.html). All Three Panamera Models Deliver High Performance and Low Fuel Consumption Initially offered in three versions – the 400-horsepower, two-wheel drive Panamera S and all-wheel drive Panamera 4S, and the 500-horsepower, twin-turbocharged, all-wheel drive Panamera Turbo – the new Panamera provides Porsche performance and quality, as well as a level of comfort absent among true high-performance cars. The Panamera is the first premium car to feature an automatic engine start/stop system used in conjunction with seven-speed double-clutch transmission. This system saves fuel and reduces emissions by turning the engine off when it is not needed, such as sitting at a stop light. All engines have advanced and fuel-efficient Direct Fuel Injection (DFI), as well. Porsche engineers also focused on weight savings and lightweight technologies to further enhance fuel efficiency. As a result, the Panamera S and Panamera 4S deliver 16 mpg city/24 mpg highway (19 mpg combined), while the Panamera Turbo achieves 15 mpg city/23 mpg highway (18 mpg combined). Amazingly, these figures were achieved without activating the standard auto start/stop system. All Panamera models are not subject to the gas guzzler tax and provide the best fuel economy in their competitive set. The manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) for the Panamera S is $89,800, while the Panamera 4S and Panamera Turbo retails for $93,800 and $132,600, respectively. About Bloomberg – Bloomberg's media services cover the world with more than 2,200 news and multimedia professionals at 146 bureaus in 72 countries. The BLOOMBERG TELEVISION® 24-hour network reaches more than 200 million homes. BLOOMBERG RADIO® services broadcast via Sirius XM Radio and 1worldspace™ satellite radio globally and on WBBR 1130 AM in New York. The award-winning monthly BLOOMBERG MARKETS® magazine, BUSINESSWEEK magazine and the BLOOMBERG.COM® financial news and information Web site provide news and insight to businesses and investors. For more information, please visit http://www.bloomberg.com. About Porsche Cars North America, Inc. -- Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (PCNA), based in Atlanta, Ga., is the exclusive importer of Porsche vehicles for the United States. It is a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG. PCNA employs approximately 180 people who provide Porsche vehicles, parts, service, marketing and training for its 200 dealers. The dealers, in turn, provide Porsche owners with best-in-class service. Throughout its 61-year history, Porsche has developed numerous technologies that have advanced vehicle performance, improved safety and spurred environmental innovations within the automotive industry. The company continues to celebrate its heritage by adding to its long list of motorsports victories dating back to its first 24 Hours of Le Mans class win in 1951. Today, with more than 28,000 victories, Porsche is recognized as the world's most successful brand in sports car racing. PCNA, which imports the iconic 911 series, the highly acclaimed Boxster and Cayman mid-engine sports cars, high-end Cayenne sport utility vehicle and the four-passenger Panamera Gran Turismo, strives to maintain a standard of excellence, commitment and distinction synonymous with its brand."

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/10/2009 7:54:00 PM

Quote :

"oh, and its the lightest porsche available, at 2811 lbs. the 320 hp makes for 0-60 in 4.6 seconds."

Oh don't worry it'll be faster than that. Porsche quotes conservatively. Let's not forget that earlier this year Car and Driver tested a 2009 Boxster S (310hp) and got 0-60 in 4.3 with the PDK tranny.

12/11/2009 11:50:07 AM

Saw someone tooling around in a Porsche Panamera the other day. Horrible side-profile. Not a good looking car.

12/11/2009 1:30:52 PM

Concerning the 2009+ Cayman :

Quote :

""We have learned that the new engine is perfect. No oiling issues, overheating, or bearing failures. Power steering failures are non exsistint since the fluid is cooled thru the enginne cooler. No ABS issues whatsoever. We have over 30K track miles on the cars now with several 3 and 4 hour enduros, 98 degree race weekends, rain, you name it. They have performed without a "hiccup". ""

www.caymanclub.net

I know this excites TKE-Teg and I... who else?

12/25/2009 11:09:39 PM

Die neue maschine ist perfekt!

12/25/2009 11:34:10 PM

^daniel craig was a nazi?! wtf bond?!

12/26/2009 3:58:23 AM

^^^hell yeah, good to know

12/28/2009 9:30:34 AM

Quote :

"I know this excites TKE-Teg and I... who else?"

I am very excite...

12/30/2009 3:13:28 PM

Car and Driver had their 2009 VIR "Lightning Lap"

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/the_lightning_lap_2009-feature

Introduction
LL1: 2010 Volkswagen GTI > 3:19.3
LL1: 2009 Mini Cooper John Cooper Works > 3:17.1
LL1: 2009 Subaru Impreza WRX > 3:16.6
LL1: 2010 Mazdaspeed 3 > 3:16.2
LL1: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 > 3:14.8
LL1: 2010 Ford Mustang GT > 3:13.3
LL2: 2009 Nissan NISMO 370Z > 3:12.0
LL2: 2010 Audi S4 > 3:10.8
LL2: 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS > 3:09.5
LL2: 2009 Audi TTS > 3:08.4
LL2: 2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 > 3:07.4
LL2: 2009 BMW M3 > 3:05.4
LL2: 2010 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport > 2:58.8
LL3: 2010 Jaguar XKR > 3:06.4
LL3: 2009 Porsche 911 Carrera S > 3:05.8
LL3: 2009 Porsche Cayman S > 3:05.8
LL3: 2009 Lotus Exige S 260 Sport > 3:05.0
LL3: 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 > 2:51.8
LL4: 2010 Audi R8 5.2 FSI > 2:59.5
LL5: 2010 Lamborghini Murciélago LP670-4 SV > 2:53.9
LLU: Ariel Atom 3 > 2:57.6 and KTM X-Bow > 2:52.3

So, there we have it. This is confirming what we already know; the Cayman S is awesome and performance wise can take on the 997.

1/6/2010 3:51:04 AM

A Porsche Engine Designed and Manufactured in Japan

The 1/8 911 Carrera RS 2.7 engine by Marushin. What’s so special about a scale model engine? Nothing really, unless of course you take into account that this one actually works and does so all the way up to 5500 RPMs!



This miniature masterpiece was created under license agreement from Porsche by the Marushin company in Japan. Inclusive of a functioning crankshaft, pistons, camshafts, timing chain with tensioners, rocker arms and valves, the model kit consists of over 500 component parts (not including hundreds of screws) in cast zinc, aluminum, copper, steel, brass and rubber. The exhaust box is also in metal and the air intake cowling is plastic, as per the original engine.

Unfortunately, based on what I’ve been able to find online, this model is a one-off. It seems that either Marushin couldn’t figure out how to properly market the model or just decided to go in a different direction. Either way, they are no longer available for sale.



(embed please?)
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XQsdaQQMc2s&rel=0&border=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XQsdaQQMc2s&rel=0&border=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>


There are 1/8 models of the 2.7RS motor FS below. They are models only and do not work.
US and international orders - $895. includes s/h

http://www.scaleautoworks.com/PorscheEngine.html

Similar to the famous and rare Marushin metal Carrera engine, with more exterior detail but no functioning internals. Also available with Weber carbs. All major parts and most smaller parts are cast metal: block, transmission, heads, etc.. Many photo-etched metal detail parts. Brass rod is supplied for fuel lines and linkages. Rubber heat exchanger hoses. Cast resin intake plenum, muffler, and heat exchangers. Assembled primarily with miniature nuts and bolts. Some painting of resin parts is required. Includes reference photos, plus color instruction manual on paper and CD. Will look great mounted in the Pocher Porsche Carrera model, a huge improvement in appearance and detail even if not technically correct. This 1:8 scale kit builds a complete engine, no donor kit is required. Click any photo below to enlarge.


I lol'd at the donor kit part... But wayyy to pricey.



[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:12 AM. Reason : .]

1/6/2010 4:01:48 AM

^^I read that with some interest when my issue arrived. As expected the 911 was faster on the straights and Cayman in the turns.

1/6/2010 11:31:31 AM

looks like the /// beat both the cayman and the 997

1/6/2010 1:31:36 PM

Indeed, I noticed that as well. Nonetheless I'd prefer a pure sports car over a modified sedan

I was curious that the Nismo 370Z's time was slower than the Nismo 350Z from years past. What's up with that?!

1/6/2010 1:50:07 PM

Caymans are immensely capable, however I don't know that it'd be faster than a 911 C2S @VIR Full, something seems a bit off. I say that in part because it does take some skill and brevity to extract every bit from a 911.

It seems odd that I've managed well over their terminal speed @ VIR in a 1999 C2 (which is down ~91 hp to the 2009 C2s), which had a stiffer suspension than factory but was otherwise stock...

1/6/2010 2:10:49 PM

^did you read the article, I can't tell from your comment. They mention how they were surprised the Cayman matched the 911's time and when back and all drove it again to try and change things...to no avail

1/6/2010 2:22:29 PM

I did read the article... Unfortunately they ran Grand West, which is a configuration that practically nobody runs, thus I can't compare the times directly. Unfortunate, perhaps deliberate, but maybe my tinfoil hat's messing w/the reception...

Here's what I thought:
* The 2009 C2S has been found very comparable to the 996 GT3 in performance.
* I've been at 160s in one with very minor suspension mods only.
* I've done 145+ in a 1999 C2 with ONLY the stock suspension from a 996 GT3. Thats 86hp down on the 996 GT3, and almost 100 on a 2009 C2S.
* I'm not a pro driver.
= I'm guessing they don't have much experience at VIR Grand West, which would make sense, as it would seem they're the only ones driving this configuration.

Also, two drivers coming back with "the identical time" are also just about impossible.

I've never placed much weight on magazine articles, but I do applaud them for taking the cars to the track and publishing that as opposed to 0-60 etc. even if I don't agree with the results fully. And finally, I've driven a Cayman S, they claim around 134mph top speed in that, I find that even harder to believe (should be higher, or with a 7+mph speed difference, there should be a more substantial lap time difference between the two cars, than 0.00 secs).

1/6/2010 3:37:01 PM

1/6/2010 3:42:40 PM

^^I believe you. Heck, maybe the track conditions weren't ideal? I haven't read the article yet myself (just arrived in my mailbox on Saturday i think).

1/6/2010 3:45:52 PM

I can't embed! Somebody else feel free to though, it's a cool vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh3A1ERsvY4&feature=player_embedded#

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 1:23 AM. Reason : ]

1/7/2010 1:20:48 AM

Haha, I saw that on the rennlist forum. Pretty cool vid.

1/7/2010 7:23:35 AM

Quote :

"Rumormill: Volkswagen head (kinda) confirms new entry-level Porsche 356 by Jonny Lieberman The head of the Volkswagen Group, Martin Winterkorn, spoke with Autocar about the possibility of a new entry level Porsche model. Perhaps fancifully dubbed the 356, the new model would slot into Porsche's lineup below the Boxster and Cayman. In England, the new baby Porsche would cost about £33,000, which means nothing to us here in the U.S. and is about what a base Boxster costs. That said, the article mentions the possibility that the next generation Boxster and Cayman might go way up scale. Big question: what would this new 356 be? Autocar speculates that the 356 will be based heavily on the mid-engine architecture of the upcoming Audi R4 and the conceptual Volkswagen Bluesport. We don't know if the 356 will be strictly a coupe or also be available as a roadster. In fact, we don't even know if the R4 will be coupe-only. We'd image the two cars will have similar, if not identical, body configurations. Though not the engine. In order to keep some brand DNA in the Porsche, the 356 will ship with a new forced-induction flat-four. Those that remember the 944 Turbo S and the 968 know this is in no way a bad thing – except the 924 Turbo's engine was the EA831 inline-four originally intended for the Volkswagen Bus and Audi 100. It was never really any good, even in turbo form. The reborn 356's mill (most likely a turbo as opposed to supercharged) should be good for around 250 horsepower – very close to where the base Boxster/Cayman currently sits. Expect the 356 to get much better fuel economy, however. The new 356 will share a transmission with the R4. Again, the 924, 944 and 968 shipped with a modified Audi 100 transmission acting as a transaxle, so there is precedence. As to what that transmission will be, we don't know but we'd guess a DSG of some sort. Audi's R4 should arrive sometime in 2011, with the Porsche 356 bowing in 2012. Is any of this going to actually, you know, happen? Magic 8-Ball says, "Ask again later.""

fucking VW

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/28/rumormill-volkswagen-head-kinda-confirms-new-entry-level-pors/

1/28/2010 4:58:17 PM

Quote :

"In the Continental Tire Challenge of the Grand Am at Daytona, the #38 Porsche Cayman finished 13th in qualifying. That was one slot ahead of closest 911 Porsche! The #38 car was faster than ALL of the 911's that are entered in this same event ! Bravo! This is the first time Cayman's have raced 911's head to head in a major race series since 2006 when a Porsche Cayman finished 4th overall in the 24hr Nurburgring. That was also when Porsche decided to withdraw ALL company support to any racing group who ever raced another Cayman."

1/30/2010 1:49:43 AM

I love caymans. (and boxsters, obviously). yay porsche! I dunno about these 356 rumors. vw concept bluesport and audi r4 looks pretty tied together and ought to be transverse mountings of 2.0T and other commonly-fwd-mounted motors. I can believe that the 356 will have a flat four but I can't imagine that such an engine would be mounted transversely. So what on earth would it share with the bluesport and the r4? Something's amok. And even if it could be done, with vw bluesport 2.0T in low thirties against loaded miatas, and then r4 in the 10k range above that, there's fairly little room to wedge in a semi-bespoke longitudinal version of a platform that will definitely need to accomodate transverse mountings of translated-fwd powertrains without threatening boxster sales. I wouldn't be surprised if the 356 turns out more like a retro-restyled fourcylinder version of the boxster, allowing "proper" boxsters to just have flat-6's... having a 356 on the bottom allows the boxster and cayman to no longer be thought of as "the poor man's porsche" and maybe porsche will allow the cayman to have closer parity with 911s, as rather the "mid-engine porsche" instead of "the cheaper, less powerful porsche".

2/3/2010 11:07:34 PM

^yeah. Overall I could care less. Down the road I've got my eyes on a CPO Cayman S, to hell with buying new.

2/4/2010 11:30:27 AM

Turbo S revealed with 530 hp, same power as the GT2!

Which one would be quicker around a track like the Nurburgring? GT2, I guess?

In straight line of course the Turbo S (even the plain Turbo) is quicker as it is AWD.

2/8/2010 6:30:48 AM

^I'd say the Turbo S is only faster in acceleration from a standstill. When you're going down the straightaways on a track the GT2 would no doubt be faster.

2/8/2010 8:59:49 AM

Quote :

"ATLANTA - February 11, 2010 - 110 years after Ferdinand Porsche developed the world's first hybrid, the Lohner-Porsche, Porsche engineers are now expanding this visionary drive concept with a production-based GT race car: Over the past 45 years, Porsche 911 race cars have recorded more than 20,000 victories and on March 4, a Porsche 911 GT3 featuring an innovative hybrid drive will make its debut at the Geneva Motor Show, opening a new chapter in the history of Porsche. This innovative hybrid technology has been developed especially for racing, differentiating itself from conventional hybrid systems by way of its configuration and components. In the case of the 911 GT3 R Hybrid, the front axle features two electric motors, each developing 60 kW and supplement the 480 hp, naturally aspirated four-liter flat-six that drives the rear wheels. Instead of the heavy batteries usually found in a hybrid road car, an electrical flywheel power generator is installed inside next to the driver delivering energy to the electric motors. The flywheel generator is also an electric motor, with its rotor spinning at speeds of up to 40,000 rpm while mechanically storing energy. The flywheel generator is charged whenever the driver applies the brakes, as the two front axle electric motors reverse their role and act as generators. Then, when accelerating out of a bend or while overtaking, the driver can use the extra energy from the charged flywheel generator, sending up to 120 kW of stored kinetic energy to the motors. This additional power is available after each charge for approximately six to eight seconds. Energy formerly converted into heat upon each brake application, and therefore wasted, is now converted into additional drive power in a very efficient manner. In addition to increasing available drive power, depending on racing conditions, the hybrid drive can also be called upon to save fuel. By increasing the efficiency and, accordingly, the performance of the 911 GT3 R Hybrid, reductions can be made to the weight of the fuel tank or the car can make less frequent pit stops, for example. After its debut in Geneva, the 911 GT3 R Hybrid will be tested in long-distance races on the Nürburgring. The highlight of this test program will be the 24 Hours on the Nordschleife of Nürburgring, May 15-16, 2010. The focus is not on the 911 GT3 R Hybrid winning the race, but rather spearheading technology as a "racing lab." The intent is to provide hands-on know-how for the subsequent use of hybrid technology in road-going sports cars. The 911 GT3 R Hybrid is a perfect example of the Porsche Intelligent Performance philosophy, a principle to be found in every Porsche: More power on less fuel, more efficiency and lower CO2 emissions - on the track and on the road. "

2/12/2010 3:21:42 PM

I LOVE IT. Great find H8R God I love me some 480hp 4.0L n/a flat 6.

2/12/2010 3:33:42 PM

I was just about to post it!

-->

[Edited on February 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2010 3:35:00 PM