When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
NO - Google is your friend and by now it's evident you scoop from the bottom with web sites showing 911s braking the sound barrier LoL!
Aim higher and provide a 911 fast list from actual drivers.
Finally, my income demographic is none of your business but keep trying and I'll let you know if you are improving as a sales man.
Done getting sucked down a rabbit hole with an idiot that creates his own reality. The only stats you can post about the 911 are what the factory reports which everyone, but you of course, knows are conservative. Car and Driver and other reputable publications have recorded the same info as I have posted. If you choose to believe in a conspiracy theory then that’s your prerogative. I guess we could say the go fast list is all fabricated as well if we wish to disregard. While you are very much aware of the true stats you choose to distort since it doesn’t match support what you want to believe. Just know I am happy you have a C6 and I am sure you have worked hard to afford it, but you don’t have to be defensive about those that have something a tad nicer. By the way how do the Zero - 60 times on the fast list vary from the Go Fast List. I would say they are very close. Pleas post so we can all see. If they are close, then the reasonable person would determine they are also close on the reported 911 times. I anxiously await.
:-) By posting for the 100th time 0to60times.com you are trying to overwhelm opposition to your fakery by dumping thrash in volume hoping for a positive outcome.
Also I suppose by posting the C6 0to60times.com you are attempting to get personal with me and spur an emotional angry response.
What you are getting instead is a detailed technical response debunking or your fakery portrayed as evidence. BTW why is it that ALL you have is 0to60times.com? A portal that simply combs and modifies performance data marketed by $1 dollar magazines. I pointed you to multiple CF fast times lists collated on real life DOCUMENTED ACTUAL runs by MULTIPLE racers to gain real statistical data. I asked you to provide the same for the 911 and so far: Crickets!
You may recall the 0to60times bubble was popped by a simple spreadsheet DIRECTLY sourced for Porsche.com with the VENDOR ADVERTISED 0-60 times.
To refresh your memory and to CF benefit:
The REAL 2017 911 S numbers
I invite to do the same for any other 911 model BTW and you will find out that 0to60times.com erroneously reports 0-60 and ¼ mile times by subtracting an average of 40%! On the already very hard to achieve 0-60 times DECLARED directly by Porsche.
40% margin of error (of course always for advantage) in the engineering world = TRASH.
0to60times.com is TRASH.
Now on to your latest piece of GeniuASS:
Chalk it up to rear bias for superior traction, combined with a superior dual clutch transmission and a superior launch control system. Damn I think I said superior 3 times.
Let alone the childish and insecure repetitions..
superior traction
Among factors like power and torque and weight, acceleration is also dependent on the coefficient of attrition which is calculated by correlating horizontal force on the rear axles (in the case of (911 AND Corvette since they are BOTH RWD) and the attrition coefficient of the pavement which is exactly the same for both!
Q: what is the coefficient of attrition of a Porsche and a Corvette?
A: The force on the 2017 911 S rear axle is approximately 62% of the curb weight which is approximately 2000 pounds. The force on the C7 Z06 rear axle is 1762.
This is how that 11% force on axle “advantage” translates to the acceleration formula:
So that 11% advantage basically results on a 0.1% advantage on acceleration “traction”:
A whooping 0.1 seconds! On the entire 0-60 run…
NEXT "Gem" /SARC
combined with a superior dual clutch transmission
So this is easy!
Q: how many shifts does that wonderfully unbelievably advanced PDK require for a 0-60 run… for a 911 S? tik tok tik tok
A: 1!
So let alone the fact that all that “awesome-s” is used only once…(so much for PDK savings on shifts..) how many shifts does a Z06 require to reach 60?
A: zero!
So we are clear here: Q. Are you preposterously asserting that the PDK is so awesome that in that one shift it actually subtracts time from non-shifting? Please elucidate at will..
AGAIN
You already tried the Porsche’s under reports performance BS g-zillion times..
Either Porsche’s legally bounding performance declarations are right or you are dumping Porsche trash on the CF.
Which way do you want it?
The only way your 2017 911 S does 0 – 60 in 3.1 is on a 35% slope which makes for an entertaining show but then again after the Ring show and then emission scandal show I am not so shocked anymore.
Time to move on, OFF the 911 circus...
Yeah, 3.1 0-60 sounds like BS to me also. 911 S is only 0.1 second slower 0-60 than a 650/650 Z06, sorry, not buyin that crap either. Sounds like magazine exaggerated metrics that car salesman memorize.
Yeah, 3.1 0-60 sounds like BS to me also. 911 S is only 0.1 second slower 0-60 than a 650/650 Z06, sorry, not buyin that crap either. Sounds like magazine exaggerated metrics that car salesman memorize.
If they are exaggerated so is the Corvette data. Use a little common sense.
Done getting sucked down a rabbit hole with an idiot that creates his own reality. The only stats you can post about the 911 are what the factory reports which everyone, but you of course, knows are conservative. Car and Driver and other reputable publications have recorded the same info as I have posted. If you choose to believe in a conspiracy theory then that’s your prerogative. I guess we could say the go fast list is all fabricated as well if we wish to disregard. While you are very much aware of the true stats you choose to distort since it doesn’t match support what you want to believe. Just know I am happy you have a C6 and I am sure you have worked hard to afford it, but you don’t have to be defensive about those that have something a tad nicer. By the way how do the Zero - 60 times on the fast list vary from the Go Fast List. I would say they are very close. Pleas post so we can all see. If they are close, then the reasonable person would determine they are also close on the reported 911 times. I anxiously await.
Doctor,
You are taking this personal. Its what you are writing its not you. I understand you have to make a living but instead of getting frustrated at me try to better understand your targeted audience and improve your content. Look it like I am lending a helping hand.
You have a (purported) 2017 911S. It is a nice car. It is a precise classic. In fact it's probably the only classic standing as all the other competitors seem to have chosen the platform development path instead of just adding marginal trinkets to keep the old (but classy) lady going.
Think about it....I need to spend 500K on a GT2RS marketed to give any car on earth 30 seconds on the ring and hope it keeps up with a Z06?
Why can you just not be happy with owning an elegant classic? I'll go as far as to admit that personally it looks more classy (not to be confused with racy) than a C7 and I know you know I am on record writing the OP went overboard with his "devour"
I also know that with the right budget Porsche can also field a decent 911 that can perform sufficiently in the modern performance field. They are called GT3 and Turbo S. Yes...they are 250K cars and at that price tag then well....welcome to modern competition.
Anyway, please stop leveraging the massive Porsche export marketing machine and embarrass your self with preposterous performance assertions and let's see if we can help your charter as well.
Just remember, internet marketing can go only so far.
You are taking this personal. Its what you are writing its not you. I understand you have to make a living but instead of getting frustrated at me try to better understand your targeted audience and improve your content. Look it like I am lending a helping hand.
You have a (purported) 2017 911S. It is a nice car. It is a precise classic. In fact it's probably the only classic standing as all the other competitors seem to have chosen the platform development path instead of just adding marginal trinkets to keep the old (but classy) lady going.
Think about it....I need to spend 500K on a GT2RS marketed to give any car on earth 30 seconds on the ring and hope it keeps up with a Z06?
Why can you just not be happy with owning an elegant classic? I'll go as far as to admit that personally it looks more classy (not to be confused with racy) than a C7 and I know you know I am on record writing the OP went overboard with his "devour"
I also know that with the right budget Porsche can also field a decent 911 that can perform sufficiently in the modern performance field. They are called GT3 and Turbo S. Yes...they are 250K cars and at that price tag then well....welcome to modern competition.
Anyway, please stop leveraging the massive Porsche export marketing machine and embarrass your self with preposterous performance assertions and let's see if we can help your charter as well.
Just remember, internet marketing can go only so far.
C'mon let's move on...Peace.
Cheers
No personal investment what so ever......I know I am correct and don’t require any validation. It’s clear you don’t know what you talk about.....however, you always have a way of bringing humor to my day.
No personal investment what so ever......I know I am correct and don’t require any validation. It’s clear you don’t know what you talk about.....however, you always have a way of bringing humor to my day.
Amazing how a 2017 991.2 S with 420 HP can give a 650 HP Corvette all it can handle. Chalk it up to rear bias for superior traction, combined with a superior dual clutch transmission and a superior launch control system. Damn I think I said superior 3 times. In all seriousness, this illustrates the advantages of the C8 going ME. It’s just takin them a while to get the engine behind the driver where it belongs. This is all happening as the 911 keeps inching theirs forward with each generation. Maybe the C8 and 911 are becoming more alike in some ways😏
Looks like not only is the Corvette quicker, but its significantly cheaper too. Although I don't know why you are comparing acceleration numbers alone for sports cars - sports cars are meant to turn, not just go straight. Oh whats that? The Corvette also out handles and out brakes the 911, while still being cheaper too? Hmmm I guess some things never change...
Looks like not only is the Corvette quicker, but its significantly cheaper too. Although I don't know why you are comparing acceleration numbers alone for sports cars - sports cars are meant to turn, not just go straight. Oh whats that? The Corvette also out handles and out brakes the 911, while still being cheaper too? Hmmm I guess some things never change...
Yes, I found stats on the 911 Carrera S also, 0-60 3.9 secs, 3.7 with sport chrono.. 3.1 my ***.
Looks like not only is the Corvette quicker, but its significantly cheaper too. Although I don't know why you are comparing acceleration numbers alone for sports cars - sports cars are meant to turn, not just go straight. Oh whats that? The Corvette also out handles and out brakes the 911, while still being cheaper too? Hmmm I guess some things never change...
You don’t realize it, but you just verified my previous posts. The 991.2 C2S is a 420 HP car that achieves 3.1 and 11.4 second vs the 650 HP Corvette that does the same in 3.0 and 11.1 as per your posts of affirmation. I realize the Corvette posts better track related numbers against the Carrera line of 911’s. I simply have stated what the acceleration numbers are much to the dismay of a couple of ill informed forum numbers who are Corvette loyal....which is fine. However, I know first hand the strengths of the C7 from being a past owner as I also know the strengths of the new 911’s being a current owner. I realize acceleration numbers are only part of the recipe. But since I don’t track cars I value many things other than an insignificant better performance metric. This makes the 911 a superior car for my needs. However, I am not Porsche loyal either and will quickly jump to the ME C8 if I find it to be a better car. I have no problem with the price of a Porsche as I will have no problem with the price of a ME should it be in the same price range. Thanks.
While the doctor talks with 207 words his 2017 3.1 911 S I figure to show a simple chart with 11 different magazine and you tube tests/reviews of the 2017 911 S along with acceleration results which unlike the 3.1 DERANGEMENT are very close to Porsche's spec data for the 2017 911 S.
Interesting to note that Porsche rates engine power in PS which is less than US SAE HP. So actually the 2017 911 S is 414 HP.
Also interesting to note Porsche weights cars in german DIN wich is less that US SAE curb. So actually the 2017 S curb weight starts at 3285.
So basically we are talking 22 HP less and the same weight that 2008 Corvette C6.
You're supposedly and engineer yet you wonder why a German manufacturer uses PS instead of US SAE HP and German DIN instead of US SAE curb? You try too hard to sound smart and it's coming off as an ***-hat. Only on a Corvette forum would comparing the current Chevy offerings to Porsche and the Chevy coming out ahead make sense. I'm am also excited about the C8, but you only make sense to the other try-hards.
While the doctor talks with 207 words his 2017 3.1 911 S I figure to show a simple chart with 11 different magazine and you tube tests/reviews of the 2017 911 S along with acceleration results which unlike the 3.1 DERANGEMENT are very close to Porsche's spec data for the 2017 911 S.
Interesting to note that Porsche rates engine power in PS which is less than US SAE HP. So actually the 2017 911 S is 414 HP.
Also interesting to note Porsche weights cars in german DIN wich is less that US SAE curb. So actually the 2017 S curb weight starts at 3285.
So basically we are talking 22 HP less and the same weight that 2008 Corvette C6.
No wonder they have similar acceleration times.
The 2017 911 S is basically a 4 second car...
The car is 3.1 in optimal conditions with a professional driver with the C7 Z06 being 2.95 and the garden variety C6 you own at 4.1. Any times slower than these are simply ran in subpar conditions or with some journalist. Next lesson!
[QUOTE=punky;1599006542]Ah yes the 911 now does 3.1 0-60 under "optimal conditions". Yes indeedy! Would that be with a 65 knot tailwind and when Juptier aligns with Mars!
Next lesson you ask? I can say that the majority of us will pass on a lecture from a car salesman.[/QUOT
I am no more a salesman than you my friend. Sorry if the facts are disturbing to you! BTW, I see your posts on several threads and you seem to be rather opinionated and combative with those that don’t follow your line of thought. Suggest you and your brother take a chill pill. It’s okay if the Corvette is not the worlds best sports car.......it’s still a darn good one!
Correction......I am a salesman....but in contracted food service and a retired Superintendent of Schools. Believe me, I have seen all kinds while working in the public school system 😏. As for the tailwind, I guess they just happened to test the Z06 the same day....was good day for both.....don’t you agree😎
St. Jude Donor '06-'08-'10-'11-'12-'13 '14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19
This website, accepted by many, has Porsche times that compare favorably with what Dr. Ice has been trying to tell you folks. Just scroll down and you will find the 911 numbers.
Of course, somebody will have an excuse as to why they don't like this particular website, but it coincides with info from numerous other websites. And yes, Porsche's official numbers are usually conservative. Us Porsche humpers know that.
OBTW, I'm a Corvette humper also.
This website, accepted by many, has Porsche times that compare favorably with what Dr. Ice has been trying to tell you folks. Just scroll down and you will find the 911 numbers.
Of course, somebody will have an excuse as to why they don't like this particular website, but it coincides with info from numerous other websites. And yes, Porsche's official numbers are usually conservative. Us Porsche humpers know that.
OBTW, I'm a Corvette humper also.
As the old adage goes.....you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.....especially if they are full of Koolaide and Bow Tie spaghetti 😎
You're supposedly and engineer yet you wonder why a German manufacturer uses PS instead of US SAE HP and German DIN instead of US SAE curb? You try too hard to sound smart and it's coming off as an ***-hat. Only on a Corvette forum would comparing the current Chevy offerings to Porsche and the Chevy coming out ahead make sense. I'm am also excited about the C8, but you only make sense to the other try-hards.
Well said and right on target. Additionally, Telepierre seems to have predominantly scanned the internet to quote base 911 Carrera performance figures that are pretty legit with 3.8-3.9 times. Can’t open his links to verify if they are the latest 991.2 versions. However, this puts the 370 HP version about identical to the 460 HP base level Corvette engine, which would be correct. It also appears his articles may contain 2 C2S versions but are the past 991.1 generations, which lack the torque and acceleration numbers of the twin turbo 991.2 versions. Again, conveniently can’t open so don’t know if they have PDK or Sport Chrono. Really useless information in its present format. Tends to makes their butt pucker to think a 420 HP car could challenge a Z06. It’s a classic case of don’t shoot the messenger.
I agree, some evidently spend hours in their quest to prove the unprovable.
03-06-2019, 02:43 PM
