I recently had the pleasure to drive a 997 C2S tip and found it to be a very fast indeed. The power was always there, from 2krpm up to the redline, no let up. About 6 months ago I drove a M3 SMG which has similar power 350 vs 355 and similar weight ie circa 1.5kg but the Porsche 'seemed' much faster.

So given they have similar power and weight, why did the Porsche engine seem more powerful??

 

without comparing data..

It's got to be down to low down torque. You say the Porsche pulled from 2krpm, I'd be suprised if the m3 did. I'd imagine the m3 would need to be worked to move.

 

I think the SMG system is ****e mate. The system doesn't provide enough confidence IMHO. Also I think the BM Vanos system kicks in from 3,500prm+.

The Porsche is more focused. I'm getting a GT3 soon.

 

Also working without facts and figures..... and any sort of personal experience with the cars, I would agree that its probably down to bigger grunt further down the rev range in the Porsche.

That is why diesels feel so nippy and VTEC's have earnt the reputation for having 'nothing' below 6k revs...


Cheers,
Grant

 

A few numbers.

997 C2S with tip = 1460kg, 355 BHP at 6.6krpm ( 243 BHP/tonne). Torque = 295( at 4.6krpm) with 80% at 2k rpm and 90% by 3krpm.

M3 = 1570 kg ( according to Evo mag, but doesn't state whether its more with SMG, so might tip over 1600kgs with?), 338 BHP at 7.9krpm ( 219 BHP/tonne) and torque = 269 at 5krpm.

So I suppose its a combination of a little less weight, a little more power and torque available a little lower down the rev range combine to create quite a difference.

 

Beamer 6pots of late have gone towards the land of rice. In terms of getting high revs and peak power, sacrificing wider power spread and grunt. (pretty much like almost all modern cars).

Porsche do still keep hold of that historic trait of a strong low down grunt and wide power spread.

The rpm figures for peak power in the above post does sum the point up nicely

 

Is that right that the M3 has 269lb/ft of torque.