Notices
Other Marques Non-Subaru Vehicles

Can anyone explain this???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 20 December 2005, 08:13 PM
  #1  
Deep Singh
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
Deep Singh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question Can anyone explain this???

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??
Old 20 December 2005, 08:19 PM
  #2  
jameswrx
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
 
jameswrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kent
Posts: 6,535
Received 41 Likes on 28 Posts
Default

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.
Old 20 December 2005, 08:21 PM
  #3  
RAJ27
Scooby Regular
 
RAJ27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Deep Singh
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??
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.
Old 20 December 2005, 08:22 PM
  #4  
RS Grant
Scooby Regular
 
RS Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North East Riviera
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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
Old 20 December 2005, 10:02 PM
  #5  
Deep Singh
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
Deep Singh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 20 December 2005, 10:15 PM
  #6  
ALi-B
Moderator
Support Scoobynet!
iTrader: (1)
 
ALi-B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The hell where youth and laughter go
Posts: 38,034
Received 301 Likes on 240 Posts
Default

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

Last edited by ALi-B; 20 December 2005 at 10:26 PM.
Old 20 December 2005, 11:16 PM
  #7  
scoobyboy1
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (16)
 
scoobyboy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Willenhall, West Midlands
Posts: 7,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Deep Singh
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.
Is that right that the M3 has 269lb/ft of torque.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Tidgy
Computer & Technology Related
33
18 October 2015 09:59 AM
jonc
Non Scooby Related
18
23 September 2015 10:57 PM
ReallyReallyGoodMeat
Non Scooby Related
12
21 September 2015 11:34 AM
alcazar
Non Scooby Related
5
18 September 2015 11:49 PM
bparkes007
General Technical
5
11 September 2015 07:13 PM



Quick Reply: Can anyone explain this???



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 PM.