Come to daddy!
19 March 2009, 07:40 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come to daddy!
It's finally here - after years of dreaming about it, months of looking, weeks of waiting I spent 300 miles in it today. It is a complex , brilliant beast of a car.
It is substantially faster than my Spec C which had PowerStation Ecutek giving '350' bhp. It is especially much faster once you get to 50 and above. On a private test track it took 2/3rds of the distance it took my Spec C to get to 100mph
And contrary to popular opinion it does not oversteer on every corner, it is every third corner, and with wonderful controllable balance. The only other car I have driven with such a lively rear end is a autotest Caterham!
Here are the pics
It is substantially faster than my Spec C which had PowerStation Ecutek giving '350' bhp. It is especially much faster once you get to 50 and above. On a private test track it took 2/3rds of the distance it took my Spec C to get to 100mph
And contrary to popular opinion it does not oversteer on every corner, it is every third corner, and with wonderful controllable balance. The only other car I have driven with such a lively rear end is a autotest Caterham!
Here are the pics
Last edited by Spooky Mulder; 19 March 2009 at 07:45 PM.
19 March 2009, 08:01 PM
#5
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice! My favourite car, hope to own one eventually.
I'll be the first to ask - is it really that much faster than the Spec C? My Spec C had 375bhp & really, really p*ssed on a mates 911 which was standard at circa 320bhp ... GT3 is 380bhp isn't it so unless Autobahn speeds I wouldn't expect the GT3 to walk away from it? Might creep away though
TX.
I'll be the first to ask - is it really that much faster than the Spec C? My Spec C had 375bhp & really, really p*ssed on a mates 911 which was standard at circa 320bhp ... GT3 is 380bhp isn't it so unless Autobahn speeds I wouldn't expect the GT3 to walk away from it? Might creep away though
TX.
19 March 2009, 08:11 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually think they are slightly lighter than a Hawkeye Spec C - either way it is very close. My Spec C had '350' at PS and the GT3 really is that much faster - I am shocked.
And yes it easily reaches a 100 much earlier than the Spec C. The Spec C might edge the 60 mark. The GT3 would leave it standing between 60-100. My Spec C felt like a 11s for the 100 mark. This is 9s. It is a huge difference.
I remember when CEM got his - he said that every Mk II GT3 he had seen on the rollers pushed out over 400bhp. Of course it is less torquey.
Having had a 500bhp plus STI V I can still say this is a substantially quick car.
And yes it easily reaches a 100 much earlier than the Spec C. The Spec C might edge the 60 mark. The GT3 would leave it standing between 60-100. My Spec C felt like a 11s for the 100 mark. This is 9s. It is a huge difference.
I remember when CEM got his - he said that every Mk II GT3 he had seen on the rollers pushed out over 400bhp. Of course it is less torquey.
Having had a 500bhp plus STI V I can still say this is a substantially quick car.
Trending Topics
19 March 2009, 08:16 PM
#8
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ Glad to hear it 
Another mate of mine has a GT3 like yours, never got a chance to take him on though
Spent some time in it with him going to track days etc & it felt very fast from passenger seat. Didn't sound too bad either
TX.
Another mate of mine has a GT3 like yours, never got a chance to take him on though
Spent some time in it with him going to track days etc & it felt very fast from passenger seat. Didn't sound too bad either TX.
19 March 2009, 08:32 PM
#10
I had a GT2 overtake me today on my push bike, he then overtook a van, good god it moved and left a most amazing cloud of carbon combustion products !
Lovely car Spooky !
Lovely car Spooky !
19 March 2009, 10:08 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good choice, I have had a 996TT for a year now and remember my 450 mile trip home. I don't know if it's the same for the GT3 but it just covered the miles with so much ease and comfort and that was coming from an M5. I can remember the drive home thinking I bought this car for the looks speed and because it's a Porsche but its so much more than that even on motorways.
19 March 2009, 11:14 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GT3 is completely different. I am sure that at the moment, point to point I would be far quicker in the Spec C. I am also sure that a day with Don Palmer and a bit of tyre time the GT3 will eat Scoobs for breakfast.
When these first came out the GT3 had two interesting records, lateral grip (more than a Scoob
) and the production lap record at the 'Ring. So even in the twisties a GT3 will give as good as it gets. And crucially it is not big like a Lambo or a Ferrari, but still carries supercar speed and acceleration.The GT3 is like riding an untamed bronco - it is alive - the steering wheel bucking and rolling with every movement in the road. The tail comes around easily - but not scarily like the 993. And the engine between 6-8k is the finest in the world. Very, very special.
Finally - thanks for all your great comments guys :-)
19 March 2009, 11:36 PM
#24
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0-100 from Torquestats:
996 GT3 - 9.3s.
996 911T - 9.4s.
Spec C (2003) - 11.1s.
I'll concede GT3 seems much quicker standard car vs standard Spec C is not bad £s to lbs though
TX.
996 GT3 - 9.3s.
996 911T - 9.4s.
Spec C (2003) - 11.1s.
I'll concede GT3 seems much quicker standard car vs standard
Spec C is not bad £s to lbs though TX.
19 March 2009, 11:51 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porsche's own claimed time is 8.8s although no magazine I know of has beaten 9.2s.
Anything under 10s is supercar speed. I think a Spec C would need a genuine 400bhp to do 10s or less. The 911 is very slippy and this shows up in the times.
GT3 0-60 4.5s; 60-100 4.8s
Spec C 0-60 4.3s; 60-100 6.8s
As soon as you get to 60 the GT3 (or TT) is pulling away very, very quickly
Anything under 10s is supercar speed. I think a Spec C would need a genuine 400bhp to do 10s or less. The 911 is very slippy and this shows up in the times.
GT3 0-60 4.5s; 60-100 4.8s
Spec C 0-60 4.3s; 60-100 6.8s
As soon as you get to 60 the GT3 (or TT) is pulling away very, very quickly
20 March 2009, 10:56 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 March 2009, 12:49 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: pembrokeshire
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pah you should have kept the spec c
only joking that is one awsome car mate
,i will own a porsche one day i just hope theres still oil left to make petrol when ive got the cash lol.
only joking that is one awsome car mate
,i will own a porsche one day i just hope theres still oil left to make petrol when ive got the cash lol.
20 March 2009, 12:58 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: York
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and so far the mpg is better than my Spec C - substantially better. On the motorway I was getting 32 mpg due to the slippy shape.
On the back roads it was about the same - except this is faster