This particular 911 turbo seemed unusually slow - 113.7mph trap speed. In the March 2005 issue of R&T the lowly 911 Carrera S hit 114.8mph in the quarter.

 

Yes, I wondered about the Turbo's performance also. Autocar has the Turbo about 2 secs faster to 150 mph than the F430. Based on that number I would have expected the Turbo to trap pretty much even with the F430. The Z06 and Viper were both a couple of mph off of their previous tests as well, but within the realm of reason.

I had been wondering about the difference in tires, but hadn't looked them all up. It would be nice to see this test rerun with comparable rubber on all the cars.

 

The differences in lap times were not minor. The F430 & Gallardo did the lap in 1:17's, while the amercians did them in the 1:19's. So the rubber made a huge difference. Also, you go by what the car's pulled on that track, in those conditions, not what other magazines got in other conditions. The 911 Turbo could have been a green car, the F430 & Gallardo could be hooking up a lot better, hence the better 0-60 & 1/4 mile times. The results in Car & Driver was the exact opposite, though they did not have an F430 there, so they just affixed previous results. The Corvette & Turbo seemed especially fast in that test (11.7's), so again just throwing numbers together can be way off.

 

i didnt notice the tires on first read..but yea.. its not even a remotely proper comparison if some cars are on R-Comp's and other's are on Street tires... that was blatantly silly... especially when your "comparing" cars on a road course...

 

I understand, different days, different location, different car, but I would have expected the 911 to trap somewhere around 120. The other cars didn't seem to be suffering from any large performance deficit as a result of the location, so I wouldn't expect the 911 to either. If anything, AWD and FI would help make up for any negative conditions. Could have been a green car, but man, that's really green.

 

After seeing that compitition tires were used on some cars, this test is absolutely horrible, those tires probably made all the difference, I know in autox compitition tires are usually worth 2-3 seconds faster, and I'm sure a road course that time would be even greater, Road And Track should have never let this slip

 

While everyone agrees that the C6 is the money barging. What I like about this comparo is that is shuts up those guys out there saying that the Z06 is the cost AND performance leader. aka I always see crap like "You could have a Z06 for half that price and it performs better".

 

My co-worker just sold his 996 TT :sigh: he had it for just 3-4 years and says he's getting old (he's 50) and sold it back to the dealer and ordered a S4 with AT. :Sigh:. I told him he needs the RS4 at the least but he's gone to ground with the S4 with AT (IMO) a bit boring and underwelming after the 911 TT.

I wonder if these 'dream' cars are better in dreams than in reality?

I wonder when these cars come down the line used, say a Ford GT for $90K, if I'd rather have a 5 year old exotic (Ford GT) or a (new) 911S?

When the Gallardo comes down to $110K (4 years used), would I pick that over a new presumably improved 911 GT3?

 

I dont think this article shuts anyone up, because the numbers for the Z06 are so much slower than any other published numbers. I dont think its a conspiracy against the Z, but something is odd.

 

In addition to what lyndon h said, I don't see how this article would shut anyone up considering the two cars which outran it on the road course were both using competition tires, while the Z06 was wearing run-flats.

I also don't want to jump to the conclusion of it being a conspiracy against the Z06, but something is seriously wrong with R&T's numbers sometimes. I understand they don't correct their numbers like some publications, however they have yet to trap over 120mph in multiple tests of the Z06, meanwhile I can't think of another publication that hasn't trapped over 120mph, some as high as 127. R&T is nearly a full 10mph off the highest recorded trap speed for a stock Z06. If they were just off on the E.T. I could understand, driver skill/familiarity etc, but to be that far off on trap speed is odd. Beyond that, forget other publications numbers (and possible data correction factor effects), there are plenty of Z06's out there already in owners hands that have trapped in the mid 120s without correction factors.