Walked a 911 ,,2001 MODEL
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
Sorry, but this 911 was either 10+ years old or the guys was not racing you. S2000 is so far away from the 911 in terms of acceleration that it's not even funny. S/C S2000 would have a hard time keeping up with a 2001 911 .... even 2001 911 is as quick as a brand new M3 (2002 model is quicker). Wes with his S/C S2000 raced the odd M3 and from all his reports at best he was even with the M3 so there's no change in hell that an S2000 without a turbo or SC can get anywhere close to a 911.
Do you dealize that 911 does:
0 - 40mph in 2secs
0 - 60mph in 4.5secs
0-100mph in 11.5secs
1/4mile in 13.0secs (even high 12s)
Put that in content of an S2000 (on a good day):
0 - 40mph in 3secs
0 - 60mph in 5.4secs
0-100mph in 13.9secs
1/4mile in 13.8secs at best but low 14s are more realistic.
Just to put this in perspective - if you both start from standstill then when you're doing 60mph, the 911 is doing almost 70mph. When you'e doing 90mph, he's doing 100mph. That is a huge difference in speed.
You know, a 911 taking off in 2nd gear will still blow the doors of an S2000 doing an agressive-launch it's like claiming that a Civic beat an S2000.
ps. Even a 911 with an auto-box (ie. tiptronic) will blow the doors of an S2000 as it's not that much slower then a manual shifting 911 ... just add 0.5sec to the 911 times.
Do you dealize that 911 does:
0 - 40mph in 2secs
0 - 60mph in 4.5secs
0-100mph in 11.5secs
1/4mile in 13.0secs (even high 12s)
Put that in content of an S2000 (on a good day):
0 - 40mph in 3secs
0 - 60mph in 5.4secs
0-100mph in 13.9secs
1/4mile in 13.8secs at best but low 14s are more realistic.
Just to put this in perspective - if you both start from standstill then when you're doing 60mph, the 911 is doing almost 70mph. When you'e doing 90mph, he's doing 100mph. That is a huge difference in speed.
You know, a 911 taking off in 2nd gear will still blow the doors of an S2000 doing an agressive-launch it's like claiming that a Civic beat an S2000.
ps. Even a 911 with an auto-box (ie. tiptronic) will blow the doors of an S2000 as it's not that much slower then a manual shifting 911 ... just add 0.5sec to the 911 times.
Banned
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
From: Austin
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Tiptronic takes between .5-1.0 seconds to shift, which is WELL off what a person should be able to do on a manual. Plus, you can't merely add .5 seconds to each time. It compounds itself. So if you were adding .5 to the first number, you'd probably be adding almost a full second to the last.
The '99 Carrera only runs 13.4 - 13.5, with its 300hp, which is the same as the '01. So if he's running a 13.6 at the track, then with a jump, its a small wonder he was ahead as long as he was.
Blake
The '99 Carrera only runs 13.4 - 13.5, with its 300hp, which is the same as the '01. So if he's running a 13.6 at the track, then with a jump, its a small wonder he was ahead as long as he was.
Blake
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
From: Rochester
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Tiptronic takes between .5-1.0 seconds to shift,
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
From: Lathrup Village
It's undeniable that the S2000 is a quick little car. It's undeniable that the 911 is quicker than 95% of the cars on the road including the S2000. I don't believe that JerseyS2K thinks his car is quicker than a Porsche. He merely was suprised that the guy didn't pull on him quicker. The slight jump and right conditions can mean the world sometimes.
John
John
Banned
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Originally posted by DavidM
Sorry, but this 911 was either 10+ years old or the guys was not racing you. S2000 is so far away from the 911 in terms of acceleration that it's not even funny. S/C S2000 would have a hard time keeping up with a 2001 911 .... even 2001 911 is as quick as a brand new M3 (2002 model is quicker). Wes with his S/C S2000 raced the odd M3 and from all his reports at best he was even with the M3 so there's no change in hell that an S2000 without a turbo or SC can get anywhere close to a 911.
Do you dealize that 911 does:
0 - 40mph in 2secs
0 - 60mph in 4.5secs
0-100mph in 11.5secs
1/4mile in 13.0secs (even high 12s)
Put that in content of an S2000 (on a good day):
0 - 40mph in 3secs
0 - 60mph in 5.4secs
0-100mph in 13.9secs
1/4mile in 13.8secs at best but low 14s are more realistic.
Just to put this in perspective - if you both start from standstill then when you're doing 60mph, the 911 is doing almost 70mph. When you'e doing 90mph, he's doing 100mph. That is a huge difference in speed.
You know, a 911 taking off in 2nd gear will still blow the doors of an S2000 doing an agressive-launch it's like claiming that a Civic beat an S2000.
ps. Even a 911 with an auto-box (ie. tiptronic) will blow the doors of an S2000 as it's not that much slower then a manual shifting 911 ... just add 0.5sec to the 911 times.
Sorry, but this 911 was either 10+ years old or the guys was not racing you. S2000 is so far away from the 911 in terms of acceleration that it's not even funny. S/C S2000 would have a hard time keeping up with a 2001 911 .... even 2001 911 is as quick as a brand new M3 (2002 model is quicker). Wes with his S/C S2000 raced the odd M3 and from all his reports at best he was even with the M3 so there's no change in hell that an S2000 without a turbo or SC can get anywhere close to a 911.
Do you dealize that 911 does:
0 - 40mph in 2secs
0 - 60mph in 4.5secs
0-100mph in 11.5secs
1/4mile in 13.0secs (even high 12s)
Put that in content of an S2000 (on a good day):
0 - 40mph in 3secs
0 - 60mph in 5.4secs
0-100mph in 13.9secs
1/4mile in 13.8secs at best but low 14s are more realistic.
Just to put this in perspective - if you both start from standstill then when you're doing 60mph, the 911 is doing almost 70mph. When you'e doing 90mph, he's doing 100mph. That is a huge difference in speed.
You know, a 911 taking off in 2nd gear will still blow the doors of an S2000 doing an agressive-launch it's like claiming that a Civic beat an S2000.
ps. Even a 911 with an auto-box (ie. tiptronic) will blow the doors of an S2000 as it's not that much slower then a manual shifting 911 ... just add 0.5sec to the 911 times.
Glad I didn't have to be the one to point out the fact that the S should lose everytime.
If this guy beat one congrats, but don't expect it to happen often.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: San Jose
Originally posted by DavidM
Sorry, but this 911 was either 10+ years old or the guys was not racing you. S2000 is so far away from the 911 in terms of acceleration that it's not even funny. S/C S2000 would have a hard time keeping up with a 2001 911 .... even 2001 911 is as quick as a brand new M3 (2002 model is quicker). Wes with his S/C S2000 raced the odd M3 and from all his reports at best he was even with the M3 so there's no change in hell that an S2000 without a turbo or SC can get anywhere close to a 911.
Do you dealize that 911 does:
0 - 40mph in 2secs
0 - 60mph in 4.5secs
0-100mph in 11.5secs
1/4mile in 13.0secs (even high 12s)
Put that in content of an S2000 (on a good day):
0 - 40mph in 3secs
0 - 60mph in 5.4secs
0-100mph in 13.9secs
1/4mile in 13.8secs at best but low 14s are more realistic.
Just to put this in perspective - if you both start from standstill then when you're doing 60mph, the 911 is doing almost 70mph. When you'e doing 90mph, he's doing 100mph. That is a huge difference in speed.
You know, a 911 taking off in 2nd gear will still blow the doors of an S2000 doing an agressive-launch it's like claiming that a Civic beat an S2000.
ps. Even a 911 with an auto-box (ie. tiptronic) will blow the doors of an S2000 as it's not that much slower then a manual shifting 911 ... just add 0.5sec to the 911 times.
Sorry, but this 911 was either 10+ years old or the guys was not racing you. S2000 is so far away from the 911 in terms of acceleration that it's not even funny. S/C S2000 would have a hard time keeping up with a 2001 911 .... even 2001 911 is as quick as a brand new M3 (2002 model is quicker). Wes with his S/C S2000 raced the odd M3 and from all his reports at best he was even with the M3 so there's no change in hell that an S2000 without a turbo or SC can get anywhere close to a 911.
Do you dealize that 911 does:
0 - 40mph in 2secs
0 - 60mph in 4.5secs
0-100mph in 11.5secs
1/4mile in 13.0secs (even high 12s)
Put that in content of an S2000 (on a good day):
0 - 40mph in 3secs
0 - 60mph in 5.4secs
0-100mph in 13.9secs
1/4mile in 13.8secs at best but low 14s are more realistic.
Just to put this in perspective - if you both start from standstill then when you're doing 60mph, the 911 is doing almost 70mph. When you'e doing 90mph, he's doing 100mph. That is a huge difference in speed.
You know, a 911 taking off in 2nd gear will still blow the doors of an S2000 doing an agressive-launch it's like claiming that a Civic beat an S2000.
ps. Even a 911 with an auto-box (ie. tiptronic) will blow the doors of an S2000 as it's not that much slower then a manual shifting 911 ... just add 0.5sec to the 911 times.
Which magazine did you get those numbers from? I am not doubting that the 911 is faster than the s2k, but those numbers seem a bit fast even for the carrera. I have raced a friend's 2002 carrera b4 with my m3 and it was pretty much dead even up to 100, after that, I might have pulled 1 foot on him to 130. I'm sure I can't touch him through corners though. Those things have 320hp at about 2910lbs. So I have no doubt that a better driver can beat me. As for the s2k, it should lose, otherwise, the porsche would look stupid spending 3 times more than the s2k.
