Walked a 911 ,,2001 MODEL
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,971
Likes: 6
From: Dallas
Originally posted by DavidM
You can't look at the best S2000 time and compare it with the worst 911 time. Take best times from both, or the worst time from both (or the average) ... but you can't have 'best' for S2000 and the 'worst' for the 911.
You can't look at the best S2000 time and compare it with the worst 911 time. Take best times from both, or the worst time from both (or the average) ... but you can't have 'best' for S2000 and the 'worst' for the 911.
Its not like we are saying the S2000 is genrally faster.In a 1/4 mile race, with even drivers, the 911 should win by 4-6 car lengths. In this scenario, the S2000 got the jump and the 911 was slowly catching up. I don't see whats so hard to understand.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
There is no way in hell cars within 0.5-0.7 of each other can catch each other by the 1/4 mile point with one having a two second lead.
Hi Sev, it's the '0.5- 0.7sec faster' part which is not accurate. 911 is it more like 1 - 1.5sec quicker to 1/4mile then an S2000 ... that's what the '2sec lead' example is based on. There is a night-and-day difference in acceleration between a 911 and an S2000 ... ask Bernie as he has 911, new M3 and S2000 in his family. Like I said, you might as well start claiming kills like this on Vipers .... you have about the same chance with a 2001 911 or a new M3.
LS1s run high 12s or low 13s, that is the same as these 911s. Why do we agree that under certain conditions, an s2k can hang with an LS1 but cannot beat a 911???????
I can't comment on LS1s as we don't have them here ... though, we have plenty of 911s and M3s ... I even have a friend who had an '86 911 so I'm fully aware of how quick 911s are ... in particular the new ones. If LS1 is just as quick as a 911 then I guess my comments apply to that as well but I have no experience with LS1s so I'll let other people comment on that.
>You can't look at the best S2000 time and compare it with the worst 911
>time. Take best times from both, or the worst time from both (or the average) ...
>but you can't have 'best' for S2000 and the 'worst' for the 911.
Why not? Its not like we are saying the S2000 is genrally faster.
In a 1/4 mile race, with even drivers, the 911 should win by 4-6 car lengths. In this scenario, the S2000 got the jump and the 911 was slowly catching up. I don't see whats so hard to understand.
Why not? Because on the same road/place/time/conditions a 911 will always be at least 1sec quicker for a 1/4mile sprint (and not just yet - it climbs the speed increments so much quicker then an S2000). More likely there'll be 1.5sec difference as an S2000 can bog down but 911 can't ... well it can, but bogged down 911 still pulls like a truck and does not lose that much momentum. 911 has a very wide and high torque band so 911 pulls well at any revs (unlike an S2000). It feels like a big V8 from inside - awesome low-end grunt.
So you can't take the time of a 911 on a slipery surface, up the hill and on a hot day and compare it with a downhill run S2000 on a 'perfect day' with perfect traction. It's just unrealistic as when racing someone then you will race in same conditions/time/surface.
ps. I don't deny that when you fly pass a 911 (or start racing ahead of him) that it will take some time for the 911 to get on power and catch up to the S2000 but in this scenario it sounds like the 911 was right behind the S2000 and they both gunned it at roughly the same time ... it's not like the S2000 had a 20mph start advantage or the 911 started '5secs' after the S2000 ... or is that what happened?
Hi Sev, it's the '0.5- 0.7sec faster' part which is not accurate. 911 is it more like 1 - 1.5sec quicker to 1/4mile then an S2000 ... that's what the '2sec lead' example is based on. There is a night-and-day difference in acceleration between a 911 and an S2000 ... ask Bernie as he has 911, new M3 and S2000 in his family. Like I said, you might as well start claiming kills like this on Vipers .... you have about the same chance with a 2001 911 or a new M3.
LS1s run high 12s or low 13s, that is the same as these 911s. Why do we agree that under certain conditions, an s2k can hang with an LS1 but cannot beat a 911???????
I can't comment on LS1s as we don't have them here ... though, we have plenty of 911s and M3s ... I even have a friend who had an '86 911 so I'm fully aware of how quick 911s are ... in particular the new ones. If LS1 is just as quick as a 911 then I guess my comments apply to that as well but I have no experience with LS1s so I'll let other people comment on that.
>You can't look at the best S2000 time and compare it with the worst 911
>time. Take best times from both, or the worst time from both (or the average) ...
>but you can't have 'best' for S2000 and the 'worst' for the 911.
Why not? Its not like we are saying the S2000 is genrally faster.
In a 1/4 mile race, with even drivers, the 911 should win by 4-6 car lengths. In this scenario, the S2000 got the jump and the 911 was slowly catching up. I don't see whats so hard to understand.
Why not? Because on the same road/place/time/conditions a 911 will always be at least 1sec quicker for a 1/4mile sprint (and not just yet - it climbs the speed increments so much quicker then an S2000). More likely there'll be 1.5sec difference as an S2000 can bog down but 911 can't ... well it can, but bogged down 911 still pulls like a truck and does not lose that much momentum. 911 has a very wide and high torque band so 911 pulls well at any revs (unlike an S2000). It feels like a big V8 from inside - awesome low-end grunt.
So you can't take the time of a 911 on a slipery surface, up the hill and on a hot day and compare it with a downhill run S2000 on a 'perfect day' with perfect traction. It's just unrealistic as when racing someone then you will race in same conditions/time/surface.
ps. I don't deny that when you fly pass a 911 (or start racing ahead of him) that it will take some time for the 911 to get on power and catch up to the S2000 but in this scenario it sounds like the 911 was right behind the S2000 and they both gunned it at roughly the same time ... it's not like the S2000 had a 20mph start advantage or the 911 started '5secs' after the S2000 ... or is that what happened?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: Oak Creek
I think my head is going to explode after all of this arguing.
Here is what Jersey is saying:
*He knows the ave 911 is quicker.
*911 tried to make a pass on the highway, but Jersey gunned it and the 911 did not have enough grunt to get him when he needed.
*Notice Jersey was surprised at the outcome. He held him off. HE WINS!!!
It does not matter if it was a 911 or Diablo, he tried to pass and couldn't. Driver probably was a factor, but how is that Jerseys fault. I believe the majority of the better drivers in America are the ones that drive the lesser expensive cars anyway.
I say good kill. Anything can happen on the street.
I lost to a Ford Lightning a while back. I was in the right lane and my lane was ending not even an 1/8 up the road. Light turned green and we both gunned it, I know my car was faster, but my tires spun and his didn't. He got the jump and I was reeling him in. As I got to his door, I had to slam on the brakes because my lane was gone. Lightning wins! I still added it to the loss column in the kill section of my web page. Faster cars don't always win.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
From: Houston
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidM
[B]
Not with a 911 vs S2000 scenario - 911 can give you a 2 sec lead and still has a good shot at passing you shortly after the 1/4 mile mark (ie. when S2000 is doing ~105mph).
[B]
Not with a 911 vs S2000 scenario - 911 can give you a 2 sec lead and still has a good shot at passing you shortly after the 1/4 mile mark (ie. when S2000 is doing ~105mph).
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
From: Huntingdon Valley
Good Job on the 911. I would say it is believable. Can anyone tell me what a stock S2k can run in the quarter mile? I have heard everything from 13.8 to 14.4. What have you guys put down. Matt.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: VA
I have to agree with WS6 on this one.
911s are quick but well drivn s2000 should be able to give it a good run.
911 will have to WORK to beat s2000 especially on highway.
911 should win against s2000 almost everytime, but this one particular incident,
s2000 won. I believe it and good kill!
911s are quick but well drivn s2000 should be able to give it a good run.
911 will have to WORK to beat s2000 especially on highway.
911 should win against s2000 almost everytime, but this one particular incident,
s2000 won. I believe it and good kill!
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Originally posted by DavidM
Theres 1sec difference when you look at 'best' and more like 2sec when you look at the 'worst'.
Theres 1sec difference when you look at 'best' and more like 2sec when you look at the 'worst'.
How do you know what's the 'worst' time for 911 or S2000?
Worst ever done? - I bet that's infinity for both 911 and S2000 - there HAD to be some of them breaking down at the strip.
Worst ever published? That's about 13.5 for 911 and 14.5 for S2000 - still a 1 second difference.
Worst ever actually completed? - Who knows. I've seen a guy C5 vette that couldn't break into 14's (i.e. he ran 15's) the whole goddamn day, even though he was trying and the car was running fine.
Anyway, even looking at 'worst' times is just an attempt to moot the point. 911 is a significantly faster car (.7-1 seconds is significantly faster in anyone's book), but it is not outrageously faster so that it could give 2 seconds advantage to S2000 and still catch up. You need a Z06 vette to do that.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
How do you know what's the 'worst' time for 911 or S2000?
Worst ever published? That's about 13.5 for 911 and 14.5 for S2000 - still a 1 second difference.
Yeah, I ment jus published ... though that is 15.6 for the S2000 and 13.8 for the 911. At least from allthe numbers that I've seen.
Best times I've seen are 13.0 for the 911 and 13.9 for the S2000.
Sorry, but that's pure BS. 2 second lead for the S2000 means 15 carlenghts lead by the 1/4 mile. There's no way in hell a 911 is catching up to that anywhere NEAR the 1/4 mile mark. MAYBE after 1-2 miles, but the'll be going 140+ mph by then
hmmm, yeah ... 2 secs is a stretch ... in particular when talking 1/4mile stretch. . Look at these numbers for the 2 cars:
-------------------------------------
911:
0 - 40mph in 2secs
0 - 60mph in 4.7secs
0-100mph in 11.5secs
S2000:
0 - 40mph in 3secs
0 - 60mph in 5.4secs
0-100mph in 13.9secs
-------------------------------------
If the 911starts 2 secs later under 'ideal' conditions then the S2000 will be doing good 30mph even before the 911 get's of the line .... that is a huge deficit. In this scenario the 911 will finally be doing the same speed as a S2000 (and begin to reel it in) just about when the S2000 is doing ~95mph .... that is most of the 1/4mile strip. I can't work out on a paper how far ahead the S2000 would get by then, but for that whole period the S2000 would be pulling away as it would be doing higher speed at all times.
1 sec head start is a more realistic prospect and with that the 911 should just pipe the S2000 at around the 1/4 mile mark (under ideal situation for both cars).
Though I was picturing a 'non ideal' situation where S2000 can easily drop down to high 14s for a 1/4 mile sprint while the 911 will still be in mid 13s. In that case even a 2 sec head start for the S2000 will be possible for the 911 to reel even by the 1/4 mile mark.
>You can't look at the best S2000 time and compare it with the worst 911
> time. Take best times from both, or the worst time from both (or the
>average) ... but you can't have 'best' for S2000 and the 'worst' for the 911.
>Theres 1sec difference when you look at 'best' and more like 2sec when you
>look at the 'worst'.
That's true, but in this case WE KNOW the S2000's time. jerseys2k DID run 13.6. What time did 911 run? Nobody knows, since nobody knows the guy. So if we assume a below-average driver (and that's in my opinion more than 50% 911 drivers out there - someone that has the money for the car, but doesn't have the guts or skills to really wind it out to the max), it is quite obvious how jersey could have won.
That's not right .... you can't pressume that the S2000 will do 13.6 here on this stretch of the road just because it has done so before (with no seat, on a drag strip with no seat and tyre pressures lowered). If you do that with a 911 you 'could' get 12.8 time for a 1/4 mile ... who knows.
Worst ever published? That's about 13.5 for 911 and 14.5 for S2000 - still a 1 second difference.
Yeah, I ment jus published ... though that is 15.6 for the S2000 and 13.8 for the 911. At least from allthe numbers that I've seen.
Best times I've seen are 13.0 for the 911 and 13.9 for the S2000.
Sorry, but that's pure BS. 2 second lead for the S2000 means 15 carlenghts lead by the 1/4 mile. There's no way in hell a 911 is catching up to that anywhere NEAR the 1/4 mile mark. MAYBE after 1-2 miles, but the'll be going 140+ mph by then
hmmm, yeah ... 2 secs is a stretch ... in particular when talking 1/4mile stretch. . Look at these numbers for the 2 cars:
-------------------------------------
911:
0 - 40mph in 2secs
0 - 60mph in 4.7secs
0-100mph in 11.5secs
S2000:
0 - 40mph in 3secs
0 - 60mph in 5.4secs
0-100mph in 13.9secs
-------------------------------------
If the 911starts 2 secs later under 'ideal' conditions then the S2000 will be doing good 30mph even before the 911 get's of the line .... that is a huge deficit. In this scenario the 911 will finally be doing the same speed as a S2000 (and begin to reel it in) just about when the S2000 is doing ~95mph .... that is most of the 1/4mile strip. I can't work out on a paper how far ahead the S2000 would get by then, but for that whole period the S2000 would be pulling away as it would be doing higher speed at all times.
1 sec head start is a more realistic prospect and with that the 911 should just pipe the S2000 at around the 1/4 mile mark (under ideal situation for both cars).
Though I was picturing a 'non ideal' situation where S2000 can easily drop down to high 14s for a 1/4 mile sprint while the 911 will still be in mid 13s. In that case even a 2 sec head start for the S2000 will be possible for the 911 to reel even by the 1/4 mile mark.
>You can't look at the best S2000 time and compare it with the worst 911
> time. Take best times from both, or the worst time from both (or the
>average) ... but you can't have 'best' for S2000 and the 'worst' for the 911.
>Theres 1sec difference when you look at 'best' and more like 2sec when you
>look at the 'worst'.
That's true, but in this case WE KNOW the S2000's time. jerseys2k DID run 13.6. What time did 911 run? Nobody knows, since nobody knows the guy. So if we assume a below-average driver (and that's in my opinion more than 50% 911 drivers out there - someone that has the money for the car, but doesn't have the guts or skills to really wind it out to the max), it is quite obvious how jersey could have won.
That's not right .... you can't pressume that the S2000 will do 13.6 here on this stretch of the road just because it has done so before (with no seat, on a drag strip with no seat and tyre pressures lowered). If you do that with a 911 you 'could' get 12.8 time for a 1/4 mile ... who knows.
