CLK63 Black Series vs. (997)911TT
02-09-2008, 02:31 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
Now I do agree that the absence of a DSG-style box or sequential manual is a glaring omission.
As regards 997TT vs BS, I'd say they're both very accomplished 2-seater sports cars.
02-09-2008, 03:10 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
I'm over at my buddies house, looking at his 997t and still trying to figure out how to get 610hp out of it? 
02-09-2008, 03:39 PM
#29
Hmmm, speaking as a former 996TT owner, Porsche make the best brakes on production road cars. To say P-cars are only fit for 9second road tests is also way, way off.
Now I do agree that the absence of a DSG-style box or sequential manual is a glaring omission.
As regards 997TT vs BS, I'd say they're both very accomplished 2-seater sports cars.
Now I do agree that the absence of a DSG-style box or sequential manual is a glaring omission.
As regards 997TT vs BS, I'd say they're both very accomplished 2-seater sports cars.
I didn't say or mean to imply that the 997 tt is"only fit for road tests"
My point on the 9 seconds is that Sport Chrono overboost is there for one 0-60 run and most of one quarter mile, but isn't there for the next starightaway, or perhaps even for the next three laps. Therefore, it is a "feel-good" street device which improves magazine test results, but doesn't consistently improve results in the arena that Porsche touts as its heritage, the track. It is more "gimmicky" than most true performance enhancements, and therefore a disappointment to me. The fact that the advertised "10 seconds of overboost" is never a full 10 seconds, and the fact that it can't be summoned again at the driver's will is an unappreciated aspect of this relatively inexpensive (by Porsche standards) option. But, by traditional Porsche standards, it is relatively useless. AS
02-09-2008, 03:47 PM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
Carl, I think we agree on the brakes. Porsches come standard with great brakes. PCCB's don't shorten stopping, are worse when wet, are at their best advantage on a racetrack (but Porsche will void warranty coverage for that use), cost a fortune, and add nothing to the average owners use, except occasional heartburn when they clatter or break.
I didn't say or mean to imply that the 997 tt is"only fit for road tests"
My point on the 9 seconds is that Sport Chrono overboost is there for one 0-60 run and most of one quarter mile, but isn't there for the next starightaway, or perhaps even for the next three laps. Therefore, it is a "feel-good" street device which improves magazine test results, but doesn't consistently improve results in the arena that Porsche touts as its heritage, the track. It is more "gimmicky" than most true performance enhancements, and therefore a disappointment to me. The fact that the advertised "10 seconds of overboost" is never a full 10 seconds, and the fact that it can't be summoned again at the driver's will is an unappreciated aspect of this relatively inexpensive (by Porsche standards) option. But, by traditional Porsche standards, it is relatively useless. AS
I didn't say or mean to imply that the 997 tt is"only fit for road tests"
My point on the 9 seconds is that Sport Chrono overboost is there for one 0-60 run and most of one quarter mile, but isn't there for the next starightaway, or perhaps even for the next three laps. Therefore, it is a "feel-good" street device which improves magazine test results, but doesn't consistently improve results in the arena that Porsche touts as its heritage, the track. It is more "gimmicky" than most true performance enhancements, and therefore a disappointment to me. The fact that the advertised "10 seconds of overboost" is never a full 10 seconds, and the fact that it can't be summoned again at the driver's will is an unappreciated aspect of this relatively inexpensive (by Porsche standards) option. But, by traditional Porsche standards, it is relatively useless. AS
Congrats on your BS by the way. I've seen two on the road (a silver and a black) and slowed and stared at both. I've heard the brakes are superb, even for track applications. That's the only failing of the M5 (aside from the small fuel tank). The 14.7" brakes are hugely powerful but after repeated laps fade will set in compared to my Turbo's units. However, they're more than good enough for road use so I shouldn't complain, especially as it's a 3900lb sedan.
02-09-2008, 03:52 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
600bhp is certainly possible out of the 3.6TT but it'll take a bit more $$ than a chip
Also, the 996TT was more tuneable as the VGT turbos make it even more eye wateringly expensive to modify. That being said, FI does lend itself to increased aftermarket bhp compared to our higher revving na engines.
02-09-2008, 04:11 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
600bhp is certainly possible out of the 3.6TT but it'll take a bit more $$ than a chip
Also, the 996TT was more tuneable as the VGT turbos make it even more eye wateringly expensive to modify. That being said, FI does lend itself to increased aftermarket bhp compared to our higher revving na engines.
02-09-2008, 06:13 PM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
[QUOTE=norb;2644692]I own a 997TT. I don't own a CLKBS, but some of the comments here are totally hilarious. The 997TT will kick a CLKBS's *** up and down on the street or on the track. The only thing that the CLKBS has going for it is exclusivity. But as a "performance" car, its way to bloated.
norb,
I like the 997tt, but I think you may be confusing 0-60 times with track times. C&D reported Bernd Schneider ran a 7:45 on the Nordschleif compared to Walter Rohrl's 7:49 in a 997tt! I've run a 997tt on the autobahn and it didn't kick my ***. Delimited, the BS runs over 196 mph vs the 997 tt at 193 mph. As far as bloated, porsche doesn't use the european standards in publishing their car weights. If so the 997tt tip would come in at 3842 with driver (160 lbs.) fuel 90% of full tank and luggage. AMG uses the european standard. So the BS weighs a whopping 58 lbs more.
You have admitted no first hand experience driving the BS, yet make all the subjective claims against it. I think you need to stop drinking the porsche kool aid long enough to sober up to the facts. You might even like the instant throttle response compared to the turbo lag endemic in the 997tt. That lag doesn't help the 997tt on road courses and the average driver will be faster in the BS, as it's flat easier to drive fast.
Jimmy
norb,
I like the 997tt, but I think you may be confusing 0-60 times with track times. C&D reported Bernd Schneider ran a 7:45 on the Nordschleif compared to Walter Rohrl's 7:49 in a 997tt! I've run a 997tt on the autobahn and it didn't kick my ***. Delimited, the BS runs over 196 mph vs the 997 tt at 193 mph. As far as bloated, porsche doesn't use the european standards in publishing their car weights. If so the 997tt tip would come in at 3842 with driver (160 lbs.) fuel 90% of full tank and luggage. AMG uses the european standard. So the BS weighs a whopping 58 lbs more.
You have admitted no first hand experience driving the BS, yet make all the subjective claims against it. I think you need to stop drinking the porsche kool aid long enough to sober up to the facts. You might even like the instant throttle response compared to the turbo lag endemic in the 997tt. That lag doesn't help the 997tt on road courses and the average driver will be faster in the BS, as it's flat easier to drive fast.
Jimmy
02-09-2008, 06:33 PM
#34
Sounds like we're on the same wavelength.
Congrats on your BS by the way. I've seen two on the road (a silver and a black) and slowed and stared at both. I've heard the brakes are superb, even for track applications. That's the only failing of the M5 (aside from the small fuel tank). The 14.7" brakes are hugely powerful but after repeated laps fade will set in compared to my Turbo's units. However, they're more than good enough for road use so I shouldn't complain, especially as it's a 3900lb sedan.
Congrats on your BS by the way. I've seen two on the road (a silver and a black) and slowed and stared at both. I've heard the brakes are superb, even for track applications. That's the only failing of the M5 (aside from the small fuel tank). The 14.7" brakes are hugely powerful but after repeated laps fade will set in compared to my Turbo's units. However, they're more than good enough for road use so I shouldn't complain, especially as it's a 3900lb sedan.
Thanks. I've driven a new M5 on the track, and the experience is much different. The M5 is a fine car, but is tilted much more to street driving. This is by engineering intent, and I'm sure could be dialed out if the engineers wanted.
If you, for example, took 0-10 as a scale for certain functions like front roll stiffness, 10 being track car stiff, the BMW would be something like a 6.8, and the BS an 8.6. The BMW will understeer on entry, the BS doesn't.
(By the way, both have better steering feel than the awd porsche. And, while I haven't tried a 997tt on the track in the rain, the 996tt in that circumstance really can't be driven with the skid controls on, as it understeers like crazy.)
The BS characteristics don't come without a compromise, as the BS transmits much more road surface irregularity into the car.
I hope you have a chance to try one. AS
02-09-2008, 07:06 PM
#35
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.worldcarfans.com/2050713.001
I can understand your reluctance and bias against the BS (and preference for the Porsche TT (been there and can still do that!)). But the BS is one very special car that is atypical of AMG and MB.. hopefully the start of something new.
You'll realize this when you drive the BS (the weight apparently "disappears") and it is every bit as much fun around a track as a GT3 (though different).
Enjoy the read.
02-09-2008, 07:25 PM
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Come on, curb weight is curb weight. No way the CLKBS is only 58 pounds heavier than the 997TT. I'm not drinking the Porsche koolaid, just laughing at some of the crazy comments being thrown around this enthusiast post. As if the CLKBS owners are being so defensive for some reason.
Like I said, the CLKBS is a great car, and would probably be even better if MB had put in their new DSG type trany in it. That would have been the best combo.
BTW.
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.87 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.52 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h –- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02) http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/new...iefe/index.php
7:42.9 - 160.21 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05) http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street (based on 996 GT2) 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,00 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44* -- 159.83 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, 473 PS/1724 kg *company chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065
7:44 --- 159.83 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.48 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
Like I said, the CLKBS is a great car, and would probably be even better if MB had put in their new DSG type trany in it. That would have been the best combo.
BTW.
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.87 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.52 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h –- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02) http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/new...iefe/index.php
7:42.9 - 160.21 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05) http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street (based on 996 GT2) 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,00 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44* -- 159.83 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, 473 PS/1724 kg *company chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065
7:44 --- 159.83 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.48 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
02-09-2008, 10:18 PM
#37
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CLK 63 Black Series, 2009 S550, 2011 Range Rover Supercharged, BMW F800 GS Anniv Edition
Hmmmm - I dunno about those times you listed above...lets take a wider view of that list:
7.39* -- 161.58 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06)
7:39 --- 161.58 km/h -- Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1180 kg, http://www.koenigsegg.com/news/artic...age=&type=news
7.39 --- 161.58 km/h -- TechArt GT street (based on 997 Turbo) 620 PS/1552 kg (sport auto 10/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=1&tID=140084
http://www.sportauto-online.de/aktue...7063_14469.hbs
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1690 kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 03/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR, Klaus Ludwig
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Theme...ife_45763.html
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.87 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.52 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h –- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02) http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/new...iefe/index.php
7:42.9 - 160.21 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05) http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street (based on 996 GT2) 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,00 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44* -- 159.83 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, 473 PS/1724 kg *company chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065
7:44 --- 159.83 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.48 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
First of all, what are the "Michelin Cup Sport tyres " ?? Are these the full race slicks ?? Also, a 7:40 would put that equal to:
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
:40 --- 161.22 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1690 kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 03/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR, Klaus Ludwig
I find that 7:40 time very hard to believe unless it was running slicks...same lap time as a VEYRON ???? C'mon.
7.39* -- 161.58 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06)
7:39 --- 161.58 km/h -- Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1180 kg, http://www.koenigsegg.com/news/artic...age=&type=news
7.39 --- 161.58 km/h -- TechArt GT street (based on 997 Turbo) 620 PS/1552 kg (sport auto 10/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=1&tID=140084
http://www.sportauto-online.de/aktue...7063_14469.hbs
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1690 kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 03/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR, Klaus Ludwig
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Theme...ife_45763.html
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.87 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.52 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h –- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02) http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/new...iefe/index.php
7:42.9 - 160.21 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05) http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street (based on 996 GT2) 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,00 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44* -- 159.83 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, 473 PS/1724 kg *company chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065
7:44 --- 159.83 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.48 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
First of all, what are the "Michelin Cup Sport tyres " ?? Are these the full race slicks ?? Also, a 7:40 would put that equal to:
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
:40 --- 161.22 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1690 kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 03/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR, Klaus Ludwig
I find that 7:40 time very hard to believe unless it was running slicks...same lap time as a VEYRON ???? C'mon.
02-09-2008, 10:46 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Just google Michelin Cup Sport tires to find out what they are. They are NOT racing slicks. They come standard on the production 997 GT3. Awesome tires.
02-10-2008, 01:18 AM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Motor Trend posted a faster time then Walter Rohrl... in the 997tt. Do you doubt the top speed also? I've driven many porsche turbos more potent than the stock 997tt in fact I own one. The BS will kill the 997tt at tracks like Willow Springs.
No matter how much electronics you put in the 997 tt suspension, you cannot over come physics and 68% behind the rear wheels. But thats ok because porsche makes more profit per car than ANY manufacturer per car. That means your drinking kool aid and you like it. Keep believing those MacPhearson struts are state of the art and the RMS oil leaks are fiction. Too many of the faithful have deserted for cars like the BS because they can't take the kool air any longer.
Jimmy
in the 997tt. Do you doubt the top speed also? I've driven many porsche turbos more potent than the stock 997tt in fact I own one. The BS will kill the 997tt at tracks like Willow Springs. No matter how much electronics you put in the 997 tt suspension, you cannot over come physics and 68% behind the rear wheels. But thats ok because porsche makes more profit per car than ANY manufacturer per car. That means your drinking kool aid and you like it. Keep believing those MacPhearson struts are state of the art and the RMS oil leaks are fiction. Too many of the faithful have deserted for cars like the BS because they can't take the kool air any longer.
Jimmy
02-10-2008, 03:23 AM
#41
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bremerton, WA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2000 ML430
964 1989-1994
993 1995-1998
996 1999-2005
997 2006-> ?
Porsche has had a couple of 'short' model cycles.
Of course the 986 and 987 were also developed during those cycles, although admittedly not 911's
Maybe I'll got for a really fast and exclusive car, a new GT2's (going to have to get this company sold first!).
This is an interesting little pissing match RE: BS and TT. Very entertaining indeed!
02-10-2008, 05:36 AM
#42
Hmmmm - I dunno about those times you listed above...lets take a wider view of that list:
7.39* -- 161.58 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06)
7:39 --- 161.58 km/h -- Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1180 kg, http://www.koenigsegg.com/news/artic...age=&type=news
7.39 --- 161.58 km/h -- TechArt GT street (based on 997 Turbo) 620 PS/1552 kg (sport auto 10/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=1&tID=140084
http://www.sportauto-online.de/aktue...7063_14469.hbs
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1690 kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 03/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR, Klaus Ludwig
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Theme...ife_45763.html
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.87 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.52 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h –- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02) http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/new...iefe/index.php
7:42.9 - 160.21 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05) http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street (based on 996 GT2) 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,00 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44* -- 159.83 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, 473 PS/1724 kg *company chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065
7:44 --- 159.83 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.48 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
First of all, what are the "Michelin Cup Sport tyres " ?? Are these the full race slicks ?? Also, a 7:40 would put that equal to:
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
:40 --- 161.22 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1690 kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 03/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR, Klaus Ludwig
I find that 7:40 time very hard to believe unless it was running slicks...same lap time as a VEYRON ???? C'mon.
7.39* -- 161.58 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06)
7:39 --- 161.58 km/h -- Koenigsegg CCR, 806 PS/1180 kg, http://www.koenigsegg.com/news/artic...age=&type=news
7.39 --- 161.58 km/h -- TechArt GT street (based on 997 Turbo) 620 PS/1552 kg (sport auto 10/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=1&tID=140084
http://www.sportauto-online.de/aktue...7063_14469.hbs
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1690 kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 03/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR, Klaus Ludwig
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Theme...ife_45763.html
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.87 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.52 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h –- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02) http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/new...iefe/index.php
7:42.9 - 160.21 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05) http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street (based on 996 GT2) 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,00 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44* -- 159.83 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, 473 PS/1724 kg *company chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno, http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../71017001/1065
7:44 --- 159.83 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.48 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.48 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
First of all, what are the "Michelin Cup Sport tyres " ?? Are these the full race slicks ?? Also, a 7:40 would put that equal to:
7:39.39 161.219 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, Walther Röhrl (AutoBild 02/06)
:40 --- 161.22 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.22 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz CLK DTM AMG, 582 PS/1690 kg, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 03/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR, Klaus Ludwig
I find that 7:40 time very hard to believe unless it was running slicks...same lap time as a VEYRON ???? C'mon.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....ilot+Sport+Cup
Ted
02-10-2008, 08:00 AM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds like airplane
...........not getting into this debate. here is info on Michelin pilot sport cup. They are regular radial tires like the other michelins with some reinforcements for track us. Incidentally, I don't think that true slicks are good for the race track due to their flex side wall. They are only good for drag racing. Also, personally never found the debate about which tire a car had very persuasive since these tires are universally available and the competion is perfectly able to go purchase the said tire themselves and run with it.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....ilot+Sport+Cup
Ted
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....ilot+Sport+Cup
Ted
02-10-2008, 10:30 AM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Motor Trend posted a faster time then Walter Rohrl... in the 997tt. Do you doubt the top speed also? I've driven many porsche turbos more potent than the stock 997tt in fact I own one. The BS will kill the 997tt at tracks like Willow Springs.
No matter how much electronics you put in the 997 tt suspension, you cannot over come physics and 68% behind the rear wheels. But thats ok because porsche makes more profit per car than ANY manufacturer per car. That means your drinking kool aid and you like it. Keep believing those MacPhearson struts are state of the art and the RMS oil leaks are fiction. Too many of the faithful have deserted for cars like the BS because they can't take the kool air any longer.
Jimmy
in the 997tt. Do you doubt the top speed also? I've driven many porsche turbos more potent than the stock 997tt in fact I own one. The BS will kill the 997tt at tracks like Willow Springs. No matter how much electronics you put in the 997 tt suspension, you cannot over come physics and 68% behind the rear wheels. But thats ok because porsche makes more profit per car than ANY manufacturer per car. That means your drinking kool aid and you like it. Keep believing those MacPhearson struts are state of the art and the RMS oil leaks are fiction. Too many of the faithful have deserted for cars like the BS because they can't take the kool air any longer.
Jimmy
Dude who's drinking kool aid now? I guess your Porsche knowledge stopped short of knowing that 997TT engines, and the GT3, is still based on the GT1 race engine, not the regular production engine found on regular 997s. All the misinformation you guys are spewing about the 997TT just proves my point. You guys are defensive as heck.
Hey, its OK that you bought a boutique car. Face it, the majority bought the CLKBS because of its exclusivity. Nothing wrong with that. I'll just leave you with this quote.
From Car and Driver, you know the one that is listed on the times list for the CLKBS, so I guess that's should be gospel for you.
COUNTERPOINT
TONY SWAN
AMG is all about power and panache, but its core credo goes beyond that. “At the end of the day,” says AMG boss Volker Mornhinweg, “it must still be a Mercedes.” This refers to refinement, as well as muscle, which adds a bit too much mass in a car conceived to match the pace of, say, a Porsche 911 Turbo. Thus, this limited-edition CLK isn’t quite in that league. But it is nevertheless a formidable performer and easily one of the most desirable AMG cars ever offered.
Peace and out.
02-10-2008, 11:46 AM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
If you look at the list, the majority are based on magazine testing. Again, hilarious, myopic.
Dude who's drinking kool aid now? I guess your Porsche knowledge stopped short of knowing that 997TT engines, and the GT3, is still based on the GT1 race engine, not the regular production engine found on regular 997s. All the misinformation you guys are spewing about the 997TT just proves my point. You guys are defensive as heck.
Hey, its OK that you bought a boutique car. Face it, the majority bought the CLKBS because of its exclusivity. Nothing wrong with that. I'll just leave you with this quote.
From Car and Driver, you know the one that is listed on the times list for the CLKBS, so I guess that's should be gospel for you.
COUNTERPOINT
TONY SWAN
AMG is all about power and panache, but its core credo goes beyond that. “At the end of the day,” says AMG boss Volker Mornhinweg, “it must still be a Mercedes.” This refers to refinement, as well as muscle, which adds a bit too much mass in a car conceived to match the pace of, say, a Porsche 911 Turbo. Thus, this limited-edition CLK isn’t quite in that league. But it is nevertheless a formidable performer and easily one of the most desirable AMG cars ever offered.
Peace and out.
Dude who's drinking kool aid now? I guess your Porsche knowledge stopped short of knowing that 997TT engines, and the GT3, is still based on the GT1 race engine, not the regular production engine found on regular 997s. All the misinformation you guys are spewing about the 997TT just proves my point. You guys are defensive as heck.
Hey, its OK that you bought a boutique car. Face it, the majority bought the CLKBS because of its exclusivity. Nothing wrong with that. I'll just leave you with this quote.
From Car and Driver, you know the one that is listed on the times list for the CLKBS, so I guess that's should be gospel for you.
COUNTERPOINT
TONY SWAN
AMG is all about power and panache, but its core credo goes beyond that. “At the end of the day,” says AMG boss Volker Mornhinweg, “it must still be a Mercedes.” This refers to refinement, as well as muscle, which adds a bit too much mass in a car conceived to match the pace of, say, a Porsche 911 Turbo. Thus, this limited-edition CLK isn’t quite in that league. But it is nevertheless a formidable performer and easily one of the most desirable AMG cars ever offered.
Peace and out.
Let's agree we don't agree.
One of the reason I bought the BS is it can handle two golf bags so I drive to the club. Yep, and my golf partner owns you guessed it...997 tt. Over and out.Jimmy
02-10-2008, 08:10 PM
#47
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bremerton, WA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2000 ML430
Geez some people are touchy. Feeling like you made a mistake with the BS?
02-10-2008, 09:33 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
Alexander,
Looks like it's up to you and I to stop this thread from going down the pan.
Very interesting to hear your comparisons of the two cars. Clearly there's no argument as to their respective track prowess in comparison to one another. Funnily enough, I did consider a BS before plumping for the M5. In the end, the ability to seat five was what mind up my mind. Of course, if I had more than one car as I have done in the past then that would not be a factor but as it was it was an easy decision. When the 09's come out I'll add my second car but no track special for me- A RRS Supercharged proving I must be getting old.
When I bought my Turbo the only other car I was considering was the 996 GT3. A suspension unsuited to rough L.A. asphalt made up my mind but nowadays there is more choice out there; The GT3 has improved on-road due to PASM while the emergence of genuine driver's cars from AMG is a delight for the consumer.
Were I to take my pick between the BS and the 997TT or GT3 I think I would take the AMG. While not by any stretch of the imagination the primary reason, I have to mention the fact that the rear diffuser is pure theater. One question, how do you find the transmission for tracking? I've heard it's faster than the regular AMG 'boxes but would appreciate an owner's perspective.
Take care and enjoy the performance.
Looks like it's up to you and I to stop this thread from going down the pan.
Very interesting to hear your comparisons of the two cars. Clearly there's no argument as to their respective track prowess in comparison to one another. Funnily enough, I did consider a BS before plumping for the M5. In the end, the ability to seat five was what mind up my mind. Of course, if I had more than one car as I have done in the past then that would not be a factor but as it was it was an easy decision. When the 09's come out I'll add my second car but no track special for me- A RRS Supercharged proving I must be getting old.
When I bought my Turbo the only other car I was considering was the 996 GT3. A suspension unsuited to rough L.A. asphalt made up my mind but nowadays there is more choice out there; The GT3 has improved on-road due to PASM while the emergence of genuine driver's cars from AMG is a delight for the consumer.
Were I to take my pick between the BS and the 997TT or GT3 I think I would take the AMG. While not by any stretch of the imagination the primary reason, I have to mention the fact that the rear diffuser is pure theater. One question, how do you find the transmission for tracking? I've heard it's faster than the regular AMG 'boxes but would appreciate an owner's perspective.
Take care and enjoy the performance.
Carl,
Thanks. I've driven a new M5 on the track, and the experience is much different. The M5 is a fine car, but is tilted much more to street driving. This is by engineering intent, and I'm sure could be dialed out if the engineers wanted.
If you, for example, took 0-10 as a scale for certain functions like front roll stiffness, 10 being track car stiff, the BMW would be something like a 6.8, and the BS an 8.6. The BMW will understeer on entry, the BS doesn't.
(By the way, both have better steering feel than the awd porsche. And, while I haven't tried a 997tt on the track in the rain, the 996tt in that circumstance really can't be driven with the skid controls on, as it understeers like crazy.)
The BS characteristics don't come without a compromise, as the BS transmits much more road surface irregularity into the car.
I hope you have a chance to try one. AS
Thanks. I've driven a new M5 on the track, and the experience is much different. The M5 is a fine car, but is tilted much more to street driving. This is by engineering intent, and I'm sure could be dialed out if the engineers wanted.
If you, for example, took 0-10 as a scale for certain functions like front roll stiffness, 10 being track car stiff, the BMW would be something like a 6.8, and the BS an 8.6. The BMW will understeer on entry, the BS doesn't.
(By the way, both have better steering feel than the awd porsche. And, while I haven't tried a 997tt on the track in the rain, the 996tt in that circumstance really can't be driven with the skid controls on, as it understeers like crazy.)
The BS characteristics don't come without a compromise, as the BS transmits much more road surface irregularity into the car.
I hope you have a chance to try one. AS
02-10-2008, 10:03 PM
#49
Carl,
It pains me to say that I missed the last track days this year when my BS developed a bubble in the left front Corsa sidewall, and no replacement was available. (the saga ended well with 4 free Bridgestones, and an extra set of rims at a deep discount)
I do live in an area with untrafficed open roads, so I can offer an answer, but it is incomplete until this spring. My driving style on the track has evolved to being more similar to my style on the street with longer/lighter braking, as opposed to my earlier "slam down as late as possible" style. The longer braking (still hard braking, just not panic braking) keeps the brakes on while the car is downshifting, so the car isn't upset by the absence of the rev-matching blip. I think the transmission does better in auto mode, rather than paddle downshifts, but others may not agree.
When you use the paddles to downshift from high speeds, you need to mentally count the gears, which is really different from manual boxes, or even a dsg that downshifts with more immediacy to the paddle command. Manually, it is easy to downshift one gear too many, as there is a delay through the paddles.
The locking rear creates easy drifts (you can do this on the street, if you live in a rural neighborhood like mine), so the cornering attitude consistently has a tiny bit of opposite lock
Regarding current tone, I welcome others to the board. Even contention is interesting, and better than silence. AS
It pains me to say that I missed the last track days this year when my BS developed a bubble in the left front Corsa sidewall, and no replacement was available. (the saga ended well with 4 free Bridgestones, and an extra set of rims at a deep discount)
I do live in an area with untrafficed open roads, so I can offer an answer, but it is incomplete until this spring. My driving style on the track has evolved to being more similar to my style on the street with longer/lighter braking, as opposed to my earlier "slam down as late as possible" style. The longer braking (still hard braking, just not panic braking) keeps the brakes on while the car is downshifting, so the car isn't upset by the absence of the rev-matching blip. I think the transmission does better in auto mode, rather than paddle downshifts, but others may not agree.
When you use the paddles to downshift from high speeds, you need to mentally count the gears, which is really different from manual boxes, or even a dsg that downshifts with more immediacy to the paddle command. Manually, it is easy to downshift one gear too many, as there is a delay through the paddles.
The locking rear creates easy drifts (you can do this on the street, if you live in a rural neighborhood like mine), so the cornering attitude consistently has a tiny bit of opposite lock
Regarding current tone, I welcome others to the board. Even contention is interesting, and better than silence. AS
02-11-2008, 08:03 AM
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
