beat by an suv!!!

[no substitute]

Originally posted by iamchappy
It's hard for me to understand how they can be so fast, The engine is rated at 450 hp and the weight of the SUV is 5200 lbs, which is about 11.5 lbs per hp. So much for the lbs to hp theory.
My 914 6 turbo carerra has up to 300 hp and weighs 2100 lbs which puts me at 7 lbs per hp and the Cayenne might have me in a dog fight. Porsche has done a fantastic job in creating the ultimate performance SUV I give them a ( a couple of tons ) of credit.

With 300 horsepower shouldn't your 0-60 times be in the high fours?

[BigD9146gt]

When i was working at an engine machine shop in the bay area, my boss was telling me about some motor parts he worked on (balanced a crank and re-did some heads) for a late 80's 911 that broke the standing mile record at just over 200mph.

As for the Cayenne turbo, i read somewhere that it placed 8th fastest production car on the hockenheim circut (or Nurenburg?) and the S pepper took about 15th. The next fastest SUV was the X5 4.4 in the mid 20's.

[J Smith]

Originally posted by creaturecat
Alledged perpetrator returns to the scene of the crime!

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

You, my friend, are going straight to hell.

[cegerer]

"did I mention that we narrowly missed 2 nuns on the crosswalk AND we were racing in a school zone."

A Catholic school zone, no less? I think you get bonus points for hitting nuns ..... well, at least that was the rule in Death Race 2000.

[iamchappy]

Originally posted by no substitute
With 300 horsepower shouldn't your 0-60 times be in the high fours?

Dont know? Never been timed. I have a short gear transmission also, which makes for some very quick shifting. I run out of gears awful fast, I top out at 120.

If I could afford a Cayenne Turbo I would get one.

[cegerer]

Here's some lap times at the Nurburgring. You need to be careful in comparing times because there are several circuit variations. Note the 700HP BMW X5 driven by Hans Stuck





http://www.nordschleife.no/

[KobaltBlau]

Originally posted by cegerer

hey, I wonder if that's had any chassis work?

I didn't see the cayenne on that list of times.

It says a lot that a 'Radical' (albeit a turbocharged one) can do 170,8 km/h (avg).

[vash]

creaturecat, that is funny. i hope those nuns kick your unholy arse with rulers!

[stuartj]

Originally posted by creaturecat
think what you want - he was wide open!

Sure he was.

I, with my meagre skills, driving a Cayenne S (non Turbo) held on to a 996 on track for couple of laps (both standard, Porsche owned factory cars.) Its simply astounding how well this block of flats goes, stops and turns. And then climbs 45deg inclines.

And while it certainly aint Nurburgring, a Cayenne Turbo on standard rubber pulled a low 1m.46sec lap on a local track at Porsche club meeting- my best time in my 86 at that track 1.46.6 the fast 3.2s (rocket ship club racers) are doing 1.42's.
This partuclar venue is tight little handling track, not a high speed circuit like the Ring.

The Cayenne is an awesome thang.

stuart

[Jubbie]

Maybe Porsche will come back to Le Mans with the SUV

[Adam]

The Cayenne Turbo is faster around the Nurburgring than a standard 996 Carrera 3.6-liter.

Considering the Pepperwagon is so damned good (which it really is), why isn't the vanilla 996 better??

[dd74]

Originally posted by Adam Chaplin
Considering the Pepperwagon is so damned good (which it really is), why isn't the vanilla 996 better??

That's the burning question I have as well. Why isn't the 996 better? Or why hasn't Ferrari put out an SUV? Or Maseratti?

Could it be Porsche might be finally abandon the rear-engined car game after this last V8 model 911? I can't think of any company that builds a like-minded car these days. Everyone's either front engine/rear drive, front engine/front drive or mid-engine...

[thrown_hammer]

Originally posted by creaturecat
Alledged perpetrator returns to the scene of the crime!

ROFL!!! Someone get that man a GruppeB # stat!

[creaturecat]

THANK YOU - FELLOW PELICANHEADS - thanks for the varied and interesting responses to my (seemingly) innocent thread - out of respect for this bbs I HEREBY PROMISE TO NEVER DRAG RACE IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL ZONE (DURING SCHOOL HOURS).

[BigD9146gt]

dd74, my meer opinion, but i think Porsche is worried that their rear engine design is going to be out dated soon. They look at the world market, as they did in the 70's, and look to get a larger percentage with easier handling, higher hp cars. They thought the 928 was going to take over the 911, which with the irony of this thread, was the first production Porsche to break the land speed record at over 160mph in 1978. Porsche has never up intill that point been a car that had anyclame of "zero to whatever" or "top speed king", they are a mid speed car with, in the hands of a skilled driver, handling caracteristics that more than make up for lack of power.

And the point that the 996 isn't faster is a good one, you have to get the GT3 or more like the GT2 to even think of performing with the turbo pepper. But when the time comes that my hard work pays off and I can afford a new sports car, I'm going for the newest 911 Turbo avalable, because its the loyal, continuous buyers that will keep Porsche amazed that Butzi's design is thee greatest, and will be built even when they don't want too.

[dd74]

Well put, BigD. Staying loyal to the brand is very important. It's just like contributing to one's college alumni.

[MAS]

"... And the point that the 996 isn't faster is a good one"

Road and Track clocked the 996 in a 0-60 dash in under 5 seconds (4.6 actually).

-MAS

[BigD9146gt]

MAS, your right. I was just on ultimatecarpage.com and got some numbers...

2002 996 C2, 3000lbs, 0-60: 4.9sec, 89Bhp/Litre
2002 996 TT, 3700lbs, 0-60: 4.2sec, 116Bhp/Litre
2002 Cayenne Turbo, 5200lbs, 0-60: 5.5sec, 99Bhp/Litre

Its funny that the turbo isn't much faster that its normally asperated brother, but it does get exponentially harder to go faster too.
I think i got caught up in the fact that creaturecat got his ass whipped, and forgot that he was driving a 3.2 with about 72Bhp/Litre.

PS, sorry for the ass whipping statement, i wish i had your car.

[creaturecat]

ass whipping??? that hurts!!! anyways - the power to weight ratio is more important - my car weighs 2651 lbs for a p/w ratio of 11.47 the cayenne has a p/w ratio of 11.55. I COULD HAVE WON IF I HADN'T DODGED THE NUN!!!!

[no substitute]

If I recall correctly, the six (at the time) cars that circled the 'Ring faster than a Cayenne Turbo, were largely Porsches. The Cayenne Turbo was approximately the same as a Boxster S.
Porsches diversification into areas that some don't care for, may very well be simple pragmatism. They have to have an answer for the cheaper and quick Asian made cars. The quality of the Porsche makes this choice a no brainer to me, and allows us to buy great used cars that will last. With two mid engined entries, albeit one well outside the boundaries of most of our wallets, maybe Porsche is once again considering steering away from the rear engined car. Say it isn't true? Well, we've had water since the 80's via the 959 heads, and most here wouldn't complain about owning one of those. Now we have full water, not to mention a V-10. Look at the early photos of the Boxster Coupe and consider how some here thought it looked as good as or better than the 996. The wave of the future?
Speaking of the future a recent TV show says cars with removeable wings are nearly here now, and will be the very near future of the personal vehicle. No, not that kind of wing. These fit on the sides of the vehicle and provide lift (flight), not down force. Porsche did tinker with aircraft engines for a while.
The times they are a changin', but the old air cooled flat sixes are still a lot of fun.