15 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH0-60 times. Does 4.6 seem realistic for 99 cab?
Leading reported evidence
Run 13.5 in the quarter so the mags are wrong
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Also, I missed 3rd at the track and still ran a 13.5 in the quarter so the mags are wrong.
Leading evidence: 'Run 13.5 in the quarter so the mags are wrong' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Reset who knows' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The software can use the accelerometer data to interpolate, but there is a lot of noise in the accelerometer due to vibrations and road roughness, and I would assume a margin of error of about half a second for a 0-60 measurement.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The software can use the accelerometer data to interpolate, but there is a lot of noise in the accelerometer due to vibrations and road roughness, and I would assume a margin of error of about half a second for a 0-60 measurement.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
15 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T173940Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I played around with Dynolocious on my Iphone today. Its supposed to measure 0-60 times calculating it from acceleration. I did 3 run the first one was 5.4 the second 5.2 and the third i hit 4.6. It seems to low for that car so I am wondering if thats even possible. Its a stock 99 cab 2 wheel drive. The last run was the hardest I droped the clutch around 4000 rpm and the wheels actually squeeled, the 2 previous run there was no wheel squiling and a drop at around 3-3500 rmp.
The first #'s seem more correct -- but not sure how they accomplish these numbers.
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Porsche...mph-Times.html
1999 Porsche 911 Cabriolet 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter mile 13.6
Seems a little fast, but maybe you nailed it. My guess is that the phone might have shifted a little causing the reading to be off.
The 5.2 is pretty good though.
IIRC, I read an article in R&T where they achieved a 4.8 sec. 0-60 time with a 6-speed '99 Cab.
Also, I think some auto mag. once quoted a 4.6 sec. 0-60 time for an MKI 996 6-speed coupe.
That would be great if thats true. I am going to hook up my laptop to OBD2 and do couple runs with that, see what the results
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65629993@N03/7128208169/http://www.flickr.com/photos/65629993@N03/7128208169/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/65629993@N03/, on Flickr
I've had experiences where I've easily beaten cars that according to magazines have 0-60's of 5.0 (GTO's, 3 of 4 modded evo's at the same time, C5 vettes and 1 c6 (of course he zoomed by after 65).
Also, I missed 3rd at the track and still ran a 13.5 in the quarter so the mags are wrong. No crazy clutch drops and I only owned the car for a month at that time (I had GIAC and Evo intake only at the time).
I had thought the same thing, but the reviews of this particular app showed it to be more accurate than purpose-built machines costing $$$...so go figure!
I have done maybe 15-20 hard clutch drops in my whole life and this one felt really good
. But I agree that the phone could have moved creating a fake reading, as it has to be mounted really hard to the car so it does not move.
The 0-30 time casts some doubt. Getting to 30 in 1.8 seconds is about right for an AWD STI or EVO chirping all four wheels right at the edge of traction. A 997 GT3 took 1.9 to get to 30 is a recent magazine test.
It might have just been the OP's day. It's kind of unusual for satellite signals to overstate speed. Tires warmed up, ECU reset, who knows... anyway, fun. I've been dying to try my Dynolicious. Apparently, the HP results are about as accurate as you'd get from a Mustang dyno, provided you input the car's weight accurately.
OBDII updates at about 2Hz and cell phone internal GPS updates at about 1Hz. The accelerometer updates much faster, about 10Hz, so while the phone can pretty accurately tell when you started moving, it has a much harder time telling when you actually reached 60mph. The software can use the accelerometer data to interpolate, but there is a lot of noise in the accelerometer due to vibrations and road roughness, and I would assume a margin of error of about half a second for a 0-60 measurement. You'll want to do a lot of runs and average all your runs together for the best estimate, as opposed to picking one or two. You may get better results with a 5-10Hz external GPS.
Porsche generally underestimates their performance numbers, so it would not surprise me if his actual performance was much faster than stated. Especially if the run was done downhill
Each year we drive down to Ocean City, MD there's a stretch of highway where our GPS registers that our Odyssey hit a top speed of 300mph.
Technical error? Juuuuust maybe.
-Eric
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
