A 996 c2 X51 and a stock TT Have nearly the same HP..

at the wheels. A TT loses 25% of HP through the AWD system. A C2 X51 loses 15%. There is little difference. Isn't a TT also heavier?

415 or 450 (x50) for the TT and 320 or 345 (for x51)for the NA. .........so not really sure what you are asking??? If it's performance numbers like 0-60 then those aren't close either. There is a reason their is over a $40K difference between these cars.

Sorry the c2 w/X51 is not even close to turbo power...

A non X50 TT vs X51 C2.

I think 25% is too much, more like 17%, and it's actually a very low drag awd system.

I disagree. It's 25%.

Cladd, Where are you getting your facts from? If this were the case then a X51 C2 should be able to keep up with a 996 TT correct? Raw performance numbers would tell the story more than HP/Weight ratios,etc and the performance numbers I have seen aren't real close.

It's not a matter of opinion, so if you have data feel free to present it. In my C4 the losses are around 14% by my measurement.

I'm kinda multitasking but, there was a recent dyno thread on the TT board, and consensus was aboout 300hp at the wheels for a stock TT(no x50)(25% loss from flywheel). C2 loss was agreed at 15%.

Remember the system is usually 95% rear biased, 5% front, so most of the time the front differential isn't dragging all that much. However, I think a well setup x51 car, with a good suspension/tires could spank a bone stock US spec TT around a track, esp a cab. A well setup TT is another matter.

Thanks. Like many I'm debating the two as my next car.

For the track or DD? If track, then the TT setup right would be a monster but if you are just cruising around town then the C2 is the smarter choice.

Ricky Williams would like some of the weed you're on Own a TT, have driven many NA cars including a 40th jahre model.......trust me, they are LIGHT YEARS apart in performance. A TT does not lose appreciably more HP though the front wheels.....go and look at the official 0-60 times between a C2 and C4 car to confirm. Assume 15-17% loss in either case.

Believe it or not Dell, I think it is exactly the opposite. TT for the street. C2 X51 for the track.

Why Todd? Slower car with less mod-ability for the track. Not sure I follow.

Basing your purchase decision between a 996 TT versus a C2 X51 on hp and acceleration figures is simply foolish. You need to ask yourself what you want out of this car and drive the damn things. I drove a 996 TT and a 40th back to back over some two lane twisty roads and quickly decided that I liked the 40th much better. Sure it has less power and the numbers show it to be slower in acceleration and top speed. The driving experience sold me on the car as it felt much lighter and more nimble the the TT. This is important to me and drove my buying decision. You make your own decision. Drive the damn things.

I Know I will miss how light and nimble my C2 feels vs a TT, but I just have to have more power! I agree with earlyapex, drive both cars back to back.If you drive them 3 weeks or 3 hours apart it wont give you the anwsers you might be looking for. Good luck and keep us up to date.

First, a disclaimer. I like TTs and wouldn't mind having one. For the purpose of the comments that follow, I am sticking with the choice of 996TT versus X51C2. As such, don't take any insult from my comments, because I mean none. On the street, it is all about comfortable and safe driving, and, for many, the power and panache to "impress" others. The 996TT is the king for this. It is the best value I can think of for a supercar that you can realistically use as a daily driver. Very impressive. On the track, it depends upon what you want to do. For DEs, everyone knows that it is all about the corners. I, and many of the track rats I know, would prefer to have a lighter, more tossable, car over a heavier car with more HP. Moreover, the AWD is only necessary for truly inclement weather (the track is closed during "truly" inclement weather) and to put power down when you have too much HP for only two wheels. The rubber on the X51C2 is more than sufficient to put down all the available power available under most circumstances. As such, the AWD is a liability on the track under most conditions: it adds weight and makes the car less tossable without any obvious benefit. Sure the TT has more power on the straights, but who cares? Every time you pass someone they would say to themselves "what do you expect, the turbo has more horsepower." Every time you get passed, the other driver would be thinking to himself or herself "I just took the turbo, yummm." The X51C2 has more than enough power on the track, and the better handling of the C2 platform would allow you to do a pretty good job of keeping up with a TT or, depending upon the driver, pass it. Plus, you don't have the added complexity of the turbo or AWD to deal with. Put simply, the x51C2 would be more fun, unless you are compensating for lack of driving skills, and then you should just learn how to drive. That said, there are many great drivers who track their TTs in DEs who could spank me all around the track even if I were driving a TT. With respect to racing, you just don't see that many 996TTs. Racing would be the most fun when you have a big class with many competitors. Who cares if you make the podium if you are the only one of three or five in your class? I would rather run in a bigger class with lots of competitors with similar cars. I am nearly certain that there are many more X51C2s racing than there are 996TTs. For these reasons, the choice would be a no brainer for me. Street? 996TT. Track? X51C2.

Thanks Todd. That helps alot. Now I have to buy a TT for the street and a C2 for the track! Oh the wife is not going to be happy

FWIW, I've run down the straight at Brainerd with all these cars. It's essentially a mile long sprint starting at 100 mph. My x51 (which weighs around 2910 and dynos a ways over 300) is pretty much dead even with a GT3. Same with a 993TT. A 996TT will pull me by a couple of lengths. I would be very surprised if they only have 300 hp at the wheels. At the end of the day, it's all about hp/torque and weight. The tt is fat but the HP more than makes up for it. Now, for a track car. Give me the light car anyday but I'll admit that an equally prepared TT with an equal driver will be faster on most tracks on a short run. On a tight course or on a long run, an X51 would give it a good run. Jim

TD, If you've ever seen the "BMI 996TT The King" video you might change your mind, as the AWD cars (996TT, Evo, & Skyline (I think)) DESTROYED the 2 wheel drive cars (F360, NSX, Corvette C5) all over the track, including the twisties, even the 280 hp jap cars were just too efficient for the mighty Modena. Now you might like to get sideways in turns as you lose traction, it is fun, but it doesn't equate to a fast lap time. I think the reason you don't see many TTs at the track is the cost of the car. As 996TTs get to the $50k level and away from the affluent first owners into enthusiat's hands, you will see many more.

Keep in mind that I was comparing a stock X51C2 to a stock 996TT. Did you read my disclaimer? I stand by my claim that the stock C2 platform handles better than the stock 996TT platform in the corners under most circumstances. Two factors are even more important to consider: One, a lighter car is more fun than a heavier car IMHO. Second, it is not as much fun being the big kid on the block, because you can never really win. It is sorta like fighting a girl, whether you win or you lose, you still lose. Give me the X51C2 any day of the week . . . Yes, cost and complexity is definitely a factor, and I have no doubt that you will see more TTs at DEs, but I still think there is a reason why you do not see so many TTs in racing. It's all good. I am just calling it as I see it. It is not as if either car is a bad option.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the torque of the TT. Even if the HP to the wheels is similar the TT is producing a fair amount more torque. And I good Lord I can't believe this, but I'm 100% in agreement with you Todd on the street vs track nature of the cars. I've spent a lot of time at the track in a bone stock 996TT. -KJ

Hey, KJ, what's that supposed to mean?

The point was that at a world class race track with professional drivers, a bone stock 996TT beat the CRAP out of a 400 hp rear wheel drive car that most of us would kill for (F360). I don't think given the same circumstances the outcome would be different given a 345 hp car.

Shark, You need to read my reasoning in its entirety. All of the parts hang together. I stick by my opinion, which has nothing to do with insulting TTs. Peace, TD

Dell - THAT could be the under statement of the year!

The TT will spank the NA 996, no comparison. Christian

A well prepared C2 x51 can carry alot of speed into the corner, that is what's gonna spank a stock TT. Like others have said, a well prepped TT would be a different story.

Not to throw gas onto the fire, but don't the bigger brakes and wider tires of the turbo vs. the C2 also play a huge part in its ability to get around a track quickly? I would think that would more than compensate for the slight additional weight and drag the AWD and wider body/tires.... David

Here is the challenge I'll make to any takers. We'll have a "Pinks" style challenge. My car, a very lightly optioned late model 996 3.6L X51. (Not my race car, I'll buy one) Your car, a late model 996TT X50. The only mods allowed are ROW M030, race pads and Hoosiers. The race, a 60 minute enduro at Road America. Winner takes both cars home. Any takers? Jim

60 minutes? Does it take that long to beat the TT? What about 1 or 2 warm-up laps and then a 5 lap total time similar to a DE event? Not that I would put a pink on the line but I am just trying to understand the choice of format.

Jim, you sound like CC! I tell you what would be interesting to me. I would like to see the same driver on the same day at the same track drive a stock 996X51 and a stock 996TT back to back. I would bet that the times would not be that dramatically different, and I bet the driver would have more fun with the RWD chassis. TD

Todd and Dell, Actually I was just kidding around while I�m waiting to head to the airport for a long weekend in Scottsdale. I suppose it would be fun to come back on Monday to find the whole TT board telling me what an idiot I am but Todd�s right. I would sound a little too much like CC for my taste. FWIW, I would win the race. Of course the X50 would be faster unless it was driven by a complete slug. Fortunately I happen to know that, if run hard, it will run out of gas at about 50 to 55 minutes. Assuming at least 3 minutes to get into the pits, get out of the car, put in a couple gallons, etc. etc. and I�m long gone. Have a good weekend. I�m heading south. Jim

Enjoy the warmer weather!

TD, You are right on. I had planned on getting a 2001 or 2001 996TT this summer but I am going to keep my n/a 01 996 and throw on some mods: Pss9s, sways, brake pads, new wheels with R componds and maybe in a year if I really need more speed I'll SC it. I am spending more time on the track than on the street with my P-car especially after my last ticket which included a careless and reckless . By the way I also found out a n/a 996 is faster than a Carrera GT at the track. Well that's only if it is raining ! k

No, wait wait - I already forwarded the link to your posting to my friend Walter Roehrl here in Germany. He already agreed on selling me your car for half the market price Thorsten

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/surrender.gif