Best 0-60 run: sad?

So I just got a performance acceleromter (the Bel one), and took it out to play. Very sad. First run was 7.25, 3rd was 5.85. That's the best I got. Wondering why it would be so slow compared to the claims? Maybe some of the environmental factors were affecting the results? Car is a stock 99 C2 cab w/PSE: 1) Was 90 degrees. I assume that this could affect performance (air-conditioning was off for the good runs). 2) Gas tank 3/4 full, with 220 pounder driving (weight factors). 3) Driving 91 octane (how much would 93-100 affect this?). 4) Not sure how to best launch the car. Don't want to burn out the clutch, so I was getting it to about 2500rpm and then dropping the clutch. No clutch burn at all, but lagging starts. Any thoughts?

Disclaimer on accelerometer above xxxHP?

Willard - what do you mean? I didn't see a disclaimer, are you thinking that the acceleromter is innacurate? I'd love to think this was the case!

Item number 4 is your "problem." You will never get 5 sec or faster 0-60s without "abusing" the car. A 6000 RPM launch works well on a 996. The trick is to feather the clutch so you get maximum drive without causing dramatic rear wheel hop. Although it is possible to get a good 6000 RPM launch without feathering the clutch, it is very inconsistent. The car is extremely prone to wheel hop so feathering properly is much more consistent BUT, of course, causes a lot more wear to the clutch disc/pressure plate. You could take my word for it that the car WILL deliver sub-5 sec 0-60s and not bother abusing your clutch. OR you could get down with your bad boy-racer self and have at it. Keep in mind, however, that 0-60 is an advertising gimmick and bears no relationship to anything. When two cars race, does one win by "arriving" at a speed before the other one? Nope, he wins by arriving at a point on the ground first. 0-60 was invented by manufacturers to sell cars (and motorcycles). Ignore 0-60 times on all road tests - look to the 1/4 mile time to determine acceleration.

Mike P - good thoughts. I'm just bummed that my buddy's Audi TT (with a stated 6.9 sec 0-60 time) seems to keep up with me whenever we're goofing around. Makes my car seem pokey instead of exotic. I think I'll wait until it's cold, run the tank dry, add 100 octane, and not eat for a few days, then try popping out the clutch a little later in the RPMs... here comes a sub-5!

ZeeZee, Remember that the Cab is heavier than the coupe. Porsche claimed the '99 coupe was good for 0-100kph (62mph) in 5.2, and the Cab in 5.4 sec. These numbers are based on a car with "standard" equipment, not a heavier fully optioned one. When you factor in the other stuff you mentioned like the high ambient temperature, 91 octane fuel, extra weight for you and the fuel (sorry <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ), and non-abusive start, your 5.85 number is right in the ballpark.

ZeeZee, I got the gtech pro a few months back and tested on Fadz's 996-C4S (dubai). The result was a 5.1sec 0-60mph run after a few trials. As for my previous own (996-C2 1999 Manual) the results were 0-60 of 5.2sec and a quarter mile of 13.4sec at about +100mph (lagos nigeria) *hoping i remember well* Both were at temperatures over 90deg while the asphalt condition in Lagos was quite poor relative to Dubai's great roads! Surely the 1/4 mile is a much accurate guage but a much more difficult procedure since it involves the 0-60 run itself coupled with the third gear change where time losses are greater. THE MAIN ISSUE THERE IS TO SWITCH PSM OR T/C OFF. The rest is up to your patience and ability to withstand the smell of your clutch burning! Waz

Are you sure you were on flat ground?? If you were on a slight decline the numbers would look worse than they really are. If you were on a slight incline they would look better than they really are.

Pete: Pretty sure I was on flat ground. In fact I'm not 100% sure that I wasn't on a slight downhill for my best run! I'm guessing from the comments that it's the launch that's the issue here, and without being willing to burn it out alittle I'm never going to see low 5 second runs. Waz: were you buring clutch for all of the best runs you did?

Pete: So you're saying that a downhill grade would make the numbers look worse? Wouldn't that be the opposite, since a downhill grade equals faster launches? Or is it all g-force based? I'm guessing from the comments that it's the launch that's the issue here, and without being willing to burn it out alittle I'm never going to see low 5 second runs. Waz: were you buring clutch for all of the best runs you did?

ZeeZee: Yup downhill makes numbers look worse for G-Force measuring device. Seems counter intuitive, but think of the case were you head up a steep up hill. You could stop half way up and the G-Force measuring device would think you're pulling 1/2 a G or more {depending on the hill} and think you're pulling some serious HP and speed when in fact both may be 0. Down hill is just the opposite.

I dunno about that concerning the uphill downhill deal. I have done countless runs in the past on my old m5 before and after I put on a dinan chip to see what it did and it was always faster downhill. I would average runs back and forth even in places that I thought were flat just to get a more accurate picture. I would have to say that 93 octane does make a big difference in torque. I feel it at any temp. Lower outside temps do make a bid difference also of course It makes the peak torque seemingly feed in quicker. Instead of 4k where it comes on strong it comes in more around 3k trickling with the pull. I don't really believe in abusing the car overall and you don't have to rev the car to 6k 4k or 2.5k to get a decent time out of it. I will go at about 1500. Turning the traction control off is a must always. It's all about proper feeding of the clutch. I learned this by doing drag racing with way too much hp for the rear end as it had no locating devices for the rear end. Anywhoo it's all about slipping the clutch correctly while seemlessly flooring it with a bit of pause to make sure you disengage read --feather the clutch -- nicely off the line. After that it is just application of power and shifting it quickly but accurately. I don't agree with people who power shift either- the old -- keep it flored and slam the clutch in and out with the shift. It works on hondas to get a couple more tenths but I find that I can shift almost as fast without hurting the car.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by SPR: <strong>I dunno about that concerning the uphill downhill deal. I have done countless runs in the past on my old m5 before and after I put on a dinan chip to see what it did and it was always faster downhill. I would average runs back and forth even in places that I thought were flat just to get a more accurate picture. ...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">What were you measuring your 0-60 times with?

Not sure if this is relative here but I used to live and die by 0-60 times posted in the mags and other performance matrices as well. In reality they don't mean squat. I think it's so ridiculous how some people judge one car faster than another because it's 0-60 time was published as two tenths quicker than another! I believe half a second is within +/- of the error factor. To me it's all about seat of the pants feel. I believe that's what attracts many of us Porsche owner's to these cars. It's the inherent "feel" that these cars give you through your ears, nose, butt, hands, etc. that makes you want to own and keep one. Anything printed in a magazine is basically junk and you really can't judge a car until you see and drive it. How many times has your opinion of a car done a 180 from your original opinion that was derived from reading buff book tests?