20 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHWho is lying?
Leading reported evidence
Replace number
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 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
However you are correct as the exact conversion from kph from mph is not 1.6 (that I did) but 1.6093, which changes the number to 2.7369.
Leading evidence: 'Replace number' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace number' (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.
Suggestion
A test driver from some magazine gets a few days a year.
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.
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.
20 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: 20261026T091943Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I know "fast" shouldn't be my criteria to choose Porsche but someone says 320hp C2 runs 4.6-4.7( I hope this is true ) and some official site says, it is about 5.2-5.7. Who can tell me the truth?
Who can give me exact tested number?
Actually you wouldn't be making a mistake in making "fast" a criteria in choosing Porsche. They just charge a lot of money for their very fast cars (GT and GT3).
My 296 hp 1999 C2 can do around 4.7-4.9 (varies with conditions and runs + measurement errors).
Nobody is "lying" - honestly nobody cares to "lie" about it. 0-60 measurements depend of driver, conditions of car and weather and also technique. That said, can you point me to the official site stating 5.2-5.7 sec 0-60 mph times for the carrera 996/997 ??
Porsche has always put numbers on the conservative side, so no one will get a negative surprise.
Official numbers are in the lower 5 secs range. Lots of posts in here about being measured at around 4.5 -> 5
EVO magazine and Motor Trend both tested a 3.4L C2 at 4.6secs 0-60mph, and in the low 13's in the quarter mile. Not only is it fast as heck 0-60mph, but time to distance is also very fast because of the awesome traction. So many people waaaaaay underestimate what an angry 996 can do when you really learn to work it.
Porsche is conservative with those tests- probably roll on the gas with no wheel spin, and do easy shifts. Something anyone could do.
Think about it: A 3.4L C2 has 296-300hp and only weighs a little over 2900lbs. Of course it's gonna be fast as heck.
It's all about technique. I'll bet some money that I could beat a typical magazine writer in a drag race. Why not- I own a Porsche and drive it every day. I know this thing inside and out. A test driver from some magazine gets a few days a year. Plus, they aren't exactly Jackie Stewart or Mario Andretti quality drivers.
Yep, I agree. Also, some cars are just faster or quicker than others. You can take two identical models of the same year and one will most likely be just a little bit faster or quicker.
In your own car, you will average 5.2-5.7, since you won't want the rear axles to hop out, and it would be nice to get a little more use out of the clutch. But, if you loan your car to a magazine tester, he will get to 4.7 and return a car ready for resale to an unususpecting buyer, perhaps somebody like you.
Don't buy it for 0-60, think of another reason. The low times are an artifact of rear weight bias, fat rear tires, clutch and driveline abuse, trial and error, slam shifting, a quirk of multiple efforts, and a general insensitivity to the well-being of the car. AS
For 2002, Porsche listed the coupe with a manual at 5 seconds, but Porsche's figure is to 62 MPH. Tips and C4s were low to mid 5 range. Car and Driver got a 300HP 996 to 60 in 4.8 seconds and estimated the 320HP car would go 4.6.
The 996 is a fast car; 0-60 in sub-5 seconds if you have to, top speed over 170 with even the 296HP motor, .91g or so on the skidpad with stock suspension and right at 1.0+ with sport suspension. Sure, there are faster cars, but there's a heck of a lot of slower ones.
You don't get one of these cars to win the stoplight grand prix. If 0-60 is the criteria, you can go as quickly for thousands less in any number of other cars.
Fast is relative. There's a saying that the Piper Cub is the safest airplane in the world because it will only go fast enough to barely kill you...........
AS is right. In order to get typical magazine times, you have to thrash your car. Burnouts to heat up the tires, massive wheel hop, fried clutches, etc. And, it takes multiple and various combinations to find just the right technique and get the best time. It's not the same as an AWD slush-box that is repeatable every time. Launching a manual Porsche is not consistent.
I agree with all of that, and there's something else you didn't mention. The magazine boys just don't get into a car and pop off a great time. They do multiple runs, and the time you see posted is the best of their efforts.
Are they really? Road and Track got 6.0. Usually the mags are faster than what manufacturers claim...I guess they figure people believe ads so might as well say as fast as you can get away with claiming, maybe they got one good run in where they rubbed the engine with cheetah blood and the planets and stars were all lined up or something.
I calculated it the other way, 60mph = 96000m/3600 sec = 26.6666m/sec.
t=(v1-v2)/a = (26.6666-0)/9.8 = 2.721.
However you are correct as the exact conversion from kph from mph is not 1.6 (that I did) but 1.6093, which changes the number to 2.7369. You are correct
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
