[RM7]

Originally Posted by dgp

But if it had 500hp it could never ever, ever compete with a 500hp Porsche because Porsche is the killer when it comes to giving you most performance per hp..price is irrelevant as resident fanboy will claim

The old Z06 had 500hp and was faster than many porsche products.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by EfEightyM3

What they did was move the rear axel back 3 inches so they essentially move the engine up 3 inches. The entire wheelbase increase 4 inches as well, 1 inch in front. That is why the 991 handles more similarly to a Cayman/Boxster than before and why the 991 has set a bar that is about as high as it can get for handling.
I do not think they will ever call it mid-engined but I do believe it will become a mid engined car as witness by how much it moved forward on the 991.

There isn't really any gray area when it comes to engine position, either the engine is between the axles or it isn't. As with the 991 I think they will move it closer to the rear axle but I don't think it will ever be midengine.

And I'm not convinced Porsche increased length in order to move the engine. Pretty sure it was the other way around, the new transaxle design allowed them to move the engine closer to the axle. They could have left the wheelbase the same and moved the engine forward 3 inches (there is definitely room on the 997 to move it forward), but it's a pretty natural progression for performance cars to increase in wheelbase over time.

[EfEightyM3]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

The old Z06 had 500hp and was faster than many porsche products.

What? There isn't a single track the c6 z06 can beat the current GT3 RS despite having more power and being lighter. On hockenheim Gp the RS is over 7 seconds faster per lap LOl! Autozeitung the RS is 7 seconds faster per lap. On hockenheim short, 3 seconds in favor of the RS.

[EfEightyM3]

Originally Posted by fcman

There isn't really any gray area when it comes to engine position, either the engine is between the axles or it isn't. As with the 991 I think they will move it closer to the rear axle but I don't think it will ever be midengine.

And I'm not convinced Porsche increased length in order to move the engine. Pretty sure it was the other way around, the new transaxle design allowed them to move the engine closer to the axle. They could have left the wheelbase the same and moved the engine forward 3 inches (there is definitely room on the 997 to move it forward), but it's a pretty natural progression for performance cars to increase in wheelbase over time.

Yes, the new design caused it to move forward effectively making a more mid engined car. Whether on purpose or by happenstance the effect is still the same. It will continue to move forward to the mid section but the rear engine platform when the car is in motion has so many advantages...hence its supreme domination in the world of racing. Would it make more sense to continue? Yes but again, I doubt they'll ever call it mid engined despite the move that way.
Porsche will have the 960 soon which will be a mid engined car that sits between the GT3/2 and the 918.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by EfEightyM3

Yes, the new design caused it to move forward effectively making a more mid engined car. Whether on purpose or by happenstance the effect is still the same. It will continue to move forward to the mid section but the rear engine platform when the car is in motion has so many advantages...hence its supreme domination in the world of racing. Would it make more sense to continue? Yes but again, I doubt they'll ever call it mid engined despite the move that way.

I think I get what you're saying but I think you're talking more about weight distribution and not engine layout. The 911 didn't get "more mid-engined" any more than it got "more front-engined". Either it's mid-engined or it's not, if the engine is not fully in front of the rear axles a car is not considered mid-engine. The 911 still a pure RR layout, with no signs of Porsche ever putting the engine in front of the axle, even if they did improve the weight distribution to be more in line with mid-engined cars.

[EfEightyM3]

Originally Posted by fcman

I think I get what you're saying but I think you're talking more about weight distribution and not engine position. The 911 didn't get "more mid-engined" any more than it got "more front-engined". Either it's mid-engined or it's not, if the engine is not fully in front of the rear axles a car is not considered mid-engine. The 911 still a RR layout, even if they did improve the weight distribution to be more in line with mid-engined cars.

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.

The engine is still considered rear but all I'm saying is, it moved 3 inches towards the front by way of the axle moving towards the rear by three inches. Same effect that the engine sits closer to the middle now than the 997.
My belief is, based on the effective language you used, "engine completely in front of the rear axle" they will move it forward enough to the point that being pedantic will tell you it's rear engine, i.e. Sitting 1 mm over the rear axle, while it is by and large a mid engined car.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by EfEightyM3

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.

The engine is still considered rear but all I'm saying is, it moved 3 inches towards the front by way of the axle moving towards the rear by three inches. Same effect that the engine sits closer to the middle now than the 997.

Yeah I think we're on the same page, and I guess I'm being a bit of a pedant, but in my mind the words "mid-engine","front-engine", etc.. are concrete, like saying an engine is naturally-aspirated vs turbocharged, it's kind of an all or nothing thing to me.

[EfEightyM3]

Originally Posted by fcman

Yeah I think we're on the same page, and I guess I'm being a bit of a pedant, but in my mind the words "mid-engine","front-engine", etc.. are concrete, like saying an engine is naturally-aspirated vs turbocharged, it's kind of an all or nothing thing to me.

I agree the details of rear vs mid makes sense. I was using the term mid engined to show where the placement/movement was going. No worries on that since it's technically right by definition.

[FriskyDingo]

Originally Posted by See5

The 2017 Z06 should have the cooling issues fixed from hat I'm hearing. Wouldn't doubt that the secondary radiator made for the new T1 cars will find its way into the car as well as the new power steering scoop and oil cooler heatshielding. The latter has already proven to keep oil temps very manageable at track sessions.

Definitely should've been addressed at introduction but I think they rushed it a little.

Either way, I've driven the C7Z pretty extensively ad it is a complete monster in every aspect IMO. And still daily drives very well if you need it to. Put it in 6th in Eco mode and it'll do 25-27mpg easy. Incredible for a 650hp car.

While those will undoubtedly help, and possibly even prevent the issues that have happened thus far from continuing, to me the culprit is clear- the blower is too small, and spun too high.

I bet a Procharger on one would be amazing. It'd be the first thing I did. That or twins. And wheels. The factory ones are awful.

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by EfEightyM3

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.

The engine is still considered rear but all I'm saying is, it moved 3 inches towards the front by way of the axle moving towards the rear by three inches. Same effect that the engine sits closer to the middle now than the 997.
My belief is, based on the effective language you used, "engine completely in front of the rear axle" they will move it forward enough to the point that being pedantic will tell you it's rear engine, i.e. Sitting 1 mm over the rear axle, while it is by and large a mid engined car.

I don't see how moving the wheels 3 inches back moves the engine up 3 inches..

Unless the engine mounting points were moved up 3 inches, and the engine was sitting 3 inches closer to the driver now.. The engine is still in the very back of the car.

[See5]

Originally Posted by FriskyDingo

While those will undoubtedly help, and possibly even prevent the issues that have happened thus far from continuing, to me the culprit is clear- the blower is too small, and spun too high.

I bet a Procharger on one would be amazing. It'd be the first thing I did. That or twins. And wheels. The factory ones are awful.

I don't think its much of an issue. The IAT temps on the Z06's are pretty stable even at the track. It's really the coolant temps that get away from the car. The LT4 throws off a ton of heat, and its very difficult to cool it down in the space alotted by the Corvette's nose. They'll figure it out though...

[See5]

Originally Posted by dgp

But if it had 500hp it could never ever, ever compete with a 500hp Porsche because Porsche is the killer when it comes to giving you most performance per hp..price is irrelevant as resident fanboy will claim

And if the Corvette team had another $30,000 worth to spend on each model to put the base Corvette at $95,000...I'm sure they would have no problem matching performance per hp(whatever that means).

We can play what-ifs all day. I'm just interested to see the test results.

[dgp]

Originally Posted by See5

And if the Corvette team had another $30,000 worth to spend on each model to put the base Corvette at $95,000...I'm sure they would have no problem matching performance per hp(whatever that means).

We can play what-ifs all day. I'm just interested to see the test results.

It was sarcastic comment at resident Porsche fanboy

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by dgp

It was sarcastic comment at resident Porsche fanboy

You got to give it up to the Porsche fanboys on this forum tho .. Who interestingly show up one at a time lol. They/he/she/ it will take this thread to 100 pages lol.

I can imagine them in court "BUT your honor, WHAT IF the other guy had a gun, it would have been self defense and not murder.. So I'm innocent"

"If the speed limit was 100mph, I wouldn't have been speeding"

[FriskyDingo]

Originally Posted by AW335TT

You got to give it up to the Porsche fanboys on this forum tho .. Who interestingly show up one at a time lol. They/he/she/ it will take this thread to 100 pages lol.

I can imagine them in court "BUT your honor, WHAT IF the other guy had a gun, it would have been self defense and not murder.. So I'm innocent"

"If the speed limit was 100mph, I wouldn't have been speeding"

While I am a Porsche fan, I'm not a fanboy for any brand. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out how much Porsche does with so little. For a considerably lower MSRP and/or with considerably less power, they return results on par with, or better than many rivals. I don't care how you slice it, that is top-notch engineering that enables that. Not to mention the direct correlation between their street-legal offerings and their true racers. Driving dynamics can be debated all day, but I've yet to read a review that's anything other than loads of praise on Porsche's GT offerings.

At the end of the day, if you have the means to purchase the cheapest car among those being discussed, you probably have the means to purchase any of them. Buy what you like, root for who you like. Different strokes and all that.

[dgp]

Originally Posted by FriskyDingo

While I am a Porsche fan, I'm not a fanboy for any brand. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out how much Porsche does with so little. For a considerably lower MSRP and/or with considerably less power, they return results on par with, or better than many rivals. I don't care how you slice it, that is top-notch engineering that enables that. Not to mention the direct correlation between their street-legal offerings and their true racers. Driving dynamics can be debated all day, but I've yet to read a review that's anything other than loads of praise on Porsche's GT offerings.

At the end of the day, if you have the means to purchase the cheapest car among those being discussed, you probably have the means to purchase any of them. Buy what you like, root for who you like. Different strokes and all that.

You got the price issue mixed, Porsche is not cheap and almost never a bargain in any segment it participates in. If it was then it would be ok to point out how it does good performance with so little...but not when it is more expensive than its peers and has less power.

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by FriskyDingo

While I am a Porsche fan, I'm not a fanboy for any brand. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out how much Porsche does with so little. For a considerably lower MSRP and/or with considerably less power, they return results on par with, or better than many rivals. I don't care how you slice it, that is top-notch engineering that enables that. Not to mention the direct correlation between their street-legal offerings and their true racers. Driving dynamics can be debated all day, but I've yet to read a review that's anything other than loads of praise on Porsche's GT offerings.

At the end of the day, if you have the means to purchase the cheapest car among those being discussed, you probably have the means to purchase any of them. Buy what you like, root for who you like. Different strokes and all that.

The thread title mentions 2 cars which cost significantly less, and do significantly more.

I don't doubt Porsche has some awesome engineers but when it comes to their GT cars, they stick to the basics.. Tires and Aero.. Nothing revolutionary there.

It's a formula that works, as the ACR more than proves it.

[FriskyDingo]

Originally Posted by dgp

You got the price issue mixed, Porsche is not cheap and almost never a bargain in any segment it participates in. If it was then it would be ok to point out how it does good performance with so little...but not when it is more expensive than its peers and has less power.

The only two cars that are cheaper are the ACR and Z06. And one of those two isn't even cut out for sustained track duty. And by all accounts, the Viper is totally lousy everywhere but the track. Not the case with the Porsche.

[FriskyDingo]

Originally Posted by AW335TT

The thread title mentions 2 cars which cost significantly less, and do significantly more.

I don't doubt Porsche has some awesome engineers but when it comes to their GT cars, they stick to the basics.. Tires and Aero.. Nothing revolutionary there.

It's a formula that works, as the ACR more than proves it.

The thread mentions two cars that cost less. And one is virtually unlivable on the street, the other is basically only capable of one hero lap.

[dgp]

Originally Posted by FriskyDingo

The only two cars that are cheaper are the ACR and Z06. And one of those two isn't even cut out for sustained track duty. And by all accounts, the Viper is totally lousy everywhere but the track. Not the case with the Porsche.

GTR is cheaper and quicker at the ring as well

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by FriskyDingo

The only two cars that are cheaper are the ACR and Z06. And one of those two isn't even cut out for sustained track duty. And by all accounts, the Viper is totally lousy everywhere but the track. Not the case with the Porsche.

Ford GT350R offers far more performance than a comparably priced Porsche.

[FriskyDingo]

Originally Posted by dgp

GTR is cheaper and quicker at the ring as well

A standard GT-R is most definitely not faster on track than a GT3 RS, or even standard GT3. In an MT comparo, the GT-R NISMO was slower around a track than a Turbo S. And it's priced around 150K.