Just got the new Car and Driver in the mail today, on the cover "Supertuner Challenge".

I jumped in and started reading: they compared a Lingenfelter Turbo Vette, Farrell 3 rotor RX7, Mallet Vette, Porsche turbo (1996 model), a kit car, and a Renntech Benz.

Of course the Vette was fastest, but some of the others were close (as close as they could be given the big guns).

Vette:
12.1 @ 128mph
0-100: 8.1s
0-150: 15.7s
650hp, 3462lbs

RX7:
12.1 @ 123mph
0-100: 8.4s
0-140: 15.9s
600hp, 2930lbs

Mallet Vette:
12.7 @ 116mph
0-100: 9.9s
0-140: 19.1s
625hp, 3362lbs

Porsche Turbo:
12.2 @ 119mph
0-100: 8.7s
0-130: 15.2s
626hp, 3324lbs

Renntech Benz:
12.7 @ 119mph
0-100: 9.3s
0-140: 20.7s
510hp, 3439lbs

Stock ZO6:
12.7 @ 116mph
0-100: 9.8s
0-130: 17.6s
405hp, 3126lbs

Stock 2001 Porsche Turbo:
12.9 @ 112mph
0-100: 10.1s
0-130: 18.0s
415hp, 3500lbs

I'm not doing a rehash here for its own sake, but to show how some tuners elevate their horsepower ratings well above a car's performance.

Obviously the Lingenfelter Vette has around 600hp looking at its trap speed and 0-150 time.

The RX7 is also close to its mark of 600hp, but it has less torque to get it going.

The Mallet Vette has no where near 625hp running only 116mph, probably closer to 430 or 440hp. You might say gearing or weather, but the car has only 25hp less than the Turbo Vette and ran 12mph slower. Naughty Mallet!

The biggest dissapointment is definitely the 911 Turbo, running only 12.2 at 119mph. I remember those cars going 12.3 at 115 stock with 400hp, what the hell is going on? What's going on is the car having about 50hp more than stock, but paying for 225hp over stock. The article said gearing, but it also stated that a stock turbo of the same year and this tuned car had the same acceleration above 130 or so. Or in other words, bull$hit. I think someone got suckered into buying that car.

Renntech Benz: based on its performance it has the 510hp rated, maybe a bit more. The funny thing is it has 115hp less than the 911 Turbo and ran the same trap speed (119mph). Not bad for a Benz, terrible for the $187,000 spent.

The most hilarious part is the fact that a stock ZO6 outran a new 911 Turbo costing almost 2 and 1/2 times as much. Outran it in acceleration, road course, an braking. Even better was that the ZO6 ran the road course the same exact time as the Modified RX7 (the fastest tuner car in the road course).

My conclusion: tuners like to exagerate power to get their big money. Why spend $100,000 plus work on an import when a stock ZO6 will do the job better.

All I know is the next 2001 Turbo 911 I see is going to be in for a big surprise.

------------------
Paul Huryk, billionare in training.
Monkey Guy Racing
Almost part of the moderately infamous NJ in-your-face all goomba crew

Do it right the first time.

Paul's home page

1985 IROC LG4 POS Best: 15.20s at 92.1mph
1984 Camaro 350 LG4 Best: 12.21s at 121.7mph

The smart person pays for something today so that more is received tomorrow.
The ignorant person gets something today and hopes to have enough money to pay for it tomorrow.

 

Well said, I totally agree. Its my opinion that there is no new car on the market right now that offers more overall performance for the money than a Z06.

------------------
88 Camaro (The mighty LO3 SC!)
305TBI/700R4/2.73/122,XXX miles
14" Open Element and Flowmaster 80 seires

Next up: headers and gears

 

Man, Lingenfelter's Vette ran 12.1 @ 128. That is some serious MPH, find some traction for that thing and see what it does.

 

haha man thats funny

those cars are runnin almost 2 times as fast as me in the same amount of time

like that vette ran up to 150 in 15.7 and my car runs 86 in 15.9

oh well.....10 years down the road and hopefully mine will b runnin a lot closer to those cars



------------------
84TA T-tops L-69 305HO TH-700R4 stock 190hp and 240 ft-lbs.
new best E.T. (dont laugh) 15.986 @84.93mph
old best E.T 15.997@86.04
http://www.geocities.com/K_towngangsta

 

The Mallet vette was running on 7 cylinders in the test, they had a head gasket leaking. So that car would have been way faster.
It says it in the article.

------------------
'88 RS (originally 2.8)
-350, .040 over, vette alum. L98s, stock tpi.
-305 injectors & chip
-TES headers & edelbrock cat back
-3.73 gears, 700r4.
Best with 2.8-17.4@77mph
Best with 305-15.0@93mph
Best with 356-13.7@101mph
on a 2.050 60 ft.
(Damn the 2.8!)

 

hmm somehow I doubt the HP was "boosted" for the 911. What engine did it have? the twin turbo flat 6. If so then yes it has over 600 poines. They don't do that great in the quarter for the samereason you can't get a viper too... POOR TRACTION.
And I doubt the Z06(stock) can out handle the 911. It's built for road racing. Pure and simple.And did I mention that the 911's have 14 and 15 inch brakes?, so I think the braking will be the same or better then the Z06(beacause I am will to bet that the 911 is more better balanced.)

 

that was a stage two LPE vette the same one that has a higher top speed than the Maclarean F1 as tested by C/D. and as far as the mercedes. RENTech also has a model out that will do over 200 with the AC on and it has four doors. that car was also featured in C/D. while i agree the Z06 is hard to beat you have to realize there is more to a tuner car than drag racing and going fast. it has to do with reliability and durability which they also tested. point being you may be faster than a tuner car but that doesnt mean you are better. had the mercedes be running right i would have put my money on it to win overall. oh and the stock porsche was driven by a race car driver that doesnt normally drive a stock version(big difference) the vette was driven by GM north america director of vehicle dynamics who is a successful production car racer. point being the right driver will mean everything and race cars are not the same as production cars. Trey

 

ERRRR. Wrong guess, try again... AWD gave that car far better traction than all the others in the test. Get a clue before you try to rattle off and impress us with your knowledge. At least read the article ( www.caranddriver.com ) where it plainly stated the Porsches superior traction... For some reason this 600 hp wonder ran nearly all the timed tests in near the same time as the stock Turbo 911s do, something was definitely up... I don't think it was some dubious plot to overinflate the power though, obviously that motor could make some serious power. Seems to me it must have been sick and down on power in a big way for some reason...

------------------
Ray87Z
-Vortec headed 350.
86 IROC w/ a cammed 305 TPI.
Formerly Ray86IROC.
www.inter-scape.com/Ray

[This message has been edited by Ray87Z (edited August 31, 2001).]

 

Ray, I agree with you 100% about the Porsche, it couldn't have traction problems with 4WD. Even if the driver sucked, 625hp is good for more than 119mph, especially since 400hp (stock) is good for 113mph or so.

The jury is still out on the Porsche's handling though - I hear so many great things, but not much appears to show me its the king in that department (at least in terms of magazine testing). Oh yeah, the new 911's handle better than the old ones, and they can't beat the Z06 either. Go figure.

Camaro Hunter: what makes you think that the 14 or 15" brakes on the Porsche make it stop better? I haven't seen a Porsche (street car) stop better than a Vette in recent memory. I remeber the ZR1 stopping from 60 in 105ft in every test when they were still new. I'm sure the new ones are in the same area. I also don't think a car with 35/65% weight distribution is better balanced than 50/50% (like the Vette).

I think a few of us should stop beleiving the propaganda and look at the facts.

------------------
Paul Huryk, billionare in training.
Monkey Guy Racing
Almost part of the moderately infamous NJ in-your-face all goomba crew

Do it right the first time.

Paul's home page

1985 IROC LG4 POS Best: 15.20s at 92.1mph
1984 Camaro 350 LG4 Best: 12.21s at 121.7mph

The smart person pays for something today so that more is received tomorrow.
The ignorant person gets something today and hopes to have enough money to pay for it tomorrow.