Adding Lightness

[sawood12]

ORIGINAL: CarreraRSR

Isn't the rough rule of thumb - for every 50kgs weight lost is equivalent additional 10bhp

This is tosh! Are you really trying to tell me that an S2 would have to loose 200kg's before it was as quick as a turbo? I'm sure Oli would have something to say about that!

 

[Hilux]

Hi Scott

Cant make out if this is tongue in cheek, I think it is for it is a general rule and has some accuracy. If you therew out 200kgs then an S2 would be as quick - wouldnt it? Its only seats and spare and interior and you`ve lost 100kg already. Also I bet you noticed the difference with a 75kg passenger in your car.

You have to ask yourself why it is that these new track breed supercars with such huge power outputs are ultimately only marginally quicker round a race track than a 20yr old 4 pot Porsche with 240 odd Bhp.

Easy, they weigh a lot.

The GT3 RS is about 1250kg wet and 450 bhp so not far off your car Neil I would say weight wise so will be quicker however look at the weights of some supercars and it all becomes clear. A Lambo and a `rarri will be near the same weights of around 1500 -1600kg (they all quote dry weights in the blurbs)

Now 350kg at my reckoning (50kg being approx 10bhp) above yours will lose them 70 bhp at least so the PTW becomes a lot closer and the inertia will make them less nimble so bigger tyres required and larger brakes therefore larger unsprung weight.

Not that it makes any difference to me as I`m cr*p on track but I just like running around faster cars due to nimbleness []

 

[sawood12]

It is slightly tongue in cheek, but I think my point is valid. These things are never this simple as this. It is like the power to weight ratio thing - just because a car has a better power to weight ratio doesn't automatically mean it is going to be a faster accelerating car - it depends on gearing, torque, grip, weight distribution and a lot of other factors. It doesn't feel to me that an S2 is that much of a slower car and certainly that much out of touch that you'd need to loose 200kg to get parity.

I can't remember the on-paper figures, but I think the 0-60 time for a turbo is 5.5 secs vs 6.2 secs for an S2, which in the real world is not a lot really.

 

[George Elliott]

Scott, it takes around 12% longer to get to the same speed.
Hardly insignificant?
George
944t

 

[Suffolk944]

Acceleration figs of the models do vary a bit depending on the source. The ones I am most familiar with are S2 6.6 secs, 220 Turbo 6.3 secs, 250 Turbo 5.7 secs. I think the mid range acceleration figures between the Turbos and the S2 might well show a greater differential....

 

[JamesBall]

FWIW, my trawling dug up the following data from Autocar tests:

250bhp 944 Turbo SE in May 88: 0-60 5.7 or 5.5 depending on internet source!
220bhp 944 Turbo in Jan 86: 0-60 6.0
944 S2 (1989): 0-60 6.0

Frankly, I am amazed the latter two times are the same, but there you go.

 

[Peter Empson]

ORIGINAL: James Ball

Frankly, I am amazed the latter two times are the same, but there you go.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me, yes the S2 is 10bhp down, but will be a bit lighter (I guess, but haven't checked), add in different gear ratios and the fact the Turbo will be trickier to get off the line (awaits barrage of protests []) and that should explain it.

 

[Hilux]

0-60 is willy waving, its the 0-20, 20-40 etc etc incremental (overtaking) times that show how fast a car really is and if they are linear throughout then thats a great car

The 944T is especially good at this if you do some research

 

[John Sims]

Beaky is certainly rubbish at 0-60 as he has an awful 1st to 2nd shift. He had another gearbox and that was no better. Slick as a slick thing on the other changes though (assuming you are accurate with the gates)

 

[944Turbo]

I thought the turbo would hit 60 in second before it hit the limiter though which should give it an advantage - but I think my rev limit is higher than standard so could be wrong.
Tony

 

[Neil Haughey]

My race car is much more difficult to get off the line now than it was when 200 Kg heavier. Just spins up 1st way to easiliy so it seems the better approach is to granny 1st then immediately slot 2nd and nail that instead. For this reason I can well believe that there is very little difference between the 0-60's of the different variants.

 

[Lowtimer]

Once you get past a certain power level 0-60 is basically limited by traction and willingness to abuse the machinery anyway (in the absence of 4WD, hi-tech launch control, DSG boxes, etc etc). 30-70 and 60-90 are much more worthwhile comparators.30-70 has been at the heart of Autocar road tests for many years now, and the late LJK Setright always used to say that a fast car was one that could do 60-90 as quickly as it could do 0-60.

 

[944 man]

I found that lightening my car added a great deal of power, as far as a G-Tech Pro was concerned. I have a full set of figures in my set up book somewhere, but off the top of my head it stated that I had 180-odd rear wheel horsepower in my series one car; after substantial lightening, when the original weight was entered (meaning that if the car weighed what it had to start, then in order to accelerate as hard as it did, it would need over 180bhp at the back wheels).

In broad terms, this substantiates Steves equivalent 10bhp per 50kg claim.

 

[Neil Haughey]

Sounds good, that would put my S2 at 220 Bhp + another 40 = 260 Bhp and about 250 lb/ft of torque, or to put it another way about the same as a stock 964 C2. Of course if one was to start with a 300 Bhp/320 lb/ft 951 motor in the same car the results would be nice [8D].