Can't believe it but from a rolling start I got pulled by about a car length this morning by a porsche boxter. I had traction and everything just plain got beat. Backed off at about 80 mph and accepted the loss. Tempted to put on the higher output pulleys etc. :shrug:
got road killed
- Thread starter steve goddard
- Start date
Dude,
That is Sad. A boxter is a moderate sports car a little underpowered. If it was a newer Boxter "S" with the 250 HP motor, it should have been close. Down to driver ability.
The Boxter "S" is 250 HP @6250 RPM. 0-60 is 5.9 seconds.
The 2000 Stock Lightning is 360 HP @4500 RPM. 0-60 is 5.9 sec.
So it should have been really really close, if it was indeed a boxter "S."
You should get a chip and an cold air induction with 90 mm MAF. For $700 bucks you would have killed the boxter "S".
Also, I would recommend taking a performance driving class to learn to really push your truck to its limits, not yours.
Good luck
That is Sad. A boxter is a moderate sports car a little underpowered. If it was a newer Boxter "S" with the 250 HP motor, it should have been close. Down to driver ability.
The Boxter "S" is 250 HP @6250 RPM. 0-60 is 5.9 seconds.
The 2000 Stock Lightning is 360 HP @4500 RPM. 0-60 is 5.9 sec.
So it should have been really really close, if it was indeed a boxter "S."
You should get a chip and an cold air induction with 90 mm MAF. For $700 bucks you would have killed the boxter "S".
Also, I would recommend taking a performance driving class to learn to really push your truck to its limits, not yours.
Good luck
I dont know where you got your info, but here is the info from Edmunds on the Boxster S, and it is the same numbers that are in the 2002 Boxster Brouchere.
Type: Sport Convertible
Where Built: Germany
Exterior:
Length: 171 in.
Width: 70.1 in.
Height: 50.8 in.
Weight: 2855 lbs.
Wheel Base: 95.2 in.
Interior:
Front Head Room: 38.1 in.
Front Shoulder Room: 51.7 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.6 in.
Maximum Cargo Capacity: 9 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 2
Performance Data
Performance:
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 5.8 sec.
Braking Distance: 122 ft.
Road Holding Index: 0.97 g
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 3.2 liters
Base Engine Type: Horizontally Opposed
Horsepower: 250hp @ 6250 rpm
Torque: 225ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm
Drive Type: RWD
Turning Circle: 35.8 ft.
Fuel Data
Fuel Tank Capacity: 16.9 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 18 mpg / 26 mpg
Automatic: 17 mpg / 24 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Manual: 304.2 mi. / 439.4 mi.
Automatic: 287.3 mi. / 405.6 mi.
Edmunds #'s are with yuppie queers behind the wheel. If you have the August 2001 issue of car&driver, they test the boxter S vs. the corvette conv., MBSLK32 amg, and the BMW M roadster. They got a 0-60 of 5.3sec and a 1/4 mile in 13.9 @102mph. So, not exactly 5.2, but closer then what you're claiming. So dont be surprized if it held its lead against a Lightning. These porches are very quick cars. As much as I love the Lightnings, I also realise that there are quicker cars out there.
Yuppie Queers???? I know some damn good yuppie queer drivers. Like my buddy with his 2001 Porsche Twin Turbo. But that is besides the point.
As for Edmunds, they use the latest manufacturers data. That is why their numbers match those in the 2002 Porsche Boxster brouchere.
Also Car and Driver has the best drivers and the best tracks and does a series of tests and takes the best one, especially if the car company is an advertiser with them. Hummmm
And they get their cars from the manufacturers that tweek them the best they can before delivery.
Years ago(1998) when the original boxter came out, it did 0-60 in 6.1 sec. Thats w/ only 200hp. You're gonna tell ME, that the Boxter S is only .2 of a sec quicker, at 250hp! My friend, I have no gripes with anyone on this board, never had, but, when it comes to somethng like this,which I know the info 100%, I'm right there to correct someone.;-) Have a nice day
:lol: so you saidOriginally posted by fangstang
Years ago(1998) when the original boxter came out, it did 0-60 in 6.1 sec. Thats w/ only 200hp. You're gonna tell ME, that the Boxter S is only .2 of a sec quicker, at 250hp! My friend, I have no gripes with anyone on this board, never had, but, when it comes to somethng like this,which I know the info 100%, I'm right there to correct someone.;-) Have a nice day
Originally posted by fangstang
Years ago(1998) when the original boxter came out, it did 0-60 in 6.1 sec. Thats w/ only 200hp. You're gonna tell ME, that the Boxter S is only .2 of a sec quicker, at 250hp! My friend, I have no gripes with anyone on this board, never had, but, when it comes to somethng like this,which I know the info 100%, I'm right there to correct someone.;-) Have a nice day
Fang, you are assuming that your numbers are correct for the 98 Boxster. Which they arent.
98 Boxster
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 6.7 sec.
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 2.5 liters
Base Engine Type: Horizontally Opposed
Horsepower: 201hp @ 6000 rpm
00 Boxster
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 6.5 sec.
Braking Distance: 117 ft.
Road Holding Index: 0.91 g
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 2.7 liters
Base Engine Type: Horizontally Opposed
Horsepower: 217hp @ 6500 rpm
As you can plainly see from 98 to 00 they increased the displacement of the Boxster by .2 liters gaining 16 hp. this took .2 seconds off the 0-60
00 Boxster S
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 5.8 sec.
Braking Distance: 122 ft.
Road Holding Index: 0.97 g
Base Number of Cylinders: 6
Base Engine Size: 3.2 liters
Base Engine Type: Horizontally Opposed
Horsepower: 250hp @ 6250 rpm
As you can see the difference between the Boxster and the Boxster S is .5 liters, totalling 33 hp. Which is directly correlative to the jump made from the 2.5 to the 2.7 liter motor and now to the 3.2 liter motor with a small amount of loss included in their figures.
Also from 98 to 00 Boxster the car gained .2 liters and that took .2 sec off the 0-60. While the 00 Boxster to 00 Boxster S is a difference of .5 liters it took off .7 secs from the 0-60. So yes these numbers are right on key.
That is not to say some vehicles have a little more power than others off the same line. We see that in the dyno numbers of various stock same year Lightnings and Cobras. But we must compare apples to apples. So if we take a Stock 2000 Lightning and assume 360 HP and 0-60 of 5.9 secs because that is what the manufacturer puts out to the govt then we must compare 250 HP and 0-60 of 5.8 sec for the Boxster S. Not what a magazine says they got or a performance driver got. So it is apples to apples.
these are the numbers that car manufacturers must submit to the U.S. government before importing their cars for sale, these are the same base numbers that US car manufacturers must submit as well. Along with gas mileage, etc.. That is my source. So we can take them at face value. Unlike your quotes from either memory or some magazine trial. This is apples to apples.
Plus, we dont know if the kill was by a Boxster S or not, and it is was moded anyway.
But my original post was comparing stock manufacturer numbers for Porsche to stock for the Lightning.
thanks for your input
:-D
Well if we go by the man. numbers then FordSvtFan you are correct,but if we go by the real world then FangStang is correct,i think y'all misunderstood each other from the beginning..but anyways stock 01/02 Lightnings are usually in the mid-low 13's unless you're like me and live in S.Florida(humidity,Weather) and i trap at 101 and still get 13.6:cuss: , i do have the Car&Driver issue he is talking about and it did run those numbers...i believe it is quicker than what the man. says because 90% of the time thats the case,but 90% of the time magazines also get wrong time(freaks,slouches) so the only real way to know the numbers is at a track...but anyways you should of had the Boxster...guess today it just asn't the L's day:bash:
Dude, you can only compare apples to apples on paper. You cant take a car and driver article for one car and manufacturer numbers to compare to another car.
It was simple apples to apples comparison and what better numbers than to compare what the manufacturer puts out.?
I dont claim to be a porsche expert, but I have owned one and have friends that have almost every model up to and including the 2001 Twin Turbo and now GT2.
I have run Boxsters and Boxster S and not one has been close to me. Just my experience.
Thank for some clarity
Adam
It was simple apples to apples comparison and what better numbers than to compare what the manufacturer puts out.?
I dont claim to be a porsche expert, but I have owned one and have friends that have almost every model up to and including the 2001 Twin Turbo and now GT2.
I have run Boxsters and Boxster S and not one has been close to me. Just my experience.
Thank for some clarity
Adam
I listened you were just wrong.
Show me all your numbers and your sources that are verifiable, like I did making an exact comparison and then you will have a point. For now it is all supposition.:cryying:
Just being devil's advocate here....
But what is so quick about a 'porch' for one?
And no offense to Steve Goddard but it sounds like his launch needs a little work. The guy in the PORSCHE had a rolling start on you and that really can make all the difference. A driving course can really help your launch and it was SOOOO much fun going there. I learned quite a bit and drive my little car like bat out of hell and to its optimum for a stock that is. ;-)
And, hmmmm......Lightnings aren't cars. Different weight ratios your dealing with as well. But I agree if you're going to compare you should compare with the same information base and not jump around to tweaked engines (stock to stock).
But what the hell do I know..I'm just a girl.
Yah, but you are a smart girly engineer that can take apart an engine with her eyes closed:thumbsup:
Hey, look at the bright side..........at least it wasn't a ricer. :beer:
Users who are viewing this thread
