The New Porsche 911 Turbo Is Only 0.1sec Slower To 62mph Than The S
A few weeks back, we had a go in the Porsche 911 Turbo S. As incredible it was, there is a sense that it’s just too fast for its own good. If you don’t feel the need to hit 0-62mph in 2.7 seconds, however, there is now a slower, entry-level 911 Turbo.
Take away the ‘S’ badge from the 992 Turbo’s wide rear end, and…you get something that’s still bonkers fast. The 0-62mph drops by just a tenth, giving a new figure of 2.7sec, while the top speed is 199mph as opposed to 205. But hey, 200 might still be doable with a tailwind.
Like its big brother, the 911 Turbo is powered by a 3.7-litre flat-six with variable-vane turbochargers and new charge-air coolers. You’re looking at 572bhp and 553lb ft of torque, 40bhp and 37lb ft less than the S. The slightly less potent six feeds an all-wheel drive system via an eight-speed ‘PDK’ dual-clutch automatic gearbox.
It’s 42mm wider than at the back compared to the old Turbo, with 21-inch wheels wrapped in 315mm-wide tyres. The Porsche Active Suspension Management system (a fancy way of saying ‘adaptive dampers’) is fitted as standard, with a 10mm lower PASM Sport setup on the options menu.
The vast 408mm iron front brake discs are 28mm bigger than before, and they work with 380mm rotors at the back. Carbon-ceramic brakes, which are fitted as standard on the S, are optional here.
Badging aside, you’ll struggle to tell it apart from the S on the outside - there’s the same active wing at the back, the trademark Turbo vents just in front of the rear wheels (these are intakes now, instead of cooling ducts), and a grille-heavy front-end with active flaps. It’s the same story on the inside, where you’ll find the retro-influenced dashboard and 10.9-inch touchscreen used across the 992 range.
Happy going a little slower and doing without standard-fit carbon ceramics? You’ll save a lot of money - at £134,400 for the coupe and £143,560 for the cabriolet, each version of the 911 Turbo is about £20,000 cheaper than the equivalent S.
Growing up on a diet of World Rally Championship highlights and lengthy Gran Turismo 2 sessions, a life in cars was as good as inevitable for Matt.
Comments
Pretty good deal imo. If you don’t want the ceramic expensive breaks. 20k is a big amount.
Low 2 seconds seems like the line of diminishing return for pure gas cars, whether its a 680 HP Porsche or 1600 HP Koeniggsegg. The limiting factor seems to be the internal combustion engine itself. It’s like taming a raging bull; you can only control it so much due to its inherent nature.
I suppose this is why the fastest production 0-60 times are by hybrid and electric cars like the Tesla P100D and Rimac C2. People say that the torque of an electric motor is superior, but that isn’t necessarily true. A Dodge Hellcat in first gear makes way more torque than a Tesla P100D. The real reason electric and hybrids dominate 0-60 acceleration is because the electric motors allow precise power control and therefore much more advanced traction management. If an internal combustion engine is sledgehammer, an electric motor is a surgeon’s scalpel.
It the safe line, for manufacturers. Check tuners squeeze sub-2 second acceleration times out of clapped-out supras and camaros. It’s just that to get that kind of pace out of ICE’s, and make it reliable, quiet, comfortable, and easy to use, requires tons more development and fine-tuning, which most companies don’t care to do, due to added cost, etc.
Well said.
A lot of this is also to do a lot with road legal tires amount of grip they can provide with out chemical treatments or pre heating.
I already preferred the Turbo anyway