MJones

Weighs in the same

TripleM

thks info
so this Mk2 engine doesnt use DI just yet..

ECS

Interesting. Nice post. The biggest difference I was expecting was a change in suspension mounting points which supposedly made a big difference in handling between the GT2 and GT3. Can't tell here if that has been done. Also, huge aero improvement and I really like the dynamic engine mounts. Regarding the aero. I wonder at what speed the 100% increase is.

CorsicanBB

I have been reading all the threads about this 'new' GT3 and am a bit disappointed. As can be plainly seen from the summary table, this is the same car we are driving, with only a small number of improvements. The only real breakthrough here are the Dynamic Engine Mounts, which I would really like to experience. The GT3 that I am waiting for has DFI and an optional PDK. I was told that Porsche has been working on it for a while but needs a lot more R&D (read: money + time) to make it happen. So, in the meantime, they came out with this incremental improvement on the already superb car to please the enthusiasts still out there in these turbulent times, but this is not the real evolution that will take the GT3 to the next level. I would speculate that there will not be an RS version of this one, Porsche will (should) wait and allow the current RS to keep its iconic, limited-edition status for a while longer.

iLLM3

Would like to know if it has been changed as well?!

ECS

I would agree in general except for the improved aero. This can be really important for lap times depending on where it kicks in. Again, there has been quite a few articles about the suspension tweaks the GT2 got that improve the car significantly. Will be interested in hearing some in-depth articles comparing the two. Also, nothing about RMS and if anything has been done to improve the poor record on the 997GT2 MK1.

Vancouver83LTD

The Dynamic Engine Mounts is a nice feature, but the big telling sign that North America is still considered 'soft' is the front lifting system for driveway egress/ingress
At the same time, no sunroof. Hm.

flash1034

As the owner of a 997/GT3 and a steep driveway, I am all over the new front lift system. My front end lip is always scratched up bad just from going in and out of my garage.

Flash

MJSpeed

This car has mor HP at the same weight...nothing to complain AFAIC...

I think this had more changes than the 6GT3's.

OldGuy

A couple things. Funny they both weigh the same. The new car has what Mercedes calls composite brakes
made of iron AND aluminum centers to reduce weight yet the cars weigh the same.
Drag is increased on the new car. I wonder why. New rear spoiler?
Also Rear camber is increased 1 degree and for those who dont track much that means the rear tires that wear faster on the inside of the track are going to wear faster on the inside. Is that right?

OH and lets NOT forget about the front radiator lattice covering!! No more trips to Home Depot and bloody hands!!

Carrera GT

Seems like a hastily written document -- the writer hasn't decided what's important about the car or what's going to make it sell and doesn't seem to have turned on spell check unless countour is a word.

In the table, they don't mention the headlights as standard, but it's the first point in the narrative -- I'm pretty sure headlights aren't going to sell this car and there's no mention of the lighter halogens.

The reference to the RS America is just plain wrong. Maybe they were thinking of the 993 RS or the 3.6 Turbo?

I guess the curb weight is without the optional nose lift and engine mounts -- I wonder if they weigh both cars with CCBs? (I forget, but I recall this being debated when the first US cars weighed in noticeably above spec.)

I wonder if not even offering the sunroof as an option constitutes listening to the customer? I know there were many people saying they liked having it. I'm certainly glad it's history.

Now if only they'd really "pared" it down (in curb weight and price.)

Stockholm996TT

Carrera GT: All weights published by Porsche are for a car in its lightest possible spec = PCCB, carbon fibre chairs, no xenons, no clubsport cage etc.

Yargk

Drag is higher probably because downforce is higher. I see this as a good thing.

Nizer

2010 powerband drops to 1350rpm from 2100rpm for 2008. I guess they're making it up with higher torque across the rev range but it'll be interesting to see dyno charts. On the face, it looks like a peakier motor.

Also, big jump in drag coefficient but I guess that's what you get when downforce is doubled. Still, I'd like to see them generating downforce without the boy racer wing. If Ferrari can do it...

997gt3north

- front springs are linear not progressive
- it is the rears that are progressive on the 997.1

- i believe the 2008gt3 quoted rear camber is the track spec and the front quoted camber is the street spec (a bit confusing i think)
- also interesting if correct (unlikely) is that the 2010 will be delivered with zero front toe versus toe-in
- for anyone who wants to improve the car's feel, if you haven't yet changed the front toe to zero (or very slightly out) i would highly recommend it
- they also didn't mention the sway bars (was mentioned in other promotional material as being stiffer)

- i also see that they didn't "optimize" the gearing for the change in motor (as per the original press release - same as the current ratios - saving money is my guess - given the promotional material is so "track focused" again I think they missed the opportunity to offer track appropriate gearing as an option

- the drag quoted for the 2010 perfectly matches the 2007/8 RS drag (i.e. .32 versus .29 for the gt3)
- since this is a narrow body and the new wing is no where near the size of the RS wing, then the front down force has possibly been significantly increased as they may have slightly reduced the front ride height (in addition to the protruding front lip) as the new "lift system" will help save the nose when required