So the test driving begins - TT RS!

[Gibbo]

Hi there


Right rang Audi Stoke yesterday, requested test drive for today. Arrives at Audi 11am, to be met by sales guy on his day off but as its his car he come in so I could drive it. He gives me the keys immediately and off I go with him in the passenger seat.

I shall try to cover as much as possible but I was only driving for circa 45 minutes so in that short time its hard to give a full proper review, so lets get started:-


The car had 3700 miles, had pretty much every option including the Recaro seats which look nicer than those in the EVO, more upmarket but not quite as supportive but still damn good. The sound system is also excellent, its not quite as a good as the Rockford Fosgate system in the EVO, but the Audi sounds deeper due to the car been built better if that makes sense. Anyway start the car, press sport and turn ESP off to get things started.

First thing I notice is a much lower clutch biting point than the EVO, I nearly stalled, but after 2 mins adapted to the clutch and its nice and feels more meaty than the EVO's, certainly feels like it can be abused a lot more. The other instant thing I notice is the engine sound, its very fruity and nice, infact its surprising how good it sounds and I am talking engine noise not exhaust noise.

So I ask if I can take the car on my own route and the sales guy is yeah feel free, its my day off drive where you want, so I headed home, then towards OcUK and finally back to Audi to cover all my favourite roads.

First of all lets talk about Audi's steering, first thing I dislike is the flat bottomed steering wheel, its just annoying. What I do notice though is the steering has excellent weighting, heavier than the EVO with a very good weighty/meaty feel. However it does suffer from Audi dullness, there is little to zero feedback and the steering is not as fast as the EVO's. However due to the TT's compact nature and sitting close to the floor I can feel the car communicate to me through my ass, so even though there is very little feel through the steering the car does communicate. If Audi added more feel and got rid of the flat bottom steering wheel it would be fantastic in this area as the weighting is spot on. So the steering, it could have been worse, but it could also still be better. Question is would fitting some different bushes or a different GEO setup improve feedback through the steering?

Handling and grip on this car is what impressed me the most. It was damp and 5c outside, the car had Summer tyres on and in these conditions the car was glued to the road just as much as my EVO on its winter tyres. Fair enough this Audi was on 19" wheels with much wider rubber so more mechanical grip. But every long sweeping corner I took it either matched the EVO or beat it in corner speed. This truely impressed me by the sheer levels of grip available, which I put down too Summer tyres, wider contact patch and the fact the TT RS is about 100kg lighter than an EVO X. Still this impressed me as the EVO X is a superb handling and grippy car. I then took the car to a local 30-40mph small roundabout which is very wide so great for testing a cars limits. The EVO X 30 mins earlier was happy going round here at 32mph in damp conditions, it was sliding by 33mph but with the EVO you just add more throttle and turn in harder and AYC will do its magic allowing you to increase speed to over 35mph (when its AYC works). The TT RS started to loose grip around the same point and then pushed wide, giving more throttle resulting in pushing more wide, tightening up the lock just pushed wider still, so on tighter stuff the Audi understeers and you can't add power to sling it around faster it just pushes more wide. Still however the difference is hardly noticable. I'd say the Audi has more mechanical grip on offer due to fatter tyres and because it weighs less but at the limit it just pushes wide. The EVO X has slightly less mechanical grip but its AYC system will let you go faster and it will also hang the back-end out and happily play, basically more fun. The EVO X also seems tighter in tighter turns and is happy to get on the power that bit earlier and sling shot you out the corner, wheras in the Audi you may have to wait or get in the power a bit slower otherwise you will run wide. Basically if you drive the Audi with in your mind that you need to be smooth in essence it will be near as damn it EVO quick on a country road. Wheras the EVO you can chuck it a lot more and get on the power a bit earlier and it will be ever so slightly quicker but slight.

The brakes were powerful and very sharp, certainly more than adequate and as good as the EVO's stopping wise, maybe just a little over assisted and not quite as progressive, but still very good indeed. The car stops very well!

Performance wise the TT RS deploys its power very well from 2000rpm it surges and by 3000rpm its on full boil and pulls very strong towards 7000rpm and the gearing is much longer and far better suited to all types of driving and that 6th cog is great for motorway cruising. The EVO is a little more explosive in its power delivery and pulls harder to redline but thats due to 390BHP and shorter gearing. I am sure if the TT RS had TT S gearing it would be mental in the lower gears, or give it 400BHP and am sure it pushes you back in your seat that much harder. In higher gears the EVO did seem to pull better but in fairness its gearing is shorter and its got 400BHP. I am sure a TT RS with 400BHP in 5th will pull ahead of the EVO, not hugely but enough but beyond 150MPH I can see the TT RS really getting a shift on. What I did notice is the TT RS has a much better 1st gear, due to power coming in so early it pulls very hard in first, infact it does not seem torque limited it just induces whiplash and flies off leaving you grabbing for next gear, even more so its all so easy to do and it feels as if the clutch is happy for you to do it over and over again. A fast launch in the EVO requires more revs and then its torque limited so it never feels that great in 1st, its not until 2nd it blast off. So performance wise the TT RS is very impressive and I can fully expect a Stage 1 TT RS to be an R8 beater and easily a match upto 100mph to an EVO X running 400 horses, the EVO will keep up due to shorter gearing, but beyond 120mph the TT RS will start to pull away. The other impressive fact is on my test drive I average 23MPG, in the EVO with same driving would be around 19MPG, so its an improvement there, but in top gear on the motorway 40MPG should be just about possible, thats a good 10MPG better but I don't buy cars based on motorway MPG as its rare I sit on motorways. But Audi's 2.5l engine is very efficient and has fantastic powerband, kudos to them as its superior to Mitsubishi 2.0 engine plus sounds better.

Quality wise well its an Audi been compared to a Mitsubishi, the Audi is a far nicer place to sit and its feels more solid in its controls, clutch, gearbox, weighty steering etc.

I feel the TT RS is a very capable car and with its tuning ability probably one of the fastest Audi's on offer if you throw 2-3k at one and aim for 450 horses your gonna be beating R8's and much powerful cars such as M5's for sure. As 450BHP in a 1450kg car is not gonna hang around!

The biggest downside of this car for me is its image and price tag. A new one is 54k when a new EVO X FQ-360 is 36k and the EVO has SATNAV, Xenons, Rockford Fosgate Sound, DVD all as standard.

Both cars depreciate a lot, but the Audi is gonna loose big bucks in the first two years, even now a 2009 car with sub 10,000 miles and less than a year old are going for 37-39k region. I asked the sales guy if he thought he'd be able to find me one with SATNAV, Bose, Recaros for mid 30's and his reply was "yes just give me some time" and suggested 37-39k would get one with that spec. Still it is of my oppinion anything over 35k is too much because at two years old I feel they will be in the 30-32k region.

I think 33k right now would be a steal, 35k would be good and 37k reasonable, but any higher and your looking to loose quite a bit in depreciation.


To summarise the EVO has faster steering and better feedback, plus its more chuckable and its AYC can make it turn tighter and faster resulting in more fun. Plus it can obviously steat 5 in comfort and its a far cheaper car, you can pick 2009 FQ-360 up for 25-29k.

The TT RS is just better everywhere else, engine sounds better, it goes just as well, more usable powerband, better gearing and 6 of them too. It seems grippier though it does understeer but that could be fixed with some thicker ARB's. Its a nicer place to be and its more grown up. For me it would probably save me £10 a week in fuel and £200 a year in tax so probably talking close to £1000 in savings on running cost. But than factor in Audi servicing cost and more expensive tyres and that saving will probably only be about £500 a year, but still a saving, not that I care but some may find that interesting.

If both cars were the same price, Audi TT RS everytime as its just as quick on the roads, every so slightly more grippy apart from real tight turns due to lack of AYC and is of a far higher quality. Plus the tuning capability for very little money is far greater than that of an EVO X. 2.2k gets you close to 450BHP. 3k on an EVO X will result in circa 410-420BHP and then more is huge money and it will become not as drivable.

But in used car terms the Audi TT RS is at present a good 10-12k more and its not that much of a better car, if I could get one at 33-35k I'd be very tempted but at the same time would sell it on in 6 months if they started depreciation a lot as Audi's can loose money very fast, but sometimes RS cars can also hold their value.

So yes it impressed me a lot, more so than I expected and yes I would like to own one, it can be made to handle just as well as the stock EVO X, but it can go a lot quicker in a straight line, it sounds a lot better whilst doing it and it looks better too. I am sure one running over 400BHP is one hell of a rocket. To state when running 440-450BHP they can hit 60mph in 3.6s and do the 1/4mile in 11.69s, thats not far off R35 GTR performance, but with much lower running cost. The only problem for Audi is its still just a TT and its overpriced right now. If these ever drop sub 30k as used cars they will be great buys.

Now to test drive some Porsches 911's.

 

[Gibbo]

Sounds like a TT vs Evo discussion more than a review of the TT. Hard to gauge without ever driving an Evo X

What else would you like to know, I've tried to cover as much as possible from performance, handling etc.

It goes very well, it sticks to the road like glue and is of a very high quality. It is a very impressive car without a doubt, but its priced high and the steering could be better.

Give me some tips on how I could write things better, yes its compared against an EVO X because thats what I am used to but I'd talked about its handling, grip, performance, how it felt, so am a little confused how I could write my test drive of this car differently?

 

[Gibbo]

Sounds like you were a bit more impressed with it than you thought you would be.

Yes I was, it was capable and better than expected. Add to that tuning ability and some cheap but effective suspension mods it could be made that bit better.

The killer is the price and the fact its a TT.

 

[Gibbo]

Sounds like everything I thought it would be to be honest. The engine sounds like a peach though

The extra grip offered by the wide tyres on the TT RS doesn't surpise me either, I have always felt that the Imprezas and Evos are massively undertyred width wise..

If anything mate if felt like a Mini-GTR, it was far better of the mark due to the extra torque low-down and no torque limiter in 1st. It had very weighty steering like a GTR and plenty of mechanical grip on offer. If anything I'd say in damp/wet conditions the TT RS is more sure footed than an EVO/Subaru. I'd say its in the dry where the EVO/Scoob would offer up more grip/cornering speed due to their better 4WD systems.

Still I found it very impressive if all prices were equal the TT RS is as good grip wise if not better than a Scoob or EVO with handling not far off at all, but the engine, solid quality feel and just make it a better all round package. But at 55k its just too much.

 

[Gibbo]

Oh ok that explains why.

Does the GTR really cost that much to run?

A decent GTR will cost circa 45k so right upper end of the budget, petrol consumption Id average around 11-13MPG so far worse than what I am used too. Servicing cost would be around triple what I pay at the moment a year, maybe more and then add tyre cost to that it all starts to get rather expensive. However they are not as expensive as some would lead you to believe, but they are not cheap either.

 

[Gibbo]

I was just commenting, I think it would be better to wait till you drive all 3 of your shortlist and then you can do all the comparisons. Certainly will be interesting to read.

As many have said though, the depreciation is going to be a killer versus a Porsche and and car can be modded to go fast. I would be vary wary of thinking it will do 40MPG on the motorway too, is that real life milage from current owners?

Yeah I agree with that, but I want to get it written down now so I don't forget anything as when your only in a car for 45 mins its easy to forget it.

40MPG is its extra urban, and owners have stated getting above 36MPG on the motorway is quite easy and thats without trying to hyper mile in one. So I think if you stook to 70mph and very light throttle inputs one could see 40MPG return. The engine is a true gem I won't deny that, sounds great, pulls strong from 2000rpm right upto 7000rpm and is very tunable, seems quite a gem.

 

[Gibbo]

have you looked at an rs6?

Not for me, great a straight lines, but compared against cars I have owned and what I am looking at an RS6 is not an amazing handling car its just a good handling one. As its simply too heavy, I found the TT RS a lot better handling then the RS4's I drove a couple of years ago.

 

[Gibbo]

Fancy that, shock as winter tyres are not second coming of jesus when all the snow has gone

Will be interesting to see how this compares with the other cars you've got lined up

You know when I wrote that I was thinking of you.
Still goes to show most summer tyres are fine for our winters when its just cold and damp.
If Id have not been running normal summer tyres Id have not bothered with winters but I can't complain the Michelins have been stunning all rounds and work superb on snow too.

Drink time!

 

[Gibbo]

All I said was I didn't really relate to it as I've not driven an Evo and every aspect was compared to one, also Gibbo has decided to buy a new car, none of these are an Evo.

Many car reviews you read will have a pool of cars that they discuss all in contrast to one another and many other cars, maybe I'm too used to reading EVO. I said that it read like an Evo vs rstt comparison rather than a review.


Definately interested in reading the comparison of the new cars though. Although the comment comparing summer tyres to winter ones was interesting.

I am not a professional reviewer though and have never claimed to be. I am just posting my findings of a car on a motoring based forum because like fellow motorist here were all interested in different cars. I enjoy reading other members finding on cars and I am sure others do. OcUK motors is a great collective of information and none of us are professional reviewers but we all try to share our discoveries and help each other out where possible.

However I would love to work for EVO as am sure anyone else would, getting to drive amazing cars, write about them and get paid has gotta be the ultimate job, apart from Clarksons job anyway.

 

[Gibbo]

Did it feel nose heavy? My mates TT V6 does, very nice car though and ultra smooth. Nothing on a 911 I guess though, the cayman S I recently went in was awesome in every way, the 911 is only going to be better.

Assuming you can tame that rear engine pendulum!

Yes and no in a way, the very heavy and weighty steering could give this impression but I really liked the artificial weighting of the steering, if anything it felt spot on, it just lacked feedback but the car was giving me feedback through my bum.

However I'd say due to how it handled on the limit that yes it was nose heavy, approaching the limit it pushed wide, applying more throttle it pushed wider, been aggressive on the steering to try and make the rear step out well it still understeered wide, so yes this is all no doubt due to it been nose heavy. Afterall the engine is actually located over the front axle.

But saying this the front end did not start to slide until you were really pressing on, the amount of sheer grip on offer was very impressive, infact surprisingly impressive and when you got beyond this the car let go very progressively and in a very safe manner.

So I guess one could say yes it was nose heavy, but the handling and grip on offer are very impressive.

Basically after driving one I'd say not many other cars will keep up with one too easily, lots of grip, great powerband, infact then engine is equally impressive.

 

[Gibbo]

Nice review there Gibbo, its making me re-consider my views of it (not that I've either driven one or am likely to ever consider owning one mind you!)

Very interesting & informative I thought.... WTF Simon is on about I don't know - perhaps you should have included your old e34 for a bit of balance or something?



Pretty much sums it up, and to my mind, its off the list, yes?

I think we have to look past its not like TT's of old which were made as a style item and just for posers. These really are a very capable car, yes it still looks I guess far too pretty as it is a very pretty car.

Now I've driven one I will never under-estimate a TT RS on the road, especially when you consider how fast they are with some very simple remapping. I posted a video in other thread where a Stage 1 TT RS out accelerates a 540BHP M5 upto 150mph, now thats not to be sniffed at.

So yes very impressive indeed.

Off the list, yes at 40k, under 35k possibly not, but lets see how a 911 makes me feel, for me I have an inherent fear of the 911, engine in boot pendulem syndrome but shall see how I feel after test drives. I've been in enough 911's been pushed very hard and they are hugely capable.

 

[Gibbo]

I wouldnt call a C4S a lump of lead in the handling stakes.

Agreed, to say anything 911 handles like a lump a lead seems a bit far fetched.

I shall be driving C4S and C2S soon.

Shall probably also look at trying a top spec Cayman S too and a 996 Turbo/S.

 

[Gibbo]

the ceramics were standard on the Turbo S werent they ??

Something to watch out for !

Yeah its all a whole lot of annoying thats for sure.

997 better built, better handling and more kit.

996 Turbo S well within my budget but they all have ceramic brakes which as mentioned is a 5-6k replacement bill, why oh why did Porsche have to make them standard on the S. I find the S tempting because it has what Housey knows I like that huge push in the back and serious oomph, think just a single remap results in 530BHP, so I'd have Mustang power in a sure footed 4WD state of art handling car. But running cost on a S could be huge, especially when it comes to brakes. I guess best thing with an S is to try and find a used example thats had all the brakes changed recently.

Other option is generic 996 Turbo, but again this is even older, not as tunable due to turbo's and would be as mentioned older so could be a money pit.

Looks wise I like the looks of the 996 Turbo S, but a 997 S with aerokit and turbo wheels simply looks stunning.

Tuning front on an S is it cost a whole lot of cash, expect to pay 4k to take one from 355BHP towards 380-390BHP and thats your lot before your talking 10k plus.

I like everything about the 997 S cars, the only two downsides right now is engine in boot, will I like it and finally will one have enough oooomph.

In theory a 997 C2S is just as quick as the EVO in a straight line, 0-60mph in 4.2s region and 0-100mph in 10s region, but as Housey says they dont feel as quick as no kick in the back from turbo.

In a perfect world if I like the 997 S then it will be just a case of trying to find one with X51 powerkit, Sports Chrono Plus, Sports exhaust, SATNAV and upgraded sound plus aerokit. That would be perfect spec for me, will probably cost a pretty penny too but if I go Porsche I've found a few decent contacts thanks to people on this forum who can try to hunt down the right car for me.

 

[Gibbo]

or just get a Z06

job done

If I could afford two 40k cars I would as the Z06 beats all these cars in question at quite a few things such as all out performance, sound, looks and grin factor, though some will disagree on looks.

But Id have to change my route to work and avoid really narrow twisty lanes and visibility from the Vette is not great as its LHD but the killer is how low your sat down compared to the Mustang, making it harder to judge.

A Porsche are great on twisty little backroads in comparison.

 

[Gibbo]

My slagging off of the C4S may have been crude and did not come across as a factual argument but, I will stick by it.

I have to question how many Porsche's some of you guys have driven to think that the C4S is the performance pinnacle of the 911 range. Maybe they are a good 2nd hand buy but, in comparison to a C2S that is all they are. I don't mean any offense to C4S owners in this statement but they are not a true drivers car.

Before you eat me for breakfast, allow me to illustrate my argument with some facts.

We are talking up to 250Kg difference between a 987 class car and a C4S and most of that weight is added at the wrong places (front and rear).

This makes a massive difference in the performance and handling of the car. Ceramics are a waste of money when you weigh in at almost the same as an SUV, an exaggeration but it stands up to scrutiny

The Gen2 Turbo won't suffer from the outright speed problems as it has a nuclear reactor for an engine which means that the power-to-weight ratio is blown to pieces but at £115k in a decent spec, you need to be committed to pick it over the GT3 which, is the best car I have ever driven.

The 997 C4S Gen1 is a slower car than a Gen2 Cayman S in hot spec, this is a factual statement.

The Boxster Spyder is faster than a C4S Gen2, this is a factual statement based around personal experience (amateur road and track work) and available technical information. I would assume from this that the Cayman R is quicker still.

Both of these mid-engine cars are quicker due to power to weight and weight distribution.

This is why the Gen1 RS cars use the shell of the C4S but not the running gear, it is just too heavy and does not provide significant performance increases to justify the cost.

The C4S is aimed at people who live in snowy/icy conditions for large parts of the year so they do not lose 911 sales, it is not the performance model of the 911 range.

So your saying a Cayman S is quicker than a C4S? If so can you back this up with any factual evidence?

Also a C4S is what 50-70kh heavier maximum than the 1390kg C2S model and most of that extra weight is over the front end of the C4S. Surely the extra weight in the front end is a benefit to the C4S in some ways not to mention its 4WD system as well. Surely the C4S just feels a little nose heavier and bit more sure footed and not quite as edgy as the C2S, but apart from that its still a Porsche 911 with razer sharp steering and fantastic handling.

The 2009 Cayman S onwards got LSD and new 3.4l engine producing 320BHP. This has been tested to achieve 60mph in as little as 4.8s-5.1s and get too 100mph in 12s flat.

I don't need to say but all of that is slower than a 2006 C4S which develops 355BHP and has been tested to hit 60mph in as little as 4.2s and 100mph in 10.5s region.

So what makes you believe the Cayman S is faster when all test show the C4S to be quicker?

 

[Gibbo]

Factual information is one thing, subjectively speaking the Cayman S is the faster drive for me.

The Power-to-weight figure should guide you as to the general performance of the cars without getting too geeky about the numbers.

C4S Gen 1 = 226 BHP/Tonne
Cayman S Gen 2 = 229 BHP/Tonne

The 0-60, 0-100 times are in the same ball-park, due to the extra engine displacement in the C4S, the gap above 100 will obviously widen.

The 1/4 mile times are almost identical, I would expect that the Cayman's use of PDK and Launch control would help it against the added grip of the Gen 1 C4S from a standing start.

Lap times are 3 seconds quicker in the Cayman S favour, the source I use is:

http://www.autozeitung.de/vergleichstest

For the Gen2 C4S, on the same track, this becomes a 2 second victory for the C4S, it will be wider on some tracks.

The times Walter Rohl posted on the 'Ring for the Gen2 C4S against the Gen2 Cayman S are about 1.5 seconds apart.

On the road power to weight means very little. Its more down to BHP, torque and displacement which is something the 911 wins on everytime.

The 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile are not even remotely close.
0-60mph 911 C4S been tested as low as 3.8s, but 4.2s is what most achieve, the best Cayman S time is 4.8s with most struggling to hit 5s. Thats a whole second.
0-100mph the gap widens more, Cayman S is above 12s, C4S has been known to hit practically 10s flat, with most achieving 10.5s.
Above 100mph the Cayman would not see which direction a 911 went as that is when 911's really get in their stride.
1/4 mile in a Cayman S is 13.5s @ 107mph against a 911 C4S time of 12.8s @ 111mph.

The difference between a 12s and 10s 0-100mph cars is huge. Because from a roll the faster 0-100mph car just walks away, its only off the mark if the faster car fluffs the launch you might have a chance.

That 1/4 mile time is a huge difference, do you realise how hard and how much money it takes to make a car 0.1s in the quarter mile, yet the 911 is over 1/2 second faster, performance wise they are not remotely close.

Also I've been reading rennlist, 911 and other Porsche forums and guys there who have owned both Cayman S and had C2S, C4S and other 911's all say the same the 911 is noticably faster and quite easily so. They consider it an upgrade.

I think the Cayman S is amazing, I've driven one breifly and liked it but it did lack grunt and I tried to keep up with a friends 911 C2S and it was hopeless to try doing so because the 911 just walked away there was no point at any speed where the Cayman S was quicker or able to keep up.

 

[Gibbo]

There's no denying that the 911 is faster, it has to be otherwise Porsche would've dropped a clanger by releasing the Cayman however a lot of 911 and Cayman owners I've spoke to reckon that the Cayman is the better car to drive. It's not as fast but let's be honest, when you've got something that handles as well as the Cayman, do you really need any more power on the road?

What it doesn't have is the image that the 911 has, it's always going to be seen as the poor relative however plenty of "real" Porsche owners freely admit that it's a hell of a good car and in a lot of ways, the better car. Guess it just depends if you want a car that's going to impress the neighbours or not.

I always here this but do you need more power on the road? My response is "you can never have enough power"

My Mustang was a perfect example, I could use all of its near 600BHP on the road and absolutely loved doing so.

Yes I will agree that when I drove the Cayman S it did not feel like it was gonna kill me, it was very sure footed and very quick on steering but it just lacked go, it was the 303BHP version, so was before the newer 2009 model which got 320BHP and LSD.

To make a Cayman S keep with a 911 its gotta be the PDK version with 320BHP and then you might just stand a chance if the 911 Gen1 driver fluffs up a gear change.

I do like power in my cars, there is no better feeling than selecting 3rd or 4th and just going wide open throttle and experience good acceleration and this is an area the 911 just kicks the Cayman ass.

However I have looked at tuning and Cayman can be taken upto 350ish BHP without spending a fortune and I'd say at those kind of power levels it won't hang around, add a PDK version into it and you should have a Cayman that can beat a stock 911 C4S.

But the C2S is quicker again, they have been know to gallop to 100mph in as quick as 9.6s and do the quarter mile in 12.3s

I like the Cayman but I just think the lack of grunt would get to me, I need to be as close to 400 horses as I can, not further away. But I shall give a Cayman S a test drive to see how the new 2009 car drives, might even try the PDK version.

 

[Gibbo]

I thought that would be the case, it is deffo Porsches that the man shines on i think.

Mustangs too.
He made mine epic and he was mighty impressed with it on his test roundabout.

 

[Gibbo]

Never mind all that its the bloke in the 997 that gets the girl, not the Cayman

Not true on my one day in a Cayman I pulled, and she was hot too.

 

[Gibbo]

I don't know a lot about 911 but I honestly had no idea that C2S and C4S cars were that fast! The mistake I make is looking at horsepower and really 355 isn't all that impressive especially in something that doesn't seem all that light, but 0-60 in the low 4s and 0-100 in 10 seconds certainly is!

So in the real world a 997 C2S/C4S isn't far off the performance of a 996 Turbo apart from the placebo turbo effect? I know someone who is looking into 911s but had pretty much settled on a 996 Turbo because he thought 997 Cs were going to be too slow .

The best a C2S has managed is 3.9s to 60mph and 9.6s too 100mph. This was a manual 355BHP car and the testing magazine reckoned it was so quick because it had 5000 miles on the clock, wheras when they previous tested one it only had 1000 miles so was still breaking in.

The C4S has been tested to be as quick as 3.8s and 10.4s too 100mph, so the C2S definetely seems faster once moving, no doubt due to less weight and fewer transmission losses etc.

Think that is quick the 2010 Audi TT RS is DSG transmission has posted 3.9s too 60mph and 9.3s too 100mph, thats a stock one, bloody blinding quick.

A 996 Turbo S is in the 8.5s region too 100mph and the 997 turbo is in the 7.5-8s region. Remap either of the above and it tends to drop sub 7s.