How do you calculate this Acceleration graph?
I fixed the gt2rs times a bit to be more reasonable. Otherwise I just took the mph numbers listened.
Porsche 911 GT2 RS (991)
Twin-turbocharged flat-6700 ps (690 bhp)
750 Nm (553 lb-ft)
1508 kg (3325 lbs)
464 ps / tonne
Ferrari 488 Pista
twin-turbocharged 32 valve V8720 ps (710 bhp)
770 Nm (568 lb-ft)
1443 kg (3181 lbs)
499 ps / tonne
Lap Times 5
Performance
| 911 GT2 RS | 488 Pista | |
|---|---|---|
| Kerb weight | ||
| Top speed | 340 kph (211 mph) | 340 kph (211 mph) |
| 0 - 100 kph | 2.7 s | 2.9 s |
| 0 - 200 kph | 8.1 s | 7.6 s |
| 0 - 300 kph | 22.9 s | 20.6 s |
| 0 - 30 mph | 1.2 s | 1.2 s |
| 0 - 40 mph | 1.6 s | 1.7 s |
| 0 - 50 mph | 2.1 s | 2.2 s |
| 0 - 60 mph | 2.6 s | 2.7 s |
| 0 - 70 mph | 3.2 s | 3.2 s |
| 0 - 80 mph | 3.9 s | 3.8 s |
| 0 - 90 mph | 4.6 s | 4.4 s |
| 0 - 100 mph | 5.5 s | 5.2 s |
| 0 - 110 mph | 6.7 s | 6.1 s |
| 0 - 120 mph | 7.8 s | 7.1 s |
| 0 - 130 mph | 9.1 s | 8.2 s |
| 0 - 140 mph | 10.7 s | 9.5 s |
| 0 - 150 mph | 11.8 s | 11.0 s |
| Est. 1/8 mile | 6.9 s @ 112.5 mph | 6.8 s @ 116.8 mph |
| 1/4 mile | 10.3 s @ 139.3 mph | 10.1 s @ 144.1 mph |
| Est. 1/2 mile | 16.8 s @ 164.0 mph | 16.3 s @ 169.0 mph |
| 1000 m | 18.7 s @ 281.2 kph | 18.3 s @ 289.6 kph |
| Est. 100 - 200 kph | 5.5 s | 4.7 s |
| Est. 200 - 300 kph | 14.6 s | 13.0 s |
| Est. 0 - 100 mph - 0 | 9.6 s @ 745 ft | 9.2 s @ 692 ft |
| Est. max acceleration | 1.08 g (11 m/s²) | 1.02 g (10 m/s²) |
| 100 kph - 0 | 31 m (101 ft) | 30 m (97 ft) |
| 200 kph - 0 | 118 m (387 ft) | 116 m (381 ft) |
| 60 mph - 0 | 27 m (87 ft) | 32 m (105 ft) |
| Fuel economy | 13.9 l/100 km (17 mpg US / 20 mpg UK) | 11.5 l/100 km (20 mpg US / 25 mpg UK) |
| Lateral acceleration | 1.17 g (11 m/s²) | 1.10 g (11 m/s²) |
Summary
| 911 GT2 RS | 488 Pista | |
|---|---|---|
| Track Performance | 487 | 484 |
| Straight line speed | 2892 | 3183 |
| Total | 3379 | 3667 |
Verdict
488 Pista is the fastest by a small margin.
This comparison has been viewed 7.4k times.
More acceleration data at dragrace.me
Acceleration graph
FastestLaps 5m ago
I use average data. Not one specific source or just mph data, because that would introduce weirdness, like you said you have to "fix" the GT2 data to make it "reasonable".
This comparison page only has matching mph data. Which is rare, btw :D
DrDuke 5m ago @FastestLaps
Your imaginary/averaged data is okay as long as there is nothing better. A grapical interpretation of the measured values is just easier to check.
Here are the uncorrected vs corrected data for the gt2rs
https://imgur.com/a/SYSOBYB
As you easily see the 150mph time is way off - 12.7 instead of 11.8 would be reasonable. There is no car in the world which accelerates from 140 to 150mph like it does from 80-90mph. The second inconsistensy is from 100-110mph where it should be around 6.5-6.6 seconds instead of 6.7.
This is the power of a propper graph :)
FastestLaps 5m ago @DrDuke
Fastestlaps.com is publishing best results from multiple sources. You cannot look at all the acceleration data and plot it on a graph - it will be inconsistent, as you can see.
The graphs use average and interpolated data, therefore they are correct and continuous (at least in 99% of cases)
All data is factual, no "imagination" involved. Only data that is not result of physical experiments is data marked as "est" - which means estimate.
DrDuke 5m ago @FastestLaps
Sure different acceleration tests shouldn't be mixed - it's maybe not so important with modern cars where the electronic does everything for the driver. The biggest difference would be between 0-60 (tarmac, temperature, tires). At higher speed they should have pretty close delta times besides wind influence and hp difference.
It's pretty save to say that this 11.8 is (most likely) a typo. It's just totally off. If it would be real other 0-xxx times from c&d would also spike out. But besides the 110mph time everything is pretty well fitting. As long as the pitch of the connection between 2 measured values decreases (first fast then slow) it makes sense.
Edit: the 110mph time is actually too slow - especially in comparison with the 150mph. Both are from c&d?
FastestLaps 4m ago @DrDuke
110 is from Road & Track Performance Car of the Year 2019. If Car & Driver weren't chauvinistic Trump-voting America-first degenerate aersehuoles and didn't block their website in certain countries outside US, I would investigate further.
