If Porsche still offered the WLS for the Turbo like they did in the 90s, it would make most hypercars redundant and look like a scam

Porsche 911 Turbo S (992) specs
Price in Europe | €212,711 - €249,963 |
Price in US | $204,850 - $224,780 |
Car type | Coupe |
Curb weight | 1599-1759 kg (3525-3878 lbs) |
Dimensions | 4.54 m (179 in) long, 1.90 m (75 in) wide, 1.30 m (51 in) high |
Wheelbase | 2.45 m (96 in) |
Introduced | 2021 |
Origin country | Germany |
Gas mileage | 22.3-8.7 l/100 km (11-27 mpg US / 13-33 mpg UK) |
Views | 65.5k |
Submitted by | aaayy |
Lap times
Acceleration (mph)
0 - 30 mph | 0.8 s |
0 - 40 mph | 1.4 s |
0 - 50 mph | 1.8 s |
0 - 60 mph | 2.1 s |
0 - 70 mph | 3.0 s |
0 - 80 mph | 3.7 s |
0 - 90 mph | 4.5 s |
0 - 100 mph | 5.1 s |
0 - 110 mph | 6.7 s |
0 - 120 mph | 7.8 s |
0 - 130 mph | 8.5 s |
0 - 140 mph | 11.1 s |
0 - 150 mph | 11.9 s |
0 - 170 mph | 16.4 s |
0 - 180 mph | 20.0 s |
1/8 mile | 6.9 s @ 109.7 mph |
1/4 mile | 9.9 s @ 139.0 mph |
1/2 mile | 16.2 s @ 163.7 mph |
Acceleration (kph)
0 - 40 kph | 1.0 s |
0 - 50 kph | 1.1 s |
0 - 60 kph | 1.5 s |
0 - 80 kph | 1.9 s |
0 - 100 kph | 2.5 s |
0 - 120 kph | 3.6 s |
0 - 130 kph | 3.9 s |
0 - 140 kph | 4.5 s |
0 - 150 kph | 4.9 s |
0 - 160 kph | 5.6 s |
0 - 180 kph | 6.9 s |
0 - 200 kph | 8.4 s |
0 - 240 kph | 13.6 s |
0 - 250 kph | 14.2 s |
0 - 300 kph | 26.6 s |
1000 m | 18.9 s @ 274.1 kph |

General performance
Top speed | 330 kph (205 mph) |
0 - 100 mph - 0 | 9.3 s |
Est. max acceleration | 1.14 g (11 m/s²) |
18m slalom | 73.1 kph (45.4 mph) |
36m slalom | 145.0 kph (90.1 mph) |
Emissions | 254 g/km |
Lateral acceleration | 1.12 g (11 m/s²) |
Downforce @ 200 kph | 69 kg (152 lbs) |
Powertrain specs
Engine type | B6 twin turbo 24 valve DOHC |
Displacement | 3.7 l (229 ci / 3745 cc) |
Power | 650 ps (641 bhp / 478 kw) @ 6750 rpm |
Torque | 800 Nm (590 lb-ft) @ 2500 rpm |
Power / liter | 174 ps (171 hp) |
Power / weight | 394 ps (389 bhp) / t |
Torque / weight | 485 Nm (358 lb-ft) / t |
Efficiency | 49 PS per l/100 km |
Power / €5000 | 14 ps |
Transmission | 8 speed dual-clutch automatic (PDK) |
Layout | rear engine, all wheel drive |
Braking distance
50 kph - 0 | 8 m (25 ft) |
100 kph - 0 | 30 m (98 ft) |
140 kph - 0 | 64 m (212 ft) |
200 kph - 0 | 117 m (384 ft) |
60 mph - 0 | 30 m (97 ft) |
70 mph - 0 | 42 m (139 ft) |
100 mph - 0 | 80 m (262 ft) |
Rolling acceleration
60 - 100 kph (4) | 3.0 s |
60 - 100 kph (5) | 5.1 s |
80 - 120 kph (4) | 2.3 s |
80 - 120 kph (5) | 3.4 s |
80 - 120 kph (6) | 5.7 s |
80 - 120 kph (7) | 10.5 s |
80 - 150 kph (5) | 6.7 s |
80 - 150 kph (6) | 9.4 s |
80 - 160 kph (4) | 4.8 s |
80 - 160 kph (5) | 6.7 s |
80 - 160 kph (6) | 10.0 s |
80 - 160 kph (7) | 16.9 s |
140 - 200 kph (5) | 5.6 s |
140 - 200 kph (6) | 7.3 s |
60 - 100 kph | 1.3 s |
70 - 120 kph | 1.9 s |
80 - 120 kph | 1.5 s |
100 - 140 kph | 2.0 s |
100 - 200 kph | 5.9 s |
Est. 200 - 300 kph | 18.3 s |
Interior noise
Noise @ idle | 55 dB |
Noise @ 50 kph | 59 dB |
Noise @ 100 kph | 67 dB |
Noise @ 130 kph | 72 dB |
Noise @ 160 kph | 78 dB |
Noise @ 180 kph | 81 dB |
911 Turbo S competition





TypeF173 2m ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_992
Carrera, Carrera 4, Carrera S and Carrera 4S (2019– ) 4
Targa 4 and Targa 4S (2020– ) 2
Carrera GTS, Carrera 4 GTS, Targa 4 GTS (2021– ) 3
GT3 and GT3 Touring (2021– ) 2
Plus the "Lightweight" 992 and this new 992 Sport Classic we'll discount the first one.
That's TWELVE variants? I've probably missed some too?
That's ABSOLUTELY fine, it's buisness, it's automotive. Supply and demand. Sales and profits. No issues WHATSOEVER. Bugatti does it and have since 2005 onwards.
But let's not point the finger elsewhere either, where similar is done either? Where it's legitimately done for the EXACT same reasons? Shaking my head.
I'll do one for other manufacturers too~ absolutely no problems whatsoever, nothing to hide right is there from anyone?

hostboy 3m ago
My estimated lap times
Motor Trend Figure-8: 22.1 sec @ 1.00 G
Nürburgring Nordschleife: 7:09
Top Gear Test Track (Power Lap): 1:13
How I estimated the lap times
Figure-8: ((((900/(30/27)x(1664x2.20462262))/0.095)/705))/2
Confirmed total track distance of 900 feet including 500 foot separation between two 200 foot diameter circles.
Estimated braking distance figure of 30-0 mph in 27 feet
Nordschleife: (((20600m/(300km/h/(322m*0.3048m))x(1664kg/705hp)/1.19g)x0.0095)x0.7
Should improve to 7:01 with Lightweight Design Package
Power Lap: ((3503lb+75kg)/705hp)x((1.75mi)x12)x1.19x.575
Semi-slicks should improve this laptime to 1:10.
The 911 Turbo S' all-wheel-drive system gives it a slight advantage over the 911 GT3 on some tracks, especially Motor Trend's Figure-8 track.

hostboy 3m ago
Rate these performance stats on a scale of 1-10!
Porsche 911 Turbo S (992.1)
Claimed Power: 640 hp @ 6750 rpm
Claimed Torque: 590 lb-ft @ 2500-4000 rpm
Bore x Stroke: 102 mm x 76.4 mm
Number of Cylinders: 6
Boost Pressure: 34.8 lb/in²
BMEP differential: 10.5 bar
VE un-boost: 110.00%
VE boost: 226.90%
Mean Piston Speed at Peak Power: 18 m/s
Actual Power: 705 hp @ 7070 rpm
Actual Torque: 599 lb-ft @ 3535 rpm
Drivetrain: AWD; 8DCT
Curb Weight: 3503 lb
0-60 mph: 3.4 sec (standing start, no launch control)
0-100 mph: 6.7 sec
0-150 mph: 13.7 sec
0-200 mph: 32.5 sec
1/4-mile (street): 11.2 sec @ 133 mph
1/4-mile (drag): 10.0 sec @ 135 mph
Top speed: 206 mph
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Rj7yXM-YA6ayHZl1ObYwLNFRlM6e6Y_dBI7VAdX7Iz0/edit?usp=sharing
P.S. I am working on Figure-8, Nordschleife, and even Top Gear test track estimates - all of which are under development.



TypeF173 3m ago
PORSCHE GANG! Motortrend 1/4 and 1/2 mile results!
1/4= 10.3@132.30MPH> https://ibb.co/crbj9fW
1/2= 16.19@163.70MPH> https://ibb.co/w78v7Bj
They ARE above but Sources are nice, which I've gathered.🤔


TypeF173 3m ago
PORSCHE GANG! Sick of all the Ferrari and McLaren talk? Yeah? Get your eyeballs on this! Top Gear verified metrics! May have been posted before but I can see no mention of them below, and also I DON'T care! LOL!
911 Turbo S0-10 0.42
0-20 0.80
0-30 1.15
0-40 1.57
0-50 2.05
0-60 2.53
0-70 3.18
0-80 3.84
0-90 4.59
0-100 5.56
0-110 6.68
0-120 7.84
0-130 9.29
0-140 11.05
0-150 13.12
30-70 2.03
60-130 6.76.
SOLID figures NO roll out needed!
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/supercars/porsche-911-turbo-s-vs-taycan-turbo-s-which-faster



hostboy 4m ago
I hate to break this to you, but there is no such thing as an "underrated" car these days. Even SAE-certified cars make nearly as much power to the rear wheels as advertised for flywheel.
The whole "underrating" thing was a 1960s-2000s prank exclusively in America and Japan to keep emission regulators out of the automaker CEOs' personal businesses.
Your 911, M5, GT-R, etc etc all ain't "underrated." They just were rated at the power they were designed to produce in a different atmosphere than a typical American muscle car. But even American cars have been "underrated" if we go by this hyped-up logic.
Hellcats, as well as the TRXs and Trackhawks on the truck side, make only 5% less (up to 10% for the trucks because of 4WD/AWD) to the wheels than the crank and this is because their drivetrains are very good (a ZF transmission really helps). However for Redeyes, Jailbreaks, Super Stocks, and Demons (unless they're running on 100 octane) it's a different story because their power curve cannot handle the transmission very well. Also the latter four versions have a supercharger that's larger to connect to an already massive engine, so the inertia is unsurprisingly bad for a Redeye especially on stock tires with 2.62 rear gears. Figure 15% loss for Redeye and just 5% loss for a RWD Hellcat powered car.
A 992TS will produce 640awhp only for 5-10sec depending on how hard you launch the car, then it's down to around 575awhp. Go figure around 10% loss. At the end of the day, it's AWD!!!
S/C and T/C cars like the Shelby GT500 Mustang and 911 Turbo S BOTH need to be corrected for their insanely optimistic ¼mile results. But a Redeye typically doesn't need to because the major mags already publish corrected results for such big cars.
If the 992TS is doing 0-100kmph in 2.20s and 0-200kmph in 7.35s (based on C/D test), then it will repeat 9.90s rollout or 10.05-10.10s standing ¼mile times. Those acceleration times include rollout too!
But 640bhp and 3600lb cannot equal 139mph trap speed!? That's what we have weather correction and density altitude factors for!!
The GT500 is not optimistic, but kinda pushing it. 10.6sec quartermile time?? Let alone 10.4 like some Ford fanboys claim? LOL. It certainly is possible on drag radials on a prepped track. But that would literally require 8.75s to 200kmph!
3.4+8.75/(3.4+8.75)x10 = 10.6 on a PREPPED D/S. Go figure 11.3 real ¼mile time on an unprepped strip, maybe 11.0 on optional summer tires. Still with rollout.
The corrected 0-200kmph times are 10.45s for the Cobra 500 and 9.20s for the Turbo S. As a result, their actual quartermile times (excluding rollout) are 11.5-11.6 for the Ford and 10.6-10.7 for the Porsche at significantly lower trap speeds.
Most major mags are biased AGAINST the Hellcat and ESPECIALLY AGAINST the Redeye!
100-200 for both the GT500 and the 911TS are around 7s, corrected not faked. For a Redeye non-widebody model and 3.09 gears, it's about the same actually. But with an 11.85 ¼mile time with no rollout.
992.1 Turbo S: 10.7 @ 132 mph (no rollout; vastly different from the uncorrected 9.9 @ 139 theory)
Predator GT500: 11.5 @ 131 mph (no rollout; vastly different from the uncorrected 10.7 @ 138 theory)
Hellcat Redeye: 11.8 @ 130 mph (no rollout; slightly different from the uncorrected 11.1 @ 131 theory)
Subtract for rollout: 0.2 for the Porsche and the Shelby, and 0.3 for the Hellcat.

Lambolover 5m ago
How does 50 kgs make up for almost 2 seconds of change in 0-150mph times?
0-240 km/h as it says above is done in 13.6 seconds and then it suddenly turns into 11.9 seconds 0-150 mph (0-241 km/h) because they took 50 kilos out
Yeah

hostboy 5m ago
180-186 mph in 6.6s? I don't understand!! Even a Hellcat completes that gap in half the time and it's not even the Redeye version!!!

hostboy 5m ago
The Turbo S is actually 0.1sec slower to 60 than the Turbo, but 0.3sec quicker to the 1/4-mile as well than the Turbo at a whopping 6mph higher in the trap speed department.
https://www.motorweek.org/reviews/road_tests/2021-porsche-911-turbo-s
Car & Driver would get a 2.0 to 60 in a regular Turbo as well as a 10.2@133 1/4-mile result.

Mr. Child 6m ago
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a38833695/2021-porsche-911-turbo-s-lightweight-by-the-numbers/
0-30: 0.8
0-60: 2.1
0-100: 5.1
Quarter Mile: 9.9 @139

hostboy 7m ago
To be fair, not even including the rollout time to that 2.2s time will make the car do that "true" 0-60 launch/sprint in real life conditions. C/D listed the rolling 5-60 time as 3.7s, which is about on par with a C8 Corvette. It also has AWD, so from a traffic stop to another it will barely even beat the GT3. No wonder the GT3 is sooooo good on the track!
By the way, the Turbo S doesn't actually trap 137mph in the ¼mile. With a dual-clutch, twin-turbo kit + 4wd system you're always going to suffer from huge correction/weather condition factors. It won't go anywhere near that on a dragstrip.
On a side note: This calculator's RWD setting benefits only the front-engine muscle and grand touring cars, so I switched drivetrain setting to 4WD (in the case of GT3 and Z51) for calculation purposes.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a36164987/2022-porsche-911-gt3-drive/
Curb weight: 3222 lb + estimated 75 kg (165 lb) driver
Here: 2.7 (rollout), 2.9 (no rollout), 3.6 (rolling start)
Posted ¼mile result: 11.1@129
Corrected ¼mile result: 11.3@127
—————
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a32065924/2021-porsche-911-turbo-s-drive/
Curb weight: 3646 lb + estimated 75 kg (165 lb) driver
Here: 2.2 (rollout), 2.4 (no rollout), 3.7 (rolling start)
Posted ¼mile result: 10.3@137
Corrected ¼mile result: 10.6@129
————
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a29462701/2020-chevy-corvette-by-the-numbers/
Curb weight: 3647 lb + estimated 75 kg (165 lb) driver
Here: 2.8 (rollout), 3.0 (no rollout), 3.5 (rolling start)
Posted ¼mile result: 11.4@122
Corrected ¼mile result: 11.55@120