LovePorsche.com




Which is better performance-wise? A Porsche 911 GT or a Porsche Carerra GT?

porsche gt


My brother and I got into a debate about it and it’s driving me nuts how he says the 911 is a better car in Need for Speed!

Stay protected and outfitted while racing at the track. Racing shoes, suits, helmets, harness kits, gloves, and more.






8 Responses to 'Which is better performance-wise? A Porsche 911 GT or a Porsche Carerra GT?'

  1. Inquisitive - January 30th, 2009 at 2:01 am

    Are you talking about the 911 gt2 or gt3

    Carrera GT
    0-60: 3.8 s
    Top Speed: 205 mph

    Porsche 997 GT2
    0-60 3.6 s
    Top Speed: 204 mph

    On paper i would say the 997 GT2 is the faster car and far cheaper than the carrera gt but for comfort aswell as speed i would easily rather have the Porsche Carrera GT

  2. C7S - January 31st, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    911 GT????

    Are you talking about:
    911 Carrera
    911 Turbo
    911 GT3
    911 GT2

    The Porsche Carrera GT is the fastest, quickest, best handling, most powerful, most expensive, most rare, and best looking Porsche ever made.

  3. designergenes - February 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    Good question. The Carrera GT is a rear mid-engine car, inherently more stable than the rear-engine GT2. (I’m going to assume you meant the GT2, as the GT3 is a lesser vehicle). The Carrera GT has 605 HP, compared to the newest GT2′s 530. Both of these cars drive the rear wheels only. Both come with manual six-speed transmissions.

    The Carrera GT weighs 3032 lbs. The GT2 weighs 3175. This is a very tight race. The GT2 actually accelerates a big more quickly. The top speeds are effectively identical. It will come down to the driver in a road race between the two. Without a consumate driver to handle the less forgiving GT2, it’ll lose out to the Carrera GT.

  4. indir - October 10th, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    Between me and my husband we’ve owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I’ve settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

  5. gezginler indir - October 11th, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    Sorry for the huge review, but I’m really loving the new Zune, and hope this, as well as the excellent reviews some other people have written, will help you decide if it’s the right choice for you.

  6. program indir - October 11th, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    Apple now has Rhapsody as an app, which is a great start, but it is currently hampered by the inability to store locally on your iPod, and has a dismal 64kbps bit rate. If this changes, then it will somewhat negate this advantage for the Zune, but the 10 songs per month will still be a big plus in Zune Pass’ favor.

  7. Jules Sens - October 21st, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Apple now has Rhapsody as an app, which is a great start, but it is currently hampered by the inability to store locally on your iPod, and has a dismal 64kbps bit rate. If this changes, then it will somewhat negate this advantage for the Zune, but the 10 songs per month will still be a big plus in Zune Pass’ favor.

  8. sinema izle - November 5th, 2010 at 9:57 am

    I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)


Leave a Reply