SenorWheel

> The 991.2 GT3 uses the same suspension as the GT4s Again, only in the front, not in the rear. Not sure why you are so insistent on this. It's easily verifiable.

>GT4s use the same suspension in the 991.2 911 GT3 Only in the front. It's still using a McPherson strut in the rear.

If that's what you meant, that's what you should've written. People would've likely agreed with you, myself included. I didn't refute 55hp being unrealistic because I'm skeptical of it too. Much easier to just admit you didn't word your original comment well instead of trying to argue with everyone in the comments and then complaining that people took your words at face value and can't read your mind.

> I'm not sure, and you didn't explain, how your refutes what I said above. Moving the goal posts are we? First it's "gaining power with no tune sounds not real", next it's "there's a limit". So which one? Is it not real or is there a limit? By your own admission one of your comments has to be wrong.

The extra airflow will cause the car to run lean initially but the ECU will trim the fuel/VE tables to bring it back to the target AFR. This adjustment will initially be written to the short term trim table but after some period of time be written to the long term trim table. Pretty basic stuff. Were you under the impression that cars needed to be tuned for a specific altitude or the AFRs would be off?

> My iPhone 14 Pro display is crazy bright in the day even in direct sunlight. I think it’s rated at around 2,000 nits. Only the most recent iPhone 16 advertises that as peak brightness but that's likely in a 2% window or something. > if pixel shift can be implemented I suspect it’ll be a decent upgrade. Pixel shift only blurs the borders around the edge of the burn in.

You misread his comment. The burn-in compensation data transfers to the new screen and looks strange on a panel without burn-in.

Not just crank down, but turn completely off. Even the lowest levels keep you well below the balance point, much less than the point at which you'd loop it.

I don't think that one is fair. Yes it's an evolution of the same platform but the wheelbase is 10cm shorter so there were definitely some chassis changes.

I'm not sure what you've been reading but the damage to the asphalt scales with the axle weight to the power of four. So an 8k lb vehicle causes about 16 times more damage than a 4k lb vehicle.

Not disputing your other points but: > lacks the double wishbone rear suspension Please explain to me in detail why you think double wishbone rear suspension is somehow better than a multilink setup lol.

To be at the same speed you would have to be in a different gear. Let's ignore the tire diameter/final drive ratios and say the gear you're using at 4k rpm is `1.0`. To be at the same speed at 6k rpm you'd need a gear reduction of `1.5`. Your torque when making 460HP at 6k rpm is `5252 * 460 / 6000 = 402`. However, you're multiplying the 402 by the 1.5 gear reduction which means the torque that goes to your final drive is `603`in this scenario. Therefore you're actually applying a greater force to the wheel and thus achieving ~44% greater acceleration.

I agree. Not sure where commenters are getting the idea that I'm defending semis. My points were: 1. The difference between a sedan and SUV is not negligible. 2. The scaling of semis is different due to number of axles. Not that it's comparable or the same magnitude.

So aggressive for no reason lmao. I said it doesn't scale the same, not that it scales linearly.

It scales with axle load to the power of 4. In your example the 6k SUV would do 5 times more damage than the 4k SUV. Semis do more damage yes but it doesn't scale the same due to the increased number of axles.