RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: Porsche 911 Turbo

[monthefish]

F3RNANDO said:

Keep fighting fishy!!

If Dan had driven down a tight wet gravel strewn scottish single track he may have had an epiphany ;)

Indeed.
(He may even have liked a C4S in those conditions....)

[Verde]

Put bluntly, the author is simply wrong. It's not as if the Turbo is the BEST Porsche, but it's certainly not the dull and overpowered bore that he describes. It is true that it is overweight and that the AWD takes some of the edginess off of the car, and the chassis tune is not what a 'best Porsche' characterized by a GT3 RS could be. But it's still a magnificent car.
Sadly, when the 997 Turbos first showed up and the acceleration numbers showed that the Tip-equipped models were best, many posers bought them and then realized that they were driving a very boring slush-box Porsche. Blasphemous and doubtlessly responsible in part for the Turbo being characterized as a lesser car for lesser people.
But with the right boxes ticked on the order, you could buy a very aggressive Turbo, or better yet a Turbo S. Still without the edge of the GT3 but an all weather street and track monster.
Now, I still don't understand why Porsche doesn't sell a RWD Turbo - other than the GT2 which is doubtlessly magnificent but out of the price range of mortals? Is it lawyers putting up their hands and saying, "Too dangerous, we cannot sell this to the masses", or what? Since that car is not available, and I don't want an AWD car, the GT3 is still at the top of my list.
Nonetheless nope, this author is all wrong.
V

[Orcfromthesouth]

Niffty951 said:

This is exactly as I felt it. How do you feel about the boxter in comparison?

Let me put it this way: picture yourself with Eva Mendes. Naked.

Ready? Are we seeing her in all of her sensuous latino throbbiness?

Now wrap a down cover around her. That's the Turbo.

Now wrap Eva in cling film. Tightly. Run the tips of your fingers all over her body. That's the Boxster.


Seriously. The Turbo is an incredible car. Feels really planted up front when doing triple digit speed, something the C2S or base Carrera don't. I believe the FWD is programmed to 'bite' the pavement at high speeds. But in exchange you loose feel at the wheel. A bit like flying at ground level.

The Boxster, with a better weight distribution, 'copies' everything superbly. Sounds cliché, but you really feel as if you are on hands and feet gripping the tarmac like a horizontally prone spiderman.
This skin level transmission of what the tire surfaces are doing is magic. So you can micromanage every inch of curve entry, apex and exit.

Sure, the engine feels a bit underpowered besides a torque monster like the turbo. But its faster than you may think. But you must know how to keep it on the high cam (over 4 thou) all the time. A lot more rewarding than just fixing any shortcoming by pressing the right pedal as you tend to do in the turbo.
Its all about finesse and poetry. Very Zen like really. And with the sport exhaust it just sounds terrific.

Sure, a Boxster or Cayman R with the GT3 engine would really do it for me. But the 3.4 is plenty fun thankyou. And you will beat most mortals and cars in a twisty road any time. Ride on Ayrton!

[blueSL]

I have a 997.2 turbo and it's a supremely capable all-weather express which leaves me cold with large maintenance bills. The problem is that it only really comes on song at speeds which will have you banned or risk a big accident. Mine is mainly an autobahn stormer. I'm afraid the 911 is on a trend to becoming a fully-fledged GT and the 991 makes it worse.

The problem with the 997.1 turbo was that the slush box performance figures were fractionally better so too many opted for those instead of the manual. I have a PDK and miss the true manual box. Also, turbos will tend to have muted exhaust notes because the residual cylinder pressure/energy is now dissipated in the turbo, not your ears.

[uggies]

Could it just be that the 911 has morphed over the years into a GT as opposed to a sports car????
Pre impact cars were a delight,by the late 70's they were on track to change.An SC would be a a real handful with more than 10 degrees of tail slide and the 3.3 Turbo could understeer/oversteer/understeer etc through corners like a threepenny bit.Horrible. (mind you Tony Dron in a road going one on track was mighty think 1.26 on the old Donnington).
Frankly this all links neatly and accurately with Chris Harris's recent thread.Weight complication technology etc.....
What really worries me is the number of people out there who clearly truly think they handle modern cars like these on the public roads.Just don't meet yourself coming the other way folks and above all don't involve me in the accident.

[EdM]

after a track day in a 997 turbo and cayman 2.7 the cayman was just the more enjoyable car of the two with the turbo being suprisingly a slightly sterile experience...but neither were as much fun as stepping back into my own 964 C2 which felt even more raw than usual afterwards.

[cris9964]

Magic919 said:

Test the GT2 and compare with the GT3. That should sort it.

Back in the day I was with P1 supercar club, where I was lucky enough to have a GT2 for the weekend and have since owned a Mk1 996GT3.

I'm with Dan on this one. The GT2 was "roided up madness, but I ended up driving it on the boost gauge. Feeding the power in through a series of corners, an already quick car "spooled up" and one had to back off, or manage the ensuing extra acceleration arriving when the throttle position had not changed. Of course you could say I should have kept it on boost all the time, but we dont all drive on the track, or like we are on a track all the time. I can still remember, vividly, keeping an eye on the little line graph showing how close you are to the "eruption".

Conversely the GT3 was no where near as fast but was more than fast enough, and the relationship between throttle, steering angle and trajectory so much more purer.

I was not a fan of the turbo installation in this application....

[Bill]

Verde said:

Put bluntly, the author is simply wrong. It's not as if the Turbo is the BEST Porsche, but it's certainly not the dull and overpowered bore that he describes. It is true that it is overweight and that the AWD takes some of the edginess off of the car, and the chassis tune is not what a 'best Porsche' characterized by a GT3 RS could be. But it's still a magnificent car.
Sadly, when the 997 Turbos first showed up and the acceleration numbers showed that the Tip-equipped models were best, many posers bought them and then realized that they were driving a very boring slush-box Porsche. Blasphemous and doubtlessly responsible in part for the Turbo being characterized as a lesser car for lesser people.
But with the right boxes ticked on the order, you could buy a very aggressive Turbo, or better yet a Turbo S. Still without the edge of the GT3 but an all weather street and track monster.
Now, I still don't understand why Porsche doesn't sell a RWD Turbo - other than the GT2 which is doubtlessly magnificent but out of the price range of mortals? Is it lawyers putting up their hands and saying, "Too dangerous, we cannot sell this to the masses", or what? Since that car is not available, and I don't want an AWD car, the GT3 is still at the top of my list.
Nonetheless nope, this author is all wrong.
V

Interesting. You say he's wrong, but then explain why he's right

I can't really comment in this debate as I've only passengered a 996TT but I will say that while it was mind-buggeringly, collect your stomach from the back seat before you can breath again quick it did seem too accomplished. Utterly composed at 180+ and needing the driver to be an utter Shorpe (you know who you are ) for it to move around.

Point to point I doubt there's much quicker, but ultimately I suspect I'd find it unsatisfying.

[lowndes]

I bought a 997 turbo S because I liked the all round, all weather, performance package it offered, which was not matched by any obvious rivals. I didn’t expect it to be N/A, RWD, lightweight, have a prominent exhaust note or handle like a 996GT3. Therefore I wasn’t disappointed. If I had wanted those characteristics I wouldn’t have bought a turbo S.

When it comes to replacement, for me the turbo S will provide a useful benchmark.

[80sMatchbox]

monthefish said:

thepony said:

YOU ARE WRONG

This is just pure publicity stunt to get more viewers and audience on to the website to comment on this article.

Wonder what's next the BMW M3 ?

Indeed.

Welcome to the internet, lads. An article entitled "tell me I'm wrong" trying to stir debate, who'd have guessed that one? Thanks for pointing it out.

[simonpeter]

In the 1980s I worked for a Porsche dealership. A customer who had just recieved his new 911 turbo, with the old 4 speed box, was going to overtake a truck going up hill. He dropped the car into third gear and accelerated strait into the back of the truck. Up to that point he had not experienced the turbo on full boost. This was a guy who had been used to normally aspirated 911s. Tells you all you need to know about power delivery back then.

[Mermaid]

uggies said:

...
What really worries me is the number of people out there who clearly truly think they handle modern cars like these on the public roads.Just don't meet yourself coming the other way folks and above all don't involve me in the accident.

[s2000db]

I dont know why people get so worked up about the GT3's...

Sure they're a great car..... But... a Caterham will outlap you easily on the track, they're too hard and low for our roads, and finding their limits on the road will land you in jail!

I drove, and was driven by the instructor, a TurboS and a GT3RS back to back at Silverstone, and for me the decision was easy.. I found the RS to be very hard and slide (controllably I might add) a lot, while the S just left you gasping for breath with it's acceleration out of corners.. I asked the instructor what he'd take, and he said it was the first time he'd actually compared them back to back, and said straight out Turbo S every time...

Anyway horses for courses lol

[monthefish]

Baddie said:

Was it Steve Sutcliffe was wrote it costs just £6k more to build a 911 turbo than a Boxster?

Speed without stimulation is a frustrating thing in today's restrictive times.

Fortunately you get both with a 911 turbo.
Which generation did you own?

[V8RX7]

I'm tending to agree with Dan, not just about the 911 Turbo but so many modern cars you simply can't scratch the surface of their ability on the road without doubling / tripling the speed limit.

I recently bought a 420bhp V8 RX7 and it's fantastic BUT I actually have more fun in my 210bhp MX5.

I simply can't "go for it" on an A road in the RX7 because it's not trying this side of 130mph the same is true of most modern sports cars.

I'm getting drawn towards the Classic car world where going 50mph around a corner is exciting as you might not make it.

The absolute worst cars for this are GTRs - you might as well advertise that you can't drive because the car does it all for you.

[v8will]

simonpeter said:

In the 1980s I worked for a Porsche dealership. A customer who had just recieved his new 911 turbo, with the old 4 speed box, was going to overtake a truck going up hill. He dropped the car into third gear and accelerated strait into the back of the truck. Up to that point he had not experienced the turbo on full boost. This was a guy who had been used to normally aspirated 911s. Tells you all you need to know about power delivery back then.

My cousin had one of these, to date it is the only car that I have found truly terrifying. I remember it did something silly like 90mph in 2nd gear.

[Trommel]

V8RX7 said:

The absolute worst cars for this are GTRs - you might as well advertise that you can't drive because the car does it all for you.

Is this the comments section on YouTube? A GT-R is a more involving drive than a 997 Turbo and an awful lot of them seem to get crashed given that they drive themselves.

[CarbonM5]

V8RX7 said:

I'm tending to agree with Dan, not just about the 911 Turbo but so many modern cars you simply can't scratch the surface of their ability on the road without doubling / tripling the speed limit.

I recently bought a 420bhp V8 RX7 and it's fantastic BUT I actually have more fun in my 210bhp MX5.

I simply can't "go for it" on an A road in the RX7 because it's not trying this side of 130mph the same is true of most modern sports cars.

I'm getting drawn towards the Classic car world where going 50mph around a corner is exciting as you might not make it.

The absolute worst cars for this are GTRs - you might as well advertise that you can't drive because the car does it all for you.

Driving a GTR in the wet with all aids off is one of the trickiest cars to drive,the back end steps out quickly,much more accuracy is needed with steering inputs to correct it over something like an M car or AMG.

[gerradiuk]

v8will said:

My cousin had one of these, to date it is the only car that I have found truly terrifying

CarbonM5 said:

Driving a GTR in the wet with all aids off is one of the trickiest cars to drive,the back end steps out quickly,

I'm guessing that neither of you have been in or driven 4.5 Cerbera ? If you are having a boring day after a "spirited" drive in these you come back feeling alive, in some cases lucky to be alive Lol.

In the wet you cannot even consider anything but slow organised driving.

I had a Carrera 4 bit dull so went to the Cerb =

[turbo-ww]

Dan, I believe you are wrong.

I don't do track days, not my thing. So why would I want any type of GT3/RS?

Admittedly my experience is with older turbos (964/993) but lovely to drive and certainly not at 10/10’s on public roads – No scaffolding to get in the way of packing for the annual trip to Le Mans (or shopping) I love my 993 and have done for 6 years.

I also don’t get the classified for GT3/RS that includes ‘never been tracked’ It’s a product built for a purpose.

Like a Range Rover not going off-road. Oh, that’s that argument stuffed then....