RE: The problem with Porsches: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
This is nothing new though, the same criticism was made 5 years ago and 10 years ago when comparing Porsche to other options on the market. They are a German brand after all and have always gone for Autobahn crushing performance vs British B road blaster and positioned themselves just to the drivers side of BMW/Audi/MB. The problem as many have pointed out is the whole market has moved away from those who enjoy driving.
SidewaysSi said:
Depends on your priorities though doesn't it? Everyone is different but personally I would much rather have a slightly poor finish (not related to mechanical reliability) in return for astounding steering feel, brilliant damping and feeling the car move underneath me on the road at road speeds.
Like you say, you need a track to enjoy a Porsche. Whilst I do the odd trackday, the majority of my miles (99% plus) are on the road and I want a car that can involve me completely at those speeds when out for a blast on a Sunday afternoon. A second gear that is good for nearly 80mph would be highly frustrating.
I do love Porsche and what they have achieved in motorsport over the years but when I buy one, it will undoubtedly be as simple/pure a model as I can afford which will probably not be anything they have built in the past 10-15 years.
I do agree. The reason I bought a boxster spyder was the excellent steering feel, gives oodles of textural feedback (even at slow speed), but also has a brilliant power train and feels really well made, and is a quality place to sit. There is very little compromise apart from the crappy roof. I feel that Porsche are the only company capable of building such a well rounded drivers car. The more niche manufacturerss (inc lotus and Aston Martin unfortunately) don't have the money to invest in their products consistently, and other manufacturers such as Audi , Merc and BMW etc have generally different priorities in the 40-70k sector- even in their coupe or roadster offerings . Things start to change at circa 100k and I think there's a lot more choice but that's for other reasons. Someone mentioned earlier that Porsche is a broad church. Whilst this makes them an easy target for criticism, it also allows them the chance to build some of the most complete and best driving cars in the market place- as history shows.Like you say, you need a track to enjoy a Porsche. Whilst I do the odd trackday, the majority of my miles (99% plus) are on the road and I want a car that can involve me completely at those speeds when out for a blast on a Sunday afternoon. A second gear that is good for nearly 80mph would be highly frustrating.
I do love Porsche and what they have achieved in motorsport over the years but when I buy one, it will undoubtedly be as simple/pure a model as I can afford which will probably not be anything they have built in the past 10-15 years.
Athboy501 said:
I do agree. The reason I bought a boxster spyder was the excellent steering feel, gives oodles of textural feedback (even at slow speed), but also has a brilliant power train and feels really well made, and is a quality place to sit. There is very little compromise apart from the crappy roof. I feel that Porsche are the only company capable of building such a well rounded drivers car. The more niche manufacturerss (inc lotus and Aston Martin unfortunately) don't have the money to invest in their products consistently, and other manufacturers such as Audi , Merc and BMW etc have generally different priorities in the 40-70k sector- even in their coupe or roadster offerings . Things start to change at circa 100k and I think there's a lot more choice but that's for other reasons. Someone mentioned earlier that Porsche is a broad church. Whilst this makes them an easy target for criticism, it also allows them the chance to build some of the most complete and best driving cars in the market place- as history shows.
+1Porsche's broad church can accommodate a wide spectrum from those not quite prepared to drive a hardcore sports car all the way up to people who just like expensive cars.
Athboy501 said:
I do agree. The reason I bought a boxster spyder was the excellent steering feel, gives oodles of textural feedback (even at slow speed), but also has a brilliant power train and feels really well made, and is a quality place to sit. There is very little compromise apart from the crappy roof. I feel that Porsche are the only company capable of building such a well rounded drivers car. The more niche manufacturerss (inc lotus and Aston Martin unfortunately) don't have the money to invest in their products consistently, and other manufacturers such as Audi , Merc and BMW etc have generally different priorities in the 40-70k sector- even in their coupe or roadster offerings . Things start to change at circa 100k and I think there's a lot more choice but that's for other reasons. Someone mentioned earlier that Porsche is a broad church. Whilst this makes them an easy target for criticism, it also allows them the chance to build some of the most complete and best driving cars in the market place- as history shows.
+1Porsche's broad church can accommodate a wide spectrum from those not quite prepared to drive a hardcore sports car all the way up to people who just like expensive cars.
I sort of agree.
I owned a M235i for a year. Great and very capable car that it is I felt a little detached from the action. It was fast in an undemanding way.
Unless you can turn off all of the active controls - which is fine in someone else's £40k car, but not so advisable in one's own - fun is hard to come by.
On the other hand I felt a lot more alive in the 987 Boxster S I had a couple of years back.
At the other end of the scale, the S1 Lotus Elise I owned was as fun at 40 MPH as it was at 80...
I owned a M235i for a year. Great and very capable car that it is I felt a little detached from the action. It was fast in an undemanding way.
Unless you can turn off all of the active controls - which is fine in someone else's £40k car, but not so advisable in one's own - fun is hard to come by.
On the other hand I felt a lot more alive in the 987 Boxster S I had a couple of years back.
At the other end of the scale, the S1 Lotus Elise I owned was as fun at 40 MPH as it was at 80...
STA5H said:
The question i would ask, is a 911 and its variants a true supercar or simply a very good everyday sports car ?
Probably been said a lot over the last dozen pages but personally I'd see some variants (I lose track of how many they now do) as a supercar and some as "very good every day sports cars" - I think perhaps the thing that I always associate with Porsche is that you could jump in pretty much any of them and use it as your daily driver without expecting it to go "bang" in perhaps the way you might some other vehicles if you put similar mileage and wear and tear on them.Maybe one day I'll be rich enough to find out
I don't disagree with the op, but people have been saying the same for decades - the vscc was set up in 1930 for much the same reasons.
I also think many people have forgotten the existence of 912, 914, 924 etc.
Also for decades the choice of Caterham and 911 has existed, but for past couple of decades the Elise has existed, which might be said to be a soft Caterham.
I also think many people have forgotten the existence of 912, 914, 924 etc.
Also for decades the choice of Caterham and 911 has existed, but for past couple of decades the Elise has existed, which might be said to be a soft Caterham.
Too good, perhaps - certainly need to go very fast to get the 981 Cayman to "interact" - and too big.
If I said I had a great sports car that was 18 feet long, 7 feet wide and weighed nearly 3 tons, most would say "Don't be silly that's a tank not a sports car" - but that is relatively how much longer wider and heavier a 911 or 981 is than the original Lotus Elan. Now I accept that Porsche are never going to shrink anything like that much - but a tendency in that direction would be welcome. It would mean narrower tyres - grip isn't a problem with an Elise which is 6" narrower.
Unfortunately Porsche seemed to have ruled out a downsized model - so it's just a pipedream - and the turbo 4s won't be any smaller, just a bit lighter.
If I said I had a great sports car that was 18 feet long, 7 feet wide and weighed nearly 3 tons, most would say "Don't be silly that's a tank not a sports car" - but that is relatively how much longer wider and heavier a 911 or 981 is than the original Lotus Elan. Now I accept that Porsche are never going to shrink anything like that much - but a tendency in that direction would be welcome. It would mean narrower tyres - grip isn't a problem with an Elise which is 6" narrower.
Unfortunately Porsche seemed to have ruled out a downsized model - so it's just a pipedream - and the turbo 4s won't be any smaller, just a bit lighter.
heebeegeetee said:
Also for decades the choice of Caterham and 911 has existed, but for past couple of decades the Elise has existed, which might be said to be a soft Caterham.
The Elise is so much more useable than a Caterham which does become a bit of a pain at times. Also they provide a very different driving experience/challenge for them to be suitably different.MissChief said:
I do think if Porsche were to build a 944 replacement they'd sell thousands of the things if they priced it right. Base model, 250 HP, 2+2, decent boot and enough space for kids or adults on a short journey in the back, £30k before options.
And make a loss on every single one? I doubt Porsche will be very interested in that, especially as it would drag down the value in the marque and so all prices.Too good, perhaps - certainly need to go very fast to get the 981 Cayman to "interact" - and too big.
If I said I had a great sports car that was 18 feet long, 7 feet wide and weighed nearly 3 tons, most would say "Don't be silly that's a tank not a sports car" - but that is relatively how much longer wider and heavier a 911 or 981 is than the original Lotus Elan. Now I accept that Porsche are never going to shrink anything like that much - but a tendency in that direction would be welcome. It would mean narrower tyres - grip isn't a problem with an Elise which is 6" narrower.
Unfortunately Porsche seemed to have ruled out a downsized model - so it's just a pipedream - and the turbo 4s won't be any smaller, just a bit lighter.
If I said I had a great sports car that was 18 feet long, 7 feet wide and weighed nearly 3 tons, most would say "Don't be silly that's a tank not a sports car" - but that is relatively how much longer wider and heavier a 911 or 981 is than the original Lotus Elan. Now I accept that Porsche are never going to shrink anything like that much - but a tendency in that direction would be welcome. It would mean narrower tyres - grip isn't a problem with an Elise which is 6" narrower.
Unfortunately Porsche seemed to have ruled out a downsized model - so it's just a pipedream - and the turbo 4s won't be any smaller, just a bit lighter.
Afraid that I've thought this for years. Regularly driven the latest models over the past couple of decades or more and I thought at the time they are very, very good but the first Porsches I drove were in the early 70s and a 2.4S or a 2.7RS still make me smile from the memories of driving them. It wasn't about how fast they would go but just the noise as you wind them up and the smile you have as you keep it all together on a fast winding road.
I think the article is flawed as with any competent car you have to drive it in a different manner to show it's fun side. More so with modern cars than with older ones due to the greater grip/traction.
Sure you can have fun with a 991 but you potentially need more skill i.e be a little lead footed to destabilise the car/use fistfuls of lock etc I don't expect everyone to be comfortable doing this on the public road but ultimately the car is merely a tool, it's up to the driver how they use it to either provide efficiency/enjoyment/speed etc.
Sure you can have fun with a 991 but you potentially need more skill i.e be a little lead footed to destabilise the car/use fistfuls of lock etc I don't expect everyone to be comfortable doing this on the public road but ultimately the car is merely a tool, it's up to the driver how they use it to either provide efficiency/enjoyment/speed etc.
Too good, perhaps - certainly need to go very fast to get the 981 Cayman to "interact" - and too big.
If I said I had a great sports car that was 18 feet long, 7 feet wide and weighed nearly 3 tons, most would say "Don't be silly that's a tank not a sports car" - but that is relatively how much longer wider and heavier a 911 or 981 is than the original Lotus Elan. Now I accept that Porsche are never going to shrink anything like that much - but a tendency in that direction would be welcome. It would mean narrower tyres - grip isn't a problem with an Elise which is 6" narrower.
Unfortunately Porsche seemed to have ruled out a downsized model - so it's just a pipedream - and the turbo 4s won't be any smaller, just a bit lighter.
If I said I had a great sports car that was 18 feet long, 7 feet wide and weighed nearly 3 tons, most would say "Don't be silly that's a tank not a sports car" - but that is relatively how much longer wider and heavier a 911 or 981 is than the original Lotus Elan. Now I accept that Porsche are never going to shrink anything like that much - but a tendency in that direction would be welcome. It would mean narrower tyres - grip isn't a problem with an Elise which is 6" narrower.
Unfortunately Porsche seemed to have ruled out a downsized model - so it's just a pipedream - and the turbo 4s won't be any smaller, just a bit lighter.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Probably been said a lot over the last dozen pages but personally I'd see some variants (I lose track of how many they now do) as a supercar and some as "very good every day sports cars" - I think perhaps the thing that I always associate with Porsche is that you could jump in pretty much any of them and use it as your daily driver without expecting it to go "bang" in perhaps the way you might some other vehicles if you put similar mileage and wear and tear on them.
Maybe one day I'll be rich enough to find out
I think you've hit the nail on the head - and the 'everyday sports car' that a 911 is, is leaning further to the sports end of things than an M3 or C63, and a bit less than a cayman for example. Maybe one day I'll be rich enough to find out
As another comparison, I think F-Types are brilliant things, but they're quite lairy and frantic (to me). Would I say an F-Type was more sports car than a 911? I think I'd say it was more 'muscle car'.
All these cars are very carefully targeted at a point in the sports car / everyday car / Supercar spectrum. They all have different strengths and I think that's brilliant.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff