RE: Porsche 911 Turbo S (991.II): Review
Discussion
Carl_Manchester said:
this 911 turbo has a 2 year servicing schedule and can take a real beating on track. the older tuned gtrs won't get close to this car in that respect. power is only good if you can deploy it without fear of breakage or eye watering bills. a 700 bhp gtr is a fast car but it won't be as durable as the Porsche over 10 years and that's what you pay for.
I've seen many a broken 911 at track days & a few GT-R's, The GT-r can take track day work in it's stride it's launches it doesn't like, the turbo can also throw out some huge bills should the mood take it but let's be honest neither are really track day cars.The one thing that the Porsche has over the GT-R is the feeling of quality but so it should when it's twice the price of a GT-R before you tick a single option.
The interesting comparison would be a 4S against a GT-R although the 4S will be more expensive it would be a more relevant match up because apart from performance the Turbo & GT-R really aren't in the same market place.
On the subject of durability which mag was it that did the 30 consecutive full-bore launches in a 991.1 Turbo S?
Don't forget the Turbo S is +160hp (+38%) and 184lb.ft (50%) more than the 4S in about the same weight, it's going to feel rather faster even if the 0-60 doesn't shout how much more. I think the 0-120 times would be much more interesting. The 991.1 C4S was ~ 13s, the new one may be 12s with its extra power, but even the old Turbo S with 20hp less could do it in 9.6s.I’m with Esceptico on this.
He is not saying the Turbo S will not feel any faster at all but is just stating the Carrera S is now also a turbo charged flat 6, so will have a similar feel and so on.
And it is not a slow car [the non-Turbo but still a turbo 911], it will 100mph in 8 seconds flat which should be fast enough for most people!
I can’t see how the Turbo S is 50% better than a Carrera S as its 50% more expensive.I absolutely agree with you, I think the C4S would feel like a very fast car already, the upgrade to bonkers fast isn't really relevant anywhere except the track or pulling hard onto an autobahn, where the ability to add speed over 100mph etc will really come into its own in the TS.
D200 said:
Krikkit said:
Esceptico said:
In the past the 911 Turbo used to offer something different from the NA 911. Driving a 4S 996 or 993 against the Turbo of the era you really felt the performance difference. Now that the 4S is turbocharged and hits 60 in less than 4 seconds does it make any sense (except bragging rights) to buy the Turbo?
I bet there's more of a difference than it sounds, although you could argue that the 4S gives you all the performance you could need on the road, that's not the point!Don't forget the Turbo S is +160hp (+38%) and 184lb.ft (50%) more than the 4S in about the same weight, it's going to feel rather faster even if the 0-60 doesn't shout how much more. I think the 0-120 times would be much more interesting. The 991.1 C4S was ~ 13s, the new one may be 12s with its extra power, but even the old Turbo S with 20hp less could do it in 9.6s.
He is not saying the Turbo S will not feel any faster at all but is just stating the Carrera S is now also a turbo charged flat 6, so will have a similar feel and so on.
And it is not a slow car [the non-Turbo but still a turbo 911], it will 100mph in 8 seconds flat which should be fast enough for most people!
I can’t see how the Turbo S is 50% better than a Carrera S as its 50% more expensive.
Interesting discussion.
This latest Turbo is obviously a jolly fast car .... but its also jolly expensive (although some would argue good value compared to other cars with similar bonkers performance).
The only experience of 4 wheel drive 911s that I have is an older (2012) four wheel drive GTS with (I think) 430bhp. Very impressive car that felt completely bolted down. The levels of grip were absolutely phenomenal ...... arguably TOO good if you wanted to have some fun.
I had the opportunity to compare a more recent four wheel drive 911 GTS against a Cayman GTS at a recent Porsche experience track day for invited Porsche customers. The 430bhp 911 is a fabulous machine by any standards .... but compared to the Cayman it felt too heavy, too big .... almost cumbersome.
By comparison the less powerful (380bhp?) Cayman GTS felt wonderfully nimble, more controllable and just more fun to drive. I know which car I would have taken home that day ..... the one with the engine in the right place!
This latest Turbo is obviously a jolly fast car .... but its also jolly expensive (although some would argue good value compared to other cars with similar bonkers performance).
The only experience of 4 wheel drive 911s that I have is an older (2012) four wheel drive GTS with (I think) 430bhp. Very impressive car that felt completely bolted down. The levels of grip were absolutely phenomenal ...... arguably TOO good if you wanted to have some fun.
I had the opportunity to compare a more recent four wheel drive 911 GTS against a Cayman GTS at a recent Porsche experience track day for invited Porsche customers. The 430bhp 911 is a fabulous machine by any standards .... but compared to the Cayman it felt too heavy, too big .... almost cumbersome.
By comparison the less powerful (380bhp?) Cayman GTS felt wonderfully nimble, more controllable and just more fun to drive. I know which car I would have taken home that day ..... the one with the engine in the right place!
I had a drive in a 997.1 Turbo recently. I'm an admirer of Porsche, especially its amazing record in sports car racing, but the marque doesn't appeal to me at a truly visceral level. In other words, based on brand allegiance, I'd sooner have another Lotus or a Ferrari.
Saying all that, the Turbo was just an epic machine. Obviously it's fast but it doesn't launch from one place to another with a giddy conviction - my benchmark for that remains the current V6 Exige S. It simply accrues speed with unerring determination.
What makes it so desirable though is how perfectly it works as a package. I'm currently tempted by one as a weekend toy to sit between my company Golf GTD and silly S1 Exige. For long journeys away with a passenger it's peerless. It's just extremely well considered and executed. You can tell one of the world's best engineering teams has been honing this thing for years. The control weightings all match, the driving position is great, the luggage capacity is vast (especially if just two of you are using the car) and it seems utterly unfazed by wet roads.
This new car will be incredible in all respects and it doesn't need to be the sharpest sports car out there because Porsche can plug that gap with its GT range. As something simply to jump in and drive - and drive phenomenally quickly - anywhere, any time, I can't think of anything which might work better.
Saying all that, the Turbo was just an epic machine. Obviously it's fast but it doesn't launch from one place to another with a giddy conviction - my benchmark for that remains the current V6 Exige S. It simply accrues speed with unerring determination.
What makes it so desirable though is how perfectly it works as a package. I'm currently tempted by one as a weekend toy to sit between my company Golf GTD and silly S1 Exige. For long journeys away with a passenger it's peerless. It's just extremely well considered and executed. You can tell one of the world's best engineering teams has been honing this thing for years. The control weightings all match, the driving position is great, the luggage capacity is vast (especially if just two of you are using the car) and it seems utterly unfazed by wet roads.
This new car will be incredible in all respects and it doesn't need to be the sharpest sports car out there because Porsche can plug that gap with its GT range. As something simply to jump in and drive - and drive phenomenally quickly - anywhere, any time, I can't think of anything which might work better.
Carl_Manchester said:
chrispmartha said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Someone mentioned theres a 50k premium or thereabouts from the c2 or c4.
Thats a lot of money, and an opportunity for the tuning community. It used to be that to get performance from a NA car was hard, and a turbo was easy. Probably still much the same.
But, now that the base car is also a turbo, it will be quite cheap to power up a c2 or c4. What then will be the differentiating performance factor to justify the extra outlay?
Maybe its just me, but I dont see the point in ~150k to achieve the performance stats quoted. The article itself mentions the GTR, of which I'm a huge fan. The classifieds have numerous GTRs that have Litchfield or Cobb upgrades, to bhp figures of 700 and beyond. All for the price of around 40-45k.
If a GTR with 700bhp can be had for 40-45k, I would happily put my money there, and invest the rest, rather than blow it on a slower, much more expensive, and heavily depreciating car.
Would a remap invalidate the already strict Porsche Warranty?Thats a lot of money, and an opportunity for the tuning community. It used to be that to get performance from a NA car was hard, and a turbo was easy. Probably still much the same.
But, now that the base car is also a turbo, it will be quite cheap to power up a c2 or c4. What then will be the differentiating performance factor to justify the extra outlay?
Maybe its just me, but I dont see the point in ~150k to achieve the performance stats quoted. The article itself mentions the GTR, of which I'm a huge fan. The classifieds have numerous GTRs that have Litchfield or Cobb upgrades, to bhp figures of 700 and beyond. All for the price of around 40-45k.
If a GTR with 700bhp can be had for 40-45k, I would happily put my money there, and invest the rest, rather than blow it on a slower, much more expensive, and heavily depreciating car.
I personally think someone who has £150k to spend on one of these wouldn't look at the GTR, let alone a second hand GTR, 700HP or not.
Cars are not all about HP its about the complete package when you are spending this amount.
And I have to laugh at the implication that a GTR is not a complete package. Did you not see how Porsche got their knickers in a twist over Nissans ring times? I think I could hear their screams (more like littles girls b
hing) from here.As for the cars pounding tracks, both cars have provenance. The GTR earned the nickname Godzilla for its destruction of all comers in the Group A days. Do people have short memories?
And while we're looking at the logic of it, it seems something like this:
Pay craps loads more for the Porsche; thats an absolute.
Cross your fingers that it will outlast another car; thats a prayer.
And talking of big bills? Seriously?? So I guess repairing a 911 Turbo comes cheap then, eh?
ZX10R NIN said:
I've seen many a broken 911 at track days & a few GT-R's, The GT-r can take track day work in it's stride it's launches it doesn't like, the turbo can also throw out some huge bills should the mood take it but let's be honest neither are really track day cars.
The one thing that the Porsche has over the GT-R is the feeling of quality but so it should when it's twice the price of a GT-R before you tick a single option.
The interesting comparison would be a 4S against a GT-R although the 4S will be more expensive it would be a more relevant match up because apart from performance the Turbo & GT-R really aren't in the same market place.
Pretty sure the whole vision and philosophy behind the GT-R was that the GT-R had to match or beat the performance of Porsche's 911 Turbo when initially built in 2006/2007, Ref Carlos Ghosn CEO of Nissan at the time.The one thing that the Porsche has over the GT-R is the feeling of quality but so it should when it's twice the price of a GT-R before you tick a single option.
The interesting comparison would be a 4S against a GT-R although the 4S will be more expensive it would be a more relevant match up because apart from performance the Turbo & GT-R really aren't in the same market place.
Get2Jaime said:
Pretty sure the whole vision and philosophy behind the GT-R was that the GT-R had to match or beat the performance of Porsche's 911 Turbo when initially built in 2006/2007, Ref Carlos Ghosn CEO of Nissan at the time.
Agreed as I said apart from performance they aren't in the same market place, someone looking to spend 145k on a supercar won't look at the 78k GT-R, someone looking at the base 911 76.5k/4S 90.8k may well look Nissan's way though.Krikkit said:
On the subject of durability which mag was it that did the 30 consecutive full-bore launches in a 991.1 Turbo S?
Road & Track, They did 50 consecutive launch-control starts.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5DRCTW-Q7o
"Interestingly given the progress of modern 911s, the fact that it's not the most tactile and engaging on the road seems less of an issue than ever; when was the last time a 911 was sold with steering that picked out every camber and the driver had to work with the weight balance? Exactly."
For me, this is the most important part of the article. 911s used to be the benchmark for steering feel, and this was such a big part of why they were fun and engaging at road speeds -- not just at maximum attack -- and why they were fun and engaging most of the time rather than just on those rare occasions when one could really push the limits. So sad that this is gone.
For me, this is the most important part of the article. 911s used to be the benchmark for steering feel, and this was such a big part of why they were fun and engaging at road speeds -- not just at maximum attack -- and why they were fun and engaging most of the time rather than just on those rare occasions when one could really push the limits. So sad that this is gone.
quick response to the above comment re feel.
Buy a GT3; or a GT4
They have plenty of steering feel, and can be fully enjoyed at normal road speeds.
Do quite well on track too...
As for Porsche not being a 'supercar' - can I refer you to the Carrera GT and a 918 ?
they do have a little bit of race heritage too....
As for the turbo 911 - great car, but I'll stick with a GT thanks.
I did enjoy my Panamera Turbo - thought the engine suited the car really well
Buy a GT3; or a GT4
They have plenty of steering feel, and can be fully enjoyed at normal road speeds.
Do quite well on track too...
As for Porsche not being a 'supercar' - can I refer you to the Carrera GT and a 918 ?
they do have a little bit of race heritage too....
As for the turbo 911 - great car, but I'll stick with a GT thanks.
I did enjoy my Panamera Turbo - thought the engine suited the car really well
Really? I thought things like Lotuses were the place to go for steering feel?
996s and 997s have good but not great steering feel. 991 is worse.
Still miles better than almost any other car, but that says more about how terrible modern cars have become! I remember test-driving new cars with my wife a couple of years ago and being unable to tolerate the vague, light and numb steering in almost all of them. I wish the steering in my 997 had more feel but then am struck by how much more there is than on my wife's 3 series (and that was the best of the cars we tried!
I also think that different people mean different things by 'steering feel'. I mean primarily the ability to detect grip through the rim; others seem more interested in road patter or the steering tracking into camber changes of its own accord. The 997 has plenty of the last two things - it is 'alive' on a B-road; but it does not tell you as much about grip levels as I would like.
996s and 997s have good but not great steering feel. 991 is worse.
Still miles better than almost any other car, but that says more about how terrible modern cars have become! I remember test-driving new cars with my wife a couple of years ago and being unable to tolerate the vague, light and numb steering in almost all of them. I wish the steering in my 997 had more feel but then am struck by how much more there is than on my wife's 3 series (and that was the best of the cars we tried!
I also think that different people mean different things by 'steering feel'. I mean primarily the ability to detect grip through the rim; others seem more interested in road patter or the steering tracking into camber changes of its own accord. The 997 has plenty of the last two things - it is 'alive' on a B-road; but it does not tell you as much about grip levels as I would like.
The 991GT3 does communicate grip through the wheel
it's a different sensation to a 996 or a 997; they have engineered out the 'patter' but somehow managed to retain the feel for grip - maybe this is why some feel it has lost it's feel?
(I've had a 996 GT3 Mk1 Clubsport, driven plenty of 996 Mk2s and 997 GT3s, and owned a 997 cup car - which actually had the least feel of the lot!)
it's a different sensation to a 996 or a 997; they have engineered out the 'patter' but somehow managed to retain the feel for grip - maybe this is why some feel it has lost it's feel?
(I've had a 996 GT3 Mk1 Clubsport, driven plenty of 996 Mk2s and 997 GT3s, and owned a 997 cup car - which actually had the least feel of the lot!)
Speedraser said:
"Interestingly given the progress of modern 911s, the fact that it's not the most tactile and engaging on the road seems less of an issue than ever; when was the last time a 911 was sold with steering that picked out every camber and the driver had to work with the weight balance? Exactly."
For me, this is the most important part of the article. 911s used to be the benchmark for steering feel, and this was such a big part of why they were fun and engaging at road speeds -- not just at maximum attack -- and why they were fun and engaging most of the time rather than just on those rare occasions when one could really push the limits. So sad that this is gone.
We've got Lotus for that. And they are still delivering. For me, this is the most important part of the article. 911s used to be the benchmark for steering feel, and this was such a big part of why they were fun and engaging at road speeds -- not just at maximum attack -- and why they were fun and engaging most of the time rather than just on those rare occasions when one could really push the limits. So sad that this is gone.
big_rob_sydney said:
Someone mentioned theres a 50k premium or thereabouts from the c2 or c4.
Thats a lot of money, and an opportunity for the tuning community. It used to be that to get performance from a NA car was hard, and a turbo was easy. Probably still much the same.
But, now that the base car is also a turbo, it will be quite cheap to power up a c2 or c4. What then will be the differentiating performance factor to justify the extra outlay?
Maybe its just me, but I dont see the point in ~150k to achieve the performance stats quoted. The article itself mentions the GTR, of which I'm a huge fan. The classifieds have numerous GTRs that have Litchfield or Cobb upgrades, to bhp figures of 700 and beyond. All for the price of around 40-45k.
If a GTR with 700bhp can be had for 40-45k, I would happily put my money there, and invest the rest, rather than blow it on a slower, much more expensive, and heavily depreciating car.
It would take more than a simple remap, the Turbo S has a 3.8L engine, larger turbos, 4 wheel steering, active aero, Ceramic discs etc etc etc. When you add all that up you can see where the 50K goes.Thats a lot of money, and an opportunity for the tuning community. It used to be that to get performance from a NA car was hard, and a turbo was easy. Probably still much the same.
But, now that the base car is also a turbo, it will be quite cheap to power up a c2 or c4. What then will be the differentiating performance factor to justify the extra outlay?
Maybe its just me, but I dont see the point in ~150k to achieve the performance stats quoted. The article itself mentions the GTR, of which I'm a huge fan. The classifieds have numerous GTRs that have Litchfield or Cobb upgrades, to bhp figures of 700 and beyond. All for the price of around 40-45k.
If a GTR with 700bhp can be had for 40-45k, I would happily put my money there, and invest the rest, rather than blow it on a slower, much more expensive, and heavily depreciating car.
ORD said:
God help us when someone can call the Turbo S slow. It tears a hole in your brain at WOT. For driving on the road, is it absurdly overpowered; but I suppose it could do with a few more bhps and torques for the pub.
With 0-60 (as opposed to 0-62) well under 3 seconds and possibly around 2.5s with the perfect launch, it's clearly not sufficiently accelerative, and given the top speed of over 200 mph an owner's shame would be too much to bear. Only being able to notice a 1 psi drop in tyre pressure through steering feel and general handling changes over urban roads is a massive fail.
In an old but modified Turbo 2 and my own clutch to pay for, an emergency start albeit granny style not sidestep gave 0-60 in 3.9s which was uncomfortable but exhilarating. Less than 3s couldn't possibly involve getting the butler to drive it back for a refund...on balance
worth it. "That being said, if you can sacrifice the practicality and the all-weather speed the McLaren 570S remains a more engaging and exciting sports car for the same sort of money"
Well that is progress. When McLaren make a 2+2 then that will be that.
"as an engineering exercise these things are mighty impressive". 50 years of fanatical engineering effort to overcome the inherent faults in the car. people seem to forget how dangerous older 911's were. No wonder they added 4WD with the power upgrade.
Well that is progress. When McLaren make a 2+2 then that will be that.
"as an engineering exercise these things are mighty impressive". 50 years of fanatical engineering effort to overcome the inherent faults in the car. people seem to forget how dangerous older 911's were. No wonder they added 4WD with the power upgrade.
The 'inherent faults' thing is beyond cringeeworthy.
What about the inherent faults in all front-engined cars? You need either to put a big transmission tunnel down the centre of the car to drive the rear wheels and tolerate the relatively low traction; or, instead, you drive the front wheels, resulting in lots of understeer and torque steer and bugger all traction at low speeds.
The only layout that is not 'inherently flawed' as regards dynamics is mid-rear-engined RWD. But that creates real cooling problems and is not the most practical of layouts given that it puts the engine where the cabin space would otherwise be!
I cannot think of a much better layout for a 2+2 than rear-engine RWD.
What about the inherent faults in all front-engined cars? You need either to put a big transmission tunnel down the centre of the car to drive the rear wheels and tolerate the relatively low traction; or, instead, you drive the front wheels, resulting in lots of understeer and torque steer and bugger all traction at low speeds.
The only layout that is not 'inherently flawed' as regards dynamics is mid-rear-engined RWD. But that creates real cooling problems and is not the most practical of layouts given that it puts the engine where the cabin space would otherwise be!
I cannot think of a much better layout for a 2+2 than rear-engine RWD.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff