991 GT3 . Best Performance car 2014

[pork911]

sidicks said:

rosino said:

I think here the question is more philosophical.. Clearly the GT3 cannot be branded as a 2014 car.. It is to all effects and purposes a 2015 model because the 2014 cars were just not ready and could be considered prototypes... Would you give an award to a prototype? No..

That seems a very strange position to take, given the experience of those who have owned and driven cars hard and who likely have no engine problems whatsoever. The issue still appears to be an assembly error not a design error.

Irrelevant really what the reason is. It's not ready.

[sidicks]

berty37 said:

Also Apolo you stated before I seem to remember you being 'in the know' etc that there would be no other GT3 apart from the RS. I have to say this now looks a lot less likely. I very much doubt Porsche will actually allow the only non RS GT3 in the 991 series to be remembered as a car that a couple of examples caught fire and the rest were grounded for months on end while they left owners to stew over it. My guess is after the RS they will wait a little longer as to not ram it down owners throat that when they finally get their cars back the gen 2's release is imminent.

Somewhat disingenuous given the developments with the GT3 - Porsche has had to change their plans. Clearly with the delays due to the engine replacement, some cars will now be 2015 and come with some new options (these could possibly be considered by some as Gen2). However, it is not clear that they will produce any more cars in total so from that point of view he may still be correct.

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 22 April 15:46

[berty37]

sidicks said:

Somewhat disingenuous given the developments with the GT3 - Porsche has had to change their plans. Clearly with the delays due to the engine replacement, some cars will now be 2015 and come with some new options (these could possibly be considered by some as Gen2). However, it is not clear that they will produce any more cars [ b]in total[/b] so from that point of view he may still be correct.

I am not doing what he does tho Sid and state it as fact...it just happens to be my opinion that even before this debacle (of which I feel sorry for owners its such a brilliant 911) Porsche have always done a mk2 or gen2 I am pretty sure I have seen spy shots for the carrera gen 2's as well as the turbo already and the fact this car has had a troublesome start they will not want it to go down as the one of the best sports cars in their history that was sat at dealers for months waiting for basically a new connecting screw.Lets be fair here it wasnt until the 997 Gen2 that the old M96/M97 engine IMS and less serious but nonetheless annoying RMS was sorted. Porsche knew this gave their enviable reputation as bullet proof a bit of a knocking - something they do not want to be repeated.

[sidicks]

pork911 said:

Irrelevant really what the reason is. It's not ready.

And yet you still ignore that early cars appear most certainly to have "been ready" given the lack of failures on early cars which have been had and extensively, and the fact that on'y 2 (more recent low mileage) cars have actually had a problem.

[Ryanodine]

sidicks said:

That seems a very strange position to take, given the experience of those who have owned and driven cars hard and who likely have no engine problems whatsoever. The issue still appears to be an assembly error not a design error.

If assembly error why are all engines being replaced and not just checked to ensure correct assembly?

[APOLO1]

mpbcs said:

APOLO1 said:

rosino said:

I think here the question is more philosophical.. Clearly the GT3 cannot be branded as a 2014 car.. It is to all effects and purposes a 2015 model because the 2014 cars were just not ready and could be considered prototypes... Would you give an award to a prototype? No..

With a 2015 car then the competition would have to include not only the Speciale but probably the new Lambo and certainly the 650s journos are raving about..

The 650 is 5% improvement on the 12C...who is raving about it....I am not..

Luckily your opinion has been discredited more than a few times. I drove the car and found it significantly more than 5% better.

nah......look at the CH vid, its a little better that's it.....It will still loose over 100k within 12 months though,(ok I escaped with 87K) that's the problem ya see, its the Brand, no discount......the market knows this , that's why it get absolutely hammered when used.....

how well is it selling ?.......

IMHO

Edited by APOLO1 on Tuesday 22 April 16:46

[sidicks]

Ryanodine said:

If assembly error why are all engines being replaced and not just checked to ensure correct assembly?

Quite obviously because of the time required to disassemble an engine and the risk involved in re-assembly!

[Ryanodine]

sidicks said:

Ryanodine said:

If assembly error why are all engines being replaced and not just checked to ensure correct assembly?

Quite obviously because of the time required to disassemble an engine and the risk involved in re-assembly!

So you are saying that during assembly at factory bolts connecting conrods were incorrectly tightened on 2 + x GT3. Solution, change all engines on all GT3. So is the new engine identical to the old but with more rigorous checks?

[sidicks]

Ryanodine said:

So you are saying that during assembly at factory bolts connecting conrods were incorrectly tightened on 2 + x GT3. Solution, change all engines on all GT3. So is the new engine identical to the old but with more rigorous checks?

That was the expectation, but there are rumours that the cars will be replaced with the RS engine block, which should be more robust.

If true, some people will see that as confirmation that the previous engines weren't up to standard (despite a lack of problems on other cars driven hard and extensively).

Other people will see that as Porsche being pro-active and 'over-engineering' the solution to avoid the remote possibility of a future repeat of the issue...

[cayman-black]

Ryanodine said:

sidicks said:

Ryanodine said:

If assembly error why are all engines being replaced and not just checked to ensure correct assembly?

Quite obviously because of the time required to disassemble an engine and the risk involved in re-assembly!

So you are saying that during assembly at factory bolts connecting conrods were incorrectly tightened on 2 + x GT3. Solution, change all engines on all GT3. So is the new engine identical to the old but with more rigorous checks?

Ryanodine, sounds like bullst to me as well.

[AndyBrew]

cayman-black said:

Ryanodine, sounds like bullst to me as well.

Me to, sorry I don't buy it, if the problem had been so insignificant Porsche would simply have done nothing, upon investigation they knew full well they had fked up, and then went into fight or flight mode Personally I will be very interested to see the results once cars start being delivered back to customers as I have said before one fk up and the whole model/brand will be destroyed over night and what are the chances of a single fk up happening, quite high in my experience, it always does!

[Akajak]

a real mixed bag for PC of the year

The candidates for the 2014 Performance Car Of The Year award are as follows:
Alfa Romeo 4C
Aston Martin Rapide S
Aston Martin V12 Vantage S
Audi RS 6 Avant
Audi RS 6 Avant
Audi RS 7 Sportback
Audi RS Q3
Audi S3 Sedan/Sportback
Audi SQ5
BMW M6 Gran Coupe
Cadillac CTS VSport
Cadillac XTS VSport
Chevrolet Corvette Stingray
Chevrolet SS
Ferrari 458 Speciale
Ford Fiesta ST
Jaguar XJR
Kia cee’d GT
Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 Roadster
Mercedes-Benz A45 AMG/CLA45 AMG
Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Edition 507
Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S-Model
Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
Mini JCW Paceman
Porsche 911 GT3
Porsche 911 Turbo
Volkswagen Golf GTI

[sidicks]

AndyBrew said:

Me to, sorry I don't buy it, if the problem had been so insignificant Porsche would simply have done nothing....

It's the potential outcome from the fault - cars becoming alight that was the issue - that significant impact could quite legitimately have resulted from a relatively minor problem.

[kevs 172]

This problem could have easily caused a fatality,and it's performance car of the year?

[AndyBrew]

sidicks said:

It's the potential outcome from the fault - cars becoming alight that was the issue - that significant impact could quite legitimately have resulted from a relatively minor problem.

Yes I agree, but whichever way you look at it, IF the cars are returned to owners and another one catches light what would the impact of this be???

That was/is my concern.

[mpbcs]

APOLO1 said:

nah......look at the CH vid, its a little better that's it.....It will still loose over 100k within 12 months though,(ok I escaped with 87K) that's the problem ya see, its the Brand, no discount......the market knows this , that's why it get absolutely hammered when used.....

how well is it selling ?.......

IMHO

Edited by APOLO1 on Tuesday 22 April 16:46

Alternatively look at Sutcliffe's video... Or many others. And how misguided are you if you think that the way to help residuals is to offer discounts on new cars, that is retarded thinking. Selling well from my conversations from dealers. And before you ask, yes I am buying one. Your posts sound like sour grapes from a person that bid Mclaren well below list and were wisely told to 'do one!' I strongly suggest you reign your posts in to what you actually know about then you might get back some of your credibility. At present you look very stupid on these forums to those of us that have genuine interest and knowledge about cars.

[Ryanodine]

AndyBrew said:

cayman-black said:

Ryanodine, sounds like bullst to me as well.

Me to, sorry I don't buy it, if the problem had been so insignificant Porsche would simply have done nothing, upon investigation they knew full well they had fked up, and then went into fight or flight mode Personally I will be very interested to see the results once cars start being delivered back to customers as I have said before one fk up and the whole model/brand will be destroyed over night and what are the chances of a single fk up happening, quite high in my experience, it always does!

It's not that Sid doesn't offer some convincing arguments but I just can't believe it's simply an under torqued bolt. If this was the case it would have been quickly announced, old cars engines replaced and production of existing cars resumed?

[sidicks]

Ryanodine said:

It's not that Sid doesn't offer some convincing arguments but I just can't believe it's simply an under torqued bolt. If this was the case it would have been quickly announced, old cars engines replaced and production of existing cars resumed?

I know as little about the real reasons as you!

However, I find it hared to believe that there is a fundamental problem that didn't show up on test cars or early customer cars that have been driven extensively including hard track use, yet did show up on cars driven gently with little more than delivery mileage.

Maybe that's just wishful thinking...


To ascertain which cars had been torqued incorrectly would have required all 784 engines to be stripped down and then rebuilt, leading to significant re-assembly risk.

Given the potential consequences of the failure, replacing all engines is the easiest and most sensible course of action.

[AndyBrew]

sidicks said:

yet did show up on cars driven gently with little more than delivery mileage.

Maybe those two customers thought they would try out the launch control just for the hell of it, who knows.

[sidicks]

AndyBrew said:

Maybe those two customers thought they would try out the launch control just for the hell of it, who knows.

Maybe, but seems unlikely! And as explained above, plenty of other cars have been driven very hard for a significant amount of time with no problems.