RS 4.0 vs 991 R

[turbofreeFLAT6]

This year I bought a 997 RS 4.0, which I intend never to replace. Nevertheless I would be interested to hear from anyone who has ordered a 991 R – for the car rather than the investment – or has bought one second hand (why did you choose it over a 997 or 991 GT3 or RS?) or from anyone who has driven both cars (how do they compare?).

[turbofreeFLAT6]

isaldiri said:

Twinfan said:

Can't remember where I read it, but someone has done a 4.0 vs 911 R review. They claimed the 4.0 was still the 'best' modern 911.

Bovingdon in evo a few issues ago i think.

There was not an RS 4.0 present for direct comparison and the conclusions were strange, which is why I'm interested in others. Bovvers had a white-knuckled drive of the R without finding the magic or much steering feel. Then he slowed down and got some sense of grip and traditional 911 weight shifts and ended up saying that while not better than the 997 it was great.

I can't quite get my head around a car that becomes more composed and less fun the harder you drive it. Normally crappy cars become less composed and good ones become more fun. Maybe it makes the R the ultimate road and track car (fun at moderate speeds on road, unshakeable grip on track), but I can't imagine not wanting to play with the limits of grip on the road.

To add to the confusion, Ollie Marriage (ex evo) writes in TopGear (11/16) that he thinks he'd prefer a 991 RS to the R on road and vice versa on track.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's an enigma!

After a great drive up the Grossglockner Marriage says, 'And yet I wonder whether I'd have had an even better time in a [991] GT3 RS. There is something in that car's relentless focus and determination that I find utterly addictive.' Then he takes a similar line to evo: 'I go and drive the R some more. Not hard, just letting it flex itself, enjoying the flow. Now we're talking.' And later, 'The weird thing is that on road, where the R is targeted, I think I'd prefer the RS, while for track work, the R might well be the one.'

[turbofreeFLAT6]

Cheib said:

First world problems! While the R is a contemporary car I think it's very hard to be objective. It's a bit like "Top 100 Albums of All Time" list is always skewed to include albums released recently.

The more interesting comparison will be the R vs 991.2 GT3 if it comes with a manual box.

It will also be interesting to see the effect on R prices if the new GT3 is a similarly good or better car. Do people really think that relative to the 997 4.0 the R is worth the 30% extra paid at Bonhams and asked in the lower-midrange of ads? Even ignoring the relative merits and place in Porsche history of the two cars, 50% more Rs were produced.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

Glad to hear Porsche hasn't lost the plot with the 911. If you've had pre-991s how does the steering compare to them? I had a GT4 and found the steering to be super-precise but a bit heavy and artificial feeling. Setting the rear ARB to stiff improved things considerably but while there was enough feel in the dry (though not 996/997 GT3 levels) there was none in the wet. The only way I felt able to test grip levels in the wet was to provoke the rear with power and then it was quite snappy.

Is the R's handling tuned mainly with programming or mainly with suspension geometry and stiffness?

[turbofreeFLAT6]

Does anyone have gear ratios for the R?

[turbofreeFLAT6]

stefan1 said:

I think the R is a better road car the the 4.0RS. I adored the latter, but on B-roads I found the rear suspension just a tad too stiff. I ran lower pressures which helped, but I always felt the 3.8RS was more finely resolved for road driving. On track of the course the 4.0RS was just sensational; but most of my driving is done on the public road.

The R doesn't quite have the steering feel of the 4.0RS, but it has a level of agility and damping control that's in another league. The gearbox is better too - when you get a double de-clutch just right the feeling of gears meshing like a life through hot butter is delicious in your palm. And, heaven forfend, I actually think the new R motor is more characterful (with the single mass flywheel) than the old Mezger 4.0. (Time will tell if it is as robust...)

My 4.0RS (the Mexico blue one) was sold to fund the 918, so I can't do a back to back now, but if I was able to, I really do think I'd vote for the R. And as a Mezger fanatic, I didn't expect that. The R really is that good.

Maybe it depends what sort of roads you drive on. I can imagine that if you have to travel regularly on rough B roads with slow traffic or low speed limits the greater compliance of the 991 would be preferable. I don't have to and I like the sense of connection to the road that stiff suspension gives. I enjoy the 4.0 the most when driving hard on bumpy roads where you feel the suspension working and marvel at how the car follows the surface so closely without losing contact. I've read reviews saying the change of some of the rear suspension bushes to ball joints made it crashy compared to the 3.8 but to me it feels that the whole structure is amazingly rigid and that sharp bumps are rounded off beautifully.

I can also understand the appeal of the extra agility. It is probably similar to what I experienced in my GT4, which had no pendulous mass in the rear, and with the rear ARB set to stiff had extraordinary front end grip. However I find that in the 4.0 the traditional 911 light front end and greater need to manage weight transfer provide more enduring interest.

It sounds like the R's engine is brilliant. Can you describe the differences to the 4.0's?

[turbofreeFLAT6]

Wonderful! I'd love to hear it.

It's weird that Porsche didn't make the same weight-saving in sound-deadening with the GT3, especially the RS.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

footsoldier said:

I've never been a fan of any RS (996 on) as a road car (not least because of the wings, cage etc).

I appreciate the theory of wingless-cageless purity and I think it works with the proportions and detailing of more exotic cars but I love the spice that the wing and cage adds to the simple 911 form and the long history of their use in 911 motorsport. The R looks superb in photos but when I saw it at Geneva I felt it looked very much like a Carrera, which made the thick matt stripes appear out of place. If I had been able to order an R I would have gone full elegance and specced GT Silver, no stripes and black wheels.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

I assume the 991's structure, being newer than the 997's, is stiffer. It would be interesting to know the stiffness of the cageless R vs the caged RS 4.0.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

GarageQueen said:

are 4.0's selling now that the R has taken the limelight? could the R affect 4.0 values do we think?

Out of interest I've been charting 4.0 prices vs km since April. I keep mine in France so recorded all cars advertised in Europe and LHD ones in the UK. I kept adding to the one chart and took a screen shot every month or so. Here are my findings:

Summary from April to November 2016:
- In the second quarter, buyers focussed on lower-priced cars.
- At mid-year, interest shifted to upper-middle-priced cars with 5,000 to 10,000km.
- In the second half sellers and buyers were predominantly active at high prices below 10,000km and low prices from 10,000 to 20,000km.
- Median advertised price for cars with 6,000km dropped €15k from July to October - currently €370k (£325k).
- Median advertised price for cars with 6,000km sold or withdrawn rose €25k from June to July then dropped €20k from July to October, a net increase of €5k - currently €365k (£320k).
- No change to highest prices advertised.
- Lowest prices for cars with 6,000km dropped €30k from July to August, then rose €10k from September to October, a net drop of €20k.
- Number of cars coming on the market peaked mid-year.
- Number of cars for sale increased from 18 in June to 25 in August, then dropped to 13 in November. Probably about 8 were withdrawn for winter rather than sold.
- Of the 13 cars for currently for sale 4 have more than 25,000km, 1 is overpriced (20,700km, €405,000) 1 is very expensive (1,700km, €460,000) and the lowest priced does not have the original engine.

Conclusion:
Since April the market has been fairly stable. The main changes have been shifts of focus between various price and km ranges and a further lowering of low-priced cars. It appears that the price correction following the 2015 boom ended in the first quarter for good examples but continued mildly for lesser ones. I expect that when the market ‘reopens’ in Spring 2017, prices will be similar to 2016 or on the rise again. If 991 R prices survive the launch of the 991.2 GT3, which I doubt, the rarer 997 RS 4.0 would have a lot of headroom.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

Just been looking at gearing (including tyre diameter) for the 991 R. It has a really tall final drive giving overall ratios about 28% longer than the RS 4.0 and 991 GT3 & RS. So how does it do 0-100km/h in 3.8 sec compared to 3.9 sec for the RS 4.0? It just cracks 100km/h in 1st gear! Strange that the tests haven’t commented on it given how they all caned the GT4 (and rightly so) for its high gearing and even it is about 4% lower than the R. To the contrary Chris Harris said he was surprised how much faster the R felt in-gear compared to the 991 RS.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

Maybe there's something wrong with my calculations with tyres and speeds but these gear ratios are from Porsche:

I-------------------- 1st --- 2nd --- 3rd --- 4th ---- 5th --- 6th ---- 7th ---- Final drive
997 GT3 RS 4.0 -- 3.82 -- 2.26 -- 1.64 -- 1.29 -- 1.06 -- 0.88 ----------- 3.89
991 GT3 ---------- 3.75 -- 2.38 -- 1.72 -- 1.34 -- 1.11 -- 0.96 -- 0.84 --- 3.97
991 R ------------- 3.75 -- 2.38 -- 1.72 -- 1.34 -- 1.08 -- 0.88 ----------- 3.09

According to my calculations the smaller tyre diameter of the RS 4.0 makes the overall ratios almost the same as for the 991 GT3. The first four ratios of the 991 GT3 and the tyre size are the same as for the 991 R but the final drive of the R is 28% longer.

Edited by turbofreeFLAT6 on Wednesday 16th November 12:14

Edited by turbofreeFLAT6 on Wednesday 16th November 12:15

[turbofreeFLAT6]

isaldiri said:

Are you sure about those numbers for the R? that's an incredibly low final drive and that would mean the R has even longer gears than the GT4 (even comparing at similar revs) and that can't be right.

Here's the link, so unless Porsche made a typo...

http://press.porsche.com/vehicles/2016/2016_911_R_...

[turbofreeFLAT6]

GarageQueen said:

My fear is that once the GT3 range returns to manual again starting with the 991.2, everything else will soften including 4.0.

I think the 4.0 has it's position cemented in history as the last and greatest 997/Metzger/hydraulic steering/analogue 911 and only 600 were made. The 991.2 is still early in the next chapter, like the 996.2 version of the 996/7 platform and it will be built in much greater numbers than the 4.0.

4.0 prices remain about double the 997.2 RS (3.8) and more again than the 997.2 GT3, which are both around the likely new prices for the 991.2 GT3 and RS (at least in Europe, where I have been following the market) so I can't see the 991.2 making much difference.

In line with what Cheib said, my 4.0 is definitely a keeper and I suspect most cars in the hands of speculators were flushed out by the market correction a year ago.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

Thanks for those maximum in-gear speeds Porsche911R. You don't have any for the R?

I read on another PH thread that the 991 GT3 and RS gear ratios are the same but the final drive of the RS is shorter to compensate for the 21" rear wheels, giving the same overall ratios.

I, like everyone else find it hard to believe there could be such a difference in the final drive of the R. Ignoring the 50kg weight advantage of the R, the ratio would give the R 22% less in-gear acceleration than the 991 RS (or the RS 28% more) yet Chris Harris reckons the R feels to have noticeably more than the RS. Can an R owner here see if the owner's manual lists the ratios to confirm those in the Porsche data sheet?

Why does the R, which is supposed to have the same motor as the RS, have a rev limit 300rpm lower (8,500 vs 8,800)?

[turbofreeFLAT6]

Porsche911R said:

so far the 997.2 RS 4.0 looks the best on paper drive, lower ratio's, + more torque at lower peak revs.

The torque in the 997 4.0 certainly gets your attention. If you leave the Sport button off - the button opens exhaust flaps to boost low-rev torque (and noise) - so that rather than building in a linear fashion the torque arrives in a big hit at about 4,000rpm it feels like a turbo kicking in (but with a very non-turbo big hit of induction and exhaust bark).

[turbofreeFLAT6]

footsoldier said:

Did a few laps of Silverstone a couple of weeks ago.

Good stuff! Nicely controlled oversteer moment.

[turbofreeFLAT6]

isaldiri said:

Well I've geeked out a bit having some time on my hands. I believe the press brochure is in error with final drive 3.09 for the R and it's actually 3.89

Porsche are very good at re-using the same parts as far as possible. the standard final drive for a lot of cars is 3.44 but there was a 3.89 used in the 7.2RS that reappeared in the gt4 that imo has likely been reused here. 3rd gear in the R at 7.5k rpm at 3rd gear per the video would be around 90mph ie 152kmh and 7k rpm in 4th gear would be around 110mph or 180kmh. Which kind of matches the video listed above give or take some speedo lag/inaccuracy. 3.09 final drive would give numbers way different to the speeds in the video.

Magic919 said:

These are my calculated top speeds (mph) through the gears assuming a 3.89 diff. This assumes 8500 revs.

47
74
102
131
163
200

That certainly makes more sense. It puts each ratio within +/- 3mph of the RS 4.0 (except for 6th being +7 in the R).

Edited by turbofreeFLAT6 on Friday 18th November 01:08