Friday 22nd June 2012

Tell me I'm wrong: Porsche 911 Cabriolet

A quarter of 911 buyers opt for soft-tops - is Dan daring to say they're wrong?

---

The social conventions around the minutiae of 911 variants are, at least for the likes of us, something of great importance. Porsche 911s are not born equal and, like the unwritten rules of tailoring and other matters of etiquette, it's easy for the uninitiated to take a wrong step.

Right Porsche, wrong Porsche? It used to be clear

The fact that to wider society a Porsche is a Porsche is a Porsche is, of course, one of the great strengths of the 911. Short of a bells-and-whistles RS, most casual observers wouldn't spot a 993 from a 991 or pick it out in a crowd. And this anonymity compared with more shouty sports cars is exactly its appeal.

The point? Ah yes. For those more 911-aware there exists the more subtle game of 'right Porsche, wrong Porsche'. Am I the only one, for instance who, upon seeing a 911, immediately peeks through the side window for the all-important Tiptronic/manual assessment? And sighs at the sight of the former? I'm guessing not, with apologies to Tiptronic owners. PDK clouds this blunt arbiter somewhat, two-pedal Porsches now acceptable, if still a little down the purist pecking order.

Soft top, soft target
Surely though, we're all agreed about 911 Cabriolets? Apparently not, my slightly snooty welcome to the announcement of the 991 cabrio shot down in flames by an unexpectedly militant wing of soft-top 911 fans.

Definitely wrong Porsche ... or is it?

Now, let it be clear I have nothing against open cars. Or soft-top Porsches. The Boxster, in all its forms (other than Tiptronic, see above...) is a fabulous car. But I'd always lumped 911 cabrios a long way down the 'wrong Porsche' axis.

But I was willing to confront this snobbery head-on and, just perhaps, prove years of personal prejudice wrong, so I got hold of a 991 Carrera S Cabriolet to put the theory to the test.

If nothing else, the soft-top 911 demonstrates the breadth of ability in the base package. OK, we've yet to see the truly fruity variants of the 991 but, if we take the 997, you've got your track-focused, supercar-humbling RS variants and poser-friendly, SL-rivalling cabrios all spun off the same basic platform and all apparently satisfying their completely different target audiences with equal panache.

Speedster-look roof helps the case

Silver surfers
So does the 991 take the soft-top 911 further into that silver-haired, golf club car park world of Jags, SLs and - whisper it - Lexus SC430s? Or does it finally make the 911 Cabriolet an acceptable choice?

Functionally there is absolutely nothing wrong with the al fresco 991. The taut, more Speedster-esque roofline delivered by the clever 'panel bow' magnesium struts deals with that saggy, pram-like appearance of some older soft-top 911s - 964s and 993s especially.

Traditionally the delicately balanced 911 shape has always been compromised by the loss of the C-pillar. Coupes look squat, purposeful and poised. Cabrios, without that visual balance, more than little a little fat-arsed and stodgy, 996s and 997s especially. And this underpins my personal prejudice. If you want a roadster, buy a car designed from the off to be one. Again, that SL comparison. Roof up or roof down, especially in previous-shape R230 form, the big Merc is an equally elegant car. Until now cabrio 911s have never lost the sense they're any more than decapitated coupes - compromised to put it another way.

991 interior is a big improvement

Truth and reconciliation
And yet I find this assurance rattled by the 991. Roof up it looks low, sleek and purposeful. And with it folded away less like its occupants have been extracted with the aid of fire brigade cutting tools.

No bones about it, with or without a roof the interior of the 991 is a huge step forward for the 911. Fears that middle-aged spread would make the new Porsche feel a little unwieldy are thankfully unfounded and, if we return yet again to that SL comparison, here the 911 feels usefully more compact and chuckable than the big Merc.

Being a Carrera S our test car had fancy-pants features like Turbo-style PTV torque vectoring - now standard on mere S cars - and, of course, 400hp to the rear wheels via that quirky seven-speed manual. On wet surfaces you can sense torque being shuffled about perhaps more than in four-wheel drive Turbos but corner-exit traction is as epic as it's always been.

Driving experience is barely compromised

About that steering...
£1,772 extra or not, that sports exhaust sounds magnificent, that hollow flat-six howl and characteristic inertia-free throttle response as thrilling as ever, the more so via the quirky seven-speed manual. And the steering? Honestly? If you could do a blindfolded 'taste test' (OK, you couldn't, but if you could...) I'm willing to bet half the people who have tut-tutted about it probably couldn't tell. And if ultimately a little synthetic compared with what went before it remains well above average in terms of weighting and response.

So, yes, it's a very, very nice thing.

But can a convertible 911 ever be considered an acceptable choice? Functional and aesthetic compromises over the coupe have been more or less eliminated, 70kg weight penalty notwithstanding. And it goes and handles pretty much as well, with that added wind in the hair appeal.

Or should you just buy a Boxster instead?

Does it move the cabrio into 'right Porsche' territory though? Here's where I still struggle. It still looks hunchbacked and tail-heavy with the roof down. It can't quite match the purity of the coupe. The new Boxster nails it in every respect other than those token rear seats and, inevitably, snob value. And if the latter is your only real reason for buying a drop-top 911, well, I'm sorry you're still going to have to convince me.

Handily the floor is now open for you to do exactly that...

---

PORSCHE 991 CARRERA S CABRIOLET
Engine: 3,436cc flat-6
Transmission: 7-speed manual, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 400@7,400rpm
Torque (lb ft): 324@5,600rpm
0-62mph: 4.7sec
Top speed: 187mph
Weight: 1,465kg (DIN, unladen)
MPG: 29mpg (NEDC combined)
CO2: 229g/km
Price: £89,740 (£95,838 as tested)

 

 

[Dan Trent]

Oh, and I've answered the 'but you get two extra seats in a 911' one already. Buy two Boxsters for the same price instead. All your seating woes covered and no arguments over who gets to drive either. Done!

[lukeschwartz]

Right on Dan

Convertible 911 = Bath tub on wheels.

[Mastodon2]

I'll never be a cabrio fan, of 911s or indeed any cars, I'm just not that wild about top-down motoring. Imo, the hardtop version always look better, the "compromise" in rigidity is, I accept, a very minor downside to the everyday driver - as minor as to be imperceivable to many with modern car building techniques. The noise is nice with the roof down, for a little while, until you get over about 60mph by which point it's been totally overtaken by buffeting wind noise.

Give me a hardtop any day!

[ewenm]

They are getting better but still a bit hunchbacked and appear, to my eye, deformed when compared to the coupe. Now, a 964 targa...

[j911]

Had a 997 C2S coupe manual with sports chrono and now have a 997 C2S PDK Cab, I have tracked them both and honesty they are both as good as each other. PDK in Sport Plus is fantastically fast and ideal for track use and the fact that it is a cab doesn't seem to make any difference to the handling or the enjoyment. I swapped the manual coupe for the cab on a whim and I haven't regretted it for a moment. I ordered a 991 C2S but after a 48 hour test drive I really didn't like the steering or the increased refinement. There will be plenty of people who will disagree with me, but I paid my money and got what I wanted.
The Cab is great fun, looks great (in my opinion) and the difference in handling/ride compared to a coupe is so minute that I haven't noticed it.
Oh and by the way, I'm not into golf and I'm "only" 38!
The 997 was designed to be a cabriolet from the outset.

Edited by j911 on Thursday 21st June 17:29

Edited by j911 on Thursday 21st June 17:31

[_g_]

I've always seen a soft-top as paying more for less (ok, technically more, but more is less!).
But then I'm sure a good number of Porsche buyers are paying for the badge not the drive as it stands.

I prefer the 'feel' of a soft-top with it's roof up personally; somehow feels more 'sporty' (and I started on sports bikes) - though I do have a kit car with no roof or windscreen at all, which of course I consider 'acceptable' .

[Eighteeteewhy]

I love cabs in general, but 911s just don't look right.

[kambites]

Article said:

The new Boxster nails it in every respect other than those token rear seats and, inevitably, snob value. And if the latter is your only real reason for buying a drop-top 911, well, I'm sorry you're still going to have to convince me.

Wouldn't you argue exactly the same with the Cayman vs the tip-top 911?

[em177]

Porsche haven't half got the hang of interiors these days do they!

That looks ace!

[Dan Trent]

Sorry, you mean Cayman is better/more hardcore/etc than a Boxster or flips the argument on its head because it's a coupe made out of a convertible?

Either way, my pro-Boxster defence would be that this was designed as an open car from the start and if you want a convertible Porsche and want to get a bit purist about it that's the way to go. I guess the argument is that a cabrio 911 will always be compromised when compared directly with the car from which it is derived - it'll always be a coupe that's had its roof lopped off.

The Cayman vs 911 argument? Let's do that another time!

[kambites]

Dan Trent said:

Sorry, you mean Cayman is better/more hardcore/etc than a Boxster or flips the argument on its head because it's a coupe made out of a convertible?

No, I was suggesting that the only reason to buy a (Carrera) 911 coupe over a Cayman is the token back seats or snob value. The Cayman is a better drivers' car.

Well, I'm not actually trying to make a judgement either way, but I think it's nonsensical to discount the 911 Cab in favour of the Boxster, without also discounting the 911 Carrera in favour of the Cayman. The "Cabrioletness" has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see - it's just a question of mid-engined Porsche vs rear-engined Porsche.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 21st June 18:05

[Dan Trent]

Gotcha! And I see the point, as the waters muddy a bit further!

I think including the Cayman/911 argument is valid but the margin between the two cars is narrower. And perhaps a slightly different one from what I'm making here, which is to say there's nothing wrong with an open top Porsche, or indeed cabrios in general, but if that's what you want the Boxster - designed from the start as a roadster - is the more purist way of doing it than a 911 with the roof lopped off.

Shall we do Cayman/911 another time, eh?

[anything fast]

I hate to agree with Mr Clarkson, but I do..

Cabrio's should only be driven by young good looking women.. so I can have good gawp!

Not balding pot bellied middle aged men.. sorry guys..

[kambites]

anything fast said:

I hate to agree with Mr Clarkson, but I do..

Cabrio's should only be driven by young good looking women.. so I can have good gawp!

Not balding pot bellied middle aged men.. sorry guys..

A wild stab in the dark here and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but as shocking as it may seem, I suspect most cabriolet buyers don't actually buy their cars for you.

[kambites]

Dan Trent said:

Gotcha! And I see the point, as the waters muddy a bit further!

I think including the Cayman/911 argument is valid but the margin between the two cars is narrower. And perhaps a slightly different one from what I'm making here, which is to say there's nothing wrong with an open top Porsche, or indeed cabrios in general, but if that's what you want the Boxster - designed from the start as a roadster - is the more purist way of doing it than a 911 with the roof lopped off.

Shall we do Cayman/911 another time, eh?

Interesting point' is the difference actually bigger? How do the four cars' torsional rigidity to weight ratios compare? I certainly wouldn't have said from driving them (although I obviously haven't driven the 991 in either form) that the difference in sharpness between tip and rag tops was very different between the two product families.

[P4ROT]

Its always a shame when you see a lovely 997 turbo (etc) and it's got a tiptronic (I will never understand it... although PDK is more acceptable).

[angusc43]

Not a big fan of cabriolets anyway so automatically prefer the coupe. Also prefer the styling.

[shoestring7]

I've not driven a 991, but I was invited to take out a £85k 997C4S for a weekend. This also has a body shell which is "not compromised by removal of the roof".

I turned out of the OPC's (Guildford) driveway, and then travelled 300m to a junction. The approach to the junction has rippled tarmac caused by trucks. The steering column of the 997 shook in my hands as I stopped.

My 2.7 Cayman was so much sweeter to drive it wasn't funny.

SS7

[Trevor M]

The 991 completely turns around the case for a 911 cab.

It is the first one which gets the proportions exactly right.

It is the first one which has a truly attractive closed top profile.

It is the first one which maintains enough stiffness that the same suspension can be retained and very little in handling is lost.

In fact, it is more desirable than the 991 coupe.

And I say that as a multiple and current original series 911 coupe owner (1989 Carrera 3.2 at present).

The 991 Cabriolet has nailed it at last.

[benzito]

Porsche have tried for years but I think we have to accept that a rear-engined car could never look as good in cabriolet form due to the simple fact that the roof folds down right next to the engine bay!