RE: Porsche 911 Turbo S (991.II): Review
Discussion
I've always loved the Turbo, think it's pretty much the perfect 'everyday supercar', one that's not getting on for McLaren F1 accelerative speed. No doubt there'll be loads of comments on here from purists / armchair heroes criticising it for being dull, too easy to drive, not as engaging as the GT3 etc. But I'd say that, in real world road conditions or even on the track, the Turbo would blow the doors off the GT3 if most of us were driving?
Krikkit said:
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.
I'm sure if you lined them up on a dragstrip then the difference would be clear. But I wonder whether in day to day driving you get the opportunity to use and enjoy that extra performance. I've got a 160 bhp motorbike that has insane acceleration but it is very difficult enjoying that power as more than a few seconds of full throttle means jail time speeds. I rode some supersports last summer and although on paper they were well down on power I only really noticed the lack of pick up at low revs but higher up the range they felt not much slower and in case when riding quickly there are a whole host of factors that limit road speed before power comes into the equation. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Esceptico said:
I'm sure if you lined them up on a dragstrip then the difference would be clear. But I wonder whether in day to day driving you get the opportunity to use and enjoy that extra performance. I've got a 160 bhp motorbike that has insane acceleration but it is very difficult enjoying that power as more than a few seconds of full throttle means jail time speeds. I rode some supersports last summer and although on paper they were well down on power I only really noticed the lack of pick up at low revs but higher up the range they felt not much slower and in case when riding quickly there are a whole host of factors that limit road speed before power comes into the equation.
I should add that I also rode some of the new Superbikes with 200 bhp (Panigale 1299, S 1000 RR and Aprilia RSV RF) and although all were wonderful they didn't seem that much quicker than my existing bike - side by side on a long enough straight perhaps it would have been easier to judge. Having had a 911 turbo ... one thing you really dont get until you own one is how unuseable these cars are day to day!
People rave about how quick they are - and that the issue i had. Without blinking your doing 50 in 2nd gear, on a 30mph road - and not because youre trying to be a t
tn, but becuase the car is a bloody missile.
If you wanted 1 car to do everything though - shopping, school run, track days, 180+ on autobahns without breaking sweat ... cant think of anything id rather have!
Used mine as an only car for a yr and never had an issue - bar one trip to costco where i forgot about the space limitations and needed to call on my years of playing tetris to pack the car.
People rave about how quick they are - and that the issue i had. Without blinking your doing 50 in 2nd gear, on a 30mph road - and not because youre trying to be a t
tn, but becuase the car is a bloody missile.If you wanted 1 car to do everything though - shopping, school run, track days, 180+ on autobahns without breaking sweat ... cant think of anything id rather have!
Used mine as an only car for a yr and never had an issue - bar one trip to costco where i forgot about the space limitations and needed to call on my years of playing tetris to pack the car.
This facelift is odd across the range.
I prefer the .1 Turbo as I really liked the day time running lights on that one, and the back of this new one is horrible. I really like the new rear "3D" lights, but the grilled being cut in half with vertical slats is horrid,
I also hate the vertical contest colour grill on the standard .2 Carrera, although the front of that car is better than the .1
I prefer the .1 Turbo as I really liked the day time running lights on that one, and the back of this new one is horrible. I really like the new rear "3D" lights, but the grilled being cut in half with vertical slats is horrid,
I also hate the vertical contest colour grill on the standard .2 Carrera, although the front of that car is better than the .1
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.
For that sort of money I'd want all the center console switches to do something. I would just feel so inadequate with blanked off switches. Reminds me of getting a Granada 'L' instead of the 'Ghia'. How much does it cost in options to get ALL the buttons operational??.
I suppose the serious point here is that there are no other cars at this price point that short change you so much on interior quality. I drove the Turbo S for a test drive and it was very nice, as all above have said, but not special enough.
I suppose the serious point here is that there are no other cars at this price point that short change you so much on interior quality. I drove the Turbo S for a test drive and it was very nice, as all above have said, but not special enough.
Esceptico said:
Esceptico said:
I'm sure if you lined them up on a dragstrip then the difference would be clear. But I wonder whether in day to day driving you get the opportunity to use and enjoy that extra performance. I've got a 160 bhp motorbike that has insane acceleration but it is very difficult enjoying that power as more than a few seconds of full throttle means jail time speeds. I rode some supersports last summer and although on paper they were well down on power I only really noticed the lack of pick up at low revs but higher up the range they felt not much slower and in case when riding quickly there are a whole host of factors that limit road speed before power comes into the equation.
I should add that I also rode some of the new Superbikes with 200 bhp (Panigale 1299, S 1000 RR and Aprilia RSV RF) and although all were wonderful they didn't seem that much quicker than my existing bike - side by side on a long enough straight perhaps it would have been easier to judge. He upgraded from a 12C to 650S then was going to get a 675 and done similar things many times…
But he made the point how noticeable, or relevant, is a car that can accelerate from 0-125moh approx.. 0.9secs faster than your existing one so what the f*** is he doing spending 50k+ for 0.9 of a second gain when under full acceratriuon to 125 etc. And how often will this extra performance be used and how important is it to you. He admitted it is pure vanity or a keeping up with the jones exercise so he desisted and kept his lowly poxy old hat and slow 458 
In regards to bikes my opinion is…
Once you initially experience the crazy acceleration of a 1000cc sports bike then the jump to the latest and greatest 1000cc superbike with an extra 25 or 30hp isn’t that noticeable in my opinion
First time I rode/owned a 1000cc bike, an R1, I moved from a GSX-R600. The performance of the R1 was mind-blowing, laugh out loud silly fast took me a while to get used to the 100mph wheelies etc.
Then later I sold my license risking R1 to buy a naked bike, got bored of it and years later bought another superbike, with a supposed extra 30hp to my older R1, but it didn’t feel any faster than the older bike. Sure it probably was 1 second faster to 140mph or something but I didn’t notice. Both were extremely fast [i.e. to fast for the road if you are using even half their potential [same be the case with things like 911 Turbos, 570S’s and son on] hence I have since sold it and plan to buy more fun but slower bike – something like a Duke690 but that is beside’s the point. You will never get the initial wow factor ever again, a case of chasing the dragon
I suspect the same would apply with these supercars. If you own say a 991.1 Turbo, a 997 Turbo or even a 996 Turbo S and buy a 991.2 Turbo S or whatever– it will be faster for sure, but it won’t be that noticatble
sealtt said:
rhinochopig said:
580bhp + 31mpg is staggering if true.
Yes it is! I had an M6 which with 560bhp did 33mph on the motorway. I thought that was pretty amazing. Especially carrying 3 people comfortably.
LukeyC said:
sealtt said:
rhinochopig said:
580bhp + 31mpg is staggering if true.
Yes it is! I had an M6 which with 560bhp did 33mph on the motorway. I thought that was pretty amazing. Especially carrying 3 people comfortably.
Sam All said:
LukeyC said:
sealtt said:
rhinochopig said:
580bhp + 31mpg is staggering if true.
Yes it is! I had an M6 which with 560bhp did 33mph on the motorway. I thought that was pretty amazing. Especially carrying 3 people comfortably.
33mpg was of course the slightly less impressive stat I was referring to.
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.
That 0-60 time in a road car is bonkers! It's not like it's a track refugee with a space frame and no bodywork, it's a luxury mini GT car that can blow the doors off pretty much anything on the road and crush long journeys with ease. I imagine that it would be a repeatable time too, not something you could do a handful of times then need a clutch replacement and a gearbox rebuild. If I could afford it, I could see myself going for one of these over anything else in that price bracket.
I can see what some have said about not noticing the power jump from a 991 4s to this as I went from 286 bhp to 420bhp and it wasn't the mindblowing jump I was expecting. I was hoping for the same feeling I got when I went from my 106 rallye to my E36 M3 but the fact the E92 is heavier and more refined has made it less noticeable difference, and after 10 years in my old car I'd become accustomed to the power.
I'm sure that the brutality of this turbo s would be a massive step up from what I'm used to though!
I can see what some have said about not noticing the power jump from a 991 4s to this as I went from 286 bhp to 420bhp and it wasn't the mindblowing jump I was expecting. I was hoping for the same feeling I got when I went from my 106 rallye to my E36 M3 but the fact the E92 is heavier and more refined has made it less noticeable difference, and after 10 years in my old car I'd become accustomed to the power.
I'm sure that the brutality of this turbo s would be a massive step up from what I'm used to though!
Fascinating thread, reading about peoples experiences driving exceptionally fast cars. Those kind of thoughts/feelings or points of view are things that most of us won't ever get to experience. In a way, it's nice to hear that in some ways, the rest of us aren't missing out on too much!
Also I think it's crazy, and more than a little sad that a new 911 Turbo can come out and plenty of people find the idea of it....boring (me included). I remember reading a roadtest of a 3.6L 964 Turbo, with one of the crashed test cars under a tarpaulin...
The writer said something along the lines of despite the fact that the Turbo had more than a few flaws, and that its reputation as a widow maker was deserved, that "coming out of a clear-sighted bend fast in a 911 turbo is one of the most exhilarating things you can do in motoring". That sounds like a real 911 Turbo.
But I would rather have a GTR than this car...I'd rather have an Evora than either.
Also I think it's crazy, and more than a little sad that a new 911 Turbo can come out and plenty of people find the idea of it....boring (me included). I remember reading a roadtest of a 3.6L 964 Turbo, with one of the crashed test cars under a tarpaulin...
The writer said something along the lines of despite the fact that the Turbo had more than a few flaws, and that its reputation as a widow maker was deserved, that "coming out of a clear-sighted bend fast in a 911 turbo is one of the most exhilarating things you can do in motoring". That sounds like a real 911 Turbo.
But I would rather have a GTR than this car...I'd rather have an Evora than either.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff