RE: Porsche 911 Turbo S (991.II): Review

[HomersRevenge]

GroundEffect said:

3.0 vs 3.8. 420BHP vs 580BHP.

Oh I think you'll notice it.

I did, I test drove a 992 4s was nice but nothing like the Turbo S. So I bought the Turbo S!

It is proper rapid and is very usable. There is so much rubbish talked about cars, especially high end sports cars. The truth is these cars are driven on real roads with potholes, poor varying surface tarmac, bad cambers, oncoming cars, incompetent drivers, speed cameras. I could go on but you get the idea. Actually, on some very poor roads my air suspension Macan is quicker! No really, it is.

Now, I’ll wait for condemnation from those with strong views but no experience or ownership. 😉

[turbobloke]

ORD said:

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.

Yes indeed. Consider a front-engined car under heavy braking compared to a 911T. Going power awesome, stopping even better.