RE: Porsche 911 (991.2) GT3 vs. 911 (997.2) GT3

[PhantomPH]

I’d kill for a 991.2 GT3. Genuinely in love with those things.

What strikes me about this article, is just how much smaller the 997 looks next to the 991. Especially in the rear shot.

[nickfrog]

I reckon NA and manual is a personal preference rather than a sign that a car is more or less of a driver's car.

[WojaWabbit]

Journalist says new car is better than old car. Shocking result. Couldn't see that coming.

[Porsche911R]

big_rob_sydney said:

New car beats old. Shock.

Shame the new one is heavier. Imagine how much better if it actually lost weight instead.

it is a shock as most new cars are dull

[Cheib]

Great piece of journalism and amazing to me that this is the first article I’ve read comparing the manual 991.2 GT3 with another manual GT3. A coup for PistonHeads!

If Porsche really have managed to deliver a car that provides such a wide ranging driving experience that’s quite some achievement.

CGT comparisons? Blimey.

[Double gauche]

Cheib said:

Great piece of journalism and amazing to me that this is the first article I’ve read comparing the manual 991.2 GT3 with another manual GT3. A coup for PistonHeads!

If Porsche really have managed to deliver a car that provides such a wide ranging driving experience that’s quite some achievement.

CGT comparisons? Blimey.

Im sorry but CGT comparisons are ridiculous.
CGT powertrain is utterly unique in so many ways, never to be repeated and for one has nothing like the ‘bandwidth’ this article speaks of wrt the new gt3.

[isaldiri]

Double gauche said:

Im sorry but CGT comparisons are ridiculous.
CGT powertrain is utterly unique in so many ways, never to be repeated and for one has nothing like the ‘bandwidth’ this article speaks of wrt the new gt3.

Agreed. I strongly suggest the author gets a drive in a cgt again if he even thinks the 2 cars engines are in any way comparable. It's laughable to suggest they are in any way comparable.

[isaldiri]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

All I can do is repeat what I said. Just drive a cgt and tell me again if you really think the engine of that car 'stands in comparison' with the .2 gt3. For what it's worth, imo the 4.0rs (with specific output and a lot of specs very similar to the new gt3) has a vastly inferior powertrain to the cgt.

[Double gauche]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If you think what the CGT was and is can be measured by specific output you are misguided.

CGT is the pinnacle of nasp engine in its period. It’s a bit early to make that claim of the gt3
And the article referenced drivetrain not just engine....

[big_rob_sydney]

Porsche911R said:

big_rob_sydney said:

New car beats old. Shock.

Shame the new one is heavier. Imagine how much better if it actually lost weight instead.

it is a shock as most new cars are dull

If you don't like the new one because its dull, don't buy it. Its not hard to figure out, is it?

[DanielSan]

WojaWabbit said:

Journalist says new car is better than old car. Shocking result. Couldn't see that coming.

If the journalist wants to drive the next GT3 that will always be the conclusion

[browngt3]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What you say is logical, however, I disagree with this

'Hardly anybody really cares about the actual experience of NA'

In my opinion most buyers of Porsche GT cars do care about the NA experience. It's one of the key reasons we buy them. Porsche are masters at creating niche models. If people only wanted turbo 911s then they have the rest of the range to choose from.

The biggest threat to future NA GT cars will be, as you say, legislation and therefore we may see a hybrid version. Not sure how they'll deal with the weight issue though.

You made the point in your excellent earlier post that these cars offer a traditional driving approach combined with modern tech. This is the essence of GT and for this reason Porsche will not build a turbo (or even hybrid) GT3 until they have to, imo of course.

Be interesting to see how it all turns out. In the meantime we have some truly outstanding drivers cars to enjoy!

[RamboLambo]

Great super smashing look at what you could of bought but your names not on the list.
Porsche BAD

[Shazbat]

as ever, journos in "know fk all" shocker


in the true spirit of what a Gt3 is and what it's supposed to do, the 996 GT3 stes on both of these, end of ...

[SidewaysSi]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Entirely agree. The numbers of people, PHers included whom would buy one if they lost say 20% in year one would be a fraction of what it is now.

Given current economic uncertainty, that time may be relatively close. I wouldn't be sinking £130k into one right now on the assumption i would make money, that's for sure. Certainly not if I valued my dealer relationship and wanted to keep for at least a year.

[JualMassFlywheel]

nickfrog said:

I reckon NA and manual is a personal preference rather than a sign that a car is more or less of a driver's car.

Well said. And while we're at it perhaps we should define 'driver'? I enjoy different cars for different reasons and I am definately a driving enthusiast.

[E65Ross]

Great article but..... £168 option to have the 12 o'clock marking in red!?

[browngt3]

JualMassFlywheel said:

nickfrog said:

I reckon NA and manual is a personal preference rather than a sign that a car is more or less of a driver's car.

Well said. And while we're at it perhaps we should define 'driver'? I enjoy different cars for different reasons and I am definately a driving enthusiast.

Maybe all cars are 'drivers' cars then? That is until they're driverless

[Sierra Mike]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[Turbobanana]

"Porsche 911 (991.2) GT3 vs. 911 (997.2) GT3" - what a rubbish headline.

Conclusive proof that cars need names, not numbers.