Re : The Porsche 718 GTS bombshell | PH Footnote

[kbf1981]

Repent said:

TimoMak said:

Nothing like a bit of climate alarmism BS, do you work for the BBC? “Climate emergency” my arse.

Far from it, I work for an organisation that advises world leaders on climate change based on empirical evidence. Whilst talking about the nuances of a passion entwined with burning dinosaurs it’s an honour I get the chance to speak with one.

The easiest way to reduce polution is to get people to buy less fashion goods - there's zero benefit to a cheap t-shirt from india, yet millenials go out every weekend and buy and new outfit or order one from Boohoo, Asos etc...

People always talk about cars when they talk about polution, but never talk about shipping, which is vastly, vastly dirtier, and enabled by millions of people buying cheap tat.

[Terminator X]

Repent said:

Similarly, public perception. When horrific weather cranks up even more globally, people’s homes begin to flood in low lying areas, will driving around with an overtly ICE powered car put you in the category of social pariah?

There are loons in the EV section alleging that is already the case today. You can't post non EV fanboy stuff in there without being shouted down. The modern way it seems.

TX.

[ANOpax]

Repent said:

TimoMak said:

Nothing like a bit of climate alarmism BS, do you work for the BBC? “Climate emergency” my arse.

Far from it, I work for an organisation that advises world leaders on climate change based on empirical evidence. Whilst talking about the nuances of a passion entwined with burning dinosaurs it’s an honour I get the chance to speak with one.

Perhaps you, with your empirical evidence and advice to world leaders, could tell this dinosaur what the optimal level of CO2 in our atmosphere should be?

[Gummi]

kbf1981 said:

The easiest way to reduce polution is to get people to buy less fashion goods - there's zero benefit to a cheap t-shirt from india, yet millenials go out every weekend and buy and new outfit or order one from Boohoo, Asos etc...

People always talk about cars when they talk about polution, but never talk about shipping, which is vastly, vastly dirtier, and enabled by millions of people buying cheap tat.

So true. Hyper-consumerism is awful for the environment. I'm a millennal and is see it frequently amongst my peer group. New iPhones every year, extraordinary amounts of clothing & shoes and other cheap garbage bought constantly. Often they're "eco-friendly" products bought the replace "bad" products that had nothing wrong with them. Its not just millennials though, look at the "cheap tat from the far east thread". Did anyone need the stupid stuff they're having shipped from a sweatshop in the far East? Of course not.

Everyone's outlook needs to change. Buy quality products and make them last. Up front it's more expensive but over the lifespan of the products its much cheaper. The less stuff made and shipped around the world the better.

Edited by Gummi on Sunday 19th January 08:50

[john41901]

I heard an F4 go past me yesterday and it actually sounded pretty good, like a sports car should.

So it will be interesting to see how many of the vocal F4 detractors actually put their money where their mouths are and follow through paying the extra 50% for whatever for the privilege of driving 4 litres, (i.e. paying out at least 70 grand.)

I can imagine the test drives of the two models going something like this:

<customer drives 4.0> "This one's a bit quicker and it sounds nice. But first year road tax is two grand and do I really need an extra 100 bhp?"

<drives F4> "The 4.0 engine costs how much ??! Actually this one sounds fine to me, those journalists must literally just make st up...." <writes cheque / signs PCP quote..>

Can see it selling rather well in the US though, no replacement for displacement and Greta be damned !

[browngt3]

ANOpax said:

Perhaps you, with your empirical evidence and advice to world leaders, could tell this dinosaur what the optimal level of CO2 in our atmosphere should be?

Yes, while you're about it please also tell us what the optimal mean temperature should be for Planet Earth.

[hermes]

What if you’d just bought an Alpine...

I must confess when I bought my ‘Mk1’ GT4, it was partly on the basis that I expected the next one to be a 4 cylinder turbo. Then when the 4 pots arrived I noticed all the 981 6 cylinder GTS cars dried up and I came very close to adding one of those for speculative purposes.

I’d have been really upset if they’d fixed the gearing in the new GT4 as well.

C’est la vie, as they say in Dieppe.

[SidewaysSi]

hermes said:

What if you’d just bought an Alpine...

I must confess when I bought my ‘Mk1’ GT4, it was partly on the basis that I expected the next one to be a 4 cylinder turbo. Then when the 4 pots arrived I noticed all the 981 6 cylinder GTS cars dried up and I came very close to adding one of those for speculative purposes.

I’d have been really upset if they’d fixed the gearing in the new GT4 as well.

C’est la vie, as they say in Dieppe.

Car values can go down as well as up.

[benchapman]

Hmm,

I was on the verge of agreeing a price for a 981 GT4 with 15k miles on it last week, having seen these come within a range of what I felt was good value in the last few months.

I decided to wait and take a look at a 981 GTS on the basis that I started to get a pang of concern that a GT4 was a little too ostentatious with the extra aero bits for me to life with. That’s not to say they don’t look fantastic, but I didn’t fancy street parking it everyday.

Comparatively, it seems to me there’s not a lot of manual GTSs around and they’re still at the ~£54k mark . I see a few of you are in agreement with the article that this will cause GTS values to fall... so i’m asking at what price does a 981 GTS look good value in the near future ?

Thanks for the advice.

[TheOrangePeril]

browngt3 said:

ANOpax said:

Perhaps you, with your empirical evidence and advice to world leaders, could tell this dinosaur what the optimal level of CO2 in our atmosphere should be?

Yes, while you're about it please also tell us what the optimal mean temperature should be for Planet Earth.

With all due respect, neither are particularly relevant questions. Ecosystems adapt over time. We've had 12000 of relative temperature stability. Cramming in several degrees of warming into one century is not the kind of step change that ecosystems (of which we as humans are a part) tend to survive.

Rate of change is important. CO2 ppm sat under 300 for the last millennium. Now we're averaging over 400 every year. That's not an insignificant percentage change anyway, but seeing as it's been achieved over the course of a mere century should be alarming to anybody with a vague understanding of planetary ecology.

Another vital consideration is biodiversity. Biodiverse ecosystems adapt far more readily to change. There was a lot more wriggle room when we had more diverse habitats and living species occupying them. Now, all of our metaphorical eggs are thrown into far fewer baskets, thanks entirely to human activity and land use...

Anyway, this is all pretty basic stuff so there's no point in boring everybody.

The GTS looks great, could be a solid second hand proposition a few years from now. I'll take my Cayman in red, please.

[Terminator X]

"Cramming in several degrees of warming into one century" what century did we have several degrees of warming?

TX.

[Porsche911R]

TheOrangePeril said:

With all due respect, neither are particularly relevant questions. Ecosystems adapt over time. We've had 12000 of relative temperature stability. Cramming in several degrees of warming into one century is not the kind of step change that ecosystems (of which we as humans are a part) tend to survive.

Rate of change is important. CO2 ppm sat under 300 for the last millennium. Now we're averaging over 400 every year. That's not an insignificant percentage change anyway, but seeing as it's been achieved over the course of a mere century should be alarming to anybody with a vague understanding of planetary ecology.

Another vital consideration is biodiversity. Biodiverse ecosystems adapt far more readily to change. There was a lot more wriggle room when we had more diverse habitats and living species occupying them. Now, all of our metaphorical eggs are thrown into far fewer baskets, thanks entirely to human activity and land use...

Anyway, this is all pretty basic stuff so there's no point in boring everybody.

With the UK set to be under 1% co2 world output in 2020 and population to be 11 billion by 2030, I don’t think any thing we do in the UK as it stands makes any odds to anything !!!

We have a population issues not a co2 issue imo, when I was born there were only 3 billion people on earth.
A few people in the Uk buying electric cars is a joke.

[Iknownothin]

Porsche911R said:

TheOrangePeril said:

With all due respect, neither are particularly relevant questions. Ecosystems adapt over time. We've had 12000 of relative temperature stability. Cramming in several degrees of warming into one century is not the kind of step change that ecosystems (of which we as humans are a part) tend to survive.

Rate of change is important. CO2 ppm sat under 300 for the last millennium. Now we're averaging over 400 every year. That's not an insignificant percentage change anyway, but seeing as it's been achieved over the course of a mere century should be alarming to anybody with a vague understanding of planetary ecology.

Another vital consideration is biodiversity. Biodiverse ecosystems adapt far more readily to change. There was a lot more wriggle room when we had more diverse habitats and living species occupying them. Now, all of our metaphorical eggs are thrown into far fewer baskets, thanks entirely to human activity and land use...

Anyway, this is all pretty basic stuff so there's no point in boring everybody.

With the UK set to be under 1% co2 world output in 2020 and population to be 11 billion by 2030, I don’t think any thing we do in the UK as it stands makes any odds to anything !!!

We have a population issues not a co2 issue imo, when I was born there were only 3 billion people on earth.
A few people in the Uk buying electric cars is a joke.

Or maybe because we are one of the largest economies in the world, have relatively large disposable incomes, access to cheap credit and buy over 2 million cars per year manufacturers actually take note of consumer trends here and that accelerates change for the better. As always, someone leads and then the rest follow.

[Swalsey]

Repent said:

Great article.

I currently work for a global organisation that is heavily involved in the understanding and advocation of climate change reversal, and as a lifelong petrolhead the recent, swift changes to the automotive world leave me conflicted.

The move in general makes complete sense to me and I couldn’t be more behind it, which feels odd, but the right thing given the overwhelming evidence. However the impact of a small number of N/A cars for enthusiasts is so small, that has to be something that’s manageable moving forward.

I’m really intrigued to see, particularly in the UK which in many ways is leading western policy, how older enthusiast models are treated in upcoming regulations. If screaming V8’s will be provided special licences and insurance at higher cost and lower mileage for example, or will they simply be taxed off the road?

Similarly, public perception. When horrific weather cranks up even more globally, people’s homes begin to flood in low lying areas, will driving around with an overtly ICE powered car put you in the category of social pariah?

In the immediate, great news to hear we have the N/A scream just a little longer.

Repent said:

TimoMak said:

Nothing like a bit of climate alarmism BS, do you work for the BBC? “Climate emergency” my arse.

Far from it, I work for an organisation that advises world leaders on climate change based on empirical evidence. Whilst talking about the nuances of a passion entwined with burning dinosaurs it’s an honour I get the chance to speak with one.

Repent - You say it better than I could; it's a relief to realise more of us are conflicted. I'd love an NA flat or straight 6...

TimoMak - Can you explain the logic in calling it BS, similar to others allover the PH forum mocking Thunberg and labelling everybody on that side of the debate a tree-hugging sandal wearing (insert Clarkson re-hash here) so-and-so? Do you know more than the vast majority of international experts?

Obviously there are more polluting behaviours than buying a flat 6 over a flat 4, and with moderation elsewhere you can make a strong arguments for a R8 V10 weekend toy, but there's no excuse for ignoring the logic and evidence behind it. Ignorance is allover PH, unwilling to listen because it doesn't fit what they want to hear, as if that will alleviate the problem. We in the richer economies made our riches on the back of fossil fuels; we have a responsibility to lead the way to sustainability. Maybe an intelligent conversation will mean we can keep our passion in the long run. It's about time PH and other publications (TG etc) put their stake in the ground too.

[Roma101]

Not sure the 4 pot / 6 pot argument is relevant to saving the earth. If I bought a new GTS and drove 4K miles a year and Joe Bloggs down the street bought an S but drove it 20k miles a year, then presumably his car would be having a more detrimental effect on the environment. Shirley, it’s just about Porsche trying to balance out appeasing the enthusiasts / making cars they like with lowering their group CO2 levels.

Anyway, I agree that the GTS is interesting news for those who were hoping to get a GT4 / Spyder. 90% of the car for a decent amount less (c. £10k depending on spec.). If I was in the market for a sports car and was hoping to get a GT4/Spyder, I would also consider a GTS.

Disappointed no-one has waded in on the availability of the specials yet, so I’ll be that guy. The supposed greater availability of these two models has certainly not materialised yet has it?

Or perhaps the 4.0 GTS is an act of appeasement in that sense as well - for all the disgruntled people who couldn’t get a GT4/Spyder.

[Repent]

Swalsey said:

Repent - You say it better than I could; it's a relief to realise more of us are conflicted. I'd love an NA flat or straight 6...

TimoMak - Can you explain the logic in calling it BS, similar to others allover the PH forum mocking Thunberg and labelling everybody on that side of the debate a tree-hugging sandal wearing (insert Clarkson re-hash here) so-and-so? Do you know more than the vast majority of international experts?

Obviously there are more polluting behaviours than buying a flat 6 over a flat 4, and with moderation elsewhere you can make a strong arguments for a R8 V10 weekend toy, but there's no excuse for ignoring the logic and evidence behind it. Ignorance is allover PH, unwilling to listen because it doesn't fit what they want to hear, as if that will alleviate the problem. We in the richer economies made our riches on the back of fossil fuels; we have a responsibility to lead the way to sustainability. Maybe an intelligent conversation will mean we can keep our passion in the long run. It's about time PH and other publications (TG etc) put their stake in the ground too.

Very well said! It will be interesting to see how PH, EVO and others approach the next few years.

For those requesting specific information on climate change I politely point you to Google where you will find every answer you're interested in, and it's great you're asking them. This is a shock change to our view of the world and the lives we lead and it's totally unprecedented, the only comparable events in modern human history have been through the effects of war. That being said it is happening, the lack of human precedent doesn't change the facts, and the realities continue on regardless of people's desire to understand or accept them. If you seek the reality, review the evidence with an open mind, if you seek justification for an uninformed opinion you'll find those answers and that will become your version of the facts but not the reality.

Some very fair points are being made around the impact of the UK vs other countries, a small number of cars vs global industries. The truth is we are in a dangerous position for the lives of millions on this planet. The UK has to opportunity to lead initiatives that change the tide on anything contributing, and they will work in unison. A change in one area will catalyse change in another regionally or by sector, providing leverage for conversation and action globally. The vast majority of global economies are still developing, they don't have a fraction of the quality of life we have and they aren't in the same position to lead the charge financially, let alone pragmatically, before morally.

As for world leaders, China and India are the first and third largest polluters respectively and are going through huge and complex economic growth, both countries having gargantuan GDP and a rampantly expanding middle class, but also massive regional poverty. The US as the second largest global polluter are the highest economically developed country on the planet, who have dissolved their environment agency and retracted from the Paris Climate Treaty thanks to a government highly averse to climate change. We need to convince these countries by leading by example.

Additionally there is unfortunately not always clear logic in human psychology, for example the huge public shift against diesels is damaging sales when Euro 6 diesel engines are cleaner than current petrol alternatives, combined with the fact diesels are better for the environment out of the city than petrol ones. But previous generations of diesel engines have contributed to the early death of thousands in built up areas, there has been a movement and people are conscious of environmental impact of cars, which overall is a positive outcome. People follow the tune, not the individual notes.

If climate change continues, millions will be displaced from lands that are no longer able to support agriculture or organised human life. Those people need to go somewhere, that creates geopolitical tension as well as human pain. There is already populism rising in the countries those displaced will travel to and there is a lot at stake, it's far bigger than driving around in the cars we want. It's not just about whether you want to help others, I dont think anyone should feel pressured to help others, that is a personal decision. However we are now at a point where the effects will reach us all if changes to climate being witnessed now are allowed to continue to build.

Finally however as many have discussed, the specific impact of enthusiast cars is negligible. I'd be willing to wager that most people who purchase 'fast' cars will be happier with the power and instant torque of EV's than they have been with a performance ICE. As another poster mentioned many are buying a premium product that comes with the power as part of the package, with the actual method of movement not their concern (beyond range considerations). The nuances enthusiasts are passionate about are very separate to those of the public. I hold out hope there is room for policies to support our passion, and those in the positions to lobby for it, over the coming years whilst these factors play out.

[John Locke]

Repent said:

Great article.
Similarly, public perception. When horrific weather cranks up even more globally, people’s homes begin to flood in low lying areas, will driving around with an overtly ICE powered car put you in the category of social pariah?

Outside the followers of Greta, public perception is that the weather has always been, and always will be, changeable, likewise the general climate.
Why would the stupidity of those who make their homes in low lying areas, not expecting to be flooded from time to time, render drivers of ICE powered cars social pariahs?

[TheOrangePeril]

Iknownothin said:

Porsche911R said:

TheOrangePeril said:

With all due respect, neither are particularly relevant questions. Ecosystems adapt over time. We've had 12000 of relative temperature stability. Cramming in several degrees of warming into one century is not the kind of step change that ecosystems (of which we as humans are a part) tend to survive.

Rate of change is important. CO2 ppm sat under 300 for the last millennium. Now we're averaging over 400 every year. That's not an insignificant percentage change anyway, but seeing as it's been achieved over the course of a mere century should be alarming to anybody with a vague understanding of planetary ecology.

Another vital consideration is biodiversity. Biodiverse ecosystems adapt far more readily to change. There was a lot more wriggle room when we had more diverse habitats and living species occupying them. Now, all of our metaphorical eggs are thrown into far fewer baskets, thanks entirely to human activity and land use...

Anyway, this is all pretty basic stuff so there's no point in boring everybody.

With the UK set to be under 1% co2 world output in 2020 and population to be 11 billion by 2030, I don’t think any thing we do in the UK as it stands makes any odds to anything !!!

We have a population issues not a co2 issue imo, when I was born there were only 3 billion people on earth.
A few people in the Uk buying electric cars is a joke.

Or maybe because we are one of the largest economies in the world, have relatively large disposable incomes, access to cheap credit and buy over 2 million cars per year manufacturers actually take note of consumer trends here and that accelerates change for the better. As always, someone leads and then the rest follow.

100% this.

Per capita emissions are more important than national figures, as we're talking about individual choices. It's all well and good just saying that the problem lies in India, but here in the UK we're each emitting almost three times as much as CO2 as your average Indian. Considering that the Indian birth rate is only 27% higher than the UK, it's not as if we're each having few enough children to claim that we're compensating by reducing population growth.

As one of the richest countries on the planet, that is only as rich as it is thanks to past economic growth built on enormous carbon emissions, surely it makes sense to lead from the front.

[ANOpax]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Consensus building is a political process. It isn’t a scientific one.

Anyone who refers to scientific consensus demonstrates their scientific illiteracy.

To conflate climate science with quantum physics or molecular biology is an insult to the latter and misrepresents the former. Climate science is no more a science than economic science.

Climate science models are not capable of forecasting the climate (just like we can’t forecast the economy correctly). This is why the public is fed up of having climate alarmism rammed down its throat - none of the doomsday predictions made over the last 25years have come to pass.

The public may not know what it’s talking about but it’s crystal clear that the experts don’t know either.

Edited by ANOpax on Monday 20th January 13:44

[Oily76]

Repent said:

TimoMak said:

Nothing like a bit of climate alarmism BS, do you work for the BBC? “Climate emergency” my arse.

Far from it, I work for an organisation that advises world leaders on climate change based on empirical evidence. Whilst talking about the nuances of a passion entwined with burning dinosaurs it’s an honour I get the chance to speak with one.

Well played sir.