first review of 991 turbo s link
Discussion
Crimp a Length! said:
Stunning
0-62 in 3.2s FFS!!
It'll be quicker than that. A few reviews got the 997 below 3.0 seconds, so I would imagine the 991 is up (down) there with that kind of figure.0-62 in 3.2s FFS!!
I hope it sounds good. The normally aspirated 991s sound great, so hopefully the turbo S is a step up from the 997 in terms of exhaust note. That was the 997s one big let-down IMHO.
Still, what's not to like?
DT398 said:
Crimp a Length! said:
Stunning
0-62 in 3.2s FFS!!
It'll be quicker than that. A few reviews got the 997 below 3.0 seconds, so I would imagine the 991 is up (down) there with that kind of figure.0-62 in 3.2s FFS!!
I hope it sounds good. The normally aspirated 991s sound great, so hopefully the turbo S is a step up from the 997 in terms of exhaust note. That was the 997s one big let-down IMHO.
Still, what's not to like?
Terminator X said:
We're doomed ....
"For the first time, the range-topping 911 does without a traditional manual gearbox, even as an option"
TX.
Yes doomed. Being a bit pedantic, they are wrong about that anyway. The range-topping 997 Turbo S never had a manual gearbox either and was PDK only from the get-go with no manual option."For the first time, the range-topping 911 does without a traditional manual gearbox, even as an option"
TX.
Which means the range topping 911 hasn't had a manual box for three years now. You would have thought that the ensuing global pestilence and the sky falling in etc. etc. would be well under way by now?
DT398 said:
Not really. It's a lot of money obviously but everything's relative and there won't be much new at that price that gets close to the performance and day to day driveability of that car. Better still, wait a year and save £35k.
Compared to the obvious competition from a performance perspective (F458, MP12) then it might be considered good value for money - I think it's biggest problem is competition from the GT3 which is conspicuously good value in comparison and which will hold its value much better.I'm not sure the yellow paint does the shape much favours either - there was a picture of a dark metallic blue one online which looked much more classy and a better match for the mature of the car.
Koln-RS said:
It looks expensive, but its everyday usability and practicality probably makes it better value than many of the competition.
I thought the 997 Turbo S was staggeringly good, so this should be awesome.
I think quite a few GT3 buyers may re-consider their options.
Surely a different target audience than the GT3? I think Porsche purposefully make the Turbo more refined than necessary so as to prevent the cars stepping on each others toes.I thought the 997 Turbo S was staggeringly good, so this should be awesome.
I think quite a few GT3 buyers may re-consider their options.
Anyway - this just makes the GT3 seem like more of a bargain - unless you need the rear seats, the GT3 has moved closer to the Turbo - so perhaps more Turbo buyers will consider the GT3 (supply will be the issue).
A simple question.
How is it that the Ferrari F40 hit 197mph in 1988 with 478bhp. 25 years later the GT2 / Turbo S or whatever has 100-odd horsepower more but does not crack 200mph? OK I think the GT2RS was 201mph.
I know the answer must be aero, since power and aero are the only determinants of top speed, assuming nothing funny going on with rolling resitance. Is it that manufacturers have developed a lot more high speed aero to enhance top speed stability at the expense of absolute top speed?
Joel
How is it that the Ferrari F40 hit 197mph in 1988 with 478bhp. 25 years later the GT2 / Turbo S or whatever has 100-odd horsepower more but does not crack 200mph? OK I think the GT2RS was 201mph.
I know the answer must be aero, since power and aero are the only determinants of top speed, assuming nothing funny going on with rolling resitance. Is it that manufacturers have developed a lot more high speed aero to enhance top speed stability at the expense of absolute top speed?
Joel
barchetta_boy said:
A simple question.
How is it that the Ferrari F40 hit 197mph in 1988 with 478bhp. 25 years later the GT2 / Turbo S or whatever has 100-odd horsepower more but does not crack 200mph? OK I think the GT2RS was 201mph.
I know the answer must be aero, since power and aero are the only determinants of top speed, assuming nothing funny going on with rolling resitance. Is it that manufacturers have developed a lot more high speed aero to enhance top speed stability at the expense of absolute top speed?
Joel
Presumably gearing is chosen to improve economy rather than chasing a 200mph top speed?!How is it that the Ferrari F40 hit 197mph in 1988 with 478bhp. 25 years later the GT2 / Turbo S or whatever has 100-odd horsepower more but does not crack 200mph? OK I think the GT2RS was 201mph.
I know the answer must be aero, since power and aero are the only determinants of top speed, assuming nothing funny going on with rolling resitance. Is it that manufacturers have developed a lot more high speed aero to enhance top speed stability at the expense of absolute top speed?
Joel
sidicks said:
Compared to the obvious competition from a performance perspective (F458, MP12) then it might be considered good value for money - I think it's biggest problem is competition from the GT3 which is conspicuously good value in comparison and which will hold its value much better.
I'm not sure the yellow paint does the shape much favours either - there was a picture of a dark metallic blue one online which looked much more classy and a better match for the mature of the car.
Yep, I agree that the GT3 would be the obvious "competition" but for my money, I still think the Turbo S somehow goes "one louder" and it's hard to pin down why that is. I don't think it's about the money for the buyers of these cars. Whoever buys one new will drop £35k in the first year. If you cared, you just wouldn't do it.I'm not sure the yellow paint does the shape much favours either - there was a picture of a dark metallic blue one online which looked much more classy and a better match for the mature of the car.
And you are right about the yellow. It will look stunning in grey or blue I reckon.
sidicks said:
barchetta_boy said:
A simple question.
How is it that the Ferrari F40 hit 197mph in 1988 with 478bhp. 25 years later the GT2 / Turbo S or whatever has 100-odd horsepower more but does not crack 200mph? OK I think the GT2RS was 201mph.
I know the answer must be aero, since power and aero are the only determinants of top speed, assuming nothing funny going on with rolling resitance. Is it that manufacturers have developed a lot more high speed aero to enhance top speed stability at the expense of absolute top speed?
Joel
Presumably gearing is chosen to improve economy rather than chasing a 200mph top speed?!How is it that the Ferrari F40 hit 197mph in 1988 with 478bhp. 25 years later the GT2 / Turbo S or whatever has 100-odd horsepower more but does not crack 200mph? OK I think the GT2RS was 201mph.
I know the answer must be aero, since power and aero are the only determinants of top speed, assuming nothing funny going on with rolling resitance. Is it that manufacturers have developed a lot more high speed aero to enhance top speed stability at the expense of absolute top speed?
Joel
26 years ago the Ruf yellowbird was doing 213 mph with 470PS ! GT2RS is 205mph
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff