GT Porsche RS review

[andy tims]

Looked oh so tempting - nice cover shot of 2.7, 964, 993, 996 & 997 RS, but what a let down.

Having driven 964 & 993RS, but neither of the others I was hoping for an informed / reasonably detailed impartial comparision of the cars. OK it was raining on the day of the "test" so try again when it's dry FFS, but no - better to have a superficial "scoop" than miss the publishing deadline.

Half decent photography notwithstanding, virtually a complete waste of £4.25 - could have got a gallon of petrol instead.

Wish I'd stuck to my resolution of never buying this mag again.

Edited by andy tims on Wednesday 7th March 23:54

[JFT]

Agreed. Crap review (with lots of factual mistakes as usual).

[RS Patrik]

Agree.

And the usual easy way, say the RS 2.7 is the best. Gee, never would guessed any motorjournalist would say that in a review....

[Geneve]

Haven't seen the article, but any of these comparisons are not really comparing like with like.

- The 'Greatest' will always be the 2.7RS, because of its historical significance.
- The 'Best' will probably be the lastest 997 GT3RS, because that's progress.
- But 'Favourite' could be any, because that's subjective and down to individual preference.

[barrythompson]

andy tims said:

Looked oh so tempting - nice cover shot of 2.7, 964, 993, 996 & 997 RS, but what a let down.

Having driven 964 & 993RS, but neither of the others I was hoping for an informed / reasonably detailed impartial comparision of the cars. OK it was raining on the day of the "test" so try again when it's dry FFS, but no - better to have a superficial "scoop" than miss the publishing deadline.

Half decent photography notwithstanding, virtually a complete waste of £4.25 - could have got a gallon of petrol instead.

Wish I'd stuck to my resolution of never buying this mag again

Edited by andy tims on Wednesday 7th March 23:54

I rushed out before the Man U game last night after a tip off it was in the shops. Nice pics but a magazine with absolutly no content.

Barry

[glenn mcmenamin]

andy tims said:

Looked oh so tempting - nice cover shot of 2.7, 964, 993, 996 & 997 RS, but what a let down.

Having driven 964 & 993RS, but neither of the others I was hoping for an informed / reasonably detailed impartial comparision of the cars. OK it was raining on the day of the "test" so try again when it's dry FFS, but no - better to have a superficial "scoop" than miss the publishing deadline.

Half decent photography notwithstanding, virtually a complete waste of £4.25 - could have got a gallon of petrol instead.

Wish I'd stuck to my resolution of never buying this mag again.

Edited by andy tims on Wednesday 7th March 23:54

I understand your point there Andy, and i too was a bit underwhelmed by the editorial for
the comparisons between the cars.
I was quite amazed how they were able to write so much about my car from just 2 laps of an
absolutely drenched Croft circuit tbh...

Thing is though, being regular forum goers, i think we all know the merrits/downsides of each of the
individual cars moreso than nearly any magazine, as we are always seeing and reading about owners 1st hand experiences
of the cars, plus our own aswell..
With this in mind, bottom line is, that it would be rare for a magazine to really tell you anything that you don't
know already, and if like me when you read over the article, you end up skipping over the stuff that you could recite in your sleep already etc, then, the only things that are of interest, are possibly their possibly controversial opinions that may be not considered as the norm for a particular car...

I think you are correct about the deadline thing, as they were up against it to make this issue, and if they REALLY wanted to get to the heart of each cars character, they would have waited for a better opportunity,(weather and time wise) maybe that chance will come a again, although some may not give them a 2nd chance...

Pics were good though


G.

Edited by glenn mcmenamin on Thursday 8th March 10:04

[JFT]

glenn mcmenamin said:

andy tims said:

Looked oh so tempting - nice cover shot of 2.7, 964, 993, 996 & 997 RS, but what a let down.

Having driven 964 & 993RS, but neither of the others I was hoping for an informed / reasonably detailed impartial comparision of the cars. OK it was raining on the day of the "test" so try again when it's dry FFS, but no - better to have a superficial "scoop" than miss the publishing deadline.

Half decent photography notwithstanding, virtually a complete waste of £4.25 - could have got a gallon of petrol instead.

Wish I'd stuck to my resolution of never buying this mag again.

Edited by andy tims on Wednesday 7th March 23:54

I understand your point there Andy, and i too was a bit underwhelmed by the editorial for
the comparisons between the cars.
I was quite amazed how they were able to write so much about my car from just 2 laps of an
absolutely drenched Croft circuit tbh...

Thing is though, being regular forum goers, i think we all know the merrits/downsides of each of the
individual cars moreso than nearly any magazine, as we are always seeing and reading about owners 1st hand experiences
of the cars, plus our own aswell..
With this in mind, bottom line is, that it would be rare for a magazine to really tell you anything that you don't
know already, and if like me when you read over the article, you end up skipping over the stuff that you could recite in your sleep already etc, then, the only things that are of interest, are possibly their possibly controversial opinions that may be not considered as the norm for a particular car...

I think you are correct about the deadline thing, as they were up against it to make this issue, and if they REALLY wanted to get to the heart of each cars character, they would have waited for a better opportunity,(weather and time wise) maybe that chance will come a again, although some may not give them a 2nd chance...

Pics were good though


G.

Edited by glenn mcmenamin on Thursday 8th March 10:04

Fair points Glenn. I just don't understand why it's so bloody hard to get facts right in a magazine totally devoted to Porsche. GT3 Club Sport has single mass flywheel... The 997 RS has same carbon bits as 996 RS... Weighs the same as GT3 (knowldge section)... Maybe the mag is aimed at teh public rather than enthusiasts - as you say Glenn.

[glenn mcmenamin]

JFT said:

glenn mcmenamin said:

andy tims said:

Looked oh so tempting - nice cover shot of 2.7, 964, 993, 996 & 997 RS, but what a let down.

Having driven 964 & 993RS, but neither of the others I was hoping for an informed / reasonably detailed impartial comparision of the cars. OK it was raining on the day of the "test" so try again when it's dry FFS, but no - better to have a superficial "scoop" than miss the publishing deadline.

Half decent photography notwithstanding, virtually a complete waste of £4.25 - could have got a gallon of petrol instead.

Wish I'd stuck to my resolution of never buying this mag again.

Edited by andy tims on Wednesday 7th March 23:54

I understand your point there Andy, and i too was a bit underwhelmed by the editorial for
the comparisons between the cars.
I was quite amazed how they were able to write so much about my car from just 2 laps of an
absolutely drenched Croft circuit tbh...

Thing is though, being regular forum goers, i think we all know the merrits/downsides of each of the
individual cars moreso than nearly any magazine, as we are always seeing and reading about owners 1st hand experiences
of the cars, plus our own aswell..
With this in mind, bottom line is, that it would be rare for a magazine to really tell you anything that you don't
know already, and if like me when you read over the article, you end up skipping over the stuff that you could recite in your sleep already etc, then, the only things that are of interest, are possibly their possibly controversial opinions that may be not considered as the norm for a particular car...

I think you are correct about the deadline thing, as they were up against it to make this issue, and if they REALLY wanted to get to the heart of each cars character, they would have waited for a better opportunity,(weather and time wise) maybe that chance will come a again, although some may not give them a 2nd chance...

Pics were good though


G.

Edited by glenn mcmenamin on Thursday 8th March 10:04

Fair points Glenn. I just don't understand why it's so bloody hard to get facts right in a magazine totally devoted to Porsche. GT3 Club Sport has single mass flywheel... The 997 RS has same carbon bits as 996 RS... Weighs the same as GT3 (knowldge section)... Maybe the mag is aimed at teh public rather than enthusiasts - as you say Glenn.

Agreed,

No excuse for things like that, they can get that info off the internet FFS !!!

Edited by glenn mcmenamin on Thursday 8th March 10:20

[barchetta_boy]

RS Patrik said:

Agree.

And the usual easy way, say the RS 2.7 is the best. Gee, never would guessed any motorjournalist would say that in a review....

Some motoring journalists actually knew what they were talking about AND were able to form their own opinions... like the late Alan Clark. He owned - amongst many other cars - a 911 Carrera, a 550A Spyder (now the most valuable roadgoing porsche ever?) and countless 356s.

He also rated the 3 litre Carrera RS as a superior machine to the 2.7 if I recall correctly.

[johnny senna]

Why didn't GT Porsche let Chris Harris do the article? There is no way he would have made the school boy factual errors already mentioned on this thread. He would have also been able to write something interesting or something with a different angle for once.

Edited by johnny senna on Thursday 8th March 10:40

[scotty_917]

johnny senna said:

Why didn't GT Porsche let Chris Harris do the article? There is no way he would have made the school boy factual errors already mentioned on this thread. He would have also been able to write something interesting or something with a different angle for once.

Edited by johnny senna on Thursday 8th March 10:40

Exactly

[Pugsey]

I don't know the ins and outs behind this specific article but getting all the right cars together at the right time and in the right place can be a nightmare - and that's before deadlines and weather come into play!

Factual errors however are in my opinion unforgiveable. Over the past few years I've contributed to a few of the mags in a very small way and it has always suprised and worried me to hear how Joe Public - as opposed to more informed enthusiasts - tends to take every word you say as utter gospel even basing his buying decisions on them. Because of this I've always been very concerned to make sure that any facts I impart are bxxxdy well correct. A major monthly has a full road and track test of the 997GT3 in it's current issue and here we have yet another mag saying that the Clubsport pack is a no cost option. IT ISN'T! - you can only have it if you spec the buckets at £3k. Further the pack doesn't come with a battery cut off switch as stated either - it comes with cut off switch 'preparation'. Want the actual switch - 'that'll be £500 (yes really) please sir!' It might sound as if I'm being a bit of a pedant but it's what these Mags. do for a living for goodness sake. Differing opinions on a car's dynamics are more acceptable - we're all individuals and you soon decide which particular journo. gets it right from you own particular point of view. For me it's Harris and Meaden.

[johnny senna]

Pugsey said:

A major monthly has a full road and track test of the 997GT3 in it's current issue and here we have yet another mag saying that the Clubsport pack is a no cost option. IT ISN'T! - you can only have it if you spec the buckets at £3k. Further the pack doesn't come with a battery cut off switch as stated either - it comes with cut off switch 'preparation'. Want the actual switch - 'that'll be £500 (yes really) please sir!'

I agree. I am sick of reading the same old errors time and again. How hard can it be to get it right? These journalists are supposed to be full time car bods. We are only part time. And yet I bet loads of Porsche fan PHers spot the same old errors in these mags time and again. Muppets.

[cuneus]

A leopard has not changed it's spots: have sent them an email asking to respond in this thread

[johnny senna]

On a similar matter, PHer Cem who has a 997 GT3 had his car featured in this month's Total 911......and the morons couldn't even get his name right!! I'm sorry, but getting someone's name wrong is incredibly offensive and suggests lack of respect.

If a journo does respond to this thread, they will have to try really hard to convince me that they are actually trying hard to elminate mistakes. FFS....if I was as sloppy as this in my job.....

[scotty_917]

johnny senna said:

On a similar matter, PHer Cem who has a 997 GT3 had his car featured in this month's Total 911......and the morons couldn't even get his name right!! I'm sorry, but getting someone's name wrong is incredibly offensive and suggests lack of respect.

If a journo does respond to this thread, they will have to try really hard to convince me that they are actually trying hard to elminate mistakes. FFS....if I was as sloppy as this in my job.....

Rob Mugglestone from Total 911 frequents this forum, so maybe he can come up with a journo's perspective?

[andy tims]

johnny senna said:

FFS....if I was as sloppy as this in my job.....

(injokemodeon)
Your mates might end up getting all your prescription data
(injokemodeoff)

Seriously though, I suspect the majority of us would get sacked or sued.

Edited by andy tims on Thursday 8th March 12:53

[johnny senna]

andy tims said:

johnny senna said:

FFS....if I was as sloppy as this in my job.....

(injokemodeon)
Your mates might end up getting all your prescription data
(injokemodeoff)

Seriously though, I suspect the majority of us would get sacked or sued.

Edited by andy tims on Thursday 8th March 12:53

Don't tell everyone Andy!!!

[Mid life]

Even the enthusiasts seem to get it wrong.....only the RS has the single mass fly wheel!! (it was the 996 CS that had it as well)

[iain_cam]

It's been interesting to read the comments on this thread, and I sadly say I must agree with the majority. However, what makes it even more frustrating is that GT Purely Porsche has the propensity to be something to much better than it currently is.

The main problem with the writing, as said above, is the factual errors. One or two within the space of a year's subsription are acceptable - even the paragon of automotive journalism, the hallowed evo are known to slip in the odd error - but they should not occur on a specialist magazine. The writers need to have such a basis of knowledge - they live and breathe Porsche every day - so errors are nigh on unacceptable. To me, it tends to hint at laziness and maybe a writer not passionate with their subject matter. The fact that the piece is so obviously scribbled up quickly the evening before a deadline is also evident, with alarming frequency.

Once this is sorted, the actual articles need to be enhanced. Today, my copy of evo plopped onto my mat, and inside is a gorgeous article on the GT3. The article in question is probably the type of writing that GTPP should aim for - clear, concise, immaculately written and presented, and complimented by stunning photography. A host of technical and performance data fills a whole page, and the words make you feel in the passenger seat - something I appreciate as I have never driven any car, let alone a Porsche, in my puff. And lets face it, the chance of piloting a 2.7 RS is becoming slimmer and slimmer, so I want to know what it's like, instead of a half-page feature outlining how the car was reduced in weight and that it's 'pure and uncorrupted' - phrases which are almost cliches on the subject of the RS.

A specialist magazine should be supremely passionate and exciting to read. GTPP is currently only half way there, and I would like to see it complete the journey and make every second Thursday of every month a 'Key Date'.