[TomD335xicoupe]

I had 993 C2, RSA, and 996 C2. I vote for the 993 as RSA costs have risen beyond value to driver, more for the garage queen people. You can and I did upgrade the 996 into a very competent track car but this will not change the Boxster front end if that is such a bother. Any variation of the 993 will be a far superior overall experience than a modern 911 unless you plan on tracking and if you do plan to get involved with the track any GT version would be best suited for that environment. Go to a local PCA meeting and meet some owners to get a good idea about your future. Best of luck

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Ummmmm...sure about that?

pic

[Ali Shiralian]

Originally Posted by M-Nuts

I'm in the market for a Porsche 911, was looking initially at a new Carrera or Carrera S
The only car the dealer had on the lot was a 4S model with manual transmission, and I got to test drive it on short loop that included a nice twisty stretch, the car definitely left me underwhelmed and wanting more, felt like the steering is vague with no feel and the car doesn't want to rotate, I currently own a Honda S2000 and a BMW M4 and the 4S driving experience was muted and dull compared to the 2 cars I own, the steering is inferior to both the S2000 and the M4, the Carrera engine felt lazy, rubbery and lacks response compared to the M4 and the S2000 (we are not talking horsepower or toque)
So what am I missing here? is it the 4 wheel drive system that made the car lose the steering feel or the turbo charged engine or the electronic steering assist or all of the above?
It was a short test drive but I usually get a good feel of a car even for a short drive, the sales guy was nice enough and let me rev it up and push hard. Stock is kinda limited at Porsche dealers where I live, and they are usually grumpy about test drives, so I would like to narrow it down to one model before I make another trip to a dealer.
I know the 911 should be great, was expecting something as sharp as the Honda S2000 but with a lot more power, but that wasn't the case.
Any one had a similar experience? I prefer to buy new, but I'm open to pre-owned, was thinking maybe older non turbo charged rear wheel drive Carrera would be what I'm looking for? maybe even a 997 with the hydraulic steering?
Not looking for tons of power or torque, I need a 911 with sharp response that is enjoyable to drive.
for those who owned or driven 911s I really appreciate your opinion and input
Thanks!

I test drove the carrera S and wasn't impressed. Went next door to the Jag dealer and test drove the F-type and signed the papers immediately after. The drive , looks, sound. Porsche didn't even come close, couldn't be happier with my decision..

[saeyedoc]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Doesn't the 911 have a lot more power and especially torque, than your Cayman?

Yes, but even with less power, in places where my Cayman would lose traction, the C2S doesn't

[hi_officer]

Originally Posted by Digital.James

Wow so much misinformation... The 959 was a mid engine car with AWD and the fastest Porsche's around race tracks currently are 2WD. So what does that tell you?

It tells me you are a noob.

959 was rear-engined.

One of the fastest Porsche's is the 918 Spyder, which is AWD. Not to mention the the TTS which is also very fast.

So yes, because of you there is probably a lot of misinformation out there.

[Digital.James]

Originally Posted by hi_officer

It tells me you are a noob.

959 was rear-engined.

One of the fastest Porsche's is the 918 Spyder, which is AWD. Not to mention the the TTS which is also very fast.

So yes, because of you there is probably a lot of misinformation out there.

You're right the 959 was a rear engine... but it doesn't change my argument that AWD wasn't added to get rid of rear engine induced under steer. It was to solve the issue of traction with ever increasing HP figures. And you missed a key word in my statement of about the fastest Porsches... 'CURRENTLY'. 3 of the 4 quickest Porsches around the ring this decade are 2WD.

[hi_officer]

Originally Posted by Digital.James

You're right the 959 was a rear engine... but it doesn't change my argument that AWD wasn't added to get rid of rear engine induced under steer. It was to solve the issue of traction with ever increasing HP figures. And you missed a key word in my statement of about the fastest Porsches... 'CURRENTLY'. 3 of the 4 quickest Porsches around the ring this decade are 2WD.

...which is why I didn't comment on that part.

I don't know what you are getting at with your last comment. I specifically said one is the 918, fully understanding the others were RWD.

Gosh, I swear some people get overworked so easily.

[hi_officer]

Originally Posted by Digital.James

You're right the 959 was a rear engine... but it doesn't change my argument that AWD wasn't added to get rid of rear engine induced under steer. It was to solve the issue of traction with ever increasing HP figures. And you missed a key word in my statement of about the fastest Porsches... 'CURRENTLY'. 3 of the 4 quickest Porsches around the ring this decade are 2WD.

And I think you mean trailing throttle oversteer. That is to say that when cornering, if the throttle is lifted mid-corner there is a weight shift from rear to front which can result in the rear tires losing grip

[Blindside]

Originally Posted by hi_officer

And I think you mean trailing throttle oversteer. That is to say that when cornering, if the throttle is lifted mid-corner there is a weight shift from rear to front which can result in the rear tires losing grip

AKA "Chicken Lifting"

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Blindside

AKA "Chicken Lifting"

AKA a good way to seriously hurt yourself - lifting is bad bad bad. The older cars can be a lot more fun and engaging if you know what you're doing, but can also bite you in the ass if you don't.

To find your ideal 911 basically rate your driving skill - realistically - 1 through 5. Then use that number to index backwards from current. So if you're a 3 you'll max out your fun, minimize chances of killing yourself in ~996.

There were some real widow makers back in the day. If you can beat the animal into submission it's a hoot and a great drive, if not you can end up hurt real bad.

[saeyedoc]

They definitely take some technique. When I first took mine on a spirited drive with tons of turns, I found it best to keep it in a low enough gear so I didn't have to hit the brakes for the turns.

[Viffermike]

Digital.James : Read this article in the New York Times by Dan Neil in 1999 -- the same year, incidentally, that he won the IMPA Purdy Award for auto journalism, one of the greatest honors in the field:

It states, within the first two grafs (emphasis added):
"... In sports cars, which tend to spin the rear wheels on wet pavement, all-wheel drive temporarily diverts power to the front, helping to stabilize the car."

"For a decade, Porsche has offered all-wheel drive on its 911's, rear-engine machines that, with 60 percent of their weight over the drive wheels, never have much trouble finding traction on dry roads but can be twitchy when it is wet. Porsche's system imbues its cars with an extra measure of all-weather capability. But it also gives the 911 a bonehead-friendly disposition, bailing out drivers whose appetite for speed exceeds their ability to drive."

Fundamentally, it was an issue of handling, specifically in the wet, related to the loss of traction in a car that, when traction is lost, is a very, very dangerous object because of its rear-engine bias.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

pic attached

No need, saw it last month in person

[Digital.James]

Originally Posted by hi_officer

...which is why I didn't comment on that part.

I don't know what you are getting at with your last comment. I specifically said one is the 918, fully understanding the others were RWD.

Gosh, I swear some people get overworked so easily.

Who is getting overworked? The guy who is spewing insults? You get offended so easily often?

[Digital.James]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Digital.James : Read this article in the New York Times by Dan Neil in 1999 -- the same year, incidentally, that he won the IMPA Purdy Award for auto journalism, one of the greatest honors in the field:

It states, within the first two grafs (emphasis added):
"... In sports cars, which tend to spin the rear wheels on wet pavement, all-wheel drive temporarily diverts power to the front, helping to stabilize the car."

"For a decade, Porsche has offered all-wheel drive on its 911's, rear-engine machines that, with 60 percent of their weight over the drive wheels, never have much trouble finding traction on dry roads but can be twitchy when it is wet. Porsche's system imbues its cars with an extra measure of all-weather capability. But it also gives the 911 a bonehead-friendly disposition, bailing out drivers whose appetite for speed exceeds their ability to drive."

Fundamentally, it was an issue of handling, specifically in the wet, related to the loss of traction in a car that, when traction is lost, is a very, very dangerous object because of its rear-engine bias.

#noob

What are you talking about? That's exactly what I said... awd was added for traction purposes As stated in the article.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by Digital.James

What are you talking about? That's exactly what I said... awd was added for traction purposes is the synopsis of the article.

to improve the handling -- not because of too much power as you stated, but to mitigate the 'twitchy' handling characteristics of a car that naturally oversteers, which is a condition far harder to get under control than understeer, even for an expert driver.

Keep in mind that we are talking about the 911, a vehicle meant for consumers first -- not the 959, a vehicle meant for racing first. In those days, AWD had distinct traction advantages in a racing context, which is what you're alluding to. As applied in the 911, AWD had a far different purpose: to make the car safer for the everyday driver.

Handling. Period. In print. End of story.

-- 30 --

[Red Bread]

To be fair you're arguing for the later, lighter, simpler version of awd, not the goofball 964 version that was closely related to the much more complex 959 version. It had little to do with handling and much more to do with stupid shit rich people do.

[img]https://rennlist.com/forums/attachme...ps888dfc7a.jpg[/img]

Point being, regardless of era, awd 911s are pretty lame.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Point being, regardless of era, awd 911s are pretty lame.

In theory, yes, compared to RWD in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing and can actually drive the car near the limits, AWD is lame as in less fun. Not 100% sure it's lame in terms of lap times - don't have the data to empirically support the argument but my hunch is AWD would be faster around a track even for an expert driver. Less fun but faster.

That said IN PRACTICE is where the AWD comes into the conversation as better. For someone who's not as good a driver an AWD 911 is still a better car that they can have more fun with than a lot of other options on the road. Forget comparing it to a RWD 911 that they can't really use, but compared to other non-Porsche stuff out there the AWD 911 can be the best and most fun choice for some.

[beats]

Originally Posted by M-Nuts

How's the throttle response on the 991.1? I have the F82 which has a powerhouse of an engine compared to the E92.

I haven't driven the F82 before, so can only compare to the E92 (mine was tuned with test pipes). The 991.1 pulls a lot harder it seems, although TBH I haven't been on track with it yet, and I haven't even really opened it up much. More than the power though, the handling is far better IMO. And I had MCS in my E92 when I sold it. Can't wait to get the GTS on the track...

[M-Nuts]

Originally Posted by lat77

My suggestions (solely based on the input you've provided)

1) Cayman GT4
2) 997.1 GT3
3) Carrera GTS

In that order.

#1&2 only available with 3 pedals, but only #1 and #3 will have any warranty options depending on year.

997.1 engine is sublime and seriously robust. Not for everyone though. In my eyes, the perfect blend of power, rawness, and soul. I prefer the .1 GT3 over the Cayman GT4, but that's just me.

The GT4---a great mix of what your S2000 provides and probably what you're looking for out of a Porsche.

[endy]

I'm so glad I came across this thread. I'm also in the same boat as you .

[GeorgeA]

I think 911s might be overrated to some extend. The 991.2 beetle is a very solid car but because of it, losing its rawness. GTS or GT3 might be a better option.