991.2 C2S Test drive
04-20-2016, 07:25 AM
#31
Instructor
Thread Starter
04-20-2016, 07:29 AM
#32
Haha yup and yup to last attended of last to posts. I'll reserve judgement till driving but odds are I will agree to that ��
04-20-2016, 08:53 AM
#33
Rennlist Member
all companies must consult with AMG reference sound
I owned a c63 AMG with NA engine, and currently drive a E63 with twin turbo engine. I can tell you they both sound glorious and I , and I bet most people, will not be able to tell if one car is turbo charged vs NA. Why other companies including Porsche can't copy that ?
I owned a c63 AMG with NA engine, and currently drive a E63 with twin turbo engine. I can tell you they both sound glorious and I , and I bet most people, will not be able to tell if one car is turbo charged vs NA. Why other companies including Porsche can't copy that ?
04-20-2016, 08:57 AM
#34
Instructor
Thread Starter
all companies must consult with AMG reference sound
I owned a c63 AMG with NA engine, and currently drive a E63 with twin turbo engine. I can tell you they both sound glorious and I , and I bet most people, will not be able to tell if one car is turbo charged vs NA. Why other companies including Porsche can't copy that ?
I owned a c63 AMG with NA engine, and currently drive a E63 with twin turbo engine. I can tell you they both sound glorious and I , and I bet most people, will not be able to tell if one car is turbo charged vs NA. Why other companies including Porsche can't copy that ?
Friend of mine had an SLS demonstrator for a weekend and it sounded like a Spitfire plane. Amazing!
Unfortunately it sounded insanely loud ALL the time and by the time the weekend was done the novelty wore off and actually that was one of the things that put him off the car in the end. He ended up with a 911 Turbo S.
04-20-2016, 09:29 AM
#35
The above is extremely correct 
but part of that is displacement tho right ;-) 6.3 or 5.0 or whatever v8/v12 etc plus turbos helps vs. 3.0 turbo. I will say the s4 with 3.0 and supercharger sounds decent by again not turbo and muffled. Let's see what the new rs4 and rs3 sound like. The 5 cyl turbos from Audi on he s
but part of that is displacement tho right ;-) 6.3 or 5.0 or whatever v8/v12 etc plus turbos helps vs. 3.0 turbo. I will say the s4 with 3.0 and supercharger sounds decent by again not turbo and muffled. Let's see what the new rs4 and rs3 sound like. The 5 cyl turbos from Audi on he s
04-20-2016, 09:33 AM
#36
Yes and no. As is often the case, each time a new 911 is launched, there is always a lot of poison thrown around. And yet when the dust settles 6 months or a year later, the vast majority are in agreement that the new model is miles better than the last. And why wouldn't it be with Porsche putting so much money (and their necks) on the line!
I don't think I've seen any jealousy here, and I'm certainly not assuming there is any. However what I do see is resentment from some (not all).
Remember that folks who dished out over 100k not too long ago are looking at getting another 40k-50k sucked out of them to keep up so you can understand the negatively from folks who consciously or unconsciously try to convince themselves that their car is somehow better, with some naively claiming the new car to be a downgrade in most departments.
Obviously they can't go against facts/performance figures so the next port of call is the self delusion that somehow the old gen car which is slower in a straight line and on the track is a more enjoyable drive due to it having more soul, emotion or similar rubbish.
I have no problem with folks wanting to keep their 40-50k and not wanting to move on. Do what I did and skip a few gens (less painful to the wallet and mind).
I just wish they'd stop churning out nonsensical negativity with regard to the new car.
Simply put, this is the best 911 ever made until the new one comes along in a few years. After which the whole merry-go-round will start again
I don't think I've seen any jealousy here, and I'm certainly not assuming there is any. However what I do see is resentment from some (not all).
Remember that folks who dished out over 100k not too long ago are looking at getting another 40k-50k sucked out of them to keep up so you can understand the negatively from folks who consciously or unconsciously try to convince themselves that their car is somehow better, with some naively claiming the new car to be a downgrade in most departments.
Obviously they can't go against facts/performance figures so the next port of call is the self delusion that somehow the old gen car which is slower in a straight line and on the track is a more enjoyable drive due to it having more soul, emotion or similar rubbish.
I have no problem with folks wanting to keep their 40-50k and not wanting to move on. Do what I did and skip a few gens (less painful to the wallet and mind).
I just wish they'd stop churning out nonsensical negativity with regard to the new car.
Simply put, this is the best 911 ever made until the new one comes along in a few years. After which the whole merry-go-round will start again
For me 964 Best Porsche hands down.
maybe 991.2 second but I need to add a 964, after I pay off the 991.2 in 64 years
04-20-2016, 09:57 AM
#37
I don't belong to the "it's faster therefore it's better crowd" (after all if that's the case go buy a z06 and save money while getting a better car) but I am curious how much faster it really is than the .1 GTS it replaces. The GTS has more power and less weight, unlike the 997.2 GTS to 991S where power went down by 8 hp but weight went down as well.
Obviously the .2 feels much faster with gobs of torque at lower RPM, and Porsche's times quoted by marketting are going to be lower no matter what the true figures are; being able to do that is one reason why they quote such conservative times.
I haven't seen any true instrumented tests by R&T, C&D or the like yet. Shouldn't Porsche have given them a car for enough time to do a full test by now?
Obviously the .2 feels much faster with gobs of torque at lower RPM, and Porsche's times quoted by marketting are going to be lower no matter what the true figures are; being able to do that is one reason why they quote such conservative times.
I haven't seen any true instrumented tests by R&T, C&D or the like yet. Shouldn't Porsche have given them a car for enough time to do a full test by now?
04-20-2016, 10:48 AM
#38
Instructor
Thread Starter
I did mention the words 'best all rounder' in one of my posts which is what I believe the car to be.
Driver reaction times, minus or plus....would make this a non talking point anyway.
04-20-2016, 10:59 AM
#39
I agree... but that would suggest that going from a .1 GTS to a .2S is probably in the "feels much faster driven normally but very similar when driven flat out" category.
04-20-2016, 06:03 PM
#40
Burning Brakes
In the end it is all subjective. You have to hate your money to buy any of these useless cars.
04-20-2016, 06:51 PM
#41
04-20-2016, 07:00 PM
#42
04-20-2016, 09:22 PM
#43
Yes and no. As is often the case, each time a new 911 is launched, there is always a lot of poison thrown around. And yet when the dust settles 6 months or a year later, the vast majority are in agreement that the new model is miles better than the last. And why wouldn't it be with Porsche putting so much money (and their necks) on the line!
I don't think I've seen any jealousy here, and I'm certainly not assuming there is any. However what I do see is resentment from some (not all).
Remember that folks who dished out over 100k not too long ago are looking at getting another 40k-50k sucked out of them to keep up so you can understand the negatively from folks who consciously or unconsciously try to convince themselves that their car is somehow better, with some naively claiming the new car to be a downgrade in most departments.
Obviously they can't go against facts/performance figures so the next port of call is the self delusion that somehow the old gen car which is slower in a straight line and on the track is a more enjoyable drive due to it having more soul, emotion or similar rubbish.
I have no problem with folks wanting to keep their 40-50k and not wanting to move on. Do what I did and skip a few gens (less painful to the wallet and mind).
I just wish they'd stop churning out nonsensical negativity with regard to the new car.
Simply put, this is the best 911 ever made until the new one comes along in a few years. After which the whole merry-go-round will start again
I don't think I've seen any jealousy here, and I'm certainly not assuming there is any. However what I do see is resentment from some (not all).
Remember that folks who dished out over 100k not too long ago are looking at getting another 40k-50k sucked out of them to keep up so you can understand the negatively from folks who consciously or unconsciously try to convince themselves that their car is somehow better, with some naively claiming the new car to be a downgrade in most departments.
Obviously they can't go against facts/performance figures so the next port of call is the self delusion that somehow the old gen car which is slower in a straight line and on the track is a more enjoyable drive due to it having more soul, emotion or similar rubbish.
I have no problem with folks wanting to keep their 40-50k and not wanting to move on. Do what I did and skip a few gens (less painful to the wallet and mind).
I just wish they'd stop churning out nonsensical negativity with regard to the new car.
Simply put, this is the best 911 ever made until the new one comes along in a few years. After which the whole merry-go-round will start again
The biggest and essentially only real mechanical difference is the new engine, and RWS. Clearly a FI application changes the character of the car that may not be to the liking of everyone, to call it the classic people with the now "old car" bitching about the "new car" scenario is misguided and a simplification of the facts.
Almost everyone who presented a review of the new car started by asking the obvious question, is the new engine up to par with the beloved flat 6?? Being skeptical is natural and right in many instances such as this as few things will be lost in order of gains in other areas.
For my part, I had no intention of buying a car at this time but I rushed to pick a 16 before it was too late after knowing what was coming, could have easily waited a few months and get a new CS for less money than my GTS.
The reality of it is that an atmospheric engine has its own character and attributes, all that torque and speed is over rated IMO, having driven a 911 Turbo, I knew I did not want one and the new CS is no better than the big brother Turbo as that car is better than the new CS in every way as you like put it.
04-20-2016, 10:20 PM
#44
Rennlist Member
Agreed...or a Nissan GTR with its horrible quality cabin.....although I wouldn't like to sit in either cabin, which by the way is where we do our driving, as I consider the interior of the 911 to be a far nicer place to be in...........I don't think we need to worry about +/-8 BHP.
Driver reaction times, minus or plus....would make this a non talking point anyway.
Driver reaction times, minus or plus....would make this a non talking point anyway.
speaking of minuses and pluses,
04-21-2016, 06:05 AM
#45
Rennlist Member
Torque curves on turbocharged motors are very deceiving, since you need to have maximum load on the motor to replicate anything close to them (i.e. going uphill in a high gear). Otherwise you will never see max torque at under 2k rpm...
Unlike a simple two dimensional graph of torque vs. rpm with an NA motor, you almost need a third variable (engine load) to get a good picture of the available torque.
Unlike a simple two dimensional graph of torque vs. rpm with an NA motor, you almost need a third variable (engine load) to get a good picture of the available torque.