Originally Posted by R_Rated

Show up with that and lets see.

Originally Posted by NoGaBiker

Here's a synopsis of the points:

"The .1 sounds better and has better "feel" to the power delivery."
"Bahhh... the .2 is much faster in a line, around a turn, around a course, in the mountains, on the plains, in the magazines, downtown, uptown, midtown, in the country, in the suburbs..."
"But the .1 has more soul, more 911, more hearty, throaty non-linear old school thrills."
"It's just antiquated. The interior is dated, the Apple doesn't CarPlay, the steering wheel lacks a ****."


And on and on. Basically, the .1 adherents keep saying their car has more feel, more excitement, more of what makes a 911 special.

The .2 guys keep saying theirs is faster in every metric. So much faster that a base .2 keeps up with an S or GTS .1, and an .2S keeps up with a .1 3RS.

To which the .1s reply "We don't care about speed beyond what's in the .1."

To which the .2s reply "This construct of yours that it's all about noise and power delivery is just nostalgia and wishful thinking."

And eventually it devolves into:

"You're just too newb to get the specialness of NA power delivery and sound. You can't drive well enough to exploit the quirks of 911 NA power delivery and chassis setup."

"Oh yeah? You're just too po to afford a shiny new .2, so you're trying to sour-grapes your way into believing yours is better."

That, gentlemen (surely there are no ladies so desperate as to actually be engaged in this conversation?) is it in a nutshell. Can I get an amen?


So, as a proud 991.1 owner, a man who, in fact, moved a planned purchase forward when news of the upcoming turbos was confirmed, a man who has owned two Turbos and specifically wanted something else from his Carrera experience, allow me to stipulate:

The 991.2 seems to perform better in all measurable metrics than the 991.1. Whether or not it bests rival 2017 cars today as well as the 991.1 bested rival cars in 2012 is immaterial; it is a much better performing car than its predecesor. (I've not driven one; going on the near universal testimony of those who have.) While the definition of "much" in the preceding sentence is open to debate, the rest of the sentence is probably universally accepted. Additionally, various creature comfort features that apparently bothered some owners of the 991.1 have been addressed in the .2, successfully it would seem. I don't have those complaints, but if one does, then this could be important.

By the same token, the 991.1 delivers its power differently, and makes different sounds while doing so, than the 991.2. To some 991 people, that difference is a hugely favorable one in the .1's favor. To these people it is the most important element of this divide and cannot be gotten past. (To be fair, I count myself in this group.)

To other 991 people the difference is there, and they may prefer the .1 in these aspects, but the greater performance and ergos of the .2 overwhelm that preference.

And to a third group of us, the differences are real but not even favorable to the .1; they find everything about the .2, including sound and low-rpm-torque, to be preferable to 991.1.

The problems arise when either of these groups tries to argue the other groups to their position by using the arguments that favor their car, while ignoring the fact that the other camp discounts those arguments in favor of the argument that favors their car. And so the wall of noise arises as we yell back and forth the equivalent of

LESS FILLING!!!

TASTES GREAT!!!

Part II to follow.

Originally Posted by Dennis C

Turbos are the bombdiggity....

Originally Posted by am722

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Originally Posted by NoGaBiker

Hey, you can just keep your Spanish out of this thread, mister.

Originally Posted by am722

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Originally Posted by KenTO

I think this quote is in poor taste.

Originally Posted by Bemo

'Tis Latin
"

Originally Posted by NoGaBiker

I assumed everyone knew that.