Adrift

I’m not missing anything, trust me. That point is abundantly clear, and as I stated, there is history behind designations. But not having an RS badge doesn’t mean the spyder rs/se can’t have lots of improvements that would normally be associated with an rs monikor (tweaked motor, lightened up, better aero, yada yada). He basically states if it is an SE, “it is not an rs.” And as I said, the gt spyder isn’t called gt. Does that change anything about it? No. It’s a name. The car is made by the gt dept, and is identical to a gt4, minus roof and wing. If they can do that, they can make a spyder se which is basically an rs, but not called rs. See my point?

Besides the whole logical argument is backwards. Certain things have to be done to consider a car an rs; whatever, but okay. But nothing says rs-like things can’t be done to a car, and call it something other than rs. (Fourth attempt to gain traction with the gt spyder not called gt example)

The se could be a paint and plaque special. Booooo! Or it could be more; much more. The fact an rs was rumored and semi verified by someone people on the forums trust would seem to indicate the car should be more than a paint and plaque special.

TXshaggy

2008 Boxster RS60 Spyder…seems like Porsche was pretty fast and loose with a lot of “sacred” identifiers there. RS America…another marketing spin.

Why are we getting so spun up on what a “RS” is?

sanderabernathy

Thread topics ranked from most factual to least factual:

• Track time reductions produced by ceramic coatings
• Tire longevity advantages from using nitrogen rather than air
• Oil preferences
• Break-in procedures
• This one.

But this one is entertaining.

AlexCeres

can’t believe you left out EVs and ADM

Adrift

My speculative prediction and rationale: *IF* this thing exists at all, given the gt4/spyder paradigm, it will be all the gt4 rs upgrades they can easily reuse, and maybe some unique convertible variants, while leaving off anything which involves major redesign or is ONLY of utility on a track.

This conversation got me into thinking about why the sales-generating GT label wasn’t used on the very gt spyder. Besides just looking awkward (spyder gt?), could it be liability issues, with the GT label implying “built for the track,” and Porsche being worried putting that on a roofless/cageless car like the spyder might lead to deaths and or liability they would be seen to be encouraging?

It makes sense Porsche would reuse any reasonable improvements they make to an RS gt4 on a spyder, to sell to a different line of clients, especially given the similarity in the base platforms. Motor, suspension, light weighting, brakes, external aero (where reasonable)…check check and check. It’s consistent with the philosophy of harmonizing the gt4 and the spyder in the first place.

Or it’s paint and plaque. Some marketing weenie is possibly deciding right now. lol

Westcoast

Porsche if you are listening,,, just say NO to the marketing weenies!

Adrift

Amen. At least it can be a background on my laptop. lol

ExMB

Have you ever looked into 911 and their "Speedster"? There lies your answer why no GT moniker is used on a vert.

Adrift

lol You’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

+5 points for pointing out the corollary to the speedster
-10 points for withholding the actual information you claim to know

Based on a cursory google search, my theorizing would appear to represent the situation, more or less, ie the ultimate suitability of designating a cageless convertible as a “track car”.

GooDy151

News update

IRM

Come on don't crop that pic!

Westcoast

Thanks for sharing, too bad the context is destroyed by the crop... The headers for the columns would be nice.

Rather then me guessing, what is "CW" before the dates, and "SoS" behind the Spyder RS ?

Ramon Vennik

Calendar Week and Special Order Service ?

n4v4nod

SOS is Start Of Sales.

n4v4nod

First Column is Debut/Launch and Second Column is SOS.