fixnprsh

Ked

You missed the point completely, you DRIVE a car where function comes before form, meaning, comfort and efficeny take a back seat to performance.

I will repeat myself again:
"any loon who considers gas mileage when purchasing a Porsche, doesn't deserve to drive it, as thats not what the experiance is about."

once you talk with your "buddy" Haywood, make sure you mention this subject of efficency, I'm sure he will have a good laugh at you too

And about your little trophies and DE, good for you, you can shoe your way to a trophy, what car and class? I've built engines for GT3 cup cars that are worth twice what you drive. So don't bark to me about race cars like I'm an idiot.

What do you do for a living?

S2TGART

Boy, how easily an innocent question about fuel economy turns into a heated argument of motivations to buy a Porsche.
Fixnprsh, I agree with you that someone who puts mpg, as a PRIORITY when looking to buy a 911 is looking at the wrong car. I know I certainly didn't even think about it. I was just surprised by the fuel economy I did get on a trip to NH. That peaked my curiosity as to what the car could get if driven like any small car.
I think for most of us, it's just a nice added bonus that we have cars that can be driven lke any commuter car during the week getting respectable fuel economy.
I mean, Porsche designed the 911 to be a "family sports car". Now did anyone think to themselves "...we need a new family car, how about a Porsche 911". It is just an added bonus that there are 2 small seats in back for 2 kids.

As a matter of fact that was one of things that got my wife to agree to our SC Targa, was the fact that there was some practicality to the car, unlike my SL, since the whole family can fit in it. Alot of people are amazed that there are backseats in a 911. Again, it's just bonuses to owning a 911, not a priority. I bought my SC to have some fun while driving, the fact that the family can fit in it and it can get decent mpg, those are bonuses.

ked

fixn, you communicate like an idiot. No one needs YOU to tell them what they should consider critical (or else!) in selecting their cars, Porsches or anything else. My points on the perf goals & engineering techniques of ALL engine designers, that I am familiar with over the history of the automotive industry (including racing) is fact-based & stands as such regardless of "what I do for a living". Which happens to be R&D mgmt in Defense (inc Transportation systems) & Telecom sectors. I have built some engines, too, but wrenching them isn't the same as designing them! Next time you run into a pro endurance racing team manager remind him that fuel economy is completely irrelevant in his decision-making.

{coincidently, last night I read an early '60s interview w/ Wally Hassan, the designer of the Coventry Climax engine. It was so poor in fuel efficiency that it became quite successful as a fire engine water pumper all over England.}

Might I suggest a New Year's Resolution? Don't tell other people what their values OUGHT to be when they make informed personal (subjective) buying decisions. And don't insult them if they have a different point of view (free career advice, & worth every $.01 of it). And hit the mechanical engineering books (not to mention the history of Porsche). Good luck!

"...we need a new family car"
S2, Indeed, this is EXACTLY what Ferry Porsche said when determining what the future of the 356 prototype would be. Which is why they changed it from mid to rear engine (plus room for golf clubs - another criteria you are not allowed to consider when selecting your Porsche, eh?). I hate to tell fxn, but in the '50s, in Germany, fuel economy was critical too (almost ran BMW into the ground, building Baroque Angels instead of Isetta clones).

Now, back to the game...

prestonmcafee

Wow. Now I'm wondering if there is something wrong with my 2001 Cabriolet, which gets 12-14 in town and perhaps 17 or 18 on the highway.

rnln

Prestonmcafee,
man.. you don't deserve to drive your car man. Give it to me then :lol: j/k

dmwallace

I got 23 mpg on a recent 200 mile interstate trip...used the cruise control the entire way. 1989 3.2L.

Doug&Julie

What you're failing to recognize is efficiency is performance. Porsche, like any good engineering firm, wants to get the maximum out for the minumum (the most for the least) in anything they do. And yes, being the king of endurance racing, you better believe that they're very much about getting good gas mileage...as long as the performance doesn't suffer. Better gas mileage means more efficient means better performance.

This is how we advance. We don't accept higher performance at all costs. Do you think Porsche is incapable of making their production motors over 400hp? Sure they can, but just making them more powerful w/o making them more efficient is not advancement. Porsche is in the business of engineering advancement...

der Mond

I guess I feel fortunate - at 75-90 mph on a 200 mile stretch last summer I got 26 mpg and some change. I guess the leak down test I got talked out of at PPI time was OK. This is with Megnecor wires and NGK Iridium plugs, and Mobil 1 15W-50.

rnln

der mond,
So the Megnecor and the NGK do the work huh
My next tune up is Megnecor and NGK then

der Mond

I better add that the car came with an Autothority chip also. It is supposed to be a 93 Octane chip but the car never knocks on it with 90, which is all I have available.

prestonmcafee

You misunderstand - a change in the gas mileage is an warning sign of a problem with the best car I've ever owned.

ventoGT

I've never bothered to check with my 3.2, as it is not a daily driver...my 993 used to get around 17-18 average in all sorts of driving but would get low 20s when doing all highway...

I remember the BMW 323Ci I used to have had this really annoying "economy" bar that would go down into the red when you gave the car any throttle....that wasn't a "sprots car" per se but you had to boot the throttle to get any power out of it, and you could hear the gear moving back and forth....

Much less annoying to have that stupid yellow/orange arrow "shift recommended" light in the 3.2

der Mond

Anyone know if that shift light was a US legal requirement in '87, or Porsche's attempt to appease the EPA?

ked

der mond, the upshift arrow on the '87 was not a formal regulatory requirement by the EPA, but more of a signal to them, demonstrating Porsche's sincere practical efforts to modify driver behavior so that these high performance cars would achieve better real world fuel economy. I recall reading somewhere (at the time) that Porsche successfully argued that the upshift light, being a positive feedback mechanism, was superior to the 85 mph speedometer (being negative feedback) in this regard - thus we got the standard speedo back.

Just another learning experience on the road to a Behaviorialist Wonderland. Federal Regulators have learned that they can't change human nature simply by issuing rules, so the evolved strategy is to limit choice & compel compliance via technology-rich systems engineering. {apologies for the editorializing...}

der Mond

Amen. Sure glad we got the speedo back.