TheBen

http://www.keepitwideopen.com/Sold.html

My friend wrote an article about selling his 911S. My 993 is depicted in one of the pictures to (a run up the Angeles Crest earlier in the year). Thought many of his observations about the 911 (which of course many hold true for our 993's are spot on).

race911

I didn't bother much past the first sentence of the second paragraph. Reminded me of a guy I knew in college in the early '80s when we were both beating around in RX-7s (mine a borrowed Showroom Stock race car, his a dual purpose commuter and track rat). My '68 was fully modified at that point into a 930/IROC wannabe with a 2.7 "RS" engine, so it was competent enough. Even though he experienced first hand what a 911 could do, he would summarily dismiss it.

I spent enough time in 914-6's with the same power-to-weight ratio and tires as any 911 in the Olden Days. Pretty much drove them the same, and the lap times were the same (Firebird, PIR, Willow, Riverside). BFD on where the engine is located..........

NYNick

Do people actually read this magazine? This guy should be excommunicated from the car business. Fundamentally flawed? Um, had he done a little homework, those 'fundamentally flawed' 911's were taking it to the front engined Ferrari's, Alfa's and the like routinely in the 60's, making the brand what is is today BECAUSE of the 911. Fundamentally flawed? Comparing an SC to a 2013 Boxster? Now there's a flawed comparison.
Maybe he should drive the new GT3 to see how 'flawed' that car is? Then I'd like to hear him wax poetic about the Boxster.

Steam Driver

Comparing the Boxster and an SC is certainly a flawed comparison. However I agree to an extent that the mid-engine layout is better overall, all other things being equal.

"Back in the day" when the cars were new I owned a 914-6 which I autocrossed quite a bit. At PCA events there were often times where there weren't enough cars to have a 914-6 class (no surprise there) so we were "thrown in" with the 911T's - supposedly (for us) into a faster class. Definitely not so, as when that happened either I or the other guy with the -six in our area would handily win the class. I even remember hearing a 911T driver comment one time to someone who had asked "How are you doing?" and his reply was "OK until they put the 914-6's in with us."

In any case I don't consider the Boxster the spiritual successor to the 914-6. Too big a footprint for a two-seater, 'way too heavy. High-performance hairdresser's car. (Boy I'll generate some flack on that one I bet!)

Wide Open

I didn't compare the SC (actually a '77 S, if you read carefully) to a 2013 Boxster. The comparison is between a 2013 Boxster and 2013 911... Or a '77 911 and a 75-76 914... I'd venture to say that with similarly wide tires, the 914 or Boxster would be more stable than a comparable 911.

And the fact that a modern GT3 is bonkers fast compared to a modern Boxster doesn't mean it's a better car, simply faster. Is the Chevy Camaro ZL1 a better car than the Boxster?

race911

Stable? That has anything to do with what?

If you lived the era, you'd know that any similar power-weight ratio/optimized suspension 911 or 914-6, whether on 185-70 XWXs or 22.5-9.5 cantilever bias plys drove pretty much the same way. Able to brake more aggressively in a 911, however.

Flash forward to more recent times, and I'd love to see data between similar in a 996 and Boxster S. (Admittedly harder to get equal power-weight ratios on those two platfroms.)

Ultimately, I suppose I could pull data from my friend's PRC GTL race car, and the one competitor who uses a 914. They're pretty much within a second of each other at any of the tracks we use (Thunderhill and Sears).

whalebird

Yoav, I read and enjoyed your series of articles; well written compared to much of the rubbish flooding the internet. It's the latest installment and the subject of this thread that bothers me. You applaud enthusiasm and restrain bias all the while pursuing your own interest. Yeah.
"Sold" collapses on itself from the instant you're granted press credentials to Amelia Island. The idea you would buy a classic (if not iconic) car you seemingly have neither any historical knowledge/education of nor interest or passion for only to "arrive" at a car show with is vanity. In fact, it's the very breed of vanity you accuse(mistakenly) Porsche of cultivating with their current marketing. Furthermore, your only cited background information on the 911 came from the OP of this thread. I suspect you were misinformed and remain ignorant. There is no plausible way a discriminating, well informed Porsche buyer would purchase a '77 911 for the sole purpose of making a 6K mile round trip across the United States. You passed on a 964 because of an oil leak, a $17k SC offered by a guy with a Pontiac and an appearance you disparaged and...oh, "worthless" brakes. You passed on (possibly) the one good car offered by a dealership based on the merit that you would not pay full asking price because of their negotiating posture. The choice of a $6K slug is thinly cloaked as economic in nature after looking at all the wrong sources for such a car. A better story would be "How a $6000 1977 Porsche 911 made it 6000 miles with a guy who can't set his own points at the wheel".
Aside of making every poor decision every ill-informed 911 buyer makes, What are the "fundamental flaws"(a term suspiciously common in BMW/Asian car circles in reference to a 911)?
This should be an easy question for someone with a background in transportation design, and please do expound as to why the rear engine platform is less capable than a mid mounted engine. Any qualified analysis of these designs would also include the front-mounted platform for comparison.
One last thing: Is there any supporting information that Porsche "admits" the 911 was a mistake beyond simply offering a mid-engined car alongside their rear-engined "mistake"? Porsche pioneered both of these chassis designs by the way.

Ed Hughes

Subject article reaffirms you can't believe what you read on the internet.

It will be interesting to see what the latest top of the food chain version of this flawed design does at Le Mans next weekend. I suppose that is only wishful thinking...they haven't won GT at Le Mans in what, 2 whole years?

Wide Open

Hey Whalebird... you make a lot of judgments which you're certainly entitled to do. I will not respond to any of them. I'm also not sure where you got the $6000 figure, but it's mistaken, for what it's worth. And that car was purchased SPECIFICALLY because of all the cars driven it was the strongest, mechanically.

To answer the concrete questions that you pose, it isn't that a rear-engined car is less capable, necessarily; however, a rear engined car (one where the center-of-mass of the engine is past the rear wheels) has a higher polar moment of inertia than a mid-engined car. In the real world this means that it is harder to control when it begins to slide. I don't compare front engine cars because most front-engine sports cars have the center of mass behind the front axle, effectively making them mid-engine cars. One exception is Audi: TT, Rs4, etc... And surprise! They get destroyed by cars like the Cayman and Boxster when it comes to handling. I believe that the aforementioned Audi's are also "fundamentally flawed."

No, there isn't any supporting evidence besides my inference that the 911 is flawed beyond the facts that they wanted to kill the 911 in the early 1980's and the fact that the Boxster and Cayman are mid-engined. Ask yourself why Porsche didn't simply develop a rear-engined mini-911... certainly would have been cheaper for them.

Thanks for the comments, I hope you'll continue reading! [kiWO]

Quadcammer

and the crybabies are out again.

rear engine location is fundamental flawed. I give them credit only for having developed it as far as they have. Then again, each generation the engine moves forward.

Show me a top level race car with a rear engine, and you'll get some credence. Its simply not as good as a mid engine platform.

Why the hell you clowns need to cry every time some one puts something online that doesn't confirm your own OPINION that the 911 is the end all, be all will never be clear to me. What is clear is that its sad and rather pathetic.

Quadcammer

lol. with all the handicapping necessary to keep the 911s competitive, its almost a waste of time. The corvette intake restrictors are a joke.

911SJB

WOW. I am new here, still in the process of buying my first Porsche and it is a 911, but I see emotions and opinions (seemingly directly correlated) can run pretty hot in this crowd.

race911

Really? Care to add your experience riding a tire's slip angle in relation to this comment?

Hmm.....how IS it that I drive the mid-engined 910 quickest in more of a slide than any of my 911s?

Who's claiming it is? Original post linked to, among other things, a photo captioned what is "wrong" and "right." Sad and pathetic to suggest that maybe some of us with decades of experience in 911s, on and off track, might find setup trumps layout? Wherever a 911 has run against a Porsche mid-engined layout, amateur or pro, it hasn't made much of a difference. From the early 914 days at LeMans to what I've observed lately in the Continental/Koni Grand Am series. Step it back to amateur hour, and we've got over 20 years of PCA Club Racing data to consider, too.

Anyway, happy to compare data on what I have with 911s versus pretty much any other platform out there. (And yeah, I can extrapolate up or down with my own in the Radical and Spec Miata.)

And any 911 ever has run exactly how large of an engine? Don't remember Corvettes exactly having a stellar record against the 935s in the GTX days. But at some point forced induction=bad.

Reiver

It is an emotional car.
A 911 tends to appeal for lots of reasons and not all of them are simply scientific or can be graphed.
I love the design for its history...from prior to and thru WW2 to the Austrian saw mill days where the 356 was hand assembled. Great stuff really.
I love the way the car feels, you wear it and it has the most responsive and telepathic steering of any vehicle I've driven....Ferrari, Maserati, Jaguar, Mercedes...none came close to me.
It has excellent idiosyncrasies that translate to personality (read Japanese cars here for an alternate experience).
It is far from perfect...and I am glad that it is just what it is...one of the best cars ever designed and made.
Finally, in the military a very common saying is "opinions are like ****&^es, everyone has one".

NYNick

Well played Reiver, well played.