OK, that said, the topic is 944 vs 911.

Actually and more precisely, I am just curious as to just what is the magic of the air cooled, engine behind the rear wheels design that has caused Porsche to stick with it all these years? It seems to me that it's not well balanced and has a high polor moment, both of which are detrimental to performance I would think. I know Porsche has worked for years to cure the oversteer characteristics of this design, and pretty successfully from what I understand, but why stick with it in the first place? Tradition?

What is the magic? Why?

 

Couple of things...

1. The 6 cylinder boxer engine has a very low center of gravity as all the heavy stuff (pistons, heads, valves, cams and crank) is very close to the bottom of the engine.

2. The air cooled engines were substantially lighter than traditional water cooled ones as there are no radiators, water pumps, plumbing and water jackets along with 5-6 gallons of coolant to schelp around.

3. Opposed (boxer) engines run very smooth at high RPM's where they make thier most power.

4. No front engine means lower front hood height thus better aerodynamics (at least in the old days).

5. Best reason of all: NEVER SOUNDS LIKE A CORVETTE!

 

They attempted to dump it a few times (the real reason our cars, and the 928, exist in the first place), but the traditionalists would have none of it!

 

Actually the air-cooled cars do have coolant to schlep around it's oil instead of water. Weight in the back makes the rear brakes work better and helps in acceleration. The polar moment and oversteer can be put to good use by a skilled driver. The downside is that an error can be disasterous and they are less forgiving.

 

Great replys, thanks.

 

HA! this reminds me of that rocket that just crashed acouple days ago, if any of you saw it.
So in some ways the 911 is like a rocket, but whne it gets outta control, thats the end of it!

Also just a side note its interesting that porsches aero motors were not very successful, as they werent as reliable and down on power as compared to traditional aircraft motors, youd think theyd be just the opposite.

I think the reason they keep the 911 is cause its different than the other cars, its there "signature" car I mean there a many cars that are better for the same or less price, if porsche didnt have a car to differentiate them from the competition, theyd be out of business, cause why would someone pay 70k for a lackluster car? I know i wouldnt buy a 996, heck the 996turbo should be the standard 911, for 70k at that then id be a heck of alot more interested.
I sure hope porsche does make a 4th model with the gayenne V8tt motor more like a viper and less like a bentley

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by M Danger: "Also just a side note its interesting that porsches aero motors were not very successful, as they werent as reliable and down on power as compared to traditional aircraft motors, youd think theyd be just the opposite."

I think the problem with the aero engine was that it was a gear reduction motor. Most aero motors make top HP at very low RPM's (propellers can only spin about 2,900 RPM before the tips go supersonic and become inefecient). The Porsche motor made HP at 6,000+ RPM and had to be "stepped down" through gear reduction. The added mechanics involved made the assembly less reliable.

For the record, most aero engines (lycoming and contenental) use 1950's technology both in the design and especially in the manufacturing. Because of low production volume these manufactures cannot afford the sophisticated computer manufacturing equipment that maintains engine tolerences incredibly tight like in the automotive industry. A piece-of-crap KIA motor is probebly more high-tech and more dependable than many aero engines flying overhead.

I flown in a Porsche Mooney and it was both fast and sounded awesome!

I'll take a Porsche "aero" over a Continental anyday!

 

I've heard it said of the 911 design:
"The Porsche 911 setup is a terrible design, perfectly executed."
It's true: the 911 setup shouldn't be as good as it is, but them boys in Zuffenhausen know what they were and are doing!

That said, if you take an average driver and put him on a track, he'll probably do better with a 944 than a 911, simply because it is easier to drive at the limit. Put an experienced driver in both cars, and he'll probably turn similar lap times with both cars.

Just my $0.42.
-Zoltan.

 

It's very true about learning to drive the cars. I am still learning everyday, but after 2 1/2 years with the 911 I wouldnt trade it for anything. Out of the gate the 944 is easier to drive closer to the limit; no question. Plus, the transmission is smoother, interior is more modern, creature comforts are nicers and so on(when compared to anything older than a C2 at least). But, put in some time and learn the car and you will be happy.