Sentinelist

That was the talk of the mill in the early 80s. It's my understanding that some Porsche execs were planning to phase out the old 911 with the advent and success of the 944, which was superior in several ways (and could have been moreso had they desired). The 911 could have been what the Boxster is today, and the 944 would likely look like a 2-dr. Panamera, a V8-powered GT bullying Aston Martins.

By the late 80s, that school of thought was squashed, and permanently put to pasture with the 968 and 928's retirement in the early 90s.

Sentinelist

It's just you for the most part. I'm afraid this just sounds like an anti-watercooled and capital viewpoint. The 996 wasn't the greatest (though they weren't bad- one of these in a 4S flavor is realistically my next Porsche in a few years), but the 997 and 991 are fantastic. And those wouldn't be here today without the fruition and success of the Boxster and Cayenne, and fed further by the Cayman and Panamera. Kiss the R&D that went into the GT3 RS, Carerra GT, or 918 Spyder goodbye without them.

Would Porsche be what they are today with a lineup of aircooled cars and technology that stopped being developed in the late 90s? Impossibly no. I admire their level of careful, incremental progress with respect to their background. It's what makes them so successful today, telling in this economy.

944Ross

Harley Davidson is the closest comparison I can think of, more so than the Vette. While they look and sound like a '50's model, new Harleys are completely re-engineered and modernized. They are likewise stuck with an architecture that they dare not mess with. They command premium prices because of nostalgia for baby boomers, who always wanted one back when they were struggling to get the kids to soccer practice on time and pay for braces. Harley sales are way up despite a crappy economy as these folks hit their golden years.

MAGK944

Harley Davidson is good branding more than anything, it mostly built it's brand through past achievements and nostalgia. The Porsche brand has both glorious achievements in the past and current and future expectations. GM as a brand name is just not desirable anymore, who knows what their expectations are. Customers need to aspire to something.

V2Rocket

J1NX3D

whats weird was the most important market for the 924/944 got the worst specification models but still sold successfully.

FrenchToast

I think actually it is the 928 Porsche considered to replace the 911. I recall reading some irony in that whole thing, something like the guy who pushed for the 928's development convinced the company to keep the 911. No doubt, the 924 and 944 really saved the company from near bust at the time. Could they have developed the 944 more? maybe. They definitely could've developed the 968 more, and I wish they had.

I also don't think the 944 is any superior a car over the 911. Nor do I think the other way. Both cars have their unique traits, and both are fantastic sports cars, they are just different. The same for the 928, and 914. And 912, but I count that in with the 911.

I think you misunderstand me. I did reread my post and yes, it does sound like this.

However, when this topic comes up in elsewhere, I am typically the first to point out that Porsche used watercooling in the 911 way before the arrival of the 996. The 959 used it, primarily I believe because the desert racers on which it was based, weren't staying very cool with just air and oil cooling systems in the sun. The 956/962 and GT1's all used watercooled flat-6's. Also, I like to point out, that the 911 is not all about the flat-6 either. In the late eighties Porsche had approved the production of a V8, watercooled, twin turbo variant of the 911 using the same chassis. The project was stopped at the last minutes due to funding. (the late eighties and early nineties, if you recall, were a bad time financially for Porsche). Porsches switch to only watercooling in the 911 was essentially for EPA reasons. The air-cooled engines just weren't efficient enough to, in the future, reach the projected requirements the EPA would have (which are in place now or soon). So, although maybe it sounded like it, I'm not one of the "aircooled Porsches are the only Porsches" people. I wouldn't have clicked on this thread title to begin with if that was the case.

What I'm trying to point out, is that in 1998 there was a huge change. The switch from air-to-water cooling in Porsches flagship model being one of the most negligible, for the reasons above. There was much more. Their innovation was no longer, also, recently the 968 and 928 had ended. The Cayenne project started, which took over the racing program. The company took, IMHO a different direction.

Here I disagree. I fail to see any R&D that went into the GT3RS or CGT. The 918 Spyder, to me is just a glorified Prius, and is just Porsche 'following along' with the trend. Which is a completely bogus trend to begin with. The GT3 and CGT needed no R&D. Okay, the CGT is a cool car, and a true driver's car, I'll give that. But the GT3? Porsche played that card in 1967 with the 911S. Same deal. Nothing new. Nothing remotely close to how Porsche in the seventies and eighties made motorsports sanctioning bodies rewrite the rules because Porsche dominated everywhere. The last thing they did like that is the GT1 project. The RS Spyder is an embarassment IMHO for many reasons, and a pretty mediocre car.

But, the whole different direction Porsche took? They really had no choice, I understand that. They would be no longer. So did they make the right choice? Probably. They've changed. And given the market and direction of the industry, they likely had to. And that's fine.


I know a lot of 'feel' can be lost in just text, I'm not looking to start anything at all, just a conversation. Just explaining my opinion. It's okay if you disagree!

Sentinelist please note that I'm not pointing you out either. I merely quoted your post in order to easily further clarify my opinion.

Take care!