jnl82

Hi. A newcomer here. I have two basic questions.

1) What is the exact difference between the base model 981 and GTS?

2) If I manually added all the options on the base model so that it would resemble the features of the GTS (without the inherent engine performance difference, etc), am I paying more or less?

3) Is there a substantial difference between the 2015 and 2016 981 models?

4) Does PASM make the ride more comfortable if you want to use this as your daily driver?

5) Does 981 have options like lane change assist / adaptive cruise control ?
Thanks !

JCviggen

Welcome,

1) As the GTS is basically an S with some options as standard, and a different ECU map for an extra +15 horsepower, the main differences to the base car are the engine and size of the brakes.

2) Base will always be cheaper even all options being equal, the engine is most of the price difference,

3) No, not at all.

jnl82

thx ! I added a couple of more questions if you don't mind.

blacksheepSpyder

6. How are they the same? - Not a Spyder... LOL

Scooby921

1.) S and GTS get the 3.4L vs. the 2.7L in the base. GTS gets PASM suspension, Sport Chrono, and Sport Exhaust as standard instead of options. As mentioned the GTS got a 15hp bump over the S. S and GTS have bigger brakes. GTS came standard with 20" wheels (only size option) instead of 18" and 19" on base and S. GTS also had access to the optional GTS interior package with alcantara and deviated stitching everywhere.

2.) Adding all of those options to a base model would be cheaper, but adding them to the S is why the GTS exists. A lot of people were selecting those packages on the S, so Porsche rolled them into a new trim and called it the GTS. You got all the options and a power bump for a little less money. They effectively cheated the prior S owners who payed more for those options and ended up with a negligibly slower car.

3.) None

4.) It depends on the road quality. I live in Michigan and the roads suck. I opted for PASM to have a little more ground clearance (vs. X73 sport suspension) and also to have a little softer spring, damper, and swaybar package to soak up the bumps. If you live where the roads are in decent shape then you can get away with the Sport suspension without a significant penalty to ride quality. If you aren't taking the car to the race track I don't think either one is a necessity over the stock suspension as the car is still plenty of fun within speed limits and doesn't need the extra suspension capability to reach those limits.

5.) I know adaptive cruise was an option. I don't think lane change "assist" was an option, but lane departure warning might have been. There were also options for a rear camera and front / rear park assist sensors. I hate nannies that allow people to be poor drivers, so I opted for none of them on my car. I can't offer any opinion on how well or poorly they work.


I love my GTS, but I don't think I'd be dissatisfied with a base model. The chassis is just a pleasure to drive. The added power and options are good for me since I bought the car to take it to the race track. Were it just a daily driver and nothing else I don't think I would have spent the extra money. Or I would have rolled the extra money into leather interior and ventilated seats for more year-round comfort. The alcantara is nice in the GTS interior package, but ball-chillers on a hot day would be nice.

hf1

The GTS has a 3rd (middle) front radiator. The S has only two.

The GTS has the "symposer" feature with the Sport Exhaust where engine/exhaust sound is ported into the cabin via special ducts. The S doesn't, even with the Sport Exhaust option.

pulpz

intereting. Wasn't a ware of this. Where are the ducts into the cabin located?

manifold danger

It's somewhere between the seats; there's pictures of it somewhere in one of these threads where someone pulled the carpet back.

No one has mentioned the aesthetics or the interior differences that are exclusive to the GTS. They're subjective of course but if you like them, that's the only way to get them, at least from the manufacturer.

Also the "nanny" options are rare on the 981s. I'd consider a theory that many Porsche people may consider them a "crutch" like that guy up there- but they're quite popular on the 718 models. I'm guessing it's because Porsche just simply included them in more common builds either due to improved manufacturing processes or popularity, but some Porsche people would argue that 718 drivers aren't real Porsche people amirite??? [/sarcasm]

Generally poor drivers are poor drivers regardless of the equipment in their cars. I'd be interested to see some actual evidence that these features "allow people to be poorer drivers"... because I've seen plenty of folks in 987s make lane changes without signaling or looking over their shoulder. One in a gray Cayman just yesterday in fact. Maybe if he had the "assist" he would have had better lane changing etiquette?

I guess it will remain one of life's great mysteries.

Scooby921

Being a poor driver and being an ******* driver aren't necessarily the same thing. The guy changing lanes without signalling is an *******, but if he has his mirrors properly aligned, knows where the corners of his car are, and changes lanes into space without causing an incident I'd say he might be a good driver. The poor driver will be the one who doesn't bother to properly align mirrors and never looks over a shoulder, putting 100% trust into a light on the mirror to tell them when they are or aren't going to hit another car. The poor driver is the one who uses the lane keep assist to facilitate texting or doing makeup because the car will allow them to pay less attention to the road. The poor driver is the one who relies on adaptive cruise to slow them down before running into another car on the highway so they don't need to mind closing rates and distances on their own. The poor driver becomes reliant on active braking / crash avoidance so they don't have to pay as much attention to the road and potential hazards ahead.

Active safety is supposed to supplement good driving behavior to make the roads more safe. It is becoming a crutch for drivers as they expect these features to do everything for them. People (not me) want autonomous cars so they don't have any responsibility, yet manufacturers don't really want autonomous cars as any incident is potentially their fault. Driving is a privilege and a major responsibility. I appreciate the features that are supposed to make us more safe, but I little faith in humanity to use technology properly. Instead of supplementing lives they want it to control lives.

As for evidence, Tesla's autopilot feature. Numerous people have crashed while using the feature. At least one has died. People put too much faith in a feature, or maybe in a brand. Instead of paying attention to the road, as even Tesla suggests while using autopilot, they took a nap or read a book or played around on a phone.

manifold danger

Wouldn't you think trial and error would eventually result in people not relying on a technology feature to save them from killing themselves? These features clearly are not designed to reduce the requirement for input or feedback from the driver; they're designed to make people better drivers. If people choose to ignore manufacturers' advice on what these features do and how to use them, how is that any different from choosing to drive off a bridge or into a wall? That's not the car or manufacturer's fault; and it's indescribably idiotic to choose to put your life in the hands of an unproven technology, especially if you're using it improperly. The guy who killed himself by reading Harry Potter while commuting in his Tesla effectively committed suicide. I don't know how else it could have been avoided (doesn't the car tell you/require you to keep your hands on the wheel at all times?) as I think that eventually technology does have the potential to reduce or even eliminate accidents on the road, but it's not going to get there overnight.

I work in technology and have been exposed to what AI is capable of; it's incredible what it can do today and it's going to experience an exponential improvement in the coming years. But it's not there today to the point to make human input unnecessary, and no one in their right minds would tell you that, or believe it.

Anyway, I was more or less referencing the lane change assist. I used to agree with you, that people are going to be over-reliant on it and they'd stop checking their blind spots entirely. Thing is- I think most people don't check their blind spots at all. And the light to my experience is actually pretty accurate and reliable. I no longer see how this is a bad thing. Of course how it's intended to be used, is you quickly glance to see if the light is on, to tell you if someone is there. It increases your awareness and reduces the need to crane your neck just to check. Especially in my Boxster; it's tough to see out of that thing with the top up, even tougher than a Cayman. It just makes life easier. You still have to look- but only when the light is not on. I know some people probably don't do this but like I said, they most likely weren't doing it anyway and it's an active choice they make to be stupid- at least there's SOMETHING there to check them.

The texting while driving can't be helped and it's proof humans aren't worthy of evolution. I see it literally EVERY SINGLE DAY, everywhere I go, and it makes me terrified for my children's future. Hopefully technology can solve this problem someday too.

9~factor

OP. Been there. Done that. lol

Let me simplify it for you. Buy the most Porsche you can Comfortably afford. You will NOT regret it!!!