karimgt3

Exactly, CF tub will be next on a whole new generation.. But for this one, i say byebye Gt3rs, hello GT2, especially that they launched the GT3rs late enough!

signes

Alfa 4C as well.

I bet the i3 CFRP program is a money loser now, but added scale and expertise to start adding CFRP parts to the the M3/4, 7 series, and others.

I expect we will see more CF on the 992 but don't think they will go to a full CF tub/chassis, rather certain parts.

Drifting

Agree.
Cheaper and easier to do it that. Also, daily usability is very important for a Porsche, not so much for an exotic like mclaren. When I test drove the 650S, my girlfriend vetoed the mclaren just for how annoying it was to get and out of the car over the carbon tub.

Guest89

So you'd be willing to pay $150K plus options plus tax (yes I know that you register your cars in Nevada and pay no tax, you reliably mention that fact on a weekly basis, if not more often) - call it near as dammit $200k out the door if you want buckets, PCCB, lift, any other desirable options... for a car that will be outperformed by a 991.2 Carrera GTS?

Will the 992 be a truly clean-sheet design?

The 997 was really just a heavy facelift of the 996 (executed quite adroitly), after all.

I'm not so sure the 992 will feature a CF monocoque, a la McLaren or Alfa 4C. Both of those cars have much smaller passenger compartments than the 911 (2+2); a larger tub would indicate greater cost to me (could be wrong?). Furthermore, the 911 has shared significant commonality with the Boxster and Cayman since the mid-engined line was revived in the 1990s. Will they make two different CF tubs - one for Boxster/Cayman and one for the 911? Or does the 911 go even further up-market versus the Boxster/Cayman? Makes it difficult to spread economies of scale, the whole point of the commonality in the first place.

Recall also that Ferrari has eschewed Carbon Fiber monocoque for the 488, and has gone on the record stating that they will continue with aluminum for the next generation V-8 Berlinetta.

I would expect the 992 to receive a few CF body panels - frunk, roof, engine cover, and perhaps front fenders. The rear quarters are part of the unibody, and the doors and fenders can't be CF for obvious reasons.

Zero911

This is a good point.

I think the basis of your argument is performance and how moving to turbos has dramatically increased performance on the Carreras and thus the NA GT3 is obsolete (again, all of which makes sense and I buy your points).

But I guess my counter thought is: if you look at the ring times for the 991.1 GT3 (7:25) and the 991.1 Turbo (7:28), there were many posts about how the difference is negligible if you put the same Michelin tires on the Turbo. The discussion then veered into how the GT3 was still special because of the feel, the rawness, NA, drive connection, etc.

The GT3 has a lower MSRP than the Turbo, but is currently valued much higher. At 2-5K used miles, it is more expensive than even the Turbo S in some cases. So clearly it's more than just raw numbers that people value, right? And given that, although the eventual result may be that Porsche has to go turbo throughout their model range, again I wonder if in the short term, a 991.2 GT3 with just a refresh of the exterior/interior makes more financial sense for Porsche knowing the cars will be gobbled up.

That's just my thought and hope. Again, I'm biased since I'm in line for a 991.2 GT3 allocation. If it doesn't happen then no big deal. I just dive into the used 991.1 market and/or just move to the turbo GT2/GT3 as I'm sure it will be a spectacular car.

Guest89

That is the central tenet of one of my arguments: Turbos have moved the Carrera S - and eventual GTS - very close to the outgoing GT3 in terms of performance.

The GT3 has historically been a "good value" versus a loaded up Carrera S or GTS, but the "good value" proposition is untenable if the GT3 remains NA. Much more expensive to give it the expensive goodies from the RS than it would be to give it turbo power and torque; they would need to add lots of performance - beyond the RS in fact - to maintain the 991.1 gap versus the Carrera S.

And as you noted, the GT3 and turbo are pretty similar in terms of performance around the Nurburgring; many GT3 owners are aware of this, and feel like they've gotten a "bargain" by purchasing a cheaper car that punches above its weight versus the Turbo. It's also nice that GT3s retain value well, although a lot of that is due to supply.

Tre

I recall talking about this a couple months ago when the 488 was released. I still believe there is significant marketing pressure on Porsche given its competitors are "winning" the spec sheet war. Porsche has been able to own a niche price market segment ($100k-200k) for a long time. This may still be the case in the future from a monetary standpoint as long as the RS doesn't continue to creep further up the price chain, but with the GT segment competitors (488 GTB, 650S, Z06, Huaracan, R8, etc) moving up the performance chain and potentially creating gaps that spec sheet loyalists will undoubtedly bring up (already happening in other threads), what will Porsche do in return?
In the 488 thread, or maybe the R8 thread it was mentioned that Porsche is slated to get the current R8/Huaracan lighter weight body shell materials for the next 911 generation. That would check the weight reduction plan and should keep the GT cars on par with what will be 3-4 year old competitors. But I fear power rating enthusiasts will still harp on the 100+ hp difference even though Porsche always finds a way through technology to keep its GT cars on level playing fields (PDK-S, RWS, etc.).
And what about the 960? That'll be a great addition to the lineup, but if the current RS price dissuades folks from tracking it, what predicament would a ~$300k car present?
So do future GT cars become relics to appease purists and potentially get muscled out of its racing classes, or does Porsche unfortunately follow suit with its competitors? If the latter, than we may need to erase the "only the GT2 is meant to be turbocharged" and unwillingly accept the sad fact that our beloved GT3/RS is doomed for something in addition to the n/a engine (turbo or electric)!

signes

Didn't the 991.1 Carrera S come close to the 7.2 GT3 in terms of 'ring time, 0-60/ 1/4, etc? Not really surprised at how close the 991.2 and the .1 GT3 are in theory, but it doesn't bother me. I don't street race, I don't "compete" at the track (any more...), and I don't really care if the car next to me is "faster", even if it is a new Porsche. I have driven and raced turbo cars and I strongly prefer atmospheric engines. Just a totally different experience, regardless of how well engineers try to mitigate lag and maintain good throttle response.

Performance thresholds are so high for even relatively ordinary cars these days, I don't think you can get too hung up on 'ring times and other metrics (although I grant that it does matter to a lot of customers and thus PAG marketing...) I bought my GT3 because of the whole package, I know I can get smoked by a lot of cars I come across on the street, and a few on the track, too. I would be looking at a lot of other cars before a turbocharged .2 S.

Guest89

Well said. As much as I want to see NA, they're a business and I think they've backed themselves into a corner:

Marketing turbos and efficiency throughout range

Racing turbos in the 919 and perhaps soon in the RSR

Tough to give GT3 the required performance gap over the turbo Carrera S/GTS without making it very expensive (if NA remains)

The competition is running away; new Ferrari 488 is up ~100 bhp on the outgoing 458

Etc.

Guest89

Yes, the 991.1 Carrera S was very competitive with the 997.2 GT3 in terms of numerical performance. And as a result of that, we got: All-new 9K RPM engine, PDK-S, RWS, E Diff, PTV, etc. to ensure the GT3 could justify itself next to the 991.1 Carrera S.

How will Porsche credibly market a 991.2 GT3 that isn't meaningfully faster than its immediate predecessor and cars positioned beneath it in the Porsche hierarchy? This forum is not representative of the entire market of GT3 owners/buyers. The numerical performance versus peers is important to many potential buyers, and it's sort of vital for marketing (even if many on here know better in reality).

Manifold

IMO, the 991.1 GT3 is still a good value compared to the 991.2 for track use. But I agree that Porsche faces a challenge in sufficiently increasing the performance of the 991.2 GT3 without putting turbos in it and keeping the price reasonable; 4.0 L may not be enough. Interesting situation ...

Guest89

I really only came to this realization recently - after the 991.2 was announced with near GT3-level performance; they've sort of backed themselves into a corner I'm afraid.

997rs4.0

I'm actually not to worried. AP and his team will deliver a 991.2gt3 that will once again be better than the parts it represents. Just look at the GT4. Pretty heavy, "only 385hp", parts bin car that delivers similar performance as the 991gt3 on some west coast tracks.

If I get to choose I'll vote for weight saving instead of 600hp.

Manifold

OTOH, they're pretty smart, and may have some tricks up their sleeves. Porsche isn't known for blunders in developing their product portfolio in recent years.

hets72

.... I did not go through all messages here but one think I found quite interesting is a quote from EVO on the lap times.... same time as a 997 GT2 for the Carrera RS.... that GT2 was a very fast car...... also note comment on NA Special Edition 911's...

.... from EVO:

Porsche quotes a 7min 34sec Nurburgring time for the Carrera S – some six seconds quicker than the previous model. Impressively, that’s the same time Porsche claimed for the 997-generation GT2.

The normally aspirated 911 Carrera has become a thing of the past, but Mössle suggests Porsche might yet build a limited edition model – apart from the GT3 and RS version – that uses an atmospheric engine: ‘There will never be another series production normally aspirated 911,’ he says, ‘but maybe we will do some special edition cars.’