Originally Posted by groundhog

Done plenty of testing myself - given the only purpose for my car is motorsport - I know what the differences are on the clock and even at the closest 1s per minute is the difference between 1st and 10th and thats the closest (on same tires) in fact its usually a greater delta - after that things blow out even more as the distance/laps build.

Your suggestions are the classic false economy that you see on every forum - e.g. you can build a WRX into a STI, M2 into M3, Carrera base into GTS, GT3 into GT3 RS, 570S into 720S. Far better to have the best base to work from and frankly the engine, PDK-S-PTV-E is just so much better. So much so its actually a no brainer. I to 2s per minute is real and its a big difference. In fact to mark it accurately the .1RS is about the equivalent of the .2GT3.

As I said previously none of this matters if you are just pottering around in them - except for one thing - Porsche chucked out the .1 GT3/RS engine design in favour of the .2 why? why did they go onto to build what is widely recognised as one of the most expensive production car engines ever? and then use that as the base engine for the RSR?

If you're building a racing platform all bets are off because the cars move a long way from stock - even then you would be far better off with the .2 purely on the basis of the engine alone due to its better oiling characteristics/pressure characteristics, larger main and con rod bearings - again this is a no brainer and goes back to buying the best platform you can afford to use as a base car.

Not really a lot more point re-covering old ground - I voted with my wallet and went for the .2.

Originally Posted by ipse dixit

I wasn't being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by CubsFan1

Guys...he is likely buying the .2. LOL

People who have a .1RS naturally will be happy with their car. People who have the .2RS will likewise be happy with their car. I believe the .2RS is an amazing car with the updated engine, suspension, aero and the optional WP. For some this is a must have. It should equally be respected, whether you agree or not, that level of change is not necessary to enjoy the .1RS. I know this might be hard to accept for some hard core enthusiasts and people who primarily track. However, he stated he will not take the car to the track and it is intended to be a weekend fun car. Unless someone lets him borrow their .1RS, he will not know/feel the difference between the two cars and the only frame of reference will be what he has read. Certainly, there isn't any reason to dispute folks who own both or have owned both or have spent time in both. So in the end I would argue its worth the money for the technical/performance improvements mentioned many times here. Nonetheless, I respectfully also argue that the guy driving in the canyons with his .2RS is not having a better time than the guy in his .1RS.

Originally Posted by FogCitySF

I get the "talking your book" angle but someone asked for real advice about a trade-off being worth it and I presented a viable option that makes a ton of economic sense and will probably enter the calculus of those considering all the options (away from what your or my opinion may be or what the OP does..there is a larger audience). It's good to have perspective on pros and cons and let people decide on their own relative value. The tiny differences as stated by MR themselves will make next to zero differences on a US track if you intend on keeping street legal.....you are kidding yourself otherwise! I will for sure trust what I've witnessed with capable drivers on my home tracks with real, verifiable data and what MR has said over subjective opinions.

Originally Posted by 3-Pedals

I as the OP welcome the wealth information shared here. But I do want to mention one very key thing which is for “my use case”, this car will probably see 0 to close to 0 track time. Does that mean I dont want a hardcore on the rails car as my weekend toy car? Absolutely not. I want mechanical grip and precision. That being said, I dont know if I could feel the differences between these two cars besides:

- The lower redline
- Steering feel
- Snappier PDK

Now those I care and I want the better car. All other suspension changes, I also probably care (as a car geek who likes an uncomfortable harsh ride) but I probably wont ever use them to their potential.

Originally Posted by groundhog

Thats the point, my opinion is not subjective, its actually based on racing the car in actual events at three different tracks and in a tarmac rally series all on the clock and all run under a nationally sanctioned body. There is little point going on with this. The answer is the same for any marque, as it always has been - buy the best base you can afford and work it up from there.

As I have repeatedly said, if you don't care about performance none of this matters - other then where longer term reliability comes into play - and here the .2 engine is a far, far better proposition than the .1 engine. The reasons for this are incredibly simple to understand - stronger crank, bigger bearings, improved lining, improved pistons and rings and better oiling (and thats without discussing other issues with the .1 engine that relate to finger followers and oiling - resulting in the development of the new 4L and RSR engine).

Originally Posted by Dougr743

Why does lap times ever come up? Does ring times really matter to anyone? track days are not race days. so at some point you have traffic,lol random cars, at random speeds, with random drivers, all at their own pace (we hope) and a few trying to win a trophy, but there is no trophy. You could build a better car or pick based on better design or even what color you like the best, but to judge track day lap times or ring times cannot be a serious part of the decision making.

Originally Posted by FogCitySF

Aside from the prior "agree to disagree" points, in theory, the .2 engine should be more robust, but so far based on what we've seen is a mixed bag vs the .1 with both showing issues (though both really really small in number). Once we see the miles put on the .2s we'll have a few more data points adjusted for production numbers (with more 1s being produced). Maybe problems happen only early on and as miles put on them, no issues...maybe the opposite happens. Jury's still out on that one.

Originally Posted by Waxer

Every engine is going to have some issues and some units that have problems. Hard to avoid. So far the .2 has been a good engine overall. The .1 is a good engine overall.

However, the .2 is technically the better engine for reason listed by Groundhog. Those are objective facts. Whether that’s meaningful to you is subjective

Originally Posted by FogCitySF

Don't think anyone is disputing the technical improvements on the engine and the 20+ bhp bump and what theoretically should be a more robust engine; whether that translates to a more robust engine in practice given they pushed the envelope more in certain areas is what's debatable based on experiences of ppl on forums, some of whom have owned both. We'll see as more miles are racked up and have 4-5 yrs of history.

Originally Posted by Hex

Hey now. If you want the best canyon car and track car then get the GT3RS .1 ,with it's more supple chassis, for the canyons, and use the extra cash for a good down payment toward a dedicated track car like a GT4 Clubsport. I don't get guys going "racing" in a "street car," which the .1 and .2 both are. The GT4 Clubsport will kick butt on either the .1 or .2 at the track. It's also safer and more fun. The GT4 Clubsport is faster around Thunderhill than a P1 McLaren! Yeah, I know this is about the "big" differences between the .1 and .2 (by the way I've had both) but a simple question about value has evolved into a bench racing tread. According to the OP, the car will never see the track, and in that respect the .1 is a better "street" car, with it's more compliant chassis, for all intents and purposes, especially for canyon runs and days with lots of seat time.