Originally Posted by frayed

Not sure where one would pull both paddles in on a road course.

Originally Posted by TRAKCAR

No, cant agree either. You lose all the way around IMHO, more than 40% even. I have to disagree with all the reason you mention.

The only time PDK is better is when you are tired, leave it in automatic on a late traffic laden drive home, while you are on the phone finishing up the last calls of the day. Other than that, give me manual all the time.

The 2 flappies pulled in Neutral is to me a gimmick they added just to have something as an excuse. Burnouts? Drifting? Really? WTF Mike, you did not believe that yourself when you wrote it. Maybe an occasional rev in traffic out of frustration lol, but you can do that by putting the shifter in N in any other automatic no?

I'll give you left foot braking maybe, that is something I cant do well and you will have to do to get the most lap time out of the PDK, so that might be a challenge that make me accept PDK-S or hate it even more ;-)

Originally Posted by Mike in CA

Pete, I didn't say I would use the paddle neutral feature to do drifting and burnouts: both are silly ways to wreck perfectly good tires. I mentioned a couple of things, one slightly tongue in cheek, that it might be used for besides those two tire wasters.

Out of curiosity, why do you disagree that being able to no lift shift, shift in corners without upsetting the car, and not have to take one hand off the wheel every few seconds, are potential advantages?

Dropping the car in N at stops to blip the throttle risks accidentally finding R instead; instead of sounding cool you end up looking real stupid....;-)

Originally Posted by Mike in CA

^^Good point and one I forgot to mention.....

Originally Posted by TRAKCAR

LOL, good point, assuming the car will still spin.
I kid, I kid

Originally Posted by Earlierapex

To me, this issue should have a "barbell" shape to it. At one end - sitting in LA traffic, I want PDK. In the middle - on a brisk drive on a public mountain road on Sunday, I want a true manual. At the other end - at a Porsche club race, I'll take the latest, coolest, fastest technology - PDK

Originally Posted by TRAKCAR

The car wont go in R, it's an idiot proof car all the way around I'm sure.
I did not disagree on that premise, I disagree that you get to take away from the already low, low 40% in less mechanical feel for those reasons :-)

Besides the point, but I do anyway disagree that it wont make the car fast enough to compensate for the weight unless you are a mediocre driver like 80% of us. That's the thing, we can practice, practice, practice to get better and IF you get that good you will beat the PDK-S with a manual and have more fun while learning, or trying to learn to do so.

One handed trail braking into a corner, rotate the car blipping throttle, control rotation when you go on gas with the clutch and maybe even shift mid corner again. Data shows 0.1sec better on display. You did it.

Originally Posted by Petevb

I find it interesting to look at the loss of the manual transmission in historical context. I was thinking about previous great Porsches, and realized that throughout its history there has always been a manual transmission in Porsche’s top models, from the 356 through the 911, Turbo, 959, Carrera GT all the way to the 997 GT2 RS. As Pete Stout points out, there were only five inputs necessary to control every one of those cars: the steering wheel, brake, gas, gear-change and clutch. Today on those same top models not one but two of those inputs are no longer needed and one is simply unavailable, unceremoniously dumped without even a farewell tour.

On reflection, I can't think of a bigger single change to the driving experience in Porsche’s history, with the possible exception of the introduction of the 928. That was a water-cooled front-engined GT car intended to replace a vehicle that was really none of those things, and we know how that story ended. Like that attempt at change, this one is worthy of real discussion not only at the factory but within the community. After all, in the end Porsche builds cars for us.

The loss of the manual transmission came about due to the evolution of “technology”, which is something that I, and indeed Porsche, have had a bit of a love/ hate relationship with. On the one hand technology has brought about great increases in performance, safety, comfort and convenience. On the other hand I challenge anyone to step out of a 12 year old Mercedes Benz S class, with its dated nav screen, failing electronics, and ridiculous maintenance costs (MSRP when new north of 100k, bluebook today less than 8k) and tell me technology is only a good thing. Or step into a BMW CSL with its now dated SMG transmission, installed to allow quicker 'ring times. Both examples can now be a painful reminder that, for some, technology can create a great car that dates like a new smartphone.

I see, real or imagined, two schools of engineering within Porsche, and one can imagine that they've been at war. One school embraces complexity and technology, the other lives by Colin Chapman’s mantra: "simplify and add lightness".

Porsche is capable of making great cars of either type, and at various times each faction has seemed to have the upper hand within Porsche. In my mind cars like the 928, 959, 997TT and 918 all clearly products of the technologists, while the 550 spyder, '73 RS, 968 Clubsport, GT2, Carrera GT and really any RS were the offspring of the “less is more” school, taking away as much as they added in order to achieve their greatness. Over time the balance of power between these two camps has seemed to shift back and forth.

Choosing sides in this battle, something which is certainly not required, is largely a matter of personal preference. However looking back, I tend to note that in my personal opinion the “less is more” school tends to age better than the technologists. If I consider which cars I’d have myself, a '73 RS is obviously going to trump '78 928 by a country mile, never mind that in 1978 the 928 was the more expensive, far more technically advanced car and grabbing all the headlines. An F40 would trump a 959 for me (or it would if I fit in it properly), a GT3RS would trump a 997TT, and a CGT would trump a Bugatti. So while I respect the technologists and would certainly like to borrow some of their toys (I’ll take the 4 valve heads and water cooling from your 959 for my GT3, thank you very much) I tend to be inspired more often by the lightweight camp. Part of this is due to the focus on driving purity that often accompanies the simplification, part stems from the cars seeming more timeless.

Over the last few years something interesting seemed to happen over at Porsche. The technologists and the simplifiers seem to have called something of a truce, and each side held its own territory. The technologists had their 4wd twin turbos, while the simplifiers got their GT cars with throwback manual transmissions. Over time the battle lines between them were redrawn slightly, as GT cars got a few more electronic gizmos, but a balance was maintained, intentional or otherwise, that allowed both sides to coexist.

Then, in 2008, technologists mounted a major assault. This attack came not from within Porsche, but was mounted from Japan in the form of the GT-R. It planted a flag deep in the heart of Porsche held territory at the Nürburgring. While Porsche had been busy developing a modern day F40 in their Carrera GT and a '73 RS successor in their GT3 RS, Nissan had turned the tables and attacked them with a modern day 959.

This attack demanded a response: Porsche's GT group, defender of the 'ring, was called upon. They realized, however, that today “simplify and add lightness” alone will not get the job done. The CGT had shown where lightness, focus and reflexes alone would lead, but it also shown the limitations, and that this was a place few drivers could follow. So Porsche quadrupled their development budget and fought fire with fire.

I’d suggest that the 2014 GT3 is the result. It is a hybrid, one that attempts to combine the best parts of the technologist and “less is more” schools. It doesn't do the obvious and build on the 4wd Twin Turbo, but instead keeps the rear wheel drive adjustability of the GT3. The driver still balances the car, not the computer, with the goal of making it simultaneously both fast and involving. We're already seeing the results- in the limited tests so far the new GT3 is trumping the GT-R in both cross country speed and in involvement, while adding the comfort needed to combat the Audi R8 to boot. The GT group has answered the call.

In the process, however, the new GT3 has lost the right to lay claim as a successor to the “less is more” dynasty, and Porsche has gone so far as to say exactly that. Instead we've got the complicated and not light GT3, the more complicated and heavier Twin Turbo, and finally the über complex and heavy 918, which is about as far from “simplify and add lightness” as you can get. The new GT3 seems to be not just a new car, but a shift in the balance of power and the end of two eras, both the manual transmission and “less is more” that have reigned for over 50 years. For those in the “less is more” camp, you can understand how this would not be taken lightly.

Is the concept “simplify and add lightness” really dead, a casualty of war? Is the line of epic, lightweight, analog, timeless sports cars that punch above their weight and both make great demands of and fully reward their driver, really a thing of the past?

I'd argue both yes and no.

If the quickest point to point car is your goal, then yes, the fastest car will now have technology, and lots of it. Race series around the world have been busy banning driver aids for decades, and where they are not banned race teams are using them. Making the quickest car isn't some kind of secret formula: it is mid-engine, 4wd, has an automated transmission and plenty of electronics to keep all four wheels working to their maximum potential. From that point it’s largely a question of how large and well you build it, from a pikes-peak racer (Peugeot 208) to a freeway rocket (Veyron).

Everyone knows this formula, but Porsche has in the past resisted speed for speed’s sake in favor of a connection to its heritage. Its signature model, the 911, has stubbornly stuck with the engine in the “wrong” place because it helps define what Porsche is. The unique engine position gives it a certain driving experience, and while there may be faster ways around a course, to quote a phrase “there is no substitute”. I'd argue the manual transmission is a very similar issue. It's no longer the fastest way around the course, perhaps, but it's been at least as central to the Porsche driving experience. And Porsche seems have realized this: the 959 racing version was equipped with a dual clutch transmission in the 80s, sequential race gearboxes were widespread in the 90s, but the Carrera GT and GT cars stuck with a manual in the 2000s.

I understand some of the pressures that have forced Porsche away from the philosophy of simplification and subtraction. I'd argue, however, that today there is still a place for epic, involving, analog cars that are better than ever. These can be worthy successors to the “less is more” dynasty, from Carrera RS through Carrera GT. If you doubt this, ask yourself how amazingly good a lightened, sharpened Cayman with the new GT3 motor and a manual 6 speed would be. No rear wheel steering or PDK needed, it would be a Carrera GT for the masses, and could be just as quick. OK, so that might not be quick enough to beat a GT-R V spec mark XVII, but ask yourself which would you prefer to drive, that or a Carrera GT? Shouldn't we be offered the choice?

The pendulum of technology has swung a long way away from “less is more” this time. I'd argue strongly, however, there is good reason to return to the pre war truce, where simplified analog experiences like a manual GT3 or CGT coexist beside technology cars. Yes, they might now be slightly slower than their heavier, more complicated brothers, but years from now no one is going to care about a few seconds at the 'ring. Instead these cars will be prized for their purity and driving experience and their connection to Porsche’s history, a history that includes manual shifting.

These “simplify and add lightness” cars form the bedrock the Porsche legend is built on, and to abandon them to history would be a major blow. Porsche builds cars for us, but currently they no longer build a car for me. I sincerely hope that changes.

Originally Posted by Nick

As Mike as tried to point out, why is everyone focusing on what has been lost as a result of MT no longer available on the GT3?

Originally Posted by Manifold

Because Porsche should be offering both manual and PDK options. And they can. Then we wouldn't need much debate, people could just pick what they like.

Originally Posted by neanicu

Excellent detailed post!