Originally Posted by TRAKCAR

If I may add;
-The Corvette has a 7 speed manual with E-diff.
-Really hate PDK like clutches in all cars I have ever driven on street.
It would be a reason to buy a Cayenne over a Panamera for me after spending a week in a Panamera. They still get fooled, jutter and hesitate

Everyone ooohhs and aaahhs over how smooth PDK is but I think its annoying in parking lot speeds and traffic jam speeds, parking garages etc.. I much prefer the 8 speed gear box in BMW and even more so the AMG setup. They are plenty fast enough in superfast sedans and GT cars.. At least the PDK fits the 911 better and granted, its the best one, all other systems are as bad and worse..
I bet I will still get annoyed at parking lot speeds, small elevations when I can do it smoother, with more finesse and minimal throttle because I can see what's coming when PDK can't.
I know I let the clutch out only a bit because there is a stop or a bump coming up, etc. Maybe Mercedes will connect it to the Magic ride / infrared etc. etc features from the S class to smooth it out low speed on the next SLS.....

Am I really the only one? Sorry to me its a bad automatic as well as a bad idea.

BTW Pete, I'll let Frayed draft me all the way to California :-)

Originally Posted by TRAKCAR

I used to stress only about the amount of money I would be risking on the track. Still the same plus now I add to that the stress of wondering if I will love it.

...

For now I'm going with the tried and true 996CUP, 6 speed manual as soon as i find a super clean original one (no rush, no track time this year) and perhaps a Corvette if I fit in it to carry me over until we find out what the new RS will be like.

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 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 drivers, 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 hillclimb racer) to a freeway rocket (Veyron).

Everyone knows this formula, but Porsche has in the past resisted speed for speed’s sake in favor of driver experience and 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: "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 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 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 drivers, 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 hillclimb racer) to a freeway rocket (Veyron).

Everyone knows this formula, but Porsche has in the past resisted speed for speed’s sake in favor of driver experience and 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: "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 Mike in CA

Peter, I know you can't be convinced ;-) but a suggestion when/if you ever give in to the dark side and get a 991 RS. Take the damn thing out of D and USE MANUAL MODE! The only time I've experienced even occasional low speed jerkiness or abrupt shifts is the 1% of the time when I'm not in manual mode, even with first gen PDK. Select gears appropriately yourself, and you won't have a problem.

On the street, I use PDK as a manual box with the potential for auto capability, not the other way around; for me that gives superior results.

Originally Posted by Manifold

+1, I'm very much of the same mind. Concerned about the $$ risked on track with a new GT3 and the possibility of not being satisfied with the PDK, looking at a 996 cup, and also considering the new Vette.

Originally Posted by Nick

I am not sure I understand. What money risk are you referring to with regard to the 991GT3?

Originally Posted by Manifold

Wrecking. Hasn't happened to me (yet), but it happens, and in all run groups.

Originally Posted by Nick

I was puzzled because many seemed to indicate that rather than buying a GT3 they would opt for a Cup Car because of money considerations. Neither come cheap. Wreaking a performance car always is expensive.

Originally Posted by Manifold

Wrecking. Hasn't happened to me (yet), but it happens, and in all run groups.