Dewinator

IMBO the 40v in the 360 sounds better than the 32v in the 430... especially with some extra exhaust to increase the volume a bit. At lower revs I'm biased towards the Flat-12s but of course they don't rev to a scream up to 8500 like the v8s do.

Speed Metal 951

Trickery! I prefer the term "Morbid Witchery"
Seriously though, those things are hardly trickery. I suppose disc brakes and fuel injection are also some form of wizardry that also spoil the rawness for you? :P
Embrace the voodoo!!

K-A

Someone got lost on there way to Ferrarichat.

I can relate to this. My drive in a base .2 with no performance options was honestly and truly one of my most underwhelming test drives. I also found it didn't feel much faster than my .1 base with S/C, exhaust and lighter (HRE) wheels. The .2 GTS is a beast and a whole different ballgame. I still personally found the sound very underwhelming, a bit too much turbo lag, and if I had one I'd probably burn through tires every month, and I prefer the more raucous and connective .1 GTS myself, but the .2 GTS is an extremely well put together package and I could've sat in and drove it for several straight hours (comfortable, coddling and a "brutal in sophistication" makes for a pleasant car to be in).



Yep.

Chris knows what's up. First impressions are honest impressions and his echo mine completely (knowing him, when driving both cars back to back, no way he's changed his mind).

Exactly. I love the 918, but it doesn't touch the level of enthusiasm and cultivation the slower, lower-torque, far less "tech advanced" analogue CGT generates.

K-A

Their numbers are off, and they're using the wrong cars to cite times of which they rounded (on some) to the nearest "10" (while not doing so on others). The fastest official Ring times on these cars are well documented. The .1 "GTS" time they cite is actually the 2012.5 Carrera S (7.37.9) which has a video of said run. The fastest .2 911 S was a 7:34. The same driver who drove that .2 S, also drove a Cayman GT4 to a 7:41. The .1 911 S with PDK is faster around every track I've seen tested than the Cayman GT4 (those long manual gears and detuned engined ensured Porsche's Cayman didn't encroach on their 911), and the Cayman is using a de-tuned 9A1, AND a long-geared 6 speed manual, versus the .2 S using PDK and S/C, with 2 turbos and gobs more torque. And the difference in Ring time is "only" 7 seconds. Again, that's the SAME driver in a Cayman GT4 and a .2 911 S PDK. The . 1 911 S was 4 seconds faster than the GT4 Cayman. And the .2 911 S was nearly 4 seconds faster than the .1 911 S. This is no coincidence. Porsche are extremely exact and clinical when it comes to their cars capabilities and times vs each other.

The all-out track performances between the 3.0 turbo cars and 9A1 cars aren't massive. Even trap speeds are within a few or so MPH. I think Porsche did a tremendous job engineering both their turbo and N/A motors. But since I'm an N/A enthusiast, I think it's remarkable what numbers they turn with N/A engines, verses much newer developed, twin turbo engines.

Doug H

Laguna Seca
991.2 S: 136.44
991.1 S: 139:30

Incidentally, the Alfa QV, ATS and M4 all ran 139.X. Used to race and instruct for Barber at LS. 3 seconds a substantial difference on that track.

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna-seca-post-1988

Bemo

My perspective here is, take the 10-20-30 or wherever seconds that the turbos are faster by, compared to the NAs.
I don't track nor a capable driver to extract those kinds of capabilities from the car.
Prefer the NA sound for everyday enjoyment. Turbos win the performance categories through and through, no arguments or heartache there.

stout

Gotta love the bench racing here. Different days, different tracks, different years (and thus different groups of cars vying for the qualitative "win" from MotorTrend). If a Lotus Evora 400 showed up at one year's M/T test, I would pick it over the GT4 and a 991.2 Carrera to boot, for instance.

Only thing I will say is the numbers listed by Doug H are more indicative of what I've seen with the 991.2 vs the 991.1 after driving all versions of each: The 991.2s feel considerably quicker point to point (it's a big gap because the 3.0 cars gain speed out of the hole sooner and carry that speed to the next braking zone); a 370-hp 991.2 Carrera MT I was driving had no problem keeping up with a 500-hp 991.1 GT3 RS (driven by a better driver) up a closed rally stage (he knew well and I didn't); the same 991.2's brakes got smelly on the way down the hill after one run up and one run down a 3~minute (?) course; RLer mdrums is running out of brakes at Sebring in his 991.2 Carrera GTS (I cannot remember another generation of modern 911 that overheats its brakes on decel with stock engines); and mdrums (and GT3 drivers) report that GT3s have to be driven very hard to keep up with or ahead of his .2 GTS at Sebring. Mark my words: A whole new group of .2 fans are gonna come along as the .2s filter into the CPO market and are "discovered" by enthusiasts. I can hear them now: "These aren't like any turbo 911s I've driven..."

But Bemo has it exactly right: It's what you enjoy that matters most, not what wins the performance race. These are street cars. Fun cars.

To his point, I enjoy the 991.2 Carrera/S more than the 991.1 Carrera/S. Probably for the chassis tuning more than anything else, but also for the twin-turbo 3.0—which to me is one of Porsche's best engines currently on sale and one of its best in the last 20 years, both for performance and character. The shifter is noticeably improved, as well. I almost canceled my GT4 order after driving the base 991.2 MT on good roads around Tenerife. No 991.1 that I've tested would have made me do that except for one: the 911R. Two years later, I swapped the GT4 for a base 991.2 Carrera MT—and do not miss the GT4 at all. The .2 Carrera is not only better around town, it has a MUCH more satisfying engine (the 3.8 in the GT4 isn't as good as it is in the 991.1s), is far more enjoyable on long trips, and more interesting on a back road. It is, to me anyway, more fun to drive than both a 991.1 Carrera/S/GTS and my old 981 GT4. I even like the way it sounds. Subtler, and you do have to listen for it where the GT4 beat you over the head with great noises, but it still sounds like a flat six to me—and thus really good.

As always, YMMV, and that's why it's great that there are so many choices when it comes to Porsche.

gellie

So after reading this thread, If you want better sound go with 991.1. If you want overall better performance get a 991.2. Pretty easy!

Benedict14

Benedict14

Erazo PR

i love the sound on my 991.2 S

.2PDK

The accuracy of this post angers me.

Bemo

More than rowing gears???

Benedict14

stout

For line, and generally speaking, yes. But not that day it wasn't—and the guy in the RS was clearly surprised, too. He put his radio down, and the PAG instructors don't do that, even while sliding 918s around one-handed. Porsche normally uses a faster or easier to drive model for instructors to set the pace (i.e. 911 Turbo > 911 Carrera 4S), if only in recognition of your point—just in case there is a decent shoe following. There wasn't anything left in that RS out of some of the corners—we were watching its rear tires squirm, searching for grip, while the Carrera was planted. On a race track, the RS would have been in a different zip code, but on that hillclimb course, the .2 3.0's torque out of the bends was something the RS 4.0 had no answer for. More importantly, the .2 Carrera was fun. More fun than the RS would have been—at least to me, mainly because I prefer an MT to PDK on the street and because the Carrera felt more playful than RSs do on the street.

So, the twin-turbo 3.0 has really closed up the gap between the Carrera line and the GT3 line, something that couldn't be said in the .1 era. It will be interesting to see how the in-house rivalry develops from here.

Good luck in your search—you really can't go wrong with .1 or .2!