991.1 vs 991.2 Fight Club Thread
05-02-2018, 12:27 AM
#436
LOL, well it does highlight the huge gulf in engine performance - its not a small difference as you would have us believe.
BTW, they are in effect arranged by HP under the curve. The curves are hard cold representations of that.
The fact remains the step up in performance is significant, and around a track the difference is even greater than these numbers suggest (and I have a plenty of on the clock experience to back this up). Likewise from the POV of daily driving to canyon carving.
No point going over the same debate, its been thrashed to death.
BTW, they are in effect arranged by HP under the curve. The curves are hard cold representations of that.
The fact remains the step up in performance is significant, and around a track the difference is even greater than these numbers suggest (and I have a plenty of on the clock experience to back this up). Likewise from the POV of daily driving to canyon carving.
No point going over the same debate, its been thrashed to death.
Nobody is saying it isn't faster, but the difference in performance gets overstated by some owners. To most people, the difference isn't that vast, between equal models. From a dig, the .2 advantages shine more brightly, but once moving, we're talking 3-4 MPH differences in trap speed. Not an otherworldly advantage.
05-02-2018, 02:03 AM
#437
Its really not overstated, the last 991.1GTS I came across at a timed event - the difference was 6s per lap. That's an eternity.
GTS Series II traps at 125 mph, GTS Series 1 traps at 118 mph (718 Cayman S 117mph) - most would agree theses are big differences.
There are plenty of end users that want to use the performance the Series II cars offer and, in this context, the performance gap is very significant.
You mentioned the GT4, the reality is the rear suspension set up is sub optimal, the second gear is far too long and its reach for top end is limited through torque and HP. The RAS cars not only out handle them, they are more composed through corners and far, far better through high-speed compressions. You can carry more corner speed and drive straight past them post apex.
I like GT4s, however, I can't overstate enough the performance advantage RAS, multilink and torque offers.
These are real world observations
GTS Series II traps at 125 mph, GTS Series 1 traps at 118 mph (718 Cayman S 117mph) - most would agree theses are big differences.
There are plenty of end users that want to use the performance the Series II cars offer and, in this context, the performance gap is very significant.
You mentioned the GT4, the reality is the rear suspension set up is sub optimal, the second gear is far too long and its reach for top end is limited through torque and HP. The RAS cars not only out handle them, they are more composed through corners and far, far better through high-speed compressions. You can carry more corner speed and drive straight past them post apex.
I like GT4s, however, I can't overstate enough the performance advantage RAS, multilink and torque offers.
These are real world observations
05-02-2018, 02:31 AM
#438
Its really not overstated, the last 991.1GTS I came across at a timed event - the difference was 6s per lap. That's an eternity.
GTS Series II traps at 125 mph, GTS Series 1 traps at 118 mph (718 Cayman S 117mph) - most would agree theses are big differences.
There are plenty of end users that want to use the performance the Series II cars offer and, in this context, the performance gap is very significant.
You mentioned the GT4, the reality is the rear suspension set up is sub optimal, the second gear is far too long and its reach for top end is limited through torque and HP. The RAS cars not only out handle them, they are more composed through corners and far, far better through high-speed compressions. You can carry more corner speed and drive straight past them post apex.
I like GT4s, however, I can't overstate enough the performance advantage RAS, multilink and torque offers.
These are real world observations
GTS Series II traps at 125 mph, GTS Series 1 traps at 118 mph (718 Cayman S 117mph) - most would agree theses are big differences.
There are plenty of end users that want to use the performance the Series II cars offer and, in this context, the performance gap is very significant.
You mentioned the GT4, the reality is the rear suspension set up is sub optimal, the second gear is far too long and its reach for top end is limited through torque and HP. The RAS cars not only out handle them, they are more composed through corners and far, far better through high-speed compressions. You can carry more corner speed and drive straight past them post apex.
I like GT4s, however, I can't overstate enough the performance advantage RAS, multilink and torque offers.
These are real world observations
Base to base, and S to S (.1 S has trapped at 118 MPH in mags), we’re talking a difference of 3-4.
We all come across different times. Let’s stick to official figures with legitimate drivers. Such as the best .2 S Ring time being a rather paltry 3.9 seconds over a .1 S 5 years prior (no RAS needed on the .1.
) within a nearly 8 minute track. Or the same driver in a manual GT4 coming in just 7 seconds under his time in a PDK .2 S loaded with every performance option. Hence, faster, but not near other planetary. .
05-02-2018, 02:43 AM
#439
I do miss the air-cooled flat 6 - that engine has charm, but the sound difference IMO is overrated compared with the water cooled engines that succeeded it, and the power is night and day different
I miss hydraulic steering from the 997, but I don't mind the EPA system in the 991 and prefer just about everything else regarding the 991 to the 997 *personally*
I do miss the raspiness of the 9A1 3.4L naturally aspirated motor in the 991.1 C2 I drove on and off over a year, but the torque on tap & sense of power that builds as RPMs increase for a good chunk (2.5-6.5k) from the turbo 3.0 is addicting
I never thought that the "prior gen" (or pre mid-cycle refresh 991.1) were bad cars or had bad attributes, actually they were/are still amazing cars and the older technology in those cars had their own benefits
IMO it's just evolution from Porsche for better or worse to me when I look at it. Every step forward as a whole improved on an already brilliant car *for me*... Porsche's goal is to build the best sports car in the world, and to do it even better next time
If the 992 had a NA or turbo option, I would go turbo. And if the 992 had a NA, turbo, or hybrid option - depending on what the hybrid setup looks like I'd consider it the favorite (looking longingly at the 918)
Just my 2 cents, YMMV
I miss hydraulic steering from the 997, but I don't mind the EPA system in the 991 and prefer just about everything else regarding the 991 to the 997 *personally*
I do miss the raspiness of the 9A1 3.4L naturally aspirated motor in the 991.1 C2 I drove on and off over a year, but the torque on tap & sense of power that builds as RPMs increase for a good chunk (2.5-6.5k) from the turbo 3.0 is addicting
I never thought that the "prior gen" (or pre mid-cycle refresh 991.1) were bad cars or had bad attributes, actually they were/are still amazing cars and the older technology in those cars had their own benefits
IMO it's just evolution from Porsche for better or worse to me when I look at it. Every step forward as a whole improved on an already brilliant car *for me*... Porsche's goal is to build the best sports car in the world, and to do it even better next time
If the 992 had a NA or turbo option, I would go turbo. And if the 992 had a NA, turbo, or hybrid option - depending on what the hybrid setup looks like I'd consider it the favorite (looking longingly at the 918)
Just my 2 cents, YMMV
05-02-2018, 11:37 AM
#440
Race Car
Randr 3, What are your sources for 125 MPH on the GTS? Maybe it has, but I’ve seen lower than that.
Base to base, and S to S (.1 S has trapped at 118 MPH in mags), we’re talking a difference of 3-4.
We all come across different times. Let’s stick to official figures with legitimate drivers. Such as the best .2 S Ring time being a rather paltry 3.9 seconds over a .1 S 5 years prior (no RAS needed on the .1.
) within a nearly 8 minute track. Or the same driver in a manual GT4 coming in just 7 seconds under his time in a PDK .2 S loaded with every performance option. Hence, faster, but not near other planetary. .
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 7.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 12.2 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 17.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.3 sec @ 125 mph
Top speed (drag limited, mfr's claim): 193 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 142 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.05 g
Zero to 60 mph: 3.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 7.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 12.2 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 17.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.4 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.3 sec @ 125 mph
Top speed (drag limited, mfr's claim): 193 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 142 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.05 g
C&D's test of the 2015 GTS resulted in 118 mph at the quarter mile.
https://www.caranddriver.com/compari...e-specs-page-5
^ the 2015 GTS won that comparison, BTW
- long live the 911 in all its forms! 
05-02-2018, 01:42 PM
#441
Rennlist Member
^ Thanks, Hurricane.
Was going to write a love letter to K-A that basically said, "You baked!" But you've saved the time needed to research the numbers.
Bless C/D and M/T for spending the money to do instrumented acceleration testing—something they do well. And the numbers below represent performance gains that correlate with the step change in real-world performance I and others have perceived behind the wheel of 991.2s. Even if you throw a tenth or two in to account for different days, these are big improvements—unlike the previous evolutionary 993 > 996.1 > 996.2 > 997.1 > 997.2 > 991.1 ladder. C/D's numbers also explain why we're seeing folks like mdrums surprised to see himself running with GT3s at Sebring (and running out of brakes), a former GT3 driver like tstafford running a 991.2 Carrera S and being surprised by its performance on track, and other GT3 drivers noting that they have to drive their cars very hard to keep the 991.2s at bay on track.
C/D TEST RESULTS
2017 Carrera GTS (991.2)
0-60 mph: 3.0 sec (-.06)
0-100 mph: 7.2 sec (-1.3)
0-130 mph: 12.2 sec (-2.4)
Standing ¼-mile: 11.3 sec @ 125 mph (-0.6, +7 mph)
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 3.8 sec (-0.4)
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.4 sec (-0.3)
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.5 sec (-0.3)
C/D TEST RESULTS
2015 Carrera GTS (991.1)
0-60 mph: 3.6 sec
0-100 mph: 8.5 sec
0-130 mph: 14.6 sec
¼-mile @ mph: 11.9 sec @ 118
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.8 sec
Was going to write a love letter to K-A that basically said, "You baked!"
But you've saved the time needed to research the numbers.Bless C/D and M/T for spending the money to do instrumented acceleration testing—something they do well. And the numbers below represent performance gains that correlate with the step change in real-world performance I and others have perceived behind the wheel of 991.2s. Even if you throw a tenth or two in to account for different days, these are big improvements—unlike the previous evolutionary 993 > 996.1 > 996.2 > 997.1 > 997.2 > 991.1 ladder. C/D's numbers also explain why we're seeing folks like mdrums surprised to see himself running with GT3s at Sebring (and running out of brakes), a former GT3 driver like tstafford running a 991.2 Carrera S and being surprised by its performance on track, and other GT3 drivers noting that they have to drive their cars very hard to keep the 991.2s at bay on track.
C/D TEST RESULTS
2017 Carrera GTS (991.2)
0-60 mph: 3.0 sec (-.06)
0-100 mph: 7.2 sec (-1.3)
0-130 mph: 12.2 sec (-2.4)
Standing ¼-mile: 11.3 sec @ 125 mph (-0.6, +7 mph)
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 3.8 sec (-0.4)
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.4 sec (-0.3)
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.5 sec (-0.3)
C/D TEST RESULTS
2015 Carrera GTS (991.1)
0-60 mph: 3.6 sec
0-100 mph: 8.5 sec
0-130 mph: 14.6 sec
¼-mile @ mph: 11.9 sec @ 118
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.8 sec
05-02-2018, 01:47 PM
#442
I am simply shocked at how much better the .2 is over the .1 in all forms.
I was waiting for the 992.1 but may have to bite the bullet and get the 992.2.
Or maybe I'll just wait for the self driving electric version.
Or the solar powered one...
I was waiting for the 992.1 but may have to bite the bullet and get the 992.2.
Or maybe I'll just wait for the self driving electric version.
Or the solar powered one...
05-02-2018, 02:01 PM
#443
Rennlist Member
This thread, in a nutshell:
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better.
991.2 crowd: Okay.
991.1 crowd: The .2's performance gain isn't important on the street.
991.2 crowd: Okay, but the .2 sure drives nicely, and is fun.
991.1 crowd: Actually, the performance difference really isn't even that big.
991.2 crowd: Uh, check the facts.
991.1 crowd: The .2 is the first step down the wrong road—next thing you know, you'd be driving a 918. Or a Prius.
991.2 crowd: Hm. The .1 was a really nice car, but the .2 is, too. It's fast, but a lot of fun to drive, too.
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better…
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better.
991.2 crowd: Okay.
991.1 crowd: The .2's performance gain isn't important on the street.
991.2 crowd: Okay, but the .2 sure drives nicely, and is fun.
991.1 crowd: Actually, the performance difference really isn't even that big.
991.2 crowd: Uh, check the facts.
991.1 crowd: The .2 is the first step down the wrong road—next thing you know, you'd be driving a 918. Or a Prius.
991.2 crowd: Hm. The .1 was a really nice car, but the .2 is, too. It's fast, but a lot of fun to drive, too.
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better…
05-02-2018, 02:20 PM
#444
Race Car
This thread, in a nutshell:
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better.
991.2 crowd: Okay.
991.1 crowd: The .2's performance gain isn't important on the street.
991.2 crowd: Okay, but the .2 sure drives nicely, and is fun.
991.1 crowd: Actually, the performance difference really isn't even that big.
991.2 crowd: Uh, check the facts.
991.1 crowd: The .2 is the first step down the wrong road—next thing you know, you'd be driving a 918. Or a Prius.
991.2 crowd: Hm. The .1 was a really nice car, but the .2 is, too. It's fast, but a lot of fun to drive, too.
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better…
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better.
991.2 crowd: Okay.
991.1 crowd: The .2's performance gain isn't important on the street.
991.2 crowd: Okay, but the .2 sure drives nicely, and is fun.
991.1 crowd: Actually, the performance difference really isn't even that big.
991.2 crowd: Uh, check the facts.
991.1 crowd: The .2 is the first step down the wrong road—next thing you know, you'd be driving a 918. Or a Prius.
991.2 crowd: Hm. The .1 was a really nice car, but the .2 is, too. It's fast, but a lot of fun to drive, too.
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better…
05-02-2018, 03:03 PM
#445
This thread, in a nutshell:
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better.
991.2 crowd: Okay.
991.1 crowd: The .2's performance gain isn't important on the street.
991.2 crowd: Okay, but the .2 sure drives nicely, and is fun.
991.1 crowd: Actually, the performance difference really isn't even that big.
991.2 crowd: Uh, check the facts.
991.1 crowd: The .2 is the first step down the wrong road—next thing you know, you'd be driving a 918. Or a Prius.
991.2 crowd: Hm. The .1 was a really nice car, but the .2 is, too. It's fast, but a lot of fun to drive, too.
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better…
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better.
991.2 crowd: Okay.
991.1 crowd: The .2's performance gain isn't important on the street.
991.2 crowd: Okay, but the .2 sure drives nicely, and is fun.
991.1 crowd: Actually, the performance difference really isn't even that big.
991.2 crowd: Uh, check the facts.
991.1 crowd: The .2 is the first step down the wrong road—next thing you know, you'd be driving a 918. Or a Prius.
991.2 crowd: Hm. The .1 was a really nice car, but the .2 is, too. It's fast, but a lot of fun to drive, too.
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better…
perfect, now I dont have to read all these posts
05-02-2018, 08:22 PM
#446
Re: The above test. Like I said, GTS seems to have some extra juice over its predecessor. There were tests where the .1 S got 118 MPH as well.
Still, in tests using the same or similar outfitted *base or S* cars, the .2’s advantage becomes 3-4 MPH. Then you have the fairly close .1/.2 S Ring times.
I dont know why it’s hard to accept when I say “faster, but not near otherworldly” faster. But maybe that’s because I don’t race. A few MPH trap speed or a few tenths here or there, or a few seconds on the ring is fairly negligible to me. If I was into competitive racing, obviously that may not be the case so much.
If we’re looking at it from an engineering standpoint, I fully acknowledge the 9A2’s are marvels. As they should be. But *personally* speaking, I see the 9A1’s as even higher engineering achievements due to the fact that they can hang what I consider fairly closely with 9A2 cars. The 2012.5 CS Ring time is astounding for a car of its HP figure, being 6 years old now. An 11 second car, sub-7:40 on the Ring, all on its own motor, no turbos, etc.? That’s a huge statement. The 3.4 a few ticks slower, but still can trap a 115 MPH with PDK and a hardtop, with a mere “350 HP” rating. I think both .1 and .2’s put up logic defying numbers, considering their on-paper power figures.
Still, in tests using the same or similar outfitted *base or S* cars, the .2’s advantage becomes 3-4 MPH. Then you have the fairly close .1/.2 S Ring times.
I dont know why it’s hard to accept when I say “faster, but not near otherworldly” faster. But maybe that’s because I don’t race. A few MPH trap speed or a few tenths here or there, or a few seconds on the ring is fairly negligible to me. If I was into competitive racing, obviously that may not be the case so much.
If we’re looking at it from an engineering standpoint, I fully acknowledge the 9A2’s are marvels. As they should be. But *personally* speaking, I see the 9A1’s as even higher engineering achievements due to the fact that they can hang what I consider fairly closely with 9A2 cars. The 2012.5 CS Ring time is astounding for a car of its HP figure, being 6 years old now. An 11 second car, sub-7:40 on the Ring, all on its own motor, no turbos, etc.? That’s a huge statement. The 3.4 a few ticks slower, but still can trap a 115 MPH with PDK and a hardtop, with a mere “350 HP” rating. I think both .1 and .2’s put up logic defying numbers, considering their on-paper power figures.
05-02-2018, 11:57 PM
#447
Rennlist Member
This thread, in a nutshell:
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better.
991.2 crowd: Okay.
991.1 crowd: The .2's performance gain isn't important on the street.
991.2 crowd: Okay, but the .2 sure drives nicely, and is fun.
991.1 crowd: Actually, the performance difference really isn't even that big.
991.2 crowd: Uh, check the facts.
991.1 crowd: The .2 is the first step down the wrong road—next thing you know, you'd be driving a 918. Or a Prius.
991.2 crowd: Hm. The .1 was a really nice car, but the .2 is, too. It's fast, but a lot of fun to drive, too.
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better…
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better.
991.2 crowd: Okay.
991.1 crowd: The .2's performance gain isn't important on the street.
991.2 crowd: Okay, but the .2 sure drives nicely, and is fun.
991.1 crowd: Actually, the performance difference really isn't even that big.
991.2 crowd: Uh, check the facts.
991.1 crowd: The .2 is the first step down the wrong road—next thing you know, you'd be driving a 918. Or a Prius.
991.2 crowd: Hm. The .1 was a really nice car, but the .2 is, too. It's fast, but a lot of fun to drive, too.
991.1 crowd: The .1 sounds better…
Well done.Re: The above test. Like I said, GTS seems to have some extra juice over its predecessor. There were tests where the .1 S got 118 MPH as well.
Still, in tests using the same or similar outfitted *base or S* cars, the .2’s advantage becomes 3-4 MPH. Then you have the fairly close .1/.2 S Ring times.
I dont know why it’s hard to accept when I say “faster, but not near otherworldly” faster. But maybe that’s because I don’t race. A few MPH trap speed or a few tenths here or there, or a few seconds on the ring is fairly negligible to me. If I was into competitive racing, obviously that may not be the case so much.
If we’re looking at it from an engineering standpoint, I fully acknowledge the 9A2’s are marvels. As they should be. But *personally* speaking, I see the 9A1’s as even higher engineering achievements due to the fact that they can hang what I consider fairly closely with 9A2 cars. The 2012.5 CS Ring time is astounding for a car of its HP figure, being 6 years old now. An 11 second car, sub-7:40 on the Ring, all on its own motor, no turbos, etc.? That’s a huge statement. The 3.4 a few ticks slower, but still can trap a 115 MPH with PDK and a hardtop, with a mere “350 HP” rating. I think both .1 and .2’s put up logic defying numbers, considering their on-paper power figures.
Still, in tests using the same or similar outfitted *base or S* cars, the .2’s advantage becomes 3-4 MPH. Then you have the fairly close .1/.2 S Ring times.
I dont know why it’s hard to accept when I say “faster, but not near otherworldly” faster. But maybe that’s because I don’t race. A few MPH trap speed or a few tenths here or there, or a few seconds on the ring is fairly negligible to me. If I was into competitive racing, obviously that may not be the case so much.
If we’re looking at it from an engineering standpoint, I fully acknowledge the 9A2’s are marvels. As they should be. But *personally* speaking, I see the 9A1’s as even higher engineering achievements due to the fact that they can hang what I consider fairly closely with 9A2 cars. The 2012.5 CS Ring time is astounding for a car of its HP figure, being 6 years old now. An 11 second car, sub-7:40 on the Ring, all on its own motor, no turbos, etc.? That’s a huge statement. The 3.4 a few ticks slower, but still can trap a 115 MPH with PDK and a hardtop, with a mere “350 HP” rating. I think both .1 and .2’s put up logic defying numbers, considering their on-paper power figures.
The following users liked this post:
timjab (01-16-2021)
05-03-2018, 12:26 AM
#448
I see what you did there. Well done.
During my long courtship of a 911, I test drove numerous .1 base and .1S cars. I loved everything about the 911, but just felt on numerous test drives that it should feel faster. In particular, it should feel faster for the money they were asking. Perhaps the salesman should have hinted the engine should be revved higher to feel the power output. So they lost a sale on their stupid, short test drives. On a few occasions, I heard that "intoxicating wail", but didn't feel that commensurate kick in the butt. Hard to part with money when you really want something that feels faster. Fast forward to May 2016 when I test drove my first .2 base. It was exactly what I wanted, felt powerful and was just a matter of time before I'd own one. Nine months later I had one in my garage. Whether turbo or NA, I could really care less, it just feels like it is worth the money IMO. Cheers.
Well done.During my long courtship of a 911, I test drove numerous .1 base and .1S cars. I loved everything about the 911, but just felt on numerous test drives that it should feel faster. In particular, it should feel faster for the money they were asking. Perhaps the salesman should have hinted the engine should be revved higher to feel the power output. So they lost a sale on their stupid, short test drives. On a few occasions, I heard that "intoxicating wail", but didn't feel that commensurate kick in the butt. Hard to part with money when you really want something that feels faster. Fast forward to May 2016 when I test drove my first .2 base. It was exactly what I wanted, felt powerful and was just a matter of time before I'd own one. Nine months later I had one in my garage. Whether turbo or NA, I could really care less, it just feels like it is worth the money IMO. Cheers.
05-03-2018, 12:37 AM
#449
Instructor
The fact that this thread exist says a lot, I don't think the same questions were asked on the 996 and 997 series. I had a 997.1 and to me was clear that the 997.2 was a positive evolution. On the 991 changes are based on emissions and Porsche had no choice.
There is no question that Porsche makes brilliant cars and the 991.2 is not the exception; but I would like to see those who say the 991.1 is not fast enough for you were you can you really use the car potential.... traffic light grand prix? If I keep the revs up on my car in town I'll be on jail sooner than later.
For those who track the cars will get lower lap times, I personally track a 200 HP car and enjoy it more than tracking the 991.1S because I really reach the car limits, I did 145 MPH at the end of the back straight in COTA on the 911 with a 3 point seat belt, no cage and street tires and brakes....
Cheers,
David
There is no question that Porsche makes brilliant cars and the 991.2 is not the exception; but I would like to see those who say the 991.1 is not fast enough for you were you can you really use the car potential.... traffic light grand prix? If I keep the revs up on my car in town I'll be on jail sooner than later.
For those who track the cars will get lower lap times, I personally track a 200 HP car and enjoy it more than tracking the 991.1S because I really reach the car limits, I did 145 MPH at the end of the back straight in COTA on the 911 with a 3 point seat belt, no cage and street tires and brakes....
Cheers,
David
05-03-2018, 12:44 AM
#450
Rennlist Member
I drove .2 several times I have exactly opposite experience. Base and S .2 top end was just meh to me compare to .1gts. Exciting feel and sound was not there. The car didn't feel powerful nor faster than .1 gts. And sound was just blah. Yes, you have to drive properly to enjoy 9a1 unlike v6 Panamera like 9a2.