Hurricane

That was pretty funny...

R_Rated

Puf n Stuf

What publication is that?
I hate to sound like a fanboi but....

From Total 911, issue 163:
​​​​​​

From CAR, issue 668:

R_Rated

I was referencing the comment to the wonderful 3.4 engine.

K-A

Couldn't agree more with their take on that. I know the car as is will have many upon many of thrilled drivers, but for me, I so immensely wish that was the purist "T" they made. A'la a baby GT3 of sorts. If I'm truly fantasizing; a slightly up tuned 3.4 in the .2 chassis with the "T" leitmotif (less weight at the rear too).... :drool:
I'd buy it today.

RRDnA

If they put the 3.4l NA in it - I suspect most people would go and pick up a nice 981 GTS. Significantly lighter, more agile etc.

Rennolazine

I really dont think anyone would pay extra if it was slower than a base carrera. Are you guys serious? Minumim they would have to use the 3.8 and give it 450 hp and 8500 rpm redline so it ouperforms the base to ask 103k. Maybe if it cost 85k and it was true to the T badge they could get away with the 3.4. Why is this becoming an NA vs turbo thread?

Hurricane

R_Rated

It's not an NA vs T thread. Its a "what is the intended spirit of the T" thread and a discussion of the article, which mentions it, if you'd read the article. There was much backlash at the suggestion of using the 3.4 months ago and those who agreed were chastised.... this is the second media to state this I have seen. If you read the article or understand the T at all then you'd understand that speed records are not the reason to buy this car. Having a driving experience and connection with car are. This engine would have fit that mission much better, and made it slower, and made it more desirable. Again - The new GT3 could have been made with a boosted engine.... but they didn't and they are next to impossible to get. A T with a 3.4 would have been just as desirable.

Rennolazine

I read the current article. I dont think its necessary to be derogatory. You might be right about the 3.4 being visceral, but you can't compare the .1 base (or any non GT car) it to a GT3. My point about pricing is valid. 85k for what you are suggesting makes more sense, and it would be a very unique product.

R_Rated

It wasn't derogatory. The GT3 is relevant in that it would have been a lot less costly for Porsche to add more boost and/or displacement to the 9A2 on the GT3 and it would be "faster." But they didn't; because its more than just drag racing. The T embodies and represents all of the same spirit; scaled down. The GT3 is relevant because it's a choice to go NA when Boost would have made it faster. The T would also have been more fun and engaging with a 350hp (and even lighter also) 911T - as the article references - we're discussing the article and the platform; not the merits of boost vs NA to be clear.

Rennolazine

Ok fair enough.

R_Rated

I think it's more than fair to not agree.

The point I am making is that going faster isn't what this car was intended for at all, just like the severely underpowered and highly desirable original.

alex_c

It's funny that most of the drivers that did the back to back drives on the press event with the GT3 and the T mentioned that for every day driving, and particularly for the conditions of the passes in Monte Carlo, the T's turbo was much better suited for the task.

Yes, the GT3 N/A engine may be a delight, but you have to be driving at redline to get it to perform as intended. I don't see that as an everyday driver. Great for the track, but not for driving around town and spirited driving outside a track.

And that was comparing it to the GT3's engine. I never really liked the N/A base Carrera engine for a daily driver. Without low end torque, it is not as convenient for everyday situations.

Scorponok