That's interesting... I didn't think I was passive at all It is a great engine for everything. Boosted engines are a farce in sports cars with regards to economy and its a shell game for EPA regulations. Setting the cruise control at a mild speed and a flat road will get you better mileage but when boost is up; that all changes. More air = More fuel. 3.0tt great? Yes. But that doesn't make the 3.4 not great and the fact that these journalist longed for it in this article for this car speaks to the overall driving experience that is produces and for all the things the 3,0tt get you, this experience is not one of them. That was my point. I wasn't slandering the 3.0tt.

If someone can afford to buy a new T then they "can" afford 2 cars. They just need to go the CPO route and or weigh the budget for the two cars and balance it. There are some people that have and do daily older GT3's and swear by them as their only cars. None of that is debatable as the variables in response are unique every anonymous screen name on here.

 

Nice find, thanks for sharing!

 

The point being "those two journalists"................Honestly, I think you'd be challenged to find many or indeed any others that would reach for that conclusion.

As the Sport Auto video shows the Carrera has come of age - ultimately its abilities are defined by the specification of the car as determined by its owner. A power kit Carrera S or GTS, if specced with RAS is as quick as the current GT3. The fact the T comes close is a great outcome, and no real surprise. Power under the curve and RAS are real game changers.

I have no doubt there will be many T owners with big smiles - thats exactly as it should be

 

I don't know why it's hard for us to accept that we all prefer different elements from within a car, but being that this thread is discussing what the T should or shouldn't have powering it....

Thing is, power isn't what sells 911's. Sales data as well as resale values, mark-ups, etc. constantly prove that. The GT3 is worshipped and bid up substantially in both the new and used markets, which is a testament to how little sports car buyers care about all-out speed (or torque, etc.... many find a linear powerband in which a great sounding engine must be at an audible RPM in order to make its power, more engaging, and then some won't.... tomato tomato).

People don't need to convince each other as to why one is better than the other. There is no fact to this matter, it's purely preference. And the T is a turbo, no one disputes that reality. Reality is reality and it is what it is. However, it's just that line that we saw in the article of which this thread references, that echos what I know I've personally wished the T had powering it. In honesty, though the tt cars make their power differently, most drivers will never accelerate full throttle (I'm a spirited driver and I've never floored my car from a standstill), nor go to a track. The difference in 1/4 trap speeds (which imo are a truer barometer of how a car feels throughout its powerband) aren't that large between the 1's and 2's. Ring times for comparable models aren't that far off either.

If you ask me, the 9A1 is a masterpiece. I think it's incredible what Porsche achieved with a non-GT (read: less strung out) N/A engine as their grand finale. A .1 base Carrera coupe with PDK and S/C pulling a 115 MPH trap speed is astonishing with no power adders (or just simply), with a 350 HP rating, if you ask me. As is a .1 Carrera S running an 11 second 1/4 and pulling a 7.37.9 on the Ring back in 2012. In my opinion, they're bar none the best non-GT engines Porsche has made, because I prefer the N/A response/powerband and find them immensely musical. Just like many happy .2 base owners find the 3.0 that's also housed in the T is a masterpiece and the best non-GT Porsche engine. And just like the .2's brilliant acceleration and track times of its own reflect pure engineering prowess. We simply don't agree with each other, and no amount of stats or explaining how we prefer certain characteristics will change that.

I honestly think that the 9A1's are testaments to how incredibly Porsche can engineer an engine. These are naturally aspirated cars, depending on nothing more than their raw capabilities, which keep up with or surpass countless cars with turbos or superchargers, more displacement and cylinders, and often, a combo of both. As well, the 9A2's are ALSO testaments to how incredibly Porsche can engineer an engine via how unstoppably fast a boosted flat 6 can accelerate, and how much generous power it supplies throughout the powerband. I prefer the sensation and sound of the former, and some will want the power delivery of the latter. Tomato tomato.

To put it more simply: What this reviewer said happens to resonate to me as well, as I think, in my own fantasy land, a lighter, softer torque, revvy atmospheric engine would have suited the T very well. IMO, if the T had a 3.4 "encore" making, say, 370HP, imo there would be a fervor to get them and they'd be asking premiums over MSRP. That's just my take on the matter as naturally that's what would have gotten my interest. Though, on the flip side, there are current T buyers who perhaps wouldn't have been as interested!

One thing I will say, coming from the "I wish it had the 3.4 like the author stated" 'dinosaur' side. Remember, we N/A enthusiasts don't get our choices anymore. The tt's across the line are here to stay. It's natural for some of us to get frustrated, and express how we wish we could get one or more hurrahs to our liking on certain speciality models (such as the T), or get excited when journalists concur with our viewpoint, or a GT division engineer / head honcho states why it's important for them to keep an N/A engine in the GT3. Don't take it as a slight, and go easy on us.... you GET your cakes and you can eat as many of them as you want, too. Consider yourself lucky!

Aside from that, no need to make this into an N/A vs turbo thread, let's just put the brakes on that. We all know what's what when it comes to what these engines provide. Respecting why each of us like a certain powerplant over another is key to understanding why we're all so passionate about the various hallmarks within this iconic car.

 

K-A, listen to the in car footage from Sport Auto - what do you hear? In both cases its flat-six.

 

K-A. Im with you. There is nothing wrong with the 9A1. Its a great car.

 

... but back to the actual cars.
im super pumped people are starting to show the T on track and we are getting some real objective performance feedback. Until now all we have seen is drives on scenic roads somewhere in europe and trips to the grocery store, lol. Clearly the performance bits add up to more than one would think. It would have been interesting to see a manual gts on the same track to get a better feel for how much the chassis matters here. I think the point of the video was to showcase that even though the hp delta is huge, its all about the chassis.

 

Honestly, although these are always called "parts bin specials/marketing exercises" which are true to some degrees, I've found Porsche ALWAYS provide some underlying secret sauce to their "marketing exercise models." A'la GTS. The GTS always has that *something* to it that feels just that bit more *something* than an S with the same options. The T no doubt will be similar to a slighter degree. I guarantee it'll out-perform the base models on stat-tests, even if they do feel similar on the roads. Porsche always appear to do some underlying tweaks to ensure that is the case. They are masters at making the sum of a cars parts tell a cohesive holistic story.... even if it's a car with almost the exact same parts as another car, just slightly tweaked to speak in an entirely different language.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting there is a problem with the 9A1 This thread is about the T relative to the equivalent Carrera.

In my view the Sport Auto video (above) and commentary by Stout from his run with the GT3/T in France gel nicely. Whereas the Total 911 article appears to be an outlier.

 

Yup. Im with you too. I was bringing it back to the OP topic. Super pumped to see people starting to measure performance in addition to driving impressions.
Cant wait for R&T and Car and Driver to get their hands on it.

and hopefully it gets its own Ignition episode by Motor Trend...

 

I thought it was about the review from the magazine as it stated in the title which brought up the NA engine as their wishful preference even though they had the boosted engine at the time. My point is that the 3.4 was so good that even journalists driving the new engines lament about the 3.4 even when they have the unicorn tear filled 3.0. THAT in and of itself speaks VOLUMES.

 

 

 

 

+991 ... T.