Between .1 and .2 Carreras, the differences are far more taste oriented than fundamental performance. Between exactly equally equipped .1 and .2 base cars (i.e vert manual vs vert manual or coupe PDK with Sport + vs coupe PDK with Sport +) the difference in 1/4 mile trap speed is “only” about 3-4 MPH. Hardly anything nearing a massive difference. Same goes for 0-60 (a few or so tenths). A .1 Carrera S ran a 7:37 on the Ring back in 2011 or 2012, while the .2 Carrera S’s best Ring time is a 7:34. A Cayman GT4 which is slower than a .1 Carrera S was driven by the same driver in the .2 S that turned a 7:34, itself turned a 7:41. That’s not even a big difference and it’s a manual N/A Cayman vs the .2’s TT PDK with Sport Chrono.

Moral of the story is, don’t let yourself feel your car is “underpowered” because someone with a .2 tries to come here and tell you so because they prefer the turbo power delivery. The cars are far more alike in all out statistics than they are different. The differences in real world and even remotely legal driving mostly reside in what formula makes your SOTP feel faster. I think the RPM crescendo and on-cam rush makes my car feel faster than .2 base cars I’ve driven. Some will feel otherwise. Results, as always, vary.

Agreed. Torque was never what especially Porsche sports cars was about. I always went to pony cars for that, and find it humorous how some in 911 land treat torque as some new discovery since the charm and legend of 911’s outside of the Turbo was always due to its unique lack of torque powerplant outshining all the torquey cars around it. HP is also far more important to all out performance as evidenced by the relatively near performance figures .1 and .2’s put out (a few to several tenths or MPH at the limit is fairly negligible to me). I’ll sacrifice a few tenths here or there for a more visceral experience every time, especially since I don’t nor won’t ever push my car to its limit.

LOL. Being a teen when that movie came out and living your life one quarter mile at a time like a street racing dunce? Nah, I know nothing about that. Nothing I tell you.

Absolutely. I personally don’t get WHY someone would want to drive this car under 4K during fun-drives. The fact that it would make “plenty of power” under there is a negative to me. When I’m driving in a public space for fun or “art,” I don’t look for max numbers (I look the opposite way). I like revving it out because that’s when you hear the glorious atmospheric wail (the most important element of enthusiast public driving for me). That’s the entire point of a 911 to me. My car already has enough power to make revving it out while not getting to ludicrous speeds a frustrating ordeal. Last thing I want is enough torque at 2K RPM’s to make revving it uninspiring and unnecessary and too dangerous (and not musical).

*To me* the .2’s inspired more lazy driving. I didn’t need to explore and master the car as much as I do my .1, which provides more of a lively challenge and reward to me. That’s what it’s all about.

Which is why, to me, the differences between .1 and .2 are more taste oriented. And why it’s worth noting to .2 guys who’ll come into a thread extolling the virtues of the .1 powerband with “but torque from 0 RPM,” that that’s actually antithesis to what many of us here are looking for, hence the very subject matter.

On .1 vs .2 it’s nice how both come in different horsepower levels so whether you enjoy the turbo torque of .2 or progressive NA build of .1 you can find the right car that’s the right speed for your personal tastes.

Back on topic, I love how the NA motors build and progress through different sounds as they rev. I like to start at like 3k on a straight road in 2nd or something and go all the way to redline (even though downshifting would obviously be faster) just to enjoy the crescendo throughout the range.

And scary ..vvvrom. haha