I can’t wait for the 992 to trap a whopping 3 MPH higher than the 991.2 and run a staggering 3.9 seconds faster on the Ring so 992 owners can feel their rocket fuel oats like Nino feels over .1 owners. Fun times.

That’s the thing though, it can be seen as antagonistic because I wouldn’t call that “remotely large,” never mind “very large.” It’s all perspective. Allow me to explain:

Here’s a link to a 2012.5 Carrera S that did a 3.5 0-60 and an 11.8 1/4 mile. Although the .2 GTS is far and away the most advantageous GTS over its generations S (it actually has a measurable performance difference while previous GTS’s weren’t as far away from their S brothers), those GTS numbers you quoted are pretty modest.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...911-carrera-s/

Also, remember that the .1 base put up better times than the 997.2 GTS (as several magazines noted). And the .1 S put up a better time than the 997.2 GT3 4.0 (as the article above states)! New base 911’s topping or matching previous GTS 911’s is par for the course.

Still, I get it, we all have our biases, priorities, agendas, what have you. But are we so biased that we won’t recognize how immensely impressive it is that a “torqueless” naturally aspirated non-GT flat six turns a friggin’ 3.5 0-60, and 7.37 on the Ring, back in 2011/2012?? That’s logic defying. Porsche masterpiece. Mid 3 second 0-60 at 11’s 1/4 mile for an atmospheric non-insanely-high-RPM natural breather with Beethoven in the back? And the .1 base just a few tenths “slower?” What’s not to love? Why diminish something that’s clearly a destined written-in-the-stars legend? The .1’s will forever be solidified as the technically best N/A Carreras. Porsche will never make an N/A street car (non GT) that’s faster or better. And the fact that they can even remotely keep up with newer twin turbo cars is icing on the cake.

And before this triggers any .2 owners. Know none of that diminishes .2’s. Note there isn’t one negative thing about the .2 written there. It just means .1’s, whether you like it or not, are solidified as legends in their right. Look no further than some of their resale values and used models already practically reaching within the realm of new 911’s.

I’m not a racer. Personally, anything low-mid 12’s and capable of doing 114 MPH trap is “fast.” Knocking half a second and adding 4 MPH to that is “even faster.” Unless someone is trolling or trying to make themselves feel better, I don’t see how that can upset them.

.1. 3.5 0-60.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...911-carrera-s/

“Fake news”

What a joke. Good to know this place has turned into a political propaganda sandbox.

Speaking of fake news. Hi Nino’s new screen name.

You Tube

I don’t get it. The level of offense the guy(s) (I have a feeling one of them is our old banned friend) is taking to me simply posting factual .1 times is pretty nuts. Not once have I even criticized the .2 or even gone into the sound discussion here. It’s turned into a poltical like discourse. If something doesn’t feed ones agenda, they go full overcompensating troll to fuel their narrative.

Me highlighting .1 ring times, common trap speeds, 0-60 times (even Edmunds got a .1S to a 3.9 0-60, and they’re notoriously the slowest), angers them that much?

I know they don’t speak for nearly the majority of .2 owners. But if the fact that the .1 puts up such good times bothers them or affects their adoration for their cars, then simply put that’s sad.

Some people think 3-4 MPH trap and around half a second 1/4 mile are a huge difference. And I even understand that from their perspective. To me, it’s not so much. I think both cars are fast. One is faster by the exact statistical measure we have at hand. Why that’s an issue or forces them to berate the “other” car with false agenda is beyond me.