Fünfzig

spot-on.

goofballdeluxe

^^^ From these statements, I'm just wondering if you've actually driven a 991 Turbo or are just making assumptions that it will be the perfect car for you, as you did previously with your 400-mile ownership of the 991 you impulsively bought?

The thing is, although the 991 Turbo will be very fast, it brings most of it's power when the turbos go to work, which means, higher in the rev band. That means not a huge amount of low end grunt. So your desire to have a car that can "bring the power on lower in the rpm range and give me lots of it." is not really the 991 Turbo's forte. Yes, it has gobs of power, but it really gives it you higher in the rpm range, not "lower in the rpm range" as you want in a car. Are you familiar with the phrase "turbo lag"? If not, you should learn about it. It specifically applies to forced induction, lack of power in the low rpm range and the wait for the power to kick in from the turbo(s).

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but from your previous impulse purchase and now wanting a 991 Turbo without knowing much about the car or how the power system works, it kinda feels you're doing what many girls do: label shop. It seems you want to own a "Porsche", even if it's not what you really want in a car. Also, this may be relative, but a car with a multitude of scoops, inlets and wings is not an "understated" car, and the Turbo is festooned with all these things. So your posts about wanting an understated car with low end grunt, and then settling in a 991 Turbo which is none of the things, seems kind of confusing, and well...impulsive.

As I said to you in my previous post on page 1, you really might want examine a large displacement, naturally aspirated engined car. Large displacement, naturally aspirated engines by design almost always have the low end grunt you want. By the way, the 991 Turbo is neither large displacement nor naturally aspirated. My advice again is to check out a V-12 engined Aston Martin. Plenty of low end grunt and there is no more luxurious, beautiful or understated car out there.

You might want to lay off the impulse buys and find out what cars actually have the things you say you want in a car, otherwise this is an expensive affliction.

Good luck and take care

enduro963

This thread has surprised me, made me serious and made me burst with laughter!

achildofthesky

gbd:

Thanks for taking the time to post agin.

I respectfully submit you review the power graphs for the 991S engines and compare them to the BASE Turbo as that is my current area of interest and what I am comparing the S engine to.

Something my detractors here are either not adequately informed of or completely ignoring is the FACT that the torque rating on the 991 Carrera S has a spike peak torque rating at 325# ft at a rather lofty 5600 rpm after starting around 225# ft at 1500 rpm and a gentle rise to 280# ft at 4000 rpm. There is a 10-15# ft (3-4%) dip in the torque curve that starts at 4600 rpm to 5000 rpm for some reason, then a brief platform from 5000 - 5300rpm then the base of the torque spike. So for 900 rpm (something like 11-12% of the rpm scale). I believe this is what is felt as a fall off in the rate of acceleration outside of the first 2 somewhat shortish gears.

Fact:
The Base turbo is 487# ft from 1950-5000 rpm (the base Turbo has more than 100% more Torque at the 1950 RPM than the 991S engine, I am taking these figures directly from the current factory supplied charts right now) and 524# ft with the over boost capability at 2100-4250 (the over boost capability sees another full 10% torque availability in direct comparison to the S engine, again at well below the rpms in the S) A MASSIVE difference. A whole 991S engine worth and then some at lower rpms. Max HP of 520 comes at 6000-6500 rpm. That is 30% more HP at 20% less rpm than a 991 S engine produces. Horsepower, on the street and in daily driving, is secondary to torque rating in getting things moving. Try a current V6 TDI to get my meaning...

But some are either in denial of the facts, love the high rpm needed for good power (and there is nothing wrong with that at all) or perhaps are loath to admit they too have some regrets in the power delivery after living with one for an interval. Probably not the amount of regret (I hate to use that word as I did love the car but for power delivery and a few detail options as stated previously) I had as I chose to stem the financial bleed early on and just chalk it up to experience, no big deal.

I have NO problem admitting when I make a mistake or misstep in purchasing something that proves, to me and only me, unsatisfactory, performance wise. Sell and move on to a car that is a better fit, engine characteristic/power delivery wise.

Thanks again for you taking the time to post to this thread. I am, I realize, of the minority opinion regarding the relative paucity of torque and how and where to find that magic elixir. The rev happy characteristics of the S engine has been a big draw as evidenced buy the rather high number of new car sales since the new 991 S and C4S were introduced. Many are taking my commentary as slagging the 991 C4S. Wrong, it is just a commentary on how a wrong fit it was, for me, power band wise.

Be safe
Patty

P.S. - fanny bay r1 & 911/50, thank you for your observations, reciprocally returned, with best wishes, from me to you(;->)

Noah Fect

They aren't 930s anymore.

Bacura

Agree. There can be NO argument that the 991 TT(S) has massive amounts of torque compared to a NA 991. Turbo lag is almost non-existent. The off-the-line grunt of a new turbo is other worldly. As a package it's not for me but there is no need to look at an aston martin. A TT would eat ANY aston anywhere anytime.

fester

It's amazing how much attention such threads get. Why in the world the op posted this in Porsche enthusiast forum in the first place..can't get it.

fester

+1

It's amazing how much attention such threads get. Why in the world the op posted this in Porsche enthusiast forum in the first place..can't get it

mooty

we'll hello...
leave him alone

my record once was returned the car after 102 miles.

whatever works for the buyer.

goofballdeluxe

All this is true.

Hey, at least with the Aston, you have the benefit of a car that's arguably way better looking and is certainly way more rare.

Anyone would be hard-pressed to wring all the performance out of a TT or Aston, unless on a track. Even the non-turbo 991 is way more car than most on here are driver

Bob Rouleau

Mooty, I'm with you. I returned a Ferrari Testarosa after 6 weeks and less than 100 miles. I knew I had made a big mistake when I drove it away. Spent the rest of the time finding a buyer for a BB 512 with less than 110 miles on it.

Noah Fect

Hard to see the point in turning the forum into an echo chamber, in any sense of the term. There is always room for one more opinion.

achildofthesky

Mooty and Bob Rouleau:

I guess you have me beat(;->). Bob, I had started to get that feeling by the time I got home from the dealer but did try a bit to see if adaptation on my part would be satisfactory. In the end, I had to bite the bullet and cashier the car.

fester:
I had mentioned a couple of times I posted this to get others that are on the fence of buying to think before taking the leap, not to dissuade anyone. Could save perhaps more than a couple from getting into a situation like I did. PM's I have received on this since starting this thread have shown this to be true.

Be safe and best wishes to all on New Years 2014, hope it is your best ever.
Patty

achildofthesky

+1
Noah Fect:
Thanks and have a fine evening
Patty

MerlinsGarage

Fixed it for ya.