chuck911

Beaten by a Tip? OUCH!

But hey, its a killer platform. One they've been carefully bringing along for a very long time now. Carefully, as in being careful to keep it down to where most will see it as being just below the golden egg.

One clue to just how carefully long-range they plan, the Boxster came first. Sure they talked up the similarity to the 550 Spyder, but they almost never develop a car that way. Its always been coupe, then cab. With the Boxster though they waited forever to make it a coupe. Because, I can't help but think, it would just be too easy to make the coupe a 911 killer.

Which now with the GT4 they pretty much have done. As you've pretty much implied chuck, depending details like the track, driver and setup they may be there already. If not, well it won't take much- probably just a gearing change would do it- to be there, period.

Remember when I wrote about Squire putting a 996 motor into a Boxster? Imagine what the GT4 would do with the GT3 engine, gearing and PDK!

NoGaBiker

The real fail here is anyone ordering an RS60 with a tipper! Ewwwww!

GTSwest

I agree with Lexvan - GTS...those hips!

GTS - widebody RWD and classic 911 roofline! 5-main gauge instrument cluster is more upscale and I really like the view across the width of the dash. The 911 has the perfect seating position and all-round visibility.

GTS - as much performance as you need, far superior DD.

GT4 - not as compelling a looker IMHO, a bit "cobbled together" and view from the rear with the fixed wing looks a little too much "aftermarket" like what you often see bolted on Civic's, Integra's etc.

GT4 - if you are 6' plus, cabin feel is very tight and legroom will be limited (the 911 legroom is endless)

Grunty

It's funny, the gt3 has not been a temptation for me. Oddly, the gt4 invokes much "want" in my soul. Not sure why. But, it would not be my daily. I'd keep my 50th as the primary car.

ipse dixit

GTS

Tcc1999

I understand this and appreciate that over the years PAG has learned many lessons about how to make and keep the 911 (in all of its race form) competitive. What I don't understand, and maybe Chuck or anyone else might have insight, is that if a mid-engine placement is superior (and I suppose it is), if PAG were so committed to racing and winning, why haven't they gone this route? (Has the rear-engine mythology become so ingrained that PAG would rather sell cars and maintain an image rather than win races? I mean tradition dies hard but at some point someone has to have the courage (and not mind being savaged) to say, "ENOUGH, it was a good run but it's time to move on". And I know this almost happened with the transaxle 924, 944, etc. movement when PAG was ready to abondon the 911.)

chuckbdc

Agree with the sentiment. The 6 speed RS60 was a big part of what got me out of my 911. But it turns out that the Tip in the RS60 was optimized for tracking right from the factory and could not be beat by manuals for that application. Must be where they cut their teeth for the PDK. Or was that 20 years ago when it dominated international prototype racing?

NoGaBiker

My thoughts are as follows:

I'm a huge race fan, and have been a devotee of 911-based race cars since about 1977 when I was in middle-school. But I don't own, nor will I ever own a 911 race car. I own a 911 street car. And it has unique driving characteristics; it feels very different from driving a Boxster or Cayman or a 430 Ferrari or an Audi R8. That unique handling is a product of the engine hanging over the rear axle line.*

So if the world of HiPo Euro sportscars is full -- absolutely FULL -- of mid-engined options, and there are plenty of nice front-engined options (Corvette, AMs, GTR, etc.) also, why would I want Porsche to take away the one unique characteristic of the 911 that makes it different? It's the only car with the engine back there. It's been the only one (outside of the South American market Beetles) for the last 40 years or so, and the only high-performance racing package with the motor out back since the Alpine A110 in the early-seventies, as far as I am aware.

The rear-configuration was just as subject to the laws of physics in 1977 as it is today, and yet 935s** were winning at the top levels in many races, and taking all of the top six spots many times.

So I say to Porsche, "Keep it up. Keep building these 911s. Keep racing them. I'd rather you do that than allow the 911 to languish while you polished up the Cayman and there we are with yet another swoopy 2-seat mid-engine car circling the track.

I've owned a Boxster, love them and the Cayman. But it's not a 911. I think that needs to stay the case.



*These comments pertain to 911s through the 997; I haven't driven the 991 yet in such a way as to even feel the handling characteristics at 7/10s, much less at 9/10s. I'm hoping the fact that it has already become a little more mid-engined than ever before hasn't robbed it of those unique handling traits.

** Most 935s were truly rear-engined, some managed to be more mid-engined toward the end of the run.

lunarx

Well we know the 911 is great on braking and that is where most passing happens in racing.
Also, they do very well on tire wear.
They seem to have tire, through the whole race, where front engine cars seem to use their tires up faster.

So far I am amazed with both those advantages as well as how well the 991 turns into corners.
There is no need for trail braking, so one can always be on gas before the apex.
Also, the launch, out of the turn, is very strong, but one must be careful with the throttle as its hard to recover from a power-slide in a 911.

Also, I will throw it out there that, even mid engine cars are going AWD, so that format must have stability concerns also.

In adition, the 991 is the least rear engine of all previous 911.

EatAtJoes

My problem with GT4 is the permanent spoiler, and the fact that the spoiler on the GT4 looks even worse than the one on the GT3. At least the GT3's spoiler looks less aftermarket than GT4.

Porsche should copy Ferrari and make cars that have enough downforce without need for huge permanent spoiler.

chuck911

Well the first thing to keep in mind is, its not so much that Porsche is committed to winning. That was Ferrari. Whole different man and car. Mr. Porsche found there were no cars quite like what he wanted, and so set out to build one. Which takes money. For Porsche racing is marketing, and victory sells.

If all they wanted was to win they could have dropped the 911 long ago. Instead what happened was they kept improving the 911 along the original Ferry Porsche principles. Over time it gathered quite a few impressive victories. But really when you think about it, it wasn't so much the 911 but cars like the 904, 917, 956, etc that got the big-time podium finishes. Instead, where the 911 excelled was in the lower categories, where many more people could afford to race them.

Its true today. Someone mentioned there are lots of competing race platforms. Its not something I follow closely, but I bet that like LeMans victories, that in terms of numbers Porsche is not just #1, but has about as many cars out there as several of the contenders combined. Why there are so many, you don't even have to bother with anyone else! Just the 911 alone has this huge racing infrastructure. A hugely PROFITABLE racing infrastructure!

I'm sure that if all Porsche cared about was winning they'd drop the 911 and focus on Cayman development. But then they'd be walking away from huge piles of profits, stupidly eating their own lunch. And these guys are anything but stupid!