When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Haha. At least in his case, it would merit it. @Uhu always delivers. I think @Macboy and @Uhu should collaborate and put together a 992 Carrera T coffee table book, full of their lovely photography and interesting stories. Limited to 992, of course. I reserve copy #911/992. Starting the petition here—who else is in?
Thank you. I am not much of a "photographer", prefer to enjoy the moment than spend time taking pictures, but I was doing it for you guys...and to put some visuals into my text.
I hope to catch 1-2 fair weather days end of October or in November, for a small write-up about Nürburgring and the surrounding area/roads. It will most probably be during Touristenfahrten, which will mean I will take it very easy.
@Uhu thanks for the great write up. The T is indeed the only Carrera to have. Zero interest in the S or GTS. It's the one that has the most lineage from its predecessors and the one you can more properly wring out. I completely agree about the Goodyears. I've been such a Michelin fan for so long that I'm glad I was forced to try the GY. Dare I say I like them better? I guess the only point where we diverge is in RAS. I still prefer the old school feel and sorry but I don't feel the car understeer at all without it. I would contemplate RAS on a mostly-track focused car but love its absence on my mostly canyon use car.
I would say that the Goodyears are reminding me of the Pilot Super Sport, very benign if less grippy tires compared to the 4S.
They feel more "supple". The 4S feels knobbly until they warm up and then you fell they mean business. 70%-30% track/road, I will go even to Cup2, but for my 10%-90% track/road trips, I might stay with the Goodyears.
Without RAS, the Boxster was understeering when too much speed was carried through, even when not under throttle and (based on previous experiences) the 992 turns less eager and you can feel the bigger wheelbase. But, de gustibus I like how pointy the car becomes, with the RAS.
I would say that the Goodyears are reminding me of the Pilot Super Sport, very benign if less grippy tires compared to the 4S.
They feel more "supple". The 4S feels knobbly until they warm up and then you fell they mean business. 70%-30% track/road, I will go even to Cup2, but for my 10%-90% track/road trips, I might stay with the Goodyears.
Without RAS, the Boxster was understeering when too much speed was carried through, even when not under throttle and (based on previous experiences) the 992 turns less eager and you can feel the bigger wheelbase. But, de gustibus I like how pointy the car becomes, with the RAS.
I feel the grip is comparable to the 4S but I haven't tracked the car yet. I like that they don't seem to get greasy and don't get as hot. I agree about Cup2s and have them in the GT3. These are perfect for road use.
RAS - yes, to each their own and do appreciate what it brings to the table.
The Cayman GTS is obviously a better drivers car. The only selling point of a 911 T to me was the rear seats so I can take my kid around.
If you're too obtuse to see why a 2 seat Cayman GTS might be more fun than a 2-seat 911 to some folks, then you've just got your head buried in the sand.
As mentioned above, drove the GTS right after the road trip to Hockenheim in my T and before another drive in a S with RAS/PDCC. On a very technical track, with all kinds of sections. Also, slaloms, avoidance tests on different surfaces, full on launches and braking, etc.
718 GTS 4.0 was fun, but nowhere near as planted/stable like the S or T, the engine lacks a bit of torque, weaker brakes and traction, you need to change the alignment to alleviate the factory "understeery" setup (mid engine car, will bite many "wannabes" in the *** otherwise) and might feel tight for persons above 6ft.
I can see why many people like the car, it's easy to "safely" overdrive it, sounds good and due to the smaller size, can be more easy to live with in cramped areas/cities. Feels more comfortable too, over bumps. But it's not the "driver's car".
At a track day, someone in an 718 RS missed the second turn in a high speed "S", went straight into the tire wall. Same day, later, someone else in a 981 GT4, almost missed the second turn in the same area, managed to save it and only put half of the car on the grass/gravel. No 911 driver did that. Due to its layout, it's very hard to come near the steering feel and responsiveness of a 911. And the wider track and longer wheelbase of the 992 improves on that.
@Barkat03 Thank you.
Involvement is greater with a manual gearbox, performance is greater with the PDK - on the track. At the end of the straight on Zandvoort, well above 200 km/h, 5-4-3 downshifts are very satisfactory indeed, but shifting 3-4 on the banking leading to the same straight... maximum pucker factor if you go full monty and under max g/banked high speed turn, you hold/tunr the wheel with one hand, while with the other you change gears.
I could take a measure tape next time (will do, I will get back to you on this, when I have the measurements), but I have stepped out of my T (4 ways) and a short time later, I was in the S with the 18 ways. I was sitting at least 2 cm higher, maybe 3 even (windows/shoulders, looking outside, etc). I had to tilt the wheel upwards, to the limit and it almost wasn't enough.
No issues for me with the 18-ways. FWIW, I originally had a really low seat position (saved to position 1) but found getting in and out much more difficult which also could lead to more wear and tear on the seat over time. After the first week I started raising the seat little by little and saving to position 3 while I messed around with it. I’m about 5’8” (172 cm) and I have tons of headroom even with a higher position.
Measuring from the back of the main seat cushion (lowest part) to the headliner, at full low I have 39”. In my low position I measured 38”. In my higher, normal position it is 37”. Hopefully that helps, particularly if someone will do the same measurement with the 4 way seats so we have some data to compare.
There's another thread where a guy kept arguing with me that the mid engine 718 platform is better than the 911. It's a common misconception. What makes the rear engined 911 so optimal is that when you're braking ahead of a turn, you're effectively transferring the weight of the car from the rear toward the middle compared to the 718 which moves it from the middle toward the front and when you get on power in a 911, either on a straight or pulling of a corner, the weight is transferred completely to the rear, over the rear axle, giving you maximum grip and power whereas the 718 doesn't benefit form that weight transfer. Another misconception is that the 992 is almost a mid engined car now because the engine has been creeping forward in the past two generations but distribution is still around 62/38 so it's very much rear engined. If it doesn't feel that way it's because the chassis is so wide and has advanced nannies but when you take traction control off and you push the car beyond it's limit of grip, you still feel it. And this is why every time I'm tempted to go 718, I inevitably come back to the 911.
There's another thread where a guy kept arguing with me that the mid engine 718 platform is better than the 911. It's a common misconception. What makes the rear engined 911 so optimal is that when you're braking ahead of a turn, you're effectively transferring the weight of the car from the rear toward the middle compared to the 718 which moves it from the middle toward the front and when you get on power in a 911, either on a straight or pulling of a corner, the weight is transferred completely to the rear, over the rear axle, giving you maximum grip and power whereas the 718 doesn't benefit form that weight transfer. Another misconception is that the 992 is almost a mid engined car now because the engine has been creeping forward in the past two generations but distribution is still around 62/38 so it's very much rear engined. If it doesn't feel that way it's because the chassis is so wide and has advanced nannies but when you take traction control off and you push the car beyond it's limit of grip, you still feel it. And this is why every time I'm tempted to go 718, I inevitably come back to the 911.
You make good arguments about the weight distribution and unique dynamics of a 911…which certainly can be driven fast, while not being very forgiving though. And to me being the luddite it is something I love and appreciate. A mid engine design with its weight not only 50/50 ish but also concentrated in between the axles, can start and stop rotation much more quickly. While you feel it may be more nervous, it usually is easier to hold at the limit and save in the event you push past it. On the other hand, the 911 is the famous widow maker - when you do lose it it can be much more difficult to save as the inertia from the weight out back is hard to reel in…particularly if you aren’t braking in a straight line. Trailing throttle oversteer. Great drivers have figured out how to use this to their advantage with enough TTO to help rotate the car but not enough to go all the way around. The best club racers I raced with were pros at this (also better tires and alignment settings help here too). And if you get on the gas too early and need to lift - let’s say on a decreasing radius corner - bye bye spin city. Since the 2000s Porsche has been working suspension geometry and nannies to make 911s less of a liability. But those is engineering band-aides to overcome those tendencies. As you said that engine is creeping forward…for a reason.
I prefer the 911 for all the reasons stated above. To me it has more personality and with a good driver, can be driven as fast or faster. Re: what is fastest, it is hard to say. I could post a video for you of me in a real race (not DE) with my ‘81 911 with a 200-ish-hp stock motor against a 2000’s boxster. They were close.
FWIW, a good friend of mine has a cool license plate on his 911 - NoLift.
maybe I wasn't clear. In lieu of the expensive watch ADM, could I simply suggest buying an extended warranty?
Update: a dealer has agreed to MSRP if I buy an extended warranty, which I was always going to do because I will drive this thing like it's meant to (including some 2x a week commute to work 140mi round trip) Now, is there a fixed Porsche price on the various warranty options or will they charge me an ADM on those lol. Any recommendation on warranties and ideas of price?
The 911 is not the widowmaker. The widowmaker is the 911 turbo, and it earned that name because the snappy turbos make it a handful, especially when exiting corners.
I agree with you about mid engine cars if we're taking under the limit. At or past the limit, my experience is that they snap quickly and it's harder if not impossible to recover. Conversely, a 911 will let a driver know when the limit has been breached in a more progressive manner and allow time for the driver to recover.
Re: RAS, so now we've heard it from the leader of the GT team. For better road and canyon driving feel with more driver involvement, skip it. Maybe for better laptimes you want it.
It seems that they left RAS out primarily to save weight (twice, once no RAS, and second, even lighter battery due to less amp requirements with no RAS) - "we wanted to make the car as light as possible", "it is not track oriented, it's a car to enjoy on the road" - aka "we consider the lower weight to be more important than the extra performance offered by the RAS".
Have no clue where the "For better road and canyon driving feel with more driver involvement, skip it"comes from?! It is more of a speculation on your side than a fact. Preuninger emphasizes that they went for the biggest weight savings possible, even sacrificing ultimate performance/lap times for a lighter road car. Actually, by leaving RAS out, they will make it easier for the driver to reach the chassis limit in a road legal manner, which would be impossible with the performance level increase offered by the RAS.
What makes the rear engined 911 so optimal is that when you're braking ahead of a turn, you're effectively transferring the weight of the car from the rear toward the middle compared to the 718 which moves it from the middle toward the front and when you get on power in a 911, either on a straight or pulling of a corner, the weight is transferred completely to the rear
It seems that they left RAS out primarily to save weight (twice, once no RAS, and second, even lighter battery due to less amp requirements with no RAS) - "we wanted to make the car as light as possible", "it is not track oriented, it's a car to enjoy on the road" - aka "we consider the lower weight to be more important than the extra performance offered by the RAS".
Have no clue where the "For better road and canyon driving feel with more driver involvement, skip it"comes from?! It is more of a speculation on your side than a fact. Preuninger emphasizes that they went for the biggest weight savings possible, even sacrificing ultimate performance/lap times for a lighter road car. Actually, by leaving RAS out, they will make it easier for the driver to reach the chassis limit in a road legal manner, which would be impossible with the performance level increase offered by the RAS.
Wow this popped up from way back…
Just like you said about PDK vs manual from your track experience, the performance level advantage from PDK makes sense for a track car but a manual is more enjoyable (no I’m not going to find an exact quote from you but that was the impression I had from reading your post). Regarding RAS, I’ll go back to paraphrasing what he absolutely said - the performance from RAS added weight (he said 10 kg) so they eliminated it. Also from him, their vision was to make the most entertaining and involving 911 to date. I read that as a more entertaining and involving 911 doesn’t need RAS. Not a track car means enjoying it where? Not autobahn or highways. Must be on legal roads that are curvy. In my area, I drive to canyon roads for that.
I will also say he might have mis-spoke in that video. There’s one bit at 1:34 where he says it has bits of the comtemporary 911T in it. He may have meant it, or may not. My guess is he probably means the GT3 ‘T’. Maybe he meant GTS since a few declared those best? Or maybe we are dissecting this too much. It’s just an interview meant to sell cars and this is the latest thing to attract $$.
I’m on a list for one that I know I’ll never get but if I do the money is there. My prelim build for those interested.
08-25-2023, 07:19 PM
I like how pointy the car becomes, with the RAS.
Or maybe we are dissecting this too much. It’s just an interview meant to sell cars and this is the latest thing to attract $$.