. . . "Ultimate 911 Test"? Lineup included '72, '74 3.0, '91 964, and '95 993 RS's, 959, '87 CS, '94 993 GT2, '99 996 GT3, '00 996 T, and '01 GT2

The '72 Carrera RS was deemed "Greatest 911" with the 996 T apparently being the least favorite of the bunch.

Newer isn't always better(despite whatever Excellence might say).

 

Yes,
I read that article. Very good actually. I must say, out of all the cars they had there, I'd have the GT2, GT3, '72 RS in that order..(please)

Wayne

 

I haven't read the Evo article, I'm not sure the mag is even sold out here, is there a web version?
Also, the UK magazine Classic & Sports Car runs a similar feature article this month. The C&SC line-up is less comprehensive: '72 Carrera RS vs 964 RS vs 993 RS. The outcome is that each car has it's merits but the 993 RS comes out on top as an allround proposition

cheers, Nol

 

First of all, publications like Excellence and 911 & Porsche World are largely Porsche propaganda magazines. They are always going to print whatever Porsche says is better to sell their present product.

Second, the word "better" is really a subjective description. Some will argue that a 996 Turbo will lap a certain track faster than any older street legal 911 while others will consider the original Carrera RS a better car because it is more involving and fun to drive.

The EVO results are not surprising to me at all.

 

Here's the link I found for them:

EVO

BTW, my local Barnes and Noble had one of these issues left on the shelf -- I'm on my way to pick it up.

There is also a link to purchase the back issue on the EVO site -- click on EVO store and they'll sell it for UK 8.50 pounds. (Sorry if I've butchered the currency designation!)

I've like this magazine -- they tell it like it is, IMHO -- much more so than most US mags like R&T and C&D.

John

 

Well if top speed is the only consideration of the "best" car, car surveys of the type Evo performed would be pointless. All we would really talk about is the newest MY vehicle.
With that said i think moderation is the key word here. It only makes sense to have both drivability and speed in a car.
Hence, i own a 993.

 

I thought it was a great article. If it was all about selling Porsches, they sure wouldn't have picked the 73. If anything, it makes the point that Porsche has lost touch with a lot of what made the 911 so great in the first place.

 

From my own experience of owning cars which I've used both on road and track, EVO magazine's assessment of cars handling especially on the limit is weak, and I would never therefore regard anything they say as being a true reflection of any cars handling ability.

The Porsche article referred to is no exception, and to not even mention the 993RS in a 750 word summary starting "So what is the Greatest 991 Ever?" demonstrates this point. Their description of how each car feels to drive doesn't convey enough information to the reader and it really ends up as an inconclusive wishy washing ramble of words. I defy any one to find the use of the words "understeer" or "oversteer" more than once in the entire article.

Another Classic EVO roadtest suggested that the old Subaru Impreza was a better handling car than the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VI. If you've owned both (which I have), you don't have to a genius to know what the real answer is, and it isn't the Impreza. I think they also rated the Impreza better than the Ferrari 550 Maranello once too!

I stopped subscribing to EVO mag because of the above and then this Porsche article came out. I rushed out to buy it expecting a good read (what was I thinking).

Rocket

 

"Driver involvement" and "chassis feedback" are the criteria used by the authors of the EVO article. Consequently, the conclusions which the authors draw are not unreasonable and reflect what JackOlsen implies in his post.

 

I just did a "stand-and-wait" while my wife shopped last night, and there was EVO magazine, so I picked it up and scanned the 911 comparison article.

It definitely has a "retro is better" tone to it. And, while any magazine has entertainment as it's primary goal vs. seeking the ultimate truth about some topic, I'm glad that this sort of bashing about 996 based Porsches persists because a little company is likely to listen and change. As ar as my interests go , I would agree that the current luxury trend is a bad one.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, unless you are a collector and the rarity of a model matters, any Porsche can be made into a great car, matching or exceeding the handling of many of these cars with readily available suspension and brake mods. That, in my mind, is what makes Porsches so appealing.

 

I think in EVO's defence their tests are often limited by the cars that they can actually get their hands on - hence no 993RS.
Many of the cars that they test are privately owned.

Also, they tend to assess cars based more on the UK 'B' road driving experience. Hence the Subaru Impreza actually coming out pretty well aagainst the Ferrari Maranello which is arguably more of a GT and less suited to narrow, windy roads (Wales). Sure they take the cars on the track as well, but while this is becoming a progressively larger part of the UK performance car scene due to Gatso proliferation, people still want to know what's fun to drive on a day-to-day basis and that's where it's targeted.

Evo still smacks of a magazine run by enthusiasts. Every now and again there is a piece that sounds like it has been lifted from a PR release, typically before they have actually get to test the car, but far less so than a variety of other car magazines I could name. As car mags go it's probably the best on on the shelves.

And 911s have been their car of the year for the last two years!

Daniel
964C2

 

I will have to agree to disagree with about EVO mag, although comments made above are all valid ones. I just think that they lack the descriptive flare to make articles interesting to read, and using phrases such as "driver involvement" and "chassis feedback" are exactly the kind of vagueness I refer to.

Maybe its just a question of taste, but I personally want to know why exactly one car has more "driver involvement" and "chassis feedback" than the other.

By way of example here is what Autocar said about the GT3:

"The GT3's only problem was a vagueness around the rear that manifested itself only in the faster and medium-speed bends, and most obviously through those that had a bump half-way round them. It felt as if there wasn't enough lateral control to keep the weight and the inertia of the engine and gearbox in check, which would allow the tail not to slide but to sway slightly under pressure. Push harder and that sway would quickly develop into a big slide that was then not easy to contain not even with a very swift does of corrective lock. We had to be trying pretty hard before this happened but still it proved that the forces of nature have not entirely been overcome by the GT3's designers".

Conversely comments made about the GT3 in this article by EVO went no deeper other than to say things like " And dynamically the GT3 is quite superb. Between you and the chassis exists a detailed dialogue that connects you to the road surface, and the suspension ensures that you're not dictated to by it. Even on damp roads you can feel the geometry keeping the front tyres at the optimum angle, maintaining bite as you wind on lock at speed but letting you know when you're near the edge".

I can understand fully what is going on in the first article, the second tells me very little and frankly is quite boring to read.

Rocket

 

Rocket,

Wouldn't dispute that the EVO comment on the GT3 is thin in comparison to that of Autocar. On the other hand, on the limit handling in such a car is basically going to be tested on the track. Arguably that's what they should be writing about given the machinery but, on balance, I think the bias towards "B" road driving is still preferable.

Articles on exotica like the Pagani Zonda or the GT3 are diverting but pretty otherworldly for the likes of ordinary mortals! However, if you're going to write about them, I agree, you might as well do it properly.

Some of Autocar's articles are very good, but there tends IMHO to be a lot of filler in any given issue. Certainly wouldn't claim that EVO is perfect but then most of the competition isn't so hot either
Glad to have any recommendations to help wile away the (rail part of the) commute...

Daniel
964C2

 

Daniel......despite reams of filler, concept this, concept that, there is usually something being thrashed to the point of boiling brake fluid every week, and I generally feel their verdicts reflect more accurately my own findings . Whether they're testing road car runabout or trackday killer the cars are all driven to the true limit and there findings are well expressed in writing.

Despite my dislike of EVO mag, they phoned up recently because I hadn't renewed my subscription and for the sake of £30 I renewed.

Rocket.

 

1. On the one hand, Rocket, you expect "descriptive flair to make articles interesting to read." On the other hand, you criticize a excerpt from the EVO article even though that excerpt contains a judicious use of figurative language--language which is, incidentally, ambiguous but not vague. Consequently, you imply that literal language--language which by its very nature lacks connotative potential--has "descriptive flair."

2. What precise criteria, Rocket, do you utilize before you apply the label "boring?"
Your assessment of the AUTOCAR excerpt indicates that you value literal description which provides details of the levels of "driver involvement" and "chassis feedback." Clearly, the meanings of those two terms are determined by their contexts of use.

3. The photos of your 993RS are excellent and depict a stunning automobile. I suspect that your 993RS provides very high levels of driver involvement because of its exceptional chassis feedback.