autobonrun

I don't know if anyone else feels the same, but this is the most misleading, poorly written article I've ever seen on the 911. If you haven't bought this issue, don't; wait for it to show up in the dentist's office.

The cover of the magazine proclaims "Greatest 911s"; however the Index describes the article as this particular writer's "favorite 911's". The actual title of the article is "My 10 favorite 911's". The editor doesn't seem to realize there's a significant difference between a list of 10 greatest cars and someone's list of his 10 favorite cars. They seem to think this article will generate an intelligent discussion of the cars selected to be on the list. How can anyone disagree with an individual's "favorite" list? That's his personal choice. However if indeed this was suppose to be a "greatest 911s" list, why would one of the choices be based on the fact that it's a car where he found out from his wife he was going to have a kid. What kind of ridiculous reason is this to put a car on a "greatest" list. I would expect a basis to be established at the beginning of the article (which he didn't) such as proven track winner, cutting edge technology at the time of introduction, helped the company maintain it's superiority, highly sought after by enthusiasts, etc. This article just contains drivel.

Then the writer has enough nerve to put a 2010 Turbo on the "greatest" list. How can a 2010 car be put on a greatest 911 list two months into the new year. What has it proven other than it has great statistics. This is like selecting an NFL player to the Hall of Fame 2 games into his rookie season based on his college stats.

I've never sent a letter to an automobile magazine, but I just might in this case. Maybe I'll ask for a refund based on false advertising.

verhag

Picked it up prior to a flight....I think I left it on the plane...on purpose. I agree with you

autobonrun

Same here. I saw the cover page and picked it up on the way to a flight. I should have left mine on the plane as well.

I'll take it to the dentist office next visit and save someone $5.

JDHertz11

That issue blows...

Nollie

I had someone else give it to me, so at least I didn't have to pay for it. Besides everyone knows that the best 911 ever is mine (because I think so).

timothymoffat

You hit the nail on the head. Favorite does not equal greatest. I actually like what Excellence did a few years ago. They had numerous Porsche "experts" give their top ten Porsche list. Of course all ten cars on Bruce Anderson's list could probably be purchased for under $100K.

Greg964

I read it in CVS while I was waiting for my prescription to be filled. Normally I would buy any magazine with an article discussing air cooled 911's but not this time. Automobile Magazine is the USA Today of car mags, and that is not meant as a compliment.

autobonrun

I just sent this via email:

+++++++++

This is the most misleading, poorly written article I've ever seen on the 911.

The cover of the magazine proclaims "Greatest 911s"; however the Index describes the article as "Top 10 Porsche 911's". The actual title of the article is "My 10 favorite 911's". Mr. Kacher doesn't seem to realize there's a significant difference between a list of 10 greatest cars and someone's list of 'his' 10 favorite cars. He seems to think this article will generate an intelligent discussion of the cars selected to be on the list (reference the 'Let the fistfights begin' statement on the cover). How can anyone disagree with an individual's "favorite" list? That's his personal choice. It's as individual as the "favorites" list on my web browser. However, if indeed this was suppose to be a "greatest 911s" list, why would one of the choices be based on the fact that it's a car where he found out from his wife he was going to have a child. What kind of unrelated reason is this to put a car on a "greatest" list. I would expect a basis to be established at the beginning of the article (which he didn't) such as proven race winner, cutting edge technology at the time of introduction, helped the company maintain it's superiority, highly sought after by enthusiasts, etc. This article just contains drivel. If there was a basis provided, at least one could offer intelligent reasons for disagreement with the cars picked.

Then the writer has enough nerve to put a 2010 Turbo on the "greatest" list. How can a 2010 car be put on a "greatest 911" list just after its introduction and two months into the new year. What has it proven other than it has great statistics. This is like selecting an NFL player to the Hall of Fame two games into his rookie season based on his college stats. The word "greatest" infers "greatest in history"; which means it needs to have one. What next, concept cars?

I've never sent a letter to an automobile magazine, but after owning and driving 911s over 25 years and reading several well thought out "greatest in history" articles, this one deserves a response. From now on, how about making the description on the cover consistent with the content.

goofballdeluxe

Boy, you sure got riled up over this!

I read the article as well. Though not my favorite Porsche article, I was more struck by the fact that renowned Porsche driver Hurley Haywood said one of his top 10 favorite Porsches was the 1999 Carrera! OK, maybe a 996 thrown in, but the '99 model?!?

I was also struck that the writer chose the 1998 Turbo S as one of his top 10. Thing is, they never made the Turbo S in 1998. It was a 1997 model year car only.

VMXWinn

Saw it, read it, left it!!!!

autobonrun

Lol. I guess it did **** me off a little. Good point about the 98 Turbo S. I never realized it was a 97 model only.

The selection of a 99 996 by Haywood was a surprise to me as well. I could say something but I won't.

timothymoffat

There was a 98 Turbo S. ROW, 450HP (DIN).

Robert Collins - 96 993TT

I agree Tim. Not to throw fuel on the fire because goofball does his homework, but I do believe that there were very few 993 Turbos built in 1998. In fact, all Turbos in 1998 might have been the Turbo S model.

I'll go check...now I'm curious.

Robert Collins - 96 993TT

LOL...checked one of my 911 bibles, Original Porsche 911. And the result??? Mine was revised in 1997 and printed in 1998 so the info is not in there. Arrrghh!!!!

Calling production information gurus!!!

timothymoffat

Actually, I think both variations, normal and "S", were produced in 1998 (ROW). For some reason I think Viggo's latest turbo (non-S) is a built-in-98 model.