There is a letter to editor in this issue commenting on the Peter Egan column from April 2011 (about Porsches - very good article - here is that URL:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/column/the-timeless-911

Anyway, the letter suggests that there is a dichotomy between Porsche's stated philosophy of "always producing the best product" and their "failure" to develop the Cayman/Boxster (which the writer argues is the "best platform" i.e. road worthy car on which to produce the "best product"). Then it goes on to suggest that Porsche producing a sedan and an SUV proves his point - that being Porsche is motivated by money and not the "best product".

Interesting "food for thought".

 

I offered up a similar argument on the forums some time ago; something to the effect of give us a simpler 911 without the immobilizer, headlight washers, CCU's (remember the levers astride the e brake?) etc....Porsche, please get back to your roots and stick with rear/mid engined sports cars.
It was promptly pointed out to me that Cayans and Panameras are hugely profitable; without them Porsche would have a difficult time developing our 911's.
Or so they say.

 

Rinse and repeat. When I got into these things in '80, you'd hear guys bitching about how "luxury" and "sellout" a '73S was with a sunroof, factory A/C, electric windows, a radio, etc.

 

The letter writer in May 2011's point was that there are such inherent problems with the 911's platform (engine hung way out back, etc), that it was disingenuous for the company to keep "trying to fix a known unfixable problem" rather than just developing the best most road worthy car they could.

We all know the engineers have fixed the terminal oversteer of earlier 356's and 911's (read the Peter Egan article to get his viewpoint on this). But the writer's question was really: "why keep working to fix something that could be much more easily fixed by starting with a fresh piece of paper (that was what the 928 was supposed to be). Now I read they may develop a 2 door version of the Panamera - which would be the successor to the 928.

I don't think the main argument was about creature comforts. Even Ferrari, I believe, only sells a dual clutch automatic in US bound cars. And A/C, decent sound system, navigation, power everything, etc. is "standard" in any high end car.

 

Oh, OK. Yawn. So there's a Right Way To Build A Car (sports or any other type), and any manufacturer who dares to defy Known Logic is............??

Kind of sounds like the global warming crowd, and the "all the science is settled" fluff that comes out of their mouths.

What the hell did I really know when I was 18 and got hooked on a 911? And the nastiest of the bunch, a short wheelbase "S". I liked the braking performance, and the ability to quickly change direction. Blew me away, actually, in comparison to the two years of time I had in a FWD Scirocco and a guy I worked for's big block '68 Vette. Did it require more skill? Probably.

But as I've sampled pretty much everything built over the past 30 years, *I* prefer what a 911 offers. If I had anything approaching an income anymore, maybe I'd be a customer of new/nearly new 911s. I'm not, and am certainly glad there are those who are of similar thought who write huge checks for the new stuff which I can enjoy when they've depreciated. (But that's kinda tough now with the M96 911s in the wheelhouse of affordability.)

 

Oh yeah, that is so silly, mounting the engine in the rear. That design will never be successful in motorsports....

People have been saying that the rear engined design is all wrong for decades. I actually commend Porsche for sticking with something that is absolutely part of its gene pool.

The 2 door front engine car had been announced as being planned at least 3 or 4 years ago.

 

One huge advantage of having the engine in the rear, is all the weight over the rear tires. That translates to being able to put more power onto the ground effectively.

That's the reason that the newer 911 Turbos do a 0-60 time in under 3 seconds, about the same time as a 1000-hp Bugatti Veyron, and better than almost all super-exotics with more horsepower/torque.

 

"If you are eight years old, and this is your first car magazine, you may be wondering 'What is this Porsche thing?'. For me, it is a lot of things. Maybe it's starting out with the completely wrong idea of where the engine is supposed to be. and refusing to admit it for fifty-five years. I love that. 'We'll make it work anyway, damn it.' So what if it's wrong? It's a good kind of wrong."

-Seinfeld-

I agree with Jerry...

 

^ +993

 

So there is a single automotive design that addresses all needs heh? Cannot Porsche make the Best product in sedan, SUV, and sports car classes?

Very good point!

The proof is in the pudding.

 

Not to mention braking. That's actually where I notice it more. I'm a mess braking the Spec Miata because I'm so used to a 911 (or something like the Radical).

 

Brake deeper and get on the gas earlier... isn't that the point?

This car lets you do it, but you just have to be careful with the change of direction part

 

I agree with this poster. I love the idiosyncratic romance of the 911.

The letter writer mentioned sounds like one of those annoying Cayman owners who somehow think that car needs to be superior in every way to the 911 and that Porsche is holding it back on purpose just to spite them.

The Cayman is a great car the way it was designed, a fling-able, nimble design at a modest power and cost.

QQ more.

 

"The Boston gig has been cancelled"

"What?"

"Yeah. I wouldn't worry about it though, it's not a big college town."

 

Ripe for a FIFY: