dimnslow

Make sure your wife/gf/ whatever NEVER sits in the back though. The moment they do, they realize that those rear seats on our 911s are just built in child seats and grocery bag holders

NNH

I'm pretty impressed with the Big 3 lately. The Z06 is a great car, although a couple of magazine reviews have said the handling is a little "spooky" at the limit on the track. The Camaro should be good too, and the Sky/Solstice twins show that GM is starting to "get it". Chrysler have the bad-*** 300/Magnum/Challenger as well as the Viper, and Ford have really nailed the coolness-per-$ price point with the Mustang. It seems to me that there are still a few real car guys left in Detroit.
As for Porsche - I love my 996, but I don't actually worship it... And if I only had $20k to play with, I'd be in a V8 'Stang tomorrow.

FotoVeloce

+10. The back seats in the 911 sealed the deal for me. I have two small kids... so even a two-seater is a non-starter for me. Plus they love LOVE the Porsche. It's "Daddy's SuperFast Car". My son wants me to drive him *everywhere* in it and when I pick them up from Daycare.. he drags the rest of the boys out to see it, over and over again. Aside from the fact the car is A BLAST to drive.. my kids love it too and honestly, I care more about that than anything else. Corvette simply CANNOT compete for my needs.

What also amazes me, is why these little 4-year old boys find the Porsche such an exceptional machine. Iv'e certainly not paraded PCar photos in front of my boy but when he first saw it he went nuts (and that was over my metalic gold 964, not the 993!) Ah well. I guess someone has to buy a Chevy..

bgiere

I really don't care about marque or status or being seen with the "in" car...I am really just a part time farmer and anyone who knows me personally would agree...I appreciate Porsche's for what they are...I am always impressed with the engineering, whether it's a 924 or a 959...I have had and do have some Chevrolet products right now...The engine and drivetrain are a-OK but they drop the ball in every other area...Interior falls to pieces,brakes suck after 2 or 3 years and the steering and suspension get wobbily. It is why they are less expensive initially...The real question after a few years of ownership will usually be "How can Porsche afford to sell a 911 for $85,00-90,000". The next logical question will then be "How come I paid 55-60,000 for a Vette?" The Vette will always have more torque and HP...dig out some Road and Track magazines from the early 70's...2.4 liter 911S vs. 454 Vette...same arguments,same outcome,same conclusions and dis-agreements...Which car do you wish you had today? Which car is likely to still be running?

Alan C.

Autoweek, 10/16 p 2, just did a short article on the new 'Super Vette'. It is supposed to be at 650 hp from a 6.2 liter engine. Rumored price is $100,000 with 1500 - 2000 units per year. My guess is they will sell every one they make and the first batch will go well north of sticker.

fast1

There was a recent magazine test report (either C&D or R&T) that compared the Ferrari 360, Porsche TT, and Vette Z06. The vette outperformed all three overall but was chosen 3rd place. The mag admitted it was a faster overall car, however, not as refined, balanced, or "driveable" as the other two. They basically said that in the hands of a professional, the Z06 has the performance, but from a realworld perspective, the 911 is much easier to control and maintain control of under hard driving.

I also recall reading that article, and I have a different perspective.

Who needs any of these cars in the "realworld" which I believe means for the street or public roads. The only sports car that I know where you can explore most of its performance on the street is a Miata. The cars listed have far, far more power than any responsible driver would use on public roads. Furthermore anyone who is driving a 3100 lbs car with around 500 lb/ft of torque had better be highly experienced if he intends to drive the car beyond 80% of its capabilities. BTW highly experienced is not simply taking a two day performance driving class. Unless someone has lots of track time and preferably a racing license, none of the referenced cars should be driven to anywhere near their limits.

fast1

Brant - As someone who has owned two vettes and two 911s, I have to disagree with some of what you posted. The last 911 I owned was a 993 and that was without question the best sports car that I ever owned. I also owned a C2 and C5 Vette. The C2 Vette was a piece of garbage. It looked great but the quality was very poor. The C5 Vette on the other hand was a great leap forward in the quality and performance department and from what I've read the C6 is also a good sports car. Let's not forget that you can get a nicely equipped C6 from Kerbecks for around $48K after the discount. A comparably equipped 997 will cost at least $30K more.

It's interesting that you referenced the '70s in your perspective of the two cars' performance. Actually 1971 or 1972 was the last decent performing Vette for at least a decade. The combination of Federally mandated air pollution standards and Insurance premiums on high performance cars almost killed the Vette. I can't recall what the straight line performance was for '72+ Vettes but I'd be surprised if they were as fast as a 911.

bgiere

Fast1, I have heard the newer Vette's have come a long way...I am not wishing GM or Chrevolet any bad will, i am just sometimes frustrated that they drop seem to drop the ball on the details...Competition is what makes all cars (Porsche included) better for us as consumers and I hope the Porsche management picks up the pace as well....

fast1

Then we are on the same page. I couldn' t agree more.

palladio

Can't help but jump into the fray here. I've owned and driven both marques, and you couldn't have more of an apples to oranges comparison. They're at completely different price points, aimed at different markets, and made on different continents! Both are great cars in terms of performance and value. A friend of mine owned a GT-2 and the latest Z-06, and drove them both to the limits. The Z-06 is VERY fast, probably faster than the stock GT2. It also does not feel nearly as solid or inspire the confidence that the Porsche does. Much of that probably comes from build quality. The Z-06 is nearly 65% cheaper new than a GT2, and 40% cheaper than a TT. There's a reason why the Vettes look and feel cheaper - they are! Still, any production car that puts out 500HP/500lbsft that can just as easily be driven to the supermarket in traffic every day with no issues, and sells for half the price of similarly powered exotics is an engineering feat worthy of respect and praise in my opinion.

I own a 1966 Vette convertible, which I've had for fifteen years. It doesn't handle anywhere near as well as a Porsche (including those of it's vintage arguably), it doesn't have much road feel, but put the top down, stand on the gas, and hear her roar as you slam rock solids shifts through a Muncie 4-speed, and you just might understand what made the Corvette marque famous.

The downside of course is that I had to save up for the gold chains and toupee to go with it, and I have to fight off bleached blondes with fake hooters at every stop light. As they say, membership has a price.....

dadc4s

My 2003 C4S is going off lease and I plan on replacing it with a new car in March. I drove a new Corvette last week, mostly as a lark as I am a hardcore Porsche owner on my 3rd new car from them and I have taken all three to the track for driver ed weekends. (a 993 C4, Boxster S and the current car)
The Corvette is very impressive. It is really fast, comfortable, looks good, sounds great and has lots of nice features including a better ride. It was completely solid over bad roads. It has a removable roof panel too! Loaded with the Z51 handling package and all the bells and whistles it stickers at about 53K and actually sells for 50K with a 100k mile warranty! In short, it is a great car and an unbeatable value. The 997 C4S that would be the current equivalent of the car I am driving is essentially TWICE THE PRICE. In short, the Corvette is a compelling product and a triumph for GM and the entire American auto industry. I plan on buying one with pride. Now all I have to do is find things to do with the 50K I just saved......

fast1

Now all I have to do is find things to do with the 50K I just saved......

Put it in a good mutual fund and your $50K will be $100K in about six years. On the other hand if you put the extra $50K in the Porsche it would become $20K in six years. That works out to an $80K delta. Any wonder why buying expensive cars is an emotional rather than rational decision?

wrljet

Isn't it the case GM intentionally sells the Z06 Corvettes at a loss?

palladio

Interesting. I've never heard this. It might be a loss in terms of motor development costs, but they figure the technology will trickle down to lesser models and pay off that way.

For those of you who might not be familiar with the history of the Corvette, it wasn't always associated with cheesy guys and gold chains. At its inception in the 1950's it was a limited production car that was intended to compete with European sports cars and act as a marketing magnet for dealer showrooms. In a way, it was a precursor to cars such as the new Ford GT and the Dodge Viper. It had its own design team and manufacturing facility in Bowling Green headed by Belgian born engineer Zora Arkus-Duntov. I'm no automobile history expert, but I believe that the Corvette led the US market in many novel technologies such as fuel injection, disc brakes, and 4 wheel independent suspension. If you drive my 1966 Vette next to any of its contemporary US muscle cars (GTO, Camaro, Mustang, etc), it's light years ahead in terms of handling and technology. I heard the reason it doesn't have a trunk was due to the fact that the design team had a limited budget, and they made the choice to spend the money on disc brakes rather than designing a trunk.

Anyway, GM corporate bean counters finally realized that the Corvette could become a big money maker in its own right, not just a specialty vehicle. So after about 1969, they took away most of the power of the independent design team and milked it as a cash cow for the next decade. Essentially, the technology in the Vette did not change from 1968 until 1982. It's that era that gave the Corvette it's lackluster reputation that still lingers to this day. To some degree, the engineers and designers at Chevrolet have been battling this stigma ever since they got serious about performance again back in the early 1980's.



Here's a link to a bio of Zora Duntov if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zora_Arkus-Duntov






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zora_Arkus-Duntov

fast1

Anyway, GM corporate bean counters finally realized that the Corvette could become a big money maker in its own right, not just a specialty vehicle. So after about 1969, they took away most of the power of the independent design team and milked it as a cash cow for the next decade. Essentially, the technology in the Vette did not change from 1968 until 1982

As I posted earlier it was the Federally mandated pollution standards combined wth the huge surcharge that Insurance companies placed on high performance cars around 1971 that crippled the Vette's performance. Porsche wasn't affected nearly as much because the 911 was powered by an engine that was less than half the size of the Vette. Not surprisingly the sales of the Vettes declined so precipitiously in that time period, that GM seriously considered discontinuing the Vette. So it was hardly the cash cow that you suggest in the '70s.


For those of you who might not be familiar with the history of the Corvette, it wasn't always associated with cheesy guys and gold chains
For anyone with a brain larger than the size of a pea, the Vette isn't associated with "chessy guys with gold chains". There's about as much truth in that stereotype as there is in the one that Porsche owners have small penises.