newport996

Ray you are correct the difference in the cars is the 986 has the feel of more agility....it transitions easier...that is true...its also easier to drive the 986 fast. But once I got used to the differences in how to drive a mid engined rear drive car and a rear engined AWD car..I can drive my 996 faster in almost all conditions....The Cayman S is probably the best track car of the bunch, BUT is it a better all around car? depends on what you need.....but thank you Porsche for giving us 3 great cars to use to our hearts content...my posts should not be seen as 986 bashing, but more praise for the 996...this is truly a machine that I grow to love more and more....

Kevin H. in Atl..

I may be wrong, but IIRC, Porsche states that the Cayman S chassis is "almost as rigid as the 911". Minor quibble.

Ray S

Sorry, but I think it is more than just "feel". I own both cars, so I have absolutely no axe to grind in this thread. Both cars have their particular strengths and weaknesses.

If this thread were about braking I'd give the edge to the 911, however on handling I'd give it to the Boxster.

perfectlap

^ BoxsterS has the same brakes as the 996 (best of both worlds).

Ray S

True, but it can't utilize it's rear brakes as well due to the weight distribution in the 911. The rear engine configuration does offer some advantages!!!

perfectlap

true as well but the average non-pro 911 driver needs that greater brake efficiency as its easier to make a mistake in the 911 than the Boxster...Unless you've mastered that rear engine thing and rarely make a mistake I reckon even on a relatively similar lap time the pendulus standard 911 puts more work on the rear brakes than the more neutral BoxsterS by a good bit.

Kevin H. in Atl..

Yeh, under braking, weight transfer in the 911 is going to load both axles, whereas in the Boxster or front engined cars, the rear axle will be unloading, and front axle loading. (Or something like that. )

One of the rear-engine design characteristics that contributes to the 911's performance, re: excellent stability under braking.

Sids911

Sigh. Blind 996 bravado. Behind the rear axel is the wrong place for an engine. The carrera's doing so well primarily because of all the engineering $$$ put into refining that configuration. Plus they've done a pretty good job of keeping the weight distribution JUST about acceptable inspite of the rear engine configuration.

I've done a "pendulum" swing on the 996 and almost on the 986. The 986 was pushed a lot more than the 996 but the 996 suddenly loses it while the 986 (boxster) loses control very gently. You can pump out macho statements like "that's how a true carrera handles / real drivers cannot swing a carrera etc" but the bottom line is the physics are fundamentally messed up (resulting in such sudden loss of control). Reengineering the rest of the car (over a lot of years and with a lot of money) to compensate for this fundamental flaw is good but its not the optimal solution. I'd love to see a mid engined porsche with a better motor than the 911 and at the price point of the 911.

Can any one name the engine configuration of F1 cars - the undesputed epitome of cutting edge automobile engineering ? Rear engined ? Front engined ? Mid engined?

Now sit back and think.

pl

well, let's just say, why no jap. copy 911 rear engine design?

newport996

The best design for an open wheeled high ground effects vehicle may be a mid engine design.....but its may be a HORRIBLE design for a 2+2 street car...funny for 40 years the 911 has been the epitome of street car and race car handling and the benchmark for all sports cars. Like others have mentioned the braking is amazing, the traction, etc....if it were such a BAD design, then why is it such an amazing handling car....even when it was introduced it ran circles around more HP cars...and always has.....Now the thread is about the handling of a 2+2 coupe vs a 2 seat roadster....well the roadster should KILL the coupe...but it doesnt....its basically a toss up with the edge POSSIBLY going to the 2+2....why is that? Well maybe the rear engine design has something to do with it....Just like I said before...a 600hp mid engined roadster (Carrera GT) is basically equalled in times around Nurbergring by a 400 HP rear engined coupe (997 GT3)....hmmmm....

Ray S

Actually the rear engine configuration offers a host of advantages in racing. It's superior braking provides the driver an advantage while passing under braking. It also provides superior traction when accelerating on corner exit. Keep in mind that weight distribution is only static when the car is sitting still. In motion weight distribution is constantly changing front to rear and side to side.

Furthermore, the same characteristics that allow the Boxster to transition so quickly (lower polar moment) also make it more difficult to "catch" in a spin. The 911 has a higher polar moment, I find it is a little easier to catch than my 986.

Both great cars, but they each have their advantages and disadvantages.

Kevin H. in Atl..

Well said, newport996. Beat me to the punch.

I would like to add that the f/r weight distribution on an F1 car is probably closer to that of a 911 (40/60) than a Boxster/Cayman (47/53).

And, IIRC, the weight distribution of mid-engine "supercars" such as Ferrari F360, Lambo Gallardo, Murcielago, Carrera GT, Enzo, are all ~40/60, (and the Lotus Elise/Exige as well). Yes, the 911's engine being behind the rear axle may not be optimal when running a slalom course, but it does provide for a larger cockpit while producing weight distribution ratios similar to those of mid-engined supercars.

Recently, R&T did a feature story with Patrick Long driving a GT3 RSR and a Carrera GT around a track. The intent of the story was to show how well a road car can compete with a race car. The GT3 RSR was significantly faster (9sec/lap), but the CGT acquitted itself very well. There are a few comments that apply to the discussion in this thread regarding the 911's performance capability vs mid-engine designs.

It all boils down to the ultimate total configuration of the vehicle. Simply using the mid-engine placement does not necessarily create a fast car (MR2, Fiero), and conversely, just because a car has a rear-engine placement does not mean it cannot handle just as well or be even faster than a mid-engine car. Some simply explain away the modern 911's exceptional handling as 40 years of engineering refinement, but I credit: 1. rear-engine weight distribution advantages, 2. modern multi-link rear suspension, and 3. (and most importantly), modern tire technology.

A few excerpts from the R&T story:

Re: GT3 RSR:
"An exceptionally planted, race-tuned chassis means there's neither understeer nor oversteer at turn-in, just plenty of grip from the Michelin racing slicks. Changing the RSR's mid-turn attitude is done with steering rather than throttle inputs. According to Long, "With this car, you're definitely driving it more with your hands (as opposed to your feet) because you've got a more stable platform to work with." Start to lean on it and the RSR leaps out of corners with the pavement-tearing traction only a 911 can deliver."

"With its sticky racing slicks, less pitch-sensitive chassis and rear-engine layout, the RSR allows the driver to carry more speed entering turns and to get back on the throttle earlier exiting them. This produces higher corner speeds, a better launch out of turns and higher terminal velocities on the straights. Multiply that by 10 turns on a tight 1.5-mile course and there's your 9 seconds."

Re: CGT:
"Give the GT more mechanical grip and the story could have turned out quite differently. Throughout the day, many wondered how it would have fared with some slight suspension tweaks and a set of racing slicks. Long was confident the Carrera GT could give the RSR a run for its money. "You lower that thing down, put some slicks on it and set it [the chassis] for more of a race trim — no material replacements other than the tires — and on a little bigger track, you're going to have a pretty serious fight." "

Link to story with video and narration:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1

nycebo

Kevin, that photo is friggin fantastic! Thumbs up!

Kevin H. in Atl..

That photo is from the linked R&T story.

Frank Courts

"Furthermore, the same characteristics that allow the Boxster to transision so quickly (lower polar moment) also make it more difficult to "catch" in a spin. The 911 has a higher polar moment, I find it is a little easier to catch than my 986.

Ray "

AGREE. I drive both cars and the boxster is a pleasure but because of the low polar moment when it loses it, it is GONE! With the 911 you get a lot more feedback that you might lose it.

Frank