Is the 911 underpowered?
03-29-2008, 04:12 PM
#46
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DreamTripper07:
Good thread and good responses on both the 'yes' and 'no' side of the argument. I have to say though that I think the 911's are a bit underpowered too. I know they aren't in the HP wars, but Porsche is (at least when i was growing up...maybe I'm too old now) regarded as a race car, a fast car that you could actually use as a daily driver.
I know Porsche does so many things right and so much better than other cars, but without sacrificing the balance, the handling, the precision....I would love for them to add a bit of power.
Good thread and good responses on both the 'yes' and 'no' side of the argument. I have to say though that I think the 911's are a bit underpowered too. I know they aren't in the HP wars, but Porsche is (at least when i was growing up...maybe I'm too old now) regarded as a race car, a fast car that you could actually use as a daily driver.
I know Porsche does so many things right and so much better than other cars, but without sacrificing the balance, the handling, the precision....I would love for them to add a bit of power.
03-29-2008, 05:41 PM
#48
Instructor
Thread Starter
Not a bad idea at all. I figured that reducing weight was a considerably more expensive option than increasing power so I initially didn't give it much thought.
I disagree completely. It's overweight, not under-powered. I will sound like a broken record AGAIN, but Porsche has to find ways to reduce weight and start to use smaller capacity but much more efficient engines to be a player in the future.
Reduce engine size to 2.4 liters. Produce 300 hp. Reduce weight by 250kg's. And at that point we might be getting somewhere. Porsche has "superlight" steel going into Panamera so that should also be used to make 1901 a much lighter car. It can use low pressure turbo's like BMW are doing in the 335 to compensate for engine capacity. It might even consider making ceramic brakes part of the standard equipment. How shocking - getting less from Porsche - who would have thought it???
Reduce engine size to 2.4 liters. Produce 300 hp. Reduce weight by 250kg's. And at that point we might be getting somewhere. Porsche has "superlight" steel going into Panamera so that should also be used to make 1901 a much lighter car. It can use low pressure turbo's like BMW are doing in the 335 to compensate for engine capacity. It might even consider making ceramic brakes part of the standard equipment. How shocking - getting less from Porsche - who would have thought it???
03-29-2008, 05:41 PM
#49
Three Wheelin'
I disagree completely. It's overweight, not under-powered. I will sound like a broken record AGAIN, but Porsche has to find ways to reduce weight and start to use smaller capacity but much more efficient engines to be a player in the future.
Reduce engine size to 2.4 liters. Produce 300 hp. Reduce weight by 250kg's. And at that point we might be getting somewhere. Porsche has "superlight" steel going into Panamera so that should also be used to make 1901 a much lighter car. It can use low pressure turbo's like BMW are doing in the 335 to compensate for engine capacity. It might even consider making ceramic brakes part of the standard equipment. How shocking - getting less from Porsche - who would have thought it???
Reduce engine size to 2.4 liters. Produce 300 hp. Reduce weight by 250kg's. And at that point we might be getting somewhere. Porsche has "superlight" steel going into Panamera so that should also be used to make 1901 a much lighter car. It can use low pressure turbo's like BMW are doing in the 335 to compensate for engine capacity. It might even consider making ceramic brakes part of the standard equipment. How shocking - getting less from Porsche - who would have thought it???
Of course anyone that wanted to pull 250kgs out of his porker could do it. Pull out the aircon, passenger and rear seats, sound deadening foams, carpets, silly working windows and spare and I bet you're there. or buy a GT3.
Also I don't think you'll save anything going down to a smaller displacemet motor assuming you're going to continue to leverage the billions upon billions of dollars of investment that have gone into the water cooled motors. It's just a hunch, but I doubt there's really that much of a weight differential from the old 2.5L boxster motor to the 3.8L carrera S motor, assuming same basic block and accessories. I may be way off base here, don't kno much about that 986 2.5L motor.
Last edited by htny; 03-30-2008 at 01:03 AM.
03-29-2008, 06:17 PM
#50
Burning Brakes
My needs are simple...
98% of the time I can get to the next stop sign, light, or onto the freeway faster than the car next to me. That is good enough for me.
abe
abe
03-29-2008, 07:56 PM
#51
Three Wheelin'
OK I was interested. did find a link (can't verify)
http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=634
Vehicle Engine Configuration Power(hp) Weight(lbs)
1989 Porsche 964C4 Porsche M64/01 3.6L SOHC H6 247 525
1992 BMW 740i BMW M60B40 4.0L DOHC V8 282 463
1992 Chevy Corvette GM LT1 5.7L OHV V8 300 620 manual/562 auto
1993 Cadillac Seville STS GM L37 4.6L DOHC V8 295 470
1996 Porsche 993 Porsche M64/05 3.6L SOHC H6 270 511
1997 Porsche Boxster Porsche M96/20 2.5L DOHC H6 201 402
2000 BMW 330i BMW M54 3.0L DOHC I6 231 375
2001 Chevy Corvette GM LS1 5.7L OHV V8 350 497 manual/458 auto
2003 Porsche 996 Porsche M96/05 3.6L DOHC H6 315 449
2003 Porsche Carrera GT Porsche M80 5.7L DOHC V10 604 472
2004 Audi S4 Audi 4.2L DOHC V8 340 430
2005 BMW 330i BMW N52 3.0L DOHC I6 258 357
2005 Chevy Corvette GM LS2 6.0L OHV V8 400 443 auto
2005 Porsche 997 Porsche M97/01 3.6L DOHC H6 321 444
2005.5 Audi A4 3.2 Audi 3.2L DOHC FSI V6 255 374
2006 BMW M5 BMW S85 5.0L DOHC V10 500 529
2006 Chevy Corvette Z06 GM LS7 7.0L OHV V8 505 490/ 458 dry
2007 BMW 335i BMW N54 3.0L DOHC I6 Biturbo 300 419
2008 Audi S3 Audi 2.0L DOHC FSI I4 Turbo 265 335
about 40-50lbs of difference, and I bet half or more is attributable to top end. Move to different connecting rod/valvetrain material or actuation would make up for this. I think 3.8L making 380 bhp ala 997S x51, is nice, who knows how much more bore/stroke that block can take and keep together. I for one would just rather not have a turbo standard, and doubt it will every happen.
The kicker from that chart? Z06 corvette motor puts out 505bhp with a dry weight of 458 lbs. 321bhp from 444lbs for a 3.6L M97. It's not apples to apples, specific output doen't compare, but that's a real difference. Either way, these motors displace near double the carrera and i suppose due to the lack of over head cams they manage to keep weight close. Who would have thought this looking at the old SBC motors? The better comparison which isn't on this chart is the thoroughly modern AMG M156 6.3L V8, weighing in at 439lbs and producing in the current S63/CL63 roughly 525bhp.
But all this does indicate without a drastic departure in basic engine platforms, you'll lose no weight in the porsche family simply by decreasing displacement and turbocharging, in fact a 2.4L turbo motor using their current technology would weigh more than a 3.6L NA
To get back to the OP's original statement, that the Carrera no longer seems to be the performance benchmark that it once was, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we are more than satisfied with the power, and no other car on the road truly competes with a 911 in the hearts of buyers, except for other 911s.
This has kept the 911 fundamentally recognizable and in many ways unchanged for decades, maybe because non-turbo/non-GT3 911 buyers don't demand it. They do demand the car remain rear engine, most demand flat-6, some still want to go back to air-cooled, I mean a vocal plurality of 911 buyers are antiquarian to a certain extent. Packaging constraints in particular may result in the poorer than peer power to engine weight. Who knows. Let's just hope that eventually they find way to get more power out of less weight back there!
But,that having been said, if you want to go fast on the street, there is a comparatively reasonably priced turbo which makes obnoxious amounts of power, fast on a track a GT3 or RS which can keep up with anything.
I just think all the overpriced breathing (and sound) enhancements should come stock on Carreras, or at least be cheaper, but not everyone wants to trade general tractability for high end power ala X51. A little more juice would be nice, but I say that even in much more powerful cars.
http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=634
Vehicle Engine Configuration Power(hp) Weight(lbs)
1989 Porsche 964C4 Porsche M64/01 3.6L SOHC H6 247 525
1992 BMW 740i BMW M60B40 4.0L DOHC V8 282 463
1992 Chevy Corvette GM LT1 5.7L OHV V8 300 620 manual/562 auto
1993 Cadillac Seville STS GM L37 4.6L DOHC V8 295 470
1996 Porsche 993 Porsche M64/05 3.6L SOHC H6 270 511
1997 Porsche Boxster Porsche M96/20 2.5L DOHC H6 201 402
2000 BMW 330i BMW M54 3.0L DOHC I6 231 375
2001 Chevy Corvette GM LS1 5.7L OHV V8 350 497 manual/458 auto
2003 Porsche 996 Porsche M96/05 3.6L DOHC H6 315 449
2003 Porsche Carrera GT Porsche M80 5.7L DOHC V10 604 472
2004 Audi S4 Audi 4.2L DOHC V8 340 430
2005 BMW 330i BMW N52 3.0L DOHC I6 258 357
2005 Chevy Corvette GM LS2 6.0L OHV V8 400 443 auto
2005 Porsche 997 Porsche M97/01 3.6L DOHC H6 321 444
2005.5 Audi A4 3.2 Audi 3.2L DOHC FSI V6 255 374
2006 BMW M5 BMW S85 5.0L DOHC V10 500 529
2006 Chevy Corvette Z06 GM LS7 7.0L OHV V8 505 490/ 458 dry
2007 BMW 335i BMW N54 3.0L DOHC I6 Biturbo 300 419
2008 Audi S3 Audi 2.0L DOHC FSI I4 Turbo 265 335
about 40-50lbs of difference, and I bet half or more is attributable to top end. Move to different connecting rod/valvetrain material or actuation would make up for this. I think 3.8L making 380 bhp ala 997S x51, is nice, who knows how much more bore/stroke that block can take and keep together. I for one would just rather not have a turbo standard, and doubt it will every happen.
The kicker from that chart? Z06 corvette motor puts out 505bhp with a dry weight of 458 lbs. 321bhp from 444lbs for a 3.6L M97. It's not apples to apples, specific output doen't compare, but that's a real difference. Either way, these motors displace near double the carrera and i suppose due to the lack of over head cams they manage to keep weight close. Who would have thought this looking at the old SBC motors? The better comparison which isn't on this chart is the thoroughly modern AMG M156 6.3L V8, weighing in at 439lbs and producing in the current S63/CL63 roughly 525bhp.
But all this does indicate without a drastic departure in basic engine platforms, you'll lose no weight in the porsche family simply by decreasing displacement and turbocharging, in fact a 2.4L turbo motor using their current technology would weigh more than a 3.6L NA
To get back to the OP's original statement, that the Carrera no longer seems to be the performance benchmark that it once was, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we are more than satisfied with the power, and no other car on the road truly competes with a 911 in the hearts of buyers, except for other 911s.
This has kept the 911 fundamentally recognizable and in many ways unchanged for decades, maybe because non-turbo/non-GT3 911 buyers don't demand it. They do demand the car remain rear engine, most demand flat-6, some still want to go back to air-cooled, I mean a vocal plurality of 911 buyers are antiquarian to a certain extent. Packaging constraints in particular may result in the poorer than peer power to engine weight. Who knows. Let's just hope that eventually they find way to get more power out of less weight back there!
But,that having been said, if you want to go fast on the street, there is a comparatively reasonably priced turbo which makes obnoxious amounts of power, fast on a track a GT3 or RS which can keep up with anything.
I just think all the overpriced breathing (and sound) enhancements should come stock on Carreras, or at least be cheaper, but not everyone wants to trade general tractability for high end power ala X51. A little more juice would be nice, but I say that even in much more powerful cars.
03-30-2008, 12:32 AM
#53
Instructor
NO. It is appropriately powered.
The 911 is designed to be a balanced car. Great acceleration, more top end than anyone in the US can use on track or street, incredible handling, amazing breaks.
This obsession with horsepower is just pretty stupid IMO (but having said that my car has quite a bit
). The base 997, the S, the S with X51, the Turbo, the GT3, the GT3 RS, the Gt2 - they're all more car than almost all of us can drive at the limit.
I just got back from an AutoX school where it was really eye opening to see the times of Mazda Miata's that were tough to beat. They have 100 hp. I have nearly 400. I win by 1 second or less in 40. They're probably better drivers. There were two guys in my class with more hp than me, a ZO6 Corvette and a tricked out TransAm. The Transam sounded great but looked like a giant walrus with broken flippers trying to turn and the Corvette held his own with the Miata's too (pretty decent driver by the way).
+1 on everything Edgy said too.
The 911 is designed to be a balanced car. Great acceleration, more top end than anyone in the US can use on track or street, incredible handling, amazing breaks.
This obsession with horsepower is just pretty stupid IMO (but having said that my car has quite a bit
). The base 997, the S, the S with X51, the Turbo, the GT3, the GT3 RS, the Gt2 - they're all more car than almost all of us can drive at the limit.I just got back from an AutoX school where it was really eye opening to see the times of Mazda Miata's that were tough to beat. They have 100 hp. I have nearly 400. I win by 1 second or less in 40. They're probably better drivers. There were two guys in my class with more hp than me, a ZO6 Corvette and a tricked out TransAm. The Transam sounded great but looked like a giant walrus with broken flippers trying to turn and the Corvette held his own with the Miata's too (pretty decent driver by the way).
+1 on everything Edgy said too.
03-30-2008, 12:47 AM
#54
Three Wheelin'
Pretty much every car manufacturer is going to have to face the realities of emissions regulations tightening. If you want to sell in Kalyfornjah you will have to meet new more stringent emissions regs.
Making engines with bigger capacity is not going to work, so how do you maintain performance whilst drastically cutting emissions? More efficient engines, lower weight engine materials, low pressure turbo's, low friction internals, brake regeneration, engine stop-start systems. There's also no reason why the 911 can't have a hybrid system - just don't expect a trunk!
Low weight materials will cost more, but if the fat n' flabbies want their grande latte mocha cupholders and ventilated massaging electric seats then they will have to pay more for them.
The new marketplace will be where regulations meets money and how much you want what you have today.
Making engines with bigger capacity is not going to work, so how do you maintain performance whilst drastically cutting emissions? More efficient engines, lower weight engine materials, low pressure turbo's, low friction internals, brake regeneration, engine stop-start systems. There's also no reason why the 911 can't have a hybrid system - just don't expect a trunk!
Low weight materials will cost more, but if the fat n' flabbies want their grande latte mocha cupholders and ventilated massaging electric seats then they will have to pay more for them.
The new marketplace will be where regulations meets money and how much you want what you have today.
03-30-2008, 01:20 AM
#55
Three Wheelin'
The more skill you have, the less gear you need. Same principle goes for backpacking, fishing, mathematics, and cars. My BMW had 256 hp stock, and now has maybe 300, but they are all high rpm hp. It can not keep up with a new 335i. But I can stay with a 335i on the track because my suspension is set up for zero understeer and uses all the track available. From a standing start, the 335i is gone, but from a running start in my BMW I can hold my own with anybody. When we talk about the track we are talking about the opposite of a stoplight street race. At the stoplight, I can not out run a Ford Truck.
Fastest cars I have seen on the track have been cheapo Dodge Omnis or Mazdas because the driver spends more time at the track than the office. My BMW could hang with the Porsches and Ferraris because of setup and because they were babying their car and I was not. If you are driving your Porsche on the track for the first time, anybody who is driving his on the track for the second time will be faster.
By comparison, the C4S X51 feels almost motorcycle fast in a straight line, and only begins to suck me into the seat at 4000 and this increases until 6000 roughly. And it will do a cloverleaf on the highway faster than I have the nerve to try. I think the BMW might be more fun because it will get loose, the same thing the C2S guys like, but the Porsche C4S is scary fast. Might be underpowered compared to a new M3 on paper. I lose my nerve with the Porsche, while I understand the BMW's limits. The experienced Porsche guy would be faster than me under any scenario, with a 10 year old underpowered 993 car.
I don't know what you mean by underpowered. Power helps the BMW go faster at high speeds. But I never go those speeds because I can't stay on the track. The C4S is torque incarnate, it gets it to the road, and it can stay on the track. I am not ready for a newer heavier M3 regardless of its power. My M5 is too much fun, without more power. I am learning the C4S and looking forward to the day it feels underpowered. I am not ready to trade for anything with more power. That will be a fun day too.
Power is what they are trying to sell. Fun is what we are trying to maximize. We should find our way in the process of discovering a balance.
Fastest cars I have seen on the track have been cheapo Dodge Omnis or Mazdas because the driver spends more time at the track than the office. My BMW could hang with the Porsches and Ferraris because of setup and because they were babying their car and I was not. If you are driving your Porsche on the track for the first time, anybody who is driving his on the track for the second time will be faster.
By comparison, the C4S X51 feels almost motorcycle fast in a straight line, and only begins to suck me into the seat at 4000 and this increases until 6000 roughly. And it will do a cloverleaf on the highway faster than I have the nerve to try. I think the BMW might be more fun because it will get loose, the same thing the C2S guys like, but the Porsche C4S is scary fast. Might be underpowered compared to a new M3 on paper. I lose my nerve with the Porsche, while I understand the BMW's limits. The experienced Porsche guy would be faster than me under any scenario, with a 10 year old underpowered 993 car.
I don't know what you mean by underpowered. Power helps the BMW go faster at high speeds. But I never go those speeds because I can't stay on the track. The C4S is torque incarnate, it gets it to the road, and it can stay on the track. I am not ready for a newer heavier M3 regardless of its power. My M5 is too much fun, without more power. I am learning the C4S and looking forward to the day it feels underpowered. I am not ready to trade for anything with more power. That will be a fun day too.
Power is what they are trying to sell. Fun is what we are trying to maximize. We should find our way in the process of discovering a balance.
03-30-2008, 06:19 AM
#56
Instructor
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dubai - UAE
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many aspects to the question as the above posts show.
I love my C4S and every drive in it is an occasion. I am happy go to the shop to pick a lightbulb or whatever, just to get a chance to drive. I do not claim to be a Driving God, nor do I claim to be able to use the 997 to its very respectable limits.
However, I am a little annoyed by how the 997 compares with the modern performance sedan. E.g. the new M3 accelerates harder, corners with more grip, has higher slalom speed and (the killer in my book) stops quicker than a 997S. Call me shallow, but this irritates me...
Based on this, I think Porsche should step-up its game a bit.
I love my C4S and every drive in it is an occasion. I am happy go to the shop to pick a lightbulb or whatever, just to get a chance to drive. I do not claim to be a Driving God, nor do I claim to be able to use the 997 to its very respectable limits.
However, I am a little annoyed by how the 997 compares with the modern performance sedan. E.g. the new M3 accelerates harder, corners with more grip, has higher slalom speed and (the killer in my book) stops quicker than a 997S. Call me shallow, but this irritates me...
Based on this, I think Porsche should step-up its game a bit.
03-30-2008, 01:32 PM
#57
There are many aspects to the question as the above posts show.
I love my C4S and every drive in it is an occasion. I am happy go to the shop to pick a lightbulb or whatever, just to get a chance to drive. I do not claim to be a Driving God, nor do I claim to be able to use the 997 to its very respectable limits.
However, I am a little annoyed by how the 997 compares with the modern performance sedan. E.g. the new M3 accelerates harder, corners with more grip, has higher slalom speed and (the killer in my book) stops quicker than a 997S. Call me shallow, but this irritates me...
Based on this, I think Porsche should step-up its game a bit.
I love my C4S and every drive in it is an occasion. I am happy go to the shop to pick a lightbulb or whatever, just to get a chance to drive. I do not claim to be a Driving God, nor do I claim to be able to use the 997 to its very respectable limits.
However, I am a little annoyed by how the 997 compares with the modern performance sedan. E.g. the new M3 accelerates harder, corners with more grip, has higher slalom speed and (the killer in my book) stops quicker than a 997S. Call me shallow, but this irritates me...
Based on this, I think Porsche should step-up its game a bit.
03-30-2008, 02:39 PM
#58
Rennlist Member
Wow I'm surprised the M3 stops quicker then the 997. The 997 has those wider rear tires with engine right over them, plus the weight of the rear should shift foward to the front tires as to not overload them as much as a front engined car would, right? This would indicate to me that the brakes which come on the 997 could be stronger and still achieve a benefit, correct me if I'm wrong.
If the M3 can stop quicker at a portly 3700lbs it would be a function of tire compound and the suspension's ability to keep a useful contact patch on the wheels during the weight transitions that come during hard braking.
03-30-2008, 03:14 PM
#59
Brakes are about heat management. Just about any car can lock 'em up; Bigger/better brakes are not about stopping quickly this time, they're about making sure you can still stop quickly next time too.
If the M3 can stop quicker at a portly 3700lbs it would be a function of tire compound and the suspension's ability to keep a useful contact patch on the wheels during the weight transitions that come during hard braking.
If the M3 can stop quicker at a portly 3700lbs it would be a function of tire compound and the suspension's ability to keep a useful contact patch on the wheels during the weight transitions that come during hard braking.
03-30-2008, 03:34 PM
#60
Rennlist Member
I'm not sure but I would think the tire compound which comes from the factory on the 997 & M3 to be very similar. I would be surprised if the suspension on the 997 especially with PASM isn't equally equiped to handle the car as is the E92 M3's. I'm also under the impression that one of the benefits of the rear engine design is straight ahead stoping power due to the weight transfer. I just can't believe the much heavier, front engined E92 M3 could stop shorter then the 997.