The fact that you are using someone elses words instead of your own to make a point doesn't indicate that you have "let go". You are still presenting the same argument over and over and over......

I've (reluctantly) re-read all 23 of your posts in this thread. Not once have you actually been able to admit that other 911 variants like the GT3 or C2S might have attributes that appeal to some drivers more than the TT. If you have made such a statement, and I've overlooked it, please reference the specific un-edited post for me.

BTW, it's not enough to say things like you did in post #25:

I'd like to interview the guys after they test drive both cars on the same afternoon and get their impressions.
I wonder if a pattern would emerge. (emoticon in original post)

Clearly the implication and your belief is that anyone who wouldn't choose the TT is deficient in some way, and the choice would be so obvious as to be laughable.

Virtually every other person in this thread has been able to say in some fashion, without sarcasm or innuendo, that both the TT and other 911's have attributes that make them "better" in some way. Not you, though. Why are you unable to admit the possibility that reasonable people might actually prefer not to own a TT because the attributes they value are different than the ones you value?

 

Yet all the turbo detractors can be smug about turbo owners not tracking their cars, or having too much power, or ill handling because its AWD? The track times say otherwise.

 

I prefer RWD and NA, but I, for one, am not a Turbo detractor and find the Turbo owners zeal silly.

Of course the Turbo can and should be faster on the track, especially with an average driver. 4WD can make an average driver look good and there's no issue with that. PAG put 4WD on the Turbo to tame it and make it accessible to the average driver. Now, the GT2 is a different question.

 

Track times don't say very much about handling. All the track times tell you about handling is, "The turbo's power is sufficient to pull it around a track in less time than the C2S, despite the added weight." It doesn't say anything about which car is more fun to drive around the track, or on the street, or which car will do better in an endurance race, or any number of other aspects that may cause one to choose a naturally aspirated or RWD car over the Turbo.

"Lower lap times" means "lower lap times." It doesn't mean "better track car" or "better car".

 

Says the guy with the slower car.

 

It's the slower driver who cares about the car's (rather than the driver's) lap times.

Which tracks might I have seen you at? I've been to MSR-H quite a bit, as well as H2R, TWS, MSR Cresson, ECR, etc.

 

Says the guy with the slower car.

 

Equi tracks a GT3 RS which isn't slower than a Turbo. And she's not a guy. So much for that theory.

 

May be you're not but there are plenty of posts on this thread that bash the turbo. Yet get all up in arms when someone says the turbo is faster.

 

Could you point one out?

 

Too bad we're not talking about the GT3 on this thread, but the standard Carrera.

 

You said that equiraptor was a guy and that equiraptor drives a slower car. Wrong on both counts. With that kind of attention to detail it makes one wonder how accurate the rest of your posts are.

 

Wow you got me there. Sorry I don't memorize all the posters and their cars on rennlist. But really, the turbo bashers are funny, I owned a 1995 C2S before the turbo, loved it just as much as my turbo, but I don't have to bash the C2S to enjoy my turbo.

 

I haven't seen any turbo bashing in this thread. Or seen anyone "get all up in arms when someone says the turbo is faster." Could you point out one or two of the posts you object to?

 

Seriously? Or are you just trolling?