My New Road & Track Magazine Has The "New 911" on the cover.
#33
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The front bumper looks like the new frickin' Cayenne! And the rear looks horrible with the thin tail lights...
I really like the 997 body, and was always afraid that Porsche would screw it up in the name of change. Hope I'm wrong
I really like the 997 body, and was always afraid that Porsche would screw it up in the name of change. Hope I'm wrong
#34
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
shh shh shh...stay low and dont make a sound - the lions will eventually grow weary of chasing the hopelessly elusive prey and will move on to the next meal.
#35
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco & parts north
Posts: 1,010
Received 188 Likes
on
84 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
R&T mag has long ago lost any credibility with me. Every year they devote at least one cover to purely speculative artistic sketches of future cars. They never actually break any news in these articles, just speculate about as poorly as you or I could. I've lost count of how many times they've devoted the cover to "The Next Corvette!" or "The next Pony Cars!"... including once in the '90's when they speculated that the next Corvette would be mid-engined... see how that turned-out? It's just an effort to sell a few mags off the rack to unsuspecting shoppers in airports and supermarkets who see the cover and think "cool, I hadn't heard about that yet!"
Sad really. Used to be a great magazine. I've maintained my subscription only because it's so cheap (about $1.00 per issue). That's about what it's worth these days. Even the article in the current issue that describes the existing GT3 & 911 gets a number of facts wrong (e.g. they write that the main difference between the GT3's engine and the GTS's engine is intake & exhaust... which is laughable considering the two engines are completely different designs that share almost nothing in common.
Best to ignore this sort of stuff.
Sad really. Used to be a great magazine. I've maintained my subscription only because it's so cheap (about $1.00 per issue). That's about what it's worth these days. Even the article in the current issue that describes the existing GT3 & 911 gets a number of facts wrong (e.g. they write that the main difference between the GT3's engine and the GTS's engine is intake & exhaust... which is laughable considering the two engines are completely different designs that share almost nothing in common.
Best to ignore this sort of stuff.
#36
Nordschleife Master
#38
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I don't like it because it makes my 997 look dated. The only way I will like it is if it rides like a Lexus, parks itself, and can accomodate five adults. Actually, I'd be happy if they gave us a no-sunroof option.
#39
Rennlist Member
#40
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![thumbsup](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/bigok.gif)
Believe me when I tell you, that I would have ordered my Club Coupe sunroof delete if I could have. And as I'm not planning to sell it or buy a future 911, I guess it no longer matters. I still would like to know who the King of the World was, who decided sunroofs are all that. I've owned several sunroof cars "that came that way", and never used most of the sunroofs open, or if I did, it was once or twice max.
And I love Cabs--I drive them one way, windows and top down. A sunroof is a poor substitute, for open air driving, and I would not give two cents for a sunroof in any car. Sunroofs don't cut it.
#41
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I imagine the many US dealers are the ones that pushed for sunroofs. They used to spec almost all 911 orders that way in the 1980s and 1990s because they couldnt sell, in volume, non-sunroof cars.
To the enthusiast, a sunroof can be seen as a detriment. To a "guy off the street" buying his dream car, he thinks it should come with all the bells/whistles standard and that includes a sunroof.
To the enthusiast, a sunroof can be seen as a detriment. To a "guy off the street" buying his dream car, he thinks it should come with all the bells/whistles standard and that includes a sunroof.
#42
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I imagine the many US dealers are the ones that pushed for sunroofs. They used to spec almost all 911 orders that way in the 1980s and 1990s because they couldnt sell, in volume, non-sunroof cars.
To the enthusiast, a sunroof can be seen as a detriment. To a "guy off the street" buying his dream car, he thinks it should come with all the bells/whistles standard and that includes a sunroof.
To the enthusiast, a sunroof can be seen as a detriment. To a "guy off the street" buying his dream car, he thinks it should come with all the bells/whistles standard and that includes a sunroof.
They would have to re-test both with and without sunroof.
As most off the street people want a sunroof, they did just one crash test for the sunroof model.
We have the US DOT to thank for this i guess
#43
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yar. And, fwiw, I love sunroofs and use them all the time. There may be some performance difference but it won't be meaningful to me -- or to most of you.
#44
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
yes crash standards are certainly an issue.. but if from Porsche side, 90+ percent want/expect a sunroof, why spend another 500K wrecking for certification, another 10 samples without a sunroof to offer it?
I actually prefer a tilt sunroof for ventilation more than a sliding one that creates annoying buffeting.
I actually prefer a tilt sunroof for ventilation more than a sliding one that creates annoying buffeting.
#45
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Its the same reason the XJ220 and the 959 never came over.