simsgw

Thank you, Alex. Along with the date of first release, that firsthand account of driving them both will help my friend a lot. I'm still looking forward to hearing from other C4 owners. We must have several at least.

Hmmm. Forgot that won't be obvious out of context. A little bit of a long story, though surely the overall sense is obvious. I mean, a unicorn is a mythical beast that only a virgin can see, right?

In any case, here goes. Project engineers have to brief and justify their programs and their budget to senior managers. Picture the board of directors in civilian companies. Many years ago, Robert Townsend rescued Avis from bankruptcy and then wrote a book about it. He observed that if you present plans for a new ten-million-dollar building (this was ages ago and the dollar was much more solid), the Board will spend most of their time debating the bicycle rack you mentioned putting near the entrance. This is not only because their technical depth is just barely sufficient for a bicycle rack, though someone briefing a computer project might feel that way. From a now-senior perspective, I assure you we aren't all twits. The truth is we've settled all the important debates between us before the briefer stands and brings up the first slide. You are going to get that budget or you're not. We've decided. Mostly. That leaves the losers in those pre-briefing debates only one recourse. They can try to make the project look ill-considered, or at least ill-briefed and possibly ill-staffed, by probing randomly: "Why the Devil did you include a bicycle rack and not a charger for electric cars?" All while ignoring the real questions like ten stories or twelve. With a public restaurant on top? Sigh.

Another management consultant advised when briefing senior staff: "Give them something to change. They will like the flavor better after they've pissed in the soup." This works least well with general officers (who just nod approval or fire you when being briefed), but I spent a lot of time in NASA and he was certainly right where civilian managers are concerned.

As young project engineers, our name was "a unicorn" for a technique that combined both bits of wisdom. We would add something to the project description inviting obsessive critics to "advise" us how to make things better. Let 'em pee where it won't bother us. We might even devote three whole slides to a complacent description of something we knew was a pet bugaboo of some "old guy" on the Board. It was a mythical topic, you see. Either we'd already solved the problem or it never was one in the first place. We'd let the comptroller (or whoever) offer us some advice and show our diplomacy and ability to think on our feet by accommodating him or her. "Sure, we can put the unicorn stable on the North side. Let me just make a note about that."

Others call this a 'chimaera', another mythical beast. I like unicorn better because such a thing would only be important to virgins, to people who have not done what you're describing. You never give such attention to important points, things you're really worrying about in the design meetings. You better have those questions settled long before you take a briefing to the senior managers. That's why the technique does nothing to help with Generals, who don't like to **** around. They just want to know what's happening, and get a feel for their junior officers. Unless you're asking for some resource only they control, like another squadron being allocated. Even then, you don't say something wimpy like: we could maybe use another squadron. You say: "We need to allocate another squadron to this mission." We means 'you' of course when talking to a General. Then you have a letter typed, ready for signature, and it really better be something that needs his authority. Not a unicorn. If a General thinks you can't decide whether or not to install a bicycle rack, you will be told what to do. Then the Chief of Staff will find someone else to run the project. Someone who doesn't need a General to tell him how to park bicycles.

Anyway... Where were we? Oh yes, grungy intake valves in the dot twos are very much a unicorn from an engineer's perspective. We've been building DFI engines since before World War II, at least 75 years now. That doesn't mean conflicting objectives won't cause somebody to get a design wrong. Occasionally. It happens. But we haven't seen any evidence of it from Porsche. Just non-engineers worried that the best automotive engineers on the planet overlooked some issue that a comptroller (or a customer as the equivalent) will pick up in a briefing. See, that was the point. We were the best space engineers in the business. Otherwise someone else would have been running the program. So anything a non-engineer caught in a briefing was something we put there on purpose, or something his imagination conjured whole cloth. A myth either way. Nothing real got past us.

We don't read worried stories about Porsche Engineering recalling DFI cars to explore the problem back home. We don't hear the actual owners bitching about it. All the comments come from virgins, you should excuse the expression. People who don't own one. Certainly not from people who design them.

Like unicorns, you have to believe in this problem before you'll 'see' it. I understand the fun of talking about it. Just as people worried about Porsche getting it wrong when they went to watercooled engines. Talking is fun. But I hope nobody with the money to spend on a dot two is taking seriously any of the unicorns on the internet.

Once again, thanks to the people explaining the differences in AWD versions, and especially to the ones who aren't virgins. Who actually own one or at least have been intimately involved with one...

Gary

alexb76

No worries.

Both are great, they feel different though so your friend should drive both.

unclejosh

I enjoyed my '07 C4S for 3 yrs and 55K miles. AXed and tracked it at Laguna and commuted. Ex. The FWD was unobtrusive letting off the throttle in turn 1 and 11 at Laguna- the *** end would drift around and you could square off the corner.

I did sometimes notice FWD kick in in wet conditions when the car got squirrely on the street. Sometimes I felt it pull the car around the corner in wet conditions. I always ran summer tires.....

The .1 C4S was an incredibly secure all around ride and a lot of fun in my experience.

Have not experienced a .2 C4S though.....

wwest

With TC (PSM subset) on board it's rather hard to get the VC to be anything other than "flaccid".

VC does not tighten up rear to front coupling absent disparate wheel rotation rate front to rear. Rather hard for that to happen with TC activation upon even the slightest bit of rear wheelspin/skid.

Once the Lexus RX300 adopted TC, '01, the VC was made useless and was totally abandoned for teh RX330 run.

unclejosh

Unsubscribe

RobC4sX51

I owned 3 C4s .1 cars inc one X51, & one '09 turbo. All 6 speed manuals. I believe the Turbo had the PTM of the .2 C4s cars. I am convinced that the only "real" need for AWD was in the Turbo. If the snow is more than a few inches, the 911 should be left in the stable (too many other idiots out there who don't know how to drive in snow). The turbo "needs" AWD to harness the power. I'm now driving a 997.2 C2s w PDK and Good winter tires are my answer!

Meursault88

Brilliant Gary ! In a former life, my team intentionally made mistakes the C-levels would notice to distract them from boring deep into our actual plan.

In this way, they felt they had done their primary job in 'correcting us' and we were able to do our primary job in keeping them from f'ing our work up.