I wouldn't advocate for driving 100mph, but look at it this way, from your description of the situation and lack of being able to use the car, then might as well get the base car, or not get a 911 and get something more suited for traffic and straight line driving.

I get it, a lot of buyers aren't buying for the performance anymore. Or that is what you're implying. It is for bragging rights, or badge, or whatever. My assumption on an enthusiast website is that someone doesn't want to skimp on tires by having all seasons. They are inferior in virtually every single condition in florida... except for all those cold sub 40 days... they may last longer, sure, but my assumption is that someone owning one of these won't make that decision based on dollars.

I still would never recommend all season tires for a 997, except perhaps to use during cold months in areas that get chilly but don't snow a lot. Then swap to summer tires for the rest of the year.

But people do have different goals and views, and uses, for these cars. So it's all cool.

 

This is a very interesting discussion, since my wife has found a 2006 C4 Cab manual to replace her 1966 Mustang GT fastback (purchased in 1985), which has an open rear end. For the C2 model, and the experiences noted in driving them and C4s on the track and in wet conditions (helpful inputs for sure), what advantages in track time are gained with the LSD ? I would assume that for a C4, the power split in the (x-fer case) is controlled, but each differential is open.

Regarding the non LSD C2, with great throttle controllable over-steer, my experiences in Mustangs is that an open rear gear will allow less rear end drift (one wheel slips, the other is not powered and helps to hold the line).

In the case of my R code 428 Mach 1 with traction loc, if I floor it (automatic) at 30 mph on a high crown road, the whole back of the car heads for the weeds, since both rear tires have a semi liquid grip on the pavement.

Between LSD and AWD, which is the best (performance) and practical (cost) way to go ?

Does an open rear end C2 just have what it takes regardless, since the weight distribution with 1/2 tank fuel and driver still favors rear axle by some % ?

 

The OP said he has a 200 mi round trip commute as much as 15 days/mo. That's 36K miles/year. A set of P-zeros lasted me an average of 12K miles (10 rear, 14 front), for him that's 3 sets a year at roughly $2500, or $7500/yr. The AS970's last me an average of 25K miles (20 rear, 30 front) and cost $1100/set. That's 1.44 sets/yr for a cost of $1600. Difference is almost $6000/yr! Since he's posting in the 997 forum he's talking about a used car, so it's not an unreasonable assumption that cost could be a factor (although conceding the possibility he just doesn't care for the 991), so in that case it's also not unreasonable to assume $6K/yr isn't chump change to him.

 

To me, and clearly my personal view, I wouldn't bother getting a performance car to skimp on tires. If economics were an issue, the car will likely be depreciated much more than that tire cost per year if he is doing ~40k miles per year.

The tires are what deliver the goods to the road. If they only deliver 80% of the performance, what's the point? When I look at used cars, the absolute first thing I check is the tires. High performance / quality tires with tread usually indicate someone willing to shell out the $$$ to maximally maintain the car. I've seen bad tires on ostensibly very nice cars... red flag. And I don't mean specialized tires that people here throw on because they're smart about the $/performance, I mean cheap tires (and this isn't directed to the AS tires you mentioned). Driving that mileage per year will also result in significant maintenance upkeep requirements vs. a Toyota or some other car, adding thousands on top of the depreciation...

I agreed that economics of it could drive this decision, but then I really don't see the point of going up to a high performance car to run all season tires... a merc, a regular BMW, sure. A 911? I just don't get it.

 

The point is unless the OP takes the car to a track there's no way on FL roads he's ever going to go fast enough or twisty enough to where that difference in tire performance will be perceptible. Unless he tracks the car, he's just throwing money down the toilet buying stickier, faster-wearing tires at twice the cost. Even if he does track it occasionally, he would still net out better having a second set of wheels/tires for the track, and use the long-wearing, quieter, more comfortable-riding AS tires for that 200-mile interstate commute.

 

I live in the Orlando area and have a 997.2
c2 with no issues in the rain. All models are great
MartyS