Carrera GT

It's certainly not for "performance" directly, but you could argue that it would allow a car to be at the "ideal" ride height and still be streetable. I can see its merits, but at that price point and the inevitable added weight of the air-lifters and the compressor, a small "accumulator" tank, etc., it's just not necessary for me.

Someone living in a city like San Francisco would probably use it every day just to get in and out of their garage and still be able to have the car at the "circuit" ride height.

I imagine it's one of those things that, as we're seeing again in the secondary market now, anything other than PCCBs on the option list will not change the resale value by more than pennies on the dollar. My first GT3 was "loaded" and I always intended to dispose of it before the secondary market declined. My second one is "bare bones" and I'm happy with the "cheaper" starting point on the depreciation slide.

cello

CGT - I was speaking to the dynamic engine mounts in my post - #45 (note the highlighted language of your post i quoted)..... You seem to be speaking to the lift mechanism (which I doubt I will be interested in - it is flat where it live..).

I agree with you on the bolded above, tho (altho I need it just comfy enough for the wife )

va122

Seriously, why do we care so much about these gimmicks? I would change to solid mounts after my first track day like with my 6-GT3, the PASM slow reacting shocks (unless they made them better) would **** me off too and on go Motons. The lift thingy is cool for my driveway but I buy spoilers 3 at a time and see them as disposable.

Maybe I want the car (have a deposit) for the 3.8 and nothing more since it will be yet another track car for me. But that being said it would be nice for a street car/DD if i kept the 6-3 and race it. My motivations as i said, are probably different from some.

stout

When you say solid mounts, do you mean sport (stiffer) mounts rather than actual solid mounts? I'm wary of the latter in street cars due to reliability concerns.

I'm keeping an open mind on the "active" motor mounts (PAMM -- great, yet another one...) because they may be a real upgrade to the handling. Engine mounts play a huge role in rear-end handling with 911s. FWIW, I think there was quite a bit of room for improvement in the 997 GT3's handling -- perhaps Porsche identified this as a root area for improvement? I'd be thrilled if some of the 997 GT2's handling brilliance trickles down into the 997.2 GT3, and this may actually make it even better.

We'll see.

I for one would consider the lift system. I can respect those who view the front lips as disposable (and dig the ethic of actually using these cars...), but I also like a clean nose, and hate scraping as a matter of principle, sort of like I hate driveline shock on shifts. Also, if this system would let me go more places, it would be attractive to me.

Of course, this brings up the question of weight. I think there's a philosophical approach (which I adhere to) in desiring the cars to get lighter, but I think it can get in the way of appreciating real improvements to not just livability, but performance. Put another way, is obsessing over every 10 to 15 pounds an equivalent to obsessing over hp or 0-60 numbers? Achleitner has expressed his admiration of the Corvette's curb weight, but I don't get the sense that he wants to own one. Me, either -- though a recent test drive suggests the base C6 has evolved into a far better car than many Porsche people would believe. When it comes to 997s, on both our test loop and at Infineon, the 997 Turbo-based Werks K1 shredded any 997 GT3 I've driven in terms of fun factor, noise, and pace -- and it didn't "feel" as heavy as it was, and it was heavy. But it was silly, silly good to drive -- and FAST.

Looking past the curb weight to see the whole picture is also why I would probably order the gas headlights for a street car. I'd only skip them on a track-mainly toy; for the loop, they're essential to safety and speed. And I can think of better track toys than GT3s, like 911 Spec racers or BSRs. Where I live, I'd rather save the weight on a street car by skipping A/C or, better yet, the sunroof if Porsche would let me.

Oops, I mentioned sunroofs -- a *real* web-forum albatross...

pete

stout

All THAT said, I'm a little disappointed that the Carrera GT didn't predict a new direction in the way that the 959 did. In 1988, that was the technological approach that would eventually bring us the 993 and 996 Turbo as well as everything else we see in a modern 997. In 2003/4, I was hoping the CGT predicted a materials technology revolution -- with a notable lack of driver aids and gizmos. Guess not, but that's not to say the latest GTs aren't great cars, and great Porsches. I mean, just look at a 997.1 GT3 -- or drive a 997 GT2...

As for me, I'm VERY curious about how the next GT3 will drive. If the PASM is better and lessons learned in the new 2's chassis are applied, it should be a FANTASTIC car.

pete

Nizer

Personally, I like my cars to be as Jekyll and Hyde as possible. To wit, they should be able to cruise comfortably and quietly at sub-warp speeds when traveling on say Rt 89 from Boston to Vermont, but then be able to scare the living crap out of every squirrel and vegan tree-hugger within a mile while tearing up Rt 17 over App Gap. The reality is that an M5 or R8 currently fit that bill better than any Porsche and both PAG and the dealers know it.

A senior Porsche salesman confided to me after coming back from the R8 launch, that above all the R8 highlights how dated the 911 design is.

As for aero appendages, I'll take stealth over boy racer any day of the week. There's a reason why a Ferrari 599GTB can generate the kind of downforce it does without all the add-ons: clean sheet design.

PAG profit margins are the fattest in the industry because they've been lazily milking the legacy for years. I doubt how long that will be sustainable in the current hyper-competitive auto industry. I too am disappointed that there wasn't more follow-on from the Carrera GT. Porsche could easily do a more substantial revamp of the 911 - moving weight off the rear, improving the aero, incorporating more modern materials - that would make for not only a faster but more livable tool.

Then again they could start to include basic options, like Bluetooth, as standard as it is on most cars half the price. But that would cut into those juicy margins...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. It's just that every time I drive any 911 I realize how much more they could do with the car if they stopped milking the brand and really started pushing the envelope.

Here's hoping the 998/991 takes a much bigger step forward.

stout

For once, I totally agree with a salesman. Happened to have a T4S in the same week as R8 and took both for the trip. While the T4S wasn't the right 997 for the comparison, it wasn't far off when you accounted for the impact of the heavy glass top.

But it was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off in terms of dynamic goodness. R8 made that 997 feel like a 1978 MY car. Or at least a 1996 MY car. With a 1968 chassis. The one thing I was certain of was that the R8 was a better drive than any 997 I'd driven.

Subsequently, the Werks K1 and 997 GT2 showed themselves to be worthy comparisons, but none of the 997.1 Carreras were, nor was the 997.1 GT3. The other guy on that trip had a 997.1 GT3 and was thinking about selling it after running the R8.

The new Carreras are MUCH better than their predecessors and more useful/complete cars than the R8, but I'd be hard-pressed to say they're a better, more involving, more exciting car than the R8. And they can't quite match the bizarre "Audi A6 around town thing" the R8 does.

Now, a slightly stretched Cayman with true multi-link and the Cayenne GTS V8 or a REALLY good flat six might shred the R8, but I think I'm dreaming again.

pete

cello

Well, Pete, unfortunately you are , based upon the info in the interview of W Durheimer in your latest ..........

In that interview, all of the things I thought Porsche might do for the 911 racing platform (Spyder engine, moving the engine forward for the GT class, etc.) were nixed. It will be very interesting to see how the 911 is developed in the future as he (expectedly) professed confidence. That said, I think Porsche dead wrong on the Cayman platform and truth be told I would much prefer to buy the next (first) 'GT-developed/class' of the Cayman platform all else being equal. Oh well........

am722

At $100k or even a little more, the R8 seems like a competitor to the Carrera. At $140k (which is what Audi of West Houston wants for the one on their showroom) it's an outlier fit only for eccentrics. For that cash, you really could have a 911 for fun and an A6 for around town (and neither of them look like a spaceship).

stout

Can't argue with that, except I'd substitute a new GTI for the A6.

And I meant to mention it in another thread: that is a KILLER setup on your 997.2. Nicely done.

pete

am722

Thanks. Coming from a 2005 C2, it really is incredible how much better this car is.

Wayward

Pete, here's some food for thought.

Specifically, the topic of over-engineering.

It used to be that for Porsches, this related more to componentry aspects, as opposed to the whole. Whereas now, it's so much more about systems, integrated as they may be, in marketing's never-ending efforts to attract a broader market.

Petevb

I completely agree. The US and Germany have very different perspectives regarding what it means to be a "serious" car enthusiast, and it took a couple years living in Germany to figure out why.

I have to say that before I lived in Germany I never really "got" the 996/ 997TT, for instance. I respected it as an efficient tool, but driving it on the road in the US it seems uninvolving compared to say a GT3 or GT2 - too cushy, too quiet, too remote. Push it to the point where it's talking to you on public roads and you're doing three times the speed limit; take it to a track and a GT3 or 2 are as fast or faster and more fun.

In Germany, however, it all makes sense, because street driving is serious business. You're doing 130-170 on the autobahn hour after hour. You're not at the limit of the car; instead you're leaving margin for the inevitable rain around the next corner or the clueless tourist pulling out into the fast lane in front of you. Pushing on can be nerve wracking, mentally and physically exhausting. Suddenly the quiet, isolated, 4wd TT lets you carry an extra 10 mph while arriving to your meeting relaxed. It makes complete sense, even with a dreaded tiptronic. For serious street driving it's a great tool.

It's also a tool that makes very little sense in the US. The ability to go much, much faster than the speed limit just makes those limits all the more annoying. Here driver involvement (manual gearboxes, etc) is far more important, and you're not often going to go for a sunday drive in the pouring rain. You will quite possibly, however, take a car autocrossing or to a race track, and you may well modify the car to be faster still for that purpose. Of course those modifications (stiffer suspension, etc) might slow the car down on the street, which must only confuse those Germans further.

In summary to Germans it's about going quickly on the street, any place any time, while in America it's more about having fun... It's not hard to see why the Germans have trouble understanding that ;-)

996FLT6

And what is your point? We Americans are clueless- enlighten us bout the joy of driving that u have and we have missed for a whole century? Mike

Terry L

To me, what Porsche has done to the GT3 makes perfect sense. Pretty much everyone agrees that the 997.1 is too soft in springing, so they make it stiffer but retain PASM for flexibility. Front end access is a problem for some so they give you the option of the lift mechanism. The motor mount solution sounds intiguing because the present hydraulic mounts are too soft for the track but solid motor mounts are both unpleasant and a serious maintenance issue in a street car (think about driveline and chassis stresses imposed by solid mounts which are transferred to the rest of the car.) Improvements in aero are always welcome, perhaps at the cost of a cleaner look. Adding defeatable PSM was inevitable although sad; sunroof may be optional; and no one is complaining about 3.8 liters or another 20 hp. My only criticism is the centerlocks which are cool but come on... So I would happily trade for a new one if economic reality could be ignored. No one should be upset that this amazing compromise car is not a Cup car because that is not its intended purpose.