michaelalex3

I'm considering a 958.1 GTS or Turbo for my next daily (hoping to find one with around 70k miles). I've read a lot about the differences between the two, and I think I'd prefer a Turbo.

However, I'm wondering if the Turbo has higher running costs or more reliability issues? Given that turbochargers add more complication and potential issues compared to a NA engine, that would make sense to me. I've done some research and don't see any big issues specific to the Turbo (assuming the variocam issue is fixed, and that's for all early 958s). So it seems I don't have too much more to worry about going for a Turbo compared to a GTS? The Turbos are cheaper too, so that would certainly be nice.

Thanks!

RAudi Driver

I've got one available with the amount of miles you're interested in 80k miles. The only thing I have left to do is a new seat cover for the driver's side. Extensive maintenance work done to her.

deilenberger

There are no significant reliability issues involving the turbo vs non-turbo V8 engined cars. I am surprised the GTS is going for more money since the only thing it has that the Turbo doesn't have, is the lack of turbos and the more wear prone Alcantara interior.

911-997

GTS is going for more money is because of the GTS body kit. Not all turbo's are equipped with GTS body kit (infact alot of them are not equipped from my research)

Blaine Sellie

I've looked into a new seat cover as well, the bottom. I see them for about $985 and wonder if I should buy one since "Cream" might be hard to come by in the future. It appears someone already tried to spray it!

Tough to install?

B

RAudi Driver

If you're handy and take your time, I don't think anything is tough to install. You can do it. I have yet to undertake the task but an tackling it head on when I do.

TMC.

I've built 3 sets of C7 Corvette Competition seats. There's a bit of a learning curve on the first one, but I wouldn't hesitate to tackle seat covers on this car.

DAVfoto

Gts technically are not going for more money. You may think that when you see a 13-14 gts higher in price than an 11-12 turbo. Compare year to year with same mileage. Turbo is still higher. The gts just closed the gap a little as it will retain value a little better. But it isn’t higher in value right now.

capitalst

I owe two Cayenne's. One is a 2005 Cayenne Turbo with 140k on it. Runs like a champ no issues. My 2012 Cayenne Turbo now has 73k on it runs like new. These engines are built to last for a long time. I know many turbo guys that have well over 200k on them still going strong. Turbo is always the way to go. Nothing beats that punch you get when they spool up especially in the cold.

Rocketcar

I am interested in this too.

I am looking at 2012/2013 GTS or Turbo with around 50-70k miles and am torn between the two.

GTS pros
spec is fine and sounds great
GTS neg
acceleration I guess, but I like the way they wind up.

Turbo pro
Turbo's with the GTS bodykit are just as nice.
Faster than the GTS and more torque

Turbo neg
Don't sound as nice as the GTS
Some turbo lag and not such an instantaneous throttle response as a NA engine.

Is the fuel economy on a turbo the same as a GTS?
Are Turbo's as reliable as a GTS?

I will put a 2 year OPC warranty on any car that I will buy, but I am looking at buying one of these and running it long term outside the warranty.

deilenberger

You have it a bit backwards - Porsche always does the Turbo styling first - then borrows a lot of it (sometimes all) for the GTS. GTS's look like Turbos, Turbos look like Turbos. The interior differences are minor - mostly a question if you really like Alcantara or not. For me - it's fine for a headliner, but I don't want to hold it (steering wheel) or sit on it (seats) - and that's standard on the GTS.

Fuel economy depends on your expression with the fun-pedal. Driven in a similar manner there is no reason the MPG wouldn't be identical. One plus on the turbo - crossing high elevations like the Eisenhower pass in Colorado you still have the availability of full power in the turbo. Not so in the GTS. The turbo can compensate for a less-dense atmosphere.

Reliability - there are no real fail points on the turbo setup reported regularly here. Once in a while, a wastegate may misbehave, but it's really rare. I've heard of one turbo self-destructing itself. Porsche has a lot of turbo experience and it seems they know how to make them reliable. Basic engine reliability - probably exactly the same. The differences in the internals of the engines (lower compression and some additional oil squirters under the pistons on the turbos) are really minimal. Nothing like bearings blowing out or other failure modes caused by overstressing the engines. Some people with tunes have gotten 800HP out of them reliably.

garrett376

GTS has a different final drive ratio vs the Turbo, so cruising RPMs are higher = worse fuel economy.

garrett376

I'm not sure how can one gauge or measure turbo lag in a 5000lb vehicle with an auto transmission, but the turbo is undeniably faster than the GTS at all speeds.

deilenberger

Ah - I forgot about that. Is it enough to be significant?

garrett376

The GTS's consumption is listed as 14 city/16 combined/20 highway versus the Turbo's 15/17/22. A bit of a hit.