ShakeNBake

One person's awesome is another person's boredom. I find virtually nothing about the new 991 exciting or awesome. The speed is impressive, but that's it. They have gutted everything that made that a rewarding car to learn how to drive - it's turned into a video game from my POV. The RS is still interesting to me, but only because it has some amount of motorsport connection - or theoretically will. Funny that while I think this, my experience is mainly with the 997, and the 996 is to the 997 as the 997 is to the 991 in terms of speed improvements and driver aids. So I'm not one who should really say anything.

But lap times and 0-60 are quantifiable measurements that people have been trained to care about, so I'm not surprised that cars are becoming less and less involving as human skill limitations that hinder progress are being replaced by computers and automation (and weight, and complexity, and ... )

Beantown Kman

I have tremendous respect for PeteVB. I always enjoy his posts. But I find myself at odds with him re some of the above points.

I've owned 3 Caymans going back to 2006 when they first came out. I've logged over 100 track days and 1,000's of miles on those cars. I've driven Caymans in all sorts of configurations, with all sorts of modifications, from fully stock to full race builds. One feature they all have in common: they're all relatively easy to drive. Their handling is predictable. And, in general, you have to screw up pretty badly to get bitten. They probably make you feel like you're a better driver than you really are. From my point of view, this doesn't make a Cayman "unchallenging".

Once we all take deliveries of our GT4's perhaps we will all agree that, hard as it may be to swallow, they are momentum cars. Tons of grip relative to hp. So what? If you want to lay down some really fast laps you will still need to execute all the fundamental skills very well. When you are driving at or near the limit of a Cayman, or any car for that matter, it's a challenge for most of us. I don't need to feel like I am constantly "catching" my car from disaster to feel like I am being challenged.

In the final analysis, I guess one's satisfaction with the MT GT4 will come down to whether or not it meets your individual expectations. I expect that driving the GT4 at 9/10 or 10/10 will be great fun and will provide plenty of challenge for most of us. And for those of you who feel unchallenged, and maybe like you've mastered this car, perhaps you should install a full data system so you can see just how much performance you're leaving on the table.

acey81

But the same is true for the GT3. Granted the extra power will give you higher speeds and therefor it will automatically feel a little bit more challenging, but I am amazed at how many drivers just stick it in Sport Plus (auto) and leave all the systems on (or maybe partially off) and just go. The GT3 these days will practically drive itself. The same goes for the new Ferraris with slip angle control just to make you feel / look a little better.

Granted these cars will give you something else on full attack with the systems off, but how often do you see that? Most drivers seem to be fine with letting the systems drive the car and just hang along for the ride.

The GT4 is more honest in this respect and at least demands a little more of the driver. But the chassis and mid engine layout makes the car very well behaved, which surely can't be a bad thing?

Petevb

On one level I agree. You can find challenge in trying to do virtually anything perfectly, and I can't claim to be able to get everything out of any car. However there are still clearly different levels of difficulty.

Virtually anyone can jump into a 918 and go ludicrously quickly. A slick shod 917-30 will theoretically keep up around the circuit, but put a mere mortal in the car and they'd be lucky to complete a single lap. Managing shifting, turbo lag, brake lockup, tire temperatures, wheelspin at 130 mph... Just surviving is a challenge. And unlike the 918, it's still challenging and involving to drive even if you're not trying to shave that last 10th. Learning to manage power off a corner in that car could be a life's work for many of us, and when you finally get it right, even once, you'll know it. In the 918 you just stomp and steer, and it's simply easier and less involving because of it even if you're doing the same speed.

I find cars that are too easy get old quickly- I've had some very good ones that simply bored me out of my skull on a closed course, regardless of how fast they were. Cars that are too hard can go the opposite way and can scare you- I've had some of those too. I don't pretend that I could use all of a 917, but I do think some of that challenge makes a car more involving and exciting. The GT4 was awfully quick at the autocross, but I looked around at the guys I was competing against that were turning similar times. An early long hood race car with slicks and a 3.6. A slick shod, caged, no roof 914. A lightweight, 600+ wheel horsepower GT2 on Hoosiers. I was having a far easier time of it.

Easier doesn't equal better. I'm missing some of that adrenaline rush, challenge and involvement that makes some cars extreme. Of course I'll admit I'm a bit of a nutcase with a thing for big engined early 911s that have been trying to kill me for over a decade, or my mildly homicidal BMW 1M, traction control always off. Hence I notice that from the factory the balance has moved away from challenge particularly quickly recently, and I miss it. I'm not singling the GT4 out- I bought it because I feel it's one of the most challenging cars Porsche makes today. My complaint is that's not enough. Porsche doesn't make a challenging, scary car any more- no CGT, no GT2, not even a lowly RS 4.0. And I do miss that.

Archimedes

I disagree on the challenge nonsense; just more blather by the 'older was always better' crowd. The newer cars allow drivers to experience more on the race track and have simply moved the 'challenge' point in the car farther up the risk curve. That's the real downside to all the new technologies that assist drivers to get up to speed more quickly. The edge is now occurring at a much higher speed and the laws of physics really don't care once you cross it.

Seriously, F1 cars have more driver aiding technology in them than any car rolling onto a local track for a track day. Does that mean they're less challenging to drive than an old RS?

Funny thing is, if you ignore the forum harping and listen to the world class drivers discuss the latest crop of high end cars, they all rave about how awesome they are to drive and how they want one of whatever it is they're driving. You rarely hear one of them say, you know I really miss my 911T...

Archimedes

So you'd rather they make a scary, more dangerous car that only a few purported super drivers can handle at speed, rather than a safer, and faster, car that's actually fun to drive and accessible to more people? That's your argument?

IrishAndy

I must be having an odd day... I completely get both arguments. Either one provides its own challenges in its own right.

I do disagree with the F1 technology piece, though. These guys are trying to win the ultimate prize and so technology is everything to the race teams. Each time stability control is banned to try to make the drivers more of a differentiator the teams try to find a way around it through technology to make the car more of the differentiator, because winning is ultimately everything. Sure the drivers still have challenges (think of the sheer reaction/timing precision needed driving around Monaco), but as pointed out those challenges are WAY up the risk curve... like a computer game, where it's all reaction times vs. subtlety.

I don't want to travel that far up the risk curve just to find my 'fix' and I don't want a road car that tries to cover up my mistakes for the sake of being faster. I think having to row your own gears is a huge source of differentiation and a pleasurable thing to try to master. Others see that there are lots of other challenges on the track (lines, breaking points etc.) to still give the person sitting behind the wheel lots to do. I totally get that too, but on the road I'm not at maximum attack and I'm not clipping apexes, so mastering three pedals with two feet is a large part of the challenge and enjoyment in that setting. For others it may not matter.

Petevb

It's funny about F1- a number of F1 drivers have recently complained that the new cars are too easy to drive. Yet they have been limited in performance and electronic assistance for years, both to up the challenge and limit speed. Meanwhile the value of these old cars you mention is skyrocketing, even relatively recent ones like the GT3 RS 3.8, on the back of a driving experience you can no longer get.

There's always the "faster is better" crowd. It's been that way for 100 years and that's still much of the market. Yet those days are numbered IMHO. Cars that are faster than you can use are getting more and more affordable- P85D: 2.8 seconds to 60. Hellcat: 204 mph for 50k. And these are 4 door sedans. Porsche has been intentionally slowing their rate of performance progress because they know: Today's 918 is tomorrow's mid-priced Porsche, and the 918's faster than a Group B car. Lives were lost proving no one can use that performance on the road.

So it'll soon be cheap to buy far more performance than you'll ever need, and it will beg the question: how much do you want?

At that point it becomes clear: it's not about going faster. Faster is easy. It's about how you go fast. It's about how the speed feels, or more important how it makes you feel. Otherwise you might as well be a passenger, and we should all be driving 4wd GT-Rs.

Same day, same course I've driven a '67 912 and a '95 993 to exactly the same time to the 10th. The 993 was tidy, powerful and competent. The 912 was drifting through every corner. Guess which was more fun?

This isn't a new vs old thing, though ever more competent cars makes it seem that way. It's 4wd vs RWD. It's manual vs automatic. Electric vs gas. Traction and stability control on vs off. It's competence vs involvement. You're welcome to competence- I'll choose involvement.

I'm not saying Porsche needs to make every car hard to drive. I'm saying Porsche does need a truly challenging car, or at least significantly more challenging than the GT4.

jphughan

I'm really enjoying this discussion, and I too can see both sides. On the one hand, I totally get Petevb's point that cars are becoming ludicrously fast, with the only barrier to entry being a sufficiently healthy bank account (which is probably a problem unto itself, but I digress), and even that barrier is falling because performance gets cheaper over time. And I think Pete is absolutely right that if you make a car that can go faster, it will be able to do those "legacy" speeds of yesteryear's cars with less effort than those yesteryear cars where that speed was their maximum potential -- and therefore if you're not running a modern car right up to its limit, then you'll have an easier time going that speed. But not everyone is willing to do the speeds required to push a modern car right up to its limits. I'm not sure I'd be willing to in some of today's cars.

However, while I agree that I don't want all of the challenge removed from the equation since that would indeed be tantamount to being a passenger in an autonomous car with sufficiently advanced programming to emulate a pro race driver, I'm also not sure I want a car that I feel is trying to kill me whenever I dare to push it a bit. That reminds me of the Top Gear test between the E92 M3, the C63 AMG, and the RS4, where Clarkson said he loved that every time he got out of the C63 he was able to rejoice in having survived the experience, and Hammond asked him if he didn't think that "feature" might wear a bit with time. But for people who DO want that feeling, I would argue that there are still modern cars that offer that, such as the Vette and especially the Viper. Yes, even they've been toned down in their latest iterations, but I don't see that going away because carmakers are under pressure to make newer cars faster, not slower, and as I said earlier, a car that can go faster will be able to go slower more easily than the last car. Or Pete do you just want Porsche to offer a car with a Vette/Viper personality? Either way, the fact remains that even today there is a continuum of car experiences: the ones that you know will bite you hard if you provoke them, the ones that are (highly educational!) pussycats to drive, such as the Miata and BRZ, and then cars in the middle that require you to work for the best experience but will also work with you and teach you to become a better driver rather than simply daring you to push them. I think the GT4 is in that third category (Motor Trend said as much in their review), and frankly that's one of its main appeals to me.

The problem as I see it is that the gap between the capabilities of modern cars and the skill level of the average driver is only getting wider because the former is improving and the latter is not -- in fact it may well be declining. Hell, modern cars are now outstripping the capabilities of even the average HPDE driver, never mind the average driver overall. But I don't see what can be done about that by the carmakers. I suppose Porsche could make cars that really couldn't go much faster than most drivers were comfortable driving, which would require said drivers to work to achieve those speeds, but I think that would create a marketing problem. I definitely don't think that deliberately making a car harder to drive would work, though. Even if there were a sufficiently large market for such a car, which I doubt there is, that would absolutely create liability problems. Porsche just had some negative exposure after Paul Walker's death in a CGT, so imagine the circus that would erupt if it were discovered that Porsche made a car where its being difficult and scary to drive was not just a consequence but an actual design goal.

acey81

To find the perfect balance is hard. I know a lot of people love the MX-5 and I guess Toyota tried with the GT86, but none of those car do anything for me, despite being "accessible" and low speeds.

Either way, the high speed exploitability thing is becoming less of a problem now days as legislation and more traffic on roads makes it more and more difficult to exploit a car on the public road anyway, and on track, well, that is a different ballgame. But if you are buying a GT4 for doing skids it's obviously the wrong car.

Track Junkie

To get some needed stimulus from the GT4, buy 19" wheels and 265 width tires for the rear. That would provide the challenge and stimulation we crave.

Petevb

I think over-reaction to the CGT is largely responsible for where we find ourselves today. Not just from crashes, but from owners not being able to get off the line without stalling- no one spends $600k to look dumb or feel incompetent.

However trade-offs are constantly being made that define how tricky a car is to drive. Can traction control be defeated? It can't in many cars, one could argue they are safer for the general public. Does the car "safely" understeer, or is it neutral? Do you fit extra wide 295 R compound rubber in the rear (GT4) or make do with the more playful, more adjustable 265 summer tires (Spyder).

One person's scary is another's involving, so there is no "correct" solution. Instead I simply think Porsche needs to spread the table and continue to provide cars like the GT2 alongside cars like the 991 Turbo S- I don't think they'll get sued for that... yet.
I said that exactly to someone else here the other day. Add in a lower R&P and I think you're most of the way there. No question the 981 Spyder's more playful and accessible on 265 20s- there's some talk of doing a little back to back testing to explore this further.

vantage

Pete, do you feel a bit underwhelmed with the car? How do you enjoy driving the car on the road? If the car feels overtired even on the track then it will certainly feel even more so on the street.

IrishAndy

Funny thing is I don't find it over-tired on the street and I'm still running it in. It's easy to get it very tail-happy in a second gear corner without much effort, and I found that virtually impossible in my 997 on less sticky tires due to the weight balance.

Petevb

The GT4 is roughly what I was expecting, but I admit I feel it's missing just a bit.

I found the Spyder more fun on the street. Not just the 265 vs 295Rs, but the X73 analog setup seems a bit more consistent. The GT4 can get bouncy and feel underdamped over the wrong patch of pavement- it's rare, but enough to get you thinking. With the MPSC2s up to temp you need to be carrying lots of speed to get the GT4 moving around on throttle in anything but 1st, at least with the stock bar positions. The net result is that the Spyder's the more accessible and talkative chassis.

For the track/ competition the GT4's tire package makes more sense, but then it feels a bit under-powered largely due to the tall gearing. So overall I'm at about an 8 out of 10 so far. But we'll see how it unfolds.

I'll admit I'm being slightly unfair, and of course I'm grading hard. I'm mentally comparing the GT4 to the Spyder on the street, where the GT4's slightly compromised so it can excel on the track. I'm also comparing it to benchmarks that are unfair: RS 4.0, modified cars like Cayman 3.8L engine swaps, etc. Hence I'm putting it against a very high standard. It's clearly missing something against that standard however (for me) and I'm trying to put my finger on exactly what that is.

With that said, there isn't another new street/ track car I'd get instead. Street/ nice weather car only I'd get the Spyder. Track only an RS (or a real race car) would probably do it. Splitting the difference it's still the GT4, it's just a bit frustrating in that if feels a hair's breadth away from greatness...
Tires up to temp? The MPSC2s do need some heat...