PDK vs Manual
 

There's been a lot of speculation going around about PDK option for the GT4 future builds. If this is a go , what would you opt for? PDK or a manual? I have an allocation set for around this time next year... I'd love to drive a manual but if PDK means better performance than i may just opt for that..:icon107:

One of the main reasons I'm even buying a GT4 is that it's a manual. If it were PDK only, I'd be looking at a 350R. I'd get a GT3 if I wanted an auto.

If they offer it and I can get an allocation, I would sell mine. I love the involvement of the manual but I'd kill for this car as the best dual purpose DD/track whore ever made for around 100k.

I plan to DD mine at least initially, but between the low ride height, long overhang, and OEM tire choice, I think this is far more track-biased than DD biased. I agree that if the price point is kept narrowly around $100K it might be the best contender (although the Boxster Spyder would give it a major run for its money), but if you look at lower price points, other cars like the Cayman GTS, GT350, and M3/4 I think make a much better DD proposition while still retaining track chops. I guess it just depends which one you want more of, and considering I'm moving from an E9x M3 to a GT4, I guess I've answered that question for myself. Way back when, Motor Trend called the 2009 M3 Sedan the best all-around car ever made partly because it struck the balance you describe so well and so much better than anything else at the time.

As much as I like PDK, after 2 weeks of having the manual it's the best drivers car there is (imo).

I'd MAYBE "upgrade" to PDK if some other options were also added in the PDK version. I'm slightly biased for my wife to be able to drive the car too. I also was stuck in traffic for 20 minutes and I forgot how much that sucks with manual.

PDK will likely be an option priced over $5,000 with the sport chrono package. I would probably opt for the manual, which is soooo...nice! I would only buy the PDK for different reasons than most--to left foot brake and enable my wife to drive the car.

You are going to be pleasantly surprised how mild mannered this car is for DD use. Ingress and egress is easy. Suspension is not jarring but actually comfortable and firm. Exhaust is perfect. The biggest issue is overhang/scraping which is very similar to my CR.

What seats do you have?

Have you driven a GT4 yet?

My car has the 18 ways.

Manual all the way. That's the reason I got rid of my GTR.

I'm bored when I drive an automatic. Any automatic. It's OK when I'm driving my 7 series, but truth be told, I'd take that in a MT too if they made it.
I missed the opportunity to buy a GT3 or turbo in a real manual, so the second this was announced I started making calls.

I thought the whole point about the GT4 concept was about maximum involvement and emotion vs. technology and pure lap times (GT3). After making one of the most enthusiast-pleasing moves in a long time, could the GT department really slip up again that quickly? Probably, but I hope not.

There are a million other ways to get into a PDK sports car in the Porsche world... (In fact with every other model they make). Can't there be one single manual-only Porsche left in the world?

I hope they don't sell it with a PDK. That'll dilute what the GT4 stands for. But who am I kidding...even the new Z06 comes in an auto and sells like hotcakes...

Totally agree. I think the GT4 should stay manual and if they made a GT4RS then go with the fastest option for pure track applications. MSRP of say 115k with Sport Chrono, LWBs, and a few interesting color options all included (what am I smoking now).

This. If a PDK GT4 were created, I would have to seriously reconsider the value in getting my intended vanity plate "LOL PDK".

Curious how much shorter the gearing will be with pdk vs manual. Anyone know the difference between the normal caymans?

Also it will probably be the same transmission as in the caymans that I believe is only 3900 so I'm not sure why 5k+ option is being thrown around along with a required chrono? Is chrono even required in other pdk for functionality?

It's not required but for a GT4 you're going to want a few different transmission "personalities". One for DD or creeping around, Sport for street driving with some pace, and Sport Plus for redline holding fun and track driving.

In my prior 997.2 C2S I couldn't imagine not having Sports Chrono for these options.

This is how they should do preorders for the 'next' GT4...

You put your name on the list at the dealer and specify if you want manual or PDK...

If you asked for manual you get put on the list for the GT4
If you asked for PDK you get a $100 off certificate for a 991 Targa 4

I blame Moscow mules for what just happened...

To further qualify my thinking, I would love to be able to DD the GT4 and the PDK would make that easier. I have no concern DD'ing it as a manual either. I DD'd my '09 CS for 2 years. It was manual and never once did it bother me. FWIW, I'm currently DD'ing an E92 M3 and it's a great DD but absolute crap on the track; too soft; incapable of 3 laps without killing the brakes in OE config. Sure you can mod it but I'm getting to old to mod cars. I want them OEM now.

If Porsche makes a GT4 PDK, it means I can have the best of both worlds: an automatic GT car at a price point I can live with piling on miles as well as a manual GT car (my .2 GT3) that I can retire to fun weekend drives and the occasional track day. That is my perfect garage.

It's an interesting issue. My 1M was manual only. I believe it's worth more now because it was: the car makes a clear statement- it doesn't appeal to most, but is more desirable to the minority because of it.

For similar reasons I do think the GT4 "brand" and long term value will be diluted when the PDK comes out. Yet I support choice, so I've got a delima.

There is no question that the GT4 will be faster with a PDK, just as the GT3 clearly is. Yet for my use it will make a car that already lacks some challenge even easier. I not only won't consider it, I suspect having the option probably makes the GT4 overall less attractive to me.

Like it or not, we buy cars largely because of the statements they make. As much as I hate to admit it. If I was Porsche I'd probably make separate models that share parts but have distinct identities to avoid the issue. Certainly the response to the GT4 indicates there is the volume to jusify the manual model on its own, and it's pretty clear the demand exists to double sales again with a separate PDK version. Perhaps that's enough to justify separate identities to make each version more valuable?

+1

There's no way to justify a manual from a performance perspective. Other than its just more fun!. If i could of ordered a PDK on my GT4 I still would ordered the MT. Just like the14&15 CS's i had. But then again im a dinosaur. carl

Don't need the chrono for that. Its a GT car and by nature doesn't need the DD section - see GT3.

Would still opt for manual, even if PDK was optional. If I wanted fast, I would have sprung for a GT3. At least the 9k engine can make things interesting? OTOH, I found PDK 911S very boring. On a more competent chassis like Cayman, I can imagine it being even more so.

I thought the whole premise for the GT4 was to offer a GT car with a manual transmission, because the 991 GT3 went with PDK and away from a manual.
Just look at the current prices for 997 GT3's, they are going through the roof.
In fact many are selling for more than the original MSRP's.
If you want a quick car with PDK get a 991GT3 or Carrera GTS with PDK.
If you want more driver involvement get a GT4.
Enough said.

I am guessing PAG will indeed introduce the PDK option for the GT4.

The car (and its press, more accurately) has taken the world by storm. Much moreso than PAG itself even expected.

The core idea behind the GT4, from a business (not a driver or enthusiast) perspective, is to have a $100K entry level GT car that significantly widens the GT-car customer base and brings newer younger buyers into the fold. (The 991 GT3 is a $150K car now, and headed up from there.) 'The true Porsche sports cars', as seen the by the press, are the GT models as the main line 911's and Cayman's and Boxsters have become commoditized, and 'softened' for the mass market.

So given this, it would make perfect sense that the GT4 would further widen its $100K entry level GT-car appeal by offering an automatic shifting version... the introduction of manual version came FIRST to appease the loudly-complaining enthusiast segment in the installed base who hated the 991 GT3 being PDK only... so we get the manual GT4. 'You guys, here you go...we heard you."... as predicted, we snapped them up with none to spare.

Now, the rest of the entry level GT car droolers can have an automatic version... instead of their $85K Bimmer M3/4 or Jag F-Type, or C7 Corvette Z06. THESE buyers are who PAG was after from the start with this car.

PAG - for all their skill in doing great sports cars - are capitalist FIRST and FOREMOST. And they won't miss an opportunity to capitalize.

Cannot agree more. The S2000, 1M, 997 + 996 GT3 cars, etc all offered manual as the only available transmission. That statement is huge in my opinion. Coincidentally these are also cars that ended up holding value reasonably well even though there are better and greater cars out there all the time. I really hope PAG does not dilute this factor on the GT4, although personally deep down I do think they will due to the overwhelming demand. Having a pure MT model/variant really means something to me.

I wouldn't be that interested in the GT4 as much had they offered PDK as an option, and probably wouldn't have jumped on the car.

(not here to argue MT or PDK is the better one, I'm only saying that it matters to me that only MT is offered in my preference for the car)

If they do sell PDK, I'd hope it would be the PDK-S that would be like the one in the GT3. I'd probably buy it.

PDK vs Manual
 

+1 Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, as Pete said, our MT GT4's just dropped in value. No question about that.

I expect the performance difference between a MT GT4 and a PDK one will be striking largely as a result of the gearing differences.

This will be the first GT car offered with both transmissions. It will be interesting to see what the market wants.

Personally, I have no interest in owning a PDK car. The lack of driver involvement eliminates too much of the fun of driving these cars. But I sure do wish I could have a closer ratio gear set on my MT car.

I put my name on a GT4 PDK over a month ago. My yellow GT4 should be here in October and wifey is tons more excited than I am. She can drive a 6 speed. No problem chirping the tires going into 2nd gear either. So if I do get a PDK GT4 there will be no option to sell the 6 speed. Doubt she will allow it.

good manual vs pdk info from cup forum
 

towards the bottom of this page:

https://rennlist.com/forums/porsche-...nounced-6.html

That's actually the reason I'm keeping my GT-R. It's a very different car. AWD, turbo, dual-clutch auto, heavy vs rear wheel, NA, manual and much lighter. Each offers a very different experience. Both fun, but very different.

So to answer the OP question, I'd still get the manual.

Dont forget, bottom line its all about selling cars. Selling regular Caymans is like selling heart disease, there is no demand. The GT4 is the only Cayman with any demand. Its also a parts bin car they don't have to make anything special, all the components are in production.

i do think it may dilute the value of the first run but thats not Porsche's problem. Ive driven every PDK on the current line GT3,Turbo S,GTS,981CS, and they are terrific. By far the best on the market but every time im in one after 5 minutes i leave it in auto. For me theres something about the mechanical connection you get that enhances the experience. carl

If they're going to put a PDK in it I'd rather they called that car something else, like 'GT5', or 'GT6', or 'Corvette'.

The Cayman GT4 should be a clear marker in the Porsche GT lineage, and the introduction of PDK would dilute that horribly. It's for driving enjoyment: not for daily driving or for additional 10ths around a track.

+1

Didn't seem to dilute the awesomeness of the GT3 or the GT3RS.

To some degree. There are a lot of people selling them now because pdk has gotten boring to them. If the current GT3 had a manual option I believe it would be even more popular than it is. I just lol at all the comments made by people that would chose the pdk because it's a few seconds faster. Nobody on this board is racing for money. At. Least not the ones buying regular gt4's or gt3's. They are weekend fun and occasional take to the track for fun cars. I believe the only reason Porsche puts a pdk in a base GT car is for the best 0-60 times for the press. We all know that's the first thing people look at to see how " fast" a car is.

There is whole new GT market now that wants PDK

I'm not a professional driver... hell, I'm not even a great driver. I couldn't give two craps about lap times. I want to drive and enjoy the car so I would not be interested in a PDK.

And while I understand the business case, I do think it would be a bit of a shame if Porsche does offer the PDK in the GT4 because the transmission choice in this car is part of what makes it so special.

I think it's more complex than that.

Usability is a major concern for Porsche these days. Let's face it: most us spend our days working to afford these cars, not honing our skills using them. Yet we consistently demand more speed, and Porsche needs to comply to keep up with the market. The result can be cars too tricky for customers to handle, the Carrera GT being example A.

To address this Porsche has largely focused on making speed more accessible with this latest generation. The 918, 991 GT3 and Turbo S are all incredibly easy (relatively) to go massively quickly in, while the really challenging, "scary" cars like the GT2 and CGT are nowhere to be seen. PDK is perhaps the most obvious culprit, but it's just one of a number of technologies making performance more accessible. And let's face it: for the average customer this strategy is probably the correct one.

Unfortunately there is a downside. A number of us are starting to lament the lack of challenge with this latest crop of Porsches, in part because it's challenge that makes for a lasting relationship, not speed. An early 911 is tricky to get right, but a bit like golf or racing that makes it all the sweeter when you do. Speed itself meanwhile is just a means to an end- it's really the experience we're chasing, and going fast without the challenge and involvement is a bit like being a passenger instead of being the driver.

Walter Röhrl has stated that he prefers the older GT3s to the newer ones: he feels like he needs to drive them. The GT4 is Porsche's nod towards that old involvement, but it falls slightly short: the manual is great but you rarely need to use it, it's significantly over-tired for its power, and it doesn't love to slide around. So while it's a step in the right direction, I'm still waiting for Porsche to bring back the challenge. I want a car that's I'll never fully master, but that will keep me coming back trying.

Many will find enough challenge with PDK depending on both skill level and how they use their cars. And frankly if I'm flat out racing I'm more than challenged enough. Unfortunately that's pretty rare for me- what about the rest of the time?

Fair point, but I think that's entirely down to personal opinion. It did make the GT3 a less aspirational car for me, personally. It was my absolute dream car, but it is no longer; amazing though it no doubt is. I'll always see the 997GT3 as a high water mark, but then I'm not who Porsche is marketing to, so it doesn't really matter what I think.

The other issue with autos is that they are technology driven, and thus always improving in a way that makes them 'the best thing ever' when they are introduced, and 'not so great' only a few years later when compared with the new latest and greatest. History judges them unkindly as a result.

Getting a 993 with Tiptronic probably sounded awesome at the time. Ditto for a Ferrari F355 with the F1 gearbox. Now even the first gen PDK gets knocks. Not a reason never to get an auto, but I love the idea of Porsche leaving one niche model as manual-only. Just one.

Just speaking from my own experience.. The reason I am not in a gt3 is because I cannot get a MT. I may be oldschool in the fact that I wish to stay engaged..

I recall AP stating somewhere that it was current lack of resources that took away transmission choice, but the desire was there to do both.
Hopefully this will change, seeing the popularity of the GTs.

I believe that having choices is always good. PDK in any Porsche is a no-go for me (and for my wife, incidentally). That said, I wouldn't begrudge anyone who would prefer to have PDK. Just don't force me to get it.

That is correct. The Evo interview I believe. Selfishly I hope they stay too busy, because they've created the perfect niche model as it is.

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 ... )

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. ;)

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?

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Good discussion and a fun read... thanks for your continued comments Pete. Can't wait till my GT4 arrives.

One element of all this that I want to throw in, is that in this very forum and on this very thread, we are a self selected population. We are old (or older) enthusiast drivers with a set of life experiences formed largely from older, stick-shift non-electronically-nannied performance cars.

Just like jazz music and jazz aficionados... it is truly truly great thing, but the audience is aging and dying and not being replaced at a good enough rate to sustain the genre. Not to be too morbid about us here, but it is analogous...we are here and we are largely preaching to the choir. Porsche being a growth-seeking business enterprise has to realize this and it must ensure its future. And the future is a different set of buyers - younger, different life experiences, with different driving skills because of those life experiences.

The GT4 - being an 'affordable, entry level GT car' - was targeted at P-Car buyers whom are generally NOT here, not like us. Not us. We are buying up these cars, but the car was launched NOT REALLY FOR US. Our rabid interest in this car has surprised and taught Porsche management something, for sure. And it seems like at least one niche branch of the line will be supported and developed with enthusiasts like us in mind.

So kinda like the Honda element then? A car designed as a first car for gen X/Y, but super popular with boomers? :cheers: I jest

I see what you're saying. I'm generally confused by all of this. I think it might have been an accident that the GT4 is pushing the right buttons. The competing dynamics of the stoic porsche enthusiast and the attractive entry magnet that is mopping up BMW and asian enthusiasts as the economic tides raise boats into this price range is leading to an interesting, but unresolvable discussion. I retreated from the "betrayal" of the 991GT3 to the sanctuary of some level of purity in the GT4, but I think it's generally temporary given the sentiment here towards broadening the attractiveness of the GT4. I'm going to have to learn to love cars for what what they are, and not what I wish they would be.

I see your point in a way, but let's also not forget that we aren't that many years removed from more analog cars. 997 gt3, 1m, Lotus, cayman r / spider, s2000, likely several others. All cars 5-10 years old. Not sure if I have proved your point or mine, I suppose it's a matter of perspective! Maybe if you are 20 years old, the concept of a stick shift car with defeatable electronics is foreign unless you grew up driving older sports cars. I would say those in the 30s and later probably all grew up with at least Somewhat analog cars.

I would agree that for someone who's first sports car is a Cayman or even a Gt4, it's going to feel awfully analog.

If Porsche announced that they will be making the next GT3 with a choice of a manual or PDK, how many of you would buy one?

I would also factor in RoW to make the discussion less gloomy. Only the US is so heavy on auto gearboxes. Most of the rest of the world are still driving stick, and on lots of challenging windy roads with lots of crowning and elevation changes... Even those in their 20's. That will change eventually, of course, but it's not as bleak worldwide as it may appear to us sitting in the US.

I'm not so sure about that. BMW made a 6MT version of the latest M5 and M6 only because the U.S. wanted one, and it was only offered in the U.S. I agree that manuals are more prevalent overall in ROW, but it seems that in the performance car segment, the U.S. may be hanging onto the manuals more tightly than elsewhere.

You do have a point. I definitely think the major manufacturers want to move away from manuals on performance cars and they market them well over there in terms of being faster, etc. (same stuff Porsche does over here, though I think it's really for emissions and fuel economy). But most enthusiasts can't afford exotic metal over there so they're driving around in manual Civic type R's, Subarus, MX5s, etc. until/if they can eventually afford something more exotic.

I was back in Northern Ireland a couple of weeks back and it reminded my just how few cars had autos, and how challenging the roads were.

Agree!

My mum that's almost 70 years old have never driven an Automatic car. All Volvos and whatever over the years have been MT. She would freak out if she had to drive an automatic.
Every time a pick up a rental car in the UK it's a MT.

So my impression is that double clutch and paddles are really cool in Europe. It's kind of exotic.

And if you ask me if I would buy a MT or PDK in the 991gt3/RS the answer would be PDK.
Drove the GT4 a couple of weeks ago. The gearbox is nice and with a good feel. But with the tall second gear I would probably prefer the PDK from the 991.3

Very well said, Golfnut

- Porsche feels EXCTLY the same way. The GT4 and future iterations were built to be an affordable GT4 to reach a wider audience. They were a bit caught off guard when 911 people and car aficionados scooped them up early. PDK will represent about 50% of GT4 sales to US per Preuninger.

Very good point on the 'exotic' perception. Formula 1 is great, but this is one of the ills it pushes. Everyone wants a flappy paddle gearbox because it's 'racy'. When I was younger I used to watch touring cars and it made me want a sequential gearbox... and, hell, I didn't even know what a sequential gearbox was!

What??? No official announcement of PDK for the GT4 yet, and now Porsche/AP expects fully HALF of all US-bound GT4s to have PDK? Unless this long allocation drought is because the next wave will ONLY be PDK or Porsche will in fact produce far more examples than people are expecting, I have a hard time imagining this happening.

Honestly, I'd be very interested (because of the manual gearbox) but probably wouldn't buy one because:
1. I've already got my allocation for my GT4
2. My GT4 is a HUGE splurge for me so spending even more money on a car just isn't likely.

While I suspect the majority of the members here are older, some of us aren't old and dying (not yet, anyway).

Some of us simply prefer the challenge and additional interaction provide by a three pedal manual.

My thoughts exactly... did I miss something?

Cheaper cars in Europe are manual. More expensive cars (including Porsches) seem to sell more units as automatics than manuals there.

I often wonder about this- nature vs nurture. Do I prefer things because they are actually "better", or just I've imprinted on them? Undoubtedly there is some of each, but I like to think that it's more the former.

I've been lucky enough to have a wide range of automotive experiences- I lived in Germany for a couple years and got to know those roads, and I've owned and competed in over a dozen sports cars over the years, new and old, most but not all of them Porsches.

If I was purely imprinting on early experience I don't think I'd own a couple cars a half dozen years older than I am- I started in cars far younger. I also started in cars far "better" (ie modified 944 turbo), so I don't think my preference for challenge is because that's what I know. Instead it's where I've evolved to, and others with similar experience I know have taken similar paths. I need to stay cognizant, however, that at 40 my path's taken me further than most, though still well less than some.

Will the following generations ever learn to drive manual transmission? I'm sure many of them won't. Indications are that many of them aren't even all that interested in cars, and if you take the bulk of today's trends you could convince yourself that self driving 4wd hybrids are all you'll need in 20 years.

I'm sure there will be plenty of those, but I also think they'll make the counterpoints even more desirable. Are those counterpoints only vintage cars? Certainly we're seeing the demand for those skyrocket. Or will there also be new cars that use modern technology to deliver even better driving experiences far more safely and reliably? I suspect there will be. Consider watches: most who buy a modern mechanical movement watch were born after quartz movement was invented. Quartz is "better" in every measurable way- more accurate, smaller, cheaper. Yet there's something missing, so the most prized watches are mechanical.

I think that as cars get "better"- shiftless electric is "better" than PDK, hypergrip 4wd is "better" than slidey RWD, etc- the choice between raw speed and experience will gets more and more obvious. And more people will realize they are really seeking the latter.

I wouldn't consider buying a PDK GT4, not that it is bad.
Based on the only fact that matters - "I dont like it".

Manual transmission enforces me to think more and it is physical. I try to master it, hence playing with it. I really dont care if GT4 is faster or slower with PDK on the track. If I cared, then I would have bought a Radical with sequential instead.

And driving GT4 should be a ceremony for me or an event. Hence I got the LWBs, Clubsport package and I would not get a PDK even if it is available. I am sure it will be horrible trying to get in the car, but it is a part of the experience.

It might be the case that it is over-tyred. But this is my first GT car and most probably wont be the last one if they continue to serve manuals.

my 2 cents

I'll just add one thing.

With self driving cars already here as prototypes. We better enjoy this moment of Porsche greatness.

I drove a BMW 740 last week in Europe. Got on the highway in south Sweden. Drove 300miles without touching brake or accelerator. Had all the gadgets. It was the most boring drive ever. And it's around the corner.

I saw my first of the newest small Google cars on the road Monday. Two guys and a laptop, one hand on a kill switch. No steering wheel.

Apple's effort is ramping up- they've poached a bunch of BMW execs and some guys from Tesla. Tesla's further ahead- they're beta testing self-driving with actual customers now.

A Porsche is currently 95% hardware, 5% software, but we're moving towards >50% software. Legacy manufactures are not staffed for this, and they're all worried they'll be the best typewriter manufacturers in a PC world.

The question in my mind is if there will be a big enough segment buying for driving experience to justify the parallel path. Digital watches dominate the market in terms of volume, but there's still a good analog business there. It's clear that some niche will remain as long as it's not legislated out of existence, but how big will it be, and what form will it take? Porsche currently tries to satisfy a wide range of requirements with a single platform, but it's not clear that's going to be possible for much longer.

This is exactly why I am buying a GT4. I wasn't planning on buying a car for $100k but with what I am seeing with the electric/driverless cars I realized that we are in the final and golden age of cars with an internal combustion engines + manual tranny + human driven.

Driverless cars are already here and will be the future. I have my theories about why the elite are pushing for driverless cars. It's a form of control. Don't pay your taxes you don't get to move around. Plus many areas of the world are going to be off limits for humans (Agenda 21) and robot cars are an easy way to do this.

Driverless Cars Are The Death Of Freedom:

I wouldn't break out the tinfoil hat just yet. Most of the people on here this forum will be long dead and buried before truly driverless cars are ubiquitous in this country.

:roflmao:

Priceless!!!!:cheers:

I'm not to sure. It's already here. Sure there is a lot of work to be done. Liability is a big question mark. who is to blame if things go wrong.
But the cars can already brake/steer and acellarate. I wouldn't feel uncomfortable being a passenger in a computer driven car down an interstate.

For now at least, cars with autonomous features still come with a throttle, brake, and steering wheel, and at least in Tesla's case, I believe the features only continue to work as long as they detect your hand on that steering wheel. No one is selling the HAL 9000. For liability, if a collision occurs between two autonomous cars, I think the only economically viable answer will be a no-fault, shared responsibility approach. I don't see automakers bringing autonomous cars to market en masse if they would potentially be on the hook for every accident their cars are involved in. However, I did read a very thought-provoking article recently considering the question of how the authors of autonomous car software will resolve the Trolley Problem. The best answer seems to be to allow the driver to configure in advance how the car should handle such a scenario, but even that has its problems.

And frankly I wish a lot of other drivers on the road were rocking driverless cars, and they probably do too. If you don't enjoy driving and instead see it just as a necessary inconvenience to achieve your end of getting where you want to go, and especially if that perception causes you not to give driving the attention and respect it deserves, then you should absolutely be in a driverless car. The reality is that that describes a huge chunk of the population, which is perfectly fine. I don't get any enjoyment out of things that other people do as hobbies, and that's ok too. One downside to mass adoption of autonomous cars (in addition to insurance companies needing to downsize due to reduced accident rates) will be that as "regular" cars become less desirable overall, they will get more expensive to buy (and insure), and that may well be amplified in the performance segment. Or maybe performance cars will be the only non-autonomous cars left because why would anybody want to drive their own boring econobox? But actually even in the performance segment I can see the case for autonomous functionality, since after all there's no enjoyment to be had creeping your performance car through stop and go traffic.

Have you tried to buy a 100K+ Merc OR BMW lately? What features are they pushing?

This thread got me to thinking of the scene in iRobot when the Will Smith character jumped on his gas-powered motorcycle to get er done....

RIghteous rising
 

Isn't this really a case of the smartest, most intelligent of society helping all us idiots by making decisions for us and making our lives safer?

I recall two songs on the same LP (thats vinyl for you guys under 40), Red Barchetta that deals with this notion of petrol car obsolescence and Witch Hunt: "the righteous rise to save us from ourselves"...Laugh, but its where we are heading on this self driving issue. Those who promote it, want independent driving to be illegal. All in the name of public safety.

I hope Tesla goes bankrupt, as their CEo as quoted as saying he believes driving someday will not be needed anymore. Well sir, you can keep your car. For me, driving a car that has no exhaust note (i.e. electric) is like having sex with a woman who just lays there and doesnt make a peep.....just saying....I prefer both to scream in ecstasy.

Sorry didnt mean to hijack the thread :cheers:

What rock have you been hiding under, the technology is here now my friend.
It's coming and coming sooner rather than later.
And since the governments are collecting less and less from fuel taxes because cars are getting better fuel economy, they are in the process of coming up with other strategies for taxing us.
One is to "pay by the mile". Make it mandatory for all cars to have a transponder which monitors how much we drive and charges accordingly.
If you haven't noticed in the last decade after 911 our freedoms are being taken away from us slowly but surly.
A sad state of affairs.
How do you like having to almost get strip searched at the airports, or going through harmful screening machines.
By the way I highly recommend never going through the new body scanning machines, it's like getting 10 dental x-rays in one shot.
Sorry for the rant.

PDK vs Manual
 

Unfortunately,those that are giving into new technologies like PDK will be the first to give into self driving cars. Tesla has " INSANE " mode. Does that sound like marketing? And many love it.
Us luddites will fall last. They'll use pry bars and pliers to pry the stick out of my cold dead hands.

Time to "Make America Great Again!"
Just Say'n

you mean those same tinfoil hatters that said the NSA was spying on everyone 12 years ago by recording billions of phone calls and trillions of emails but the lazy trendies called us tinfoil hatters? And then Snowden showed up and vindicated those tinfoil hatters.

As long as "Most of the people on this forum" are not 90 years old I'll take that bet that driverless-robot cars will be ubiquitous in less than 10 years while everyone is still alive. No question about it.

I wanna see one of these driverless cars at the track or on an autocross course. That would be worth filming!

It's coming....

I'll go flat out and beat the time that the computer can post. :icon107:

hapa

we are ALL dying - its just whether we have gotten our minds around that fact LOL ... age, and being old, is but a state of mind...

more seriously, I am 55, and plan to be around for 30-40-50 more years flogging all the nice P cars new and old... my point is that PAG needs to continually revitalize its buyer base -- it already has us locked up pretty much... it needs folks in their 20's 30's early 40's in the fold... they would be idiots not to gear their marketing and product planning for these buyers, and they are NOT idiots

there is no doubt there is a younger contingent of manual/analogue car enthusiasts are out there -- i see them at track days... they have ToyoBaru's, Mini's, WRX's, Evos...we need MORE of them to get car makers to make what enthusiasts old and young want to drive!!!!

I think enthusiast cars will continue to exist but they will be niche products. I don't think it's that supposedly enthusiast car companies conspire against the manual as much as it is the ever harsher emissions regulations. They forced the impossibly stupid 7 speed manual, auto start-stop... Silly gear ratios... Turbos on everything. That wasn't an enthusiast choice... That was thanks to our lovely politicians. OK, I need a drink now...

You honestly think there are going to be legions of fully autonomous cars on our roads within 10 years? Seriously. It's gonna take another 10 more years of real world testing and development and another 10 of regulatory testing, review, legislation, etc. before you even see a car like that legally for sale in the U.S.

What has been achieved so far is just the tip of the iceberg; fairly basic stuff. To actually have a fully autonomous car that can operate safely everywhere is still a long while off.

And even if the technology were ready today AND the regulatory hurdles have been achieved, it will take a generation to replace all the vehicles on the road with autonomous vehicles, for cost reasons alone. 10 years? Not a chance.

There is a huge difference between active cruise/collision avoidance/lane departure warning and a truly autonomous vehicle, that can operate anywhere, safely and efficiently. We are still a long way off from the latter being a reality, even longer before it becomes pervasive, and longer than you or I have on this planet before it replaces manually operated cars entirely. I'm quite certain we will all be happily driving our sports cars until the folks at Sunnyside Acres wrestle the keys out of our hands. There are so many hurdles still to cross and such enormous cost challenges on top of that.

To many real time variables and decisions IMO For these type of cars to work in everyday settings. Highway driving I could see it working no problem but around town no way. I say this as I watch 80% of people texting and reading emails while driving. A computer should be able to drive better than them.

That is the biggest benefit I see of this technology, even the stuff they're putting in cars already. It is actually helping to protect us from these inattentive drivers. Honestly, the kind of person who really wants an autonomous car they can just sit in and go is the kind of person I want to have an autonomous car.

As an engineer and Chief Technology Officer of a tech company a stone's throw away from Tesla, count me among those who take the opposing view. Nissan's CEO has stated 2020 for affordable self driving cars, Mercedes said the same. Tesla is saying sooner, and current Teslas are built with the sensor suite needed- they just need software and redundancy. You can buy a long haul truck today that will drive itself on the freeway.

It's not a yes/ no proposition, instead the change will be incremental, and liability will shift in stages not instantly. However more miles will be driven in the U.S. by computers than humans in far less than 20 years. It's a common error to extrapolate past technical progress linearly into the future. It's not linear- it's exponential. Darpa's grand challenge was less than a decade ago. Today I'm dodging driverless cars daily.

Just my $.02.

Yes absolutely 10 years. Whatever technology is being rolled out now has already been in development for at least 10 years. So what you are seeing being rolled out is early 2000 tech.

This push for robots is not just in cars but also in manufacturing, police, etc. They have robot technology where robots can repair themselves and even build new robots.

More driver-less car thoughts to think about for fun:

How are you going to address school buses, emergency vehicles, animals crossing the road, debris flying off another car, slowing down to let people merge just to name a few. Bad weather? How can it tell if that puddle is deep are you going to hydra plane? The lawsuits will be endless from the situations that arise. There is a huge deference between collision avoidance and total automation.

Side note... if I am alive when this happens I will be ready to open my chain of drive thru bars for all automated cars.

This manual vs PDK has sure gotten interesting.

How do you tell if it's a cop flagging you to stop or a potential carjacker?

Is that an empty paper bag on the road, or a bag of cement you need to stop for or swerve to avoid?

If it is cement- should you swerve across double yellows, or slam on the brakes and risk getting rear ended?

And the obvious already mentioned: if someone's going to die, how do you choose who?

All difficult questions that people answer, often incorrectly, every day. Yet smart systems are improving at a tremendous rate. Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess. Watson beats doctors at diagnosis. These are both problems many claimed computers could never master. Driving is just another line on the list. And you can already Google videos of cars autocrossing or tracking by themselves far better than most of us can- that's the easy part.

From your list above: Tesla has a networked database of potholes and road contours- they stiffen or soften suspension to cope with what's coming. Given this, if it's raining and you're approaching a puddle: who's going to be a better judge of how deep it is, you or the car?

^To add to it, one of the biggest advantages is if one car's AI learns about some traffic situation/pot hole and how to handle it, every other car can potentially learn the same almost instantaneously.

Udacity has a very interesting (and free) introductory course on the AI behind self driving cars by Peter Thrun (who was in charge of Google's self driving car program). Highly recommend it if anyone is curious.

https://www.udacity.com/course/artif...obotics--cs373

Also more generic courses on AI and Machine learning -
https://www.udacity.com/course/intro...ligence--cs271
https://www.udacity.com/course/intro...earning--ud120

Most probably many of us will also use these driverless cars for daily commute. That will be comfortable, maybe too comfortable.

But I know, I will crave for driving myself and analog, but also with some of the technologies wonder to compensate my driving skill deficit. Hence, for me it might be the case that I keep GT4 for a very very long time.

Tried to get a slot for gt3 RS next to my gt4. Unfortunately none available in Germany although we are a key account for PAG. I was too slow.

You can put your head in the sand - but it's coming, and very soon. I'm not saying that the roads will be littered with them - BUT the fad has started (Telsa already has this in Beta for their current customers), and the money is chasing it. Do you think the development dollars are going towards improving the driver-car connection, focusing on cars that are fun to drive? No, it's going to autonomous technology. So now we have all the R&D money shunted to autonomous and fuel efficiency technology. The number of cars that we have to choose from that have a driver focus will become fewer and fewer each year. Just watch - people will demand the technology, and not use it - just like pretty everything today. Do you use the hotspot that came with the car? No, do you use the lane departure system? No, do you use the Nav system, probably a little, but likely use your phone...do you use the auto braking system? No, do you use the radar/laser cruise? No.....but that's where the manufacturers are investing.

Good thing there are a lot of fun older cars that will satisfy the cravings of enthusiasts who were imprinted by certain characteristic when they became enthusiasts. The prices will go up, but at least you can still get them, or build them.

oh boy! i cant wait till we're all standing around the track, watching driver less cars, and doing what?
Placing bets! things that make you go hmmmm...
im glad ill be dead when this takes place... i already have a hard enough time playing a rigged game trying to beat algorythyms and hft's in the current environment on a daily basis...
as for me personally driving my own car at my free will in the future.... Molon Labe!

What is amazing to me, but par for the course in technology. Darpa's first autonomous challenge was in 2004 - and if you watched it, it was basically a bunch of crazy vehicles tooling through the desert running over cacti and lizards. 10 years later...much of the tech is being introduced into luxury saloons.

Oh, I know it's coming. Just not as soon as most people think, at least in anything but small, mostly test numbers. And I also know that in no way will this threaten our ability to drive manually operated cars for the rest of our natural lives, so I all the hand wringing over this is foolish. The remaining technological, regulatory and, especially, financial hurdles, are enormous and will take a very long time to fully play out. Maybe 20 years from now we'll actually see a small number of fully autonomous vehicles, likely smaller cars, being sold and driven in meaningful numbers. But it'll be another 50+ years beyond that before they're a majority of the vehicles on the road. Even if the technology was absolutely perfected today, it would take decades and decades to fully turn over the vehicles on the road, purely for financial reasons. The vehicle cost is going to be staggering and it's likely to be linked to the alternative fuel movement, which has its own massive infrastructure costs and challenges.

This discussion reminds me of the people who argued 25 years ago that we'd all be driving electric vehicles by the year 2000.

Our kids kids may never own a manually operated car. But not us.

It's going to be very incremental. And the driverless cars you, and I, are dodging daily are doing simple driving in limited situations. But again, my argument is not just about the technology. It's about how long it is going to take for both the regulatory aspects to be addressed and the financial aspects.

First, extrapolate forward to the point when this technology is truly fully deployable across all the major manufacturers product lines and all of the regulatory bodies, federal and state, have signed off on the safety of the vehicles. (Have the feds and the states even developed the testing methodology they're going to use to test the safety of these vehicles yet? What about light trucks that have to be safe in dirt/off road situations? What about inclement weather/snow testing?)

Now, say we're at that point, which I'd wager serious cash is at least 10+ years away. Given the fact that the average age of cars/light trucks on the road in the U.S. are 11.5 years old, with some much younger and some much older, it would be safe to assume that it would take over 10 years to even turn over the majority of the cars and light trucks, and that's assuming buyers were even willing to buy these cars in droves without being forced to do so through legislation, which I highly doubt they will. And on top of that, figure that all this technology costs money, so the cars will likely be a fair bit more expensive than current cars, which will make it even harder.

It is going to take a generation for this conversion to be completed.

BTW, explain to me how a light truck that needs to be used on a farm could ever really be fully autonomous, when it has to drive all over in random directions at the whim of the operator, into tight spots, pick up loads, back up a hay picker, cross a creek, etc. There are a thousand different situations that I could think of that are going to be a huge challenge for fully autonomous vehicles that have not been solved yet.

PDK versus manual, anyone?

:_otopic::thumbup:

You're assuming a linear timeline. In reality these things are happening in parallel. The sensors and hardware needed for self-driving cars are already being deployed in the form of lane departure, collision avoidance, blindspot detection, etc. Which is why Tesla only pushed a software update to its Beta testers to enable those cars to drive themselves. Within five years the majority of cars sold will come with similar technologies, some of them no doubt mandated by DOT for safety reasons. So when regulations change new routes and areas where the cars can legally drive themselves will simply be unlocked. The reg changes won't come at the start of the tech deployment cycle, but in the middle to end.

You think people don't want to surf the web on their way to work? People are already buying this technology in droves, whether they know it or not.

PDK vs Manual
 

People won't necessarily need to purchase one. A person will hail a driverless Cab from his or her smart phone. The car will buzz the phone as it approaches, and the owner will get inside the car and go where it's directed.
This becomes a more attractive option as the younger generation cares less and less about cars. Also, as all of these safety and autonomy features become more prevalent, the cost of owning and insuring a vehicle becomes less manageable, so there's more of an incentive to simply pay by the ride. We'll be buying these cars de facto.

PDK is faster, period. But less involving, and attractive for some. What else is there to say?

The "market value" of PDK vs Manual will be interesting, I don't think anyone can predict that. The only fact there is to consider is that a large amount of the demand for the GT4 is because it's a manual. Though certainly there is probably more demand for it if it had a PDK.

[QUOTE=Petevb;12561931]You're assuming a linear timeline. In reality these things are happening in parallel. The sensors and hardware needed for self-driving cars are already being deployed in the form of lane departure, collision avoidance, blindspot detection, etc. Which is why Tesla only pushed a software update to its Beta testers to enable those cars to drive themselves. Within five years the majority of cars sold will come with similar technologies, some of them no doubt mandated by DOT for safety reasons. So when regulations change new routes and areas where the cars can legally drive themselves will simply be unlocked. The reg changes won't come at the start of the tech deployment cycle, but in the middle to end.
QUOTE]

No, I'm not assuming a linear timeline. There will certainly be things going on in parallel. It's just that all phases will take more time than you're assuming, there will be some dependencies, and there are likely to be numerous points of setback. And I'm fully aware that various technologies and elements of the system will be released over time. My point it that, truly fully autonomous vehicles across the spectrum of vehicles will not be on our roads in heavy numbers for a long time. And manually operated vehicles will not be gone or legislated out of existence for a lot longer still. We, the people in this forum who probably average about 50 years of age or older, have nothing to worry about. Nobody's going to take our right to drive these cars away. Nor likely do our children have to worry about it either.

On top of all the technical hurdles, at current vehicle costs, it would take about $9 trillion to replace every passenger vehicle in the U.S. That's gonna take some time.

There are so many flaws in that oversimplified argument, I wouldn't know where to start. But even if you took the above argument at face value, you're talking about a small percentage of total miles driven on our roads AND you're talking about the younger generation preferences. Which again is my argument that it will take a generation or more for this transition to occur. Particularly when most of the wealth in this country is currently concentrated in the older citizens.

Let's revisit this thread in 10 years time. It's very similar to whole 'EVs will be everywhere within a few years' argument that I've been hearing most of my adult life and yet they're still today a drop in the bucket and probably still will be 10 years from now. Same arguments were being made; the technology's getting better every day, it's an exponential thing, people will want these cars, etc.

That we can agree on. The rest, having worked bringing new technology to the automotive industry, we'll disagree.

Adoption cycles are exceedingly short when disruptive and enabling technology comes along. Remember flip phones? The first iPhone was released eight years ago. How many phones have you gone through since then? And that's just a phone, it doesn't give you 5% more useful time in your day, or measurably increase your life expectancy.

I'll say more miles will be driven autonomously in the US than by humans within 15 years, so before 2030. We can come back then and see who's right.

Best thread on RL.

The conclusion is. OUR cars will be worthless within 20 years. If they are MT or PDK doesn't matter. Go out and drive the snout out of these amazing machines.

:jumper::jumper:

yep +1

I'm not too worried about 20 years, the engines in my GT cars will self implode once they hit 40k miles. :to_order:

This technology is going to come sooner rather than later.
Regarding PDK vs Manual, all you have to do is look at the dealer inventories where you will find 95+% of cars with PDK and very few manuals.
Let's get real guys, manual transmissions I'm sorry to say are a dying breed and may become extinct in a decade or less.
Ferrari stopped making MT years ago and unfortunately Porsche will eventually follow suit.
It inevitable.:crying:
I plan on keeping my GT4 for a very long time.

Little did i know what this thread could evolve into..

Not that I worry at all about the future value of my cars, but as a discussion point, I feel just the opposite of what you say.

There will always be a niche market for drivers's cars because driving for fun is such a pleasure. Fewer and fewer manual cars will be made. Newer cars will be increasingly robotic... if we keep our cars in good shape while we use them, their intrinsic value will be maintained, if not increased.

Our cars certainly won't be DD mobiles (few are today, even)... surely people in the future will get into their robot cars and be driven to the office while they work and be productive with their time.

But will be are times and occasions when people will take to the open road and experience the beauty of the land and the thrill of driving. I believe there will always be a strong demand for that...and vehicles that brilliantly support this pursuit will be highly valued.

Well if you live in California the autonomous car issue may not be your biggest worry. Check out SB350 if you haven't already. If that passes, get ready for restricted gasoline and much higher gas prices. Gotta love California government.

On the autonomous car thing, we'll just have to agree to disagree and reconvene in 10 years.

I guess I should have put a smiley after the worthless post.:)

Hopefully we are allowed to enjoy these beautiful cars even after the introduction of self driving cars. If it takes 10 years or 30 years. I have no clue. But it will happen. As long as my self driving Tesla is allowed to tow my RS gasoline dinosaur to the track and the track rules allow me to drive I will drive it.
It would be a shame to have them locked up in garages to look at. But IMO that will likely happen as well. Hopefully my kids will have the chance to experience the passion of driving fast on track. My grandkids probably won't.