[radiofrequency]

It depends which 991 you drove, the 991.1 or 991.2. The 991.2 has the new turbocharged engine. Vastly different driving experience from the .1 to the .2. The .1, is a naturally aspirated 3.4L, while the .2 is a turbocharged 3.0L. I had the 991.1 C4S, and I will tell you that you have to get the motor into the higher rev range to experience the power - also you want all of the settings in Sport +, it becomes a very different car in Sport +.

I loved the car, the handling and the overall road feel, it's such a different platform to the BMW M cars. IMHO, my M4 is a Grand Tourer vs. the pure Sports Car feel of the 911. I sold my 991.1 C4S about 6 weeks ago and intend purchasing a 991.2 Turbo - this is a very stealthy car with ridiculous HP and even more ridiculous Torque, it, however, can be driven very comfortably as a Daily Driver. My goal is to find a low mile 2017, so do yourself a favor and expand your search parameters - I use CarGurus, and for a vehicle with under 10 000 miles and in full Warranty you will be pleasantly surprised at what you are able to find. You will pay more than you want, and more than a C4S, but the 991 Turbo is AWD too, so factor that into your decision. I hope that this helps you.

[hi_officer]

Originally Posted by Digital.James

Who is getting overworked? The guy who is spewing insults? You get offended so easily often?

Where did I insult you?

Besides, I'd rather insult someone than give false, inaccurate information.

[///M Ryder]

Originally Posted by Lucky1

So what's the point of the rear engine layout? I hear so many negatives but the only positive I've heard is it distributes more weight over the rear which can maximize braking over the rear due to weight location and weight transfer. I've also heard race instructors joke the engine's in the wrong place. So what's the truth? Is it stubbornness on Porsche's part to keep their legacy formula going or are they onto something the rest of the industry hasn't caught on to?

I was not trying to start a debate about which engine placement is better. My point to OP was any mid-engine or rear engine car will have a light weight feeling up front until you've adjusted to it. Now I would guess that Pcar drivers will tell you that the engine behind the seat is the proper spot (mid or rear). While those that haven't owned one will say it's a bunch of BS. It's no different from manual vs DCT or N/A motors vs FI.......all a matter of opinion.......Phil

[hellrotm]

Porsche 911 RSR is now mid engine. Will the street cars follow?

[hi_officer]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

Porsche 911 RSR is now mid engine. Will the street cars follow?

My money is on a hybrid drivetrain before going mid-engined.

C2 and C2S will keep their smaller turbos. The TT will have the bigger turbos, but the TTS will get the bigger turbos and electric motors (very similar to Panny and Cayenne).

It makes sense too, most who buy the 911 Turbo (big turbo) go for the TTS. For those that don't want the electric motors now they have the option.

Still up in the air on the GT models but I could definitely see the non-RS be Naturally aspirated and the RS models be NA and electric.

[Germanauto]

That's sad considering the steering on the F80 blows too.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by ///M Ryder

I was not trying to start a debate about which engine placement is better. My point to OP was any mid-engine or rear engine car will have a light weight feeling up front until you've adjusted to it. Now I would guess that Pcar drivers will tell you that the engine behind the seat is the proper spot (mid or rear). While those that haven't owned one will say it's a bunch of BS. It's no different from manual vs DCT or N/A motors vs FI.......all a matter of opinion.......Phil

Also, there's the moment of inertia problem, like with the STI, once you get something with a lot of weight in front of, or behind, the axle furthest from the center, it'll want to swap ends much easier than something with that weight "in the middle" of the axles. So once you start going, it can be much harder to recover. It's another reason why the cars have gotten insanely wide. I like how a wide car looks, but it seems like every time a competitor introduces something faster than the current generation, porsche has to go back to the "drawing board" and make the 911 2" wider again with even wider tires. The weight transfer problem gets you rotating, and this seals your fate, so to speak. Not to say that Porsche hasn't gone to extraordinary lengths to mitigate this problem, but it's another reason that it's a less-than-optimal layout.

I was being sarcastic when I said "the rear seats" was the only reason Porsche was doing this, but it's a combination of the original layout of the car, trying to be "true" to what they believe the fans/buyers of the car want, and pushing the technology as far as it can go. Some of it seems to completely defy logic, like with that Targa model. I liked the old targa models because you could just take out that roof section and done. This new one with a freaking erector set that adds hundreds of pounds of weight and reduces your cargo capacity just seems insanely dumb. Give me a roof section I can stow behind the seats or something or at the worst, just leave in the garage. The way they did it is strictly a luxury feature and takes away from the car IMO (more weight in the wrong place). So not everything is always done for logical reasons, it's done to sell the car and if staying with the rear engine setup makes it "a true 911" in the eyes of the buyers, I doubt it'll change in the foreseeable future.

[hi_officer]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Also, there's the moment of inertia problem, like with the STI, once you get something with a lot of weight in front of, or behind, the axle furthest from the center, it'll want to swap ends much easier than something with that weight "in the middle" of the axles. So once you start going, it can be much harder to recover. It's another reason why the cars have gotten insanely wide. I like how a wide car looks, but it seems like every time a competitor introduces something faster than the current generation, porsche has to go back to the "drawing board" and make the 911 2" wider again with even wider tires. The weight transfer problem gets you rotating, and this seals your fate, so to speak. Not to say that Porsche hasn't gone to extraordinary lengths to mitigate this problem, but it's another reason that it's a less-than-optimal layout.

I was being sarcastic when I said "the rear seats" was the only reason Porsche was doing this, but it's a combination of the original layout of the car, trying to be "true" to what they believe the fans/buyers of the car want, and pushing the technology as far as it can go. Some of it seems to completely defy logic, like with that Targa model. I liked the old targa models because you could just take out that roof section and done. This new one with a freaking erector set that adds hundreds of pounds of weight and reduces your cargo capacity just seems insanely dumb. Give me a roof section I can stow behind the seats or something or at the worst, just leave in the garage. The way they did it is strictly a luxury feature and takes away from the car IMO (more weight in the wrong place). So not everything is always done for logical reasons, it's done to sell the car and if staying with the rear engine setup makes it "a true 911" in the eyes of the buyers, I doubt it'll change in the foreseeable future.

Actually, mid-engined cars are more dangerous than front-engined cars if the driver loses control - although this may be initially harder to provoke due to the superior balance - and the car begins to spin. The moment of inertia about the center of gravity is low due to the concentration of mass between the axles (similar to standing in the middle of a playground roundabout, rather than at the edge) and the spin will occur suddenly, the car will rotate faster and it will be harder to recover from. Conversely, a front or rear-engined car is more likely to break away in a progressive and controllable manner as the tires lose traction.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by hi_officer

Actually, mid-engined cars are more dangerous than front-engined cars if the driver loses control - although this may be initially harder to provoke due to the superior balance - and the car begins to spin. The moment of inertia about the center of gravity is low due to the concentration of mass between the axles (similar to standing in the middle of a playground roundabout, rather than at the edge) and the spin will occur suddenly, the car will rotate faster and it will be harder to recover from. Conversely, a front or rear-engined car is more likely to break away in a progressive and controllable manner as the tires lose traction.

You also need to factor in how weight distribution changes as the car moves, and key in terms of accidents, slows to a stop. Man is the Washington Generals vs the Physics Harlem Globetrotters. Never, ever wins. An additional very simple rule that tires are capable of either stopping or turning but not both at the same time.

You take all of that and throw traction control etc. on top of it and you can make anything a lot safer and/or easier to drive. But if the underlying architecture is better to begin with from that standpoint you can end up in a better spot. All of that said you may not want the most stable, safest, easiest to drive, fastest around a track car. That does not always = most fun. Since we spend our time talking about cars on forums and not working with engineers at Ferrari to shave hundredths off our lap times, fun is the name of the game anyway.

[hi_officer]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

You also need to factor in how weight distribution changes as the car moves, and key in terms of accidents, slows to a stop. Man is the Washington Generals vs the Physics Harlem Globetrotters. Never, ever wins. An additional very simple rule that tires are capable of either stopping or turning but not both at the same time.

You take all of that and throw traction control etc. on top of it and you can make anything a lot safer and/or easier to drive. But if the underlying architecture is better to begin with from that standpoint you can end up in a better spot. All of that said you may not want the most stable, safest, easiest to drive, fastest around a track car. That does not always = most fun. Since we spend our time talking about cars on forums and not working with engineers at Ferrari to shave hundredths off our lap times, fun is the name of the game anyway.

You win the internet today!

[Soul Performance Products]

We have a shop 987.2 Cayman S which is rather sharp, but the suspension is rather rough.

The best Porsche I've ever driven is hands down the GT4. The engine is high strung and , the handling is razor sharp, the car gives great feedback without punishing you - it's an all around and it's always "on". #1 on my list of cars to own.

The 991 GT3 is much more refined and all around faster, but you have to lay into the car more so to get the juices - but when you do it's astounding and untouchable. On the street you're going from calm to breaking multiple laws in a few seconds. It's a fast track car that you can lug on the street if you need to.

991.1 Carrera is good and refined, but really wakes up with exhaust upgrades and offers awesome burbles and crackles on decel. Lowering springs do a good job of increasing sportiness without making your spine pay for it. We have that stops in almost every week it and it's been fascinating seeing the car evolve as he too thought it was a bit soft out of the gate (coming from modded Audis) The 991.2 Carrera - great car...good at everything...but doesn't have the soul (pardon the pun) that all the other cars have.

We have a 991.1 Turbo in right now for development and trying to get video footage is tough because the car is .

If you crave more of what makes the S2000 so good I highly recommend checking out a GT4, it just might blow your mind!

-Mike in Marketing

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Soul Performance Products

If you crave more of what makes the S2000 so good I highly recommend checking out a GT4, it just might blow your mind!

There is literally nothing that can be lost by taking one for a spin, aside from maybe 30 minutes of your time, OP. Yeah you want a 911 but you should at the very least consider what many believe to be one of the best cars Porsche has built in recent memory.

Hell all I wanted to do when I was a kid was bang Kelly LeBrock but I've wised up a bit and old girl ain't what she used to be. Sometimes we need to reevaluate such things

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

... Hell all I wanted to do when I was a kid was bang Kelly LeBrock but I've wised up a bit and old girl ain't what she used to be. Sometimes we need to reevaluate such things

Funny: I felt the exact same way about Courtney Thorne-Smith ...

... Damn. She's my air-cooled 911! NOOOOOOO!

[Soul Performance Products]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

There is literally nothing that can be lost by taking one for a spin, aside from maybe 30 minutes of your time, OP. Yeah you want a 911 but you should at the very least consider what many believe to be one of the best cars Porsche has built in recent memory.

Cheers to that! I'm coming from cars such as a Honda CRX, turbo Miata, and currently have a BRZ - the GT4 is like the pinnacle of sports cars to me. Not to sound snobby, but my attitude was like OK another 911 in the shop - but just knowing a GT4 was coming in had everyone smiling and then you couldn't tear people out of the drivers seat.

-Mike in Marketing

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Soul Performance Products

Cheers to that! I'm coming from cars such as a Honda CRX, turbo Miata, and currently have a BRZ - the GT4 is like the pinnacle of sports cars to me. Not to sound snobby, but my attitude was like OK another 911 in the shop - but just knowing a GT4 was coming in had everyone smiling and then you couldn't tear people out of the drivers seat.

-Mike in Marketing

I spent a week in one - it's an amazing piece of kit.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Funny: I felt the exact same way about Courtney Thorne-Smith ...

... Damn. She's my air-cooled 911! NOOOOOOO!

Hahaha - so hot in Summer School. Now not so much! Never, ever meet your heroes.

I think we are both at the age where the half +2 rule is appropriate, as in I'm 36, I should date a 20 year old. Don't want anything that's been around the block too many times with no tread on the tires! Yes I can sleep with a 36 year old and I will be more than happy to, when I am 68

[chris82]

Is the "911 has the engine in the wrong spot" argument still cool to talk about? lol

[TSM330i]

What about the new 911T?

If I were buying a new 911, this is what I'd be seriously looking at. Seems like it's a "light" version of a GTS or GT3. Light meaning, not as much money of course.

http://www.thedrive.com/new-cars/153...de-for-purists

[Circuit Hunter]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

Fully aware the Porsche purists are going to destroy me, but depending on your goals for the car I?d actually consider a 996. Say for instance you just want to scratch that 911 itch, want something to beat the hell out of on weekends but don?t care about lap times, etc.

You can find a really nice one for under $40k drive it and not worry about messing up some investment grade air cooled car and basically get your money back in a year or two.

The motor on a 996 non GT3 or Turbo is well documented to be unrealiable especially for hard driving or tracking. RMS, IMS, oil starvation problems to name a few. I would never own this platform.

[mike@Vossen]

Originally Posted by Soul Performance Products

We have a shop 987.2 Cayman S which is rather sharp, but the suspension is rather rough.

The best Porsche I've ever driven is hands down the GT4. The engine is high strung and , the handling is razor sharp, the car gives great feedback without punishing you - it's an all around and it's always "on". #1 on my list of cars to own.

-Mike in Marketing

Ha, I'm also Mike in Marketing. I echo the GT4 comments, it is one of the best all around cars ever made. If you don't need backseats and super speed is not your priority for 100k this is the car to get. I get goosebumps just typing about it....

[hi_officer]

Originally Posted by Circuit Hunter

The motor on a 996 non GT3 or Turbo is well documented to be unrealiable especially for hard driving or tracking. RMS, IMS, oil starvation problems to name a few. I would never own this platform.

These issues are some of the reasons why you can pick one up pretty cheap.

If I were in the market, I'd look for 996s that already have the IMS retrofit (in reality, only ~8% of engines have this issue and many have already been corrected), a post-2001 3.6 engine (to decrease the chance of cracked cylinder head), and pay for a PPI to check the RMS and other oil issues.

But... my personal opinion, I still wouldn't buy a 996. I just don't like the look. Save some more money and upgrade to a 997.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by chris82

Is the "911 has the engine in the wrong spot" argument still cool to talk about? lol

Naw, I think the 911 rsr nailed it.