[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by Topspeed

The 991.2 Turbo S has an MSRP of $188,100 without ADM. Please quote your source for 175k.

A 720S does not cost 400K. It's approximately 290k.

That's like saying a 260 K (loaded with options) Turbo S can be had for 139k.
See what I did there.

You're taking a fully loaded 720 S with every conceivable option and using a special discounted Turbo S (the 175K version ), with zero options and zero ADM for your comparison. Real objective

That is my bad, it was a turbo listed as a turbo S. I get Porsches at cost and I’ve always found they hold value well and have even made some money a couple.

https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?zip=0 8818&showNegotiable=true&sourceContext=carGurusHom ePage_false_0&distance=50000&endYear=2017&entitySe lectingHelper.selectedEntity=d404&startYear=2017#l isting=267544859

Either way, they drop and then they level off. Even clean 996 turbos house for 50-60k these days

I don’t see many Mclarens around 300, most are well above that from what I’ve see. The people I know who own them paid well over 300.

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by RPM33

Yes you are right topspeed. I'm seeing $139k on Carfax for 2017 Turbo S, multiple cars. Original MSRP with options had to be at least $200k, so depreciation of at least 30% since these cars came out in 2016. So essentially 30% depreciation in four years. From what I read, there is more of a supply of 911 Turbos than GT3's. Others have mentioned that you need to be a VIP customer to secure a new GT3 allocation.

Here is a 17 turbo S with 35,000 miles listed for 140k and originally stocker of 201.

https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/invent...ting=264015362

A 720S with that type of mileage would tank and likely look terrible as they are not quality cars IMO.. I nearly bought one and it was not IMO up to Porsche quality.

[Topspeed]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

Here is a 17 turbo S with 35,000 miles listed for 140k and originally stocker of 201.

https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/invent...ting=264015362

A 720S with that type of mileage would tank and likely look terrible as they are not quality cars IMO.. I nearly bought one and it was not IMO up to Porsche quality.

So what did you get instead? A GT2RS or a Pista?

[///M Power-Belgium]

Hell ...Yeah !

[scoobysaurus]

It's nice I'd much rather have a 991.1 or .2 GT3 for half the price even if its slower. If I had to buy a supercar or super GT for $200k I'd be hard pressed to buy anything other than the upcoming Tesla Roadster especially since I don't take my cars to the track. Sure the Tesla won't have an evocative engine sound but neither does the turbo. Tesla Roadster 2 + 991.1 GT3 for the best of both worlds as opposed to a brand new turbo S convertible with full options IMHO.

[///M Power-Belgium]

A dream in Motion !

[Flacht3]

Looks great, drives great, but still sounds like a dyson.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Flacht3

Looks great, drives great, but still sounds like a dyson.

It sounds like a 0-60 in 2.6 sec.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

It sounds like a 0-60 in 2.6 sec.

True, the Dyson (Taycan Turbo S) is actually quicker than that.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

A dream in Motion !

That looks pretty bad from the rear, like the previous version better.

But then again, what would Porsche "fix" mid-cycle if they didn't screw it up a little in the beginning?

[Mingwan]

In usual porsche fashion the numbers are conservative. I wonder how quick this thing really is.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Mingwan

In usual porsche fashion the numbers are conservative. I wonder how quick this thing really is.

Actually faster than they claim it is . Video is from "2014" !

[TXSTYLE]

Stats are undeniable.

So is it's over pricing.

For $200k I must insist on something much more Exotic looking and sounding!

[chris719]

Originally Posted by TXSTYLE

Stats are undeniable.

So is it's over pricing.

For $200k I must insist on something much more Exotic looking and sounding!

Car prices have just gone up so much over the past two decades, $200k doesn't buy what it used to . In a world where an M5 Comp costs $130k with options, I'm not all that surprised.

[No Boost]

+60 hp over its predecessor which ran low 10s. A 9 second car is inevitable.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Stage IV

+60 hp over its predecessor which ran low 10s. A 9 second car is inevitable.

[Top speed]

I believe it's the first test of the new 911 turbo s

911 Turbo S Taycan Turbo S
0-10 0.42 0.41
0-20 0.80 0.85
0-30 1.15 1.26
0-40 1.57 1.67
0-50 2.05 2.14
0-60 2.53 2.61
0-70 3.18 3.28
0-80 3.84 4.08
0-90 4.59 5.03
0-100 5.56 6.12
0-110 6.68 7.35
0-120 7.84 8.80
0-130 9.29 10.62
0-140 11.05 12.77
0-150 13.12

30-70 2.03 2.02
60-130 6.76 8.01

¼ mile 10.40s @ 136.8mph 10.69s @ 131.6mph

100-0 80.75m 84.54m

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/sup...s-which-faster.

According to TopGear.

The 911’s real advantage happens much higher up, in the realm beyond British and almost all international speed limits. From 60mph to 130mph the 911 Turbo S is 1.3secs ahead. And, in the grand scheme of fast cars, it’s already done its best. Pretty much every McLaren, including the new GT, is quicker, so are the Ferrari 488 and 812. Up there, the 911 Turbo is merely on par.

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by Top speed

I believe it's the first test of the new 911 turbo s

911 Turbo S Taycan Turbo S
0-10 0.42 0.41
0-20 0.80 0.85
0-30 1.15 1.26
0-40 1.57 1.67
0-50 2.05 2.14
0-60 2.53 2.61
0-70 3.18 3.28
0-80 3.84 4.08
0-90 4.59 5.03
0-100 5.56 6.12
0-110 6.68 7.35
0-120 7.84 8.80
0-130 9.29 10.62
0-140 11.05 12.77
0-150 13.12

30-70 2.03 2.02
60-130 6.76 8.01

¼ mile 10.40s @ 136.8mph 10.69s @ 131.6mph

100-0 80.75m 84.54m

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/sup...s-which-faster.

According to TopGear.

The 911’s real advantage happens much higher up, in the realm beyond British and almost all international speed limits. From 60mph to 130mph the 911 Turbo S is 1.3secs ahead. And, in the grand scheme of fast cars, it’s already done its best. Pretty much every McLaren, including the new GT, is quicker, so are the Ferrari 488 and 812. Up there, the 911 Turbo is merely on par.

This seems off because another test has the 992 turbo S 60-130 in 5.2 seconds.

[Top speed]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

This seems off because another test has the 992 turbo S 60-130 in 5.2 seconds.

What did they get on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile in that test?

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by Top speed

What did they get on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile in that test?

I don’t recall. But they did the 992 turbo S vs M8C and the M8 ran ~6.5 in the 60-130.

[Topspeed]

Originally Posted by Funf6cyl

I don’t recall. But they did the 992 turbo S vs M8C and the M8 ran ~6.5 in the 60-130.

I think you're mistaken. Those were 100-200 km/h times (62-124), not 60-130 times.

There's a video showing the Turbo S accelerating from zero to well over 300 km/h. It's probably around 27-28 seconds to 300 km/h (true speed).

All wheel drive vehicles do lose oomph at higher speeds, but they're damn quick off the line. That's part of the compromise; you can't have both. Weight also plays a huge role.

[Funf6cyl]

Originally Posted by Topspeed

I think you're mistaken. Those were 100-200 km/h times (62-124), not 60-130 times.

There's a video showing the Turbo S accelerating from zero to well over 300 km/h. It's probably around 27-28 seconds to 300 km/h (true speed).

All wheel drive vehicles do lose oomph at higher speeds, but they're damn quick off the line. That's part of the compromise; you can't have both. Weight also plays a huge role.

That sounds reasonable. 911 turbos run 100% rear wheel in dry conditions and while I agree, they usually do not loose on the top end bc they also have sizable turbos. That said, I don’t see another 6 mph on the high end and cutting off 2 mph on the lower end taking a car like the turbo S another 1.5 seconds to go 60-130. Something tells me these numbers are not real test results for either of these cars.