I grew to hate my gt350 mustang for the same reason. The fun roads here are all switchbacks so I was often in 1st and not in the power band until half way to the next corner. Fun in a big track but not as fun as the e30 spec racer.
The GT350 is definitely the wrong car for tight, low speed roads. Its not built for that and it isn't fun in those conditions. That's not the car's fault though.
No? 1st gear pulls nicely and is short enough to work well in heavy traffic. 2nd is well sequenced to work nicely coming out of 1st, and so on and so forth through 5th. 6th is a gaping chasm of an overdrive gear that really has no place in that gearbox except for eeking out a tiny bit better fuel economy on the highway.
Its a high rpm, high power, high grip, big fast car. That's what its built to do.
Edited the comment with details because yeah it was bit clickbait
But its was just perfectly compliant, the gears were long, even on the S/T etc. its not that short, the seats were plenty comfortable, the car was immensely stable, you had to really try to make a mistake with that car
I much prefer my AP2 & e.x. a 981 GT4 or even a base Cayman. I don't think the GT3 is a bad car at all, fact that it can do that all is an engineering marvel, very few if any cars as well-rounded as a GT3
I just don't get the attitude of all of these journalists when they go "oh its some hardcore track weapon thats absolutely unlivable on the road & the touring really brings all that together & anyone who disagrees is just some contrarian looking for drama & clicks"
It's only until the 3RS, particularly the difference between the 991.2 3 & 3rs, where thats really true. Its not a sofa but its a street car
The shorter gears on the .2 make a pretty big difference. My biggest complaint with the 981/718 was the gearing. I don’t want to be 82-83 in second gear. With the .2 gt3 that’s now substantially lower and puts me in 3rd and 4th on most drives, as opposed to hanging in second for 90% of a canyon run
I thought Matt Farah was onto something with his 718 with the DeMan transmission swap. I’m kinda over the 911. It’s great, sure, but I’d get more fun out of a 718 with the gearing fixed.
Part of the 911 irony is that it’s a great all rounder but often bought by dudes that can have a garage full of specialists. A real GT will be more comfy yada yada.
If I were to get back in a porsche it would almost certainly be a base-ish 981 with modified gearing or a Spyder RS. Or a Targa GTS
& yeah it really is just the perfect car for a lot of people its just if you're on that enthusiast spectrum where I really don't mind giving up some livability for quite bit of character, so many more interesting cars
if you let me speed, maybe, but a 992 S/T is literally hitting 74 at the top of 2nd. & I'm sure these journalists do have a good bit of fun. There was that 700hp Carrera t video by Farah where he very obviously isn't going legal speeds
but realistically, you can get me a 992.2 with all of the lightweighting & shortened gearing & I'm still peddling around in 2nd just a grand or two revs higher than I was before
& they're like oh but its noisy in overdrive gear on the highway!!! thats not hardcore thats just shit thats the other thing with that car it always felt like it was missing a gear all the time
A 6-cylinder Boxster with a stick (718 or 981) is a great start for what I want a fun car to be now. It does surprise me that Porsche of all companies have stuck with too-tall gearing on the short end and not long enough for comfy cruising on the tall end. Whether it's to protect a special higher trim, or differentiate 718 vs 911, I don't really care, it comes across like an intentional deviation from making the best driving thing possible at a particular price point.
I get you on speed/gearing. It feels like part of the enthusiast lifecycle to yearn for these fast cars, hopefully get one someday, then get bored driving at 1/10th because if you actually nail the throttle you're risking your license in 4 seconds with one gear change, then you sell everything and get a used Miata and wear a "Slow Car Fast" t-shirt unironically. I don't see anything wrong with that these days.
Tall gearing on manuals is often due to drive by noise regulations. Autos can set their logic to short shift to ensure they comply under testing conditions. But manuals are tested accelerating under third gear starting at 30mph or something like that, and if the gearing is too short, the revs pick up to the point that you'd fail the maximum noise.
It's just the balance you have to strike with emissions, the test cycle is quite unforgiving towards manuals, shift points are predetermined by an algorithm for testing, you're never going to test into good city scores so you target that range from 60-80mph to be as efficient as possible
but you also want 6th to be somewhat usable on track, especially on the back straight of the nordschlife when you go for your worlds faster manual production car record attempt, so you get this awkward overdrive thats good for nothing
You can look at the record lap, they're holding like 8 1/2 coming down the end of the straight right before the last two corners, awfully convenient
if you let me speed, maybe, but a 992 S/T is literally hitting 74 at the top of 2nd. & I'm sure these journalists do have a good bit of fun.
Gearing is interesting and tightly coupled with engine character and performance. In my Cobra, I'm pulling a hair under 80 at the top of second gear, but at the same time, I've got lovely V8 roar at 25mph with enough torque on tap to shove the car nicely out of an uphill hairpin. I think part of the issue with the tall gearing on the Porsches is that its coupled with an engine that comparatively lacks low/mid range torue and charm at those engine speeds.
The 911 is more legend than car these days. With every new generation I hear the ever more ecstatic praise and I wonder if everyone can't see or doesn't care that it's trying to become more and more luxurious - ultimately failing because it can't ever be that, but also deviating from the visceral connected driving experience it's supposed to be. I mean the Turbo S cab is over 4000 pounds.
Of course it will be more capable than every previous gen - all cars get more capable over time. But what does it mean for the 911 to be "better"? Surely it's not just becoming more civilized. I suppose there's some desirability in being able to have leather-lined vents and comfort seats and smoothed out shifts, and then a track car, and then also a race-ready car all under the same model umbrella. But it just seems like too much dilution and bloat for one model.
Out of all the arguments made in these comments - especially those from hi_im_bored that are actually reasonable and very well put together, this one is, in my opinion, among the least substantiated and lacks grounding in reality.
Yes, those kinds of 911 exist that drift far away from what enthusiasts are asking for. But at the same time, Porsche is still building a roughly 3,000-pound, manual, N/A track-focused driver’s car in form of the S/T and GT3- something virtually no other luxury manufacturer offers anymore.
So yes, they are still catering to the hardcore crowd. The regular models might not fully reflect that anymore, but they continue to produce dedicated enthusiast-focused versions — cars like the GT3, GT3 RS and limited stuff like the S/T and S/C - and especially today, within their price range and even above, they are absolute unicorns.
Sure, a GT3 RS was arguably more hardcore 20 years ago than it is today. But if you look at something like the S/T, there’s simply no real equivalent left from other manufacturers.
So no - this idea that driver engagement is just some kind of illusion isn’t accurate at all. It absolutely still exists today, especially compared to the competition. It’s just become more concentrated in specific models.
You're not really saying much different from me; the main difference is your conclusion is to celebrate Porsche while mine is to question them.
Yes, those kinds of 911 exist that drift far away from what enthusiasts are asking for.
That's what I meant by "every new generation tries to become more luxurious."
they continue to produce dedicated enthusiast-focused versions
I don't disagree:
I suppose there's some desirability in being able to have leather-lined vents and comfort seats and smoothed out shifts, and then a track car, and then also a race-ready car all under the same model umbrella
To your next point:
This idea that driver engagement is just some kind of illusion isn’t accurate at all.
I didn't say it wasn't. My point isn't that there aren't enthusiast-focused variants of the 911 today. My point is questioning whether the need to cater to buyers who want something more luxurious while also catering to hardcore enthusiasts all with the same model comrpomises the model at both extremes.
I may have misunderstood your original point about the 911 being more legend than car - mainly because I assumed you were talking the Porsche GT models.
But if I’m understanding your reasoning correctly now, it sounds like you’d actually agree with me that the 911 - especially in its regular variants - might feel more like its true self if Porsche offered something like a 928-esque front-engine, rear-wheel-drive luxury coupe, similar in concept to a Bentley Continental, instead of trying to reach that target audience with the 911?
That way, the 911 could have more room to embrace its role as a sports car from a luxury brand, rather than drifting toward being a sporty luxury car.
it sounds like you’d actually agree with me that the 911 - especially in its regular variants - might feel more like its true self if Porsche offered something like a 928-esque front-engine, rear-wheel-drive luxury coupe, similar in concept to a Bentley Continental but more sporty, instead of trying to reach that target audience with the 911?
I do agree with that conceptually. But I'm not sure that would be a winning business move - both because of the need to protect Bentley revenue, and also because now that Porsche has done that with the 911 and been so successful, they can't put the cat back in the bag. That could be why they're also considering a regular production supercar above the 911.
This is pure "back in my day" yelling at clouds but my father was an early 911 guy in the mid-late '60s not long after it first came to the US and I remember him telling me about the catalog of parts and options you could order. Back then it wasn't leather-lined vents but motorsport-oriented go fast parts. That vibe obviously changed as the company evolved in the 911 into a luxury product. I respect their hustle hitting so many luxury niches while maintaining their performance cred with hardcore track cars all from a single platform. Their engineering wizardry is legit, too, but I'm more curious about the car from brand management perspective than "ooh, I want one of those" these days. Except for the Dakar, I want one of those, but not for whatever they cost.
The 2nd-gear issue is something nearly every modern high-performance car runs into. You really can't stretch its legs without going seriously-reckless speeds. Among other reasons, that's why cars like the Miata and Elise have enduring popularity even among wealthy enthusiasts: You can drive the piss out of them on a normal road.
I grew to hate my gt350 mustang for the same reason. 55 in 1st and didn’t get on the cans until 45. The fun roads here are all switchbacks so I was often in 1st and not in the power band until half way to the next corner.
The Continental is already the modern 928. The 911 was 20” shorter than the 928 back in the day, and the Conti is 20” shorter than the 992 (which is now the same size as the 928).
They strongly considered that but then killed the idea to not compete internally with the Bentley. From a business perspective it was a great decision. You want people paying $300-400K for the Bentley. They wouldn't do that for a 928.
The Conti GT also does what the 928 would but much better IMO. Bentley is in a weird place where its reputation is kind of transitioning from "sporty Rolls Royce" before the VW/BMW purchases to "luxurious Porsche." IMO the reputation lags behind the car because the Conti is very performannce-focused these days. I don't think Porsche could make a 928 that's better for the purpose...which makes sense because Porsche developed the platform it's on. btw that's for the Panamera, Conti GT, and Flying Spur. You might've already known that but I wasn't sure from your comment.
I understand & agree everything you said, but case in point, the Mercede AMG GT (2 door) sold pretty well & that was kind of a Porsche 928-esque car. Long nose, powerful V8 but comfortable enough for daily use... without being a full-on air-suspension, much-heavier Continental GT. What are your thoughts there?
The first-gen GT was a pretty focused sports car; the "GT" there was the GT racing series, not grand tourer. And it didn't sell all that well partially because the ride was too compromised. I think it barely outsold the Bentley at about half the price.
They were allegedly planning a model above the 911
We stand for uncompromisingly good sports cars that you want to drive yourself, that are fun, that convey performance and passion. And all this regardless of the type of powertrain.
“We are considering the expansion of our product portfolio in order to grow in higher-margin segments. In doing so, we are looking at models and derivatives both above our current two-door sports cars and above the Cayenne.”
I take a lot of long-ass road trips, and I tend to prioritize non-interstate, non-highway routes whenever possible.
Considering the inordinate amount of time that I spend puttering along under the speed limit behind an '88 F150 that bleeds off 10mph every time there's a minor turn in the road instead of doing what my German sports car is designed to do, I should have bought an SUV.
My PDK car is running 3300rpm at 80mph. A 6 speed is doing close to 4k. And the tire roar / road noise is...something. Even if it isn't more comfortable (which it very likely is, at least compared to the stiffer 992.1) but it's almost certainly quieter.
Betteridge etc says "no." So does anyone who's not primarily a sports car fanatic. The 911 in any trim has too much tire roar, wind noise, and engine close to you to be a good tourer in the grand touring sense.
I think part of getting older is realizing how correct James from top gear always was.
Everything has compromises, and especially with sports cars, you're always trying to find the right balance between sporting characteristics and driveability. There's a reason things like the caterham 7 and Ariel atom are likely the best sports cars you can buy, but they sell like shit compared to anything mainstream
I didn't have an opinion either way as a teenager, but now I know he's right about the ring. The idea of tuning a road car specifically to perform as fast as possible around a very niche track doesn't make sense.
The Nurburgring is a great track for developing sports cars. It's an awful track for developing regular traffic, but for some reason most manufacturers are hell-bent on sending the most mundane cars around it during their R&D.
I disagree. The Ring is very fast and quite smooth compared to a lot of American race tracks, which means cars can be tuned stiffer and lower than road cars need to be.
Sports cars aren’t necessarily track cars. It used to be that you’d have to modify your car to be a track weapon, and now you can just buy it- and the cars have gotten far, far worse to be in on the street.
Every other racetrack, really? What about Streets of Willow Springs circa 2009? Pacific Raceways 2016?
Is a vehicle equipped with a front axle lift system too low for street use if its standard ride height is such that it scrapes often enough to require supplementation? I say yes, and therefore that car is lower than it needs to be.
Cars tuned at the Ring are not entirely usable on the street. The spring rates that keep the car out of full bump stop engagement into a compression at 140mph are too stiff to provide an adequate combination of ride quality and handling at 60mph.
If you would, provide a counter to my post other than “wrong.”
Yes even higher ride height than what should be necessary for the tracks you mentioned. I don't see of those tracks having a jump like Pflanzgarten, foxhole compression or the both carrousels. Therefore it's the go-to track for vehicle development. It has everything combined in one track.
Don't buy a sportscar when you want comfort. Can't have everything in one package. Comfortable saloons are plenty fast in a straight line.
There's something to be said about the variety of track at the nurburgring that makes it unparalleled at developing track cars that can be a jack of all trades no matter the track they go to, but what should've been obvious from the start is that a track car does not make a good road car.
The faster you go the stiffer the suspension you need, no matter the surface. Even a suspension designed for rally would be hell on the road. (With Baja being the exception) So inherently designing a car that can go as fast as physically possible at the nurburgring or otherwise is a contradiction to making the most enjoyable car for the road.
Maybe long ago in the 60's when max speeds were more reasonable it wouldn't have been a contradiction, but now that road cars are so fast you must intentionally decide if you want to make the car as fast as possible or as enjoyable as possible on the road.
I’ve really come to appreciate his hatred of cars that were “built for” the ‘ring.
The kind of suspension setup and tuning that you need to do well at the ‘ring makes for a car with comfort levels that lie somewhere between “very uncomfortable” and “utterly intolerable” on the road.
If a car is going to live at the track, it’s a reasonable approach to take. For anything that’s actually intended to be used on the road, it’s really stupid.
Yeah people want a car that they can take to the track if they really want to because it satisfies authenticity or lends credibility or just fulfills their fantasy. But most people don't actually want to track (talking buyers at large, not necessarily forum users). It's a bit like PNW white collar workers always wearing hiking boots. They're not hitting Columbia after work, but it's an identity thing.
The thing I like about my WRX is that, if I want to take it on winding country roads in the mountains, both gravel and tarmac, it’s better and braver at it than I am, so I have a great time and the car is never in any danger
As a consumer that leaves me contented, and I’ll watch Travis Pastrana do the dumb shit on YouTube.
My partner and I just drove away nearly 1300 miles over a span of 3 days on holiday in my loud 2zz swapped MR2 Spyder as an emergency backup car as a front caliper pin Bolt snapped on my Suzuki 2 days before and I couldn't get parts in time.
It sits at 4000rpm at 70mph with no A/C or Cruise Control.
The radio wiring was intermittent and we had only a single disc CD radio to keep us company (I cba to swap to a Bluetooth one)
The storage was awful and we had to spend 15 mins trying to cram all the clothes and hiking gear in.
And yet we did it. So yeah, if a tiny, horrendously impractical and loud 2 seat convertible can do it, I'm sure a 200k+ luxury sports car can do it too lol.
hi_im_bored13@reddit
I sold my 991.2 GT3 non-touring because it toured too well
Ok_Two_2604@reddit
I grew to hate my gt350 mustang for the same reason. The fun roads here are all switchbacks so I was often in 1st and not in the power band until half way to the next corner. Fun in a big track but not as fun as the e30 spec racer.
gaius49@reddit
The GT350 is definitely the wrong car for tight, low speed roads. Its not built for that and it isn't fun in those conditions. That's not the car's fault though.
Noobasdfjkl@reddit
There’s no reason why the car has a 53mph first gear and a 89mph second gear. That’s absolutely the car’s fault.
gaius49@reddit
No? 1st gear pulls nicely and is short enough to work well in heavy traffic. 2nd is well sequenced to work nicely coming out of 1st, and so on and so forth through 5th. 6th is a gaping chasm of an overdrive gear that really has no place in that gearbox except for eeking out a tiny bit better fuel economy on the highway.
Its a high rpm, high power, high grip, big fast car. That's what its built to do.
caterham09@reddit
That's most new cars tbh. The gearing is so tall you'll be lucky to shift out of 2nd in any real world scenario.
FoMoCoNutjob@reddit (OP)
Care to explain?
hi_im_bored13@reddit
Edited the comment with details because yeah it was bit clickbait
But its was just perfectly compliant, the gears were long, even on the S/T etc. its not that short, the seats were plenty comfortable, the car was immensely stable, you had to really try to make a mistake with that car
I much prefer my AP2 & e.x. a 981 GT4 or even a base Cayman. I don't think the GT3 is a bad car at all, fact that it can do that all is an engineering marvel, very few if any cars as well-rounded as a GT3
I just don't get the attitude of all of these journalists when they go "oh its some hardcore track weapon thats absolutely unlivable on the road & the touring really brings all that together & anyone who disagrees is just some contrarian looking for drama & clicks"
It's only until the 3RS, particularly the difference between the 991.2 3 & 3rs, where thats really true. Its not a sofa but its a street car
Pitiful-Walrus5102@reddit
The shorter gears on the .2 make a pretty big difference. My biggest complaint with the 981/718 was the gearing. I don’t want to be 82-83 in second gear. With the .2 gt3 that’s now substantially lower and puts me in 3rd and 4th on most drives, as opposed to hanging in second for 90% of a canyon run
_galaga_@reddit
I thought Matt Farah was onto something with his 718 with the DeMan transmission swap. I’m kinda over the 911. It’s great, sure, but I’d get more fun out of a 718 with the gearing fixed.
Part of the 911 irony is that it’s a great all rounder but often bought by dudes that can have a garage full of specialists. A real GT will be more comfy yada yada.
hi_im_bored13@reddit
If I were to get back in a porsche it would almost certainly be a base-ish 981 with modified gearing or a Spyder RS. Or a Targa GTS
& yeah it really is just the perfect car for a lot of people its just if you're on that enthusiast spectrum where I really don't mind giving up some livability for quite bit of character, so many more interesting cars
if you let me speed, maybe, but a 992 S/T is literally hitting 74 at the top of 2nd. & I'm sure these journalists do have a good bit of fun. There was that 700hp Carrera t video by Farah where he very obviously isn't going legal speeds
but realistically, you can get me a 992.2 with all of the lightweighting & shortened gearing & I'm still peddling around in 2nd just a grand or two revs higher than I was before
& they're like oh but its noisy in overdrive gear on the highway!!! thats not hardcore thats just shit thats the other thing with that car it always felt like it was missing a gear all the time
_galaga_@reddit
A 6-cylinder Boxster with a stick (718 or 981) is a great start for what I want a fun car to be now. It does surprise me that Porsche of all companies have stuck with too-tall gearing on the short end and not long enough for comfy cruising on the tall end. Whether it's to protect a special higher trim, or differentiate 718 vs 911, I don't really care, it comes across like an intentional deviation from making the best driving thing possible at a particular price point.
I get you on speed/gearing. It feels like part of the enthusiast lifecycle to yearn for these fast cars, hopefully get one someday, then get bored driving at 1/10th because if you actually nail the throttle you're risking your license in 4 seconds with one gear change, then you sell everything and get a used Miata and wear a "Slow Car Fast" t-shirt unironically. I don't see anything wrong with that these days.
dustygator@reddit
Tall gearing on manuals is often due to drive by noise regulations. Autos can set their logic to short shift to ensure they comply under testing conditions. But manuals are tested accelerating under third gear starting at 30mph or something like that, and if the gearing is too short, the revs pick up to the point that you'd fail the maximum noise.
Camissa covered it on a podcast a while back
That's the beauty of the ZF8:
hi_im_bored13@reddit
It's just the balance you have to strike with emissions, the test cycle is quite unforgiving towards manuals, shift points are predetermined by an algorithm for testing, you're never going to test into good city scores so you target that range from 60-80mph to be as efficient as possible
but you also want 6th to be somewhat usable on track, especially on the back straight of the nordschlife when you go for your worlds faster manual production car record attempt, so you get this awkward overdrive thats good for nothing
You can look at the record lap, they're holding like 8 1/2 coming down the end of the straight right before the last two corners, awfully convenient
gaius49@reddit
Gearing is interesting and tightly coupled with engine character and performance. In my Cobra, I'm pulling a hair under 80 at the top of second gear, but at the same time, I've got lovely V8 roar at 25mph with enough torque on tap to shove the car nicely out of an uphill hairpin. I think part of the issue with the tall gearing on the Porsches is that its coupled with an engine that comparatively lacks low/mid range torue and charm at those engine speeds.
cilantno@reddit
Just want to say I really appreciate the insights you consistently bring to this sub :)
strongmanass@reddit
The 911 is more legend than car these days. With every new generation I hear the ever more ecstatic praise and I wonder if everyone can't see or doesn't care that it's trying to become more and more luxurious - ultimately failing because it can't ever be that, but also deviating from the visceral connected driving experience it's supposed to be. I mean the Turbo S cab is over 4000 pounds.
Of course it will be more capable than every previous gen - all cars get more capable over time. But what does it mean for the 911 to be "better"? Surely it's not just becoming more civilized. I suppose there's some desirability in being able to have leather-lined vents and comfort seats and smoothed out shifts, and then a track car, and then also a race-ready car all under the same model umbrella. But it just seems like too much dilution and bloat for one model.
CostaQuantaa@reddit
Out of all the arguments made in these comments - especially those from hi_im_bored that are actually reasonable and very well put together, this one is, in my opinion, among the least substantiated and lacks grounding in reality.
Yes, those kinds of 911 exist that drift far away from what enthusiasts are asking for. But at the same time, Porsche is still building a roughly 3,000-pound, manual, N/A track-focused driver’s car in form of the S/T and GT3- something virtually no other luxury manufacturer offers anymore.
So yes, they are still catering to the hardcore crowd. The regular models might not fully reflect that anymore, but they continue to produce dedicated enthusiast-focused versions — cars like the GT3, GT3 RS and limited stuff like the S/T and S/C - and especially today, within their price range and even above, they are absolute unicorns.
Sure, a GT3 RS was arguably more hardcore 20 years ago than it is today. But if you look at something like the S/T, there’s simply no real equivalent left from other manufacturers.
So no - this idea that driver engagement is just some kind of illusion isn’t accurate at all. It absolutely still exists today, especially compared to the competition. It’s just become more concentrated in specific models.
strongmanass@reddit
You're not really saying much different from me; the main difference is your conclusion is to celebrate Porsche while mine is to question them.
That's what I meant by "every new generation tries to become more luxurious."
I don't disagree:
To your next point:
I didn't say it wasn't. My point isn't that there aren't enthusiast-focused variants of the 911 today. My point is questioning whether the need to cater to buyers who want something more luxurious while also catering to hardcore enthusiasts all with the same model comrpomises the model at both extremes.
CostaQuantaa@reddit
I may have misunderstood your original point about the 911 being more legend than car - mainly because I assumed you were talking the Porsche GT models.
But if I’m understanding your reasoning correctly now, it sounds like you’d actually agree with me that the 911 - especially in its regular variants - might feel more like its true self if Porsche offered something like a 928-esque front-engine, rear-wheel-drive luxury coupe, similar in concept to a Bentley Continental, instead of trying to reach that target audience with the 911?
That way, the 911 could have more room to embrace its role as a sports car from a luxury brand, rather than drifting toward being a sporty luxury car.
strongmanass@reddit
I do agree with that conceptually. But I'm not sure that would be a winning business move - both because of the need to protect Bentley revenue, and also because now that Porsche has done that with the 911 and been so successful, they can't put the cat back in the bag. That could be why they're also considering a regular production supercar above the 911.
_galaga_@reddit
This is pure "back in my day" yelling at clouds but my father was an early 911 guy in the mid-late '60s not long after it first came to the US and I remember him telling me about the catalog of parts and options you could order. Back then it wasn't leather-lined vents but motorsport-oriented go fast parts. That vibe obviously changed as the company evolved in the 911 into a luxury product. I respect their hustle hitting so many luxury niches while maintaining their performance cred with hardcore track cars all from a single platform. Their engineering wizardry is legit, too, but I'm more curious about the car from brand management perspective than "ooh, I want one of those" these days. Except for the Dakar, I want one of those, but not for whatever they cost.
RevvCats@reddit
Porsche probably wouldn’t be very happy with them if they didn’t make comments like that
BWFTW@reddit
Can't you get the 992.2 gt3 non rs with rear seats and a wing? Or am I crazy.
hi_im_bored13@reddit
It looks to be only the touring oem? i'm sure it can be done aftermarket
8N-QTTRO@reddit
The 2nd-gear issue is something nearly every modern high-performance car runs into. You really can't stretch its legs without going seriously-reckless speeds. Among other reasons, that's why cars like the Miata and Elise have enduring popularity even among wealthy enthusiasts: You can drive the piss out of them on a normal road.
Ok_Two_2604@reddit
I grew to hate my gt350 mustang for the same reason. 55 in 1st and didn’t get on the cans until 45. The fun roads here are all switchbacks so I was often in 1st and not in the power band until half way to the next corner.
FR_Van_Guy@reddit
Anyone actually interested in touring or long drives is buying an LC500 over a 911.
goaelephant@reddit
If only there was a modern 928. A shortened Panamera with 2 doors and the V8 engine
Surprised they dont just use the Bentley Continental platform, they already platform-share the Urus & Bentayga
Noobasdfjkl@reddit
The Continental is already the modern 928. The 911 was 20” shorter than the 928 back in the day, and the Conti is 20” shorter than the 992 (which is now the same size as the 928).
strongmanass@reddit
They strongly considered that but then killed the idea to not compete internally with the Bentley. From a business perspective it was a great decision. You want people paying $300-400K for the Bentley. They wouldn't do that for a 928.
The Conti GT also does what the 928 would but much better IMO. Bentley is in a weird place where its reputation is kind of transitioning from "sporty Rolls Royce" before the VW/BMW purchases to "luxurious Porsche." IMO the reputation lags behind the car because the Conti is very performannce-focused these days. I don't think Porsche could make a 928 that's better for the purpose...which makes sense because Porsche developed the platform it's on. btw that's for the Panamera, Conti GT, and Flying Spur. You might've already known that but I wasn't sure from your comment.
goaelephant@reddit
I understand & agree everything you said, but case in point, the Mercede AMG GT (2 door) sold pretty well & that was kind of a Porsche 928-esque car. Long nose, powerful V8 but comfortable enough for daily use... without being a full-on air-suspension, much-heavier Continental GT. What are your thoughts there?
strongmanass@reddit
The first-gen GT was a pretty focused sports car; the "GT" there was the GT racing series, not grand tourer. And it didn't sell all that well partially because the ride was too compromised. I think it barely outsold the Bentley at about half the price.
hi_im_bored13@reddit
They were allegedly planning a model above the 911
SecretPantyWorshiper@reddit
Anyone actually interested in doing a tour would buy a SUV lol
GodsFavoriteDegen@reddit
I take a lot of long-ass road trips, and I tend to prioritize non-interstate, non-highway routes whenever possible.
Considering the inordinate amount of time that I spend puttering along under the speed limit behind an '88 F150 that bleeds off 10mph every time there's a minor turn in the road instead of doing what my German sports car is designed to do, I should have bought an SUV.
StrangeSmellz@reddit
My 2001 civic can tour. I think this will be just fine.
caterham09@reddit
Your 01 civic might be more comfortable than a Gt3 tbh
taticalgoose@reddit
Might be? It absolutely is more comfortable than a GT3.
zxrax@reddit
My PDK car is running 3300rpm at 80mph. A 6 speed is doing close to 4k. And the tire roar / road noise is...something. Even if it isn't more comfortable (which it very likely is, at least compared to the stiffer 992.1) but it's almost certainly quieter.
WarDEagle@reddit
Yeah, phone calls are an unfortunate experience at highway speed on anything but new pavement.
thisf001@reddit
I drove cross country in a freshly swapped lsvtec w/ LS trans and got over 40+mpg. Car drove on rails and had enough power to have fun.
strongmanass@reddit
Betteridge etc says "no." So does anyone who's not primarily a sports car fanatic. The 911 in any trim has too much tire roar, wind noise, and engine close to you to be a good tourer in the grand touring sense.
Says it all.
caterham09@reddit
I think part of getting older is realizing how correct James from top gear always was.
Everything has compromises, and especially with sports cars, you're always trying to find the right balance between sporting characteristics and driveability. There's a reason things like the caterham 7 and Ariel atom are likely the best sports cars you can buy, but they sell like shit compared to anything mainstream
Jaiden051@reddit
James May always has some great takes. My favourite is his hatred of the Nurburgring
caterham09@reddit
I didn't have an opinion either way as a teenager, but now I know he's right about the ring. The idea of tuning a road car specifically to perform as fast as possible around a very niche track doesn't make sense.
hbs18@reddit
It only makes no sense to americans who buy cars to drive them forward on a 5 lane highway
PEEWUN@reddit
Or people who don't want their daily commute to feel like a visit to the chiropractor, but okay, Senna...
hbs18@reddit
A road car tuned to perform well on the Nordschleife isn't stiff. Stiff road cars without shit tons of aero don't do well on the bumpy curvy track.
MrReadilyUnready@reddit
The Nurburgring is a great track for developing sports cars. It's an awful track for developing regular traffic, but for some reason most manufacturers are hell-bent on sending the most mundane cars around it during their R&D.
Bonerchill@reddit
I disagree. The Ring is very fast and quite smooth compared to a lot of American race tracks, which means cars can be tuned stiffer and lower than road cars need to be.
Sports cars aren’t necessarily track cars. It used to be that you’d have to modify your car to be a track weapon, and now you can just buy it- and the cars have gotten far, far worse to be in on the street.
Loeki2018@reddit
Minimum ride heights for the ring are higher than what every other racetrack requires.What you are saying isn't remotely true.
Bonerchill@reddit
Every other racetrack, really? What about Streets of Willow Springs circa 2009? Pacific Raceways 2016?
Is a vehicle equipped with a front axle lift system too low for street use if its standard ride height is such that it scrapes often enough to require supplementation? I say yes, and therefore that car is lower than it needs to be.
Cars tuned at the Ring are not entirely usable on the street. The spring rates that keep the car out of full bump stop engagement into a compression at 140mph are too stiff to provide an adequate combination of ride quality and handling at 60mph.
If you would, provide a counter to my post other than “wrong.”
Loeki2018@reddit
Yes even higher ride height than what should be necessary for the tracks you mentioned. I don't see of those tracks having a jump like Pflanzgarten, foxhole compression or the both carrousels. Therefore it's the go-to track for vehicle development. It has everything combined in one track. Don't buy a sportscar when you want comfort. Can't have everything in one package. Comfortable saloons are plenty fast in a straight line.
Bonerchill@reddit
A sports car needn’t be a track car, though. They were meant for the sport of driving, not the sport of racing.
You can have fun and comfortable. You can’t have track weapon and comfortable.
T-Baaller@reddit
Probably the engineers want to have some fun in their career instead of more testing how the car does FMVSS test 04-b or whatever in a lab.
RazingsIsNotHomeNow@reddit
There's something to be said about the variety of track at the nurburgring that makes it unparalleled at developing track cars that can be a jack of all trades no matter the track they go to, but what should've been obvious from the start is that a track car does not make a good road car.
The faster you go the stiffer the suspension you need, no matter the surface. Even a suspension designed for rally would be hell on the road. (With Baja being the exception) So inherently designing a car that can go as fast as physically possible at the nurburgring or otherwise is a contradiction to making the most enjoyable car for the road. Maybe long ago in the 60's when max speeds were more reasonable it wouldn't have been a contradiction, but now that road cars are so fast you must intentionally decide if you want to make the car as fast as possible or as enjoyable as possible on the road.
Firereign@reddit
I’ve really come to appreciate his hatred of cars that were “built for” the ‘ring.
The kind of suspension setup and tuning that you need to do well at the ‘ring makes for a car with comfort levels that lie somewhere between “very uncomfortable” and “utterly intolerable” on the road.
If a car is going to live at the track, it’s a reasonable approach to take. For anything that’s actually intended to be used on the road, it’s really stupid.
OllieFromCairo@reddit
Yes. 100% correct that take.
strongmanass@reddit
Yeah people want a car that they can take to the track if they really want to because it satisfies authenticity or lends credibility or just fulfills their fantasy. But most people don't actually want to track (talking buyers at large, not necessarily forum users). It's a bit like PNW white collar workers always wearing hiking boots. They're not hitting Columbia after work, but it's an identity thing.
OllieFromCairo@reddit
The thing I like about my WRX is that, if I want to take it on winding country roads in the mountains, both gravel and tarmac, it’s better and braver at it than I am, so I have a great time and the car is never in any danger
As a consumer that leaves me contented, and I’ll watch Travis Pastrana do the dumb shit on YouTube.
ASource3511@reddit
Isn't the touring package literally just a wing delete?
Finbarr-Galedeep@reddit
If it couldn't, I'm sure the quality of life of its obscenely wealthy customers would be severely diminished.
henryjhost@reddit
The Panamera is the real Porsche touring car. It sits on the same platform as the Continental GT and can be had with the same 4.0 V8.
Godvater@reddit
I believe I read/watched that the 991 tourings were much better when it comes to comfort compared to the 992.
cannedrex2406@reddit
My partner and I just drove away nearly 1300 miles over a span of 3 days on holiday in my loud 2zz swapped MR2 Spyder as an emergency backup car as a front caliper pin Bolt snapped on my Suzuki 2 days before and I couldn't get parts in time.
It sits at 4000rpm at 70mph with no A/C or Cruise Control.
The radio wiring was intermittent and we had only a single disc CD radio to keep us company (I cba to swap to a Bluetooth one)
The storage was awful and we had to spend 15 mins trying to cram all the clothes and hiking gear in.
And yet we did it. So yeah, if a tiny, horrendously impractical and loud 2 seat convertible can do it, I'm sure a 200k+ luxury sports car can do it too lol.
8N-QTTRO@reddit
You can tour in any car. Hell, I've toured in a Lotus Elise. It's entirely dependent on how much you're willing to tolerate.
Ok_Two_2604@reddit
I have toured in my atom. It required saddle bags but it did do it.
Ok_Combination_4482@reddit
Porsche do be the gold standard for a reason.