Quote:
Originally Posted by 986_inquiry
that is exactly how I feel about my 987, that the 986 was smaller, less luxurious and more raw
and..... i hate to say this.... hope i don't get flamed... but... the 2.5 986 is.... faster? I know, it shouldn't be, but it is, my 200 hp 2.5 feels faster than the 245hp 2006 2.7, at least in 3rd gear from 60 up. They changed the gearing, from 2000 986 on, 3rd use to go from 62 to ~93mph, now it goes from about 65 to ~103mph, approximate because I would never travel at those speeds. The 2000+ 2.7s I test drove were even slower, so if you're gonna get one, get a 2.5 or 987 or S, of course.
not only that but the 2.5 got the same gas mileage, if not a bit better, and I spend far more time staring at the mpg now since I have a mpg trip computer and the 2.5 didn't.
Ok, flame me, i'm sorry, it's my opinion only
|
I've been thinking lately that the perfect 986 could be a 2.7 with the transmission from the 2.5 fitted. So you get the proper benefit of the 2.7 without it being compromised by the longer gearing.
Then you have the 2.7, which is pretty robust as these engines go (ideally an early 2.7 with double-row IMS), it'll be a bit cheaper to run (smaller brakes etc, cheaper insurance), it looks that bit cleaner and purer without the central air intake.
It'll be plenty quick enough and with the 2.5's gear ratios it should be nice and revvy.