986 2.5L vs 996 3.4L Comparison

[Perfectlap]

As far as mid vs. rear, The Carrera has always struck me as a car that requires the driver to learn a new way of driving to end up with no net advantage on the time sheets.

Some folks find learning how to master a new thing "rewarding" but if at the end of the day the competition are all going quicker in mid engine cars it all seems more like a novelty to me.

If you look at the history, the Porsche 356 #1, the 911's precursor, that rolled off the assembly was at first a mid-engine drop top. But for sales reasons the engine was moved to the rear to allow for a backseat and thus more sales. Function followed form.
OTOH, the Porsche 550 Sypder that came later was made for racing without regard to sales. Form followed function.

Porsche got way too stuck on a car that was pretty late to the party, decades after Porsches were winning races in mid-engine form. There should have been a whole line up of midengine Cayman type cars entering the same races the 911 found success in. It would have shaken out as: Endurance racing to push floor sales of the Carrera and sprint racing to push sales of a mid-engine sports coupe/roadster.
Why the need to choose one over the other if the public today is willing to pay upwards of $1 million for an original Spyder?
Clearly they loved all things Porshce -- done well.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

As far as mid vs. rear, The Carrera has always struck me as a car that requires the driver to learn a new way of driving to end up with no net advantage on the time sheets.

Some folks find learning how to master a new thing "rewarding" but if at the end of the day the competition are all going quicker in mid engine cars it all seems more like a novelty to me.

Sorry, what does it matter how fast you're going? Surely it matters how much you are enjoying the drive?

I never time myself on the road. Nor on track days. I don't enter races, so lap times don't matter.

I like both 911s and Boxsters. Couldn't care less which is better on "time sheets". Why would that matter?

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by pothole

I like both 911s and Boxsters. Couldn't care less which is better on "time sheets". Why would that matter?

well by inference I assumed "time sheets" would be reference to motorsport and competition.
Here in the U.S., by nature, we are very competitive about everything, and this certainly extends into all types of recreational HPDE: If I had a dollar for every casual first time autcrosser or track novice who came in saying "well I'm just driving for fun today" and by the end of that day or month the driver was obssessing over their laptimes relative to others, or fixated on the cars they had to give point-bys, I'd a payed for my recent $2K rotors and waterpump job with ease. It reminds me of specific instance of a driver I knew who once raced against a former McLaren F1 driver when they were amateurs, "you know all those guys over there they're crazy with their new tires, they want FTD and that stupid $5 trophy, bla bla bla....me I'm just here to enjoy the weather, get out of the house, enjoy the new S2000, etc." Well this guy takes second place in pretty competitive field and it was like I was talking to a different guy by the end of the day. "I'm going to beat that #$*@ next week!" LOL.

I guess here we have "sporty" cars and then we have "sports cars". For the latter, as far as our excited and impatient country, it comes down to the black and white performance numbers. The proof in the pudding if you will.... the quantifiable is just as important as the non-quantifiable. For older cars like a Lotus Elan or 912 for instance, obviously you take a different perspective.

Granted, we're talking the sharp end of the needle here, our country is huge and most sports car and sporty car drivers could care less about learning to drive like the rich guys on TV that do it for a living.

[southernstar]

Good post Perfectlap! And its not just in the USA where people are competitive by nature. Or look to and review the performance numbers before purchasing a car - especially a sports car. The latter is probably becoming more important as we live in an age when cars are rapidly advancing in terms of performance - and to make our assessment of the relative merits of one car over another, most of us look to these numbers as well as the opinions of the motoring press. Yes, our individual subjective impressions and taste will be decisive for most of us. But the objective numbers do matter.

[pothole]

In that case, you guys are following the wrong models and brands. There are cars that will deliver the competitive numbers numbers you seek for a lot less money (or better numbers for the same money). Porsche is about about the experience, not numbers on a piece of paper.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by pothole

In that case, you guys are following the wrong models and brands. There are cars that will deliver the competitive numbers numbers you seek for a lot less money (or better numbers for the same money)..

If purchased new, I would agree. But buying used has a great way of extracting the Porsche tax/premium from the value consideration. Once a Porsche is well-settled into pricing reality (and not the absurd pricing their currently getting away with) it's a pretty good proposition -- as far as the time sheets.
Others, granted are still better but they have their their drawbacks as well.
Recent Corvettes come to mind, out of the box they put up great single laptimes for an insane bargain price, but visit a local track often and you'll see quiet a few of them on the back of a flatbed, some before even lunch time. I guess you pay up dearly for Porsche durability, but certainly not at Ferrari levels. It's a sort of middle ground in the sports car jungle. However, GM is moving aggresively.
A look at the recently released Stingray options sheet reveals that they WANT their cars to be shaken down on track, while Porsche come up with new ways to screw their warranty holders. I guess GM are hoping to use their buyers as part of development to bridge the durability gap to Porsche. GM certainly has my attention. Even if you mitigate the Porsche tax by buying used, the maintenance costs are still an issue. And personally I like it when the cheaper alternative wins.

[shadrach74]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

If purchased new, I would agree. But buying used has a great way of extracting the Porsche tax/premium from the value consideration. Once a Porsche is well-settled into pricing reality (and not the absurd pricing their currently getting away with) it's a pretty good proposition -- as far as the time sheets.
Others, granted are still better but they have their their drawbacks as well.
Recent Corvettes come to mind, out of the box they put up great single laptimes for an insane bargain price, but visit a local track often and you'll see quiet a few of them on the back of a flatbed, some before even lunch time. I guess you pay up dearly for Porsche durability, but certainly not at Ferrari levels. It's a sort of middle ground in the sports car jungle. However, GM is moving aggresively.
A look at the recently released Stingray options sheet reveals that they WANT their cars to be shaken down on track, while Porsche come up with new ways to screw their warranty holders. I guess GM are hoping to use their buyers as part of development to bridge the durability gap to Porsche. GM certainly has my attention. Even if you mitigate the Porsche tax by buying used, the maintenance costs are still an issue. And personally I like it when the cheaper alternative wins.

Hmmm... In my experience, simple GM pushrods V8s are far more robust than Pcar engines.