Just curious...

[z12358]

"there are some distinct advantages to the 911 configuration."

So when shall we expect F1 teams to move their engines behind the rear wheels? Perhaps, when Schumacher finally masters the "911 technique"?

Z.

[Brucelee]

"i'm not sure i agree with that. there are some distinct advantages to the 911 configuration. while it is difficult to master and part of the pleasure is mastering these difficult dynamics, the ability of a 911 to enter a curve way too hot, bleed off speed on entry, and rocket out of the apex using the throttle like a rudder is pretty unique. the ability to lay down the power exiting a corner is unparalleled. a seasoned driver in a 911 on an unfamiliar course will have a distinct advantage, in my opinion, over drivers in other cars. on well known courses, the advantage diminishes, but it really depends on the course. some types are very 911 friendly. others are not."

Unless they have repealed the law of physics in the last few minutes, this is simply a statement not supported by reality.

As pointed out above, if the rear engine car had any distinct advantages, it would be the design of choice in F1 and all manner of road racing.

It clearly is not. In fact, to my memory, the only manufacturer of note to run this design is Porsche.

Could it be that the 911 is so configured due to its origin as a road car, ie. it was what F. Porsche could source when he started his company and could buy components from VW?

To wit, now many VW bugs do we see dominating racing at any level.

C'mon guys, the 911 does well in spite of its design, not because of it.

I can echo a lot of the excellent statements already posted in this thread.

I simply wanted a 2 seater roadster convertible.

I did not want a car I can see everyday passing me in my neighborhood or on the highway. I see tons of BMW's and Vetts. I wanted something a little more unique and "rare".

[KevinH1990]

The 356 prototype was a mid-engine car. Production considerations dictated that the cars sold to the public were rear engine designs. So, if Dr. Porsche had his choice, he would buy a Boxster.

[insite]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Unless they have repealed the law of physics in the last few minutes, this is simply a statement not supported by reality.

here's an example: braking. without getting TOO deep into the physics, imagine a shift in weight of 20% toward the front of the car during braking:

a front engined car (60/40 front - rear weight distro) becomes 80/20. the front 2 tires do 80% of the work

a mid engined car (50/50) becomes 70/30. the front 2 tires do 70% of the work.

a rear engined car (40/60) becomes 60/40; the front 2 tires do 60% of the work. maximizing the work done by each tire is one reason that 911s typically have outstanding brake systems.

another example: when a 911 hits the gas and weight shifts rearward over the back tires, the grip achieved generally surpasses that of mid or front engined cars. look at a dragster: engine WAY back over HUGE rear tires. the downside is, of course, that the front gets VERY light....

Originally Posted by Brucelee

As pointed out above, if the rear engine car had any distinct advantages, it would be the design of choice in F1 and all manner of road racing.

F1 cars tend to have weight distributions closer to those of a 911 than to a boxster despite their mid-engine configurations, although aero IS used at speed to overcome this

Originally Posted by Brucelee

C'mon guys, the 911 does well in spite of its design, not because of it.

it has distinct advantages and distinct disadvantages. its disadvantages have been VERY difficult to overcome, but there ARE some advantages.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by seventythree

The 911 is designed and manufactured to higher standards and specifications, hence, the ~70% higher price premium.
Compared to the 911, the Boxster is a niche car and it fills that niche quite wonderfully.
The broader market appeal and perseverance of the 911 compared to its siblings, despite a hefty price premium in most cases, has been time-tested for nearly 4 decades. This level of dominance wouldn't have lasted for so long, had it been based on perception rather than real substance.
As far as what exactly makes the 911 one of the predominant automotive icons of our time, many Porsche specific books are available from some the most respected sources.

All and all, just my 2 cents worth.

You've been brainwashed. Don't feel bad your are one of many. Porsche spends millions of dollars each year to keep you brainwashed. Porsche wants you to think you are getting more for your money despite being an inferior design. Hell, the 996 and the 986 boxster are the same cars from the front seat forward. The quality of the 996 is no better than a 986 and the water cooled 911's are mass produced just like the 986. Btw, Mid-engine > rear engine.

[insite]

Originally Posted by z12358

"there are some distinct advantages to the 911 configuration."

So when shall we expect F1 teams to move their engines behind the rear wheels? Perhaps, when Schumacher finally masters the "911 technique"?

Z.

even though F1 engines are mounted in a 'mid-engine' configuration, the weight distribution of an F1 car is closer to 40/60 than 50/50. FYI, a 997 is 38/62.