Why shouldn't the 911 have been allowed to go to S Car Go, exactly? It's a 10-year older sports car based on (and still VERY close to) a design that's 30+ years older than the 986.
The 911 benefitted from re-valved Bilsteins a lowered ride height, and a performance alignment. And that's about it and just about exactly what the 986 had -- re-valved Bilsteins, stiffer springs, bigger anti-roll bars, a (slightly) lowered ride height, and a (semi) performance alignment. Actually, the 986 is sounding a little more "prepared" to me, all of a sudden. Plus, there's the small matter of fresh 225s/265s on 18x8s and 18x10s on the Box and old, hard 205s/225s on 16x6s and 16x8s the 911.
The 911 had (a little) more grunt, but not more pace. The two cars were neck and neck in most situations, especially whenever the 2.5 could take advantage of its second-gear ratio. A lot of 911 3.2 owners would have been very discouraged to see the 2.5 so large in their mirrors so much of the time. The 911 had a bit more power, but it also weighed within one pound of the Box -- a point emphasized in the article.
I dunno, you guys can Monday morning quarterback me all you wish (and, believe me, the 968 crew has -- and fairly so), but I am comfortable with the 986 and 911 I chose. Any advantage in one area was canceled out in another. Sadly, the 968 was another matter....
Finally, 986S 3.2 doesn't compute in the pricing sweet spot -- and I've got to be extraordinarily careful about who comes out on these things. As I'm sure you'll understand, anybody with "something to prove" on the road is automatically out. Then you work in logistics, weather, etc. and it gets, well, interesting!
I don't mind criticism, as we're certainly nothing more than a human enterprise, but I can't agree with your assertions.
pete