Badly stomped by the M3 ?
Explain please

 

I find it amusing when people talk about Porsche engines being in the wrong place -- since the front engine placement is based on an ox and a cart.

Part of the challenge of driving a rear-engined vehicle well is that it handles differently than front engine vehicles. Few things are more rewarding than learning how much steering you can do with brakes and throttle.

That this doesn't appeal to your grandparents and posers shouldn't be of major concern.

 

You mean besides Formula 1?

 

I have to laugh at the guys bringing BMW into the discussion. They have yet to even sell a production car in North America that has run under 8:00 around the 'ring, regardless of where the engine is located. Since '99 or 2000, Porsche has sold around 15 production cars that have done just that.

Comparing BMW to Porsche is apples to apples. One makes sporty sedans, the other makes real sports cars.

 

isnt mid-engine for F1 since about the 60's ?

 

This debate is never-ending. People continue to complain that the 911 design is obselete. Porsche ignores them, continues to refine it, and keeps on dominating the competition.

Nothing new here.

 

I agree!

People ask why Porsche builds a rear-engine car.... well... because Porsche CAN!


It's like asking.... why do you buy a $100k+ car, where a $5000 car would be sufficient for the purpose of commute..... well.... because we CAN!

 

F1 cars use a rear-mid engine (RMR) layout...like a Boxster.

 

not sure how the M3 has stomped the 911 considering the 'Ring times. The only thing the M3 has over the 911 is its generous interior space.

The GT-R is a separate story. That car was built to post lap times and compromise on everything else, including comfort, driving experience (though this is admittedly debatable, most journalists have noted that there's not as much pleasure derived from driving a GT-R at its limits) and even warranty. The warranty stipulations on the GT-R are a joke - if you've read the warranty language, which became even more onerous to buyers for the 2010 MY cars, you'd understand that Nissan reserves the right to deny warranty coverage for any or no reason.

The same argument goes for the Dodge Viper ACR. Impressive times but no fun to drive.

 

Rear engine has its benefits (excellent rear traction, essentially 4 'front' wheels to brake with etc..). But what some people may fail to appreciate is that the unladen front end is what makes the steering feel of all 911s legendary.

Yes, the front end bobs up and down a bit. But, the 911 is like your childhood friend...you take the good with the bad and on balance you wouldn't trade it for anything. And if you don't feel that way after driving one (beyond a test drive), then it's not for you. No problem.

The 911 seems to generate significant envy from owners of competing cars, who ironically could have bought a 911 if they wanted to...i.e. M3, Z06 etc... I think some drivers have a hard time admitting that they are a) not pure enthusiasts; b) care far more about torque than the nuances of precise handling and c) don't want to give up a drop more comfort than necessary even in a pure sports car (an automatic Vette w/overdrive cruises on the highway at 90 compared to a 911). So its not for everyone, which makes owning and loving one that much more special.

Just like BMW won't stop producing the 2 cylinder boxer motorcycle engine b/c customers love them, so too shall Porsche continue with the rear engined 911 - I hope.

The 928 was supposed to replace the 911! Could you imagine! My dad had an 87' 928S4. Epic car, but much more of a BMW 6 series-style GT package.

DRP

 

There is no substitute.

 

Actually it may appeal to their grandparents... those who drove Porsches in the 50's and 60's. Other than that, I am in full agreement.

Many of the current 911 buyers have no clue about its technical characteristics and driving dynamics. They bought it for its looks, image, and on-paper performance for bragging rights. Then they are shocked it does not handle as their previous front-heavy bimmer and immediately complain that the design is wrong. These guys are not P-car fans...

 

Some good info in this thread, I still laugh when I read about " Ring " records. No such thing as a " Ring " record as there is no sanctioning body that verifies or tracks the validity of these claims. So this may seem odd but there is no such thing as a production car ring record. They should call it production car alleged fastest time!

Porsche admitted that given a clean sheet of paper, that mid engine has its benefits. But I think it depends on the skill of the driver as mid engine cars like the Boxster can be more forgiving at the limits. But Porsche has tuned out most of the negative things that rear engine cars have to deal with.

Adias I agree with you , it takes a whole rethink of driving technique to get the most out of a 911 coming from front engine, RWD cars. To compare a BMW sedan with a Porsche is a little crazy I think. I have heard the ACR is very fun to drive in the same category as sticking your arm in a lions cage may give you a thrill!

 

ok i wasnt aware of the distinction between a "rear-mid-engine" and "rear engine", i thought the motor position v.s. rear axle makes it either a "rear" or a "mid" even if it's only 1" of difference..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_mi...l_drive_layout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-engine_design