i couldn't agree more with all of the above. i recently drove a 458 italia and it hit me immediately that there's a whole different achievement in craftsmanship, great technical features yet connected driving experience going on... at a very steep price of course and, let's face it, not practical of cruising potholed big cities or in foul weather. still, with the 911, as incredible as some ferraris are, i never feel deprived in any way

 

If you keep this up, you guys are going to cause me to make a trip to the Ferrari dealer!

 

Just in that moment, yes. Could I live with the Veyron, let alone use it daily? Of course not.

At full throttle, the cavernous gas tank empties in 12 minutes.
A spare tire (delivered with the custom rim) is $20,000.

Service is performed by a mechanic flown in especially for the job.

Now, by comparison, the F430 Scuderia. The car I drove, had 40,000 miles in 2 years. I asked the owner about reliability and maintenance. His reply 'Maintenance? Only oil, tires and brakes.'

If I had 'Google money', would I own a Veyron? Most likely. But I'd also own a F458, a 599GTO, a 911 Turbo S, a McLaren MP4-12C and a couple of Rolls Royces, just for starters, followed by a hangar full of classics. Does that make the Bugatti significantly better than the 911? Only within a narrow set of parameters. For me, the level of 'goodness' is tied to driveability and daily usability, along with exhilarating driving characteristics.

A much tougher choice for me would be: 911 Turbo S with PDK against a used F430 Scuderia. I would not know which to choose....

 

I agree. My friend recently got a balloon white LP560-4 and it is a totally different animal from the Porsche. The interior, the exterior, the engine bay are works of art. His California, while not exactly my cup of tea, has a sumptuous interior and the F1 fires off like a rifle salute. I can hear him coming down the street from a block away. That Ferrari sound is in a league of it's own and the craftsmenship is sumptuous.

I've considered getting an F-car or Lambo but it's not practical as a DD around here. That's why IMO an R8 is a more practical choice for my next whip.

I don't think any car enthusiast is going to group a Carrera with a Veyron. Cars like the Zonda, Huayra or Agera are visually stunning with jaw-dropping performance.

 

Holy hell, people here get butthurt regarding the opinions of others about their choice in car.

I know I'm not the only one that thinks that the C2 has many performance peers, and the Turbo (S)/GT2 does not.

Trying to lump all 911's together is not easy to do, given the wide spectrum of trim levels. Like bringing either a C6 or ZR-1 to a drag race and considering them the same thing.

To me, there is a huge disparity between the the base 911, and top of the line (over a $100k difference).

 

But what exactly is the C2 lacking so badly to warrant calling it junk? Just power? I agree that a car in this category should have more power, but it's not underpowered enough to undermine the car, and power is only one dimension of performance and the overall driving experience. There are muscle cars that cost way less than the C2 and have way more power, but they're indeed clumsy pieces of junk compared to the C2.

 

I don't believe this is the topic of discussion. However I agree 100% with your comment regarding cars with more power also being junk.

(But then, you post it on their forums, and you'll get the same kind of reaction that I received... It's all about perspective)

Let me answer your question with a question (I know this is retarded, but please bear with me) - If it has little to be desired, why are there so many available upgrades from the base trim (let's assume everything is base)?

Personally, I'd rather the comment be seen, understood that not everybody views cars the same way, and return the point of discussion (which I thought I tied in rather well).

 

It would be more helpful if you answered the question with an answer rather than a question. By evading the question, you're weakening your case, not helping it.

 

I know, I know... Admittedly, I knew it was not the proper way to go (hence the statement in my previous response).

I was very underwhelmed with the experience, primarily with power, and the 'wow' factor. I never felt like I was in the ultimate machine.

Alternatively, I was amazed at the new Turbo w/PDK. It finally offered the performance I was looking for. While I still enjoyed the 6sp experience, I felt that the new Turbo setup was more linear than in the past, and finally offered great performance.

My cousin's GT2 solidified my opinion of this. After driving his GT2, I could never find myself happy with the C2.

Somebody asked about C2S (I'm assuming 997). I had the pleasure of driving one on track for an afternoon. I had a blast. But I could never buy one, knowing that there are more potent machines that are out there.

 

Using this logic you should not have bought your GT-R as their are more potent machines out there.

 

Very fragile egos here... Not sure how the GT-R gets brought into this.

Let me straighten you out, using the aformentioned logic: I believe the 911Turbo has few performance peers (I mentioned this earlier in this thread). It satisfies almost all of my requirements I have of a car (except a usable trunk). The GT-R was slightly superior in performance (but not enough that could be measured usefully), and is usable in everyway I needed a car to function. It satisfied all of my requirements, along with having very few performance peers.

Apparently, I have to spell this out (I was hoping to not deal with this level)... Let me equate to a V6 Challenger vs a Challenger SRT-8. Who here thinks that they are the same car?

You guys are avoiding the point, instead, just keying on one single aspect (missing the bigger picture).

I said (for maybe the 5th time) - perspective is everything.

Using my logic, I refused to get a 370Z, a V6 Camaro, a V6 Challenger, a C2, a C6, V6 Mustang, or Mustang GT.

I'd also opt for either the Boss 302 or GT500. Is there still any confusion? What does the Nissan GT-R have anything to do with this position?

By comparison, to me, the C2 is a waste of time. Where is the confusion? I thought it was simple.

 

Jaspergtr: for the record, I agree with you, overall.

I'm guessing the wording used by some of the posters in this thread (C2 is junk, C2 is a waste of time), is probably what put a few noses out of joint and that's when words like 'by comparison' get missed and tempers flare.

Few material possessions elicit such passionate responses as our cars.

A lot of ego, self-perception, self-worth, etc., seems to be tied to our vehicles and any attack or derogatory comment immediately provokes a passionate response...

In a vacuum, a C2 can never be called useless or junk. When compared to the higher end of the product range (GT2, GT3, GT3RS, Turbo, Turbo S), the C2 cannot truly compete and people may well ask what the C2's "raison d' etre" is, other than to provide a baseline entry point into the 911 world.

With that said: the C2 is still more car than 99% of the drivers know how to drive anywhere near its limits. So 'junk' and 'useless' are probably too strong a choice of words for the statement you were trying to make.

 

Fair enough. You've stated my position a lot more eloquently than I could have.

 

I think we can reconcile this by saying that you give a lot more importance to power than me and the vast majority of other people. If so, I can see how the C2 wouldn't cut it for you, since my C2S barely has enough power for me (and I have a C63 to compare with).

But I still think it's extreme, and unnecessarily provocative, to call the C2 junk. It's also worth noting that there are plenty of people who enjoy the non-turbo 911 variants more than the turbo so, again, power isn't everything.

 

Try AutoX a Spec Miata, as exhilarating as my C2S. Different strokes for different folks.