R&T comparison test: 991C2S vs. 2012 AMV8
#31
06-12-2012, 09:51 AM
Racer,
The 4.7 is very different w/r/t torque. The 4.3 was lacking there, the 4.7 isn't. Well, unless you're used to a 5.9
.
The 4.7 is very different w/r/t torque. The 4.3 was lacking there, the 4.7 isn't. Well, unless you're used to a 5.9
.
#32
06-12-2012, 10:45 AM
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 112
Rep Power: 32 
I've seen many, many posts that bemoan the Aston's 'lack' of speed. Even though I bought one and I've come to truly love my car, I often viewed those posts as having been written by AM fanboys and apologists. People that were trying to help justify Aston's very high price relative to the competition (for the record, I do think AM is starting to run into a problem of price/content vs. comparably priced alternatives).
I have changed my mind recently (or perhaps I've simply become a fanboy apologist LOL!).
The 4.7 is plenty fast (I've never been in a 4.3). I find myself often driving a bit faster (i.e. 80+) than I planned because the car develops speed so quickly and smoothly.
Its speed still feels a bit more deliberate than my Porsche did but I don't think that's a bad thing - I definitely drive it a bit less aggressively than the Porsche, which is likely good for my bank account.
Seriously, how fast does a car need to be?
I'm 37 and that's way too old for stop light drag races and how often am I going to blip the car over 100 without taking it to the track?
Would I turn down a bit more speed and torque that develops a littler earlier in the range? Of course not . . . but I'm pretty sure that 99% of car enthusiasts would say the same about their car.
I have changed my mind recently (or perhaps I've simply become a fanboy apologist LOL!).
The 4.7 is plenty fast (I've never been in a 4.3). I find myself often driving a bit faster (i.e. 80+) than I planned because the car develops speed so quickly and smoothly.
Its speed still feels a bit more deliberate than my Porsche did but I don't think that's a bad thing - I definitely drive it a bit less aggressively than the Porsche, which is likely good for my bank account.
Seriously, how fast does a car need to be?
I'm 37 and that's way too old for stop light drag races and how often am I going to blip the car over 100 without taking it to the track?
Would I turn down a bit more speed and torque that develops a littler earlier in the range? Of course not . . . but I'm pretty sure that 99% of car enthusiasts would say the same about their car.
Last edited by ShawnBoston; 06-12-2012 at 10:47 AM. Reason: fleshing out the post
#33
06-12-2012, 10:54 AM
I've seen many, many posts that bemoan the Aston's 'lack' of speed. Even though I bought one and I've come to truly love my car, I often viewed those posts as having been written by AM fanboys and apologists. People that were trying to help justify Aston's very high price relative to the competition (for the record, I do think AM is starting to run into a problem of price/content vs. comparably priced alternatives).
I have changed my mind recently (or perhaps I've simply become a fanboy apologist LOL!).
The 4.7 is plenty fast (I've never been in a 4.3). I find myself often driving a bit faster (i.e. 80+) than I planned because the car develops speed so quickly and smoothly.
Its speed still feels a bit more deliberate than my Porsche did but I don't think that's a bad thing - I definitely drive it a bit less aggressively than the Porsche, which is likely good for my bank account.
Seriously, how fast does a car need to be?
I'm 37 and that's way too old for stop light drag races and how often am I going to blip the car over 100 without taking it to the track?
Would I turn down a bit more speed and torque that develops a littler earlier in the range? Of course not . . . but I'm pretty sure that 99% of car enthusiasts would say the same about their car.
I have changed my mind recently (or perhaps I've simply become a fanboy apologist LOL!).
The 4.7 is plenty fast (I've never been in a 4.3). I find myself often driving a bit faster (i.e. 80+) than I planned because the car develops speed so quickly and smoothly.
Its speed still feels a bit more deliberate than my Porsche did but I don't think that's a bad thing - I definitely drive it a bit less aggressively than the Porsche, which is likely good for my bank account.
Seriously, how fast does a car need to be?
I'm 37 and that's way too old for stop light drag races and how often am I going to blip the car over 100 without taking it to the track?
Would I turn down a bit more speed and torque that develops a littler earlier in the range? Of course not . . . but I'm pretty sure that 99% of car enthusiasts would say the same about their car.
My only complaint with the car is that the brakes need better cooling.
#35
06-12-2012, 11:25 AM
Since you said that you "can't comment on the 4.7 because I haven't owned one," I was commenting since I do own one.
#36
06-12-2012, 04:28 PM
Well, I came from a slightly modded BMW 135i and 2012 Audi TTRS. It was a little disappointing when I got in the Aston and opened it up and after a few months of ownership I can honestly say its no where near as quick and nimble as the BMW or the Audi but it can definitely hold its own. The Audi TTRS is just a special car, soundly beating most other cars on the track (in my in experienced group . It's also a sub 4 sec car and with all wheel drive it just flies off the line.
I have the 2011 Vantage roadster (manual). If the car had better steering, brakes and tires I think it would make a world of difference. Not doing any work to it because I am thinking about upgrading next year to the new R8 or Porsche 911 Turbo S.
. It's also a sub 4 sec car and with all wheel drive it just flies off the line.I have the 2011 Vantage roadster (manual). If the car had better steering, brakes and tires I think it would make a world of difference. Not doing any work to it because I am thinking about upgrading next year to the new R8 or Porsche 911 Turbo S.
#37
06-12-2012, 08:49 PM
I have said it before but FAST is becoming and irrelevant differentiator for STREET cars. Technology will only escalate this. Transmissions are the reason so many cars are so much quicker. And there are many cheaper cars with performance levels that rival much, much more expensive cars (my TT RS is an example). Plus, MOST performance cars are already verging on stupid land.
Consider this, a $300 watch tells the time every bit as well as $30,000 watch, but that's not really the point. It's HOW it tells time, it's the technology inside, it's the heritage, it's the materials it's made of, it's the way it's built, its the design and it's what it says about you.
How a car makes you feel is AS important as the stop watch, when you aren't on the Track. Think abou a BMW M1 (mentioned in an earlier post), does the fact that they had a sub 277hp 6 cylinder diminish the car? Do you salivate less? Would you really prefer a 600hp Corvette or a GTR? I wouldn't.
I had a Boxster S that was not overly fast, but massively engaging at ANY speed.
I had a 2010 S4 that was fast, but very dull.
My 2012 TT RS is a rocket, and despite what the rags say, it's a lot of fun (fix the tires, fix the brakes, alter the alignment). It's a very fast, very engaging motor.
I test drove the 4.3 Vantage and the problem isn't just the amount of power, it's the character of the power. I'm sure the boxster was slower, except it wasnt. (the soundvetcvwas all very awesome Aston)
I bought a 4.7 Aston and it was far more engaging. I never felt out gunned and I surprised a lot of guys on the track. I didn't hear quite so many "just a GT" comments once I had passed them. It was a ton of fun, drove great, very grin inducing!!! Plus it's an Aston experience the rest of the time.
I now have the Vantage V12 (sold the V8) and I love it. Sure there are cars that are faster or have more power, but do they come in a six speed? Are they built in as low numbers? Do they make you smile as much? Do they sound as good? Do they beg you? Can you even rev them up in the real world?
The V12 is also built for the person holding that stop watch. It is a revelation to drive, the brakes are sublime, the steering is peerless, it is beautiful but not shouty. The handling is alert and stiff, but not back breaking.
In the real world it has very few peers and the ones that it's has are much more expensive.
But that's just me and I really could care less if an SUV was faster, a hot dog tastes great, you get to barbque it, it might even fill you up, but it can't ever BE STEAK.
Consider this, a $300 watch tells the time every bit as well as $30,000 watch, but that's not really the point. It's HOW it tells time, it's the technology inside, it's the heritage, it's the materials it's made of, it's the way it's built, its the design and it's what it says about you.
How a car makes you feel is AS important as the stop watch, when you aren't on the Track. Think abou a BMW M1 (mentioned in an earlier post), does the fact that they had a sub 277hp 6 cylinder diminish the car? Do you salivate less? Would you really prefer a 600hp Corvette or a GTR? I wouldn't.
I had a Boxster S that was not overly fast, but massively engaging at ANY speed.
I had a 2010 S4 that was fast, but very dull.
My 2012 TT RS is a rocket, and despite what the rags say, it's a lot of fun (fix the tires, fix the brakes, alter the alignment). It's a very fast, very engaging motor.
I test drove the 4.3 Vantage and the problem isn't just the amount of power, it's the character of the power. I'm sure the boxster was slower, except it wasnt. (the soundvetcvwas all very awesome Aston)
I bought a 4.7 Aston and it was far more engaging. I never felt out gunned and I surprised a lot of guys on the track. I didn't hear quite so many "just a GT" comments once I had passed them. It was a ton of fun, drove great, very grin inducing!!! Plus it's an Aston experience the rest of the time.
I now have the Vantage V12 (sold the V8) and I love it. Sure there are cars that are faster or have more power, but do they come in a six speed? Are they built in as low numbers? Do they make you smile as much? Do they sound as good? Do they beg you? Can you even rev them up in the real world?
The V12 is also built for the person holding that stop watch. It is a revelation to drive, the brakes are sublime, the steering is peerless, it is beautiful but not shouty. The handling is alert and stiff, but not back breaking.
In the real world it has very few peers and the ones that it's has are much more expensive.
But that's just me and I really could care less if an SUV was faster, a hot dog tastes great, you get to barbque it, it might even fill you up, but it can't ever BE STEAK.
Last edited by black penguin; 06-12-2012 at 08:55 PM.
#38
06-12-2012, 11:34 PM
Penguin,
Excellent post -- very well said. The funny thing is that I am a major proponent of the theory that the significance of the numbers is seriously overplayed -- an Aston offers so much more than just the numbers. Nonetheless, the numbers support the position that the V8V's objective performance is in fact impressive also. So...
One word: Boost.
A 135i (stock -- I don’t know how “slightly modded" yours was) is well off the pace of a 4.7 V8V. To the test figures…
C&D
0-60: 4.7
¼ mile: 13.3 @ 106
R&T
0-60: 4.8
¼ mile: 13.4 @ 104
The TT RS is very quick, but other than launching off the line really hard due to its AWD (thus very quick to 60), it is not as quick as a 4.7 V8V (close, though):
C&D
0-60: 4.0
¼ mile: 12.7 @ 112
R&T
0-60: 4.0
12.6 @ 109.6
(These are figures for manual cars.)
The V8V runs 4.1 to 4.3 to 60 and 112 - 115 through the 1/4 mile (Coupe tests). I think the reason that 135i and TT RS feel so quick, and may well feel quicker than the Aston, is boost – they make HUGE torque at low to medium rpm. The 135i reaches peak torque at just 1400 rpm, and the TT RS at only 1650. The Aston, like most naturally-aspirated high performance engines, needs a lot of revs to make peak torque – 5000 in the Aston’s case. On relatively small throttle openings, the turbo cars produce serious thrust riding the wave of forced induction torque. Of course, at full throttle, they also produce major torque, and that rapidly building wall of torque makes them feel very fast – and in-gear acceleration times support this feeling. The midrange acceleration of a turbo car is fantastic. Any naturally-aspirated car will feel lacking in comparison – 991, R8, M6 (until the newest turbo car), etc., so higher revs are needed to access the performance.
Certainly, how a car feels is very important, but a forced-induction car's mid-range thrust doesn't make the Aston "slow," though the very different power delivery will take some getting used to. Nonetheless, the 4.3 V8V's lack of low- and mid-range torque -- and even more so that it feels as though it lacks torque -- is surely the major factor behind the perception that it underperforms. The 4.7 feels much stronger in this respect.
Question: You said your V8V feels less nimble than your 135i and TT RS -- does it have the standard suspension or the Sports Pack? The Aston is, of course, a fair bit heavier, especially as a Roadster, but the Sports Pack car, IMO, handles superbly and has fantastic steering.
Excellent post -- very well said. The funny thing is that I am a major proponent of the theory that the significance of the numbers is seriously overplayed -- an Aston offers so much more than just the numbers. Nonetheless, the numbers support the position that the V8V's objective performance is in fact impressive also. So...
Well, I came from a slightly modded BMW 135i and 2012 Audi TTRS. It was a little disappointing when I got in the Aston and opened it up and after a few months of ownership I can honestly say its no where near as quick and nimble as the BMW or the Audi but it can definitely hold its own. The Audi TTRS is just a special car, soundly beating most other cars on the track (in my in experienced group . It's also a sub 4 sec car and with all wheel drive it just flies off the line.
I have the 2011 Vantage roadster (manual). If the car had better steering, brakes and tires I think it would make a world of difference. Not doing any work to it because I am thinking about upgrading next year to the new R8 or Porsche 911 Turbo S.
. It's also a sub 4 sec car and with all wheel drive it just flies off the line.I have the 2011 Vantage roadster (manual). If the car had better steering, brakes and tires I think it would make a world of difference. Not doing any work to it because I am thinking about upgrading next year to the new R8 or Porsche 911 Turbo S.
A 135i (stock -- I don’t know how “slightly modded" yours was) is well off the pace of a 4.7 V8V. To the test figures…
C&D
0-60: 4.7
¼ mile: 13.3 @ 106
R&T
0-60: 4.8
¼ mile: 13.4 @ 104
The TT RS is very quick, but other than launching off the line really hard due to its AWD (thus very quick to 60), it is not as quick as a 4.7 V8V (close, though):
C&D
0-60: 4.0
¼ mile: 12.7 @ 112
R&T
0-60: 4.0
12.6 @ 109.6
(These are figures for manual cars.)
The V8V runs 4.1 to 4.3 to 60 and 112 - 115 through the 1/4 mile (Coupe tests). I think the reason that 135i and TT RS feel so quick, and may well feel quicker than the Aston, is boost – they make HUGE torque at low to medium rpm. The 135i reaches peak torque at just 1400 rpm, and the TT RS at only 1650. The Aston, like most naturally-aspirated high performance engines, needs a lot of revs to make peak torque – 5000 in the Aston’s case. On relatively small throttle openings, the turbo cars produce serious thrust riding the wave of forced induction torque. Of course, at full throttle, they also produce major torque, and that rapidly building wall of torque makes them feel very fast – and in-gear acceleration times support this feeling. The midrange acceleration of a turbo car is fantastic. Any naturally-aspirated car will feel lacking in comparison – 991, R8, M6 (until the newest turbo car), etc., so higher revs are needed to access the performance.
Certainly, how a car feels is very important, but a forced-induction car's mid-range thrust doesn't make the Aston "slow," though the very different power delivery will take some getting used to. Nonetheless, the 4.3 V8V's lack of low- and mid-range torque -- and even more so that it feels as though it lacks torque -- is surely the major factor behind the perception that it underperforms. The 4.7 feels much stronger in this respect.
Question: You said your V8V feels less nimble than your 135i and TT RS -- does it have the standard suspension or the Sports Pack? The Aston is, of course, a fair bit heavier, especially as a Roadster, but the Sports Pack car, IMO, handles superbly and has fantastic steering.
#39
06-12-2012, 11:52 PM
Funny you dhould mention this. When the 1st gen 997TT came out the performance figures clearly stated that the tiptronic was faster than the 6 speed. The tip was definitely quicker, but he 6 speed felt faster to most drivers, probably because they were coming off boost slightly when making shifts and getting the wave of torque as they re-engaged the clutch. With the tip the power was relatively constant.
I think most normally aspirated cars inherently feel slower (although they're not) because the acceleration curve is relatively linear, whereas forced induction engines have a more exponentially shaped curve in the lower rpms leading to a feeling of a swell in acceleration. This is what I've experienced with even modestly powered turbocharged engines.
I think most normally aspirated cars inherently feel slower (although they're not) because the acceleration curve is relatively linear, whereas forced induction engines have a more exponentially shaped curve in the lower rpms leading to a feeling of a swell in acceleration. This is what I've experienced with even modestly powered turbocharged engines.
#40
06-13-2012, 06:47 AM
Do naturally aspirated cars feel slower?
I find a drawback with SOME forced induction cars is the lack of engine drama. They sometimes rob you of that crescendo of power. There is a climax of power you have to work to in a NA car, and I LOVE that about them.
As many of you may have read, I almost bought a Ford GT. by all measures the performance is epic, but the motor felt lazy unless you were really, really beating it and could do some felony speeds. It had plenty of ability, but lacked character on city streets. Perhaps it was more fun on a high speed tack.
The design of the TT RS 5 pot seems like it was conceived as a compromise between the two. It has that big wallup of torque, but it does feel more like a NA engine than many small displacement engines. They have done their best to get rid of any lag and the throttle response is good.
Of course, I prefer my big Aston V12. It has tons of tourque, it likes to rev, it not only makes power, but it also makes music.
I find a drawback with SOME forced induction cars is the lack of engine drama. They sometimes rob you of that crescendo of power. There is a climax of power you have to work to in a NA car, and I LOVE that about them.
As many of you may have read, I almost bought a Ford GT. by all measures the performance is epic, but the motor felt lazy unless you were really, really beating it and could do some felony speeds. It had plenty of ability, but lacked character on city streets. Perhaps it was more fun on a high speed tack.
The design of the TT RS 5 pot seems like it was conceived as a compromise between the two. It has that big wallup of torque, but it does feel more like a NA engine than many small displacement engines. They have done their best to get rid of any lag and the throttle response is good.
Of course, I prefer my big Aston V12. It has tons of tourque, it likes to rev, it not only makes power, but it also makes music.
#41
06-14-2012, 02:48 PM
Lhand and spinecho,
I agree, the numbers shouldn’t be that important, not because performance doesn’t matter (it does, as Tahoe said) but because all of these cars are fast – the “slowest” 4.3 V8V is a 175 mph car. That some are a bit faster than others shouldn’t be so important IMO, when there are so many other characteristics and attributes to consider.
That said, the too-pervasive notion that the Vantage is lacking in performance can be largely shown to be false by citing those numbers. The notion that these cars are great looking but not great to drive – often translated as “slow” – is worth rebutting.
Tahoe,
You say that, compared to its competitors, the V8V “underperforms.” Why do you list the 997 Turbo, rather than the 997/997S, as the competitor? Because the price is similar to a V8V’s? If that’s the case, then why do you list Lambos and Ferraris as competitors? They’re far more expensive. Performance for the price is always an argument that can be made, and it can be leveled at so many cars. The is always something cheaper and faster. Porsche drivers should be driving Corvettes (Z06 & ZR1 especially) or GT-Rs if all that matters are the performance figures. But people still buy Porsches, pointing out various attributes to justify why they didn’t buy a 638 hp ZR1 for the same price as a well-equipped but much slower 991S. Similarly, this applies to Aston vs. Porsche (or whatever) – an Aston’s rarity, quality of materials, attention to detail, etc. – offer so much more than another tenth of a second (on a road car, at least). The money has to go somewhere – if one can buy a faster Mustang for less money, and that extra speed is the priority, then do it and enjoy. That doesn’t make the Aston slow.
I agree, the numbers shouldn’t be that important, not because performance doesn’t matter (it does, as Tahoe said) but because all of these cars are fast – the “slowest” 4.3 V8V is a 175 mph car. That some are a bit faster than others shouldn’t be so important IMO, when there are so many other characteristics and attributes to consider.
That said, the too-pervasive notion that the Vantage is lacking in performance can be largely shown to be false by citing those numbers. The notion that these cars are great looking but not great to drive – often translated as “slow” – is worth rebutting.
Tahoe,
You say that, compared to its competitors, the V8V “underperforms.” Why do you list the 997 Turbo, rather than the 997/997S, as the competitor? Because the price is similar to a V8V’s? If that’s the case, then why do you list Lambos and Ferraris as competitors? They’re far more expensive. Performance for the price is always an argument that can be made, and it can be leveled at so many cars. The is always something cheaper and faster. Porsche drivers should be driving Corvettes (Z06 & ZR1 especially) or GT-Rs if all that matters are the performance figures. But people still buy Porsches, pointing out various attributes to justify why they didn’t buy a 638 hp ZR1 for the same price as a well-equipped but much slower 991S. Similarly, this applies to Aston vs. Porsche (or whatever) – an Aston’s rarity, quality of materials, attention to detail, etc. – offer so much more than another tenth of a second (on a road car, at least). The money has to go somewhere – if one can buy a faster Mustang for less money, and that extra speed is the priority, then do it and enjoy. That doesn’t make the Aston slow.
The comparison vs. Lambos and Ferraris comes up because both are considered exotics, and the expectation of performance is similar. But as you say, the Ferraris and Lambos are more expensive. The performance should still be comparable to its competitors. It definitely wasn't with the 4.3, and it's a lot closer with the 4.7. I just think they can do better.
Originally Posted by Speedraser
Speaking of competitors, you referenced far more expensive Ferraris and Lambos, but what about the Maserati GranTurismo? The Maser is bigger and seats 4, but it is very similarly priced to the V8V, and similarly exotic (though I think the Aston’s build quality and materials quality are better). The Aston is clearly the better performer (the 4.3 V8V is quicker than the 4.2 Maser GT, and the 4.7 V8V is quicker than the 4.7 Maser GT-S).
Originally Posted by Speedraser
A 4.3 needs to be revved – that doesn’t make it slow either, you just have to work at it. Of course, some people don’t want to have to work at it, they want big torque. I like torque, too. Nonetheless, it is clearly faster than a Boxster/Cayman, and at least as quick or quicker than the S versions. It’s very close to a (non-S) 997.1 Carrera (for which the only figures I could find showed 109 mph through the ¼ mile).
We may well continue to disagree, but IMO the 4.7 simply does not “underperform.” It isn’t the quickest car in its class, but the R8 V8 is widely regarded as fast, and the 4.7 V8V is at least quick. The R8 runs about 112 – 113 through the ¼ mile. The V8V is quicker than the first generation 997S, based on various magazine tests. MT ran a 997.1S to 60 in 4.3 seconds, and ran the ¼ mile in 12.6 @ 112.3. C&D tested a 997.1 C4S (heavier, but even better off the line) and did 0-100 in10.2, 12.8 @ 111 through ¼ mile.) And the Gen 2 997? A 997.2S, with a manual ‘box, in C&D’s test, did 3.9 to 60, and ran 114 through the ¼ mile. MT’s PDK-equipped 997 GTS ran the ¼ mile at 113.4, while C&D’s similar car went through the traps at 110. The V8V has done 0-60 in 4.1 to 4.3 (Coupes, which is what all of these figures refer to for the R8 and 997) and runs 112 – 115 in the ¼ mile. These comparative numbers don't show the V8V as an "underperformer." Not bad for a front-engine/rear-drive only car without all the weight of an engine over its rear wheels making for a super-quick launch.
As for the 991S… It’s brand new, and seriously quick (as would be expected of a just-launched new 911), but comparing manual ‘box cars the difference is not as huge as people are saying. The only instrumented test of a manual 991S I’ve seen so far (from InsideLine) shows a ¼ mile in 12.7 @ 113.2. I thought it would be quicker too… FWIW, they tested a PDK car also, and did it in 12.0 @ 116.5. BTW, I read that a Porsche engineer was quoted as saying that more women are buying 911s and they want their cars to be able to park themselves, and that this is a major reason behind the 991’s electric power steering.
Hmm, a 911 that prioritizes being able to park itself over steering feel and driver involvement. 
If this is true, as a long-term Porsche owner, how terribly sad…
As you said, performance does matter, and this is my point -- the V8V 4.7 performs. You get competitive performance (if not class leading) plus all of the things that make an Aston a very special thing.
This doesn't mean that I don't want to see improvements. But all of this talk about a lack of performance undermines a great car and seriously understates how good a performance car the 4.7 V8V actually is. I ran my car briefly (rolling start) against a guy in a 997.2S and stayed right with him (both manual cars). He said, “wow, thought I'd leave you behind.” He was really surprised. He shouldn't have been.
We may well continue to disagree, but IMO the 4.7 simply does not “underperform.” It isn’t the quickest car in its class, but the R8 V8 is widely regarded as fast, and the 4.7 V8V is at least quick. The R8 runs about 112 – 113 through the ¼ mile. The V8V is quicker than the first generation 997S, based on various magazine tests. MT ran a 997.1S to 60 in 4.3 seconds, and ran the ¼ mile in 12.6 @ 112.3. C&D tested a 997.1 C4S (heavier, but even better off the line) and did 0-100 in10.2, 12.8 @ 111 through ¼ mile.) And the Gen 2 997? A 997.2S, with a manual ‘box, in C&D’s test, did 3.9 to 60, and ran 114 through the ¼ mile. MT’s PDK-equipped 997 GTS ran the ¼ mile at 113.4, while C&D’s similar car went through the traps at 110. The V8V has done 0-60 in 4.1 to 4.3 (Coupes, which is what all of these figures refer to for the R8 and 997) and runs 112 – 115 in the ¼ mile. These comparative numbers don't show the V8V as an "underperformer." Not bad for a front-engine/rear-drive only car without all the weight of an engine over its rear wheels making for a super-quick launch.
As for the 991S… It’s brand new, and seriously quick (as would be expected of a just-launched new 911), but comparing manual ‘box cars the difference is not as huge as people are saying. The only instrumented test of a manual 991S I’ve seen so far (from InsideLine) shows a ¼ mile in 12.7 @ 113.2. I thought it would be quicker too… FWIW, they tested a PDK car also, and did it in 12.0 @ 116.5. BTW, I read that a Porsche engineer was quoted as saying that more women are buying 911s and they want their cars to be able to park themselves, and that this is a major reason behind the 991’s electric power steering.
Hmm, a 911 that prioritizes being able to park itself over steering feel and driver involvement. If this is true, as a long-term Porsche owner, how terribly sad…As you said, performance does matter, and this is my point -- the V8V 4.7 performs. You get competitive performance (if not class leading) plus all of the things that make an Aston a very special thing.
This doesn't mean that I don't want to see improvements. But all of this talk about a lack of performance undermines a great car and seriously understates how good a performance car the 4.7 V8V actually is. I ran my car briefly (rolling start) against a guy in a 997.2S and stayed right with him (both manual cars). He said, “wow, thought I'd leave you behind.” He was really surprised. He shouldn't have been.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
