http://www.autoblog.com/photos/spy-shots-porsche-911-coupe-and-cabriolet/full/

coming out sometime next year

11/3/2010 3:22:38 PM

hopefully it's lighter and smaller than the previous model.

11/3/2010 4:48:20 PM

Nah, it's a station wagon.

11/3/2010 5:00:33 PM

Been rumors of a Cayman clubsport model for a while, similar to the Boxster Spyder. Here it is, released at the LA Auto Show:

Quote :

"2011 Porsche Cayman R gets skinny in LA Porsche has just announced the 2011 Cayman R, previously referred to in the rumormill as the Cayman Clubsport. Think of it as a purer interpretation of the company's baby sports bruiser, much like the Boxster Spyder is to the standard Boxster. With weight saving tricks like aluminum doors, sports bucket seats and unnecessary hardware like the radio, air-conditioning and storage compartments deleted, the Cayman R hits the scales 121 pounds lighter than the run-of-the mill hard top. Porsche engineers also threw in a slight pump in power, throwing the final figure from the 3.4-liter flat lump to 330 horsepower. All told, the changes are good for a 0-60 run in the 4.7-second range – a full .2 seconds quicker than the base Cayman S. Outside, Porsche has fitted the Cayman S with new 19-inch lightweight wheels, and aesthetic tweaks like a subtle stripe package, contrasting-color mirrors and black-accented headlight bezels. We don't exactly know how much Porsche is going to ask for this gem, but in the grand tradition of offering less content for more money, we don't expect it to be cheap. Look for live shots from the 2010 LA Auto Show later today. In the mean time, hit the jump for a quick video and Porsche's official press release."

I've got to say I'm a bit disappointed. It's not like I was waiting cash in hand for this, but the Cayman is one of my favorite models and a lighter more hardcore version could only be better. But "hardcore" isn't deleting AC and the radio. The aluminum doors, lighter seats and lightweight wheels are a good start, but removing the AC and radio is just lazy and I'm sure that's over half of the weight savings. Things like less sound deadening, lighter carpet, vinyl straps for door handles, a lightweight exhaust and thinner glass are more appropriate measures. Sure some of that stuff costs money but I'm sure Porsche is going to charge at least 10k more over a base Cayman S for this model anyway.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/17/2011-porsche-cayman-r-gets-skinny-in-la/

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 1:06 PM. Reason : what a hideous color, btw]

11/17/2010 1:02:26 PM

Apparently some of my complaining was unnecessary. Turns out that buying the Cayman R (and adding back the AC/radio which apparently weighs 33lbs combined) is a better deal than buying a Cayman S outfitted with the sport seats, sports package and LSD.

The Cayman R w/AC, radio and destination charge = $69,010 MSRP
The Cayman S configured to include the available performance options = $72,590 MSRP.

To summarize: for roughly $3000 less you get a car 88lbs lighter with 10 extra horsepower. For once it looks like Porsche is offering a deal.

11/19/2010 12:05:39 PM

In regards to the Cayman R:

http://www.porsche.com/microsite/cayman-r/default.aspx

Cool website... I love it.

Info regarding the weight savings:

Aluminum Doors: -33lbs
Lightweight 19" rims : -11lbs
Storage compartments: -2lbs
Sport Bucket Seats: -26lbs
Other Weight Reductions: -16lbs

The radio is 7lbs and the AC is 26lbs. Still, with both creature comforts, you are still looking at ~88lbs lighter...

[WANT]

[Edited on November 20, 2010 at 1:29 AM. Reason : .]

11/20/2010 1:24:28 AM

They had a quote "the engine is in exactly the right place, the middle". Kinda sucks that they don't even proof read these things before publishing them...

11/20/2010 2:34:07 AM

Y'all Porsche fanboys will love this!!!

Porsche Cajun confirmed for production

Quote :

"After years of speculation, Porsche has officially green-lighted the entry-level Cajun crossover. Designed to attract new and younger customers, the Cajun will be an "efficient and sporty model" with "typical Porsche features such as light weight, ease of handling and agility." Furthermore, the crossover will be based on the Audi Q5 and feature styling influenced by VW design boss Walter de' Silva. The Cajun is expected to be launched in 2014 and will compete with the Mercedes GLK, BMW X3, and Land Rover Evoque."

But seriously though, a "Cajun Turbo S" with 400 hp would be a [pointless] killer

11/30/2010 5:36:08 PM

FUCK

THAT


And the name is such a fucking joke.

12/1/2010 9:44:26 AM

...so I got to thinking...

one way to avoid the engine plagues of the 996 would be to just buy a Turbo.

...of course, for that money, I could have an E90 M3, too...

12/2/2010 12:40:18 AM

but the turbo is i can't speak for the e90 though but

12/2/2010 9:59:12 AM

A turbo and an e90 really can't be mentioned in the same sentence imo. They're completely different cars.

12/2/2010 10:37:30 AM

^^^The turbo would spank the M3 10 ways from Sunday without much thought at all.

12/2/2010 10:57:57 AM

For sure, but the E90 M3 would be newer, warrantied, etc.

12/2/2010 7:41:51 PM

twws hardon for m3s drives me nuts.... is a car that a GT mustang can keep up with get over yourselves and this bullshit heritage of quality... ask the X35i people about quality or the turbo mini folk.

they're very good cars... they're not great cars

12/2/2010 7:55:24 PM

Porsche says it has a "spectacular" debut next month at the Detroit Auto Show. Could it be the 918?

Here is a rendering of the 918, which has been greenlighted for production.

12/30/2010 9:32:32 PM

I wanna come right out and say i absolutely could not care at all about the 918.
I'm thinking of boycotting supercars as being worthy of discussion,from now on actually. I'll never be able to afford one, and if I could, that's still never going to be a sensible place to sink it into something, and if you want to go that fast, you can almost always do it nearly as well for a performance window up to about 90 mph with a stripped out minimalist car for less. What's more, if you actually want to drive to wring it out, you might as well go to trackdays, where all the stuff that makes the supercar no quicker or more fun than the stripped out racer feel burdened with unnecessary and pointlessly costly addenda. Without any autobahns in this country, cars that maintain that supercar performance at higher velocities and therefore somehow be considered superior performance cars for real-world usage is meaningless over cars with the same shove and grip but do it with lower quantities of weight and power in a smaller velocity window. Subconsciously, I've already been doing this. The bugatti veyron supersport is barely a blip on my radar, just as irrelevant as the tata nano, as far as I'm concerned. The Porsche carrera gt was another 'who gives a flying f*ck-mobile...' and then car hacks, who I usually agree with, step out of these wondrous machines that they drove in some exotic locale often on closed roads, and then gush about how the car manages to be worth the money. No it f*cking isn't. Where is the 'you have to be kidding me' review of the veyron that condemns Piech for having no idea what ettore would have built? Why does c&d allow 2.5 times the median new car price paid, when that is certainly WELL outside the standard deviation of median vehicle transaction cost? I wanna know where the sub-$50k 2500lb 300hp coupes are. Cayman is close but porsche is price gouging, and it's still too heavy. 370z is way too fat. Audi tt is even too fat. Gm had a shot. The solstice could have been lighter and better built, and cost comparable money to the base vette. But they'd prefer to keep brand identity, by which pontiac's identity had been defined as "dead in the water." Which must be kept separate to prevent getting too close to the corvette. Nutso, I tell you. Mf'ing supercars.

[Edited on January 3, 2011 at 1:35 AM. Reason : Piech.]

1/3/2011 1:33:02 AM

holy shit words

1/3/2011 2:03:52 AM

No milk is worth more than $2/liter, I don't care if it's organic. Most people will just buy the $1/liter stuff, so why even make the organic soy milk that's almost $6/liter!

Just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean something is not really "worth" that money. I couldn't justify the price of a new 911, but I sure as hell am glad that they made it, and that I can buy one used a few years later. There are different cars built to different budgets, and it shows. The brakes on a $50k+ Porsche are incomparably better than anything coming out of Japan under that price, for example. I've been testing multiple $4k+ mountain bikes for a magazine, and though my personal bike would've cost around $1500 to piece together, I can appreciate the more expensive bikes as well, and yet to most non bike enthusiasts, that's a giant waste of money and all bikes should cost under $300 (or some other arbitrary figure).

1/3/2011 2:23:26 AM

^ok, I guess that's fine. Especially if we're including base 911s in "supercars." I wouldn't have included all 911s in that assessment, but there has to be a 911 in order for there to be the more exotic models: gt3, gt3rs, turbo, turbo S, gt2, gt2rs, sport classic, carrera GTS, cabriolet GTS, targa 4s, speedster....
no, wait a minute...
those ARE the ones I mean to say I just don't give a flip about and which might as well not even exist. a 911 is fine, because it starts around 60 and someday someone can get one for $25k. But a Sport Classic is a limited $200k model, and they're all sold, and mechanically just a few bolt-ons away from a carrera S. That's what I'm boycotting. Distracting the press and tempting our hearts without any hope of those being in our garages except on the covers of the magazines that otherwise would have reviewed cars we care about. I'm not so certain that porsche 911 sales need for there to be a gt3 et al. the way that mustang v6 sales need a gt and/or a cobra. The 911 is a real car. It is expensive, but it's not irrelevant, and won't be found on ebay 10 years from now with only 5k miles on the clock because the only guy who could buy one had a career that demanded so much of him that he never spent any time driving it.

In order for you to be able to get one second hand, it has to be non-collectible, and/or accumulated miles. e.g.- designed to be used as a real car, and it was. Therefore, the 911s that you want and got are not among the group of cars I'm complaining about. I mean really, who is an aston martin DBS for? A rolls royce ghost? these are utterly irrelevant. Even an audi r8 is just... not really here. a lamborghini diablo is the best example. These earliest of those are 20 years old, were not great devices to drive back then, but they still command $90k used. And that's with less than an average year of driving on them. exotic cars provide people with the means an excuse to drive something less sporty for basic transportation, essentially taking simpler, more useful sports cars of depreciable value out of the market of cars accumulating mileage and becoming used buys. In other words... the base 911s that weren't purchased because the guy decided to stretch to a gt3, and then decided it was too hardcore for daily use and then drove his lexus. Which both produces another overpriced and underused collectible while also denying the used car market with a base 911 with some mileage on it.

1/3/2011 2:30:25 PM

edit:

Also, clearly cars aren't milk, neither in their length and pattern of transferability, nor in their amount of financial commitment for the various buyers. People buying $400k cars don't make just $400k a year. People who want $20k new cars often are making $20k a year, and people who want $50k cars often don't make much more than $50k a year. ANYONE can decide to splash out an extra $5 for milk and have that be "their indulgence," but as cars are already a lifestyle limiting expenditure, it's rarely a matter of "well, what the hell, you can live in a car, right?" Nobody is giving a 20-year mortgage on a car that costs as much as a big house.

1/3/2011 2:56:21 PM

Quote :

"People who want $20k new cars often are making $20k a year, and people who want $50k cars often don't make much more than $50k a year."

unfortunately, too many of these people are idiots who buy said cars that cost a year of their salary.

1/3/2011 3:21:00 PM

^ and yet spend 6+ years paying it off or trading it in with negative equity.

1/3/2011 6:11:04 PM

^^ You're completely missing the point. Without all of those supercars, what would 10 year old boys have on their bedroom walls? They're for the kids, man!

1/3/2011 7:53:59 PM

THE cheapest new 911 on sale has a base of $77,8k, and you will not get out the door for under mid $90k range for any of them. A targa S starts at $103k for example. All my previous 996s had stickered at over $90k, one of them was almost $100k.

That's beside the point, a 996 GT3 is one of the most "race ready" cars I've ever experienced, and it's just an enlightening experience. They pull ~$50k now, and I keep going back and forth about buying one. What do you have against that, I think the car was worth every penny of ~$125k new btw, I just didn't (and don't) have that kind of coin to toss at a car, but that doesn't mean the car's not worth it. I won't argue the Lambo point, however a 360 Modena at $100k seems like a good deal too!

I don't blame you for feeling that way, I've felt similarly in the past, but once you have some money and spend some time with finer equipment, your perspective changes. Case in point, I shared a 996 GT3 w/a friend of mine for a few sessions on track last year. Street tires, Pagid Yellow pads (same pads Grand Am/GT3 cup, etc. use), and the car did not miss a beat all weekend. Dry sump (w/7 oil pumps/remote reservoir), 6 piston brakes, telepathic steering, razor sharp reflexes, ~8k redline, what's not to like, the car was fantastic. I can try to arrange a ride if you're interested at looking at one from a philosophical perspective.

[Edited on January 3, 2011 at 8:19 PM. Reason : :/]

1/3/2011 8:12:05 PM

Seriously dry sump alone is worth mega $$ I would love to do it to my car down the road but i can buy 3 stock bottom ends for the price of a dry sump system.

I wish dry sump would become standard equipment if you wish to call something a sports car. That kind of oil control and add serious longevity to a car. I bet it probably fails faster too though if oil isn't changed regularly.

1/3/2011 8:19:34 PM

^^^Ok, dave, I gotta admit, I don't know whether I would be a carguy today without the f40 and countach posters I had in my bedroom growing up. However, while I had those, I think as early as 3rd or 4th grade, I credit a specific point in 5th grade with really drawing me in to the world of automobiles. It was a magazine cover and the stunning car featured in chief that I got in 5th grade (and which I think I have somewhere in 'the library' in the garage) that I've always edited with sparking my real enthusiasm for cars was one that purported to bring exotic tech to the real buyer. It was a Dodge Stealth RT turbo on the cover of the 1992 consumer reports automobile buying guide issue.* For perspective on how fantastical that car was against the other available cars back then, the #2 rated "sporty car" that year was the Mazda MX-6 back when it was a two-door notchback 626, before ford launched the "lozenge" era probe.

*it should be pointed out that that was the first and last issue of CR I could stomach (I guess I was a german car top gear n****r f****t immediately, right Ragged?). My second issue was the "Bad Boys" issue of Automobile that featured a mercedes s600, bentley turbo R, Hummvee before you could get one as a production car, lamborghini diablo (pre-vt), the all-new viper RT/10, 964-era 911 Turbo, and Ferrari 512TR. Never went back and had subscriptions to C&D and RT and Automobile from then through 9th grade, when I realized what toilet paper RT was.... I think I picked up Autoweek then.

1/4/2011 1:07:23 PM

^^I was about to argue that a boxster has been offering a dry-sump for years... then looked it up again and saw it was an "integrated" dry sump (~pseudo "dry sump" actually wet...)...
No, I definitely 'get' that...

^^^you know, Ahmet, I really WOULD like to take a gt3 for a spin. Or any 911 for that matter, since I've never driven one. It will either solidify what I already think of 911s or it'll probably stun my criticisms into leaning the opposite direction. I like porsche as a company, and there's no denying the excellence I've experienced every time I've slid behind the wheel of a boxster or cayman (except one '97 boxster, which really seemed like something was wrong with it), so I expect to be impressed. I just expect to wish it was a cayman with the same engine instead.

1/4/2011 2:12:29 PM

damn you, porsche. That 918rsr concept you showed in detroit is hawt. like, poster-worthy.
I will continue my fuzzily-defined protest against the unobtainable billionaire's toys we call supercars for now by not being the one to post the pics or a link to the concept, but this round goes to you. I was practically licking my laptop. I would appreciate it if the next cayman has those curves, roofline, and proportions, if possible.

1/11/2011 1:42:30 AM

I said a ride, not a drive... I wish I owned a GT3, but even if that were the case, I'd let VERY few people drive that, and certainly nobody that couldn't (or wouldn't) write a check for it in case something went bad. That's a lot of $$, and it's a very special car. Now that that's out of the way, if I ever buy one, I'll be sure to give you a ride. What I was suggesting is a ride on track w/somebody who's got one (irrelevant if it's me driving or not). This wouldn't be hard to arrange if you want to come to VIR sometime.

Now w/that out of the way, I was getting ready to check this post to see if somebody had talked about the 918 RSR hybrid, looks like a crazy machine, and absolutely nailed the looks also. Go Porsche!

1/11/2011 2:03:04 AM

I think my favorite aspect of the 918 so far is the size. There's a pic out there of two porsche reps standing in front of the car on the stand, and it looks no bigger in footprint than a cayman, and if it is about the same length, then it's significantly lower. In any case, it's definitely smaller than the carrera gt. That was my favorite aspect of the original farboud gts, that it was compact while offering those levels of performance, and one of my reasons for disliking supercars at the moment. Cars are quicker/more satisfying in the real world if it isn't a pain to thread them into gaps in traffic so that you can use what power is there. I love that about our miata.

^ok, well, I knew you didn't have a gt3, and while I said drive, and while I WOULD like to drive one, and I doubt that a mere ride would persuade me it's better than the cayman/ worth its existence stunting the cayman's potential, I knew that you meant to offer a ride. I have not driven a 911 of any kind yet. I forget whether you still have a 911 or not. If you do, I'm up for it sometime.

1/11/2011 3:41:09 PM

Two promo vids on the RSR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW7lstH1TgY&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvj--1g9Qb8&NR=1

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 8:54 AM. Reason : posting videos in the non videos thread ftw!]

1/13/2011 8:54:12 AM

fine. if nobody else is going to post anything, this is the pic I was talking about. It doesn't look too big, but seeing it again today, it does look longer and wider than a cayman. But still significantly less "pancake" than a carrera GT. So I'm happy.



Who knows how much of it will reach production, though. Certainly the flywheel-hybrid system won't be for production without some advancement. Even if it works as well as they claim, it's still huge to the point of necessitating the replacement of the passenger seat. Maybe if scaled back to 50hp the resulting flywheel assembly would be small enough to place somewhere else in the car. I'm pretty sure the 918 could have a future even without the race-derived v8 too, at least in this form, with the 6.2L v8 with 563hp at 10,300 rpm. Or maybe it will be that motor, since the carrera GT certainly was even more exotic with its similarly race-derived 5.7L v10. But if it is, then I'd bet this will definitely just be another pie-in-the-sky $400k+ supercar. On the other hand, I could definitely imagine a parallel move to mercedes, replacing the SLR with the SLS, by speccing this to $200k or under. Still ridiculous, but at least it's not multiples of the cost of the entry-level ferrari. And only 5 base corvettes or so. or maybe 3 porsche 911s if you go easy on the options. On the other hand, what are they charging for a 911 GT2 RS? oh, $245k? scratch that, then. I'm betting $350k+.

boo supercars. but it is hawt. ::conflicted::

1/13/2011 6:32:39 PM

the size is very f430ish

1/13/2011 7:48:08 PM

I think the size and the proportions as well as the specs are nothing short of impressive. I don't see why you're so fixated on the merits of the car by price though. Let them price it as they will. You should hear a Porsche V10 in person though, surreal...

1/13/2011 9:50:27 PM

^I have nostalgia for a middle-class I never observed directly. supercars costing 10x the median wage are a symbol of wealth polarization, and worse, something awesome that most of us get to see and lust after yet never know, biblically. like jenna jameson. wow, that might be the shortest, most honest thing I've written on tdub.

^^gg. yeah, pretty much f430 proportions.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 1:59 AM. Reason : gg sumfoo1]

1/14/2011 1:42:52 AM

Can't say I've ever lusted after Jenna Jameson, that's like a Mustang GT convertible with a loud exhaust and an obnoxious body kit.

You're not fairly judging expensive cars (by your arbitrary idea of what "too high" is). Of course a lot of expensive things are over priced but that doesn't mean all expensive things are. There are some products which merit their high price through design/thought/production techniques etc. Case in point, see the GT3.

What is your idea of a "reasonable" amount of money to spend on a car anyway? What's your favorite car today, would it be the same if your net worth or income was 3x it's current levels? What if it were 50x? We're talking about Porsches here, you realize there are people who race (multi million dollar) vintage Bugattis right? In fact, I used to sympathize w/your view point, then I had my epiphany while checking out a Ferrari F40 during a such event. Those cars are damn cool, too bad I can't afford them, but if anything, that might make them even better!

Why aren't you railing against the slew of S Class Benzes or 750Lis and such that litter downtowns around the U.S., there's your $100k+ cars to pick a fight with.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 3:06 AM. Reason : i mean duh. ]

1/14/2011 2:57:55 AM

1/14/2011 3:14:29 AM

Oh and BTW, I no longer have a 911. I'm attempting to see how it is to live amongst the unwashed masses at the moment, with a... GASP! M3! Or as I call it, the ultimate substitute. I would totally give you a ride in my 911, if only I had one. :'(

I'm shopping for a place to keep my car in at the moment, w/a room attached to it. I'd love to buy another Porsche if I can comfortably have both.

1/14/2011 3:26:43 AM

I'm gonna try to write a good response to those questions. I will concede the point that I have not laid out a standard for drawing a line between "worth it" and "obscene to cost that much." That is unfair. I'm gonna go try to work out a definition.... Brb...

1/14/2011 7:27:05 PM

1/14/2011 7:28:20 PM

First: on Jenna Jameson.... I could've picked any starlet or porn star, but that's the first one that came to mind that everyone would know. If she's not your fave, no prob. Not the point. Yes, she is a product of her career, and mustang with a bodykit and loud pipes is not a bad analogy. However, a lot of people lust after those too. *just sayin'*

1/14/2011 8:10:18 PM

Second: "you're not fairly judging cars."
Can be taken a number of ways. First, strictly in combination with the accompanying phrase:
"(by your arbitrary idea of what 'too high' is)"
So... Have I been arbitrary? Yes. I cast my disapproval on a couple of named vehicles without articulating a standard that logically follows from my comments what amount should be considered ludicrous. Is being arbitrary equal to 'not fairly judging?' yes. So... You're right by this interpretation. That interpretation might be the one you said, but not the one I think you meant. 

I think you meant an interpretation along the lines of: "who are you to say what you approve of?"  or "how can you dislike these cars which are, aside from price, designed in a way you'd like, just not fit to your wallet?" 
because my opinion has no bearing on how anyone else's opinion will turn out, and certainly no bearing on whether such vehicles ought to be allowed to be sold, then... I have every right to disapprove, even if I can't articulate a standard beyond 'i don't like it.' I believe that is totally fair.

1/14/2011 8:11:10 PM

I will never be able to afford such a car, and I believe the only people who will such vehicles will not appreciate them at all beyond having them as trophies. In the meantime, such projects will make magazine covers, discourage Porsche from simultaneous work on making the next cayman sexier or cheaper or some other project which takes potential buyers Iike me into account, and it therefore displaces the incentive for the design and coverage of fun cars that I would be able to afford. It is my responsibility as an economic actor to spend my time and money on things i like, if i want the market to understand that i will participate in the market if someone provides those things.

Being a magazine jockey and showing magazines and manufacturers that i will spend a trickle on news coverage of unobtainable vehicles while not buying said unobtainable machine (because i can't) sets my definition as an econmic player to "magazine reader-dreamer, not a buyer." It's the car-fan equivalent of someone living in a low tax bracket being an advocate for reduced taxes on the wealthy. Because I am allowing a system I participate in to reward a player who isn't me, while that player does nothing to reward me for having supported for what he wants, I can expect that the market will take from that behavior between both me and the player whose car I'm advocating that what both of us want is for him to have the car made precisely to HIS likings, and that I'll be content just to not have a sports car at all. Or at least not a new sports car.

Which, you might note, is consistent with Toyota selling a Lexus lf-a and is-f, but not a celica or an mr2 or a supra.

1/14/2011 8:15:30 PM

"There are some products which merit their high price through design/thought/production techniques etc. Case in point, see the GT3."

Let's define what the gt3 is. It is a limited production lightened and tightened soft-racer, higher revving, more exotically-specced version of a car whose configuration you already respect. It is better by degree, not in kind to the carrera S. If the gt3 didn't exist, and you wanted a 911 tuned to the gt3's configuration, and there were lots of people like you who felt the same, you could either modify it yourself to cause that to happen, or you collective gt3-conversion-buyers could cause the generation of tuning shops seeking to offer you those modifications for a price. Because of the third-party nature of having performance altered by someone other than the manufacturer, results would vary until someone nailed it down and caused the weak imitations out of the market. And what would that monopoly-by-reputation seller charge for his services on top of your likely $90k 911 carrera S? Maybe enough to make the gt3 as offered by Porsche from the factory look like a bargain. So, the gt3 amounts to in-manufacturer's-house aftermarket tuning services added to the cost of a 911. 

So you can justify the cost of the gt3 that way. It is more expensive for it's "tighter tolerance" nature. a higher-resolution expression of 911, if you will. 

But... That argument justifies the margin of cost over the base car, not the position of the base car, which cannot claim such an angle on some lesser car. This argument can then only be extended to those supercars whose existence is legitimately predicated on the shortcomings or room for improvement of a previous model. So gallardo superleggeras and superveloces, Ferrari scuderias and challenges, zr1 vettes, BMW m cars, amg models, v-series cadillacs, f lexuses, s and rs Audis, svt fords.... Anythig that can be called a 'just a bit better' can justify it's existence that way... And I'd go so far as to even extend that to hgte ferraris and the bugatti supersports. But where is the justification for the base 911 to cost as much as it does?

...continued....

1/14/2011 8:42:59 PM

You're writing too much for me to keep up with. My simple point was that just because you (or somebody else, or most people) can't afford something, doesn't mean that said object doesn't warrant it's cost. It's easy to label something unnecessary/obscene, but take a step back and appreciate things for what they are, as some of the said things are truly worth analysis. Progress has to be made with time, and certain price points allow more innovation. Only the super expensive cars used to have ABS, airbags, stability control, or "exotic" materials for example. Did you know that a 2001 Porsche (996) 911 twin turbo can keep it's wastegates closed while opening the bypass valves (to keep intake pressure steady) under part throttle to spool the turbos if you're cornering/braking hard? The Porsche 944 turbo (back in 1986) could control ignition timing/fuel mixture for THE NEXT cylinder to fire. Technology like that didn't make it to mainstream cars for quite some time, in some cases still hasn't. The current 911 twin turbo is the first and only production car to have variable turbine geometry, so on.

PS: The GT3 (particularly 996)is a homoligation special more than a hopped up base car. Drivetrain/suspension wise, not much is similar to the Carrera (nothing in the engine or transmission is interchangeable, not even similar), the chassis is a somewhat highly modified version of the street car, but it's still closer to the cup race cars than a Carrera. I'm going to stop pushing this issue.

1/14/2011 9:44:47 PM

Ahmet, your [future] GT3 isn't that fast...

Quote :

"The Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps in Belgium plays host to a variety of racing events, ranging from from Formula One and touring car to weekend track days. When out on the course in a production car, it might feel like you are conquering the Eau Rouge better than any human on the planet. This video mashup is here to remind that you're not. This isn't ground-breaking information, but it is interesting to see just how much faster an F1 car is around a series of high-speed turns. Someone over in the VWVortex's Car Lounge decided to overlay two videos of the same corner, and while they don't line up perfectly, you get the point."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5dhhpSHCw

Insane!

1/14/2011 10:04:02 PM

Ahmet... Wait a little while to respond... I haven't even gotten to try to determine a fair way for what a car should 'reasonably' cost.... Or why I haven't demonized overpriced barges the way I have criticized supercars.. Just sit back and let me air it all, and then respond. Otherwise we're gonna be responding to less than the full amount of each other's answers...

Third: the false 'value' of the bottom of the 911 range is only made possible by it's paradoxical position above the cayman, which also maintains it's perception as 'best in class' by glossing over how it's substantively different configuration, for lack of a similarly equipped competitor, is reduced to a mere 'specification' difference so that during the test, there is a confusion between 'special' feel meriting a heart-tugging win and 'unusual but still good', while the competitor is merely better... But not 'special' for all the ordinary attributes of its less unintuitive arrangement:

The simplest argument anyone could make for the 911 to be so expensive is the simplest statement about why anything costs any particular price: "because people continue to buy them at that price." there's no denying that truth. People do buy 911s. My argument against the 911 is that it is a con. Porsche is cheating us, over and over again... Because the 911 stays where it is by a series of product rollouts and not sucking for the reasons a rear-engined car ought to suck while taking full advantage of the small list of advantages to it's configuration.

Imagine the scenario  of where the 911 loses a comparison test. And remember, we're talking about a car costing double the median wage, so i dont think its ridiculous to consider the magazine comparo to be a poor indicator of its buyer's attentions. The v8 vantage debuts, an unforeseen attack from a higher-priced brand, armed with a high-revving v8 mounted well-back within the wheelbase, one of the greatest body shapes in recent decades, a small footprint and aluminum-extrusion construction and a gorgeous interior. The v8 ultimately tugs heartstrings but the 911's upright view out and small backseat and lightly loaded nose prompt the press to express with glee that the 911 is a dancer to the aston's primal growl and relatively stiff ride and numb steering. 

I'm sorry, but that's just the ordinary outcome of these things. Go back and read any vette versus carrera test. It's a win based purely on the configuration's charm making hay for it's unique combination of avoiding the bad parts of rear-engine arrangement while managing the few advantages in the presence of a contrastingly arranged vehicle which seems ordinary because it isn't backward compared to everything else they'll drive this year. The trick lies in nobody but Porsche daring, for years, to try to build a rear-engined car of better composure and quality of build. And why would they? Nobody REALLY wants a rear-engined car that ISN'T a 911, as the virtually universal opinion is that mid-engine is better. But 911 fans then perk up and say that a 911 is 'special' though. It is totally inconsistent with a non-subjective deduction of how cars are 'best' constructed. 

However, imagine if the cayman was the reality of the base 911. Then, because a mid-engined car would not have the uniqueness of the 911's rear-engine advantages to fall back on, as competitors are not afraid to offer a mid-engined competitor, the cayman would merely be a sitting duck to whichever mid-engine challenger materialized to quantifiably outclass it for performing in a similar, but objectively better fashion. It could not fall back on 'that feel' of the 911's romanticized configuration to force a draw or upset verdict. It would likely be a uniform victory if one at all, and then Porsche might lose that position in the market. Which would blow a hole in porsche's iron curtain of models and options spanning almost continuously between 50k and 250k. Without that continuity, Porsche might lose control of the illusion of endless impossible betterment without moving the bar too far with each successive generation.

1/14/2011 10:08:32 PM

insane is a huge understatement

1/14/2011 10:14:24 PM

If gm were to attempt a rear-engined car, for example, would 911 fans fall out of the trees to be the first to have one? You tell me... Were the excellent handling characteristics of the 911 present in the corvair or the beetle? How about a tatra? Microbus? Meyers manx? Sterling? No... The 911 is great because Porsche is an ocd company that has locked it's stylists and niche-pushers in the basement and consults with them as little apossible, while the statistics guys and engineers have wide purview.
New models are debated for decades before the trigger is pulled. Every Porsche represents a sort of backward-brief challenge analogous to the veyron's speed claims and pre-set uncooperative shape. How long did the world go before Porsche decided to offer a mid-engine car again? How long did they abstain from the suv market when it was a cash cow before dropping the unanticipatedly good, though ugly, cayenne on the unsuspecting performance suv niche? And the panamera...Straight to god smacking straight out of the gate... but, ugly. Porsche has, in fact, never been about offering logical configuration. Where is the Porsche-conceived sensible midsize sedan, pickup, minivan or hatchback? Isn't the idea of an ass-engined car of primarily steel construction which shares parts with a purer and better balanced car that can frequently leave the showroom for less than half as much positively ridiculous?

And yet the 911 is the one which every new model must beat. Even when a challenger is compellingly better, like the Audi r8, after a little while, the world forgets that the r8 faired so well, and just returns to assuming the 911 is king of the hill. Just because we're used it. And the cyclic rolloutr of the 15 successively higher-spec models of each generation makes us forge that there ever isn't always a new 911 coming out.... 

The 911 then, manages to stay where it is in the market, not because it is better than anything else, but because it is constantly going out of it's way to show us how much better it is than it just was, or than the version of itself it just showed us. The ever-deepening picture of all the 911s in a row that every magazine concocts at the dawn of each generation resets the cycle by bringing out the very first model of the previous generation to compare to the 'only available model of this latest generation we could get our hands on, a base carrera,' and inevitably the tired example of the 964, 993, 996, 997 version 1, even being a _____Insert options package_____, falls to even this least-of-giants to come... And then finish with a "sum of the parts" rose tinted characterization of the 911 'legacy' or 'ethos', or a sidebar about where the porsches go on vacation, etc.

And then the new car manages to just barely squeak out the barely-optioned cayman or boxster in some quantitative test like lightning lap despite significant horsepower advantage. Porsche is playing a game with the 911 lineup that includes the positioning of the boxster and cayman. If you don't buy the ultimate now, the next one is gonna make you wish you had just bought an older or lower-specced one shortly, because by then it won't be THE 911 to have of the moment. Sure the base cayman, bought used, only a couple years old is fairly judged by the market to be worth about somewhere in the twenties, and that way you don't have to play the game, but then you could have gotten a shedload of mid-range shove for only a bit more in a cayman S, or even an older boxster s. But if you've got the means, why not get a new cayman s, right?

Get it? Porsche is f*cking with us. The 911 could, I'm confident, be decontented and sold for boxster/cayman prices, but then the cayman, specced UP, couldn't work as well above it, because the 911 has the ability to be 'strangely... Better?' than a cayman for it's uniqueness, while the cayman would merely be objectively better in quantifiable, less sensory and less joy-of-the-contrarian ways. And the 911, by itself then, couldn't support a model range stretching to 250k as easily. And the reason for that may inform the next part where I reach the question of "what is a reasonable cost?"

1/14/2011 10:21:51 PM