Crown

Interesting (I really didn't notice it): The Black/Carrera Red bi-color interior is only available for the Turbo S, not the Turbo. 

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, Cayenne GTS (958), 991 Turbo S (Oct. 5th), BMW X3 35d (2013)

RC:

The Road & Track 997 Turbo S test results sound kind of dubious to me. 0-100 mph (160 kph) in 6.3 seconds? Kind of...impossible if you ask me. Rolling start? Only the driver and empty fuel tank? Glue sticky asphalt for the acceleration tests? Several runs and best run of ten runs?  As much as I love Porsche but 0-100 mph in 6.3 seconds is extremely unlikely. Btw: The factory claim for the new 991 Turbo S is 6.8 seconds.

Don't forget they use 'roll out' (meaning measurement starts later in tests). Your first guess is right...

Conrad2:

Leawood911:

Road and Track recorded 2.6 Sec. 0-60 (6.3 0-100) for 2012 997 TTS (Veyron by same mag was 2.5).  Other US magazines ran 2.7 (MotorTrend for one).  The 991 TTS will be REALLY FAST!  A real wake up call!  It will eat up the 458 or MP4.  Mark my words, Porsche has done their homework again.  Road & Track 997 Turbo S results :

0-60 mph - 2,6s
0-100 mph - 6,3s
1/4mile - 10,7s @ 128,9 mph

Don't count on it eating up the 12C.  Probably not gonna happen.  12C is several hundred pounds lighter and 50 hp or so more and it has a terrific launch control capability.   McLaren sandbags hp figures just like Porsche does. TTS will hang around until 60 or 70 mph or so and then it's  so long. Always bad idea betting on violating laws of physics.  I have 12C and 997 TTS with 991 TTS on order so love them both but If the 991 TTS eats up the 12C then the only people more surprised than me will be the Porsche engineers.  They are counting on the GT2 to take on the 12C as has been noted in a prior post.

One more comment on 12C and TTS and then I will try and stick to Porsche only.  The TTS has a borderline weight problem as we all know.  It really is too heavy.  The several hundred pounds it spots the 12C makes it difficult to match up with it.  Also, the 12C engine can probably be taken up to 650 to 675 hp with software shipped out on a USB stick.  Essentially the same engine will produce north of 700 hp in the McLaren P1, so we probably should expect McLaren to make a good hp bump in next year or two.  One issue for current owners is whether they will continue to provide HP bumps free of charge to existing owners.  One thing that probably holds McLaren back a bit is they don't want the 12C to get too close to the P1 (sound analogous to a Porsche issue!?). So we probably should stop comparing 991 TTS to the 12C - if by chance it got close to the 12C it probably wouldn't last long with a hp bump to the 12C. GT2 is really where the comparison is - cost wise, weight wise and HP wise.

Acceleration from a standstill will always be traction limited, so a 997TTS, 991TTS will always have the edge even with the extra weight, they have extra low end torque over the 12C too. Even with the unmatched TC of the 12C.

Once underway when traction is not an issue, the lighter weight and extra HP from the 12C will take over and pull away, simple physics really. 

As for the GT2, it will have the advantage of the engine over the rear so it will better mechanical traction than the 12C, but I suspect the TC from the 12C will still have an advantage on launch. After that, depending on how much the engine puts out, the aero disadvantage of the 911 body may or may not matter. But a good guess would be it will still be slower than the 12C as I don't think Porsche will give it much more than 620-650HP.

RC:

In the last Sport Auto review of the 997 Turbo S, the car did 0-100 kph in 3.1 seconds and 0-200 kph in 10.6 seconds.

Factory claims were 0-100 kph in 3.3 seconds (Sport Chrono Plus) and 0-200 kph in 10.8 seconds (Sport Chrono Plus).

New 991 Turbo S has a factory claim of 3.1 seconds and 10.3 seconds. Sport Chrono Plus is standard.

Nordschleife track time was 7:44 min. (achieved by Horst v. Saurma). I know that Porsche claims the new 991 Turbo S at 7:27 min. on the Nordschleife but Sport Auto usually tests the cars at a couple of seconds slower (which is normal, since Porsche testdrivers drive these cars all the day and know their stuff). My guess is that the new 991 Turbo S will hit 7:32/7:33 min or so on the Nordschleife, which will be amazing, no doubt about it. Especially considering the 30 hp power difference only vs. the 997 Turbo S. Keep in mind that the 991 Turbo S uses street tires, while the GT3 models use semi-slicks.

What worries me a little bit: The 997 Turbo S tested in Sport Auto had a weight of 1569 kg only (factory claim: 1660 kg). So the question here is: Will the new 991 Turbo S also have 91 kg less than the factory claim? I kind of doubt it.

Yes, we need to wait for a first real life drive and review but this is actually what I am talking about: Porsche presented the car almost 6 weeks ago and nothing has happened. Not even more technical details (for example why the car is 90% new), no new photos or videos, nothing.

So if we would assume that the new 991 Turbo S has a better real life performance, similar to the "old" 997 Turbo S, the new 991 Turbo S could hit 0-100 kph in 2.9 seconds and 0-200 kph in 9.8 seconds (I just subtracted the difference from the 997 Turbo S factory claim and real life test result). I could live with 2.9 and 9.8 seconds, so just let's hope that this is going to be the case. 

--

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, Cayenne GTS (958), 991 Turbo S (Oct. 5th), BMW X3 35d (2013)

Factory time for the 12C is 3.3 0-100km/hr 9.2 0-200km/hr, 0-60mph 3.2, 0-100mph 6.3, 0-1km 19.6, 1/4mile 11 @ 133mph. All on PZero. 

Also found a 7:28 Nordschleife, 1:08.7 Hockenheim short, an owner did a 1/4 mile 10.37 @ 134.97 on cheater tires, Toyo R888, he also ran 2.7 0-60mph and 5.8 0-100mph, 6.6 60-130mph

Whoopsy:

As for the GT2, it will have the advantage of the engine over the rear so it will better mechanical traction than the 12C, but I suspect the TC from the 12C will still have an advantage on launch. After that, depending on how much the engine puts out, the aero disadvantage of the 911 body may or may not matter. But a good guess would be it will still be slower than the 12C as I don't think Porsche will give it much more than 620-650HP.

Even the old 997GT2RS is as fast (straight line) as the 12C with the power upgrade... And this old GT2RS still has manual and 620hp 

Guess what will happen with the new GT2/GT2RS 

P.S.: The major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics. Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough: In comparison, the GT2RS feels very "simple" and "mechanical" - consequently, you can anticipate any single behavior of the car so nicely, that's what makes these cars so quick and fun to drive. The 12C feels a bit like a computer game in comparison... If you know how to drive the GT models are more fun.

RC:

Have you ever outrun a 997 Turbo S in your M5 or a E63? Didn't think so...  

First, let me say that you cannot compare test results of one car magazine with test results from another one, simply because they may have different testing grounds (pavement stickier or less sticky), different testing setups (with one driver, one driver and one passenger...) and so on. Also car manufacturers know that Sport Auto is measuring power of the test cars, so they are more cautious about sending a "prepped" test car with more power.

According to Sport Auto, the new M5 did 100 to 200 kph in 8.7 seconds.

According to Sport Auto, the new M6 Cab did 100 to 200 kph in 9.7 seconds.

BMW didn't make any complaints about these results, so go figure...

So far, from real life experience, the Sport Auto results have been always the most accurate. 

German Auto Zeitung test results are usually the fastest ones, probably because they use a very stick pavement for testing and/or car manufacturers aren't afraid of any dyno testing. 

I am pretty sure that the new M5/M6 with Competition Package will do 100 to 200 kph in 8.3 to 8.5 seconds but under 8 seconds? I highly doubt it. Please never make the mistake to measure performance based on speedo reading because in Europe, the speedo has usually a 7-10 kph error at 200 kph and an error of 12 to 15 kph at 300 kph from my experience.

I know you love BMW but we should leave the church in the village, as we say here in Germany. 

Well my v-box run was in its best a 7,9 from 100-200 for the m5 (just me on board)  the very same v-box witch has my modded gt2 in 5,8 for 100-200. 

Sport auto has the m6 coupe  12,1 sec up to 200kmh  http://www.sportauto.de/vergleichstest/test-bmw-m6-coupe-gegen-porsche-911-carrera-wie-viel-sportwagen-braucht-der-mensch-5998089.html

So it is very likely that the comp paket on the m6 will be 7,xx for 100-200 kmh.

I dont wanna hijack this tread, but as stated before, 560 hp isnt really a game changer.  CLS63 amg pp hit Döttingherhöhe in the actuel sport auto super test with 287kmh... what was the speed of the turbo/S at this point..

i m not bias to the m cars, nore to the porsches i am driving actually, but i see that the performance advantage (Autobahn driving) of the p cars are getting smaller and smaller vers the so called GT cars of M and AMG. Dont under estimate there 5,5liters of 4,4 liters biurbo engine..

RC:

The Road & Track 997 Turbo S test results sound kind of dubious to me. 0-100 mph (160 kph) in 6.3 seconds? Kind of...impossible if you ask me. Rolling start? Only the driver and empty fuel tank? Glue sticky asphalt for the acceleration tests? Several runs and best run of ten runs?  As much as I love Porsche but 0-100 mph in 6.3 seconds is extremely unlikely. Btw: The factory claim for the new 991 Turbo S is 6.8 seconds.

0-60 in 2.6s then 0-100 in 6.3 so 60-100 in 3.7s

This is entirely possible with PDK and 560PS. My 993 with 577PS (OK nice fat power curve) does 60-100 in 3.2s with 2 manual gear changes, I think the PDK will make this very possible

3.9  GT2 2011 make over

RC:

The Road & Track 997 Turbo S test results sound kind of dubious to me. 0-100 mph (160 kph) in 6.3 seconds? Kind of...impossible if you ask me. Rolling start? Only the driver and empty fuel tank? Glue sticky asphalt for the acceleration tests? Several runs and best run of ten runs?  As much as I love Porsche but 0-100 mph in 6.3 seconds is extremely unlikely. Btw: The factory claim for the new 991 Turbo S is 6.8 seconds.

I agree, looking at the various comparisons on YouTube between the 997 Turbo S and other cars and the MP4-12C and other cars, it is very unlikely that the 991 Turbo S is going to outrun the MP4-12C. From standstill to 120 kph (75 mph) or so, the 991 Turbo S could be a couple of inches ahead but then, the MP4-12C would probably drive away.

I read somewhere that Porsche where getting sub 6 seconds for 0-100 mph. . Though It might be a rumour but I hope it's true.

Geez - I know I am not ever considered a source of good information but I am just passing on test numbers that Road and Track came up with and published many months ago.  Surprised you had not seen them.  They have been testing cars for decades and I am certain the numbers are correct.  Not like they are using an hourglass and counting grains of sand.  Feel free to look into their testing routines else stop speculating.  BTW - how is this bad news?  I get the feeling that if RC or someone else provided these R&T numbers they would be golden.  This can be a frustrating forum.  Later...

Leawood911:

Geez - I know I am not ever considered a source of good information but I am just passing on test numbers that Road and Track came up with and published many months ago.  Surprised you had not seen them.  They have been testing cars for decades and I am certain the numbers are correct.  Not like they are using an hourglass and counting grains of sand.  Feel free to look into their testing routines else stop speculating.  BTW - how is this bad news?  I get the feeling that if RC or someone else provided these R&T numbers they would be golden.  This can be a frustrating forum.  Later...

You don't seem to understand: Car magazines and even some car manufacturers are using different methods to establish performance times, sometimes it is a rolling start, sometimes the pavement is very sticky, sometimes the temperatures are favorable or not, sometimes the cars are tested with the driver only, sometimes with a co-passenger too, sometimes with a full fuel tank and sometimes not. If car magazines or manufacturers have different measurement rules, the results CANNOT be compared. This is why US car magazines usually get better results than their German counter parts, simply because German car magazines (implied by the word "German"), kind of established their own standards for testing, which may or may not be met by others in the business.

So when I doubt a 2.6 seconds results from 0-60 mph, I think that this car has been tested with a rolling start, one driver only and maybe an almost empty fuel tank, also the pavement was probably quite sticky (track, special location for performance testing, drag strip, whatever).

OK?  This has nothing to do with trusting the results of others or not, I was just pointing out the differences in measurement and that they cannot always be compared.

I love the Sport Auto results for a couple of reasons:

1. The results are comparable (Sport Auto also always posts temperature data but more important, they have a certain procedure for testing and the locations are always the same, Hockenheim and Nordschleife).

2. Sport Auto is also very critical about "cheating" car manufacturers, they check the chassis/tire setup for "anomalies", they also started to dyno the Supertest cars because in the past, some cars miraculously achieved quite astonishing performance results. I have actually never seen another car magazine to do the same...

3. The drivers of the Supertest and Hockenheim tests are most of the time the same (Saurma, Gebhardt, etc.), which make the tests even more comparable. Of course drivers have certain car setup (mid engined, rear engined, AWD, etc.) preferences and may be faster or slower than other drivers in certain models but I think that the limitation to only three or so testdrivers (Supertest is done by Saurma only...I think) is quite useful.

That said, I trust other car magazines too of course but for me, the Sport Auto results are comparable, also pretty comparable to the manufacturer claims. 

--

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, Cayenne GTS (958), 991 Turbo S (Oct. 5th), BMW X3 35d (2013)

MKSGR:

P.S.: The major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics. Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough: In comparison, the GT2RS feels very "simple" and "mechanical" - consequently, you can anticipate any single behavior of the car so nicely, that's what makes these cars so quick and fun to drive. The 12C feels a bit like a computer game in comparison... If you know how to drive the GT models are more fun.

I agree with you, the GT2 is more raw, more old school while the 12C is like a modern day F1 car, the car's electronics does so much the driver's skills don't matter much anymore.

FYI - http://www.roadandtrack.com/special-reports/how-we-test

1 foot rollout.  I did not know about that.

-

The single most telling quantitative metric we use that displays effective power a car makes (or how well it uses that power) is acceleration testing. We report standing-start times to speeds of up to 130 mph and time-to-distance figures of 100 ft., 500 ft., 900 ft., and 1320 ft. (a quarter mile). Although we record the ambient conditions at the time of testing, we do not adjust our figures to compensate for temperature, humidity, elevation and the like. We do, however, still follow the NHRA drag-strip procedure of a 1-ft. rollout, where the time it takes a car to travel 1 ft. is subtracted from the raw times (this ranges from 0.2 second to as much as 0.4 sec. depending on the amount of wheelspin a vehicle sees at launch). Why this 1-ft. distance? At NHRA drag strips, timing doesn't begin until the vehicle has traveled roughly one foot.

MKSGR:

 

P.S.: The major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics. Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough: In comparison, the GT2RS feels very "simple" and "mechanical" - consequently, you can anticipate any single behavior of the car so nicely, that's what makes these cars so quick and fun to drive. The 12C feels a bit like a computer game in comparison... If you know how to drive the GT models are more fun.

MKSGR,

When you say "major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics"    I'm not sure what that means.  Also, regarding "Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough"   Not "good enough" in what way?  There is no question that the 12C has some advanced software that gets the car around a track a good deal quicker, but doesn't allow, so much, the easy, time wasting, but fun, power slides around corners.  McLaren truly has applied some of their F1 expertise to the car and I can understand some not liking it - I don't really like what Porsche has done to the 991 handling - quicker but less fun than the 997 for me.

Also, not meaning to be rude here, but really am curious - how much time have you spent driving the 12C?  

Whoopsy:

MKSGR:

P.S.: The major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics. Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough: In comparison, the GT2RS feels very "simple" and "mechanical" - consequently, you can anticipate any single behavior of the car so nicely, that's what makes these cars so quick and fun to drive. The 12C feels a bit like a computer game in comparison... If you know how to drive the GT models are more fun.

 

I agree with you, the GT2 is more raw, more old school while the 12C is like a modern day F1 car, the car's electronics does so much the driver's skills don't matter much anymore.

 

 

At some pint the electronics can even be counterintuitive. That's when the electronics get a bit annoying 

Conrad2:

MKSGR:

 

P.S.: The major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics. Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough: In comparison, the GT2RS feels very "simple" and "mechanical" - consequently, you can anticipate any single behavior of the car so nicely, that's what makes these cars so quick and fun to drive. The 12C feels a bit like a computer game in comparison... If you know how to drive the GT models are more fun.

MKSGR,

When you say "major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics"    I'm not sure what that means.  Also, regarding "Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough"   Not "good enough" in what way?  There is no question that the 12C has some advanced software that gets the car around a track a good deal quicker, but doesn't allow, so much, the easy, time wasting, but fun, power slides around corners.  McLaren truly has applied some of their F1 expertise to the car and I can understand some not liking it - I don't really like what Porsche has done to the 991 handling - quicker but less fun than the 997 for me.

Also, not meaning to be rude here, but really am curious - how much time have you spent driving the 12C?  

I drove it for about 1h. I will try to find my earlier post with the driving report - I will then post a link to this earlier post 

MKSGR:

Conrad2:

MKSGR:

 

P.S.: The major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics. Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough: In comparison, the GT2RS feels very "simple" and "mechanical" - consequently, you can anticipate any single behavior of the car so nicely, that's what makes these cars so quick and fun to drive. The 12C feels a bit like a computer game in comparison... If you know how to drive the GT models are more fun.

MKSGR,

When you say "major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics"    I'm not sure what that means.  Also, regarding "Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough"   Not "good enough" in what way?  There is no question that the 12C has some advanced software that gets the car around a track a good deal quicker, but doesn't allow, so much, the easy, time wasting, but fun, power slides around corners.  McLaren truly has applied some of their F1 expertise to the car and I can understand some not liking it - I don't really like what Porsche has done to the 991 handling - quicker but less fun than the 997 for me.

Also, not meaning to be rude here, but really am curious - how much time have you spent driving the 12C?  

I drove it for about 1h. I will try to find my earlier post with the driving report - I will then post a link to this earlier post 

Here is the report:

MKSGR:

Finally had the time to visit the McLaren dealer and do a short drive in the MP4-12C. Unfortunately, I just had like 30 minutes in pretty heavy traffic. As the overall impressions are quite positive I plan on doing another (longer) test drive which will also include some fast driven bends and a longer Autobahn distance.

I will just list my key findings in bullet form as to type as little text as possible 

+ brake stability is excellent, the pedal feel is pretty binary, though (might be the result of a worn-off brake in the test car as the dealer indicated) - however, it seems obvious to me that the GT2RS brakes are much more refined

+ engine power at high revs is phantastic (I had no doubt that we are indeed talking about 600hp ); at lower revs the GT2RS has more torque to offer, and you can feel that; turbo lag seems to be bigger in the McLaren than in the GT2RS

+ very nice sound (perfect for my taste): not like a Ferrari, more like the GT2RS (maybe a bit louder - test car had the sports exhaust); I like this "mechanical" sytle engine sound

+ the double clutch system works very, very nicely (I just don't like the attached paddles which somehow feel a bit strange as the other paddle also moves if you use one). Overall, the very refined interaction of engine and gear-box impressed me quite a bit; the level of refinement is similar to the PDK in the turbo S

+ steering feel is more synthetic as in the GT2RS but much better than in the Ferraris; in particular, compared to a Scuderia (for example) the McLaren has a nice, rigid feel around the center position; only if you turn the steering wheel you get this synthetic feel the Ferraris offer all the time; the GT2RS steering is simply the best you can get

+ as mentioned I could not drive really fast; however, the suspension is pretty comfortable in standard mode (much more so than in the GT2RS) in the more sporty setup ride comfort is similar to the GT2RS; in bends you feel that the car is more stable (changing throttle input etc.) than the GT2RS (mid-engine car vs. rear engine); body roll in sport mode is very limited; also, body movements are minimal even under full brakes

+ you also feel that the precision o the GT2RS suspension has no rivals out there: you can feel that the McLaren's suspension depends on several electronical devices - in contrast, the GT2RS feels simple but just perfect and has this outstanding level of feed-back; it cannot get any better than in the GT2RS

+ interior: very nice (quality issues typical for a car shortly after lanuch of production are quite obvious, though); I would need different seats as the seating position is a bit high if you want to wear a helmet (similar problem as in most Feraris: if I want to wear a helmet I cannot properly adjust the seat any longer as my head touches the cealing...)

+ luggage compartment is rather big - but then there is no other space for luggage...

+ important options for a daily driver (speed control, navigation system etc.) are all available (except for other seats, as mentioned above...)

In summary, I was quite impressed by the McLaren 

Assuming that the NBR and HHR lap times of GT2RS and McLaren will be very similar (and I look forward very much to the next issue of Sportauto - at least the HHR lap times are very close based on SportAuto) I would put the folloing verdict:

No doubt, the GT2RS is the more refined, more precise and more fun car to drive. Steering, brakes, suspension everthing is a tad better than in the McLaren. Power is the same. The McLaren has the more modern gear box. With the same gear-box technology I have no doubt that the GT2RS would be clearly faster on all tracks (while the two cars might be on par now).

But then, I would probably say that, compared to a turbo of turbo S the McLaren is the clealy superior car: you also have this very nice and refined double-clutch gear-box plus an additional performance (straight line and track) which is really stunning. I would also pick the McLaren over the Scuderia or 458 - simply as the McLaren is the faster car compared to the Ferraris. However, on this level this is clearly a matter of taste. Objectively speaking, the McLaren has the better steering than the Ferraris, has more power, better lap time performance and is more understated in terms of looks. The brakes might be on a similar level as the Ferrari's.

The McLaren is a great car - well done 

(P.S.: Sorry for the poor pics...)

MKSGR:

MKSGR:

Conrad2:

MKSGR:

 

P.S.: The major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics. Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough: In comparison, the GT2RS feels very "simple" and "mechanical" - consequently, you can anticipate any single behavior of the car so nicely, that's what makes these cars so quick and fun to drive. The 12C feels a bit like a computer game in comparison... If you know how to drive the GT models are more fun.

MKSGR,

When you say "major problem of the 12C is the synthetic setup without precisely defined characteristics"    I'm not sure what that means.  Also, regarding "Compared to a GT2RS the setup of the 12C is just not good enough"   Not "good enough" in what way?  There is no question that the 12C has some advanced software that gets the car around a track a good deal quicker, but doesn't allow, so much, the easy, time wasting, but fun, power slides around corners.  McLaren truly has applied some of their F1 expertise to the car and I can understand some not liking it - I don't really like what Porsche has done to the 991 handling - quicker but less fun than the 997 for me.

Also, not meaning to be rude here, but really am curious - how much time have you spent driving the 12C?  

I drove it for about 1h. I will try to find my earlier post with the driving report - I will then post a link to this earlier post 

Here is the report:

MKSGR:

Finally had the time to visit the McLaren dealer and do a short drive in the MP4-12C. Unfortunately, I just had like 30 minutes in pretty heavy traffic. As the overall impressions are quite positive I plan on doing another (longer) test drive which will also include some fast driven bends and a longer Autobahn distance.

I will just list my key findings in bullet form as to type as little text as possible 

+ brake stability is excellent, the pedal feel is pretty binary, though (might be the result of a worn-off brake in the test car as the dealer indicated) - however, it seems obvious to me that the GT2RS brakes are much more refined

+ engine power at high revs is phantastic (I had no doubt that we are indeed talking about 600hp ); at lower revs the GT2RS has more torque to offer, and you can feel that; turbo lag seems to be bigger in the McLaren than in the GT2RS

+ very nice sound (perfect for my taste): not like a Ferrari, more like the GT2RS (maybe a bit louder - test car had the sports exhaust); I like this "mechanical" sytle engine sound

+ the double clutch system works very, very nicely (I just don't like the attached paddles which somehow feel a bit strange as the other paddle also moves if you use one). Overall, the very refined interaction of engine and gear-box impressed me quite a bit; the level of refinement is similar to the PDK in the turbo S

+ steering feel is more synthetic as in the GT2RS but much better than in the Ferraris; in particular, compared to a Scuderia (for example) the McLaren has a nice, rigid feel around the center position; only if you turn the steering wheel you get this synthetic feel the Ferraris offer all the time; the GT2RS steering is simply the best you can get

+ as mentioned I could not drive really fast; however, the suspension is pretty comfortable in standard mode (much more so than in the GT2RS) in the more sporty setup ride comfort is similar to the GT2RS; in bends you feel that the car is more stable (changing throttle input etc.) than the GT2RS (mid-engine car vs. rear engine); body roll in sport mode is very limited; also, body movements are minimal even under full brakes

+ you also feel that the precision o the GT2RS suspension has no rivals out there: you can feel that the McLaren's suspension depends on several electronical devices - in contrast, the GT2RS feels simple but just perfect and has this outstanding level of feed-back; it cannot get any better than in the GT2RS

+ interior: very nice (quality issues typical for a car shortly after lanuch of production are quite obvious, though); I would need different seats as the seating position is a bit high if you want to wear a helmet (similar problem as in most Feraris: if I want to wear a helmet I cannot properly adjust the seat any longer as my head touches the cealing...)

+ luggage compartment is rather big - but then there is no other space for luggage...

+ important options for a daily driver (speed control, navigation system etc.) are all available (except for other seats, as mentioned above...)

In summary, I was quite impressed by the McLaren 

Assuming that the NBR and HHR lap times of GT2RS and McLaren will be very similar (and I look forward very much to the next issue of Sportauto - at least the HHR lap times are very close based on SportAuto) I would put the folloing verdict:

No doubt, the GT2RS is the more refined, more precise and more fun car to drive. Steering, brakes, suspension everthing is a tad better than in the McLaren. Power is the same. The McLaren has the more modern gear box. With the same gear-box technology I have no doubt that the GT2RS would be clearly faster on all tracks (while the two cars might be on par now).

But then, I would probably say that, compared to a turbo of turbo S the McLaren is the clealy superior car: you also have this very nice and refined double-clutch gear-box plus an additional performance (straight line and track) which is really stunning. I would also pick the McLaren over the Scuderia or 458 - simply as the McLaren is the faster car compared to the Ferraris. However, on this level this is clearly a matter of taste. Objectively speaking, the McLaren has the better steering than the Ferraris, has more power, better lap time performance and is more understated in terms of looks. The brakes might be on a similar level as the Ferrari's.

The McLaren is a great car - well done 

(P.S.: Sorry for the poor pics...)

MKSGR,

Thanks for retrieving your earlier post.  Enjoyed reading it.  My 12C Coupe had ceramic brakes and I found them to be a bit binary/ grabby.  My current 12C spider has the steel brakes which I like much better.  Maybe not as good for track but great feel around town. Agree on steering feel.  997's of all stripes are without peer for steering feel but 12C not far behind.  How a reviewer or anyone else for that matter can rate a 458 steering as better than 12C is beyond me. Its twitchy and over boosted.  A cynical view of this is that there is nothing of a measurable/objective nature they can point to where the 458 is better than a 12C  so they have to come up with things like steering feel, emotion, the "Ferrari experience" , exhaust sound etc. - kind of reminds you of the crooked judges scandal in Olympic figure skating a few years back.  

As we all know, Porsche took a step back with the 991 steering feel which still leaves me shaking my head.  In my view they did it simply to save money and maybe score a few points with the greenies.  The real car guys at Porsche just have to be upset at what they did.  In so many little ways they keep drifting away from their roots with the shift to an ever greater share of output going to SUV/Sedan side of things.  Ever more marketing input about how to make more people comfortable buying 911's by making it more GT, roomer inside, more SL500 like.  I get depressed thinking about it.  Have owned a dozen or so 911's over the years and loved them all except for the 991S which I kept about 10 days before dumping it ( three other guys I knew of in my area did exactly the same thing). Maybe we all were just being a bunch of old farts!  I am hoping the TTS will bring back some of the magic but to be honest I am growing ever more doubtful.  I keep trying to imagine walking out to my garages to the TTS and 12C sitting next to each other and ever climbing into the TTS, unless I needed to be a bit more discrete, but then why not take the Panamera?!  Sitting in the 991 TTS is going to feel just like sitting in the 991S I had which felt just like sitting in a small version of my Panamera!

Oh well....

reginos:

Someone you can afford to spend 200.000+ EUR on a Turbo S, will definitely be able to buy a SUV for proper transport to his favourite ski resorts.  Using your Turbo S to go skiing sounds like masochism to me. 

--

"Form follows function"

No it doesnt. I have a Cab and i had taken this car to ski resorts much more than my Range Rover Vogue go figure  and its a 850km drive. 

J.Seven

I am having difficulty following your criticism of the 991. Is having a comfortable cabin a bad thing in a car? 

J.Seven:

reginos:

Someone you can afford to spend 200.000+ EUR on a Turbo S, will definitely be able to buy a SUV for proper transport to his favourite ski resorts.  Using your Turbo S to go skiing sounds like masochism to me. 

--

"Form follows function"

No it doesnt. I have a Cab and i had taken this car to ski resorts much more than my Range Rover Vogue go figure  and its a 850km drive. 

J.Seven

Obviously, you like to do things the hard way

"Form follows function"

nberry:

I am having difficulty following your criticism of the 991. Is having a comfortable cabin a bad thing in a car? 

Absolutely not.  I love a comfortable cabin, but I like my sports cars to feel like, well, a sports car.  To me, the 997 was close to perfection.  It had just the right amount of "snugness" and every control fell right to hand.  I am about 6 ft and 175 lbs, if I were a different size person maybe I'd feel differently.  The extra 6 to 7 inches of shoulder room in the 991 are in my mind a real negative - it wasn't needed and changed the feel of the cabin toward that of a larger car.  I also don't like the longer wheel base, which takes away a lot of the 911 personality and I couldn't care less that it knocks some time off lap times because it takes too much away from day to day driving where 98% of the time is spent.

You can look at the evolution of the 911 over the years like a long bus trip where people get off at different stops.  A good size crew left at the 993 stop.  The 996 stop wasn't one anyone wanted to get off at and the 997 was a relief when it showed up.  Each iteration of the car made it larger, less raw, less quirky, and easier to drive.  The earlier Turbos killed a lot people as we all know.  A group no doubt will get off at the 997 stop and unless the Turbo really gets me inspired, I'm going to be in this group.  And Porsche won't worry about it in the least.  They will continue to sell ever more 911's to an expanded group of potential buyers who in the past wouldn't buy a 911 because it was too raw and hard edged and too small.  Porsche will start making real inroads into the group that buy SL500 type of cars.  Pretty sure VW adds fair amount of pressure to go in this direction.

nberry:

I am having difficulty following your criticism of the 991. Is having a comfortable cabin a bad thing in a car? 

On top of it,the damn thing comes with A/C and heated/ventilated seats

I understand your concerns regarding the interior and the lack of the older driving dynamics in earlier Porsche's.

However, consider that most if not all the competitors are doing exactly what Porsche is doing. They are catering to public demands. The primary attraction of a Porsche 911 is the vehicle serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, you can drive to and from work often in traffic and provide an enjoyable DD experience. On the other hand, you can drive to a track and use it as a high performance sport car. 

What Porsche did with the 991 was to enhance those dual driving experiences. More comfortable and yet better performing on the track. No much not to like.  

BTW, is the MP4 smaller than the 991?

Air cooled 911s are wonderful and special. I started with  911s in 1974 with an S, then ran a well modded track oriented 78SC for 30 years.  It was blast, but quite frankly my 991S with PDK and Sport PASM is superior in every way and is just as involving a driver. I recently drove a friends 964 and just marveled at what an antique it felt. Nothing wrong with that- I love classic cars. 

nberry:

I understand your concerns regarding the interior and the lack of the older driving dynamics in earlier Porsche's.

However, consider that most if not all the competitors are doing exactly what Porsche is doing. They are catering to public demands. The primary attraction of a Porsche 911 is the vehicle serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, you can drive to and from work often in traffic and provide an enjoyable DD experience. On the other hand, you can drive to a track and use it as a high performance sport car. 

What Porsche did with the 991 was to enhance those dual driving experiences. More comfortable and yet better performing on the track. No much not to like. 

BTW, is the MP4 smaller than the 991?

As we all know, no one really needs these type of cars.  They are one of the great luxuries in life and we all are extremely fortunate to be able to afford them.  They are all quite wonderful engineering creations. Given their costs though I do want to feel excited when I walk  up to the car, climb in, crank it up and drive it off.  The 12C does this in spades.  It evokes a very strong visceral reaction in everyone I've seen even walk up to it, much less drive it.  Regarding the interior size of the 12C vs the 991, it's a good question and I have never measured it or read the figures.  I do know sitting in a 12C feels quite snug and comfortable and you have no doubt it is a high performing sports car.  

All my prior 911's always gave me a thrill each morning when I saw them, got in them and cranked them up.  The very best start up sound came from my 997.1S, before the direct fuel injection of the 997.2.  Wow what an array of sounds came out of that car when it cranked up.  The 997.2 was noticeably more muted and not as nice.

After 10 days with my 991S I got to the point where I almost had no interest in even getting into the car in the morning.  As I've stated before, it felt like I was getting into a small Panamera.  Starting the engine felt like switching on an electric motor almost.  No real cranking sound, just instant on.  I understand it has to be this way if you want the ridiculous start/ stop function for stop lights, but I don't like it.  What percent of 911 owners will have the stop/stop function active?  Would guess almost zero.  This was done for PC reasons by Porsche and given the relatively tiny numbers of 911's in the world and the fact no one uses it, there will be little effect on global warming!

I am a life long Porsche fan and don't want to come across like I am bashing them.  I am just concerned about the direction they are going with the 911.  It may just be me and a few others like me.  A lot of you seem to be crazy about the 991 and that's great. I only wish Porsche the best and I am hoping to rekindle my love affair with the 911 with the 991 TTS.

nberry:

BTW, is the MP4 smaller than the 991?

For the exterior dimensions, according to my less than perfect vision eyes looking at my garage with them side by side, the 12C is about the same length as the 997 Turbo S, maybe an inch difference if that. As for width, the 12C IS wider, probably a couple inches either side. As for interior space, my shoulder and my wife's shoulder seems to have the same separation in the 12C or the Porsche, and the reach of my right arm seems to end up around the same spot on her thighs. 

I think I have more head room in the Porsche but really not by much. 

According to more scientific approach, i.e. manufacturer data, the length of the cars from 12C to 991 4S to 997 Turbo S are 177.5in, 176.8in, 175.2in, width are 75.1in, 72.9in and 72.9in without measuring mirrors reach.

chuckb:

Air cooled 911s are wonderful and special. I started with  911s in 1974 with an S, then ran a well modded track oriented 78SC for 30 years.  It was blast, but quite frankly my 991S with PDK and Sport PASM is superior in every way and is just as involving a driver. I recently drove a friends 964 and just marveled at what an antique it felt. Nothing wrong with that- I love classic cars. 

My first Porsche was...a 993 Targa. I bought this car without any testdrive and it was actually quite a story: Initially, I went to my dealer to get a Boxster (the Boxster was brandnew at that time and it was quite a spectacular car). Even the moment I took the word "Boxster" in my mouth, my dealer started laughing at me and was then babbling something about "over a year" delivery time.

I needed a car urgently (I had just sold my BMW M3 E36...the version with 286 hp, which was quite a lot in those days), so the dealer showed me a 993 Targa on the showroom floor, a previous model year but brandnew car.

I wanted a Porsche badly (first car on my mind was the 968 CS but my father, who was supposed to pay half of the car at that time, didn't want to give me that much money for a 4-cyl. car, so I chose the Boxster instead).

Eventually, I ended up with a 993 Targa and this is when my hate/love (now it is mostly love )  relationship with Porsche started. Compared to my previous BMW M3 E36, the 993 Targa felt like a...dinosaur. I'm not kidding. The car felt like a VW Beetle on steroids, it wasn't really fun to drive at the beginning, especially since I came from the very very good and refined M3 E36, a masterpiece of car at it's time. I regretted selling the M3 and going for Porsche after the first day, it was a horrible experience for me. After a while, I got used to the quirks of the 993 Targa and I started to enjoy the superior traction and the nice sound. My wife hated the car though, "uncomfortable", old looking and what not. Whenever she was driving in it, she complained.

When the 996 Carrera came out, I ordered one of the first cars but this time, after a testdrive. It was a difference like day and night, Porsche finally had made a car I loved. I drove the Carrera for a while but realized that this isn't a very good winter car for me. The car, first production series, also had lots of issues, especially with the PCM system, issues which drove me very mad. Porsche even brought the car to Weissach for a week to sort out the quirks and find a solution (which they did). My second 996 was a Carrera 4 with Powerkit, amazing car, even better than the Carrera but still not what I was looking for. Whent he 996 Turbo came out, I got the first dealer car and wow, this was it. Endless power, AWD, I felt like thrown back to my old days when I was racing a Lancia Delta HF Integrale in the group N championship. Amazing car but I got bored with the available power fast since the car was heavy, so I had RS-Tuning modify it to 569 hp. At that time, around 2001, 569 hp were crazy fast and really a lot of horses, I enjoyed that car each and every day. It was almost perfect. Then, the second child came and the 996 Turbo had to go, a Cayenne Turbo came. Not happy with the power (450 hp), I had the 500 hp powerkit installed at some point. Still...it was a SUV and as much as I loved it, it was no 911. So I went for a 997 Turbo, first dealer car again and was extremely happy but same thing there...power wasn't enough...so RUF took care of that.

Long story short: There is no substitute for the latest 911 Turbo models, as much as we like the older models and as much we love to think about the aircooled past. Porsche always makes the best "new" model, this is kind of a tradition.

Yes, the new 991 is more comfortable and maybe even less challenging for some semi-pro amateur drivers but is it really a bad thing? I even ordered ventilated seats on my 991 Turbo S because I love driving the car when it is hot outside, mostly with the windows and sunroof wide open and my back always looks afterwards as if I had showered. The ventilated seats are a comfort feature, indeed but why not? Why would I love driving around with a wet and sweaty back? You get my point.

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, Cayenne GTS (958), 991 Turbo S (Oct. 5th), BMW X3 35d (2013)

MKSGR:

I agree with you, the GT2 is more raw, more old school while the 12C is like a modern day F1 car, the car's electronics does so much the driver's skills don't matter much anymore.

I wish sports car manufacturers would offer different driving modes. The MP4-12C electronics (ESP can't be turned off completely as far as I remember) work perfectly, I was basically stepping on the throttle and going through curves without any big worries, amazing setup indeed. Why not make such a setup OPTIONAL?

Let me explain: Take the new 991 Turbo S for example. Why doesn't Porsche offer some sort of "settings" (available through the PCM system) to setup the AWD/PTM/AWS/etc. interaction. Like for example a setting called "RAIN" where you can basically drive with full throttle on rain and the ESP system does the rest for you, eliminating all dangers. Or a setting called "SNOW" doing the same? Or how about a setting called "Street", "Street Sport", "Track", "Track Racing" and finally..."Raw" (ESP turned off, all other systems in the sportiest setup possible). I would also allow some sort of "Favorites", where drivers can set up their own setup and save it to a "Favorite" button/setting. I doubt that this would cause Porsche a sweat, the electronics and software are already there.

I really think that buyers want options. Porsche could for example integrate such a "setup" into the Sport Chrono Plus package or they could simply ask additional money for it as some sort of "Individual Setup" option (which a more fancy name of course...like "Race Assist" or "Pro Assist" or whatever... ).

Just an example of how owners could be made happy...

Without a doubt, the new 991 Turbo S is an amazing car but yes, the longer wheelbase, the larger car and of course the comfort features make it more of a GT than a true sports car. So why not give people options? WIth electronics, the new 991 Turbo S is FULL of electronics, PTM and all, even AWS and steering a controlled by electronics and can be programmed. So why not give drivers the option to adjust everything to their liking? Hell, even the steering can be programmed to be more direct, so this would be a wonderful option too.
 

Another point is: Weight. C'mon, Porsche. How much would it cost to lower the weight of the 991 Turbo S by let's say 50 kg? More than 5k (production cost)? I would happily pay a bit more for the car if it is a bit lighter. It is a shame that the new 991 Turbo S didn't get at least 10-20 kg lighter than the previous model but with a wider body and the monster brakes (410 mm discs front, 390 mm discs rear), this may be acceptable, though not really excusable.

Give people options, this is all I say. How about a "RS" package for the 991 Turbo S? Not everybody wants a GT2 without the AWD. There are so many possibilities...

--

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, Cayenne GTS (958), 991 Turbo S (Oct. 5th), BMW X3 35d (2013)

RC:

Let me explain: Take the new 991 Turbo S for example. Why doesn't Porsche offer some sort of "settings" (available through the PCM system) to setup the AWD/PTM/AWS/etc. interaction. Like for example a setting called "RAIN" where you can basically drive with full throttle on rain and the ESP system does the rest for you, eliminating all dangers. Or a setting called "SNOW" doing the same? Or how about a setting called "Street", "Street Sport", "Track", "Track Racing" and finally..."Raw" (ESP turned off, all other systems in the sportiest setup possible). I would also allow some sort of "Favorites", where drivers can set up their own setup and save it to a "Favorite" button/setting. I doubt that this would cause Porsche a sweat, the electronics and software are already there.

 

I often thought, on the other hand, that this binary setup Porsche offers (normal/sport) just fits the GT2/GT3 concept best. Simple - and highlighting that this car is more mechanics than electronics  I never liked to use all these switches in the Ferraris. The more options, the more I am turned down by the car...