Quote:
DRA said:
At the risk of being flamed, he has a point ... I love the current line-up in many ways, but it seems silly to me that they continue with the rear-engined layout just for the sake of tradition.
I'm living in Australia (I am of German origin) and my friends always give me a ribbing about German products - that form should always follow function. But then, how does one explain the 911?
Somebody brought up a thread on rennlist.com not long ago suggesting "the impossible" - merge the 911 and Boxster and bring out a "proper" GT (with usable 2+2 seating.) It was interesting to see, because for the longest time I thought I was the only one who felt this way about it. It might never happen, but it's fun to imagine the possibilities!
Just my 2c.
DRA,
I can see your point abount wanting to see another sportcar model in the line-up with different posibilities. But having it substitute the 911 has been tryied before and didn't work, why? becauase there is nothing wrong with a rear-engine design. How do you make a 2+2 mid-engined car and make it handle well? its been tried too by Ferrari and Maserati in back in the 80's and didn't work. So your only solution is front or rear. Sure putting the engine in front is much cheaper, easier to do, and easier to drive for the common bloke, hence its prefferend by the makers, but does it handle any better? no, and most important which is more fun to drive, a front engined car or a rear engined car? also which has sportier characteristics? whats is better for steering, braking and accelerating in a race car, a 50-50 weight distribution of front engined cars or 40-60 rear-weight bias like mid-enf!gined and rear-engined?
So yes, technically, the best engine position is a rear-weght biased mid-engined platform but that is incompatible with the practicality of a 911 and also a whole different character in driving dinamics, to the point that its a completely different car, not a substitute car. So the next the best sport configuration is then rear engine - rear weight bias (then front engine RWD and last front engine and FWD). Sure its chasis and suspensions setup is more complicated but with 40 years experience Porsche has made it one of the most balanced cars in the market , sure its more difficult to pack the engine and more expensive too, but even so its pricetag stands fairly well agains its med-engiined competirors, sure its driving dinamics and reactions takes some learning and getting used to and is a bit different to drive fast but thats part of the charm and pleasure, and with todays conservative setups, electronic aids, ect even AWD if you want, a 911 is a safe and driveable as any other car on the street. So can anyone say it doesn't doesn't handle well? the 996 can match or even outhandle many mid-engine cars, the GT2 laps the ring (conservately) in 7:46 just two secs off the carbon fiber 555HP Zonda, the GT3's ruled in racing, the multi-purpose AWD 996TT will outperform most other mid-engined cars in real life situations of the streets with different surfaces, different enviromental conditions, etc., the 996 carerrar puts in a tight spot many more powerfull cars. And more importantly, its boring or non-sporty at the wheel? anybody who has driven one knows the answer... in conclusion, if it work wonders why change it?
A new model yes, but the 911 will always have a following who appreciates such a particular car, and as time goes by the 911 gets more popular reaches and amazes more people. Ironically, the "mid-engined" Boxster served this purpose very well since it brought many new customers to Porsche who later tried and bought a 911 and would have never thought off or tried one otherwise.
So for anyone who says the rear-engine is there against function and "only" for tradition, let me ask you this: which is the most succesfull sportcar platform in ALL motorsport history? yes, the rear-engined 911