When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
To me - IF reliability is there - it is all about FUN. No 911 would be as fun for me to drive and listen to as my F-Type R + the little kids that always hop up and down and wave would be comatose if I drove by in a 911.
I owned a perfect condition 1974 Carrera in 1988. That was fun and got a lot of attention with the whale tail and tacky door lettering. Got her to 90 mph on NE 39th. Anyone from Portland would know that should be impossible and crazy (racing - dumb kid).
Bought it for $25k, sold it a year later for $25k. Looking at the pricing now I wish I tucked it away. 70s and 80s 911 pricing is just ridiculous.
Those cars were fun and flawed just enough to have character. The interior of a new 911 looks like a mini hospital room to me. Boring, functional, sterile.
Last edited by Burt Gummer; 01-31-2019 at 10:38 PM.
My point...RWD vs AWD with Launch Control...no chance given roughly close HP/Tqe #'s. Perhaps close race with Lambo RWD. (weight difference is key though)
Easy to prove...Let's see your 0-60mph and Qtr mile Draggy results...as the SVR has been proven to run 3.3 sec. and 11.3 (even better I believe from Gibbo).
I think RWD against SVR 0-60mph wouldn't fair well. .
That guy is really convinced that his 2014 V8S convertible is faster than a stock SVR, or Huracan. LOL
Way faster.
I bury my local 398 ft-lb (V10 VW engine) Electric Blue Huracan as a Sunday ritual.
Any minimally informed car guy will laugh at the idea that AWD is free. The SVR is unquestionable slower with 15-20% more power absorbed by the double transmission and weight compared to RWD. AWD Rs would be slightly slower, still.
The new 992 looks like an F-Type and a VW Beetle had a baby. Cute as a bug! Good on Porsche for picking a the best looking benchmark car (Jag) to emulate. While it looks a lot better, it would have been better if an F-Type and an F-Type had a baby.
Another rubberband engine squeezing out a lifecycle killing 7500 RPM to compensate for no torque and low displacement. It is so whisper quiet, you can barely hear it in the track reviews... zzzz_zzzzzzzzzzz. And it's more fuel efficient!
Seems targeted directly at the female buyer. Embarrasing.
The new 992 looks like an F-Type and a VW Beetle had a baby. Cute as a bug! Good on Porsche for picking a the best looking benchmark car (Jag) to emulate. While it looks a lot better, it would have been better if an F-Type and an F-Type had a baby.
Another rubberband engine squeezing out a lifecycle killing 7500 RPM to compensate for no torque and low displacement. It is so whisper quiet, you can barely hear it in the track reviews... zzzz_zzzzzzzzzzz. And it's more fuel efficient!
Seems targeted directly at the female buyer. Embarrasing.
Anyone who believes RWD is outdated as just 'fun' in any car, but not possibly as fast as a AWD car, I refer you to the modded 720s which recently did 0-60mph in 2.0 seconds flat.
The fastest production car on the planet under $500k is RWD. Enough said.
Anyone who believes RWD is outdated as just 'fun' in any car, but not possibly as fast as a AWD car, I refer you to the modded 720s which recently did 0-60mph in 2.0 seconds flat.
The fastest production car on the planet under $500k is RWD. Enough said.
I love how folks on both sides of the RWD/AWD debate are so confident in their opinions. I think it is great that there is enough room in the hobby for both sides to be as correct as they want to be.
I've been listening to how AWD will make RWD obsolete for literally two decades now, as back in 1993 when I drove a 300 HP 300ZX and my friend had a 300 HP Mitsubishi 3000GT. Both had turbo V-6 engines with 300 hp. Like today's cars, the 1990's AWD car get a jump off the line, but parasitic drag of the driveline hurt it as soon as the cars were moving. Fast forward 25 years, and the debate rages on....
The fastest production car on the planet under $500k is RWD. Enough said.
No doubt. The bigger point is that driving all four wheels sucks up roughly twice the RWD's BHP/WHP penalty. Thats a huge loss (another 10% to 15%-ish) to cook the books for one particular test, 0-60. And as you point out with the 720s, it might not even help.
In exchange for that one sales figure, you lose significant power everywhere. If you pit a same-car RWD versus AWD, the RWD version will bury it in any real life street brawl.
AWD is about lawyers taming the car to reduce liabilty while plus-ing up the price. That includes a very intentional hidden whp reduction. And, sadly, also doing anything to shave a tenth off one arbitrary test that is worshiped by magazines and youtubers who have nothing but a cursory understanding of cars.
Another big problem with AWD is the double dyno roller.
In the SVR dyno video linked, its clearly driving both rollers. According to Jag, that should not happen. What is most likely happening is some minor component of torque always driving the front is encountering little resistance, or, the front ABS wheel speed sensor could be indicating the rear wheels have no traction, sending the max allowable ratio to the front. Depending on the dyno's ability, it may allow the front to spin then double the only measured rear roller. That could be why the stock SVR put down "610 whp" (750-800 bhp).
I never lusted after AWD, and was originally going to buy a Z06, RWD Manual.
However, driving in Seattle means a LOT of the time you are driving in the rain, and after driving my wife's AWD 650i I couldn't believe how great the grip was...
The Jag is perfect for me. Goes like stink, sticks like mad, has storage for a road trip, I love the sound, the 8-speed ZF trans is among the best, and it is absolutely gorgeous.
I think RWD cars accelerates really fast if engine and transmission is behind the driver.
AMG GT has transmission in the back. Porsches and many supercars have both in the back.
RWD F-Type is great fun and great car. But there is too little weight in the back (<60%) to be supercar quick in drag races. Drag races aren't what RWD F-Type is about anyway.
I think RWD cars accelerates really fast if engine and transmission is behind the driver.
AMG GT has transmission in the back. Porsches and many supercars have both in the back.
RWD F-Type is great fun and great car. But there is too little weight in the back (<60%) to be supercar quick in drag races. Drag races aren't what RWD F-Type is about anyway.
Eh, in standard Sport mode and stepped down traction control, so no driving skills required, a stock 2014-2015 V8 RWD does 3.4s with Pirellis. That's with a ton of wheelspin in 1st, and tail wag through 4th, although 60 only needs 2nd.
So 0-60 is an awfully hard, but essentially meaningless test for RWD cars on P-Zeros.
My tuned V8 was good for consistent 3.3s on the P-Zeros. Thats dyno'd at 540 whp with a flat 505 ft-lb, up from 498 whp stock. So maybe 610 bhp.
The new MP4Ss are a huge improvement so I expect to shave a few tenths assuming the arbitrary choice of 60 mph even matters.
The takeaway is for an F-Type RWD, 0-60 is limited by the stock tires, and that is trivial to improve. Frankly, AWD cars would love to have the same "problem."
I think RWD cars accelerates really fast if engine and transmission is behind the driver.
AMG GT has transmission in the back. Porsches and many supercars have both in the back.
RWD F-Type is great fun and great car. But there is too little weight in the back (<60%) to be supercar quick in drag races. Drag races aren't what RWD F-Type is about anyway.
The F-Type was intended to be a sport/GT car, not a drag rail. I am thankful for the 50:50 distribution.
The F-Type was intended to be a sport/GT car, not a drag rail. I am thankful for the 50:50 distribution.
^+1
I've only driven a 911 once (many years ago), lifted off the gas too quickly in a turn and the tail walked out so fast I could barely save it. I understand modern electronics have tamed the beast, but it is a still not my preference to drive a car with all that weight in the rear. My RWD R with VAP tune, PS4S tires and about 150lbs taken off her has never tried to kill me like that old 911 did.
I think that is what is so special about the F type: it's surprisingly competitive in the quarter mile, it is decent on the road course, and it's still a comfortable weekend cruiser that looks and sounds fantastic. Throw in the bargain price for a used one and to me its a no brainer over the 911.
I've only driven a 911 once (many years ago), lifted off the gas too quickly in a turn and the tail walked out so fast I could barely save it. I understand modern electronics have tamed the beast, but it is a still not my preference to drive a car with all that weight in the rear. My RWD R with VAP tune, PS4S tires and about 150lbs taken off her has never tried to kill me like that old 911 did.
Been a long time since I drove a 911 as well, but I never got it sideways. Powered oversteer can be fun, but trailing throttle oversteer is scary.
I recall a day at the track when it was raining, and five 911's ran off the track... every one went off tail first.
It’s been a long time since a 911 has been excessively tail happy. You see a lot of posts from people claiming they are, but curiously few from actual owners. My two 997s easily outhandle my F Type, the 991 and 992 even more so. Porsche build quality is light years better than Jaguar too. I love the F Type and it’s a great car in so many ways. But the 911 is the class benchmark for a reason. It’s a better car in most respects. The Jag looks better, sounds better and has genuine character and charm, but performance wise, for me, Porsche has a clear edge.
It’s been a long time since a 911 has been excessively tail happy. You see a lot of posts from people claiming they are, but curiously few from actual owners. My two 997s easily outhandle my F Type, the 991 and 992 even more so. Porsche build quality is light years better than Jaguar too. I love the F Type and it’s a great car in so many ways. But the 911 is the class benchmark for a reason. It’s a better car in most respects. The Jag looks better, sounds better and has genuine character and charm, but performance wise, for me, Porsche has a clear edge.
I agree with most of that, Porsche has come a long way with the 911, but then again you pay a premium for it. If you were to start from scratch designing a sports car, hanging an engine off the back is not where I'd begin.
I agree with most of that, Porsche has come a long way with the 911, but then again you pay a premium for it. If you were to start from scratch designing a sports car, hanging an engine off the back is not where I'd begin.
That’s true. The Porsche premium is very real and yes the engine placement isn’t ideal - but it’s what makes a 911 a 911, and Porsche’s engineers have worked wonders. Some focus only on the compromises but forget the weight distribution comes with certain advantages, for example when trail braking into a corner.
Still think the F Type is a great car, but can’t agree with much of the 911 bashing in the thread.
01-31-2019, 10:33 PM
.
