Well that experience certainly would affect you...but that was 30 years ago. Not affecting my life, or at least not as directly, was years of bad experience with Chev and the pathetic local dealer's service departments. One day I said never again would I own one, and that was 25 years ago. I have stubbornly stuck with that ever since and told all who would listen.

But I think it's time to recognize that some things actually do change over the decades...and we should both tell ourselves to GET OVER IT.

Besides, after having my XKR in for servicing twice now I'm not sure they're really much better than my Chev days, and that, the passage of time and strong Vette reliability and reviews is softening me up to consider the new Stingray in the future. Now I'm not suggesting you run out and buy a 911...but maybe it's time to at least seal those old memories and biases in the archive box.

Bruce

 

It will be interesting to see which car the MT staff will choose for their "Best Driver's Car". I think some can be ruled out fairly easily, but I find it hard to predict without following this exercise closely in the past.

I don't think though that lap times and over the top personalities will mean that much, but rather how the cars handled at their respective limits, and how the driver feels over a range of use. I don't think they'll be swayed by noise and tire smoke as much as some owners would be, and I do think the F-Type V6S would have been the overall better balanced package for this comparison.

Every tester of the V8S seems to have focused more on the exhaust sound and tire-shredding torque than the driving dynamics, and while that may be among its strengths in the showrooms, it could also be its downfall when being compared to other focused high performance cars. Being labeled a muscle car will only appeal to some buyers. The Subaru BRZ came in second last year because of handling, and despite being probably the lowest powered.

What are your predictions?

Bruce

 

Bruce

Under nearly all other car instances I would agree with you. But, I AM convinced (as having ZERO doubts) that the rear-engine configuration is a bad original design so, I could find no reasons to change my mind regarding the 911. On the other hand, I would buy a Cayman from Porsche in a heartbeat, particularly if given more engine choices.

BTW - did you catch my Edited comments about the GT-3 review in my last answer to you?

I guess, I am in a transitional period regarding my new car choices. Kind of identity crisis. Years ago it was all about performance, first, second and third, with comfort and looks way down the list. These days my ultra performance TT sits there months without even starting. My long commutes dictate my preferences much towards comfort (XK, XJL). The sport car enthusiast in me would definitely consider the new Stingray. But, to my shock, I looked at a base F-type with a nice color combo at the dealer and found myself attracted to it, entirely discounting its performance, or the lack of. Suddenly it seemed attractive for some playful cruising through the foothills of my Gold Country neighborhood. This was unthinkable for me years ago, I always had to have a sharp weapon in my hands that had the potential to defeat anything else on the roads.

Hopefully the identity crisis will settle down by the time I will be up for the next purchase with good options available. As of now I could not store more cars, my TT is already outside under a tarp-covered parking tent.

Albert

 

And its the 911 for the win...!

2013 Motor Trend's Best Driver's Car - Motor Trend

Here are some quotes from all the judges:

Kong: "The 911 urges you to beat on it. You feel the urge to push the accelerator and brake pedals hard, pull the paddle shifters hard, and bend into that corner a little faster than the previous run."

Lieberman: "It's just an incredible machine to drive. I kept thinking to myself, 'This is the big boy Porsche.' If you need proof at just how outstandingly good the 911 is, this year's Carrera 4S gains weight compared to last year's 2WD model, yet lapped Laguna faster (1:39.19 versus 1:39.30)."

Martinez: "The harmony between chassis, suspension, engine, and dual-clutch transmission is uncanny."

Kiino: "When I said the Cayman S left me wanting more, I guess I was talking about the 911."

Lago: "The difference between writing in cursive and printing. Feels repeatable; lap after lap, I can improve and be consistent. Feels like a car I could learn for a long time, like the start of a great, long relationship."

Loh: "The most unstoppable, confidence-inspiring vehicle I've driven yet."


Not that it will change Albert's mind! lol

 

When is the MT comparison happening?

I find it far too early for predictions, particularly having zero idea on the participating cars. After watching the C&R video on choosing the cars, I suspect that GM did not provide the Stingray because it wished for a "more favorable" introduction than putting its base car up against those top cars. They may wish to wait for the ZO6 or ZR1 variations promised for late this year and have those compete in next year's comparison. Would make marketing sense.

Obviously from past experience, lap times are not the ultimate decisive factor for these comparisons. Maybe they should be when it comes to all-out performance machines as subjective judgment will always be contested by the public. How can you say that a car that looses every single, objectively measured performance categories is declared the winner because: "It has a soul" as opposed to the Godless rest?

I'd prefer subjective judging for sedans but not for cars built with 500+ HP extreme-powered powertrains. We should not pretend that their primary goals should be centered on grocery-getting or taking the little lady to dinner. They are purpose-built to compete against other manufacturer's extreme models and should be measured on those qualities. Buyers should be made aware of their roles and if not into tire smoking and track racing, they may prefer that V6 base or "S", after all.

Albert

 

You must be confused? It's what we've been talking about for the last 2 pages in this thread. lol

MT comparison is over...911 for the win.

 

We're still in agreement because I think the engine placement was a bad idea too, but where you see no reason to change your mind about the current day 911...I see an avalanche of reasons to respect/love it, with the C4S being so stable in all conditions that's it may even be the best car in the world for people who barely even know how to drive, never mind enthusiasts that want a thrilling driving experience. Like one review stated, "There's a reason every other car at the Nurburgring is a 911".

Yes I did, and I've loved watching the video numerous times. It's all about the passion for driving perfection, and every incremental improvement, no matter how small, is worthy of celebration. So yes, I get what you're saying about praising the new and criticizing the old, but that's natural, and not unique to 911 reviews. It doesn't mean that the last 997's steering and handling wasn't fantastic, it actually was, but rather that the new one is even better. Things would look a lot different if you'd take off those anti-911 glasses

Jaguar may claim to be going after the 911, but I don't think it was ever based on performance, but rather a new and exciting appeal. That's why it isn't lighter or have more technology. It all about the playful cruising, and looking good doing it. I'll refrain from discussing the enormous virtues of the XK Series for such things as I certainly wouldn't want to


Oh the horror of that image. Perhaps one day you'll interview prospective new owners and find one that will appreciate and treasure the car as you have.

Bruce

 

Matt

You're right. It will not change my mind. Listening to and following other "expert's opinions" definitely NOT what made me a many-times auto racing championship winning race driver/constructor and top athlete in various sports.

Example: When it came to designing and building (by my own hands) my own whitewater racing kayak (as my retirement project) even my friends told me that the concept was far too radical and would not work. How similar does that sound to when I was told by all that the Mustang GT could not be made to handle? Now, undefeated into its 5th year in the hands of an old athlete (me) against the top young competition, many grudgingly begin to accept the facts that my racing kayak design is wildly superior to the factory designs while some still argues that it should not work. After all, how else could a very aging, over 60 person easily defeat young competitors, some of them being top ranked world-wide? I will happily prove it again in a couple of weeks when, once again, I intend to win my next competitive event by the usual large margins against anyone in their factory racing kayaks.

I am always reminded to the words of my favorite philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche:

"As the rule of thumb, what the common people believe is ALWAYS WRONG." - upon close examinations of things around me, I have to agree.

As to this C&D comparison; I knew from even before the test begun who the winner would be. It is predictable.

On the other hand, did you catch all the negatives that Chris said about the past year's GT-3 and Carrera in your posted GT-3 video? It never fails. Last year those car were declared GODs, this year there are the new GODs to pray to and it is safe to put down and criticize last year's models. This has been the game reviewers play with the 911 for decades. No matter how far down the 911 finishes in the performance categories, it always has to be declared the winner. The 911 is now religion in America. Fine, I always beat them and likely continue to do so as long as they keep the engine in the wrong place.

BTW, Matt, - thanks for posting that GT-3 video. It is impressive but, that brand new GT-3 still not as quick at Nuerburgring as the now discontinued ZR1 (7:19 vs. 7:25). That should say something about "confidence levels" provided by an older front-engine chassis vs. the most up-to-date rear-engined one.

Albert

 

Albert, I hear what you are saying.

I still think there is an argument that can be made that most newer model car reviews can look back and find faults with the previous version. That has always been the case, how else can you point to the positive if you cant contrast against the negative? Maybe it's amplified in the case of the 911 because it is almost always in the spotlight....who knows.

I just know I used to own a 997 C2S and it was a great car....loved it. I know the newer version is even better, and I could have bought one but instead I got the XKR-S and am 100% happy with my decision since I wanted a GT anyway. But I still highly respect the 911 for what it does with MUCH LESS HP than most other cars it is up against, such as the ZR-1 in your example of Nurburgring times.

My main problem with the car is everyone has one...and maybe that is rightly so.

 

Ha....ha....ha.... I was confused by the title of the thread and not looking close enough to even register which magazine was doing the testing.

Oh, well, one of my senior moments; I will use the excuse that my brain is only getting half of its normal blood supply since my high speed skiing accident 8 years ago that left me in critical condition for 2 weeks.

Thanks for pointing out.

Albert

 

Matt

I hope you do not mind the back and forth debate here and do not look at it as excessively argumentative. I love to talk about cars and designs thus, it keeps me going...

Did you drive your 911 at 10/10th? That is the issue that I am talking about. Not at even 8/10th, at which the continuous improvements by Porsche made the car fun and safe. I suggest that driving 10/10th is ONLY possible on racing tracks under very competitive all-out, sprint-racing conditions. I actually once tried to install racing tires on my street car and went out to do some testing on my empty, local winding roads. I was simply unable to drive it fast enough to accumulate the required heat into the tires that I would get after only a single racing lap at the track. Thus, the racing-tire-for-street car project was a complete bust, because racing tires do not work when not up to temperatures.

I think that the new GT-3 in the video had plenty of engine power to compare to the ZR1. I forget what it said but, my memory suggests it was close to 600 HP. The HP in a 911 is somewhat limited by what sized engine and how much weight one can stuff into that tight nook behind the rear axle. Just an other design limitation, IMO.

Albert

 

Not possible, Bruce. Those glasses are welded over my eyes. This is simply an Engineering issue for me that I can not get over.

I'm kind of secretly hoping that my ex-racing partner will eventually come up with some ridiculously low offer and buy the TT from me. I sold him my last Formula Mazda race car for pennies. He is a true flag bearer for Mazda racing cars and rotary engines, in general and, has too many race cars and street cars himself. But, he DOES want my car. No one better to have it than him. Now, if he could only round up his pennies, as I am not quite ready to give the car away free.

Albert

 

I don't mind the debate/discussion at all, in fact I appreciate your perspective considering you are an experienced driver and an engineer.

No, I never have driven my 911 at 10/10th's. I have however seen many who have and one thing that seems to be repeated with the newer models is "confidence" and "easy to drive fast". I have to give Porsche respect for that, for as we both know where the engine is located on these cars. It makes me think for most 99% of folks (and as a great drivers car) that probably Porsche deserves the win....again.

As for the ZR-1 and other vettes...I used to own a C5 Z06 that was moderately modified and it was a good car, but honestly I much preferred and felt more confident in the 911 (although I again didn't push either to 10/10ths)....it just felt more nimble and grippy to me.

The ZR-1 has 638hp and weighs ~3,333 lbs

The 991 GT3 has 475hp and weighs ~3200 lbs

 

Next year and as reports say the more powerful by some margin F-type R or RS coupe will be out... Wonder how it takes on the 911 then?!?

 

Yes, indeed, Porsche did an admirable job on updating the 911. No questions about that.

My mistake, again!!!, in not remembering the GT-3 power values. Thanks.

As I stated before, I used to do lots of racing in both front and mid-engined race cars and lots of banzai street racing in mostly front engined cars and in one of my mid-engined Lamborhinis.

I always felt much more comfortable on the street circuits in a front engined car. They just felt a lot more predictable with more of a safety cushion, if you will, for times when you just entered a blind corner too fast. A street car must forgive that (within limits). I, at times, felt very tense in my mid-engined street car under those conditions. Too much weight in the back trying to spin the car out while you're part into a corner, trying to rub off some speed.

In racing applications, no doubt the mid engine is ideal. With the engine weight contained within the wheelbase, better tire traction under acceleration, less front-end dive and, thus, more use of the rear brakes under braking (thus, shorter stopping distances). The last one is HUGE in track racing as most of your passing will have to be done under braking. That should provide a big plus for the 911, as well. But, in track racing you practice each and every turn, you place markers by the side of the track to signal when you smash on the brakes, when you start your turn-in, all is known, very few surprises. Under those conditions, mid-engine but all means.

Albert

 

I don't think power is the real issue...It has plenty already.

It really needs to find a way to get the power down to the road (better tires, suspension) and perhaps shed some weight. Then we will see some magic on the track times, I predict.

However, I'm not sure Jaguar is as concerned about this as some might want them to be.

 

I wonder what 911 model it will be similarly priced to.

 

I know what you mean, I cut my teeth on the track running a mid engine Elise...It was wildly fun but without the electrical nannies of todays cars...Well I spun it a few times, for sure.

And I made a mistake about the GT3. The one I was referring to with the 7:27 lap time was a 2011 GT3 RS w/ 493 HP. I think the new GT3 does it in 7:25 with a little less HP and a little more weight.

Perhaps a better comparison to the ZR1 is the 620 hp GT2 RS, which beat the ZR1 by a little over a second and a half with a 7:18 Nurburgring lap time.

Both are awesome cars...and the ZR1 costs a heck of a lot less money. But if I were given one...or if they cost the same, I would take the Porsche all day.

 

I must apologize for taking this Car and Driver thread off topic to discuss the Motor Trend Best Driver's Car competition, and any confusion it may have caused.

Past experiences can affect you, and had one October 2002 with a 911 that affected me for years...maybe still does. I was at Road America doing a 3 day BMW HPDE. Friday was open lapping for only Instructors and Advanced drivers. It rained all day, fallen leaves in sections of the track, and generally very slick conditions. It was my first day ever on the track so I was taking it easy as I was focused on learning the track and the "Wet Line" though corners where grip in the rain would be better.

I was following a 911 race car, and being very careful to stay back so as not to make him feel he had to pickup the pace, and he looked cautious as well. I was in the Supra with stock suspension and tires which would give better grip. We rounded Canada Corner, he looked to have straightened out, and then suddenly spun 180* and went off the track, across a grass area, and into the Armco barrier. Parts flying everywhere as the car continued to spin on wet grass before hitting the wall a second time, with complete nose flying 15 feet into the air. I'm still in disbelief how that happened, and the level of damage. I still see it in slow motion when thinking about it.

A couple of years later I was back at Mosport doing a Porsche HPDE and having a good session dicing it up with the chief instructor in his stunning 1972 911 race car. He was holding me up slightly, but rather than give the "pass by" signal he pushed it and went off track...you guessed it, engine first.

I've had quite a few cars go off in front of me, including other 911's, but they've made me nervous ever since Road America. A few years ago I was offered a drivers seat for a race team campaigning a pair of 911's in high profile race series. I had done a lapping day the year previous when the team was sorting out the car at Mosport. I discussed the car with one of the co-owners that I've known for years, who was a bit disappointed with his lap times. I was lapping a bit quicker, but didn't add to his disappointment by mentioning that.

But when he asked if I'd drive for him I declined. I've questioned that decision ever since, and the excuses I told myself at the time, but really wonder if a big part of it was lack of confidence in their handling. I've got over that fear now (I hope!), with all the improvements, but those memories do die hard.

Bruce

 

For my lack of historical interest in the 911 I frankly get lost in all the different Porsche model numbers and designations. I know that some of those "street" Porsches run special huge tires that look like they belong on the back of a regular tractor (size-wise). So, I've just googled the GT-2 RS. Very impressive, although I'm not sure that a comparison the ZR1 applies. The GT-2 seems to be a race track model with built in roll bars, carbon racing seats and who-knows-what else? That reminds me to a new Ferrari that was in the news yesterday, with lots of HP and 2800 lbs weight. Also a car with the race track in mind. The ZR1 is clearly a street car with its heavy street seats and street ratio transmission and good street ride.

As to your answer to Lothar52, I agree that the F-type has plenty of power. It needs TIRES!!!. With that much torque and power they probably need to step up to a tire size way over 300mm on the back and increase the front size proportionately. I never liked huge differences in front vs. rear tires, such as the googled GT-2's 245 vs 325. Very difficult to make it work in both slow and fast corners. Even F1 cars has to chose between setting up the car for high speed corners, at which time they are known to understeer, like pigs, in slow speed corners. Set them up for slow speed and they will be hair-rising in fast corners.

But, getting back to tire sizing, there is such thing as a car being "over-tired". That is what manufacturers of these ultra high powered cars have to deal with. Street tires that are too large, you get a bad ride, too much rolling resistance, too much steering kickback on bad surfaces and a lack of transitional response. Too small - lack of traction from high powered powertrains. Manufacturers, like Michelin, begun to produce some near-racing compound tires that do provide superior traction for these cars but, at the expense of lasting only a handful of miles. Tough choices to make.

Albert