First official Porsche 911 (991) pictures. The classic is back.

[CalcVictim]

Respectfully...having the engine so far back is a bad thing??? I guess theoretically, yes, but do you know how many sports car races Porsche has won with that really bad thing?? The 911 series has a near perfect 50/50 weight balance...the engine is so relatively light the format works quite well...to say the least.

1)Lay the crack pipe down, 911s do not have 50/50 weight distribution. Below is just an example to show you that you are wrong, I couldn't find a better place with f/r weight specs.

On the track, the rear-wheel-drive 911's 38/62 percent front/rear weight distribution becomes apparent, but not unruly. There's a smidge of oversteer coming off hard corners, but the tail untucks itself gradually enough that you can wind it back in with minor steering corrections. At its limits, the 911 lacks the tossable neutrality of Porsche's mid-engined Cayman S, but for most drivers in most situations, I suspect the differences are academic.

2009 Porsche 911 Review by Kelsey Mays

2)The polar moment of the 911 because of it's engine being in the back is much worse making the car hard to rotate and hard to control once it is rotating.
Porsche makes awesome cars and won races because they have enough engineering to overcome the inferior layout of the 911.

 

[GTSpartan]

Wow, it's looks like a 911.

As to the design, every single car on the planet has deficiencies. Porsche in no different. Being that they are by far the most successful GT/endurance racing manufacturer should shut most people up. Trophies talk, and theoretical design imperfections walk.

 

[dis3as3d]

Dear Porche,

Bring back the whale tail.

 

[CalcVictim]

Wow, it's looks like a 911.

As to the design, every single car on the planet has deficiencies. Porsche in no different. Being that they are by far the most successful GT/endurance racing manufacturer should shut most people up. Trophies talk, and theoretical design imperfections walk.

There is a difference between a deficient design and a deficient car, you don't seem to grasp that concept.

 

[Coiled03]

No need to screw up perfection really. The 911 is a classic look and doesn't need a total "refresh". Some car companies go to great lengths to screw up a good design once they have one... all in the name of something "new".

+ a million.

I'd drive the hell out of that thing. I don't care if it looks like a refresh from the past 10 iterations. It's still an incredibly capable sports car that's an insane amount of fun to drive, no matter how they got there.

 

[GTSpartan]

There is a difference between a deficient design and a deficient car, you don't seem to grasp that concept.

Take it easy Einstein. I appreciate your explanation as to why the design is "bad". Was just pointing out that everyone is so quick to link a bunch of sites on how poor the design might be, when in fact they have proven the opposite.

 

[JD03Cobra]

Did something change?

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

It's a matter of opinion, Porsche goes to great lengths to make the 911 fast and competitive when in reality having the engine so far back is a bad thing. I do understand that a 911 will always be a 911 and every iteration is evolutionary but Porsche puts more effort into keeping it's heritage alive then building the best car they can.

actually put some thought into it and you'll see that it's NOT a bad thing.
1. "pefect 50/50 weight distribution" is bullshit - scratch built race cars have rear biased weight distribution for a reason
2. traction on standing/rolling - the drivetrain being just behind the rear wheels means that your doing something wrong if you can't put more power down than front/mid-engine cars
3. traction in the wet - there is a reason 911s are always the best performing 2WD cars when the rain arrives
4. traction out of corners - with all the weight on the drive wheels, a driver can apply more power, earlier

contrary to popular belief, road racing isn't about the corners. it's about who has the most speed at the end of each straight.
i'm sure your gonna go through and try to dispute each one of my points or post some counterpoints, but i have history and podium finishes to support my argument.

you can talk polar moment all you want, but the advantages of the rear engine layout outweigh the 'bad polar moment' and all the other disadvantages. frankly, front engine is the worst of the engine layouts for road racing.

There is a difference between a deficient design and a deficient car, you don't seem to grasp that concept.

there is a difference between theoretical performance and real world performance.
rear engine is a bad layout in the same way that the fastest way around the track is hitting the apex("the line"). theoretically true, but in the real world it's bullshit.

 

[CobraRed01]

1)Lay the crack pipe down, 911s do not have 50/50 weight distribution. Below is just an example to show you that you are wrong, I couldn't find a better place with f/r weight specs.

2009 Porsche 911 Review by Kelsey Mays

2)The polar moment of the 911 because of it's engine being in the back is much worse making the car hard to rotate and hard to control once it is rotating.
Porsche makes awesome cars and won races because they have enough engineering to overcome the inferior layout of the 911.

I won't lay my crack pipe down until I own a Porsche. Sadly, based on the cost of them Porsches...I will be smoking for a long time. I'll see your review and raise you one...

Group test: Porsche GT3 vs Vantage V12 vs Audi R8 V10 vs Corvette ZR1

I like this quote...

"Arguments were put forward that the new GT3 is now too fast, too grippy and too brutal. Barker suggested that Porsche should have designed it with the same power as the previous generation car but with less weight. And we nodded. But every time anyone came back from a drive in the GT3 they would just get out of the car smiling and shaking their head. You simply can’t deny this 911 its victory. It is wonderful. If you want the ultimate road racer, the car that will turn any road into your own personal Targa Florio and make you long, day and night, for your next stint behind the wheel, then you need a GT3."

While an arcane review...you will find many more road tests of the 911 series through the years...loving them for their superior handling than finding them too much of a handful.

A short list of 911 victories...

Mobil 1 and Porsche: 15 Years of Motorsports Achievements - nyheter - Mobil 1


Seems the polar moment issue hasn't hurt 911 performance in racing...or... street popularity much at all. I stand by my original assertion...based on the record...what Porsche has done with that bad thing...is pretty damn good thing after all. As I said...I'd like to see them develop the Cayman into something new and revolutionary...then you may get your wish.

 

[CalcVictim]

actually put some thought into it and you'll see that it's NOT a bad thing.
1. "pefect 50/50 weight distribution" is bullshit - scratch built race cars have rear biased weight distribution for a reason
2. traction on standing/rolling - the drivetrain being just behind the rear wheels means that your doing something wrong if you can't put more power down than front/mid-engine cars
3. traction in the wet - there is a reason 911s are always the best performing 2WD cars when the rain arrives
4. traction out of corners - with all the weight on the drive wheels, a driver can apply more power, earlier

contrary to popular belief, road racing isn't about the corners. it's about who has the most speed at the end of each straight.
i'm sure your gonna go through and try to dispute each one of my points or post some counterpoints, but i have history and podium finishes to support my argument.

you can talk polar moment all you want, but the advantages of the rear engine layout outweigh the 'bad polar moment' and all the other disadvantages. frankly, front engine is the worst of the engine layouts for road racing.

there is a difference between theoretical performance and real world performance.
rear engine is a bad layout in the same way that the fastest way around the track is hitting the apex("the line"). theoretically true, but in the real world it's bullshit.

I will not go and dispute every one of your point. I am a fan of the car and do not deny it's performance, all I am saying is that the reason for them keeping this layout is because of heritage and not performance.


Porsche hasn't won a LeMans since 1998, a vast majority of the cars that won are mid engined.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans_winners]List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Steve@TF]

for the street it doesnt really matter and 100x as many porsches roam the streets than do the track. you see probably more 911s than vettes out here in socal. they make excellent daily drivers.

they probably dont need to redesign anything. the 911s sell like crazy as it is. it seems like the only people complaining are the people who dont buy them lol.

im sure some people have left 911 for other cars due to the layout but it seems like more people are coming than going. cost is probably more of a factor than layout.

 

[lobra97]

no spoiler?

 

[Need2Speed86]

ugly

 

[GTSpartan]

Porsche hasn't won a LeMans since 1998, a vast majority of the cars that won are mid engined.

List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe not in the prototype class, but in the street car based classes they really have no peers. Yes, there are a few cars here or there that give them a run, but nothing sustained.

Pretty much every series they get involved in, they are at or near the top.

 

[boduke0220]

ehh i love a good porsche but ( and im sure people say this about mustangs all the time)..it looks like all the other ones?

 

[WireEater]

The inside of cars are starting to tun into a fighter jet with all the god damn buttons.

 

[Sinister04L]

I generally like Porsches, especially the GT2 and GT3, but that design doesn't do anything for me.

 

[DougT]

New Beetle ?

 

[CobraRed01]

Interesting discussion and poll here:

Is it time for Porsche to "ditch" the rear engine layout for their future sportscars?

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

I will not go and dispute every one of your point. I am a fan of the car and do not deny it's performance, all I am saying is that the reason for them keeping this layout is because of heritage and not performance.


Porsche hasn't won a LeMans since 1998, a vast majority of the cars that won are mid engined.

List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i didn't say it was the best, i said it's not "bad". all 3 layouts have advantages and disadvantages, with mid-engine seemingly balancing the +s and -s out the best in performance applications. doesn't mean the other 2 'suck' or are 'bad'.

to look at the inverse of your statement, porsche aren't getting rid of the layout because it doesn't pose any significant disadvantages to performance. the corvette certainly keeps the front engine layout(IMO, the worst of the 3) because of heritage and nothing more, but people don't shit on it like they do the 911. i chalk that up to ignorance though.

Interesting discussion and poll here:

Is it time for Porsche to "ditch" the rear engine layout for their future sportscars?

ridiculous discussion, porsche's halos cars have always been mid-engine. there's no need to make the 911 mid-engine, especially when they already produce the mid-engine boxster, mid-engine cayman, and will be producing the mid-engine 918 supercar.
and i'm not even gonna mention front engine, because that would be beyond absurd. that, and the front engine porsche 928 will be making a return in the next year or two, to go along with the front engine panamera.

simply put, porsche couldn't change the 911s rear-engine layout even if they wanted to, there is simply no room for a front or mid-engine 911 in the lineup.