Ferrari Modena, Porsche 996 Turbo or Honda NSX ?

[crayzayjay]

Originally posted by BlOOe46
to me, the 996 = king of understeer

Sorry, that's bull. It just doesnt whip its tail out like 70's and 80's 911's. The 996 is a fantastic handling machine. To drive it like its supposed to be driven you must know how to drive 911's.

[crayzayjay]

Originally posted by YellowMaranello

Reminds me of the episode of Top Gear where Tiff reviews the NSX. He just seems so bored the whole time, lol.

true, but he can be such a girl sometimes... when he drives something that takes his breath away, he'll just go "ooooh" like a big girl's blouse :hehehe:

good ol Tiff

[crayzayjay]

Originally posted by BlOOe46

i also have never driven a 996, but i think if one was going to buy a porsche, make it a 993 truly a classic car

besides man, havent u ever played GT3 Aspec? check out the handling on that 996 turbo

Great choice with the 993!!!


but for chrissakes, dont base your views on a computer game!!!

[crayzayjay]

Originally posted by Miltown_Racer


Let's see..correct me if i'm wrong, but the ferrari is V8, right? Pretty weak for a V8 don't u think so?

My god, the ignorance!!!!

The Modena has a 3.6L V8 that develops 400bhp. Thats over 100bhp per NORMALLY ASPIRATED litre!!! What is wrong with you?

[crayzayjay]

Originally posted by Moppie
Porsche will cost rediculas amounts of money to get serviced, and at the end of the day is still just a VW beetle with some great enginering enabling to go around corners. (despite the engine being in the wrong place).

Moppie , disappointed to read something like this from you. Calling the 911 a Beetle with great engineering? . i expect that from some of the idiotic ricers going around this forum, but certainly not from you! And you're wrong, the Porsche does not cost a fortune to service. I speak from experience, and its a well known fact anyway, a well taken care of 911 is not expensive to maintain, no more expensive than a BMW or Merc, and it will last forever..

[Jimster]

Originally posted by crayzayjay


Moppie , disappointed to read something like this from you. Calling the 911 a Beetle with great engineering? . i expect that from some of the idiotic ricers going around this forum, but certainly not from you! And you're wrong, the Porsche does not cost a fortune to service. I speak from experience, and its a well known fact anyway, a well taken care of 911 is not expensive to maintain, no more expensive than a BMW or Merc, and it will last forever..

Indeed- Porsche are no more expensive than the NSX to service- Even in New Zealand- parts would be easier to source in NZ as well- there are about 20 NSX's in comparision to about 300 911's and approx 35% of them 996's- 15% of those 996's would be Turbo's also if you can afford the purchase price of a Porsche/Ferrari- you can afford the servicing- nuff said- Needless to say that here in Western Europe servicing a Porsche undercuts servicing an NSX by considerable amounts.

The whole VW Beetle stuff is bullshit as well- the 356 was based off the VW Beetle- the 911 has influence from VAG- but it is far different from ANY VW Beetle- Next thing y'know you'll be trying to tell us that a Ferrari 360 Modena is based off a FIAT Punto


The NSX is no more or less practical than the 911- the cars both share the attributes of being easy to point through traffic- Porsche have known for a long time that about 70% of thier customers use (or would like to use) thier cars as day-to-day transport- Also back while the 993 was in the design stages the NSX came out- so Porsche from then on have been making cars that are practical and can be used as day-to-day transport. Also the NSX has very minimal luggage space- in comparision to the 911- so the 911 does have some tricks up its sleeve when it comes to practicality.

[Moppie]

The porsche still has the engine sitting in the worst possible place for a balanced chassis design.
To put it simply if the amount of enginering talant that went into making it handle so well had gone into the deisgn of a mid engined car it would be oh so much better.

And the orginal 911 used a rear mounted engine and g/box with a swing axle rear suspension, and torsion bar frount. aka the VW Beetle.
The newer cars have the g/box qiute forward of the rear axle, with the engine sitting almost between the rear wheels, and forunatly no longer use a swing axle, however the design is still based strongly on the orginal.

[BlOOe46]

Originally posted by crayzayjay

true, but he can be such a girl sometimes... when he drives something that takes his breath away, he'll just go "ooooh" like a big girl's blouse :hehehe:

good ol Tiff

Tiff DUDE, thats the cats name, the one someone was talking about who commented on the 996's understeer . . .

omg we have some sensitive people about porsches here who actually have never driven one . . . how can one get so defensive about a car one has never been in? im not totally taking the guy's word who said the porsche didnt know how to handle, but chances are the guy knows what hes talking about if he tests supercars for a living and has lots of references to critique a certain cars handling against another

[lostcore]

offcourse i shoud take the ferrari

[flylwsi]

so b/c mr. needell said that the car would understeer, and he's driving it pretty damn hard...

that makes you think it's ok to call it the king of understeer?

and might i add that i never claimed to drive it.

and i never said "to me, it's (whatever)"

b/c i don't know.

and we're still talking about a turbo. not a reg 996. different cars.

i'm not sensitive, but if you're gonna say something with no backup, be prepared to be told how things really are.

and that's not meant to be a threat, but if you say something that requires some sort of clarification, do it.

[BlOOe46]

ok, well i clarified it, and i stand by my statement

r u pretending to know more than this tiff guy on the feel of the porsche 996's handling?

[flylwsi]

i never said that. i have tons of top gear vids at home, and i've seen what he drives.

point out where i'm saying that i know more?

i have, and will keep on pointing out that this is about a porsche 996 turbo.

which has different suspension and drivetrain than the reg 996, so you can't stand by what someone said about the regular 996 if it's not the same car.

also, you are going by one statement from one person. that's his opinion.

other testers may not agree. do you see my point here?

[crayzayjay]

Originally posted by Jimster

The NSX is no more or less practical than the 911- the cars both share the attributes of being easy to point through traffic- Porsche have known for a long time that about 70% of thier customers use (or would like to use) thier cars as day-to-day transport- Also back while the 993 was in the design stages the NSX came out- so Porsche from then on have been making cars that are practical and can be used as day-to-day transport. Also the NSX has very minimal luggage space- in comparision to the 911- so the 911 does have some tricks up its sleeve when it comes to practicality.

It didnt start from the 993. My uncle had a 964 and drove it everyday. Practical and reliable as anything. Just not for a family, of course. what more could one want?

[crayzayjay]

Originally posted by Moppie
The porsche still has the engine sitting in the worst possible place for a balanced chassis design.
To put it simply if the amount of enginering talant that went into making it handle so well had gone into the deisgn of a mid engined car it would be oh so much better.

And the orginal 911 used a rear mounted engine and g/box with a swing axle rear suspension, and torsion bar frount. aka the VW Beetle.
The newer cars have the g/box qiute forward of the rear axle, with the engine sitting almost between the rear wheels, and forunatly no longer use a swing axle, however the design is still based strongly on the orginal.

yes, the engine is not in the best place, yet today's Porsches drive arguably better than anything else out there. example, in every evo magazine car of the year there has been at least one porsche and the results have been as follows:

1998 - COTY - Porsche 996
1999 - COTY - Porsche 996 GT3
2000 - COTY - Porsche 996 Turbo
2001 - COTY - Pagani Zonda (Porsche 996 revised 5th)
2002 - COTY - Honda NSX-R , Porsche 996 Carrera 4S 2nd

and this aint no p*ssy CAR magazine, they drive the nuts off those cars.

To tackle your "if theyd put so much effort in a mid-engined design it would be so much better", youre basically saying Ferrari are inept, cos lets face it theyve been making mid-engined cars for a while now, which is the optimum design and their cars arent matching the inferior reae-engined Porsche design. Now that cant be right, why dont you just take your hat off to Porsche and admit to the fantastic job they have been doing?


and dont go back to the 1960's, i mean, really, whats the point?

[crayzayjay]

Originally posted by BlOOe46


Tiff DUDE, thats the cats name, the one someone was talking about who commented on the 996's understeer . . .

omg we have some sensitive people about porsches here who actually have never driven one . . . how can one get so defensive about a car one has never been in? im not totally taking the guy's word who said the porsche didnt know how to handle, but chances are the guy knows what hes talking about if he tests supercars for a living and has lots of references to critique a certain cars handling against another

yeah, i know who Tiff Needell is thanks

about your "sensitive people" comment, are you referring to me? youre the one basing your argument on GT3 for crying out loud!! i like to think i do know a thing or two about Porsches, ive been in several and driven a couple so ....

didnt bite anyone's head off, did i?