Porsche Sucks! - Page 7

MBTN · 03-03-2002, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cbass
...Ferraris biggest mistake IMO, was not putting turbos on their production cars. If the 308 had a single damn turbo, it would have been spectacular!

Hmmm....
The 308 was not exactly Ferraris greatest car. Ferrari never needed Turbos on their cars except a few had them (F40, 288), instead they relied on sheer brute HP in cars such as the 355. Was not putting turbos on the 355 a mistake? HELL NO.

awaken1973 · 03-08-2002, 07:55 PM

The 308 was not exactly Ferraris greatest car. Ferrari never needed Turbos on their cars except a few had them (F40, 288), instead they relied on sheer brute HP in cars such as the 355. Was not putting turbos on the 355 a

btw Ferrari 308 was the only one rally winner (Tour de France in 1981)
(that's nonsense!)

Cbass · 03-08-2002, 08:19 PM

Forgive me if I am ignorant, but wasn't the 288 GTO based on the 308? Ass kicking car, and it was turbocharged. My second favourite Ferrari, behind the 250 SWB, because you can't beat the SWB for a GT with clean lines.

Anyways, Porsche would be nothing without turbos. 911's were underpowered when they came out. Don't get me started on the 356. Add a turbo to the 911, zip bang, world beater. Take the 924. You can't find a weaker kneed Porsche(I do not consider the 356 a Porsche btw). Add a turbo, fast fast GT for next to nothing. My brother owns one.

awaken1973 · 03-09-2002, 01:38 AM

Forgive me if I am ignorant, but wasn't the 288 GTO based on the 308? Ass kicking car, and it was turbocharged

288 based on 308 chassis but got stretched wheelbase and
longitudinally mounted engine with 2xIHI turbochargers
F40 is further development of 288,
they both have the same wheelbase and overall body shape

crayzayjay · 03-09-2002, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Anyways, Porsche would be nothing without turbos

What the hell are you talking about?????
An engine doesnt need to be turbocharged to be great.
For evidence of this, look under the hood of a 996 (original & revised engine), 993 (same again), 964RS, 996 GT3, even the 2.7RS from 30 years ago!
A car doesnt need a turbo to be great
once again, i refer you to the GT3, 964RS, 968 Club Sport, 2.7RS, '87 Club Sport, Boxster, the list is endless..

just to further back up my point, a well respected motoring magazine got the 10 greatest 911's together to see which was truly the greatest.
The top 3 were normally aspirated. The Turbo's had a poor showing (comparatively). Speed isnt everything. Anyone who thinks the opposite is an idiot.

cheers,
jay

Tom_S8 · 03-09-2002, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cbass
Anyways, Porsche would be nothing without turbos.

Wtf? I know that the best porsche (959) is turbo , but all the models that crazayjay mentioned , also don't foget porsche's 32V V8s from the 928s , they were really one of the best and most reliable engines with such power in the 80s...

ddavies · 03-09-2002, 12:07 PM

I'd have to agree with Crayzayjay about the turbo thing... at least in some situations. Put a stock 968 on an autocross course with a stock 944 turbo or even some of the single turbo 911s and it'll eat their lunch all day. No turbo lag and 50/50 weight means no screwing around through the corners waiting for boost or worrying about lift throttle oversteer. Plus, with 0-60 in 5.8 it's no slouch in a straight line either (at least until you run up against someone in their chipped 951 with 350 rear wheel hp - then ya got a problem:shocked:

awaken1973 · 03-09-2002, 03:59 PM

I'd have to agree with Crayzayjay about the turbo thing... at least in some situations.

0-60 doesn't mean everything about performance
btw the last 911GT3 has 360hp in it. And it is not turbocharged!

Tom_S8 · 03-09-2002, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by awaken1973
[b]least

btw the last 911GT3 has 360hp in it. And it is not turbocharged!

Yeah and it runs around tracks like , i don't even know how to describe it , gotta try that yourself... Anyway turbo is always superior when it comes to aftermarket stuff... Like i had a 2.5 four banger with 250 hp at the cranck in my 952 , and now the same four banger but it has 378hp at the wheels...

crayzayjay · 03-09-2002, 07:51 PM

GT3 is a great example. An amazing 360bhp from 3.6l, while still achieving 22mpg... name one Ferrari that can achieve that. I forgot the 928's and their wonderful V8's, the torque in those monsters is simply wonderful and the engines will go on forever. Unless im mistaken and im pretty sure im not, the 928 was the first and still is the only ever sports car to win the car of the year award. Im not going to start a stupid Porche v Ferrari war but it's well known that Porsche engines are more efficient and robust, with and without turbo... i still cant believe he said porsches are nothing without turbo's.... jeez

awaken1973 · 03-09-2002, 08:29 PM

>GT3 is a great example. An amazing 360bhp from 3.6l, while still >achieving 22mpg... name one Ferrari that can achieve that. I forgot

both Ferrari and Porsche are great cars. Let's take Modena and GT3 together. both have 3.6L normally aspirated engines which make them very close counterparts.
360 Modena: 400hp@8500 373Nm@4750 0-100 4,5s max 295km/h
911GT3: 360hp@6500 370Nm@5000 0-100 4,8s max 302km/h
(another source - 305km/h)

Cbass · 03-09-2002, 09:51 PM

Ah, you people misunderstand. I don't mean to say some of the best Porsches weren't naturally aspirated. What I meant to say, is that historically, Porsche built it's reputation on it's turbo cars.

Porsche always did more with less, their low displacement cars were competitive, and almost as quick as the big inch GT's. They didn't really start to clean up in racing until they got into the 917 series, with, a turbo 5 liter 12. In amateur racing, the 911 was a tricky car, and if you were good, you could squeeze fast lap times out. The problem is a Corvette was a little bit faster, and a whole lot easier to drive. Enter the 930 Turbo, still tricky to drive, but god damn it was fast. The 924 series came out. These cars are fun to drive, but they really don't have any power, 110 bhp. The turbo had 160 bhp, and room to tune, just look at the Carrera GT's!. The 944 NA wasn't that hot. Same problems, great handling, fun car, not enough power. The turbo, 217-250 bhp. You can get 400 bhp out of those engines without having to change any mechanicals!

The 959! Every 911 turbo! The 968 RS!

Porsche might not have caught on like they did if it wasn't for their turbos. I remember the 906's. Believe me, I don't mean to take anything away from Porsche, best car company in the world, but they built it on turbos.

Tom_S8 · 03-10-2002, 03:54 AM

Anyway speaking of turbos , my (and not only , i'm sure about that) favourite ferrari , the F40 runs turbos too , and nothing comes close to F40 from ferrari , it's the best ferrari ever and probably forever...

crayzayjay · 03-10-2002, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Ah, you people misunderstand. I don't mean to say some of the best Porsches weren't naturally aspirated. What I meant to say, is that historically, Porsche built it's reputation on it's turbo cars.

hmm.... i dunno... the original 911 RS was and still is one of the most incredible cars ever.. i think that played a large role in building Porsche's reputation.. adding a turbo does make a car faster, but doesnt necessarily make the car a better drive IMO. as for more people buying the cars for their tunability, it makes sense, but to say porsche built itself on turbos is pushing it IMO.. Theyre renowned for many things before you get to turbo's

cheers,
jay

Cbass · 03-10-2002, 11:26 PM

I definately hold the early NA Porsches in the highest regard. Pound for pound, liter for liter, they were far superior to their competition. The competition just had bigger engines, and a slight edge. The Porsches were better engineered for sure, quick and reliable. The turbo sports series really launched Porsche to the podium, not only for their reliability, but also for the incredible power that the turbo cars made(eg, 917/30 with 5L F12 rated conservatively at 1100bhp, reliably.

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD