Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moppie
LOL!
Well crayzayjay yes, the Porsche is probobly the more reliable car, and for me that is bad thing in a super car of this nature, as in the case of the porsches Iv driven and worked on it makes them feel very boring and ordinary. If Im going to be traveling at insane speeds in a car that cost more than the average house then I want to know that it's something unique and hand assembled, not something that despite its performance still feels like my mothers accord.
|
Reliability is a bad thing in a supercar? We all know the saying,
to finish first, first you must finish. The reliability of Michael Schumacher’s Ferrari went a long way in ensuring his winning of the F1 WDC in 2000, 2001, 2002, and I say it confidently 2003. Has Ferrari cursed his reliability there? You may want a car that breaks down halfway through the race, or a spirited run, but I’ll take the Porsche
If you want more “show” in the interior, that’s fine, but I look at it in the way that all the money’s been spent in the right place. A 911 interior leaves you in no doubt that this car is all business. Somehow I feel that driving at 190 mph in a GT3 is going to feel very special. Add to that the sound of a Porsche flat-six, one of the greatest sounds in the world, automotive or not, and you have yourself a very special car indeed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moppie
And over enginering equals excess weight, the enemy of any sports car.
Basicly if I want a reliable everyday super car (oxymoron) then Ill buy an NSX, it will be just as reliable as the porsche, but weighing less feel lighter and more agile (I don't care that the porsche might be faster).
Given the choice of the Ferrari and the Porsche, then the Ferrari is also the lighter, and more agile, and IMO more delicate car, which is for me, what a true sports car should be, and given Ferraris huge leaps ahead in reliablity and build quality, also a reliable easy to drive car.
|
First you condemn reliability in a supercar and now you commend it ??????
Overengineering does not automatically make for excess weight. Having said that, it’s Porsche philosophy not to compromise reliability for lightness. Still, a 911 Carrera is lighter than a 360! LOL! How can you justify nearly twice the asking price for a car that isnt
that much faster? I'll tell you how. Posing power!
Back to the reliability issue. Look at your beloved Lotus’s, light as a feather, but a poor record for reliability, which is thankfully beginning to improve with the Elise. What good is having a sports car that doesn’t start? Lambos are to this Audi day destroying their clutches. What good is that?
As you say, even Ferrari is going for an everyday supercar philosophy in their new cars, or the “Accord feel”, as you (imo harshly) call it. The 360 is more of an everyday car than the F355, and its descendant will be too. Weighing less doesn’t automatically mean a car feeling more agile. Chassis engineers can work a lot of magic, not in the least at Stuttgart. But I’ll come to that later.
It’s another Porsche philosophy to have some of its cars somewhat accessible to the public, and not out of range to the very high majority of the population. If a 911 cost almost twice as much as it does, ie as much as a 360, the use of more exotic materials means you’d get a lighter product. And that’s what the GT3’s about, a more extreme performer, and the forthcoming GT3RS, which FIY has been spanking 360 C’s left right and centre on the race track.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moppie
Porsche just has a philosophy that I dont agree with, not only is the engine still in the wrong place (i.e. pandering to comsumeristic demands, instead of putting the engine in the right place), but they have also developed a bigger is better attitude, and achieve thier high levels of performance with sheer brute power, not just engine power, but bigger heavier cars, with bigger heavier technology i.e. they need AWD to keep up with, or be faster than Ferraris 2WD etc.
|
Man I don’t know what youre talking about. Porsche going for bigger is better? Let’s look at each company’s base product. The 996 is lighter than the 360. But let’s look at the evolution. The 996 is lighter than the 993, but the Modena is heavier than the F355! A 575M is heavier (albeit slightly) than a 550. I realise the 911 Turbo has gotten heavier from 993 to 996, but let’s not put Ferrari’s philosophy on a pedestal. That’s just the way cars are going these days. But not the standard 911, Porsche’s central product.
As for sheer brute power, the 360 CS is the power freak in this comparo, and even the 360 is the power freak against a GT3. Which doesn’t help it one bit, might I add.
You say Porsche needs AWD plus a Turbo to keep up with or be faster than Ferrari? The mk1 GT3 has a lower bhp to weight ratio than the 360M but is quicker around a track What did I tell you about those Porsche engineers? 911’s lacking agility? Ha! For 4 years the GT3 has received accolade after accolade for its wonderfully adjustable, chuckable handling. It may have still been heavier and less powerful than a standard 360, but on the track, it left it firmly in its wake.
So criticise the position of the engine (it didn’t seem to impede the GT3 kicking dust in the 360’s face) or the weight of the car, (again the 360’s lightness or extra power did nothing for it), all you want, but in this day and age, that argument, I feel, doesn’t always stand up. Maybe Ferrari have their engines in the wrong place
. j/k. There is no doubt the advantage of a mid-mounted engine, but it doesn’t hinder Porsche anymore, it’s no longer such an issue.
To the two stars of this comparo. Delicacy isn’t something you’d criticise the GT3 for, in fact I think it’s what helps it stay in touch with the 360CS.
The 360 CS has 60 extra horses per ton and the GT3 still keeps it in its sights. I am sure they will both go down in history as all-time greats, and I wouldn’t dream of reproaching anyone for choosing either, but for punching above its weight, ill take the GT3. I'm just crazy like that
