# 2016 Porsche 911



## Llarry (May 17, 2002)

Info on the facelifted (LCI) Porsche 911 -- the 991.2 in Porschespeak -- has been released; the Carrera and Carrera S models will be 3.0 liter sixes with turbos replacing naturally-aspirated 3.4 and 3.8 liter engines. HP and torque are up. So are prices. 

www.porsche.com/microsite/911/usa.aspx#overview

The 981 Boxster and Cayman models will follow shortly -- the rumor mill has those models downsizing to boxer turbo fours replacing NA sixes.


----------



## Ajax (Feb 1, 2002)

goodbye exhaust note


----------



## cwsqbm (Aug 4, 2004)

The days of the naturally aspirated gas motor seem to be numbered. Turbo motors give more horsepower and better fuel economy. So what if the throttle response isn't linear?

At least I can still dream about a 911 GT3, or used Ferrari since they've already gone to s**t with the 488 GTB.


----------



## need4speed (May 26, 2006)

At least power is up. BMW could learn from that! N4S


----------



## wyb (Jul 10, 2008)

waiting on the turbo + turbo s variants getting their .2 revision ...


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

Ajax said:


> goodbye exhaust note


It actually sounds much better than the new M3/M4 Engines do. Not too bad for a Turbo engine.
The lap time of around 7.30 seconds around the Nurburgring is also about 22 seconds faster then the M4 lapped. both are 3 liter 6 cylinder turbocharged engines.

I just can't afford $125K on a car right now. 3 basic needed options on the Carrera S and one is at $115K and then you add 9-10% sales tax depending on where you are at and this becomes $125K car which is not cheap. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtI1B_ywjjU


----------



## AK (Jan 19, 2002)

stylinexpat said:


> It actually sounds much better than the new M3/M4 Engines do. Not too bad for a Turbo engine.
> The lap time of around 7.30 seconds around the Nurburgring is also about 22 seconds faster then the M4 lapped. both are 3 liter 6 cylinder turbocharged engines.
> 
> I just can't afford $125K on a car right now. 3 basic needed options on the Carrera S and one is at $115K and then you add 9-10% sales tax depending on where you are at and this becomes $125K car which is not cheap.
> ...


The 991.1 makes a nice used car buy. They depreciate A LOT in the first couple years. Let some other rich guy take that hit. That's what I did with my 997.


----------



## Grubrunner (Jul 13, 2015)

stylinexpat said:


> It actually sounds much better than the new M3/M4 Engines do. Not too bad for a Turbo engine.
> 
> The lap time of around 7.30 seconds around the Nurburgring is also about 22 seconds faster then the M4 lapped. both are 3 liter 6 cylinder turbocharged engines.
> 
> ...


Twenty two seconds faster than the M4?

No way.


----------



## stylinexpat (May 23, 2004)

Grubrunner said:


> Twenty two seconds faster than the M4?
> 
> No way.


7:52 was the time for the M4 and the claimed time for the Carrera S is 7:30 seconds which makes it 22 seconds faster around the ring.

On a straight away the lead would probably not be 22 seconds faster but with the proper setup along with the lightness of the Porsche it is quite possible. Last year the Carrera S was 7:40 seconds around the ring. This year they shaved off 10 seconds with Turbo engine.


----------



## Autoputzer (Mar 16, 2014)

"... not cheap" is an understatement. "Mine" spec'ed out at $129,965, and that was without CCCB's. "Mine" meaning the one I built on Porsche's website last night.

The Porsche faithful are currently going through what M-inions went through when the M5/6 and M3/4 went turbo: depression about losing the sound and throttle response of a naturally aspirated engine. But, they'll also get over it after a romp around a track at full tilt. For a price they can also cure their turbo-depression with a GT3, since they're still naturally aspirated, fast, expensive,and thirsty.

That VW Beetle architecture (rear engine, 40%/60% front/rear weight distribution) has turned out to be correct after all, but only with the help of electronics and massive rear tires and wide rear track. The Beetle architecture was always perfect for acceleration and braking. But, before electronics and big tires, it was looking for any excuse to kill you in a turn. Those days are gone, though. BMW's RDW, 50%/50% architecture eventually runs out of traction at the engine torque being produced these days. The last M3 factory GT2 race car actually had the transmission in the back, ah la Porsche 924/928/944/968, to put some more weight on the back tires. 

The thing that annoys me the most about recent M cars is the ricey styling of the bumpers. The E39 M5's and the E46 M3's bumpers were perfect: More managed air going to the various heat exchangers and brakes up front, and four exhaust tips coming out the back. But, the later versions have a lot of doo dads up front and a lot of non-functional vents in the back, at least on the M3/4's. The F10 M5's rear bumper is perfect, though. 

The Carrera's conservative bumpers make it look like something a 60 year old would drive... which is good if you're 56 and due for a new car in four years or so. The 991.1 had a $600 option to have the rear bumper valance painted body color, making the rear look even cleaner. That option isn't on the new 991.2, but maybe it will come later.

I just retired from my government drone job, and I'm pursuing my entrepreneurial venture... after I get the house, cars, and yard cleaned up. I don't need to work, but this venture is something that's been thumping on my skull from the inside for over ten years. I just haven't had the time or energy to devote to it until retirement. My standing joke is that it should net me somewhere between $0 and $1M. If it ends up being anything significantly over... oh.... I don't know... $129,965, my 59th or 60th birthday present is going to be one of these.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 5, 2010)

Autoputzer said:


> The Porsche faithful are currently going through what M-inions went through when the M5/6 and M3/4 went turbo: depression about losing the sound and throttle response of a naturally aspirated engine. But, they'll also get over it after a romp around a track at full tilt.


Not sure about that. My next car was supposed to be M235i. I got so fed up with throttle on the track that I am now eyeing and truly considering Cayman S. With almost 85% price increase as configured. That's a LOT of wrong rubbing with turbo engines.

My next choice (if I really, really must) ... Shelby GT350. MT to start with. NA engine to chase it down. And then flat crank V8 to make you really think about asking her the phone number. Too bad next day you sober up and it is still a Mustang. But that NA engine ... I'm still thinking about it ... WAY more than even *considering* F80 M3.



> For a price they can also cure their turbo-depression with a GT3, since they're still naturally aspirated, fast, expensive,and thirsty.


Not so fast. It took ///M only ONE generation to lose NA engine after the turbo introduction. There are no guarantees that next 911 GT3 won't be turbo.

Finally, I can say that turbo is not that big of a deal. If you never go on a track and you have driven turbo car for the last 5-7 years ... you just do NOT know any better and the car is fine. So, preempting the next "But just look at sales numbers!" ... if you have no clue what you are missing, why would you look for it?


----------



## Autoputzer (Mar 16, 2014)

DCT's make a turbocharged engine more tolerable. I have a manual and a turbo, and I'm disappointed. Different throttle maps (e.G. Sport, Comfort) and the lack of engine noise aggrivate the problem. 

News articles say the 991.2 (new) GT3 will be NA.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 5, 2010)

Autoputzer said:


> DCT's make a turbocharged engine more tolerable. I have a manual and a turbo, and I'm disappointed. Different throttle maps (e.G. Sport, Comfort) and the lack of engine noise aggrivate the problem.


Yeah, let me solve the problem by buying even bigger problem 

The point is ... any car has to excite me and provide entertainment, especially so a car I consider a toy that has no practical purpose. As much as turbo is aggravating on throttle application, a car without MT is just dead on arrival - no automatic transmission (less than 3 pedals in footwell) provides any entertainment value to me.

Yes, even famous PDK. Each one of the Caymans I test drove had PDK. Granted, short test drive will not give you much of an insight, but I was completely, utterly unimpressed. It is very possible that guys on a Porsche forum have a secret sequence of buttons to push to reveal a "real" PDK ... but straight out of the box ... meh.



> News articles say the 991.2 (new) GT3 will be NA.


I was talking about next gen, not LCI 991.2. Remember how E9x got turbo in its second year and, while E9x ///M had NA V8, F30 got out of the gate with turbo engines and ... guess what ... F80/F82/F83 ///M have turbocharged engine.

Maybe, just maybe, GT3 version might keep it because a track car from ground up (and not even pretending to be the fastest 911), but I would not be surprised if they go turbo even with that.

One more thing ... all that talk how Porsche knows how to make electric assisted steering with feedback? Hogwash. If you do not have buttons to push, straight out of the box it is as dead as BMW's. Now, when you DO push appropriate buttons, the transformation is just short of unbelievable. Sad thing is that you have to push buttons and know which ones to push.


----------



## Justin T (Oct 10, 2006)

Was thinking about changing out my car this time next year to maybe a 991.1 variant...hopefully prices do not raise as a result of this but I am betting they will. Might just keep Klaus for a while longer...nothing wrong with that!


----------



## Autoputzer (Mar 16, 2014)

Mark K said:


> Yeah, let me solve the problem by buying even bigger problem


I've bought seven new passenger cars. All of them have had manual transmissions. But, my next fast, expensive one will likely have a DCT. My next beater might still have a manual. But, the next Honda Civic Si will be turbocharged and available with a DCT, so who knows.

DCT started out as a racing transmission to make race cars go faster, not only faster shifting, but also automating the driving so the driver can focus on gas, braking, and steering. I'm faster on the track with one.

M's with DCT have a cool feature: Floor the gas pedal and downshift, and the DCT picks the lowest gear that will work, not just the next lower gear, and blips the throttle perfectly. That's a nice feature when there's a big ole' M5 filling up your mirrors.


----------



## Mark K (Jun 5, 2010)

Autoputzer said:


> DCT started out as a racing transmission to make race cars go faster, not only faster shifting, but also automating the driving so the driver can focus on gas, braking, and steering. I'm faster on the track with one.
> 
> M's with DCT have a cool feature: Floor the gas pedal and downshift, and the DCT picks the lowest gear that will work, not just the next lower gear, and blips the throttle perfectly. That's a nice feature when there's a big ole' M5 filling up your mirrors.


Look, I covered that many times here. I perfectly understand your point. However, applying my parameters, DCT makes zero sense. See, I am completely untalented when it comes to driving - that's why the food on my table comes from other talents I have, not driving or racing. Thank God for small favors. Furthermore, I have zero plans to ever go on a racetrack and race - and especially so in a vehicle I paid for. The *only* reason I pigheadedly keep returning to the racetracks and blowing away quite a bit of coin is to have fun. Repeat : transmissions that are operated with less than 3 pedals are close to zero fun to me and they do not entertain me at all.

I perfectly understand that people have different goals when they go to the racetrack. Can you believe that, even after dozen times on Mid-Ohio, I never actually timed the lap? That's how much I care about how fast I am.


----------

