2012 Porsche 911 lops 13 seconds off 'Ring time

[Mr Kleen]

2012 Porsche 911 lops 13 seconds off predecessor's 'Ring time, quick as 997 GT3

The Porsche 911 is dead, long live the Porsche 911. The German automaker's latest and greatest has taken to the Nürburgring where old marks have fallen hard. The 2012 Porsche 911 Carrera S was sent through the Green Hell, where it promptly beat the time achieved by the prior 997 version by a whopping 13 seconds.

With a time of 7:40, the 2012 911 matches the mark set by the previous 911 GT3. If you happen to own a previous generation 911 GT3, we'll pause here for a moment while you go out to smash something with a hammer.

Back? Great. You shouldn't fret too much, because this just means the next-generation GT3 should be a land rocket capable of blistering the surface of the 'Ring. GT2 guys, your numbers are still safe... for now.

I'm not a huge Porsche 911 fan, but this is a pretty amazing jump in performance. I'd feel horrible if I had just bought a 911 of any flavor...

[PGT]

very impressive. given what they did with the Panamera, I was hoping for big things with the new 911.

[Mr Kleen]

very impressive. given what they did with the Panamera, I was hoping for big things with the new 911.

I see what you did there....

[Sabre]

Very impressive gains!

[complacent]

holy crap. i would be >_< if i owned a 2011 model... especially a gt3

like mushroom cloud >_<

edit: zomfg! the new "s" is half the price of the gt3. i'd stroke out after i choked out my local porsche sales manager. gah!

[PGT]

think about '11 Jeep Wrangler owners. Same thing there...quantum leap fwd with the '12.

[complacent]

think about '11 Jeep Wrangler owners. Same thing there...quantum leap fwd with the '12.

agreed, but i don't think a jeep wrangler owner forked out ~200k for their ride. that's a ton of dollarbucks.

(i'd still be furious, either way)

[PGT]

GT3 wasn't near that price....GT2 was. But, yeah.

Thing is...I think this same discussion happened between 993 & 996 and 993 values today are 2x a 996. I know, I know, last of the air-cooled and all....different animal. I bet 993 owners were upset at the relative performance leap between 993 to 996, yet, that doesn't begin to characterize why people still love 993's. There's more to a car than a 'ring lap time, 0-60 or 1/4 mile time.

The CTS-V variants kick a lot of ass in all objective performance measures (shockingly so I might add) but they wouldn't be my first choice for a car to own (as much as I like them). For $60k, would I rather drive a CTS-V sedan or an A6 3.0T? A CTS-V Coupe or an S5 Coupe? The latter, on both examples. Get my point??

[complacent]

GT3 wasn't near that price....GT2 was. But, yeah.

according to porsche's usa site, it starts at 185k... that's ~200k in my book.

Thing is...I think this same discussion happened between 993 & 996 and 993 values today are 2x a 996. I know, I know, last of the air-cooled and all....different animal. I bet 993 owners were upset at the relative performance leap between 993 to 996, yet, that doesn't begin to characterize why people still love 993's. There's more to a car than a 'ring lap time, 0-60 or 1/4 mile time.

The CTS-V variants kick a lot of ass in all objective performance measures (shockingly so I might add) but they wouldn't be my first choice for a car to own (as much as I like them). For $60k, would I rather drive a CTS-V sedan or an A6 3.0T? A CTS-V Coupe or an S5 Coupe? The latter, on both examples. Get my point??

that point i do understand.

[PGT]

GT3 wasn't near that price....GT2 was. But, yeah.

according to porsche's usa site, it starts at 185k... that's ~200k in my book.

GT3 RS 4.0 is $185k base. See below:

[complacent]

ahh. i didn't see the base gt3 listed on the porsche usa site. they only list the gt3 rs 4.0.

[PGT]

well, we know those prices include vinyl seats, no radio, no A/C, no anything. Damn Germans.

[Sabre]

^^ LOL, indeed.

[Mr Kleen]

Yes, there is more to an enjoyable car than fast 'Ring times. But the new 911 is going to be better in every way. The first thing that jumps out at me is that they stretched the wheel base so you might be able to fit up to a 10 year old child in the rear seats and stability is improved as well. The 911 is a constant evolution and this time it's a big jump forward. I would be sick if I had purchased any flavor of 911 this year.

[Sabre]

The engine is still in the wrong place... haha

[Mr Kleen]

I agree. But I also hate the Mustang's live rear axle and it beats the other muscle cars and their IRS's in ever comparison test I read...

[Sabre]

I agree. But I also hate the Mustang's live rear axle and it beats the other muscle cars and their IRS's in ever comparison test I read...

For some reason I thought that the new Mustang finally switched over, lol, guess not! The Vette finally did away with the leaf springs in the C6 and above, right? Amazing how sometimes technology stays around just for the sake of staying around. Besides the mental problem, is there any other reason that the 911 hasn't become a mid-engine car? Maybe because then it would be a Caymen? I would think that it would make things a lot easier, but maybe I'm just missing something.

[PGT]

easy? nothing easy about a mid engine car. shit, technically my car is "mid engine"...the motor sits between the axles LOL

[scheherazade]

I agree. But I also hate the Mustang's live rear axle and it beats the other muscle cars and their IRS's in ever comparison test I read...

For some reason I thought that the new Mustang finally switched over, lol, guess not! The Vette finally did away with the leaf springs in the C6 and above, right? Amazing how sometimes technology stays around just for the sake of staying around. Besides the mental problem, is there any other reason that the 911 hasn't become a mid-engine car? Maybe because then it would be a Caymen? I would think that it would make things a lot easier, but maybe I'm just missing something.

AFAIK, still leaf springs in the C6.

Although, it's a pretty elegant way to get low suspension assembly height without resorting to sideways mounted springs/shocks with more mechanization.



Here's my 911 understanding from listening to people bitch about 911 crap on other forums :

The problem that the 911 has with going mid engine has to do with the AWD varaints, and keeping common parts between AWD and RWD variants.

The 911 has a very low mounted engine. Too low to run a drive shaft underneath it.
The boxer lays pretty flat along the bottom, not having much space beneath it anywhere, and the suspension blocks paths on either side.
To get the FWD drive shaft headed forwards, the engine sits behind the rear axle so that the engine doesn't block the path forward - while still being very low.

They could raise the engine, and put it in a mid-rear location, have the transmission on the back side of the engine drive the rear wheels directly, and run the FWD shaft under the motor to the front - but that would raise their CG. (Not sure about running the front drive shaft along the side given a rear mid setup).
As a result on the RWD variants, you would have a needlessly high mounted engine.
And if you made a special case and mounted the rear-mid engine lower for RWD variants, then you have more unique parts to manage between trim packages.

They could do it anyways, and just widen the car sufficiently to maintain the same CG vs wheel angle as they had before.
They're already increasing the stance in the new 998/991 variants (with the existing low rear mounted engine) for better performance, so lifting the cg after this generation would still be a drawback (unless they widen it more).
People are already crying about the 911 getting 'fat', even though it's mostly empty space.
(Reminds me of how Legasleeper said that the new 911 will resemble the GTR in some ways, and the broadened stance made me think of it.)

They could make a front transaxle... like a reverse corvette, or reverse GTR. That might be good, albeit weird. Would help weight distribution, but probably increase overall weight a bit.

918 (IIRC) just avoids this issue entirely and has electronically powered front wheels, and a low mounted mid engine for driving the rear wheels.

-scheherazade

[zaxrex]

I figure this would be a fitting thread for the sights and sounds of the 991. Had another video with the same driver at Laguna Seca, but that was still a promo piece with music in the background.

This one shuts that crap up. After the middle of the video, the words stop and it is just pure sights and sounds.
http://cdn-static.viddler.com/flash/as3 ... y=3b6eea23

PS, the "track" they are using in the end is where I grew up running RC cars and then planes. We would drive by the Porsche dealer there in Santa Barbara every day. The owner has an awesome private collection.

[Mr Kleen]

Nice video.

I'm sure I'll be drowning in the new 911 within 6 months, if I can actually spot the difference. There are more 911s in Weisbaden than Camrys in Alexandria.

[PGT]

991's will have 20" wheels. I believe 17's or 18's are standard on the 997; that to me looks like the major visual difference. Makes the 911 look like a Donk

[complacent]

i can't get over how flat that thing corners. wow.

[PGT]

seriously man. bone stock no-option C2, I'd take it.

[PGT]

HOLY SHIT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... oMybaHje_I[/video]