Porsche 911 - My Analysis

Technology What makes a car Good
23

at least in case of EQS we thought maybe they don’t want to sell those cars - that they just want to say we have an EV that has record range etc. and then just sell the regular S class because that’s how they make money …

but Lucid also went after Aerodynamic records over style and unlike Mercedes they don’t have anything else to sell …

basically the obsession with range got out of control and in retrospect it was misguided because it’s not about range - it’s about charging speed and charging network …

again, all these things just go to show it’s still too early to get EV. the industry is still figuring things out.

24

just when you think it can’t get any worse for 911 guess where they put the fuel tank

that’s right - in the front of the car

1000×666 155 KB

where it is most vulnerable in case of crash

so both engine and fuel tank are in worst possible locations plus rear seats are useless - this is arguably the worst designed car on the market

yet the best executed

i was watching Cayman GT4 RS video yesterday and they said that unlike 911 GT3 it doesn’t have an electronic limited slip differential but a more primitive mechanical one and also the same engine makes 10 hp less in GT4 than GT3 …

why do you think that is ?

well it’s not rocket science - the 911 is such a bad design it can only survive with Porsche throwing the best tech at it while not allowing other cars like Cayman to use the same tech …

it’s tragic, really …

the upcoming electric 718 may be a game changer though because Porsche may allow it to do what it never allowed the gas 718 to do, namely to beat the 911 …

and this is for one reason and one reason only - the 911 will be the ONLY Porsche that stays ICE while every other model goes EV so 718 may get repositioned from a lower cost, lower performance alternative to 911 to an Electric alternative to 911

in other words 718 EV to 911 will be what Taycan is to Panamera … so it will actually be about the same price, slightly faster and slightly smaller, and with less premium interior to compensate for higher cost of batteries …

25

911 Hybrid will be revealed on May 28th ( in two weeks )

26

from what the test driver said it sounds like the car will keep the turbos but use the electric motor to reduce turbo lag, same as how it is in the Panamera.

from reading Panamera forums it is a universal consensus that the Hybrid Panameras have the least turbo lag and the main reason to get the Hybrid is if you hate Turbo lag

interestingly nothing in the video was said about efficiency, which also lines up with the Panamera well because Hybrid Panamera is still inefficient … yet highly regarded on Porsche forums ( for its instant torque ).

in fact i heard it said that the “E” in the Panamera model name is a bigger upgrade than the “S” which says a lot …

only real questions for me is:

1 - will the car keep keep AWD and if so will it be mechanical or electric ?

2 - where will they put the battery ?

27

it is promising they are testing the car in Dubai because clearly that is something Corvette team did not do for the Corvette Hybrid …

The Straight Pipes reported that Corvette Hybrid gets really hot inside whenever engine shuts off and loses the mechanically driven Air Conditioning compressor …

of course outside of Corvette trash all real hybrids use electric AC compressor that doesn’t shut off with the engine …

bottom line the Hybrid 911 should be faster, more responsive and ( slightly ) more efficient than the regular one … and i expect price premium to be small because it is small with Panamera hybrids …

basically they make these hybrids to meet emissions standards so they are incentivized to sell them by keeping prices low …

the real price premium with the hybrids is in long term cost of ownership when it comes to battery replacement …

28

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/porsche-911-hybrid-debut.html

29

OK i have to issue a correction and apology to 911 appreciator @OldFriendSaysHello

i made a mistake and under-estimated the 911 …

i never actually ran the numbers for piston area until yesterday which made me realize 911 engine is effectively bigger than most modern V8 engines …

in terms of piston area the 3.8 liter 911 engine is most closely matched by BMW 4.4 liter V8 … and is actually larger than the 4.0 liter V8 in the Panamera ! i honestly didn’t realize this until crunching the numbers …

so the 911 engine is basically larger ( when it comes to dimensions that matter for performance ) than one in Panamera Turbo and same size as what is in cars like X6M …

in my mind intuitively the 911 was like a better version of BMW M4 because both are 2+2 seaters with a 6 cylinder turbo … but that was WAY off base !

because with its higher aluminum content the 911, even with AWD, is actually slightly lighter than the smallest BMW M car ( the M2 ) … but its engine size is in M5 category … and so are the tires.

i also drove cars with both ZF 8 HP transmission and VW AG PDK and there is no comparison - with ZF 8 HP ( or any other regular automatic ) you lose SIGNIFICANT amount of time on every shift whereas with PDK it’s mostly instant. the PDK is a major competitive advantage.

i also have to note that cars like M2 are impossibly small inside because the transmission sits between the front two passengers, robbing what little space there is, whereas in a 911 the transmission robs space of REAR passengers ( who don’t matter )

so the 911 isn’t slightly better than M4 but rather an entire class above it altogether …

i mean you would expect that from the price and obviously i knew the 911 is faster than M4 but INTUITIVELY for some reason my brain associated 911 with cars like M4 and not Lambos even though i knew in terms of performance it was more in Lambo territory than M4 territory but i used to write it off as just a matter of higher state of tune … but i was wrong

the reasons that 911 is lambo fighter and not M4 fighter despite both of them being 6 cylidner 2+2 seaters are:

1 - aluminum chassis
2 - pdk transmission
3 - tire surface area
4 - piston area

i always thought the 911 is below Lambo but in its larger displacement turbo models it is really more on the side than below - it’s really just a question of whether you like the sound and feel of a Naturally Aspirated V10 or a Turbo Flat 6

i still maintain that 911 is an aging design that is not optimal but whereas i used to think it is fast because it is simply TUNED to be fast i now see that actually the tune isn’t really that aggressive and it comes down to factors discussed above …

30

I think 911s sound like shit :slight_smile: merc V8 sounds best to me then higher pitched lambo/ferraris and I also think lambos/ferraris notch slightly above on the cool factor obviously

31

the reason V8s have a “rumble” sound is because for engine balancing reasons most V8s run a cylinder firing order where sometimes the pulses alternate between two cylinder banks and sometimes the same cylinder bank fires twice in a row and this is the reason for the warble / rumble bassy sound that only V8s have …

this actually represents a slight inefficiency of operation, but it is what gives V8s their signature sound that most people like because you instantly know it’s a V8 …

only cross-plane crankshaft V8s have this rumble … which is to say most V8s, but not all …

Ferrari V8s and some high-end Ford V8s have flat-plane crank that never fires the same cylinder back twice in a row which results in better performance but loses the V8 rumble and sounds more like V6 or V10 than a V8 …

32

thanks for explaining it didnt know - but yeh in the city like miami efficiency is of 0 importance :wink:

1 Like
33

watched this entire 1 hour long video teardown of a Porsche Boxster engine ( which was also used in 911 ) …

i also watched full teardowns of many other engines on that channel and this Porsche Flat 6 is i am sorry to say pretty stupid …

because of the boxer design it is a lot more parts, bolts and work to take apart … i finally understand why aside from Porsche and Subaru and BMW motorcycles these types of engines aren’t used any more …

i mean BMW had these during WW2 so there is nothing new about these - most automakers have the sense not to use them but Porsche sticks to tradition for tradition’s sake because they know their customers will be willing to pay double for repairs with an engine that is twice as hard to take apart …

even if i had the money to get a car with one of these engines i would not after watching this video - it’s just a stupid way to make an engine …

yes Boxer engines are inherently balanced and that’s probably why they were originally used or maybe because they worked better with air cooling but having watched teardowns of various engines it seems easier to add balance shafts to a V6 than to take apart a Flat-6.

and an Inline-6 is inherently balanced and simpler than even a V6 let alone Flat-6 to take apart ( and to build ).

an Inline-6 is really the way to go IMO now that we learned how to make cars with decent power using only 6 cylinders.

the 911 really has no reason to exist IMO other than it’s iconic and VW group being the company that completely dominates supercars ( with Bugatti, Lambo etc. ) can always make the 911 competitive despite how wrong that car is.

basically performance is easier to achieve than image. the 911 has the iconic image and VW has the engineering muscle to keep it going even though it should have been discontinued half a century ago.

34

a video showed up in my Twitter feed of a Porsche ( can’t tell if its 911 or Cayman ) catching on fire in a crash because of the front mounted fuel tank

https://x.com/CensoredLeak/status/1942412371017764901

yeah i have to say even though Cayman has engine in the right place the fuel tank is still in the wrong place ( in the front ) and that is frankly more important …

911 has both engine and fuel tank in the wrong locations …

but people still buy them because “muh turdition” and “muh classic” and “muh icon”

ask yourself - is being burned alive a price worth paying for being cool ?

the good news is apparently C8 corvette does not have fuel tank in the front …

image
image400×300 29.4 KB

image
image1600×963 213 KB

i can’t quite make out where it is exactly - seems like it may be exposed to side impact - but at least it’s protected from a head on collision …

but anyway the ideal location of fuel tank is behind the seats and forward of rear wheels - that’s where it is least likely to be damaged. this is where most cars have it.

if Engineers had anything to say 911 would have been discontinued decades ago but the decisions are made by bean counters who only care about profits and customers only care about image and with 911 they hit a gold mine because they have something that is simultaneously iconic, classic and “modern” …

but it really isn’t a good design at all … it’s only good because it’s a Porsche and everything Porsche makes is good …

and the reason Porsche is good is because VW is the biggest automakers but they do not allow Audi to shine to make sure that Porsche gets the limelight … that’s literally the reason.

so Porsche is better than BMW and Mercedes because VW is a bigger company than BMW or Mercedes ( even though they pretend Porsche is a small company for marketing purposes ) and it’s better than Audi because Audi is made to have poor handling on purpose to protect Porsche.

it also makes me wonder whether Panamera E-Hybrid having battery all the way in the rear is also unsafe … Porsche says it is “crash tested” but at what speed ?

it just doesn’t seem like safety is a core value for Porsche …

i would rather buy from a brand like Volvo that has safety as a core value than from brand like Tesla or Porsche that has performance and “fun” as core values.

the problem is safety is not sexy. it can’t sell the same way as fun and performance do. and any company that isn’t obsessed with profits will eventually run out of money as Volvo did.

then the question becomes - would you rather buy a car from a company that doesn’t care if you die in a fire or a company that is bankrupt ? honestly do not know which is worse.

35

or how about this Moose Test ( enable subtitles and turn on auto translate to English and you will know what is going on )

the 911 manages 80 km/h speed

while a Volvo Wagon manages 76 km/h in the same test

now 80 is faster than 76 but ask yourself - is it worth it to pay 3 times as much for a car that has about 1/3 less passenger room and about 10 times less cargo room for a 5% increase in real world performance ?

the 911 has an aluminum chassis and barely any interior or cargo room plus supercar tires and fully active suspension and all that nets it 5% performance edge over a fucking wagon … why ?

well two reasons:

1 - volvo is swedish and moose test is also swedish

2 - the engine in the back of 911 combined with short wheelbase does it no favors with respect to things like snap oversteer …

is it faster in a straight line ? sure. around the track ? also yes. but in the real world this supercar is only marginally better than a good station wagon.

now i will give this 911 one thing - in a braking test it will smoke the Volvo - and braking is certainly a real world consideration. but i would argue that high speed stability is more important.

now am i saying you should get a Volvo ? no i am not. you should get something like Panamera.

the Panamera completed the test at 78 km / h

this is right in between the Volvo at 76 and 911 at 80 mph

but the Panamera as a car on the whole is not the average of Volvo and 911 because it still has straight line acceleration of the 911 and the room of the Volvo, so it is really more like the best of both worlds

in other words assuming you can afford the Panamera you gain NOTHING by going to Volvo instead

but you lose A LOT ( of room and cargo space ) by going from Panamera to 911

and the only thing you gain by going from Panamera to 911 is basically style and subjective driving feeling but nothing tangible except maybe slightly shorter braking distance and a very marginal difference in acceleration

in other words both Volvo and Panamera are worth the money - the Panamera costs double but is also a faster car with the same level of practicality as the Volvo wagon

the 911 is not worth the money because all of the benefits are imaginary - the “feeling” and “fun” are in your head ( subjective ). the acceleration is irrelevant unless you plan to race crackheads. and let’s face it you’re not going to take it to the race track to make use of its handling there.

and when it comes to actual real world performance in an evasive maneuver like Moose Test it is only marginally better than a properly designed car with no performance aspirations.

of course it is MUCH better in the Moose Test than the kind of DOG SHIT that most people actually drive:

and of course the Rav4 doesn’t have any more interior space than Volvo Wagon or Panamera

in conclusion - if you drive / you are:

Rav4 > You are Stupid and Poor ( most people )
Volvo Wagon > you are Smart, but not rich
911 > you are Rich
Panamera > you are Smart AND Rich

of course if i get the Panamera ( which i can’t afford ) that will make me Stupid AND Poor …

by the way i actually had to do this evasive maneuver in the Volvo once when a car carrier trailer:

image
image967×299 41.8 KB

was backing onto a road on which i was doing 2X speed limit …

because the tail of the trailer is just some black metal pipes i didn’t immediately notice it but those pipes are STRONG / HEAVY and you do NOT want to hit them at 70 mph like i was going … luckily i was able to swerve without crashing and i do not know if i would have been able to do this in a Rav4 … though admittedly with a Rav4 i would have a higher seating position so maybe i would see the obstacle sooner …

so that is another downside to the 911 is the seating position is low which is bad for safety both because you don’t see as far and also because if you get T-Boned by an SUV the bumper will hit you right in the face !

so it’s all a trade off but all in all the trade-offs made by the 911 are not very good at all, which is why no other automaker is copying this body style

Porsche is sticking to it because it’s Iconic - that’s it - no other reason

36

Range only manages 63 kmh versus 76 for Volvo wagon

but it makes up for this pathetic performance by costing twice as much as the Volvo

don’t you find it curious that no car reviews ever include any of this information ?

because all car reviewers are retards and frauds. they both know nothing about cars AND are paid to lie about what little they do know.

their only relevant skill is their charisma.

car reviewers are male versions E-Girls.

and as explained before the best cars ( Volvo Wagon, Panamera ) are the least popular / desirable because people are idiots and only want things that are as stupid as they are such as this Range Rover.

sad.

37

77 kmh for Supra

that’s just 1 kmh faster than Volvo Wagon for a car that only has 2 seats

i hope you’re seeing the pattern here. the reason the channel is called KM77 is because 77 km/h is approximately where the diminishing returns set in - well designed cars group around 77 km/h while poor cars ( like the Range ) are below

fun Trivia: Rav4 was one of the early Plug-in Hybrids and and got rave reviews for its fuel economy and fast acceleration - i was thinking about getting one because i really wanted a PHEV but when i saw it failing the Moose Test i ended up going for Volvo PHEV instead.

the other issue with Rav4 was Toyota didn’t make enough of them and there was a 2 year wait or something. i do not remember exactly the details of the situation.

38

in this video:

it is mentioned that Tesla Model 3 passes the test at 83 mph, which is significantly faster than 80 mph of Porsche 911

again, this is not surprising because Model 3 has its mass in the right place, whereas 911 does not.

39

74 mph for S Class

not bad for a boat but the difference versus Panamera ( 78 mph ) is notable

that said there is an equally big difference in comfort between the two cars so they are both on the same level of engineering - just for different demographics

Panamera is for 40 year olds while S class is for 60 year olds

what i find impressive about S class is that it rolls so hard that you would think it is trash yet it keeps it together

this in contrast to something like Toyota Rav4 or Hilux ( Tacoma ) which do not necessarily have a floaty suspension or roll that much but rather just fall apart

i would rather have a car like S class that FEELS unstable but actually IS stable than a car that FEELS stable but is actually unstable like Rav4 / Hilux

of course the dumb fuck Automotive Reviewers only review the FEEL of the car, not the actual performance envelope. which is why their reviews are WORSE than useless because by using stiffer spring rates etc. you’re just giving the driver an ILLUSION of safety, which is very dangerous.

this is what happened to me when i test drove Audi E-Tron GT. it was SO stable - made you feel like performance envelope is infinite - but when we accidentally turned off traction control and ESP it just went sideways like it was on ice … we were lucky it happened at a low speed. if something like that happened on the freeway it could easily have been the end for all of us.

on other hand with something like S class you will know you’re approaching the limit because it will be rolling so hard …

40

Model S Plaid Moose Test is interesting …

the car itself has brilliant tuning and passes the moose test at a very high speed just 1 mph lower than the record

but the idiotic Yoke steering wheel has the potential of killing you. at one point in the test the driver instinctively tried reaching for the missing part of the wheel and only grabbed air. in this test it didn’t matter but in a different situation it might result in you being DEAD.

i think the 3 motor setup helps the Plaid in this test. a 4 motor would have been even better.

Plaid beats Taycan in this test i think because Tayan only has 2 motors

to tesla’s credit i believe they offered the option of regular steering wheel but it should have been standard

the Yoke is yet another example of Elon’s blatant disregard for safety IMO