911 Club Coupe

[David J Marguglio]

Kim: Don’t be deterred by Kary’s pleas for you to remain on topic, please continue to zealously advocate against all those that would say that there 1975 street stock 911 can beat up on your 25 year newer boxster. And please continue to spew autocross times to support that.

But I believe the topic we were discussing was a philosophical drift at Porsche away from what my father explained to me was a “race car built for the street” into a street car in race car clothing. Dan's quote about about the history of street cars as a platform for Porsche racing is more telling (and nearly opposite of his intended meaning.

In just about every model Porsche built for the street, they took said street car and modified it for racing. The standard street cars were more or less platforms for their racing bretheren.

That is the way it used to be, however today if you take a gander underneath a modern Porsche race car, I will show you a 964 stamp on the motor in lieu of the 996/997 platform that you speak of. Every component of the drivetrain of a modern Porsche street car has been dumbed down to the point that it is disposable.

The point of all this, the real point is that the heart, or as Bob put it, the passion (sorry to use such warm and fuzzy terms, Jad) has been removed from modern Porsche street cars. I am not saying that they are worse or slower or less safe, I am saying that Porsche has taken a lot of the good stuff out of the car in the name of the all-mighty dollar.

Porsche is a car company built on reputation. Not value, or safety, or fuel efficiency, or even speed. You can always find a cheaper, or safer, or more fuel efficient and faster car out there. It may even been the same alternative. None of those things that attract a Porsche buyer to the show room. As several others have already indicated in one form or the other, if Porsche does not recognize this disconnect and recommit itself to the passion and strategy upon which it has built its reputation, it will soon find itself without one.

[Dan Chambers]

Every component of the drivetrain of a modern Porsche street car has been dumbed down to the point that it is disposable.

Oh, come now, David:

I'd be happy to show you the very same "dumbed-down" components in a 1969 Porsche as you might see in a 2000 Porsche, since I saw Monica's engine and transaxle completely rebuilt from the splitting of the crankcase, all the way up to the final annodized shiny bolts and clasps that hold the air cleaners on. They built them with "life-expectancy" parts then, as they do today. Many parts on the '69 car are "disposable" or of "limited duration expectancy." Parts like pistons. Parts like rod bolts. Parts like valves and guides.

If "dumbed-down" means affordable to build in quantity, yes. Porsche does this now, just as they did in 1969. Porsche has, and is still building mass-produced vehicles on assembly lines for the mass market using "affordable-to-build" (you might say dumbed-down ) components, that wear out over time. They also build very strong and re-engineered race-built/purpose built cars that wear out very quickly (measuring engine-life in hours of run time, not miles). They did this in the late fifties, and they do it today. They have done this throughout their history. And so I'll reinterate: In just about every model Porsche built for the street, they took said street car and modified it for racing. The standard street cars were more or less platforms for their racing bretheren.
I thought that was a pretty clear point the first time......

DC

[ttweed]

Uh, Tom:
looking at 2005 "street stock" (xSS),

Uh, Kim:
That's not one of the comparisons I suggested. Going on sheer numbers only proves that there are way more of the newer cars out there and available. Compare the production numbers of the entire 911S output from 1967 to 1973 and it won't equal one year of Boxster production lately. Figure how many are still left on the road after 40 years of attrition and you have even a bigger ratio of new/old cars around.

I realize that there is a large "driver" component to autox times, but despite Dan's stroking, I have no illusions about being a hot-shoe. After competing on the national level with SCCA, I know at what a mediocre level my skills are-- I am maybe in about the 70-80th percentile on a good day. If my stock, 38-yr.-old, 235,000-mile, $7,000, G-class 911 can stay with the newer $40,000 Boxsters in L class and sometimes even beat the $70,000 Carreras in M class, there is something seriously wrong with the "bang for the buck" equation at Porsche these days. There are some fine drivers in those classes, too, like Gary Samad and Al Slocum, so I am not buying Jad's "outlier" theory.

I do agree with your analysis of Porsche's target market, though. If less than 10% of their customers ever drive the cars at their limits, why worry about them? Just feed that crew $100,000 GT3s, $150,000 Turbos, and $250,000 Cup cars. Unfortunately, I'm not in the demographic that can afford those prices, so I will stick with the old cars. But I don't agree that they have to be modified to be as quick as the new ones, at least on an autox course.

TT

[kary]

It is pretty much always the case that the past was the "golden age" and the stuff now sucks. I remember reading something about how the 356 owners were complaining all day long about the new 911 and how Porsche was losing its soul. Though no one would admit it, I bet in 20 years we'll reminisce about the 996's and how whatever is new then has no soul.

Jad, since I have no facts and only use passion for my replies (according to you), could you please accurately outline for me and the rest of the group here how the quality of the new Porsche's are equivalent to the pre-996 and Boxster cars? Remember, I said quality, not performance or volume or profit.

[Gary Burch]

Kim

I think you should recheck your findings on the Ax-time list. If you compare the top times from the indiviual classes you might be surprised by the "dominance" of the Boxsters and 996's. Another factor is the lack of drivers from the A-K classes. Many of the best drivers of the older cars are not driving as many events this year,(Henry Walker, Charles Becker, Joey Elumba, Paul Young).

By the numbers alone the newer cars dominate.

Also, if you factor my car into the mix it further dilutes your statement. Not to say that I am that good of a driver, I just think that the old 911's are just as competitive as the newer cars in this type of event. I have been driving in different classes as my protest to the current rules, 1-point penalty for Azenias,2-points for LSD, permitting R-compounds in Stock Classes.

Anyway, Let's go to the data;

9/10----LSS-58.69--MSS-59.66--IS-57.56---GB-59.21
8/13----LSS-92.33--MSS-93.42--IS-92.86---GB-94.64
7/10----LSS-81.83--MSS-82.24--IS-80.63---GB-82.91
6/25----LSS-89.81--MSS-92.82--IS-91.86---GB-90.42

This is just a sample. Also, because I want to be fair, I left Tom Tweed out of the mix. If you add in Tom it really distorts the outcome.

[Bob Gagnon]

Interesting points are being made by all here and I really enjoy this discussion, which in my view is not about right and wrong but a philosophy of how to make a sports car. Sorry I had to go away for a while.

I liked Mike D's metophoric comment on the rock band "gone commercial" to the dissappointment of the fans who first discovered them. I find this very true with Porsche and me. I am such an old fart I was a Porsche fan when the 356 was the only Porsche made. The Porsche "hook" was set the day a guy who worked for my father took me for a ride in his black 356 Carrera (this is the same guy who took me to my first car race, the F1 race at Riverside in 1960, but that's another story). I didn't know much about cars but something about the moan of that Carrera and the rpm it could turn were intoxicating to me and, even though I had no clue what I was looking at, I could tell the engine was something special when I looked at it .

I remember the introduction of the 911 and the furor over it. Many 356 people were completely turned off "that big car" and there were problems particularly with the handleing and carburation that took a while to sort out. Believe me there was much discussion and the internet would have been interesting to have back then- ask John Straub who still has the original carburetors in his 911.

The 911's 6 cylinder engine was a brilliant solution to problems that Porsche had not even thought of yet. The original concept was an engine that would produce more power than the extremely complex 356 Carrera racing engine and be more reliable for racing use than the 356 pushrod engine all at less cost than the Carrera engine. To that end, the single overhead cam, 2-valve, flat 6 was a success. When I say it solved problems Porsche had not thought of yet, I mean that nobody at Porsche ever thought the basic design would be stretched out to 3.8 liters, be turbocharged and adapted to water cooling with 4 valve twin-cam-cylinder heads. The basic crankcase design of this engine survives today in the GT2/3/Turbo cars. The crankcase exterior was finally changed, for "political reasons" only I think, to eliminate any vestige of it's air-cooled past about 1/2 way along the Mk 2 GT3 production run a year or so ago.

The issue I personally have with the 996 engine design is that Porsche have put themselves back into the situation of a simple engine designed for cheap production and, since the GT3 engine was originally designed for VERY low, hand built racing production Porsche now have the equivalent of the 356 Carrera engine on one hand and pushrod 356 on the other.

In my view, it would not have been that difficult to have both worlds with a new engine design that included the dry-sump and replaceable Nikasil cylinders of the original design but with a simplified block that included the water cooling in the basic design and not as a tack of feature. I don't think it would have been that more expensive and it would have been in keeping with the marque's status and history.

The same general type of comments could be made about the gearbox of the normal 996 gearbox.

This would not have been so bad, if Porsche would have been more forthcoming about what they were up to, but "integrated dry-sump" and advanced "Lokasil" cylinders got to me.

Jad, on your question about dry sumps-

As you know, the main advantages of a dry-sump are:

-oiling is more consistent under extreme G loads,
-the engine can be mounted lower in the chassis is some cases (not really germaine to 911 since exhaust system dictates this)
-"windage" power losses from the splashing and pumping of oil by the reciprocation parts inside the engine are less

Most cars have so-called wet sump engines, and for essentially vertical engines like a 944's (or a V8,V6 or Straight 6) it probably works fine even in racing, since the reciprocating components are well above the oil and oil slowhing and starvation are not so much of an issue until the G loads go way up. Still, most engines of this type are converted to dry-sump for serious racing.

Things get a little touchy though when the engine is flat like the 911 engine though since the oil level is right below the reciprocating parts and it sloshes right into the cylinders during cornering creating foam, drainage problems and lots of windage losses. I think these windage losses are why it takes 3.8 liters for the 996 engine of the 911 Club Coupe to make about what the GT3 does with 3.6 liters. This is static dynomometer horsepower that doesn't take into account horsepower that is lost going around a corner with a wet sump though.

Track horsepower does not always equal the dyno's.

Over filling the engine increases windage losses and foaming while decreasing engine oil fill increases probability of oil starvation- a conundrum eliminated with a dry sump.

Porsche and others learned this early on, and the first dry sump engines Porsche made were pushrod 550 Spyders, see the recent Excellence on the restoration of 550/01 which has a pushrod, dry sump 356 engine. Porsche subsequently used the type 547 twin cam engine, which had a dry-sump basic design, in the 550 cars.

The early wet sump 901 prototype engine designs were rejected for the final 911 design. All dedicated racing engines I have ever seen are dry-sump from Porsche or othewise. Note that Porsche has never raced the wet sump 996 engine.

IMHO A wet sump engine is just not in character with the history of Porsche who builds a first class sports cars otherwise.

Are these problems fatal? Certainly not if you are building a Subaru family car which has a water cooled 6-cylinder flat engine like the 996, but, in my opinion, they are for a "Sports Car" that is advertised as a "take to the track" car.

Kim, on the car's speed-

I am not sure what the autocross data show; I think a degree in statistics would be required to figure it out. At any rate, I am willing to stipulate that the new cars are faster. Faster because the 4 valve engine does produce more power and faster because the later chassis may be better and also the low polar moment of the Boxster is a clear advantage. I did see Ralph Linares 914/6 doing quite well in NSS given it's 110 HP engine though!!!

Kary- Thanks.

Keep the Porsche faith!

[Kim Crosser]

Gary, the problem with comparing the "S" cars with the "SS" cars is that now you are looking at cars running softer, stickier tires and possibly with other performance mods. The "SS" cars are all running standard street tires (treadwear 200 and up). I would wager that I could take another second or two off on some sticky tires. As you note, once you allow R compounds in the "S" classes it is difficult to compare across classes. And mixing in Modified, Improved, or Prepared classes just confuses the issue.

That being said - considering all "S" and "SS" cars:

1/30 AX - 1st old car is 9th (Tom Tweed)
4/10 AX - TomT 3rd, Jess 7th - good showing of old cars here
5/15 AX - TomT 3rd, Paul Young 7th - good showing
6/25 AX - TomT 2nd, next old car 11th
7/10 AX - TomT 5th, next old car 10th
8/13 AX - Paul Young 9th, next old car 14th
9/10 AX - Don Middleton 3rd, next old car 20th

Yes, there are some older cars with really good drivers running sticky tires (and with some other mods?) that are competitive with the newer cars. That doesn't change my premise that the newer cars are faster and more competitive than the older cars. Note that taking Tom Tweed out of the list would really change the mix!

Before I get slammed for "getting off the thread" (which was whether Chris should take his option to buy a Club Sport ), my point is that Porsche continues to build cars that are highly competitive for the weekend sport driver.

Yes - in the old days, cars had more interchangeable parts and were easier to work on. Those days are gone - unless you want to buy a low production volume race car.

Legal, regulatory, and financial pressures have dictated the boundaries within which any car maker has to work. Porsche has chosen to offer three tiers of vehicles, and complaining that the lowest tier (Boxster, Carrera) aren't suitable to be turned into full-on track warriors seems misguided.

Exactly WHAT is wrong with today's 987S/997S as good weekend sport driving platforms - specifics, please, not "passion" terms?
The only thing I have heard with specifics is the "dry sump" issue, and as Jad pointed out, if you keep some extra oil in there, why is this a problem for anyone short of a full-on POC racer (who probably should start with a GT3 base)?

Without specifics, this thread boils down to "things were better in the old days". Bah, humbug...

[Gary Burch]

Kim

The only car on the R-compound tires is Don Middleton.

You wouldn't deny a 35 year old car an update of springs and sway bars would you? So there is only a 4-point maximum difference between classes.

We still have at the most 150hp at the wheels. Granted we are lighter, but we are old.

Don't get me wrong I would love to have a new Boxster(Cayman) in my garage. I am not sure how comfotable I would be driving an ax in it, much less a TT. The new Porsches are beautiful and great cars, for their intended purpose. The old ones are the same, beautiful and perfect for their intended purpose.

[MikeD]

Bob: excellent post, tons of good info there. I have a relatively simple understanding of some of this stuff, so correct me if I am wrong. But the pre-996/986 cars used the same basic engine design for both the race cars and street cars (with different componetry of course). Whereas, the 996/986 actually have a different design for the race car vs. the street car?

Exactly WHAT is wrong with today's 987S/997S as good weekend sport driving platforms - specifics, please, not "passion" terms?
The only thing I have heard with specifics is the "dry sump" issue, and as Jad pointed out, if you keep some extra oil in there, why is this a problem for anyone short of a full-on POC racer (who probably should start with a GT3 base)?

Kim, I do not think you can throw out the "dry sump" thing as a non-issue. The point that Bob and Kary are trying to make (and I agree with) is that you CAN take a 993, 964, SC, etc to a POC event as a full on racecar and not have to worry as much about it. But you cannot do that same with a Boxster or 996.

Maybe that's not an issue for you and Jad who just AX your "new" Porsche. But it is a real issue for Kary and I as we do race our cars. Don't think for a second that I do not worry about and fuss over my car the weeks leading up to, and at an event. I've got plenty of stories about missing sessions or not being able to finish a weekend. Or how about the fact the PCNA has revoked my warrenty 1 year and 10,000 miles before it was to expire? This isn't hypothetical for me, it is as real as it gets.

AX is, in my opinion "aggressive street driving" and should not be compared to "racing" in this context.

Also, keep in mind that ALL Porsche's were intended to be race cars for the average person. I.e. drive it to the office all week, then race it on the weekends.

[Bob Gagnon]

Mike D said: "Bob: But the pre-996/986 cars used the same basic engine design for both the race cars and street cars (with different componetry of course). Whereas, the 996/986 actually have a different design for the race car vs. the street car?"

Mike this is exactly the confusion I am talking about and I feel if corrected will enlighten the market and perhaps one day get us a better Porsche.

Yes, the pre-996/986 cars used the same engine family based on the original air-cooled 901 (911) engine for racing and street. This includes all 911 street cars from 1965 to 1998, all 911 RSR, 935, 936, 956, 962, and GT1/2 come to mind. Today's Carrera Cup, SuperCup, GT3 and 911 RSR racing cars as well as today's Turbo also use this engine type.

Of historical interest here is that the mating pattern between engine and gearbox for this engine is the same as Porsche 356 #1- hows that for continuity!

The 996/986 engine is a completely new design that has nothing in common with the early design other than it is a flat 6 (and twin cams, 4 valve per cylinder in the water cooled variants of the original). No racing cars have used this engine.

[Chris Benbow]

Well, to bring this post back on topic I just wanted to let everyone know what I decided.......
Darn, I can't seem to get the image to display..... can anyone help?

[kary]

Send it to me at kary@group9motorsports.com and I will post for you.

Kary

[Kim Crosser]

Bob Gagnon - thank you for a specific, technical response that clarifies some of the dry sump issues. My post was being typed as you posted yours, so I didn't have the advantage of your post when I asked for technical specifics.

Other than the dry sump, are there other specific technical problems with the 986/987/996/997 vehicles as "weekend warriors"?

[kary]

Bob Gagnon - thank you for a specific, technical response that clarifies some of the dry sump issues. My post was being typed as you posted yours, so I didn't have the advantage of your post when I asked for technical specifics.

Other than the dry sump, are there other specific technical problems with the 986/987/996/997 vehicles as "weekend warriors"?

Ask Mike D about his power steering issues. He can explain the trials he has gone through to try and remedy the power steering leaks.

[kary]

Well, to bring this post back on topic I just wanted to let everyone know what I decided.......
Darn, I can't seem to get the image to display..... can anyone help?

Here is the pic, very nice Chris...do you already have it, bringing it to Pahrump?