I will never get it.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by Shaun @ Tru6

Subjective I know but I think these Speedsters are the best looking of all the impact bumper car variants. The windshield and flares with no tail is magic. Have gone tailless on the on the M491 for a while now, love the look.

Really, wow. I guess it is a good thing we are all free to have opinions, and I will not complain about your freedom to have bad taste. I think that 911 Speedster is a ugly duckling, hacked up mess. I own a 85 911 Coupe, and I will admit a very slight prejudice toward the coupe as the best of all the 911 models. The SC and Carrera models are THE look of the 911 at its best. Just my opinion.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Regular 911 coupes are ok looking, have had several, they all got to stay in bed while eating crackers, but Turbo body cabs and coupes both look better than regular 911 coupes. The low slung windshield, wide flares and an aggressive stance on a Speedster is pure sex. The lines just flow. At least you don't think midyears are sexy, those are akin to 10 year old boys.

Turbo Targas, those are monstrosities.

[cairns]

I think that 911 Speedster is a ugly duckling, hacked up mess.

The 997 version is even worse. Two butt ugly and they all got snapped up by "investors".

[masraum]

I have a hard time with the turbo-look cars because they do have handling and braking upgrades, but they are heavier with worse aero, so slower at the top end. But then how much of our time would be spent there compared to the low end.

A speedster would, imo look better as a narrow body. They were supposed to be the lightweight agile cars. I'm not sure that the extra 4" of width for the turbo body accomplishes that. How much lighter were they than the regular carrera? Unless it was at least 200#, then they missed the mark. I guess they did at least have the turbo suspension and brakes?

For me, something like the speedster should have enhanced performance (more than just a tiny bit).

Maybe if I ever drove one (which is unlikely at this point) I would change my mind. As stated, I wouldn't kick any '78-98 911 out of bed for leaving a slick wetspot on the sheets.

The worst '78-98 911 is still pretty darn good.

[DWBOX2000]

I love the wide body look as I love all Porsches (Less the wagons and 4 doors but understood a necessary evil). I just don't get spending that kind of money for a car no one but your most die hard person will even realize it is different, viewing or driving.

For that kind of money, I could have Shaun Build a SE Budka Edition with any old mid year and the experience of the drive and appearance would justify the cost.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Just wait until I get the 4.0 MFI engine done before placing your order.

[ZAMIRZ]

Originally Posted by masraum

I have a hard time with the turbo-look cars because they do have handling and braking upgrades, but they are heavier with worse aero, so slower at the top end. But then how much of our time would be spent there compared to the low end.

A speedster would, imo look better as a narrow body. They were supposed to be the lightweight agile cars. I'm not sure that the extra 4" of width for the turbo body accomplishes that. How much lighter were they than the regular carrera? Unless it was at least 200#, then they missed the mark. I guess they did at least have the turbo suspension and brakes?

For me, something like the speedster should have enhanced performance (more than just a tiny bit).

Maybe if I ever drove one (which is unlikely at this point) I would change my mind. As stated, I wouldn't kick any '78-98 911 out of bed for leaving a slick wetspot on the sheets.

The worst '78-98 911 is still pretty darn good.

They made narrowbody 89 Speedsters, but not for US market.

[racer]

and narrowbody speedsters in 94