I'm sorry, but yes...extremely tired. That's probably the least inspiring of all 911 models yet produced. At least to me.

Zzzzzzzzzz

As for the 356, i've never liked those even a little bit.

Wow. Really. The 356 is one of if not the most classic roadster coupe ever produced. Instantly recognizeable by anyone on the planet.

http://www.imcdb.org/images/002/621.jpg

I'd do nearly anything to have one, I don't care how slow it is, how much VW parts it uses, nothing. It's Ferdinand Porsche's real dream car, what he thought cars should be. That's good enough for me.

I like the convertible 356's even less than the coupes and i SERIOUSLY challenge your contention they're recognizable by anyone on the planet.

I would go so far as to say that 80-90% of the world's population would have absolutely NO IDEA what a debadged 356 was, when it was made, or by whom. I bet 95% of people under age 20 would be totally clueless what that car was if you showed it to them with no badging.

And i bet half of that 80-90% wouldn't even know it was supposed to be a sports car, but would mistake it for an old economy car.

As a matter of fact, when i saw Top Gun i had no idea what that ugly little green bath tub was. I thought it was a Karmin Ghia honestly. Same for 48 hours (i think eddie murphy had an ugly old dusty 356 in that movie too).

356's are hideous. That being said i LOVE the 356 Spiders like the one that James Dean died in.

that would be a 550.

Yes James Dean = 550.


While the 356 is a cruizer... the 550 is a pure bred sports car. A modern 550 (ala Beck) is a very capable machine even compared with new sportscars.

OK 550, my apologies. I'm not too up on the early models designations. I REALLY like the 550 though.

A man of taste. :rolleyes:

+1K at least.. Don't forget Steve McQueen had one & liked them, my Mother had one & raced it in the 50s..
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1252208002.jpg
I have made it pretty clear that I'm not a fan of 996s & up, but this is a new one that I like and only a few Porsches have gotten my attenion since the 993s, the last REAL 911 ( Prof. Porsche died when the air pumper did.)..

Sorry dude, looks like a bathtub to me.

sure did :)
http://www.ehow.com/about_5060880_history-porsche.html
http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/01/22/modern-classics-porsche-968-1992-1995.htm
http://vista.pca.org/stl/968t.htm

http://vista.pca.org/stl/968tengi.jpg

Absolutely NOT. They are rolling art. Style, grace and attitude. Magnificent design.

15 of them, according to a previous poster.

From your first link:

"Two turbo-powered 968s were produced. In 1993, the Turbo S was developed to hit 0 to 60 mph in 4.7 seconds and reached a top speed of 180 mph, matching the newer and far more-expensive Porsche Type 996 911. Only 15 were produced, and all were sold in Europe. The Turbo RS was produced from 1992 to 1994 and was a stripped-down version of the Turbo S. It weighed 2,976 pounds and its 3-liter turbo-charged engine sported 350 horsepower. It's been clocked from 0 to 62 mph at 4.4 seconds"

One man's art is another man's trash.

"Piss Christ" anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

?
yes i know, i wasnt arguing that. you said you didn't realise porsche had built any. they did, very small numbers, for one market and discontinued for various reasons which would most likely have applied to why there was never a production twin turbo 928 during the turbulent late 80's and 90's.

I think the "various reasons" it was discontinued is actually quite simply one reason.

It was faster than the 911 turbo, and 1/2 the price. It's not that Porsche cannot make cars better than the 911 you see....it's that they don't want to.

I suspect that's why there was never a 928 turbo either, though some 928s were faster than their same year 911 "rival" anyway.

that was more likely the final nail in the coffin. the 968 turbo S was to try to resurrect the line at a time when they had to make the 968 comfort sport package in the UK because the clubsports weren't selling. and it still didnt work. many argue the 968 was too little too late. there were better cars available for the money and it was a just facelift 944. (a 944S3 as you will, apparently the factory was going to call it that)

same with the 944 turbo being faster than some 911 models. why cancel something thats already in production and is already faster than some of the then current 911 range? Its not just because its faster then.
I'm not saying the 'faster-than-the-911' thing isn't true, its just not the only truth.

some say the porsche designed cylinder head for the 931 was originally slotted for the 924 n/a. Instead it was choked with the audi head.

remembering that the RoW 924's were 125hp with the audi head from '76 to '85 and the turbo was 170hp in '79, 177 in '81, the D production 924's were n/a's racing with the turbo head and 190hp and the closest inhouse rival 911SC was 180 - 204hp (depending on year).

Also, the 930 got an intercooler from the beginning (1975?) so why didnt the 1979 931 get one? they share the same wastegate so why not other technologies! why did they wait for the 924 Carrera GT for a tmi/c, 2 yrs after the 931 came out.

why did the 944 get finally get a production 16v engine in '86 when they raced one back in '81?

Reeves Callaway offered a kit, a friend use to have one..

That goes all the way back to the 914-6, Porsche has never let a lower model be better than a 911 for very long.. In 89, a 951 was like a second shower & 10 MPH less top end than a 930, & $20K less, $500 on a few mods and it was faster..

This was also true with the 924S & 944s, the 924S had different gearing to keep the top end less than a 944...

Geez, enough about the 928 Pacer already.

I really like the SC!

PS The 928 really sucks.