911 pic showing new & old size difference

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

My 986 and SC are very similar in size when parked side by side. The 986 is slightly larger.

Exactly.

I have a 987.2 and the wheelbase is perhaps an inch or two longer, but they are practically the same size.

As I said, the Caymans and Boxsters are as close to what we thought of as a Porsche as you will find in the current model lineup.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Audi introduced the A3 because the A4 had gotten too big. The A3 is almost exactly the same size as my old 1999 B5 A4, which was a really perfect sized car.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by PorscheGAL

There are many reasons to like a modern mustang, but the size and weight is not one of them.

Bingo. Alas, the same can be said about many cars. To my eyes, the most attractive looking Mustang body is still the '65-66 Fastback.

However, your Boss 302 is still a kick butt ride.

But I'm done with old cars and the hassles of caring for them. Only 24,000 on my '09 Mustang, so I'll be driving it a spell. It's been a reliable and well balanced driver with it's mere 315 horsepower. It'll never be the thrill ride my '72 911S was, but at least it'll also not put the albatross of being a "collector car" around my neck.
The more sought after the 911S became, the less I enjoyed it. Got sick of all the approaches from flippers...

These days I'm quite content to be driving an old Ford to my favorite pool hall. One finds better morals in a pool hall than in the collector car world.

[speeder]

There is no such thing as a "mint condition 1998 911 turbo." Other than that, a good article.

What is interesting to me, as a Porsche aficionado from way back, is that 911s have always been considered slightly overweight by the motoring press. In the late '60s, when an Alfa or other 2-seat sports car weighed under 2k lbs., the "2+2" 911 weighed in at a bloated 2500 lbs. or more, depending on configuration and equipment.

An extra 500 lbs. was 25% of the total weight of other sports cars!

500 lbs. would be a massive increase today between cars considered pure sports cars. Early 911s are only light in comparison to modern, heavy cars. They were not light for the time. A lot of current "enthusiasts" seem like they just fell off the turnip truck and have no time to research even a rudimentary background on these cars.

My 1982 911SC coupe weighed nearly 3k stock, a new 991 is so much lighter when considering power output. I will say that it was relatively easy to shed pounds on that car, not as easy on a new one. There are plenty of reasons to like old air-cooled 911s but the lightweight argument always makes me laugh a little.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Exactly.

I have a 987.2 and the wheelbase is perhaps an inch or two longer, but they are practically the same size.

As I said, the Caymans and Boxsters are as close to what we thought of as a Porsche as you will find in the current model lineup.

The wheelbase is very different which isn't surprising since the 911 needed room between the axle and rear bumper for the engine, and the rear axle in the Cayman is between the cockpit and the rear axle.

Wheelbase of all of the aircooled 911s (except the SWB early cars) is 89.45". The wheelbase of the 987 is 95.1". That's nearly 6", despite the overall length of the cars being much closer than that.

The other big difference (again 6") is the width. The width of the SC is ~65", and the width of the 987 is ~71".

In length, they are pretty close, and I think you can consider that as being due to the much more rounded and pointed front and rear on the 987. THe differents is only about 2.5-3". The 987 and SC should be pretty much identical in height depending upon right height, I suspect.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Bingo. Alas, the same can be said about many cars. To my eyes, the most attractive looking Mustang body is still the '65-66 Fastback.

However, your Boss 302 is still a kick butt ride.

But I'm done with old cars and the hassles of caring for them. Only 24,000 on my '09 Mustang, so I'll be driving it a spell. It's been a reliable and well balanced driver with it's mere 315 horsepower. It'll never be the thrill ride my '72 911S was, but at least it'll also not put the albatross of being a "collector car" around my neck.
The more sought after the 911S became, the less I enjoyed it. Got sick of all the approaches from flippers...

These days I'm quite content to be driving an old Ford to my favorite pool hall. One finds better morals in a pool hall than in the collector car world.

Sorry to go OT a bit. I've read this same thing from you many times. You do realize that when you had a "collector car" you didn't have to hang out with collector car people. You still could have hung out with the pool hall crowd. And you didn't have to be chatty with flippers and people wanting to buy the car. Maybe you're just too friendly and approachable. I can ignore folks with the best of them when I'm not interested in being friendly.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by speeder

There is no such thing as a "mint condition 1998 911 turbo." Other than that, a good article.

What is interesting to me, as a Porsche aficionado from way back, is that 911s have always been considered slightly overweight by the motoring press. In the late '60s, when an Alfa or other 2-seat sports car weighed under 2k lbs., the "2+2" 911 weighed in at a bloated 2500 lbs. or more, depending on configuration and equipment.

My 1982 911SC coupe weighed nearly 3k stock, a new 991 is so much lighter when considering power output. I will say that it was relatively easy to shed pounds on that car, not as easy on a new one. There are plenty of reasons to like old air-cooled 911s but the lightweight argument always makes me laugh a little.

I didn't think the 911 hit 2500# until the bellows bumper cars hit the road. I thought the 911s in the 60s were still around 2100-2300#.

I'm not too worried about it. My Boxster S is fairly lightweight these days. Supposedly just under 3000#, but I suspect my options have it a bit heavier. It's got about 50% more power than my old 911, but not 50% more weight, so yes, it's faster. It still doesn't feel like my old 911 when driving it, but it feels closer than any of the other more modern Porsches that I checked out when I bought it.

[intakexhaust]

Without going way back or the longnose, I think a good comparison would be when the DOT was ruffled about 5 mph parking / impact bumpers.

Try the later nerf era, say 80's 911 vs. Porsche's 'svelte' 2016 GT3.

The GT3 could be wider much as 5 inches and plus 11 inches. With stock setting in total height both near the same.

Consider as well the bulginess, more pronounced rear-ends.

Twiggy's butt vs. todays Kim Kardashian.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by masraum

Sorry to go OT a bit. I've read this same thing from you many times. You do realize that when you had a "collector car" you didn't have to hang out with collector car people. You still could have hung out with the pool hall crowd. And you didn't have to be chatty with flippers and people wanting to buy the car. Maybe you're just too friendly and approachable. I can ignore folks with the best of them when I'm not interested in being friendly.

Touche'...I shoulda been more rude. The final straw was a phone call from somebody I never knew...said his name was Sam, and then said "We've decided we're going to buy your car"...After hanging up on the guy, I contacted Evren...he was the perfect solution.

Actually, it wasn't all about a-holes like that who thought their money could buy anything...it was also my own paranoia of worrying about getting hit by one of today's crazy drivers. Well, a combination of things....I also got bored with the car.

To get back on track, my '09 Bullitt Mustang weighs in at 3600 pounds. I can easily think of things I'd have deleted if I could. Power windows, power driver's seat, power mirrors...all those electric motors add weight.

Can't really get all that mad at the car makers...people seem to love the doo-dads. If they actually build a light weight and simple car that many here say they want, would it really sell?

[masraum]

Originally Posted by intakexhaust

Without going way back or the longnose, I think a good comparison would be when the DOT was ruffled about 5 mph parking / impact bumpers.

Try the later nerf era, say 80's 911 vs. Porsche's 'svelte' 2016 GT3.

The GT3 could be wider much as 5 inches and plus 11 inches. With stock setting in total height both near the same.

Consider as well the bulginess, more pronounced rear-ends.

Twiggy's butt vs. todays Kim Kardashian.

A 2016 GT3 RS is a widebody car the same as the 2016 911 R, so the same width as a 911 Turbo, so if you're going to compare, then it should be with an 80s turbo. If you're going to compare the 80s SC or 3.2L Carrera, then you'd need to compare that to a standard 911.

2016 GT3 RS
wheelbase 96.7"
Length 178.9"
width 74.0"
height 50.8"

2016 Carrera
wheelbase 96.5"
Length 177.1"
Width 71.2"
height 50.9"

1982 911 Turbo
wheelbase 89.45" (same as standard 911)
Length 168.9" (same as standard 911)
width 69.9" (5" wider than a standard 911)
height 51.6" (within 1/2" of standard 911)

The wheelbase has gone up 7"
The length has gone up 10"
the width has gone up 4"
The height is basically the same.

Granted, the shape of the new 911 makes the car look much bigger than even the dimensions suggest because the old fenders were flared out from the width of the body while the new cars just extend the entire fender out to where the flares would end.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

To get back on track, my '09 Bullitt Mustang weighs in at 3600 pounds. I can easily think of things I'd have deleted if I could. Power windows, power driver's seat, power mirrors...all those electric motors add weight.

Can't really get all that mad at the car makers...people seem to love the doo-dads. If they actually build a light weight and simple car that many here say they want, would it really sell?

Yeah, but for a daily driver, many of those things are great. Power mirrors are nice, but hopefully, you rarely need to adjust them, unless you have multiple folks driving the car. Power windows are fantastic, especially the one touch up/down feature. Power seats are nice, but not really that necessary in my book. My car has sport seats. They are fairly basic. The up/down adjustment is a ratcheting lever. The seatback recline adjustment is electric. I think the seat for/aft adjustment is electric. I'm sure that adaptive sport seats are great in that you can get them to fit you including, I think an adjustment to how they cup your nuts, but sheesh, 18-way adjustment? If I was ordering, I'd stick with what I've got.

Would people buy a lightweight if it was built, yeah, but only in very limited numbers, which would drive the price up, and then you'd have everyone including all of the auto journalists complaining because you had a pay a premium to have stuff left out of the vehicle. Just see Lotus to understand that a lightweight car that targets a very tiny niche market.

[rusnak]

I should have used more accuracy.

Ah well, here. Better late than never.

Cayman
Track length: 2475mm = 97.44"
Track width: ?
Length: 4380mm = 172.44"
Width: 1801mm = 70.90"
Height: 1295mm - 50.98"

911 (G series)
Track length: 89.41"
Track width: 54.06"
Length: 168.94"
Width: 63.39"
Height: 51.97" +/-

[sugarwood]

[Starless]

Originally Posted by kach22i

To be fair, a narrow body mid-year looks smaller than the wider body 993.

I took these photos myself a while ago.


Not as dramatic from the front

HEY, COMMON! Don't we already have a thread about taking up two parking places? Geez!

[R K T]

914.....917!

[exc911ence]

Originally Posted by sugarwood

Yikes, is that a scale model of a 911?

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by exc911ence

Yikes, is that a scale model of a 911?

Yes, 1/1

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by R K T

914.....917!

I remember the first time I saw the 906 in person. Thinking about driving such a tiny, fragile machine down the Mulsanne gives me the willies...The 917 ain't much bigger, and for sure it's just as delicate, but at least it's got a ton more horsepower!

Cajones!

[PcarPhil]

Originally Posted by rusnak

^ Try a 3.4 liter Cayman. I agree that it is not a replacement for an air cooled 3.2 or 3.0 911. Nothing is.

But the 987.2 Porsche is the closest thing you'll get to that in a modern car. It feels like my 914-6 on initial turn in, and frankly, will outrun my 3.2. It will do things that I just won't write here.

I agree!



https://www.excellence-mag.com/resources/specs

1987 911 Turbo
Curb Weight 2,976 lbs.
Height 51.57 in/1,310 mm
Ground Clearance 4.72 in/120 mm
Length 168.94 in/4,291 mm
Wheelbase 89.45 in/2,272 mm
Width 69.88 in/1,775 mm
Track Front 56.38 in/1,432 mm
Track Rear 59.09 in/1,501 mm


2010 Cayman S
Curb Weight 2,976 lbs. manual, 3,031 lbs. PDK
Height 51.38 in/1,305 mm
Ground Clearance 4.41 in/112 mm, 4.09 in/104 mm w/PASM
Length 171.14 in/4,347 mm
Wheelbase 95.08 in/2,415 mm
Width 70.91 in/1,801 mm
Track Front 58.50 in/1,486 mm
Track Rear 60.16 in/1528 mm

[onewhippedpuppy]

My next Porsche will very likely be a Cayman, unless a nice 40th Anniversary 911 falls into my lap. I had a 986S with full exhaust, tune, and 9SS9s set to Cayman R specs, it was damn near perfect. Considering that you can get a really nice one for $25k is just the icing on the cake.