• We would like welcome Enzo Custom as an official Affiliate Vendor. Specializing in custom tailored clothing, and with seven showrooms throughout the country, they are dedicated to guiding you in person through their many options to produce your perfect fitting suit. Please visit their new thread and give them a warm welcome.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Dino944

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
4,847
Reaction score
3,357
Every terrible argument starts with "Everyone knows . . ."

Did you even read what I wrote? Yes, the cars have undoubtedly gotten more comfortable and usable. However, they have also improved in performance, dynamics, precision, etc. Hence, to say that the 911 has become a grand touring car (which trade-off the latter virtues to benefit the former) is not really accurate. It's just become more capable all around--which is not surprising since they've been evolving the same basic formula for 50+ years. Everybody knows everybody has been complaining about the 911 becoming soft since the 911 ever was.

Not sure what being safer has to do with being less sporty. All cars, sports cars or not, are safer than prior generations. Moreover, all contemporary sports cars have silly options like matching seat belts and powered seats. Is the Ferrari 488 Pista less of a sports car because you can match your seat belts to your brake calipers and pick from nine different Alcantara seat insert colors? Come on.

I raised the matter of weight because it is an objective way of examining the issue:
  • 964 Carrera: 3,030 lbs.
  • 993 Carrera: 3,020 lbs.
  • 996 Carrera: 2,910 lbs.
  • 997 Carrera: 3,120 lbs.
  • 991 Carrera: 3,040 lbs.
Even as power has significantly increased from generation to generation, weight has actually stayed relatively flat over the last 30 years. This is despite the fact that "everyone knows" the 911 keeps getting heavier. I prefer facts over consensus.

What is certainly true is that the 911 is a less visceral and tactile experience than before. But, again, you could say the same thing of any other sports car out there versus prior generations.
Yes, I read what you wrote. Did you read what I wrote? My post didn't start with "Everyone knows." So try read reading the beginning of the post. You are the person who said "People have been complaining about the 911 becoming more grand tourer-like for years." Yet you say that is not so. Again, just like when you said silver is the worst color because of how it looks when it gets dirty...even when others who have owned silver cars and professional detailers websites disagree with your opinion.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with making cars safer. Simply pointing out they weren't cars everyone could jump in and drive, and that today everyone's grandmother could drive a new 911. In becoming more usable day to day, the cars have become more grand tourers. When 996s were new, one of the reasons cited for the increase in size was to create a bit more room for the back seat. Hardly, adding to its sportiness.

As for the weight differences you cited, they are great on paper, and I'm sure someone like Walter Rohrl could tell the difference 200 lbs or less. He could probably even tell the difference of 100 lbs or less. But I'd guess an average buyer couldn't, and I highly doubt you could. Not to mention, people might then be adding 18 way power seats, nav systems, burmeister sound systems, ventilated seats, etc to add weight to modern cars, ...when options like that didn't exist for vintage cars. Also, the driving experience of those cars are vastly different in ways that go beyond weight, 0-60, or Ring times. Taking GT3s and GT2s out of the equation as those were not in production for the first 3 decades or so of 911 production...a basic 911 vs a 964 vs a 993 etc will all feel less plush and less grand touring-like than a 991. Sure you've driven current 991s, but how many vintage ones have you driven? Two, one, none? I've driven several vintage ones and I've several current 911s.

Nothing wrong with current 911s being more usable, and they are great cars...but to say that they haven't moved closer to being GT cars is nonsense.
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
22,404
Reaction score
3,391
Yes, I read what you wrote. Did you read what I wrote? My post didn't start with "Everyone knows." So try read reading the beginning of the post. You are the person who said "People have been complaining about the 911 becoming more grand tourer-like for years." Yet you say that is not so. Again, just like when you said silver is the worst color because of how it looks when it gets dirty...even when others who have owned silver cars and professional detailers websites disagree with your opinion.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with making cars safer. Simply pointing out they weren't cars everyone could jump in and drive, and that today everyone's grandmother could drive a new 911. In becoming more usable day to day, the cars have become more grand tourers. When 996s were new, one of the reasons cited for the increase in size was to create a bit more room for the back seat. Hardly, adding to its sportiness.

As for the weight differences you cited, they are great on paper, and I'm sure someone like Walter Rohrl could tell the difference 200 lbs or less. He could probably even tell the difference of 100 lbs or less. But I'd guess an average buyer couldn't, and I highly doubt you could. Not to mention, people might then be adding 18 way power seats, nav systems, burmeister sound systems, ventilated seats, etc to add weight to modern cars, ...when options like that didn't exist for vintage cars. Also, the driving experience of those cars are vastly different in ways that go beyond weight, 0-60, or Ring times. Taking GT3s and GT2s out of the equation as those were not in production for the first 3 decades or so of 911 production...a basic 911 vs a 964 vs a 993 etc will all feel less plush and less grand touring-like than a 991. Sure you've driven current 991s, but how many vintage ones have you driven? Two, one, none? I've driven several vintage ones and I've several current 911s.

Nothing wrong with current 911s being more usable, and they are great cars...but to say that they haven't moved closer to being GT cars is nonsense.
Is there a book in Car Guy Heaven with separate columns for "Sports Cars" and "GT Cars"?

You want to say the 911 is becoming more this or that, but miss the point that it has gradually become more capable along every vector relevant to both sort of car. With every new generation, people complain about the 911 becoming softer and worry that it is becoming less of a "sports car." By your reasoning, that means the 911 became "more of a GT car" back in 1969 when they first increased the wheelbase. What is the materiality of that distinction?

I do not dispute the car has become better and better at "grand touring." But you make it sound like it has done so at the expense of being a sports car. Yes, some of the rawness and tactility are gone--but the same is true of every other modern performance car. Are you saying there are no sports cars left at all? How do you weigh the loss in tactility against superior dynamics, precision, and control? Are those latter virtues any less relevant to what makes a good sports car? Everything you've said about the 911 becoming a GT car is equally true of Ferraris, Corvettes, Lamborghinis, etc.
 
Last edited:

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
22,404
Reaction score
3,391
By the way, adding 200 lbs. (the equivalent of a large male passenger) to a 3,000 lbs. car is certainly something you can feel.
 

HRoi

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
19,366
Reaction score
7,782
Lol, you guys carry on, but i hope you realize that you’re arguing over the two most misused and misdefined terms in auto enthusiast history - “sports” and “GT” cars. Kinda makes any argument the equivalent of swordfighting on quicksand
 

Dino944

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
4,847
Reaction score
3,357
By your reasoning, that means the 911 became "more of a GT car" back in 1969 when they first increased the wheelbase. What is the materiality of that distinction?

I do not dispute the car has become better and better at "grand touring." But you make it sound like it has done so at the expense of being a sports car. Yes, some of the rawness and tactility are gone--but the same is true of every other modern performance car. Are you saying there are no sports cars left at all? How do you weigh the loss in tactility against superior dynamics, precision, and control? Are those latter virtues any less relevant to what makes a good sports car? Everything you've said about the 911 becoming a GT car is equally true of Ferraris, Corvettes, Lamborghinis, etc.
The reason they extended the wheel base in 1969, was to try to tame the strong oversteer in early 911s. They didn't have the engineering, computers, and knowledge of elaborate suspension systems back then that they have today to deal with the issue. It wasn't to create a bigger back seat area (like on the 996).

Yes, most sports cars have become more GT car like over the years. Car companies have made improvements to cars, but many have become softer in an effort to make them appeal to a broader audience. That's why hardcore enthusiasts flock to cars like Stradales, Scuds, Pistas, and GT3s.
 

UnFacconable

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
1,957
Reaction score
1,761
I agree the sports car distinction is mythical, but the fact that the 911 has been modernizing in favor of GTness isn’t really in dispute.

It seems like Foo defines what he likes based on what his car is. Perhaps it’s the other way around but it sure is a curious combination. He says he craves tactility and raw feel but compared to the 997 his car has EPS, rear-wheel steering, PASM, a significantly longer wheel base, more forward engine position, more electronic nannies etc. Is the GT3 more raw than a standard 991, sure. Is the GT3 raw compared to a 997 or prior generation? Hardly.

I do appreciate that Foo acknowledged there are other reasons he chose his car (availability, ability to customize to his heart’s content, potential collectibility etc) but it’s the exultation of the select subset of qualities above all other considerations anyone might have that seems unnecessary and oddly motivated.
 

HRoi

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
19,366
Reaction score
7,782
“Grand Touring” is also a massively romanticized yet ultimately very narrow usage of an automobile. Yes, i love watching Top Gear/Grand Tour specials, and the Cannonball Run movie, and going on car club rallies (although i only did this once). Yes, the truly wealthy can buy a super expensive car for that narrow purpose, but most people mean ‘daily driving’ when they say ‘grand touring’.

I realize this isn’t the point of the argument, btw. I’m just focusing on an adjacent thing
 

OtterMeanGreen

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2017
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
1,333
Lol, you guys carry on, but i hope you realize that you’re arguing over the two most misused and misdefined terms in auto enthusiast history - “sports” and “GT” cars. Kinda makes any argument the equivalent of swordfighting on quicksand
Kinda like the misused (and misdefined) terms like "Supercar" and "Hypercar"? I remember when an Enzo, F40 & F50 were once called Supercars and a Zonda, Veyron or Koenigsegg CCX were called Hypercars. Cars like the ZR1, 430, Gallardo, GT3RS were in a different classification called exotic sports cars. Yet today that classification seems to be forgotten and everything is either a supercar or hypercar. How is a LaFerrari or 918 classified in the same group as a Chiron or a huayra? They aren't, that's why. Jeez!!
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
22,404
Reaction score
3,391
I agree the sports car distinction is mythical, but the fact that the 911 has been modernizing in favor of GTness isn’t really in dispute.

It seems like Foo defines what he likes based on what his car is. Perhaps it’s the other way around but it sure is a curious combination. He says he craves tactility and raw feel but compared to the 997 his car has EPS, rear-wheel steering, PASM, a significantly longer wheel base, more forward engine position, more electronic nannies etc. Is the GT3 more raw than a standard 991, sure. Is the GT3 raw compared to a 997 or prior generation? Hardly.

I do appreciate that Foo acknowledged there are other reasons he chose his car (availability, ability to customize to his heart’s content, potential collectibility etc) but it’s the exultation of the select subset of qualities above all other considerations anyone might have that seems unnecessary and oddly motivated.
Again, you read me how you choose to, reaching the conclusions you want to reach.

Another sad reminder of why participating here is a waste of time.

“Grand Touring” is also a massively romanticized yet ultimately very narrow usage of an automobile. Yes, i love watching Top Gear/Grand Tour specials, and the Cannonball Run movie, and going on car club rallies (although i only did this once). Yes, the truly wealthy can buy a super expensive car for that narrow purpose, but most people mean ‘daily driving’ when they say ‘grand touring’.

I realize this isn’t the point of the argument, btw. I’m just focusing on an adjacent thing
I know the term has become confused, but I mean "grand tourer" in this context to loosely equate with a comfortable, fast cruiser meant for covering long, winding distances in the quickest, most composed manner possible. Most modern Aston Martins and larger, front-engined Ferraris fall under this camp. They are extremely high-performing cars that can handle very well, but are not designed with any degree of racing or track competence in mind. Given what they are for, weight is not an issue so long as you can add more power. They are more suited to big, sweeping curves than sudden changes in direction.

Then there is "GT" as used in racing terminology and what car manufacturers often use to denote high-performance, competition-related models (AMG GT, GT3, GT350, etc.). Funny that, from a racing perspective, "GT" cars are the lowest tier, but from a road car perspective, they are the raciest--unless of course you spell-out "grand touring," which implies the classic interpretation above.

These days, as far as road cars go, I take "grand touring" versus "sports car" to be a fluid distinction. In the purest sense of the latter term, only pure open-top two-seaters qualify--so, what, Miatas? Every sports car today is better at grand touring than they used to be, but they are usually better sports cars as well.
 
Last edited:

patrickBOOTH

Stylish Dinosaur
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
35,186
Reaction score
10,307
My parents used to have this neighbor named "Tal". His wifi network was called "Talhasaporsche". Tal, did in fact, have a Porsche. Whenever I would see Tal I would ask him, Tal do you have a Porsche? I can't remember. Tal eventually sold his Porsche to afford himself a bigger house on a lake. I wonder if his new wifi network is now "Talusedtohaveaporsche"?
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
22,404
Reaction score
3,391
Kinda like the misused (and misdefined) terms like "Supercar" and "Hypercar"? I remember when an Enzo, F40 & F50 were once called Supercars and a Zonda, Veyron or Koenigsegg CCX were called Hypercars. Cars like the ZR1, 430, Gallardo, GT3RS were in a different classification called exotic sports cars. Yet today that classification seems to be forgotten and everything is either a supercar or hypercar. How is a LaFerrari or 918 classified in the same group as a Chiron or a huayra? They aren't, that's why. Jeez!!
I seem to recall that the term "hypercar" was more or less invented to describe the Veyron. Prior, every limited-production special car performing above the top level of series-production sports cars was a "supercar"--the F40, F50, Enzo, 959, Carrera GT, etc.

Now it's just a dick swinging contest. Who wants to be "king" when someone else is an "emperor"?
 

Texasmade

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
6,062
Reaction score
2,078
I always thought hypercar was supposed to be a hybrid supercar.
 

OtterMeanGreen

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2017
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
1,333
I seem to recall that the term "hypercar" was more or less invented to describe the Veyron. Prior, every limited-production special car performing above the top level of series-production sports cars was a "supercar"--the F40, F50, Enzo, 959, Carrera GT, etc.

Now it's just a dick swinging contest. Who wants to be "king" when someone else is an "emperor"?
Agree it's a total dick swinging contest. Actually I think the title goes to the Pagani Zonda in 1999 that coined the term "Hypercar". With it's bold looks, high price tag, ridiculous top speed, the auto industry needed a new term...that or Journalists were just being cheeky.
 

Featured Sponsor

What's your favorite type of loafer?

  • Tassel loafers

  • Penny loafers

  • Horsebit loafers

  • Kiltie loafers

  • I hate loafers


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
421,387
Messages
9,061,886
Members
190,745
Latest member
SoSuitMe

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Top