Well hello one and all 968forums members!
I read this thread as it started, but must confess to only returning it to it now as a result of the somewhat difficult rituals involved with getting logged back onto 968forums to see things if you're not a regular. Forgetting your password doesn't help with this process, but then that would be MY fault, not the board's. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />
Many fair comments and criticisms flow above, and my thanks to Karl and another friendly 968er on the first page for coming to our defense. None of these (or any of the other kind words) were solicited, but they are appreciated!
I'll try to address most of the questions I've read through, but please forgive me if I don't get one or two of them included. This is going to be long, as I can write long fast. Writing tight takes time and I don't have a lot of it for this... my apologies for any typos in advance, too. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/biggrin.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />
THE CARS
-Of course you guys are right in terms of the apples to oranges aspect of the comparison -- to a large extent. I noted that much in the story several times and in several ways, regretting my own choice of Jarrod's car, though I was very glad to meet Jarrod and it was his enthusiasm that inspired the critical paragraph questioning whether there's any objective "truth" about any of these matters. Throw me to the dogs if you will, but for that alone I feel Jarrod made a big difference.
986/968
That said, here's a couple of things I don't see in this thread: 986 had 18-inch wheels, which were optional in 1999, but the 968 we chose DID benefit from a similar upgrade in the handling department: the optional 17-inch wheels and tires -- one of two available options to improve 968 handling/grip.
968
As stated several times in the article, the 968's lack of M030 turned out to be a disappointment in the end FOR THE KIND OF DRIVING WE WERE DOING ON THE ROADS WE TRAVELED, but I accepted full responsibility for the error and did it in text. In front of 50,000-70,000 people, that's a real mea culpa. FWIW, I have driven many cars in which extra chassis compliance ends up being a plus on our test loop -- and suspected both the 911 and 986 could suffer as a result. Didn't turn out that way, this time.
911
-The 911 we used wore dinky tires (225s in the rear) and had stock everything else other than shock valving, ride height, and alignment. What we didn't publish: the 911's tires were both old and hard. This is a big deal, but one that is going to be hard to quantify. Also, even with the engine mods, that 911 is making no more power than a 968 in stock form. Power to weight ratio is duly noted -- and an easy target. But how many were surprised to see that that 911 weighed within ONE pound of the 986...?
986
-986 was bone stock but for MO30 suspension (we're not talking PSS-9s), SSK (big deal...), and 0.5-inch wider front wheels, and 1.0-inch wider rear wheels with STOCK N-spec tires. Lowest torque and power figures by a fair margin...
ON MODIFIED CARS VS. STOCK CARS
-The idea that stock cars vs. modified cars will always go to the latter is ludicrous. Maybe in a category or specific parameter, but not every time and in every way. And certainly not in terms of "feel." In fact, I've seen several instances where modified Porsches performed LESS impressively than the stock item in the very area they were supposed to address.
ON SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL:
If you are unwilling to put your car into a test where you don't know the outcome in advance, then what's the point of the test in the first place? What ever happened to "sport" in its original and best meaning? And where's the fun in that? What are you learning?
And, in the end, who cares what someone else says about your car -- even if it's some "vaunted" authority?
Jarrod deserves big props here. He came, he listened, he offered his thoughts, he contributed to our ability to learn something about the 968 -- and the 911 3.2 and 986 2.5 in light of the 968 without being bummed about the process or our results. And he still loves his 968.
ON WHY JARROD DIDN'T HAVE/GET A SIDEBAR:
An opportunity offered, an opportunity missed. Ask Jarrod for more details, as I'll leave it to the fact it was his decision, not mine. I will simply remain thankful for his enthusiasm, generosity, and attitude.
FERRY PORSCHE'S QUOTE
-A good one, and I smiled when I got this 968er's letter to the editor. We can have great fun with Ferry's quotes looking back now. Just think of his quote from Pano in the 1970s regarding how unintelligent a rear-engined car with front-mounted radiators would be and then consider how well 986/987s drive and how all-conquering the 996 has been on track. I won't argue that the quote on "universalism" is taken out of context (because I think it is a fair point). But I would argue that No. 1 was not dreamed up as an "all-around" car -- a point that is alluded to at the end of the article, and one that brings to light the fact that Ferry's "ideal" sports/dream car WASN'T a rear-engined coupe, a platform he took out of necessity/prudence.
FERRY'S POINT, PART 2
I purposely stayed away from dedicated track cars, and that 911 was NOT a track car. It was track-prepped, but not track oriented. Had it been, it would have fallen apart on those roads. But where do you stop -- do you want trunk space comparisons? Can't anyone do that? Does a Tip add to "universalism"? 16s? 17s? Coupes over Cabs? It's all a stop on the continuum, and I believe that most (but certainly not all) of our readers are indeed interested in performance. Otherwise, we'd be driving something besides Porsches.
FLASH AND ORPHAN'S COMMENTS
-Flash and Orphan are certainly entitled to their opinions and, I'm sure, are both of them are guys I'd enjoy having a beer with (the invitation is open, I'm buying).
That said, I feel sorely misrepresented in their posts. Remembering "exactly" what I said to someone years ago is always tough, but when it's completely outside of the methodology of the brain behind the eyes I see in the mirror every morning, I'm comfortable in calling it into question.
I would never, EVER state that "my readers are tired of 944 articles." I might have, if caught at exactly the right point in 1997-99, been less inclined to take a 951 story if the car wasn't innovative in some way because I seem to remember a slew of similar stories in that period (I'd have to go back and look through back-issues to confirm this). But, that noted, front-engined Porsche stories have almost ALWAYS gotten a kind of *preference* over rear-engined ones -- because there are fewer of them, at least in my experience.
If I could press a button for every 924/944/968/928 story I could think of in the next 20-60 minutes and get a stellar story for each time the button was pressed, I would be running articles on these cars in every issue for the forseeable future. And that is my goal. But it's been tougher lately.
Unfortunately, good articles don't grow on trees -- they take a lot of work.
As for what Flash has/had to say, it's another misrepresentation -- at least from my perspective. I remember this one far more clearly, and my main point was this: any dyno testing is an imprecise science unless taken to a very high level and all chassis dyno testing is sketchy at best. My view on this is simultaneously hinted at and explained by Karl above (very clever, Karl -- how DID you do that? <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/biggrin.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ) and would be backed up, I am sure, by Bob Kovacs as a result of the discussions we had about his recent 968 chip article. At some level, we all have Flash to thank for that story, as it was probably something of an outgrowth of my discussions with him.
He is leaving out my biggest point: I had serious reservations about a) his ability to get accurate numbers on a CHASSIS dyno when the differences could/would be very small between chips and <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/cool.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> the serious issues regarding factors like heat sink and changing conditions from test to test. I won't publish something done half-way.
Now, I don't mind chassis dynos as *yardsticks*. Tell me it makes 500 hp instead of 400, and my butt dyno might give me a better idea than you'd imagine (Alois Ruf uses this method as much as the dyno, and I have been SHOCKED to see how accurate it can become with enough seat time in cars with varying levels of power, torque, weight, etc.), but I'll want to back any butt-dyno findings up with a dyno run as a yardstick. If it adds 50-300 hp, the chassis dyno will say so. Tell me it adds 12 hp, and my experience tells me it *should* show up on the dyno, but that there will be more to the story and that it probably won't show up as a 12.0 hp gain -- or even 12.xx
My view on chassis dyno testing has been formed after spending many hours at RPM Engines on our dime to confirm advertiser's claims. More often than not, I have found myself "tuning" their cars to meet the target and reporting as much. We've sent more than one tuner home with thier tail between their legs. More than one of our advertisers has mentioned real fear, because they know we'll write it as we see it. Given how often it goes bad, I know that many magazines are "creating" a world of Porsches that doesn't exist.
I'm not saying we're 100% accurate, because I'm not sure it's possible in ANY medium. But we strive for it anyway. And, when we fall short, we tell you why up front.
And yet, despite all this, the brave advertisers keep on coming, keep on submitting their cars. Maybe they know the risk is worth it for the quality of the reader they'll get to? Or maybe they're confident in their product? Or perhaps they're just brazen?
ADVERTISING
With Porsche AG (who, by the way, represents less than 1-3 percent of our advertising...) and all our advertisers, we have a simple view. We serve the READER first because, in the end, this creates a better platform through which advertisers can reach their target market. (see below)
WHY BEING HONEST (AND, YES, CRITICAL) IS A GOOD THING
If no one calls things like bad eGas or PASM out, who will? Even Porsche makes mistakes, as the late (and very much missed) Olaf Lang said in an incredible email from the factory. When we call them out on it (and it is rare, because the cars are very, very good...), we hope we're helping in the long run, not hurting.
In the end, the reader must come first. If not, then, eventually, we're nothing. It's magazines done the old-fashioned way, and it's so sad to see that few are still doing it this way.
ON $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ CARS
Ah, the age-old checkbook cars vs. real-world "everyman" cars frustration. We love both. The deck, however, is stacked against the latter if "excellence" is expected for a variety of reasons. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. And that's why I look for non-"checkbook" cars with a vengeance.
Dan Proudfoot's story might have been my favorite in the whole 20th Anniversary issue.
ON SILVER ANNVERSARY 911 (and "plain" 986) VALUES
The fact that the car we used was a Silver An. car had no bearing whatsoever on our results. If anything, it only added weight to the 911. That car, like the others, was chosen as a representative example and any 1987-89 911 with similar mods would have done the same and certainly CAN be had for $20-25K less the brakes. Maybe even with the brakes. And I can assure you I am into my 986 for less than $25K. The wheels and the suspension added $3000-3500 to what I paid for the car two years ago, and similar 986s to mine can be had all day long for $15-20K. As stated in the article "$15,000 to $25,000, with a sweet spot at $20,000."
THIS COMPARO AND WHAT WE LEARNED
In the end, this one wasn't scripted. It was an exploration, something out of the norm for us and something that tried to break the mold a bit. As a result, it was a LEARNING experience and written in a way that made clear many of the problems so many have (curiously) made it out to sound as though I did not acknowlege.
If their contentions are that I didn't note these problems ENOUGH, then I hear them.
If their contentions are that the article wasn't perfect enough, then all I can say is we are a human enterprise and as prone to errors as the next one. But if one never reaches...
Do I think the box-stock approach would be better? Yep, objectively speaking. Do I wish the cars had been more closely matched in terms of mods? Sure, but there are so many more things to my decision-making process than color or mods. Temperment of driver/trustworthiness/liability/etc. all come to mind...
Can we do it better next time? Sure, and your comments confirm our initial observations and reinforce them -- making improvement easier. So thank you. Really. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />
BUT, I hope you took the article for what it was: a collection of observations on three great Porsches that haven't been looked at in a while and certainly not from this perspective, warts and all. I hope it was a good read and that you can look past your own biases to enjoy the drive. If you can't, I can understand.
ABOVE ALL:
We try to entertain you with accurate, well thought out information from access to cars, people, and places the average person can't always access. We try to take you along for the ride with us. That was the essence of why I chose this story.
Thanks for reading (if you actually made it through all this and haven't fallen asleep) -- and for loving 968s. Know that I, too, am very much someone who loves Porsche's "underdogs." I own two of them -- a hated (but somehow becoming "cool", as if I care) 914 and a hated 986 -- and I seriously considered a 968, too. That said, I am not going to deny the 911 if it wins the day. And, this time, against the odds (in MY book) it did against the 986.
Did the 968 deserve a better shot? You betcha. Would M030 made "the" difference in this test? Always hard to say, but I seriously, seriously doubt it.
And there's always another day. So I've had Zach Mayne do a more "rounded" 968 comparo against a box stock competitor and I am planning to figure out a good reason to put a 968 MO30 coupe on the test loop again in the next 12-18 months.
Oh, and I just had a story idea for which a 968 Cab would be perfect...
A lot to do, as always. Hopefully, I can get all these and more together in the foreseeable future. And, I hope, at least some of you will be there to check it out.
In the meantime, best wishes and Happy New Year!
pete
