[FriskyDingo]

As someone with seat time in a fair number of 911 variants, 991's included- Without knowing how the car was optioned, it's really quite hard to say.

If the car didn't have Sport Chrono or Sport Suspension, it certainly may not have felt as sharp as it could have. The most basic 991 I've driven was a 991.1 C2 non-S Coupe w/ PDK and no Sport Options. It was solid, but not as dynamically crisp and exciting as I'd expect. I could see being a little underwhelmed.

On the opposite side, I drove a 991.2 C2S w/ PDK, Sport Chrono, Sport Susp, and Power Pack, and that car made the M4 I drove- non Comp Pkg DCT car- feel downright meek. It killed the M4 in everything- power, gearbox, braking, sharpness, steering feel, handling, even sound.

Various other 911's were all over the spectrum depending on trim and options.

I'd personally recommend trying to drive a RWD GTS model, 991.1 or 997.2. They're the best modern enthusiast 911's for regular use imo.

[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by M-Nuts

I'm with you on this one, but that front end is a hard pill to swallow though

I had one for 3 years, I couldn't get past the front lights.....finally got the 993

[Digital.James]

Ive driven a C4S and a M4... not sure what you're getting at. The steering on the 991.2s are some of the best electric assisted racks feeling wise. Engine wise, as previously stated, the 3.0l needs to be revved out. 991.2's even with the turbochargers feel glorious at red line.

[beats]

Definitely try a 991 GTS RWD if you can find one. I have spent time in both, but prefer the 991.1 (even though it has less power). Both cars are a big step from the E92 IMO.

[M-Nuts]

Originally Posted by skru_fase

Definitely try a 991 GTS RWD if you can find one. I have spent time in both, but prefer the 991.1 (even though it has less power). Both cars are a big step from the E92 IMO.

How's the throttle response on the 991.1? I have the F82 which has a powerhouse of an engine compared to the E92.

[///M Ryder]

I would say you kinda of cheated yourself......you drove a 4S (extra weight....check), not sure what options it had but that would also be a factor. Next, you jumped in a rear engine car with high expectations. One thing I learned very quickly.....When the engine is behind you things seem really weird up front until you've gotten lots of seat time and made the adjustment. And trust me, there are adjustments to be made to your driving style. I know you mentioned that availability of cars to drive may be a issue in your area but try to attend some local car meets and chat with some folks. You'd be surprised at the number of Pcar drivers that have come from M cars. And of course drive as many as you can and you'll come to appreciate the reason we say "There's No Substitute".........Phil

[Lucky1]

Originally Posted by ///M Ryder

I would say you kinda of cheated yourself......you drove a 4S (extra weight....check), not sure what options it had but that would also be a factor. Next, you jumped in a rear engine car with high expectations. One thing I learned very quickly.....When the engine is behind you things seem really weird up front until you've gotten lots of seat time and made the adjustment. And trust me, there are adjustments to be made to your driving style. I know you mentioned that availability of cars to drive may be a issue in your area but try to attend some local car meets and chat with some folks. You'd be surprised at the number of Pcar drivers that have come from M cars. And of course drive as many as you can and you'll come to appreciate the reason we say "There's No Substitute".........Phil

So what's the point of the rear engine layout? I hear so many negatives but the only positive I've heard is it distributes more weight over the rear which can maximize braking over the rear due to weight location and weight transfer. I've also heard race instructors joke the engine's in the wrong place. So what's the truth? Is it stubbornness on Porsche's part to keep their legacy formula going or are they onto something the rest of the industry hasn't caught on to?

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

That's part and parcel to why Porsche has subscribed to AWD to help cure (OK, maybe not cure, but definitely mitigate) the 911 of its major handling bugaboo.

That and tires that are like 2 feet wide.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

The 911 has the fun factor but it can not overcome the physics and weight dynamics of the layout.

Well, it can, it just takes ever-increasing amounts of development and money to do so, more-so than something like the Cayman. This is why the price keeps going so stratospheric.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Lucky1

So what's the point of the rear engine layout?

Useless-for-people rear seats. That's it. I've been saying for years to just take a cayman chassis and put a 911 body over it and call it good. Porsche has even done something similar to this at times for prototype development, but the purists insist they need the seats that no one can actually ride in. It's not that you can't overcome this, it just takes more money and technology/development comparatively. Why were the cararra and 918 hypercars mid-engine? Because they knew this was the best layout. With 5 more years of development with the 911, they've finally surpassed the 918, which was not a light car, but was way faster than any 911 at the time due to the configuration and being able to capture and use braking energy. Although 911s have been raced forever, you can see that their highest level race cars are mid-engined as well. Maybe a while before they come out with a new porsche hypercar, but I doubt it would be rear-engined.

This is not to rag on porsche for making the 911 rear engined, but it is an inherent weakness that has to be overcome, just like the reverse of the 911 awd chassis, the subaru sti/wrx, where the engine is placed in front of the front axle. You are rewarded with massive understeer followed by snap-oversteer. There are some ways to help tune this out, but it's one reason why it was almost always bested by the Evo.

[eluded]

Originally Posted by M-Nuts

I currently own a Honda S2000

To the WFC (worlds fastest car).

[Digital.James]

Wow so much misinformation... AWD wasn't implemented to cure any handling bugs in the 911. It was to solve the issue of traction with ever increasing HP figures. Additionally, EU has some horrible weather and AWD might be needed by a huge population of 911 owners. The 959 was a mid engine car with AWD and the fastest Porsche's around race tracks currently are 2WD. So what does that tell you?

Separately, if the argument that read engine layout's are wrong is just plain old. If it's so wrong, why is the 911 the sports car measuring stick?

[drivetolive]

Originally Posted by RABAUKE

Thanks, I'm pretty pumped. Pfaff is the dealership, the sales guy tells me they are the biggest dealer in North America, says they sell 2000 cars a year.

Anyway, I have always loved the look of the older 911's but just can't take my eyes off the 993. Here's another.

I was eyeing the same car at Pfaff - congratulations on pulling the trigger! I don't think I would have actually pulled the trigger, but it seemed like a great deal for the car! That 993 seems almost perfect .

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Well, it can, it just takes ever-increasing amounts of development and money to do so, more-so than something like the Cayman. This is why the price keeps going so stratospheric.

Not really. They throw a ton of development and tech and money at it to overcome some inherent flaws vs the mid engine layout. Yes it?s better with all the tech and computerized intervention but you cannot change the laws of physics. Mid engine is inherently a better choice than rear. You can do all kinds of shit to mask that disadvantage but the underlying issue is still there.

[saeyedoc]

Rear engined cars are all about traction, the 911 puts power down like nothing I've ever owned, more so than my previous Cayman. Once you get into a turn, you can hammer it and it will just pull.

[hi_officer]

Wow, comparing S2000s to 911s/GT3s. People should really go out and test drive these vehicles in order to calibrate their experiences.

Engine in the wrong place? Says who and for what reason? Look at the top 10 N'ring lap times, front/mid/rear engine layouts are all there (GT2RS is #1 and it's rear engined). It matters more with what the engineers do with the layout they are working with.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

Not really. They throw a ton of development and tech and money at it to overcome some inherent flaws vs the mid engine layout. Yes it?s better with all the tech and computerized intervention but you cannot change the laws of physics. Mid engine is inherently a better choice than rear. You can do all kinds of shit to mask that disadvantage but the underlying issue is still there.

Isn't that basically what I said?

[RM7]

Originally Posted by saeyedoc

Rear engined cars are all about traction, the 911 puts power down like nothing I've ever owned, more so than my previous Cayman. Once you get into a turn, you can hammer it and it will just pull.

Doesn't the 911 have a lot more power and especially torque, than your Cayman?

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Digital.James

The 959 was a mid engine car with AWD and the fastest Porsche's around race tracks currently are 2WD. So what does that tell you?

Ummmmm...sure about that?

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

That and tires that are like 2 feet wide.

As noted toward the bottom of the post you quoted from.

[Ab28]

My suggestions (solely based on the input you've provided)

1) Cayman GT4
2) 997.1 GT3
3) Carrera GTS

In that order.

#1&2 only available with 3 pedals, but only #1 and #3 will have any warranty options depending on year.

997.1 engine is sublime and seriously robust. Not for everyone though. In my eyes, the perfect blend of power, rawness, and soul. I prefer the .1 GT3 over the Cayman GT4, but that's just me.

The GT4---a great mix of what your S2000 provides and probably what you're looking for out of a Porsche.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by Digital.James

Wow so much misinformation... AWD wasn't implemented to cure any handling bugs in the 911. It was to solve the issue of traction with ever increasing HP figures.

Which, in the case of the 911, is a handling issue because when the rear tires break loose because of too much power (also known as a lack of traction, natch), the natural oversteer of the chassis design makes things get REAL REAL quick.

No car (or motorcycle, or anything powered, really) can handle better if it can't get its power to the ground. The 911's natural tendency to oversteer for a variety of reasons (inertia chief among them) makes the effect worse compared to most other cars -- particularly, as you noted, for drivers with fair to poor driving skills.

AWD helps mitigate two major issues at once: traction (as you stated), and handling behavior once traction is lost.