There is an awful lot of navel-gazing being done about the new Porsche 911.
Few sections of the car enthusiast community are more prone to such things than Porsche devotees. It’s Weissach’s punishment for making the world’s greatest sport car – on and off, but mostly on – for more than half a century now that any significant change to it will also be regarded as a contentious one.
With the 996 generation of the 911, the cue was water cooling; with the 997, direct fuel injection; with the 991, a lengthened wheelbase and electromechanical power steering. And now, â¨with the facelifted 991, it’s those contemptible, new-fangled turbos. How dare they?
The fact remains, though, that whether or not you like the idea of what Porsche has just done under the engine cover of its perennially blooming rear-engined sports car, it has just gone and done it.
The question â¨we’re left with is a pretty simple one: is this still â¨one of the world’s greatest sports cars? Enter a â¨rival that has called such a notion into question a few times on these pages since its launch in 2013 and remains as tempting an alternative to the Porsche in 2016 as you are likely to find: the Jaguar F-Type R Coupé.
Less than £2000 separates the list price of the Jaguar and the Porsche, the 911 in high-output PDK transmission-equipped Carrera S form, which allows these cars to compete fairly and squarely. But on paper, the F-Type has a conspicuously large advantage on not just outright power but also power-to-weight and torque-to-weight ratios, even after the Porsche’s forced-induction makeover. It’s 542bhp facing off against 414bhp here.
There again, 911s have become famous for overhauling such disparities. In fact, the bigger test for the Porsche’s new flat six may be provided by the effusiveness of Jaguar’s supercharged 5.0-litre V8, a telling examination of combustive character that, even the most committed moderniser would admit, has been eaten away in the Porsche’s case by the addition of turbochargers.
Join the debate
Add your comment
IMO the Audi interiors are dull and cheap looking like a 70's Cr
Yawn.
About as good as you get!!
I will take the Cat
fadyady wrote: I will take
I'm not entirely sure what a comparison with the model S show's, the article hasn't come to it's conclusion based on bare acceleration stat's alone has it? I can completely understand why people would prefer the aesthetics of one car over the other and even the soundtrack but it kinda makes it clear that on public roads one is superior to the other and it isn't the good looking shouty one.
gigglebug wrote: fadyady
You are a penis. Let the chap put up an opinion, it's what this is for. All you've done so far is ad hominem. Even your little signature is about someone else. You seem really shit thick.
Another outstanding contribution!!
I bet your not nearly as hard in real life as you are trying so very hard to prove to be on here are Churchill?? I bet your a proper little wimp of a person really aren't you Churchill who can only try and stick up to people on the internet as in real life you amount to nothing. No body finds you interesting, nobody finds you funny, nobody even gets offended by you as you are merely not important enough for it to register! As for ad hominem you are the very definition of it you hypocrite! When was the last time you posted anything that wasn't a pathetic wimpy attack on someone Churchill?? Have you ever managed to contributed anything that was relevant to the subject matter?? I've not seen it! If you had bothered to read my post and had the intelligence to understand what had been written you would have noticed the fact that I could completely understand why someone (in this case fadyady) would choose the Jag for it's looks and it's soundtrack, the question was merely asked as to why a comparison to the Tesla's acceleration figures was relevant as that single performance criteria wasn't the determining factor that won or lost the comparison. Are you keeping up Churchill?? I've used some big words which do not involve swearing so I can only imagine that you are struggling to understand!
@WC
So, you defend one contributor's right to express an opinion, but insult another contributor who expresses an equally valid counterpoint. I can see nothing in gigglebug's comment above that could possibly be construed as "ad hominem". If you're referring to his (and other) earlier comments regarding Roadster and Saucerer, they were no more than teasing. On the other hand, calling someone a "penis" and "shit thick"...