Audi R8 GT

*raises and waves hand*

Hello? Yes! Excuse me. One question! Why is it uncompromising? Are we excluding putting the engine in the wrong place or is that the uncompromising part? Because I'm pretty sure the handling is very compromised by the rear engine.

^this

why you think they don't want to put the 911 turbo engine into the cayman? it would trash the 911...
 
That's like saying why have an M5 when you can put the same engine in the 3-series coup? which is smaller.
 
That's like saying why have an M5 when you can put the same engine in the 3-series coup? which is smaller.

if they were allowed to in any racing series, pretty sure they would've done it...

...and i bet my head that it would've been faster than the M5...
 
That's like saying why have an M5 when you can put the same engine in the 3-series coup? which is smaller.

M5 motor in a 3 series could have actual technical drawback like putting more weight on the front. Cayman w/ a 911 motor on the other hand would make for a car with better weight distribution than the 911 and similar power level...
 
The next M5 will be TT V8 so probably not much heavier than the M3 engine. There is too much of a traction advantage the 911 has these days for Porsche to think about changing it.


0-60mph in 3.6 and 0-100mph in 7.9 IN THE RAIN.
 
0-60mph in 3.6 and 0-100mph in 7.9 IN THE RAIN.

Try trail braking into a corner. IN THE RAIN. You will die. Yes, it has fabulous traction coming off the corners, but the rear engine basically destroys entry speed. The thing with a rear engine, or rear weight biased car, is that you get minimal weight transfer onto the front tires and extreme weight transfer in the rear. What this means is trail braking does nearly nothing (actually it should control understeer rather than oversteer in a properly setup racing car with rear weight), but coming off the throttle is catastrophic. Rather than coming off the throttle and having the front gain grip, the rear end simply loses grip. If you're anywhere near the tractive limit, this is going to cause a large moment and a huge reduction in cornering force (rear tires are big, remember).

In a RWD Porsche, you brake in a straight line, carry no real brake into the corner, let the thing rotate off the throttle and hang on, then feed in the power so that you might not run off the road. It's a controlled spin, for the entire corner. It's very ballsy, but you'll be easy to pass by a front engine car that can really dive into the corner, especially in sweepers with light braking zones just before them.

It's so twisted, in fact, that a spool differential would actually be a lot faster in a RWD Porsche (like a kart's fused axle). It would just eat tires though.
 
Last edited:
So how come 911's still are as fast as their mid-engined friends?
 
Last edited:
So how come 911's still are as fast as their mid-engined friends?

Because total lap time is a function of grip and horsepower, not how well you get into corners versus how well you get out of them. That's for the driver to sort out. If the driver is good, it doesn't matter where the weight is - it'll still set the same lap time. This is a wheel-to-wheel and driveability issue.

If you want to compare race results in a balanced field, you might look at Grand Am competition. Historically, the Porsches have been beaten quite handily by various cars in both classes that they run. Currently, less and less teams are running them, especially in the Continental Sportscar series. They tend to set good qualifying runs, but in the races they are easy to pass and chew tires. Not good in an endurance touring car/street stock class. Ze other Germans, ze BMWs, are currently leading the manufacturer's chase in the CTSCC. Last year the Mustangs won.
 
Dear Mr. Porsche

Your 911's should be mid engined, not rear engined.

Signed,
MadCat360
Tell me, why are these the winners of the last 4 years of Nurburgring 24h?

https://pic.armedcats.net/a/ah/ahpadt/2010/05/06/porsche_ring24.jpg

Enough OT anyway. I'm out.
 
Last edited:
I can explain why.


First of all Manthey Racing have the most experience in endurance racing, they have the best technology and engineers. In essance they're Ferrari with Michael Schumacher.
Secondly, nearly everty Team in this class uses Porsche's, only a little amount of teams are using different vehicles. I'm sure if Manthey where using Aston Martins, they could manage to win with them as well.

It doesnt really matter where the engine is placed, if you have a team who knows to handle it and has the right people and machines, then any kind of car could win this competition.

BUT, I have to agree, the N24 got a bit more boring over the years, you only see Porsches, BMW E36/E46 and Sciroccos. In the olden day's, you even where able to see some backyards boyracers in some Daihatsu Charade TS or Opel Corsas racing on it.
 
If you want to compare race results in a balanced field, you might look at Grand Am competition. Historically, the Porsches have been beaten quite handily by various cars in both classes that they run. Currently, less and less teams are running them, especially in the Continental Sportscar series. They tend to set good qualifying runs, but in the races they are easy to pass and chew tires. Not good in an endurance touring car/street stock class. Ze other Germans, ze BMWs, are currently leading the manufacturer's chase in the CTSCC. Last year the Mustangs won.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. They don't do well in CTSCC because the rules deliberately screw them over... (ie minimum weight and gearing)
 
Tell me, why are these the winners of the last 4 years of Nurburgring 24h?

https://pic.armedcats.net/a/ah/ahpadt/2010/05/06/porsche_ring24.jpg

Enough OT anyway. I'm out.

Then tell me, if rear engines are so great, why is Porsche the only sportscar manufacturer to use them? Why aren't Formula 1 cars rear engined, rather than middle? Why are ALL purpose built cars mid engined?


I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. They don't do well in CTSCC because the rules deliberately screw them over... (ie minimum weight and gearing)

If you want to believe that there is a conspiracy to delegitimize Porsche then there is nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise. Grand Am has tried to make the 911s competitive (despite race wins, qualifying results and up-front running that prove they do have the speed), but they won't be able to do it without completely pandering to them.

I was just watching the VIR race. Did you see Leh Keen battling the 911 in his Cayman? The 911 was totally capable of setting faster lap times and was faster on the straights, but despite getting many, many chances, the 911 was never able to make it happen in the braking zone, which is exactly the failing I was talking about.
 
Last edited:
If you want to believe that there is a conspiracy to delegitimize Porsche then there is nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise. Grand Am has tried to make the 911s competitive (despite race wins, qualifying results and up-front running that prove they do have the speed), but they won't be able to do it without completely pandering to them.

They're one of the heaviest cars on the grid. Or at least they were the last time I checked. They also make less hp and are forced to use taller gears. It's just not a good situation for them. There's a reason why other race series are dominated by them.
 
There's a reason why other race series are dominated by them.

Hardly dominated. There are many of them, mostly because Porsche has an unrivaled customer team program and the fact that the cars can be configured for a biblical number of championships. They are also cheap and reliable. But now you're getting into utterly race designed cars that have little to do with the road car. Naturally the discrepancy between disadvantages lessens the more finely tuned the cars become. But again I pose, if a rear engine is what makes the car great, why aren't all serious racing machines rear engined rather than mid?
 
Hardly dominated. There are many of them, mostly because Porsche has an unrivaled customer team program and the fact that the cars can be configured for a biblical number of championships. They are also cheap and reliable. But now you're getting into utterly race designed cars that have little to do with the road car. Naturally the discrepancy between disadvantages lessens the more finely tuned the cars become. But again I pose, if a rear engine is what makes the car great, why aren't all serious racing machines rear engined rather than mid?

Why is it a hinderance though? IIRC the 997 has the same weight distribution as an Exige...

Also purpose-built race cars are mid-engined for aerodynamic reasons.
 
Also purpose-built race cars are mid-engined for aerodynamic reasons.

Which is usually one of the reasons given for the 911's rear engine, too.

As I explained, it's a hindrance at corner entry. The Lotus is a slightly different case. It has a shorter wheelbase which negates some of the weight transfer problem, among other factors (it's light and stiff, etc). Formula cars have a rearward weight bias too, similar to the Exige and Porsche and will also spin if you get off the gas in the middle of a turn. But remember, these are both mid-engined examples. Taken to the same weight extremes, the Porsche will have an even more rearward bias. The RSR is still 600 pounds heavier than the heaviest Exige. The Cayman is only 53% rear weighted.

I like Porsches. I like 911s. I just think they'd do themselves a favor by at least trying a mid-engined "911" and see what happens. Look what they've been able to do with the rear engine. Imagine what they could do with a really proper setup. We get a glimpse with the Cayman and the Boxster, but those are only suggestions.
 
Which is usually one of the reasons given for the 911's rear engine, too.

For road cars, it's better. For race cars it's a hindrance because of venturi tunnels and diffusers.

As I explained, it's a hindrance at corner entry. The Lotus is a slightly different case. It has a shorter wheelbase which negates some of the weight transfer problem, among other factors (it's light and stiff, etc). Formula cars have a rearward weight bias too, similar to the Exige and Porsche and will also spin if you get off the gas in the middle of a turn. But remember, these are both mid-engined examples. Taken to the same weight extremes, the Porsche will have an even more rearward bias. The RSR is still 600 pounds heavier than the heaviest Exige. The Cayman is only 53% rear weighted.

911s require a specific driving style, but they are just as fast or faster than equivalent mid-engined cars. The longer wheelbase of the current 911s minimizes the severe lift-off oversteer condition with properly set up suspension. I've driven quite a few on track and I can assure you that as long as you are smooth you don't have to worry.

I'm assuming though you haven't driven a 911 on track, because you are missing some key characteristics of how they drive. On corner entry the front bobs a little bit but when it digs, you get a very sharp turn around the apex, which causes a lot of the lift-off problems (people get scared and lift off thinking it's going to rotate around, even though the rear is gripping). You ride through it and you have a higher exit speed than you might in a lot of other cars, which is typically how the 911 operates.

I like Porsches. I like 911s. I just think they'd do themselves a favor by at least trying a mid-engined "911" and see what happens. Look what they've been able to do with the rear engine. Imagine what they could do with a really proper setup. We get a glimpse with the Cayman and the Boxster, but those are only suggestions.

You can't make a 911 mid-engined. It would no longer be the same car. I've put a lot of miles in behind the wheels of various 911s and I can assure you that being rear engined is far from a liability and falls just in line with a lot of mid-engined cars. Just like any engine setup it does have some drawbacks but most of those have been mitigated over time with advancements in engineering.

Could the Cayman be better than the 911 on track? Sure. It's a 2 seater car that's lighter and smaller. People wouldn't go after it though, as Porsche is the 911.
 
For road cars, it's better.

I ask again, then. Why isn't every car rear engined if it's soooo much better?


I'm assuming though you haven't driven a 911 on track, because you are missing some key characteristics of how they drive. On corner entry the front bobs a little bit but when it digs, you get a very sharp turn around the apex, which causes a lot of the lift-off problems (people get scared and lift off thinking it's going to rotate around, even though the rear is gripping). You ride through it and you have a higher exit speed than you might in a lot of other cars, which is typically how the 911 operates.

I don't care about the exits. Every idiot and his mother knows 911s get better rear traction on the exit. You will get passed into every heavy trail braking corner by every car within a length and there is nothing you can do to stop it save for a defensive line.

"Bobs" and "digs"... you sound like a dirt biker. Use English, please. I honestly don't know what you mean by using those words.
 
Last edited:
Wait but I thought the R8 was rear-engined too...

We are talking the same R8 right: ???
renault8-1962-1-zoom.jpg
 
I ask again, then. Why isn't every car rear engined if it's soooo much better?
I dislike RR layout but I'll play the devil's advocate here.
What if RR is about equal to MR but is more difficult to get right? I mean with an RR design the rear suspension and track will be fairly complicated, simply because you need to make sure that you can transfer enough weight to the front for cornering, so front will be softer and more prone to understeer while the back has to be harder and more prone to oversteer (at least that makes logical sense to me). MR would require basically the same exact suspension on all corners since all of the weight is in the middle of the car, also there would be less packaging constraints with the motor (why you think 911's use a flat motor and not a V or an I?)

Since Porsche has been building RR cars for decades they have the experience and engineering know how to make an RR car that is good on and off the track. It also makes the 911 unique since its pretty much the only RR sports car.
 
Top