[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by dgoldenz

No, that’s not the market. They are just retarded. Here’s a manual one with 14k miles with $144k MSRP that sold for $122k plus fees and clean carfax:

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/20...a-4s-coupe-15/

And here’s a manual GTS selling for less with lower miles:

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/20...-gts-coupe-10/

This is interesting as both are considerably lower than the listed prices on cars.com or Autotrader.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

This is interesting as both are considerably lower than the listed prices on cars.com or Autotrader.

Youncam ask whatever you want for a car. Selling price on the other hand...

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

This is interesting as both are considerably lower than the listed prices on cars.com or Autotrader.

Don’t let asking prices fool you, trade in values are still quite bad. I have a friend who has a rather well optioned 2022 992 base (125/130k msrp) and 26k miles and I think his trade is like 70s. The 992 Carreras don’t offer anything that will make them a “last” of, rather they will continue to just improve on the same turbo flat 6 formula.

Personally, N.A. Porsche motors are the ones to have. I’ll be keeping my manual, paint to sample 991.1S. It’s still a special car that is an extremely enjoyable car to drive.

[Alfisti]

Agree on the NA motor angle, I cannot get my head around road going sportscar being turbo charged unless the engine is tiny.

[BroDoze]

WTF? ^

Come up here to 6,800ft with your N/A sportscar and a 30% power loss due to altitude. Forced induction rules. GT3s are surprisingly uninspiring up here, along with big American V8s. Turbos own the road.

I’ll say it again. The Porsche cars to own are the Turbo S and GT2 / GT2RS. Keep the rest. The Gayman and 718s suck ass up here.

[Alfisti]

I barely have 400hp and cannot use half of it on the road, it's just pointless, emotionless power one you drain the car of revs and noise. The fun comes from wringing the engine out and listening to the music.

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Agree on the NA motor angle, I cannot get my head around road going sportscar being turbo charged unless the engine is tiny.

I'm ok with turbos as they are fun, and some sound pretty good, but NA is still my favorita.

Originally Posted by BroDoze

WTF? ^

Come up here to 6,800ft with your N/A sportscar and a 30% power loss due to altitude. Forced induction rules. GT3s are surprisingly uninspiring up here, along with big American V8s. Turbos own the road.

I’ll say it again. The Porsche cars to own are the Turbo S and GT2 / GT2RS. Keep the rest. The Gayman and 718s suck ass up here.

Fair and valid point. One thing to point out though, is if you ever notice how GT3s are much faster than you'd expect, I recall in the past AP has said something like 'the GT3 makes a healthy 500 hp, well above sea level', noting that at normal altitudes this is why they do seem a bit faster than what the top line figure would lead you to believe. Either way, they still cant compensate like a turbo car does at those levels.

Originally Posted by Alfisti

I barely have 400hp and cannot use half of it on the road, it's just pointless, emotionless power one you drain the car of revs and noise. The fun comes from wringing the engine out and listening to the music.

This is true too, but that's where people love the shove of torque turbos.

[Alfisti]

I have 385 HP @ 3,300lbs, at the top of second gear I am illegal, mid way through 3rd I am "car gets confiscated at this speed" territory. I'd spend $25K+ on my car in upgrades and mods before even thinking about more power, it's absolutely useless to me. The car does 0-60 in under 4.5 seconds, literally no idea what I do with double the torque at 2500rpm.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

WTF? ^

Come up here to 6,800ft with your N/A sportscar and a 30% power loss due to altitude. Forced induction rules. GT3s are surprisingly uninspiring up here, along with big American V8s. Turbos own the road.

I’ll say it again. The Porsche cars to own are the Turbo S and GT2 / GT2RS. Keep the rest. The Gayman and 718s suck ass up here.

30% loss at 6800'?

Not so much.

Rule of thumb is 3% per thousand feet.

R.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

WTF? ^

Come up here to 6,800ft with your N/A sportscar and a 30% power loss due to altitude. Forced induction rules. GT3s are surprisingly uninspiring up here, along with big American V8s. Turbos own the road.

I’ll say it again. The Porsche cars to own are the Turbo S and GT2 / GT2RS. Keep the rest. The Gayman and 718s suck ass up here.

This shows a basic lack of understanding how forced induction cars work.

They start out at sea level with the turbo at full performance, and as you go up in altitude, the performance drops off, just like NA. If they didn't, such as they were tuned to maintain 300hp up to 8,000', they'd be leaving a ton of performance on the table at SL, since they could push out a lot more power with more PSI. With the vast majority of auto cars, such as not pikes peak or specific purpose stuff, the turbo is operating at peak performance at SL, it naturally loses pressure as you go up in altitude due to the ambient. The only way they'd not operate like that is if say a 3.0L 350hp turbo engine was limited to 250hp at SL and it would be able to make that 250hp up to like 10,000' since the turbo wouldn't be working at full capacity at SL and 250hp, but no auto maker in their right mind would be leaving the excess performance available at SL on the table. I've had many turbo cars with boost gauges and lived at high altitude at that time.

They do NOT work like airplane turbos. Airplane engine turbos start out with either minimal or essentially no boost at SL for a specific max rated HP...then they are able to MAINTAIN that HP as they climb to the critical altitude where the turbo is working the hardest. This is usually pretty high, like 14,000', then they start dropping off. This is the critical difference between auto turbos and airplane turbos. The former is working hardest at max HP at SL, which is essentially the "critical altitude" due for it. The latter is working the hardest at 14,000'. The airplane turbo engine is usually a similar displacement to the NA version of the same engine as well, vs. car turbos that use the turbo to basically make the power of a much bigger displacement engine. Again, that is a critical difference.

IDK why people always think this is how turbos in cars work.

You can mod a turbo to deliver more pressure relatively easily, however that is usually eroding some of the safety margins built in and usually results in an earlier higher peak, with the turbo running out of breath for the rest of the RPM range. You can put a bigger turbo on, with bigger injectors, intercooler, pump, etc., but in all of these cases you are making more HP and SL and it's falling off as you are gaining altitude...just like an NA engine. Because car engines are designed to work fundamentally differently than airplane engines.

[BroDoze]

Originally Posted by RM7

This shows a basic lack of understanding how forced induction cars work.

They start out at sea level with the turbo at full performance, and as you go up in altitude, the performance drops off, just like NA. If they didn't, such as they were tuned to maintain 300hp up to 8,000', they'd be leaving a ton of performance on the table at SL, since they could push out a lot more power with more PSI. With the vast majority of auto cars, such as not pikes peak or specific purpose stuff, the turbo is operating at peak performance at SL, it naturally loses pressure as you go up in altitude due to the ambient. The only way they'd not operate like that is if say a 3.0L 350hp turbo engine was limited to 250hp at SL and it would be able to make that 250hp up to like 10,000' since the turbo wouldn't be working at full capacity at SL and 250hp, but no auto maker in their right mind would be leaving the excess performance available at SL on the table. I've had many turbo cars with boost gauges and lived at high altitude at that time.

They do NOT work like airplane turbos. Airplane engine turbos start out with either minimal or essentially no boost at SL for a specific max rated HP...then they are able to MAINTAIN that HP as they climb to the critical altitude where the turbo is working the hardest. This is usually pretty high, like 14,000', then they start dropping off. This is the critical difference between auto turbos and airplane turbos. The former is working hardest at max HP at SL, which is essentially the "critical altitude" due for it. The latter is working the hardest at 14,000'. The airplane turbo engine is usually a similar displacement to the NA version of the same engine as well, vs. car turbos that use the turbo to basically make the power of a much bigger displacement engine. Again, that is a critical difference.

IDK why people always think this is how turbos in cars work.

You can mod a turbo to deliver more pressure relatively easily, however that is usually eroding some of the safety margins built in and usually results in an earlier higher peak, with the turbo running out of breath for the rest of the RPM range. You can put a bigger turbo on, with bigger injectors, intercooler, pump, etc., but in all of these cases you are making more HP and SL and it's falling off as you are gaining altitude...just like an NA engine. Because car engines are designed to work fundamentally differently than airplane engines.

^^ You have no idea what you’re talking about and that was a terribly formatted post. Everybody knows FI cars lose significantly less power at alititude vs NA cars. This has been proven time and time again. Dragstrip, dynos, logs. Welcome to the 20th century.

Time to go to school for you.

[Mech Spec]

RM7 dude, delete that post.

Ive never read a more fundamentally incorrect characterization of turbo engines and you are claiming you know... I'll do you the.favor of not quoting it so we can all just move on.

[ASAP]

I don't have any horse in this race at all... but I can't think of a single NA engine i'd want today outside of the 4.0 in the Gt3, and a few of the larger American V8s... and those really have to do with sound / feel more than anything... but aside those... give me FI all day.

[Mech Spec]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I don't have any horse in this race at all... but I can't think of a single NA engine i'd want today outside of the 4.0 in the Gt3, and a few of the larger American V8s... and those really have to do with sound / feel more than anything... but aside those... give me FI all day.

Na v8 in the b7 RS4 and v8 R8 is pretty damn awesome. (Not the same as the S4 4.2)

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I don't have any horse in this race at all... but I can't think of a single NA engine i'd want today outside of the 4.0 in the Gt3, and a few of the larger American V8s... and those really have to do with sound / feel more than anything... but aside those... give me FI all day.

The 4.0l in the GTS4.0/GT4 is pretty nice too and gives you close to a GT3 experience without spending GT3 money.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Mech Spec

Na v8 in the b7 RS4 and v8 R8 is pretty damn awesome. (Not the same as the S4 4.2)

those are somewhat dinosaurs as well tho that are superseded by better FI offerings... that being said, you are right... the R8 V10 / Huracan V10 is one I for sure missed... i would never own one likely since 911 TS type options exist but the motors are definitely special

[RockCrusher]

Originally Posted by BroDoze

WTF? ^

Come up here to 6,800ft with your N/A sportscar and a 30% power loss due to altitude. Forced induction rules. GT3s are surprisingly uninspiring up here, along with big American V8s. Turbos own the road.

I’ll say it again. The Porsche cars to own are the Turbo S and GT2 / GT2RS. Keep the rest. The Gayman and 718s suck ass up here.

My experience at higher elevations: 6K at Colorado Springs and Albuquerque, 7K+ at Flagstaff, 8K to 9K in Wyoming and 9K at Copper Mountain, CO and the highest elevation I've driven ~11K at Eisenhower Tunnel on I70 with N/A cars is at around 6K feet the elevation starts to have a real negative effect on N/A engines including my 1996 Mustang GT, 2001 Camaro Z28, 2002 Boxster, and my 2006 GTO

But with my turbo charged cars like my VW Golf TDi (with just 90hp!) and a few years later my 996 Turbo (420hp) elevation was not a real problem even at the highest elevations.

By using an OBD2 scan tool and monitoring intake air pressure I found this exceeded what I had observed at lower elevations. The engine controller was allowing more boost than nominal maximum to make up for the higher elevation.

After my experience with my 996 Turbo in Wyoming where I saw boost reach 0.8 bar even 0.9 bar -- and sustained boost too -- vs. 0.7 bar at near sea level with 0.7 bar being the nominal max boost pressure in talking this over with the senior Porsche techs I was told that the engine controller seeking to satisfy the torque being demanded by the driver via the accelerator pedal could and would provide higher boost provided of course various engine telemetry remained within acceptable limits.

I have owned a number of "high" performance cars with N/A engines (making 200hp+) including the aforementioned Mustang, Camaro, GTO and Boxster and a Challenger Scat Pack with 6.4l V8 making 485hp.

While N/A engines have their good points they still suffer performance loss at higher elevations. To state the obvious the higher the elevation the more these engines were affected.

Were I to end up living someplace at a higher elevation (WAG: >4K feet) at least one engine would be turbo charged and really it would not be a hardship to arrange to own two vehicles each with a turbo charged engine.

Heck even since August 2020 living at ~1300ft often both my vehicles were turbo (or with the Hellcat super) charged.

But currently while my M8 Comp Coupe is course turbo charged I own a Honda Ridgeline with a N/A V6. But the Ridgeline is of course just fine here at 1300 ft.

[XutvJet]

There is less oxygen at altitude. Turbo engines, especially late model ones with more advanced controls, definitely don't lose as much power as altitude increases. Since there is less oxygen, turbo motors will increase boost to compensate for the lack of oxygen. Advanced turbos with electronic wastegate controls, twin scroll setups, and torque-based tuning targets such as those used in most BMWs after 2014, do quite well at elevation. However, if you've ever driven a turbo at elevation, you will notice that while full power doesn't seem to slide off as much, there's no getting around the increased turbo lag as elevation increases.

The same general affect occurs in places at near sea level elevation during hot humid days where oxygen is displaced by humidity vs cold/crisp dry days where the air is oxygen dense. A turbo car is laggy in hot humid weather and in cold dry air, is very responsive. If you monitor boost, you'll see that a turbo motor will command more boost in the hot humid air vs the cold dry day.

I bought my 987.2 Cayman 6MT with the 265hp 2.9L from Porsche Colorado Springs which sits at around 6,000'. The car definitely got faster and more responsive as I drove across the plains of Kansas and back in Kansas City which sits at ~900'-1,500'. While in CO, the Cayman didn't feel ridiculously slow. However, I would agree with whoever said that once you crest about 7,000', NA engines do get real laggy.

[414bhp]

Originally Posted by NickyC

Anytime I feel bummed out about not owning a GT3 at this point in my life, I think about just how fortunate I am to own what I have in a world that is very cruel to the vast majority of its inhabitants. The older I get, the more I appreciate what I have, and I find myself not really caring about a GT3 any longer.

I can relate to this...but I still want a 997 GT3!

I've test driven and rented 997.1, 997.2, 991.2, and 992.1 911s, and I find it unpredictable how much any car will resonate with me. For example, I loved the 2020 C2S but found the 2024 Targa 4S forgettable.

I do find it really hard to see value in brand new 911s. When a new C2S is knocking on the door of 997 GT3 prices, I'm taking the GT3!

[ShocknAwe]

Originally Posted by 414bhp

I can relate to this...but I still want a 997 GT3!

I've test driven and rented 997.1, 997.2, 991.2, and 992.1 911s, and I find it unpredictable how much any car will resonate with me. For example, I loved the 2020 C2S but found the 2024 Targa 4S forgettable.

I do find it really hard to see value in brand new 911s. When a new C2S is knocking on the door of 997 GT3 prices, I'm taking the GT3!

That's because as 911s have progressed theyve become over engineered and "numb"

Look to the last for Porsches best. Sounds like you know this already if you enjoy the 997.

[freakystyly]

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

That's because as 911s have progressed theyve become over engineered and "numb"

Look to the last for Porsches best. Sounds like you know this already if you enjoy the 997.

Sounds familiar....