Man, it´s just painful to see how full of tihs the Porsche fanboys are...
I even like Porsche cars. Some of them. That´s the sad part.
Honestly, I also like a nice clean built EG hatch, but I wouldn´t want to be associated with the civic crowd which is comprised of 99% douches.
Probably will never own a P car for the same reason...

A $6K radio? Wow.

And I though corvettes had a markup.

This is arguably the most idiotic post I have ever read.

Exactly how does "artistic license" have the ability to change the numerical readings of a stop watch. I would love to know how that occurs in the real, rational, non-denial, world.

Motor Trend tested and recorded a 0-60 time of 3.7 seconds for the C7. This is an outstanding test result and very impressive but obviously difficult for some of the import loving, Porsche worshiping posters to accept. Denial is a powerfull tool. Use it if makes these results more palatable for you. The winter months could be painfull for the C7 detractors as the top drivers will be generating better numbers under more favorable conditions. So hang on Porschephiles, the best is yet to come!

Motor Trend is the most useless and unsubstantiated mag out there. Don't believe everything you read. All you "know-it-alls" that said you read it somewhere should buy some swampland. I will believe the specs when someone here with a real car can reproduce them. I am sure that time will be coming soon enough.

http://cdn.meme.li/i/ov04h.jpg
First, I apologize, rant mode is engaged.

BlueOx hit this on the head. The stupidity I read has reached a breaking point. I understand for stuff like the "driver's car" where I can take it with a grain of salt, but this is just utter nonsense.

Why have performance cars anymore? Why make cars with more then 200hp anymore? What's the purpose of tests anymore?

First, it was this utter garbage of "drag strip results are stupid, they don't matter." Now it's "road course results are stupid, they don't matter." WHAT THE F**K IS THE POINT THEN?!?

Quarter mile and 0-60 are objective ways to measure a car. Don't think they don't matter? Last time I checked someone is far more likely to race a car side-by-side then race them around a curvy, 2 lane, magical road. And for those that say it takes no skill, odds are you've never dragged your car, or I'd love to hear an explanation as to why there are Z06's in the 10's and yet I've watched people struggle to break 12's. Don't try and discount it, just because you personally don't like it. It may not feature as many variables as a road course, but it is still an objective measure of a car.

Now it appears though, that objective handling results don't matter. Forget the fact that you've spent your money on an object, something that is capable of X or not capable of X, through serious engineering. No, that's just not important. What's important, above all else, is steering and that it makes you feel better. "Oh but you've never been on a road course before? Does it make you feel like a better driver then you are? Then drop $120k on it. It's worth it, that's the car for you." Companies pay for results, when it comes to anything. They don't pay for warm, fuzzy feelings. But apparently, all that better feel cost the Porsche engineers an extra let's say $10k over the corvette to get it right. That's some piss poor results to me.

This is driving me nuts, that time after time again, cars that are down on hp, and thus are carrying less speed, making them more controllable(er, I'm sorry, predictable is the politically correct word now right?), are voted as "better handling." That's not the real world. Want to go fast in the real world? Nut up, shut up, and practice, practice, practice with your scary fast car, until it is even faster, but no longer as scary. Otherwise, get over, and putt putt along in a different car.

I mean, I for one am glad to know that the FRS/BRZ is the chariot of Christ himself, with the cayman obviously a close second, but somehow, when I see what my $$$ could turn into, they seem to slip my mind.

It's all outrageous crap. The reality is, if the numerical test results don't matter, and how the car makes you feel is the only thing that DOES matter, why didn't they test the C7 vs a base cayman? Porsche's website says the base cayman starts at $52,600, pennies away from a C7 in the scope of things. They don't know if the base cayman might have even BETTER feedback/give you the warm fuzzies. That seems like a real world, fair comparison to me. A cap of $60k with options, to simulate a real world range of purchase. Seems to me numerical results DO matter, or else why choose the cayman S?

And before anybody brings up the "well, most don't use 75% of the power even 75% of the time," BS. Any day, in decent conditions, someone could open the throttle up until they hit 120mph, in many a car. Any day you COULD use all 400+hp, which is what counts. Because for those days I do, I can. If you don't have it, you never have that option.

Rant off.

HUH?

This is simply amazing as it is abundantly clear that you are in total denial of GMs 3.8 second stat and now write off Motor Trends recorded test result of 3.7 seconds in the 0-60 romp.

What issues do GM, Motor Trend, or any other testing body have here. Are they all unable to read the numbers on a stop watch? Do they give the C7 a push from the start? Are they all just a bunch of goons who would rather report false test results? Could it be that you are simply in denial of the C7s impressive acceleration test results?

Everybody knows MT tests their acceleration numbers down hill!!!




jk

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:troll:troll:troll:troll:troll:troll

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 :cheers::cheers:

It's not all about track times.

It's not a Beetle, it's a Cayman. And it's a Porsche not a VW.

Determining a great driver's car is not just about making objective assessments. As a matter of fact, I'd offer that the majority of what makes a great driver's car are how the subjective assessments turn out.

Yeah, like a Viper isn't a Fiat!:rofl:
So, 'I like it' is really all that matters. Well then DON'T call it a test and don't perform any tests. Just call it an editorial.

6 grand for a radio in a jacked up Beetle. Don't that beat the band!

That's complete garbage.

Everytime you take a corner, you feel the feedback and the chassis' willingness to rotate, which should bring a smile to your face.

Every time you lay into the throttle or the grip of the tires wants to rip your head off, it should bring a smile to your face.

I have no bias against wanting a car that transmits what it's doing to you, as you seemingly prefer.

I have a big problem with the idea of ranking one aspect as soooooo much more important(drag strip, then road course, now how it "feels"), especially one that, at the very core, is an opinion

It doesn't matter to the vast majority of sports car buyers because, well,.....the vast majority of them aren't going to be taking their sports cares to the drag strip.

Same answer as above.

What's the point? The point is what matters to many people is how a car delivers the driving experience when driven on public roads and when not street racing or breaking the law at go to jail speeds.


Right, lap times don't impact the vast number of owners who will never take their cars to the track, and if they take their car to the track they are very unlikely going to match the lap time some professional driver achieved. So who cares what a professional does at some track? His lap time means nothing for someone driving around Houston on what are essentially straight roads (save for the times the car is on a cloverleaf).

Fast as in top speed? Just floor it and wait for law enforcement to take you to jail.

Or do you mean low acceleration times to specific speeds? If so, then buy a 911S, or 911 GT3, or 911 Turbo (all with PDK) and you can consistently bang out great acceleration times that are better than cars with more horsepower. And if traction is not perfect, your comparable acceleration times will be even better.

That's probably reasonably accurate. Additionally, you can't drive a car with the throttle on the floor all of the time, so how a car drives for the vast amount of the time you drive it, which is way under anything close to 10/10ths acceleration or cornering performance, is important to consider.

Are you new to the game? Of course anything that's not objectively measured is subjective, and subjective is opinion.

Contests are held all of the time where the outcome is based on subjective assessments.

My suggestion to you is don't worry about what other people think if you have decided what YOU think. If you buy the best car for you, then you are the "winner".

And none of that is objective assessment.

Here is my review....Some folks will like the Porsche and some will like the Corvette. See, no testing required.

Sounds like the same excuse every time someone prefers the Porsche. Or maybe it's because the Porsche does actually drive better.....

Interesting comparison. I feel like a lot of the differences they described in the handling and need for traction control are just due to the power difference and the Cayman's greater rear weight bias. If you put a less powerful, lighter engine in the Vette, it would probably behave more like the Cayman and would have less need for a traction control. I don't think it would be as fun though.

Also, there's still a significant price difference here. A Cayman S costs roughly 20% - 25% more when optioned equivalently. And that doesn't account for the higher maintenance costs of the Porsche. It's hard to justify that for a car that's slower. Plus, where I live at 6000 feet, the Vette still has about 377 hp whereas the Cayman has about 267, which is kind of under-powered honestly.

Admittedly, I'm justifying some bias on my part here. However, I've always loved Porsches and haven't been a Corvette fan until recently. You really can't go wrong with Porsche, but they're just so expensive compared to Corvettes.

I have to say that when the test starts out with "numbers tell part of the story", you JUST know the C7 is going to lose.

What I find interesting is the tester's continual rant about "electronics", sadly, what he seems to miss is that the Cayman S does not NEED a lot of electronic intervention because of it's "relative" lack of power. I have spent a good deal of time in friend's Boxsters and Caymans....they are outstanding cars, but, IMO, underpowered. That said, save for Car and Driver, every one of these rags (print or online) give Porsche a pass for NOT making the Cayman S all it could be. No doubt, Porsche's refusal to put a more powerful engine in the Cayman/Boxster is a decision made to protect the 911, even though we all know the Boxster/Cayman is the SUPERIOR chassis. If "electronics" are the bane of great sports cars (which the author clearly thinks), then we all need to accept a LOT less horsepower. Put a 911S engine in a Cayman S, and you will definitely need to up the "nannies".

Jimmy

PS. Let's not forget that magazine writers will ALWAYS complain about something. How many words have these guys written over the years bemoaning the "sterilization" of the 911 (starting with the water cooled cars) when Porsche FINALLY exorcised the dreaded (and sometimes deadly) trailing throttle oversteer that plagued the 911 for decades. So, they bitched for decades about the handling and then when Porsche fixes it (finally), they bitch because it's less of a "driver's" car