Originally Posted by Snorman (Post 1585122426)

A base 911 is ugly IMO.

Originally Posted by jimb100 (Post 1585119994)

If the C7 goes around Laguna Seca 2 seconds faster than 911, what does that tell me about my drive from Tampa to Miami? I'll give you the answer: Nothing!

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1585124202)

LOl, nothing indeed, because you picked the flattest, straightest road in the southeast. An 18-wheel Peterbilt would be the preferred vehicle for this trip because it can run over the alligators at least. If it is economy you like and throw safety to the winds, then I recommend a Prius.

But to answer your original question - what a Corvette does on a racetrack relative to other cars actually says a lot about the car: how balanced it is, how it makes the driver feel (confidence), how agile the vehicle is, and a ton of other things you probably don't care about but I do. That in turn will tell you how YOU will feel hustling it over an unfamilar twisty country road. If that is not your thing, then why purchase a sportscar in the first place?

Originally Posted by TTRotary (Post 1585124140)

Now that's funny, coming from a GT-R dude. :lol: Just sayin'. Gotta give them respect tho, so it's all good.

Originally Posted by 335i (Post 1585081433)

Anyone know if I'll be able to find this issue in stores yet? I normally just read their articles online, but I don't want to wait for this one :)

Originally Posted by Michael A (Post 1585081600)

"Not everyone can drive a pre-stability-control 911 to its limit, and that is the whole point. The 911 wants to teach us something about ourselves every time we drive it. That's the "why.""

I never understand statements like this. So they want a car that is hard to drive at the limits? Masochism is still alive.

Michael

Originally Posted by 450hp mike9 (Post 1585125068)

I had a Porsche 911SC back in the 80's and I loss it on a curve and went ass back into the weeds . I made the mistake of lifting off the gas. Very scary car on the curves if you come in too hot.

Originally Posted by drmustang (Post 1585122658)

True. This is going to be quite difficult for the Porsche defenders of the faith. Some of these diehards have been posting 10 or 20 times per day here for a year about the superiority of the Porsche nameplate.

This C7 is the Porsche boys worst dream come to life.

Originally Posted by 450hp mike9 (Post 1585125068)

I had a Porsche 911SC back in the 80's and I loss it on a curve and went ass back into the weeds . I made the mistake of lifting off the gas. Very scary car on the curves if you come in too hot.

Originally Posted by jimb100 (Post 1585123665)

My point is this: If you can drive a C7 at 52% of its potential on the street and a 911 at 53% it doesn't matter. If I can drive a 458 at 49% of its potential and an Aston Martin at 56% of its potential, so what?

The potential of all these cars is so great they can only come close to realizing it at the track with a very experienced driver under racing conditions.

So all the talk about the minutia of performance at racing levels doesn't do much more than provide bragging rights for those who enjoy barroom discussion about things that don't really matter.

This forum revels in it, while practical information about actual handling, ergonomics and useable acceleration on the street isn't to be found. Likewise, quality gets little consideration while the nuances of "steering feel" between 911 and C7 gets dissected to a fine point. I agree, steering feel is important but my C6 is excellent and so is the 911. And the complaint about the C6 was that it is a handful at the limit. That limit is so far from what I'll ever experience on the street as to be no negative at all.

Numbers are great but if movie reviews only reported the number of killings, explosions and words of dialogue they wouldn't be of much use. It seems thats about all track tests do.

Originally Posted by gthal (Post 1585122039)

Really? Not sure if you are serious with your comment or if you are just missing the point of a comparison test on a track.

Originally Posted by gthal (Post 1585122039)

It isn't the actual "time" they recorded that matters... it is the time relative to the other car they also tested that matters.

Originally Posted by heavychevy (Post 1585125395)

Oh, and the new GT3, as much as I can't stand it, will be pretty darn fast. 11.2 @ 126 per Car and Driver. Will set you back 150k though. But not bad for a 6 cylinder RWD car.

Originally Posted by B747VET (Post 1585123316)

There is simply no basis of logic in the above argument.

Originally Posted by Notch (Post 1585125756)

And 0-60 in 3.0 sec.

Originally Posted by DREAMERAK (Post 1585126096)

That time means absolutely nothing on public roads.

Originally Posted by DREAMERAK (Post 1585126096)

That time means absolutely nothing on public roads.

Originally Posted by sam90lx (Post 1585126222)

:crazy2::crazy2:

Originally Posted by Notch (Post 1585125663)

I'm serious, and I haven't missed the point.

Why? That relative time means absolutely nothing on public roads.