3.4 Engine Disappointing Performance
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,956
From: SoCal
Rep Power: 143
i have been driving my 991 non S for 3 months now. it is not a slow car by any mean. my past cars included a 997s, E90M3, cayenne S, cayenne GTS, AMG E63 in last five years.
i am currently driving my buddy's 997.2S because he is too lazy to take it in for service. i have been driving them back to back and i don't believe the 991 is slower than the 997s, at least not noticeable difference. but i have learned to realized how different they are and maybe that have contributed to your perception.
i am currently driving my buddy's 997.2S because he is too lazy to take it in for service. i have been driving them back to back and i don't believe the 991 is slower than the 997s, at least not noticeable difference. but i have learned to realized how different they are and maybe that have contributed to your perception.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 159
Rep Power: 20
It was hard to get excited about my C2S after driving a buddy's 997/2TT.
I love my little 3.8 N/A C2S, but I would slap a baby for a 997/2 TT. Put a Tubi exhaust on mine sounds great, handles great, brakes are super, quality will spoil you...
Had 2 Caymans, ALWAYS felt underpowered, was constantly waiting for the car, if that makes sense.
Maybe try a remapping the throttle, lighter wheels...
There are a couple of companies that could get you another 15-25 claimed h.p., I don't know what's out yet for the 991.
991 or a late model 997/2 TT for approx the same money, that is the question.
I love my little 3.8 N/A C2S, but I would slap a baby for a 997/2 TT. Put a Tubi exhaust on mine sounds great, handles great, brakes are super, quality will spoil you...
Had 2 Caymans, ALWAYS felt underpowered, was constantly waiting for the car, if that makes sense.
Maybe try a remapping the throttle, lighter wheels...
There are a couple of companies that could get you another 15-25 claimed h.p., I don't know what's out yet for the 991.
991 or a late model 997/2 TT for approx the same money, that is the question.
Last edited by hot nikon; Apr 17, 2013 at 07:16 PM.
Registered User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,806
From: Dallas
Rep Power: 176
Thanks for all of the replies so far, much appreciated.
First, it's not a test drive I own the car. I did drive this car before I bought it but like most of us you don't want to beat on the car you want to buy especially when it only has a couple of mile on it. My last car was an 09 S PDK. It was a lot faster than my 991 or at least it felt that way.
To be completely fair I guess I should fill in some of the blanks. My 991 is a manual and it has about 1300 miles on it now. I have kept the revs down mostly with just a couple of quick sprints to 6K the last couple of times I drove it. You can feel the power start to come on after 5K.
Maybe after a few more miles it will loosen up a little more. Other than the power it's the best Porsche I have owned so far. Not one issue. My 09 burned oil like a 2 stroke. This car has not used a drop!
I know the PDK is quicker but I am old school and happier rowing my own gears. After break in and an oil change maybe I will try keeping the rev's up to see if that helps with the around town performance.
First, it's not a test drive I own the car. I did drive this car before I bought it but like most of us you don't want to beat on the car you want to buy especially when it only has a couple of mile on it. My last car was an 09 S PDK. It was a lot faster than my 991 or at least it felt that way.
To be completely fair I guess I should fill in some of the blanks. My 991 is a manual and it has about 1300 miles on it now. I have kept the revs down mostly with just a couple of quick sprints to 6K the last couple of times I drove it. You can feel the power start to come on after 5K.
Maybe after a few more miles it will loosen up a little more. Other than the power it's the best Porsche I have owned so far. Not one issue. My 09 burned oil like a 2 stroke. This car has not used a drop!
I know the PDK is quicker but I am old school and happier rowing my own gears. After break in and an oil change maybe I will try keeping the rev's up to see if that helps with the around town performance.
ChuckJ
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 297
From: on a golf course...
Rep Power: 41
Pete...that is what the Sport / Sport Plus button does on a 991. It makes the throttle input much more reactive to your right foot!
I would also challenge anyone to tell the difference between the desired "300 ft-lbs" of torque conpared to the actual spec for the engine of 287 lb-ft (yes, lb-ft is actually the correct unit of measure for torque, not ft-lb!).
I would also challenge anyone to tell the difference between the desired "300 ft-lbs" of torque conpared to the actual spec for the engine of 287 lb-ft (yes, lb-ft is actually the correct unit of measure for torque, not ft-lb!).
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 274
From: NY
Rep Power: 29
I agree completely with all of the comments above. This car is sneaky fast. You don't feel the punch in the gut, but you can really use the engine's long pull and high RPM limit to get a hell of a driving experience.
Plus, the engine does need Time to break in. I believe that peak torque and HP aren't really developed until the engine has around 10k miles on it. It certainly feels more ready to go at 2500 miles than it did at 1000 miles. Especially after I started to use the upper RPM range a lot more.
Drive this car like it is meant To be driven, and you will be happy. You may have to Adjust your style and thinking, but you Will be rewarded. This car is awesome.
Plus, the engine does need Time to break in. I believe that peak torque and HP aren't really developed until the engine has around 10k miles on it. It certainly feels more ready to go at 2500 miles than it did at 1000 miles. Especially after I started to use the upper RPM range a lot more.
Drive this car like it is meant To be driven, and you will be happy. You may have to Adjust your style and thinking, but you Will be rewarded. This car is awesome.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 358
From: Miami
Rep Power: 40
I agree with the original poster. My 3.4 manual now has 5400 miles on it and I am just as disappointed in it now as the day I drove off the lot. More miles will not make it "feel faster". The truth is , this 3.4 engine has no business being in a modern 911. The official company line is that they shrunk the engine so for "emissions and to improve fuel consumption". If this is so why did the S remain the same at 3.8? Why did the Cayman S remain the same at 3.4? The truth is, Volkswagen....er, I mean Porsche decided they would save money by eliminating the 3.6 and sticking a Cayman motor in the 911. The base 991 , should have the 3.6 and at as much HP as the outgoing 997 S. It is absurd that a $60k M3 or C63 has so much more power. Do emissions regulations not also apply to BMW and Mercedes? NO 911 should have less power than a naturally aspirated M3. It's embarrassing already.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 323
From: New York
Rep Power: 28
I agree with the original poster. My 3.4 manual now has 5400 miles on it and I am just as disappointed in it now as the day I drove off the lot. More miles will not make it "feel faster". The truth is , this 3.4 engine has no business being in a modern 911. The official company line is that they shrunk the engine so for "emissions and to improve fuel consumption". If this is so why did the S remain the same at 3.8? Why did the Cayman S remain the same at 3.4? The truth is, Volkswagen....er, I mean Porsche decided they would save money by eliminating the 3.6 and sticking a Cayman motor in the 911. The base 991 , should have the 3.6 and at as much HP as the outgoing 997 S. It is absurd that a $60k M3 or C63 has so much more power. Do emissions regulations not also apply to BMW and Mercedes? NO 911 should have less power than a naturally aspirated M3. It's embarrassing already.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 358
From: Miami
Rep Power: 40
I bought it sight unseen and undriven because I thought it would be an improvement over my 997.2. In some ways it is. I love the interior but they just gave it a dog of a motor. Porsche is capable of giving the car a proper motor but they simply choose not to because us suckers will keep buying the cars no matter what
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 323
From: New York
Rep Power: 28
I bought it sight unseen and undriven because I thought it would be an improvement over my 997.2. In some ways it is. I love the interior but they just gave it a dog of a motor. Porsche is capable of giving the car a proper motor but they simply choose not to because us suckers will keep buying the cars no matter what
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,219
From: Fayetteville
Rep Power: 499
Regarding S vs non-S, I've felt this way for over a decade. Can't get into the non-S. I've long said the GTS should be the base 2WD version, the Turbo could be the base AWD version.
I'd adjust that slightly by making the current 'S' the base model, and the GTS the special version. Or why not just make the one engine, and have the 'S' version with more track oriented goodies (like LSD, bigger brake packages, etc...)?
(Cheaper for manufacturer, costs (can) come down, etc...)
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 323
From: New York
Rep Power: 28
If only the Porsche owners in my area did the same thing..., instead of being a chicane...
Regarding S vs non-S, I've felt this way for over a decade. Can't get into the non-S. I've long said the GTS should be the base 2WD version, the Turbo could be the base AWD version.
I'd adjust that slightly by making the current 'S' the base model, and the GTS the special version. Or why not just make the one engine, and have the 'S' version with more track oriented goodies (like LSD, bigger brake packages, etc...)?
(Cheaper for manufacturer, costs (can) come down, etc...)
Regarding S vs non-S, I've felt this way for over a decade. Can't get into the non-S. I've long said the GTS should be the base 2WD version, the Turbo could be the base AWD version.
I'd adjust that slightly by making the current 'S' the base model, and the GTS the special version. Or why not just make the one engine, and have the 'S' version with more track oriented goodies (like LSD, bigger brake packages, etc...)?
(Cheaper for manufacturer, costs (can) come down, etc...)
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 116
From: S Florida
Rep Power: 22
I agree with the original poster. My 3.4 manual now has 5400 miles on it and I am just as disappointed in it now as the day I drove off the lot. More miles will not make it "feel faster". The truth is , this 3.4 engine has no business being in a modern 911. The official company line is that they shrunk the engine so for "emissions and to improve fuel consumption". If this is so why did the S remain the same at 3.8? Why did the Cayman S remain the same at 3.4? The truth is, Volkswagen....er, I mean Porsche decided they would save money by eliminating the 3.6 and sticking a Cayman motor in the 911. The base 991 , should have the 3.6 and at as much HP as the outgoing 997 S. It is absurd that a $60k M3 or C63 has so much more power. Do emissions regulations not also apply to BMW and Mercedes? NO 911 should have less power than a naturally aspirated M3. It's embarrassing already.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 323
From: New York
Rep Power: 28
The M3 and the C63 are total pigs, and serve a different purpose and have a whole different philosophy. BTW, go over to M3post and look at all threads people *****ing about the lack of low-end torque of the e92 M3... it is pretty funny.
Sure the M3 and the C63 have more power, but give me a base 911 and I'll beat them both on the track all day long.
Sure the M3 and the C63 have more power, but give me a base 911 and I'll beat them both on the track all day long.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,219
From: Fayetteville
Rep Power: 499
Perhaps you're right. Between the ZL-1, GT500, C6 (variants), and the Viper, HP and performance is common place here in the US.