3.4 Engine Disappointing Performance
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 116
From: S Florida
Rep Power: 22
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.
That said, the purpose of my original post was to point out the lack of power for what I call everyday driving on the street. In order to be able to dart in and out of traffic etc. you have to rev the crap out of that car.
I won't dispute your claim about track use. Personally I did not buy the car for track use. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that most of us here didn't either.
Great thread. Really enjoying everyone's input.
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!).
As far as torque is concerned: if the C2S is capable of turning the quarter-mile in eleven seconds, there sure the heck isn't any lack of torque or power. For 400 crank HP, these things are rockets.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 323
From: New York
Rep Power: 28
Agreed... the M3 doesn't have any torque either. My son had one and I dove it many times. However I do think that the M3 is faster than my base 991 Vert. After all it has 414hp.
That said, the purpose of my original post was to point out the lack of power for what I call everyday driving on the street. In order to be able to dart in and out of traffic etc. you have to rev the crap out of that car.
I won't dispute your claim about track use. Personally I did not buy the car for track use. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that most of us here didn't either.
Great thread. Really enjoying everyone's input.
That said, the purpose of my original post was to point out the lack of power for what I call everyday driving on the street. In order to be able to dart in and out of traffic etc. you have to rev the crap out of that car.
I won't dispute your claim about track use. Personally I did not buy the car for track use. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that most of us here didn't either.
Great thread. Really enjoying everyone's input.
I do agree that during city driving you'll come across plenty of cars that will take your lunch money if you do some stop-light racing, but the car wasn't built for that. Give me an Evo, or a civic for that matter and $10K and I'll build you a car that will destroy most super cars. But I find the overall driving experience with any 911 much more rewarding. It is the fit and finish, the feel of the car, and it doesn't bother me one bit if someone is faster...I played that game, and I'm over it.
Switch cars with somebody, like a GT-R... and although you'll be blown away by the power of these 2 second-club monsters, you'll be missing your 911 after a week.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 476
From: USA
Rep Power: 54
I bought a base Cayman in 2009. What a mistake. I wont look at a base Porsche again. (btw,my 991 C2S has plenty of low end torque for dd). But, as others have said, it can be a blast to drive a "slow" car fast.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 116
From: S Florida
Rep Power: 22
Yeah, I come from a totally different angle. I had a supercharged e92 M3 with around 650 hp and 4.10 gears... it was a monster, but waaayyy too much power for the track. It quickly exceeded my skill level on the track, and I found the 911 much more rewarding during sessions (haven't tracked my personal 991 due to the never-endign break-in period), the flat power curve, and gradual delivery is absolutely perfect, and although I'm still getting used to the "busy" front end during turn-in, the **** engine layout is incredible shooting out of corners.
I do agree that during city driving you'll come across plenty of cars that will take your lunch money if you do some stop-light racing, but the car wasn't built for that. Give me an Evo, or a civic for that matter and $10K and I'll build you a car that will destroy most super cars. But I find the overall driving experience with any 911 much more rewarding. It is the fit and finish, the feel of the car, and it doesn't bother me one bit if someone is faster...I played that game, and I'm over it.
Switch cars with somebody, like a GT-R... and although you'll be blown away by the power of these 2 second-club monsters, you'll be missing your 911 after a week.
I do agree that during city driving you'll come across plenty of cars that will take your lunch money if you do some stop-light racing, but the car wasn't built for that. Give me an Evo, or a civic for that matter and $10K and I'll build you a car that will destroy most super cars. But I find the overall driving experience with any 911 much more rewarding. It is the fit and finish, the feel of the car, and it doesn't bother me one bit if someone is faster...I played that game, and I'm over it.
Switch cars with somebody, like a GT-R... and although you'll be blown away by the power of these 2 second-club monsters, you'll be missing your 911 after a week.
You are right. The fit and finish is top notch, feel is great, but I also agree with tromero that they should not have put the 3.4 in a 911. They probably did do it to save money. They certainly charge enough for even a base cab like mine with a few options. Years ago I had a base 06 997.1 with a manual that was much better to drive around town than my present car.
I guess I am a little spoiled because my daily driver is a 13' Cadillac CTS V sport wagon. 556 hp does wonders around town!
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,499
From: New York
Rep Power: 93
Originally Posted by I do agree that during city driving you'll come across plenty of cars that will take your lunch money if you do some stop-light racing, but the car wasn't built for that. Give me an Evo, or a civic for that matter and $10K and I'll build you a car that will destroy most super cars. [I
But I find the overall driving experience with any 911 much more rewarding. It is the fit and finish, the feel of the car, and it doesn't bother me one bit if someone is faster...I played that game, and I'm over it. [/I]
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 323
From: New York
Rep Power: 28
You are right. The fit and finish is top notch, feel is great, but I also agree with tromero that they should not have put the 3.4 in a 911. They probably did do it to save money. They certainly charge enough for even a base cab like mine with a few options. Years ago I had a base 06 997.1 with a manual that was much better to drive around town than my present car.
I guess I am a little spoiled because my daily driver is a 13' Cadillac CTS V sport wagon. 556 hp does wonders around town!
I guess I am a little spoiled because my daily driver is a 13' Cadillac CTS V sport wagon. 556 hp does wonders around town!
Registered User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,806
From: Dallas
Rep Power: 176
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.
ChuckJ
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 153
From: Michigan
Rep Power: 20
I think if you are trying to stay at lower RPM's it is not possible to judge. You are driving differently than you will when you don't avoid letting the revs go higher. Then when you do take it to high RPM's I am sure you will be impressed. But the middle end is fine. I am not sure you can make 3.8L do everything and be "streetable".
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 637
From: Toronto
Rep Power: 49
Its fair to assume everything regarding the 991 is biased towards the PDK tranny.
Registered User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,806
From: Dallas
Rep Power: 176
ChuckJ