OK Dock, last attempt. You are obviously not an engineer and have never worked in an engineering/manufacturing capacity so I will try to be gentle.

First off all, you have selectively responded to my statements, ans ignored the most important two points.

1. Almost all automotive advances come from racing programs.

2. Those who develop/work with new technologies the longest under the most demanding conditions are most likely to know the most about it.

Please don't show ignorance and try to dispute these two points. Therefore, if P is not leading the way (which they are not because they are not in racing), they are forced into copycat roles or their own development (which while not impossible, is extremely unlikely to do major innovation - You name for me any significant development P has lead since they gave up racing? - I'll help you, none.). What you get instead are things like the poor performance and backtracking of PCCB brakes.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dock (Atlanta)
More than "minor" in my opinion. The ability to engineer and manufacture smaller turbos with superior materials, and the electronic advances to control the system have been huge, not minor.
Not compared to being able to use them effectively on the race track. They were really the first major successful company in doing so. It is much easier to improve than create. secondly, how much of that came from them or the turbo suppliers?


Sorry, being on the leading edge does not require racing, it requires proper testing.
Stupid statement. Like I said previously, it is not required. Just that almost every major development HAS come from racing. Maybe it's not required, BUT EVERYTHING DOES come from there! Name 1 significant automotive development that did not come from a major racing program and I will name 5 that have. Understand yet?

Sorry, the CGT is not an advance in automotive technology. It is an extremely nice car, but contains NO new P technology that did not come from racing!


What I'm saying is that those "difficult and demanding situations" don't have to be just from factory sponsored racing conditions.
Theoretically, no. Again, in actuality yes.


Tell me what specifically is missing from the Turbo due soley to the lack of racing. I offer that Porsche could easily have released the 996 Turbo with 480 Hp, with an F1 shifter/tranny. What we see in the current Turbo is primarily driven by marketing, not the lack of engineering/testing.

A MB supercharger. An F car F1 shifter/tranny. (You are way wrong, P would offer the F1 if they had it, and charge for it accordingly.) Why do most 360's have it as an option? PCCB's that work reliably and are not way over promised and then backed way off on. Just these type of things.

 

So it seems like most of you like the C6. Me too.

 

HUH??

You think a rear-engine design can only fit a V6??

Umm.....

Lamborghini (V10)

Ferrari (V12)

Bugatti Veyron (V-zillion)

CGT, McLaren, Pagani, Jaguar (sports cars), etc..

Looks like the rear-engine design can fit engines a LOT bigger than good ol' American V8's, probably just not the slanted back design of the 911. Porsche themselves put the huge n/a engine in the CGT, in the rear...

 

teutonictrio,

they are all mid engined cars.

Rs

 

Shank - you are right...guess I don't see how difficult it would be for Porsche to just move the engine over the rear axle a bit so it is on both sides - leaving room for nice big V-10's or whatever...

 

and Shank - I have read several articles about the CGT that state it is rear-engine, not mid, but obviously an engine that long is on both sides of the rear axle, so it is technically mid-engine. Maybe Porsche doesn't want to change the 'classic' shape of the 911, which would prevent elongating the rear end enough to stretch the engine out.

Shank - I've asked a bunch of times, but you never answer - what do you do? Your garage is one of the best I've seen!! I see you play (or played) tennis in college, but that doesn't buy sweet rides like what you have! So awesome.

 

Uhh... they already did that ...they are called the Boxster and the Carrera GT. The 911 is defined by the rear engine and having seating for 4 . If I didn't get so much pleasure in taking my kids along for rides , I'd probably be in a Ferrari 360.

 

Would it make a difference if I said I was a very good Tennis Player?

I turn businesses in distress around to successful ones.
- http://www.integrativecarecenters.com - currently in health care.

RS

 

Fantastic - great talent to have (not the tennis, although I wish I was ranked as you are/were)! Gobs of money to be made in mis-managed businesses, as is clearly shown by your garage, if nothing else...

Do you have a management team that works with you, or do you just head it up yourself, if you don't mind me asking?

 

teutonictrio:

I did not mean that they cannot fit an engine back there, I was focusing more on the weight distribution. The 996tt now has over 65% of its weight in the rear. A large V8, V10 , or V12 would really throw the weight off, maybe 70-75%. That would make for an awful driving car that would have some serious lift off oversteer. All the cars you have mentioned are mid-engine and do not offer the rear seating a 996 does. This allows them to place the einge in the middle of the car without worrying about rear seat passangers. We will see what happens, but I have a hard time thinking that Porsche can go much heavier in the rear with a V8. I think it would be best if they focused on lowering the weight of the car and keep a turboed flat 6 back there for power. We will see though.

 

we all know that those TT engines can take a LOT of tweaking, so I guess its just up to Porsche to do that tweaking FOR us - how easy would it be for them to upgrade the engine a bit, put some higher flow exhaust and headers in there, maybe reprogram the ECU, and keep everything else mechanical as is? Not hard at all, and you have an instant 500hp+ sports car...with 2+2 seating...

 

Here are a few that didn't...radial tires, variocam, active handling systems, carbon fiber, air bags,engine control digital programing, Xenon bulbs, disc brakes, ABS, and electromagnetic shocks.

The vast majority of automobile engineering IS in improving the product. You can't invent the wheel, or the disc brake, or the internal combustion engine.

 

Dock - you win. I give up!