It is a well known fact that the Porsche 959 was the target for the design of the GT-R before the release of the R32. As an example, according to the Wikipedia article about the ATTESA-ETS, "inside the transfer case a chain drives a multi-plate wet clutch pack, torque is apportioned using a clutch pack center differential, similar to the type employed in the Steyr-Daimler-Puch system in the Porsche 959.

Yes, now they use advanced micropressors and all kinds of sensors, but it didn't at first. In each generation of the Skyline, the ATTESA became more and more advanced, including the addition of an "active" LSD in the R33, and futher revisions in software algorithms and microprocessor technology. Porsche basically invented the electronic AWD system in the early '80's and instead of making it more advanced, they actually simplified the system further in the 964, then basically made it mostly mechanical by the 993.

Surely you didn't think Nissan invented the electronic torque split concept, did you?

I don't know if I would trust all these electronics and computers to save my *** when pushing the car. What happens in the event of a software glitch or electronics failure? To me it's funny that the japanese need all these gizmos to make the car go fast, while the GT2 can be fast with pretty simple electronics and superior mechanical engineering.

That's why Porsche will always be the better car company than Nissan.

 

Hey Tyson, nice to see some factual technical discussions here! This is really the reason why the GT-R is so fast in the turns.

I didn't know the 959 AWD was that advanced. Too bad Porsche let itself fall behind on that technology. I agree that Nissan may have used the 959 as a model for their design, and may have even inspected one. I would have. I'm not certain if the Nissan design is more effective. I don't have any technical papers on the 959 system, so I don't know if they implemented right/left torque split which Nissan didn't, but is required for the ideal model. I also don't know about the response time and other algorithms. But the Nissan system does what it's supposed to do (apart from having independent torque control on all 4 wheels), it's reliable, fail-safe, and it's cost effective. There's little worry of a software glitch causing trouble. The engineers addressed that as well.

It is impressive that the Porsche cars perform as well as they do without something like Nissan's ATTESA-ETS using "good old mechanical" systems. But, if you add ATTESA-ETS to a Porsche, it may result in a very noticeable performance increase which is what we would want in these cars. In my opinion, the simple AWD system in the 993, 996 and 997 is actually slowing the car down on the track, except for the 0-60.

Now, it is possible that the rear-engine car may have a theoretical disadvantage that may be difficult or impossible to overcome even with proper AWD. I suspect that because of the engine placement in the newer Porsche models. But, cars like the RSR show that Porsche is doing well to hide that possible shortcoming.

 

The engine placement in a Porsche has no ill effects on it's capabilities. One just needs to be a better driver and take advantage of it correctly.

 

If true, why did Porsche in building their ultimate road/race car the CGT, make it mid-engine? By any measure, having an engine sitting behind the rear axle is not the best option for any car let alone a sport car.. Porsche through its engineering effort have keep the car competitive knowing full well that the mid-engine Boxster/Cayman would eat the 911 lunch if they were powered correctly.

The 911 sells and as long as it does ,Porsche will continue to sell it even though they know it is ancient technology.

 

That's interesting... then shouldn't Ferrari be able to build faster cars than Porsche all day long? We will see in a head-to-head comparo but it looks like the Scuderia is still slower than the rear-engined GT2. To be fair, the GT2 is also faster than the "ultimate road/race car" the Carrera GT. So I guess that would make Porsche's new super beetle the new ultimate road/race car.

And it looks like the 911 RSR this year is turning faster times than the F430GT's. Guess the advantage of midship engines is not so great anymore.

 

Oh god... Just because you can't handle it doesn't mean it's bad, we've gone through this how many times from the 6 to Ferrarichat?

 

Although it is not necessarily "bad" for a street car, mid-engine design is far superior in terms of weight distribution and allows superior handling. Almost all race cars, including Porsche's own RS Spyder and Formula 1 cars are mid-engined for this reason. Some are not because they are based on street cars, like Corvette C6R and GTR Cup cars, but all purpose-built race cars designed specifically for racing are mid-engined.

P.S. Here is the Porsche RS Spyder in case you don't know what it is:

 

Wow... thanks for the enlightenment.

I didn't realize that Porsche made something called an RS Spyder. When did that come out? That is soooooo cool. Is that the same car campaigned by this company called Penske, and I think he had a couple of drivers named Sascha Maasen and Lucas Luhr? And aren't there like 3 teams runnig the car in the ALMS series this year?

Yeah, I might know a thing or two about Porsche in motorsports.

No one here is saying mid-engine is a bad design. From a clean-sheet perspective, especially when building a RACE car from a tub chassis, it makes a lot of sense. Street cars are of course, built a little different.

The downside of a mid-engine car is not all too different than a rear-engined one. The handling is so neutral that once you break the adhesion limit, the rear can break loose without warning and next thing you know the car goes into a spin. Having a mid-engine does not mitigate the fact that when you are in a tern, inertia begins to take effect. The weight of the engine in the REAR (even though it is mounted before the rear axle) begins to push towards the outside of the turn, so you still have the rear end sliding out, not unlike the "pendulum" effect in a 911.

It's funny, I was talking with some people from Risi Competizione regarding the whole F430 GT vs. RSR rivalry. Some of the Risi guys were saying that even though last year's RSR was faster on the straights, it's the "superior" handling and the braking of the Ferrari that allowed it to be faster since it was mid-engined. Mika Salo felt that this was the end of Porsche domination in the GT2 class as they had now reached the limits of the 911's capabilities.

Then the 2008 RSR came out with a few revisions and started to beat the Ferraris all over again. So much for that theory. Guess you just can't keep that pesky Beetle down!!!

 

Tire wear was as much at fault for the faulty 07 RSR season as anything. Of course that goes back to the rear engine deal, but the handling apsect of it is different altogether.

 

How about this. I like the engine in the wrong god damn place. I can control it, and I can beat 99% of the drivers out there with the engine in the 'right' place. nuff said.

If i want to simulate a drive as if i were in a video game i would just get GT prologe for my ps3 at the cost of 50 bucks instead of 100k

 

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the CGT faster than the 997GT2?

Other than the GT2 which 911 is faster and better balanced than the 430? The RS and GT3 are track oriented cars and would not be considered road cars as is the 430.

As for the whether the 911 is bad and I have never said that. I have written the opposite. But the question that needs to answered is whether a mid-engine Porsche with appropriate power would be faster than the 911. I don't believe anyone on this planet or universe would claim that the 911 with its rear engine would be faster and better balanced.

 

Berry buddy, I must say that is an interesting question and I for one would be very curious as well, very reasonable coming from you We will never know .

 

amazing

 

You spew diarrhea from your mouth. Let me show you how idiotic you sound.

1-
7:28* -- 166.65 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, * company test driver Walther Roehrl (Autobild 07/04)
7:31 --- 164.38 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT2, 530 PS/1440 kg, company test driver Walter Roehrl according to www.automotorsport.se/tv/?m=11159

Oh look, you're correct! The GT is faster by 3 seconds in 20 km track! Upon further inspection though...wait...is that...612 PS vs 530 PS? Oh...alright.

2-
7:55 --- 156.13 km/h – Ferrari F430 F1, 490 PS/1493 kg (sport auto 01/06)

Oh my...that's really fast, but I'm afraid it's just not good enough...

7:31 --- 164.38 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT2, 530 PS/1440 kg, company test driver Walter Roehrl according to www.automotorsport.se/tv/?m=11159
7.39* -- 161.58 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06)
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:42 --- 160.52 km/h –- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:43 --- 160.17 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine) (EVEN the 996...with 3xx hp)
7:54 --- 156.46 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/1620 kg (sport auto 06/07)

BTW, I skipped quite a few...

 

Actually, Porsche says the 997 GT2 is actually a few seconds faster than a CGT!

As for your other question, I think both the GT3/RS are suitable road-cars, after all, they do ride quite nicely with PASM. In fact, much better than the 996 versions.