![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:37 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
... and it’s in our parking lots and car dealerships.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:39 |
|
I wonder if the width of one single 997 rear tire is the same or bigger than both off the classic 911 rear tires.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:39 |
|
I hate it when people complain about model bloat. You expect car companies to stuff all that advanced safety equipment and technology in a small package? The cars
have
to get bigger to get better.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:40 |
|
Larger glass area than the 997
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:43 |
|
Im generally with your there, but on the other hand...
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:43 |
|
Needs Mk1 / Mk7 golf comparison. Same deal.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:44 |
|
I agree.
Also, note: Does not apply to ND Miata.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:45 |
|
Yeah but who says safety and technology is better? I want an unsafe, less technology car. Where is my consumer choice?
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:48 |
|
America is a bad influence :(
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:49 |
|
Visibility is for chumps.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:51 |
|
Why do we have to have all that safety equipment and technology in our cars? What happened to a pure driving experience?
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:51 |
|
*991
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:53 |
|
I see the Porsche owners club is here.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:53 |
|
well-heeled chumps.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:53 |
|
Speed + Safety = justified bulk and weight.
500 Abarth = 145hp more and 1500 lbs heavier. Sounds like a lot of weight but not when you see the original 500 weighed 1000lbs with a 15hp engine and top speed of 60mph.
That puts the Abarth at 15.6lbs/hp vs the classic’s 66.7lbs/hp* (had the hp/lbs lbs/hp backwards)
I’m all for lightweight, lesser hp engines like the FiST and BRZ but this comparison is chart is a bit much.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:55 |
|
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:55 |
|
See my reply to Bytemite.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:56 |
|
Best I could find.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:56 |
|
1 car. Hurray. Thats not choice.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:58 |
|
Haha. No, I’m just (self-diagnosed) OCD and like things accurate. Also, I’ve memorized just about every Porsche and BMW chassis code.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 17:58 |
|
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:02 |
|
It happens to us too.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:03 |
|
Your reply of 2 cars not sold in the US, and one that’s out of production?
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:05 |
|
I can’t get those cars for the same price as a normal super-safe bubble wrapped car like a Corolla or Mirage.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:06 |
|
You can’t deny that the “new” Mini should be really called the Maxi. A nameplate with historical significance to Austin/British Leyland.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:10 |
|
oink
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:10 |
|
Wait, so youre telling me that my truck only has 3 more lbs per HP than a new abarth? (3025lbs/160hp). Interesting. Either an Abarth is not as good as it seems or my truck is amazing
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:12 |
|
ours grew down. which does wonders aerodynamically, but is pretty awful aesthetically.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:13 |
|
I’ll give you that on the Mini. But the Porsche? 100hp vs 500+
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:17 |
|
Meh, air-cooled 911s are too narrow. 2 normal-sized dudes sitting up front are rubbing elbows all the time.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:22 |
|
Lbs/hp extrapolates more at higher weight though it seems. My 90 f150 was like 3500/150 (yeah... 150hp from a 5 litre v8) is 23/lb, yours is 19/lb and the Abarth is 16/lb. Actually I’m not sure where I’m going with this. But I think because of the Abarths low weight it’s lower lb/hp means it can toss that lighter weight around easier.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 18:25 |
|
And the 100hp will kill you faster than the 500hp.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 19:09 |
|
this shouldnt have to be true....early cellphones were huge thick devices with 3 hour batteries. today they are tiny in comparison.
as far as safety goes look at the 80’s cars. they all had gross big ugly diving board bumpers. this is because automakers were caught off guard by new regulations and quickly slapped something together to work. as time went on the bumpers slimmed up and became integrated into the front end.
and my final point is this:
1967 911 has low beltlines huge windows no crumple zones no airbags no collision warning no abs etc.
2015 911 has high beltline small windows thick pillars crumple zones tons of airbags collision warning and abs. why if we added all that tech do we still need the thick pillars the small windows and high belt lines. surely the aformentioned tech should offset the beltines windows and pillars. I really would like to believe tech can and will overcome the need for shitty visibility and like the 90’s carmakers will ease into the regulations and make pretty bumpers/skinny pillars once again. They have to otherwise the less visibility you keep adding makes the cars unsafe thus negating the goal in the first place.
And a bonus point, why are motorcycles allowed to be made/sold when they are death traps. make me a death trap car, make me sign a waiver its not fair the govt gets to dictate cars but lets maniacs ride around on bikes.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 19:54 |
|
I think thats where its close enough to being fast while not having the modern safety features.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 20:00 |
|
In relative terms the 911 actually became smaller over the years. You see a 1963 901 was roughly identical to the size of the Volkswagen Type 3, which in its day was considered a midsized car by european terms. Compare that to the 2013 991, which is 11” shorter and 6” lower than the Type 3s legitimate descendant, the Passat while being almost the exact same width. In fact the current 991 is extremely similar in size to the current Opel Astra J, aka Buick Verano Hatchback. This means over the years the 911 shrunk from the equivalent of a contemporary mid size sedan to the equivalent of a contemporary compact car (granted one of the larger ones of its breed).
![]() 08/18/2015 at 21:52 |
|
Exactly my point. It’s just too bad everyone nowadays is scared of anything and everything so they are content on being bubble-wrapped everywhere they go. A child gets kidnapped and raped and everyone is now scared to let their kids play outside. A man dies while driving a car, now everyone needs to drive SUVs and trucks just to go to their office jobs. Someone gets offended by the use of a word that correctly describes something as concisely as possible, now we all have to beat around the bush with PC speak. I know automakers can’t sell less than 5 star crash rating cars to the dumb public so they won’t have any business case to make them. But is it too much to ask to maybe have an option on some cars to delete useless things like airbags, heavy door reinforcements, 1 foot diameter pillars, and heavy ass sound insulation? I’d just like the choice to have my new car not be laden with all that lard.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 21:54 |
|
The Passat has gotten really fat though, too.
![]() 08/18/2015 at 22:46 |
|
That’s nearly a 20% increase over the Fiat, man
![]() 08/19/2015 at 01:25 |
|
Its actually a 20% decrease.
How is it that you seemed to seek out and be snarky on my only comment today?
*recedes back into the shadows*
![]() 08/19/2015 at 04:56 |
|
Bad news, that is the case with almost all cars and particularly the ones that used to be truly small.
![]() 08/19/2015 at 05:30 |
|
19>16, so it’s an increase.
I was reading the post, I saw your reply, I commented. No snark here.
![]() 08/19/2015 at 13:55 |
|
The Multipla has fat rolls.