Do you think that Porsche will ever design new cars ? I guess what I mean is ... all their cars have a basic (similar) looking design. I realize that this is Porsche but come on people is this all that they have ? I do love the Boxster, Cayman and 911 but these designs are kinda the same and kinda old. I mean .... how long will the 911 survive in todays time ? Not hating the brand, ... just concerned. Just a thought for discussion ..... Thanks.
The 911 seems to be the car that cant die. there is ample demand, so why not continue the car. Its almost a brand of its own. I wish Porsche would do a 356 type 4cyl lower cost, fun car, that has some vintage cues, but modern at same time.
They will change the design as soon as it quits selling, Not to be sarcastic but money always is the bottom line.
If you're speaking strictly about the definitive Porsche design language -- the 356/911 line -- it's very functional, not really a matter of fashion. The 550 also fits into this category, and the Boxster traces its roots to that car, which in turn came from 356-001, the mid-engined prototype of 1948. That functionality is visually satisfying -- it acknowledges the wheels and engine as the focus of the design. It's all business, with no flourishes. I think we may see the 918 Spyder concept influence future designs, but as long as there is a rear-engined Porsche the basic geometry of the 911 is the rational expression for it. I.e., sloping tail, sloping nose with no prominent grille. Status and performance issues aside, I think the current Boxster is really well done and still fresh looking, much better than Ferrari's 360/F430 design, and more attractive than the 458. It looks great without looking as though it is trying to look great.
Porsche may be the only car company that could reproduce a modern interpretation of cars from the past that would sell well.
The 914 was a pretty big design departure from the 911 design of that day. The Boxster is the closest thing they have to it today, but I liked the angular lines of the 914 even better. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Me too Probably has something to do with owning one (soon to have a 6 in it) I have a 356 too, and think the 911 is a continuance of it's design...although a bloated continuance.
They're sort of listening.... sort of. (note: some suggest that this model will never happen) http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q1/2014_porsche_baby_boxster-feature A personal opinion: they could sell the 356 body (with upgraded suspension and motor) today easily.
The 911 is shaped the way it is for two reasons. 1: Rear engine design, with stylings taken from the Kafer. (its a squashed bug, with two more cylinders, I know you see it too) 2: Improvements in technology, and capabilities. (AWD, water-cooling, aerodynamics) Porsche believes in "Form following Function", the design of the 911 has always spoken to that. There is no need to redesign the car completely.
The 911 (and 356) are also shaped the way they are due to 1940s era understanding of aerodynamics. It was thought that the most efficient aerodynamic design was that of a water droplet. Hence the profile of the 356...which then begat the 911. The incredible performance of the modern 911 can almost be considered a testament to the triumph of engineering prowess over actual physics. The shape of the 911 and the location of the engine in the rear are some of the worst ideas out there if you're trying to build a sporting car.
So, even more impressive than, that the 911 is considered the benchmark of every day sports cars. If everything about it is wrong, you would figure that somewhere along the line someone would do it one better. But the 911 still one ups everyone else.
The original 356 coupe was later tested and had a coefficient of drag of 0.29, which is astonishing by modern standards. That was designed in the late 1940s. (By comparison, the Cd on the Ferrari 599 and Chevy Corvette, cars basically designed by computers, are both 0.34.) Erwin Komenda and team knew what they were doing. They also somehow got a vestigial rear seat into the 356 and kept the whole thing ~2000 lbs. (Ferrari 599 is closer to 3900 lbs.) In terms of the rear engine being the worst idea, yes and no. It obviously helps lower the Cd because you end up with a low, clean front end. (I have no idea why Ferrari stuck a fake eggcrate grille on the 348/355/TR... completely stupid from an aero perspective.) For braking, the weight in the back helps distribute the load -- the brakes on front-engined cars typically do most of the work, which isn't all that efficient. And by using a flat, boxer design, Porsche kept the engine very low in the car, which probably offsets some of the disadvantage of having it out back like a pendulum.
I understand your points. But while the basic 356/911 shape may offer a low Cd (mine with the big fender flares and outrageous sushi tray spoiler has one closer to 0.48 or 0.49, IIRC), it also shares the unfortunate profile with an airplane wing, giving it lift. There's a reason why most modern sporting cars have a wedgy shape. If the drivetrain layout of a 911 is such a great idea, how come no one else is doing it? Having all that weight out rear is horrible for the polar moment. And if you lose it, it makes it very difficult to catch an oversteering 911. Having an engine in the rear and the radiators (now) out front is retarded. Having an engine in the rear is probably only good for straight line acceleration and maybe braking. It's certainly not an asset (usually) in terms of cornering. The flat-4/-6 design and dry sump layout is fantastic for lowering the center of gravity. At the same time, back in the 70s and 80s when race cars were allowed big ground effects venturi tunnels, it wasn't so great for packaging concerns. Not that road cars usually have to worry about that, though. Still, the **feel** of a 911 is absolutely incredible. Again, a testament to the engineering prowess of those in Stuttgart.
From my experience, the rear engine has more benefits than not. A lower center of gravity, and proper weight over the drive wheels are only two of them. As far as handling, there are some foibles that each driver needs to learn about, but nothing that is too much for someone with some semblance of car control. When driven properly, the rear engine will provide an advantage, not just in a straight line, but in the turns as well. The mantra for Porsche and VW has always been "slow in, fast out", and that works fine. If you want to up the ante a bit, you can even use the rear engine to force an oversteer easier, and do your cornering sideways. Yes, I am slightly biased, as most of the cars I have owned have been air-cooled, and rear engined, but I dont think it is fair to say that the 911 is outdated, or designed wrong. If that was the case, Ferrari would not be so frantic about winning against Porsche, yet every year at Sebring, and LeMons Porsche is there going toe to toe with the Italians. The 911 has been the benchmark for very good reasons. It still shows itself to be the standard by which other sports cars are measured.
... because mid-engined is the "correct" configuration. That said, the performance envelope on the latest 997 series -- with huge tires, traction control and stability -- is beyond what any of us could need. If you fishtail a GT3-RS, you're making some fundamental mistakes in your driving techique. The proof is in Nurburgring lap times, where a 997 Turbo set the lap record earlier this year. Call it a triumph of engineering over design, and I'm not sure if it stands, but you can't argue with the numbers. I think Ferrari has closed the gap with the GTO package for the front/mid 599, but they're taking 12 cylinders to keep up with a flat six. It's just mindblowing, really.
They can be tail happy if you go into a corner too fast or lift off the accelerator abruptly, but this is the first I've heard about all that weight in the tail spontaneously generating rotational force while the car is going straight into a headwind.
Wow, you're taking this way too seriously. That a little scale model would flip around backwards in a wind tunnel on its mounting pin says more about the placement of that pin in relation to the model's center of pressure (and maybe something about the car's basic aerodynamic shape) than anything else. The joke is that the car is more aerodynamic going backwards than it is forwards. In reality, based upon the placement of that pin to secure the car in the wind tunnel (and how loose it might have been), that's not necessarily true.
