Interesting thread. Seems like if the technology was available, and it wasn't used, it could be termed a design flaw? The McLaren F1 didn't have any of that. Design flaw? - Tim
I think that you would have a difficult time proving legal design flaw issues unless it was specifically related to DOT crash or component requirements. As others have mentioned, it's still legal to make vehicles without modern features and electronics as long as minimum standards of safety (ie. lights, windshield wipers, seatbelts, etc.) are included. I think it would be even more difficult to prove on a low production run vehicle with a narrow audience versus a persistent crash problem on Ford Tauruses. What I find interesting about the CGT is that it's not only very light for a car that size and very powerful, but it obviously has a center of gravity and balance that is foreign to most drivers, even the drivers of mid-engined cars. As mentioned even the Stig took many laps to keep it pointed straight and that driver is presumably a professional pilot experienced with a variety of mid-engined vehicles. For the $448k they should have thrown in a free $5k driver training weekend to learn how to drive it in various adverse conditions, including slick, wet, various curves, etc. Then the insurance loss rate wouldn't be the 25% I've been told it is (comparable only to older Vipers). Whenever I get a new car I do exactly what Jim suggests, find a large, open parking lot and then intentionally drive circles, tight corners and force drifting in order to get a better feel for the weight and response of the car. Especially in rain and snow if possible.
This is not always the case, I lost a friend because of the 996 GT2, when it first came out a few people I know including my mate bought them. He was a wealthy man who'd made his money early in his life and spent the majority of his time at track days, he owned a few racing porsches, and was a talented driver. I remember him telling me it was the only car he'd ever owned that scared him, unfortuantly he had a fatal crash in it and died a few months after owning it. What is equally tragic is another one of the group who bought the GT2 crashed his and died 6 months after my friend did , again he was an experienced driver. I've not driven a GCT so I can't compare it to the GT2 but I can't help but see the '2' as an evil car due to what i've witnessed.
willcrook very sorry to hear that I'm a bit surprised by some of the comments, there seems to be a misunderstanding between traction control and stability management. I don't see how PSM can affect the driving experience in a negative way; it only kicks in just before you are about to crash the car. now if you are intentionally drifting it around corners, well then you can simply push a button and turn it off. but on the street, at 7/10ths, it would never come into play unless you are going to lose it. I'm pretty sure the computer can react faster than even the best drivers here. The OP referenced a post that the guy said he corrected but could not recover fast enough. The PSM would have kept the car straight and he'd probably still be driving it today. Instead it went to CF heaven. Luckily nobody else went with it. back when Ford Explorers were rolling over because of underinflated tires -- if they had PSM none of that would have ever happened. Even the best drivers can get caught upside down in the case of a tire failure -- you don't have to be driving like an idiot for that to happen. If you're anywhere near the limits and you lose 25% of your grip -- well you know what happens next. I've been to several advanced PDE classes at the barber track, in all the production porsche models (except GT2 and CGT), lots of skid pad work, with and without PSM. It works very well (especially in the cayenne). If I was ordering a new CGT, and it was an option, I would order it.
I too am sorry to hear about the loss of your friends willcrook. Absolutely tragic when this kind of thing occurs. Our local service advisor said theres an average of 10 CGTs in the PNW at any one time. Its just disconcerting when we lose 30% of them in such short order. Maybe we just don't know how to drive up here. Tim....as I mentioned in the NW section, if you approach it with the kind of respect I know you approach your F40 with.....you shouldn't have a problem. People have mentioned driving the CGT at 7/10ths on the street. I can't even imagine that. Unless I'm on a track where I have plenty of room for errors, I'd say less then 50% is my comfort zone.
I am sorry to hear about your friends, but I still think that the cars are built to be driven in a way 99% of the people who owned them are not skilled enough to do. I raced for many years in my 20's and over 30 years later I know my limits. My supercharged 997S has no traction control is 500lbd lighter than stock, and I only drive it hard when weather and temp are right. I went back on the track 15 years ago, and I thought I still had it, I did'nt and destroyed the car and almost myself. I am an old guy now, and want to get older.l
Am a pro driver (Porsche GT3 Cup in the Grand Am Rolex series). I drove a Carrera GT on the track and found nothing wrong with it considering it is a 600 HP Lemans prototype on street tires. Most of if not all of these crashes were by people with more money than driving skills. Seems the originator of this thread may be a lawyer.
One of the reasons I am drawn to the 996GT2 is perhaps because of its "widow-maker" status and thinking that "I'm the one who can tame it". I'm starting to think otherwise. Many, many cases of totaled 996GT2's throughout the world. If this car cannot be claimed to have known handling design faults in it, none can.
I think most people suspect it's a term coined in jest at it's power, but as my story and others will tell you it's a genuine killer. Of course by nature with like a challenge, and our ego's draw us to exactly that. There are other exciting cars around which are less dangerous, like I say the drivers were experienced. I hear the 997 GT2 is infinately more predictable though...
