Talk:Porsche 911 (997)

997.2 Bore Scoring

The citation with the supposed evidence that the 997.2 suffers bore scoring is a website page that makes absolutely no mention of 997.2 bore scoring. The statement in the article that 997.2 suffer from bore scoring needs to be removed.94.175.102.211 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Performance figures

I'm not sure why the numbers were changed, but I'm correcting them. The 4.0 second 0-60 time for the Carrera S came directly from Car and Driver's road test, so it's not a made up number, and 4.7 seconds for the non-S model is taken from road tests of the outgoing 996, which had the same motor.

I'm re-chaning the accleration numbers AGAIN. Those of you who seem to feel that they're wrong need to consult the Car and Driver road tests before simply reverting to Porsche's factory numbers.

Is there a reason that we aren't using the factory numbers? In the absence of some authority on performance evaluation (which, despite claims by Car & Driver et al., I don't think exists) then the factory numbers are probably the most relevant ones to post. In the event that they're misleading or flat-out wrong (inflated or deflated, for whatever reason) then it's probably worthwhile to mention that the manufacturer claims a certain value, but that independent tests place the figures elsewhere. --Milkmandan 03:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I generally try not to use Porsche's factory numbers because they are intentionally deflated in order to protect the company from the wrath of poor drivers who would not be able to reproduce the quick times. Car and Driver's test numbers are more accurate, they are recorded using precise digital equipment and under controlled conditions where experienced drivers are at the helm of each car. I prefer to see the C & D test numbers because they are indicitive of the car's actual performance rather than the deflated performance figures provided by the factory. If you would like to add a notation to the artcile about why the numbers here deviate from Porsche's factory figures, please be my guest.

You have to consider that no number is gonna be correct; acceleration depends on so many things, you can't just say 'this is correct, the others are wrong'. I'd suggest using the factory numbers for consistency, because any magazine's test depends on tires used, surface condition, temperature, type of petrol in the tank, factory specifications, etc. Joffeloff 16:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Facory numbers are prefered , additionally you can mention magazine tests --— Typ932^{T | C}  17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for the contention that factory numbers are prefered? It would seem that the magazine figures are reasonable and are more removed from extraneous influence (legal, image, regulatory) than the factory numbers. I don't see how the factory numbers could be preferred absent some particular authority endorsing them or rendering the magazine's number's unreliable.--Δζ (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find so many different magazine results,......I dont think its wise to have such numbers, factory data is somehow in line with others cars data. Is there some problem using factory data and additionally magazine data?? --Typ932 ^T·C 21:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a fine idea to me. BTW, I wasn't claiming magazine data is inherently better, just that I can see no reason why it would be inherently worse than the manufacturer's claims, and several reasons why it may tend to be more removed from manipultion. I of course would only want to see magazine data if the methodology used is disclosed and similar to standard practices, if any, so that the data is somewhat meaningful. If a notable, respectable magazine provides data with good testing and analysis, it would seem to be fine for the article, especially if its similar to other independant tests. I think having manufacturer figures and some representative third party figures would be the best policy.--Δζ (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Top speed table, 305km/h gets converted to 188mph, but 300km/h is 190mph? Should be 186mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.237.63 (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did the figures come from for the acceleration times under Second Generation? It lists the Turbo S 0-60mph time as 2.6s, and the 0-100kph time as 2.8s. Those are way too low, there are few cars on the planet that are that fast. The Porsche USA website gives the 0-60mph as 3.1s, and the Porsche UK website gives the 1-100kph as 3.3s. I suggest changing these unless someone has better sources. Sources: http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/911-turbo-s/featuresandspecs/ http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/911/911-turbo-s/featuresandspecs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaman (talk • contribs) 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

997 GT3's engine weight

Please verify and correct the engine weight stated in the GT3 section. The engine does not weigh 3075 lb (1395 kg); this figure is either a typo or intended originally for the whole car's curb weight. --911fan 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire car (US version) weighs approximately 3075-3150 pounds depending on options. --Max Power —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.87.191 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance

Would it be reasonable to add a section regarding estimated maintenance fees, frequency of service intervals, and types of service required to keep a new Porsche 997 vehicle in tip top shape? I don't have such information handy however perhaps someone can begin to add it. 68.175.118.95 08:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dry / Wet sump?

The technical details section states against all of the 997 engine variants that a dry-sump system is used. This may be because the official Porsche literature state that their non-GT cars (ie Carrera 2, 2S, 4 & 4S) use an "integrated Dry Sump" lubrication system. However, this system appears to be, by definition, a wet sump system. (Dry-sump engines pump oil from the crank case into a reservoir outside of the engine whereas as these engines do not). To be honest I'm not 100% sure whether this is a point of view or fact, but I'm sure that someone with more expertise would be able to judge this. I'd say Porsche market these as "integrated" dry-sump engines to side-step critisism of the 996 wet-sump engines causing oil starvation under hard cornering etc. I believe it's misleading to quote these engines as being dry sump. My first wikipedia contribution so apologies in advance if I've not correctly followed convention - CR 19 Dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.235.128.1 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

External links in the text

Please make them formatted citations or don't insert them at all. Squash Racket (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about variable geometry turbo issue

(Hello, I'm not a Wikipedia expert, so please forgive me if I'm doing this wrong.)

Regarding:

The 911 Turbo is the first petrol production car to feature variable geometry turbines (previously only available to diesel engined vehicles), however a similar approach was used successfully by Garrett Systems starting in 1989 with the Shelby CSX that utilized a computer controlled variable nozzles instead.

It is not accurate to say the "911 Turbo is the first petrol production car to feature variable geometry turbines." The variable nozzle turbine technology used in the 1989 Shelby CSX is virtually identical to that used in the Porsche. The statement in the article as it stands makes it sound only "similar." You can see cut-away photos at http://variablegeometryturbos.com/ that show the vanes used to control exhaust flow in both turbos.

75.129.225.106 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

4WD: Increases or decreases acceleration times?

One section says The Porsche 911 (997) GT2 is also different from the Porsche 911 (997) Turbo because the GT2 is rear-wheel-drive rather than all-wheel-drive which suggests that the AWD fastens acceleration times, yet another section says that The Porsche 911 Targa 4 and Targa 4S are slightly slower than the Porsche 911 Carrera models, because the heavier roof and all-wheel-drive drivetrain increases the weight, and, subsequently, the inertia associated with acceleration, which suggest that AWD slows the car's acceleration time. I myself don't have enough knowledge to fix that, so how should that be corrected? Thanks--212.235.85.149 (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All-wheel drive usually results in faster acceleration from a stop or slower speeds because of the additional traction, especially with higher powered cars. At speeds where traction isn't as much of an issue the all-wheel drive system tends to hinder the performance, as it adds weight and more power is lost in the drivetrain. swaq 16:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed by removing "hypothetical" statements and replace them with either manufacturers claimed figures or emprical results from actual acceleration tests. There is way more to how quickly a car accelerates than just it's drive system, weight and power so discussion on that basis alone is meaningless and irrelevant. 94.175.102.211 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger of article Porsche 997 Facelift

This article has all its facts wrong. The recently updated Porsche 911 line of cars with the PDK and direct injection are still Porsche 997; the Porsche 998 won't be out until at least 2010. The website that this article cites is very inaccurate too. Mimigu (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this generation of 911 is referred to as "997 Gen II" internally at Porsche (see the source I cite at the article about the 997), so if this article isn't merged into the main 997 article, it should be renamed. --anon. 162.83.145.159 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merged! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Europe

I don't know if the person even considered to put in some info on the European prices when he or she put in:

Note: MSRP prices are set to the United States. In Europe prices are considerably higher and in some countries can even be the double of the American price.

Grr. examplement US prices = 65000 euro, NL prices = 145000 euro for this car. I am a natural disaster when it comes to tables and templates. Can some include a euro prices section in the table? Thanks Mallerd (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Horsepower figures

Note that the table uses as metric horsepower figure and a conversion template. Figures from UK and Germany site correlate correctly, while they do not correlate with USA figures. This is most likely due to different emissions setups on the US models. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

National variant of English

the article currently contains a mixture of American and English English spellings. Which should we use? What do you say?CecilWard (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the policy is that unless the article strong association with USA or UK you can choose whichever you prefer, as long as it's consistent. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ENGVAR specifies that if the article doesn't have a strong US/UK association, it should use the original spelling variant (i.e, find the first version of the article that mentioned tyre/tire or whatnot). This one is easy; the very first iteration of the article uses "litre," so Commonwealth English should be used. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Performance table PDK vs Manual

Something is wrong with the table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_997#Performance_2 as the GT3 models only come in a PDK now....not a 6-speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.137.198 (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

PDK was not an option on 997.1 Turbo!

The article implies that PDK was an option on 997 Turbos: "According to official Porsche figures, the 997 Turbo accelerates to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 3.7 seconds with the manual transmission, and 3.4 seconds with the PDK dual clutch transmission..."

Apparently it was not:

http://www.rennteam.com/forum/page1.html;jsessionid=3jjaoj8hjks5hepozd06qdie?vs=0

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2007-porsche-911-turbo-997-first-drive-review

Another thing, the article implies that 2008 was the last model year for the 997.1. They went to 2009:

https://www.stuttcars.com/porsche-models/911/997/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Porsche 997. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071031105049/http://www.porsche.com:80/all/transitional/usa/clubs/pca/50thanniversary/default.asp to http://www.porsche.com/all/transitional/usa/clubs/pca/50thanniversary/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplicative info and performance specifications

The tables for the second generation are quite duplicative of each other, not to mention an eyesore. I'll attempt to merge them into something cohesive similar to the first generation engine table in the future. Are the manufacturer performance figures worthy of being tabulated even? I dont think I've seen this for other vehicles. Given the "bragging rights" nature of acceleration times generally, is compiling 0-60mph AND 0-100kph for EVERY possible combination of engine/transmission/roof really necessary? IPBilly (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Fully Controlled Catalytic Converter?

In the "GT3 Cup (2009)" section the car is said to have "a racing exhaust system with a fully controlled catalytic converter (from Porsche Mobil1 Supercup cars)" among other things.

What on Earth is a "fully controlled catalytic converter" exactly? I googled it quite extensively, and found no answer at all...and most of the pages had something to do with this car or the supercup cars. If this just means a regular catalytic converter (the road-legal type that might "fully control" emissions) then we should just say that. If it means something else, we should say that. If it means nothing, we might consider removing it. As it stands right now it looks like some fancy feature that this model has, but I can't find any explanation of it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.209.56 (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Porsche which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)