CKit

I think I'd rather get the 911 Turbo.

It's actually a sleeper compared to the GT-R. I'd debadge the 911 and get one with a manual tranny.

If I was shopping in 2010 and I had the option of a new GT-R with markup (or else a multi-year wait) or a lightly used 911 Turbo... I'd get the Porsche even though the GT-R may be the better performer.

Realistically, a great driver in a 911 C2S could kick my ass on a track if I was driving either a Turbo or a GT-R so splitting performance hairs between the cars is not interesting to me.

The GT-R is a great performer, no doubt. But the "Wow" factor is really in the price / value / accessibility... but that may all be on paper... realistically, how cheap / easy will one be had? Without the cost factor, is the GT-R as big of a deal?

seung

to me,
when it comes to porsche
it has to be na rwd.
(well, gt2 is an exception...)

that said,
i would go with gt-r.

it's no brainer-
at more affordable cost,
it's faster, stronger, probably more reliable and cheaper to maintain.

only thing it lacks, is that "status symbol" or "sex appeal" stuff.
but you know what, there's nothing more pathetic than driving a car as a tool to get attention.

yes, the gt-r hype is too much right now.
but i personally think that gt-r would be more "fun" to drive than 911 turbo,
even after the hype and novelty wears off and an honest "car to car" comparison is done.

Luckyaze

this is subjective, why would you buy ur s2 when you can get a miata with 90% of the fun and fraction of the price?

CKit

Have you tracked your GT3 yet?

I agree with the "value" aspect... presuming you can get one at MSRP and without waiting for three years on a list.

But what about if they were the same price? Because in two years, I would anticipate that would be the case.

For example: cars.com
2004 NSX for $68,000
2004 Porsche 911 Turbo for $66,000
Both factory certified pre-owned.

I think the performance limits of the GT-R would be so high and that it would be so well balanced that it wouldn't be fun on normal roads at normal speeds. Drama = slow. There's no tail-out adrenaline on the F1 circuit. If you drove one of those machines on the street, it'd be boring (I think).

JonBoy

I'm in total agreement with the OP and for the same reasons. I can't drive my S2000 to its capability yet - a 997 TT or GT-R is so far out of my current league that the differences are purely academic. The Porsche looks way better (to me) and that's about all I can base my choice on.

otbs2k

The Porsche is the true drivers car and I would take it everytime over the GT-R. Personally speaking, any "supercar" that doesn't come with a manual transmission is missing the point, and is geared more for sales to rich old people rather than drivers. Sure the new paddleshift transmissions can shift incredibly fast, but it's not worth the trade off in my opinion.

seung

i don't really see what you are saying...

i've owned both s2000 and mitata back in the days-
while miata was a great little car,
i cannot say the fun factor of it was far below 90% of s2000's.

... but what's that gotta do with attention whoring?

seung

sadly, no...
i can't even drive it on the streets now.

and here is my poor excuse.

CKit

>Cough< RS4 >Cough<



07 GT3s were $125k
04 GT3s are now $70k
That's >$15k depreciation per year.

It'd piss me off knowing I was paying ~$1500-1800 per month in depreciation / interest / insurance for a car I couldn't drive months out of the year.

I'd give up a few tenths on the track for some actual use out of the car.

This is my argument for AWD over RWD for the sedan and AWD over RWD in a Porsche that is more daily driven than heavily tracked.

CKit

(but if the monthly cost isn't a concern, then more power to you!)

Didn't mean to be a jerk.



I hope to someday be able to afford a $130,000 track car that doesn't make it to the track that often.