If Mid engine were a 911 "option"

Interested in some opines. If the dealer asked you "where do you want your 911 engine?" would you: Mid Engine Placement (lose rear seats) Front Engine Placement (keep rear seats) Rear Engine Placement (status quo)

i love mid engine cars. but i want 911 to be rear engined. 911 is 'german' for rear engine, no ;-) unless they change the name, 911 should be rear engined. to me, it's kind of like asking if you want your doberman to bark or meow. if it doe meow, it shoudn't be called a doberman anymore, no?

I agree. 911=rear engine. However, if I were buying a new Porsche today, it would be a Cayman S and largely because it's a mid-engine car. If there was a 3.6 or 3.8 liter motor in it, all the better, but I don't think that would make it a "911".

Mid engine all the way...why not the best of both worlds? Rear seats are completely useless for most owners anyhow. Mooty still has buggy whips in the garage too...

If you want the engine somewhere else, buy a different car. I'll take it in the rear thank you.......... ( he he he he he )

Yeah....to me its doesnt matter where the engine is....It matters how the car feels and drives....I had a Boxster and its mid engined but I wouldnt say that it was better than a 911....My rear engined 911 is fine for me.

The location of the engine is what simply makes a 911: a 911. No other car today uses this configuration. For a rear engine car with a six there is only one the 911.

If they stop putting the engine in the rear I wil not buy it, its that simple. they can go ahead and make a GT3 Cayman and shove turbo motors in boxsters but if they stop making the 911 in its current GT sports car state I will not buy it period.

Actually the Smart "Car"..if u can call it a car...or smart for that matter, is also RR i believe And no, i would not purchase a 911 if the engine was not in the rear. That's like a viper with cornering, or a rx7 without a rotary, or a honda without vtec...blasphemous!

I need the rear seats... so engine in the back...

Ah, the 914 makes a comeback! Were the price right, you bet. Love to see a mid-engine Porsche priced in the mid 20's new. Would hope they would build it out of better tin, but would be interesting to see something priced cheaper than the boxter.

The location of the engine is what simply makes a 911: a 911. No other car today uses this configuration. And just why do you think that no other car uses this configuration??? Keep in mind that if you go back a few decades, other manufacturers had rear engined cars but abandoned the configuration.

others have abandoned it b/c they were unable to perfect it the way PAG has been able to. Sure, ignorance might have been what kept it in the rear over the years but the R&D and Engineering that has been poured into perfecting the layout is second to none. I have driven all types (front, mid, and rear) and there is nothing quite like the feedback you get from a rear engine car. Between the insane amount of grip you can get to the back wheels and the very linear communication of the rear breaking there is no other car I care to drive. You don't get that communication in a mid engine layout. Better balance? Yes. But they don't communicate nearly as well and when it breaks, it usually is too late, and you spin like a top. I'll take it in the rear as well

Porsche engineers have been developed the nine-eleven for more than 40 years. The car became a myth. I don't mind if Porsche AG is going to launch new models to get a good profit. I don't mind the placement of the engine in other PCars, but I hope that they would not change the 911 architecture. The special handling of a 911 is the best quality of the car.

I don't know if it's a 911 if the engine is in the middle... it loses it's characteristics and it's heritage. Just call it the 38f (for you geeks out there).

In the late '60s I was in High School and drove a VW. I modded it heavily, lowered it, Koni shocks, removed the bumpers, lifted the rear deck, 3 point roll bar, reversed the wheels, etc. I got to love the quirky handling of this rear engined car and had many more Bugs. All the while we realized that the Porsche was the real deal and some day I would have one. When the "bug" bites early in life, 16 in my case, it's hard to shake those early impressions of what is desireable as far as the ultimate vehicle (Porsche) and how should your vehicle handle? Like your velcro stick to the road VW or like Mom's Dodge Dart? In around '69 I had a chance to ride around in and drive a 911S a few times and it was the most awsome car immaginable, as I remember, held in as high of regard as the Carrera GT is today. In my mind, I want the German made high performance car with the rear engine and quirky handling regardless of the label attached to it.

The argument that a 911 with the engine anywhere other than the back "wouldn't be a 911" reminds me of the argument that anything other than air cooled "wouldn't be a 911" and the 996 became one of the most successful 911's ever made. I think the same thing would happen if the engine were moved to the middle. Allot of very unhappy current owners (like the 993) but you can't hold off certain things forever.

NOt exactly correct...the 911 has ALWAYS been a 2+2 sports car....if you remove the rear seats and put an engine there....you have changed what has defined the 911 for decades. Air cooled vs. Water cooled is quite different.....its technology moving on, water cooled is more reliable, more powerful and cheaper to make....period.

It sounds like you think this is actually in the works. It would be a stupid move on Porsche's part. They already make a capable mid engine car. Why would they want to change the 911? You are almost arguing that Porsche should do this. Also, why is this so important to you? Why post in other forums to try to get people over here to vote?

that sort of sounds like most 911 buyers need or make seating capacity a priority. I mostly know 911 owners through PCA autocross and very very few of them seem to care about the two "child seats" in the back. The 996 911 is not really a true 2+2. ^p.s. I asked if it were an "option", like having a C4, Targa and possibly a Mid Engine 911 as yet another. I never said anything about making it the only option. Wheter opening that possibility would be stupid is a matter of opinion and what these forums are for. Also its just a hypothetical as someone who is shopping for a CaymanS but much prefer the the look of the 2002-2004 996. To me it would be the best of both worlds. I'm also gauging the opinion of 996 owners across differnt models GT2/GT3/Turbo, etc. so far the opinion seems to be the polar opposite in the other GT2/GT3/Turbo poll, 2/3's going for the mid engine option. Forums are interesting.

Making it an option would, in my opinion , be even more stupid than making all of them mid engine.

I like it in the rear. don't believe i've ever used that sentence before......

Really all i want is for them to build the very best 911 that they can build. If that means moving it to a mid engine then so be it. I read recently an article that they are now facing the end of the line on what they can do as far as natural aspiration goes with the rear mounted car. There is simply no room for anything bigger than a 4.0 liter engine even with the wide body design. So with that the uppermost HP they are likely to get is what 460? Sounds great and all, but with so many things getting 500 or more now the 911 is what i would say underpowerd. Yes I understand the 911 is not all about power. I understand the 911 is all about the rear engine. I also understand that with the amount of investment that is made in these cars I want it to be the very best possible 911 they can build so with that I am willing to look at a mid engine car if that is what allows them to compete in the future.

There were plenty of other cars in the past with rear engines as well. Check out this link: http://members.aol.com/redbat01/web

If Porsche is having trouble making over 460 HP with a max of 4,000 cc's, then they need to get rid of those "rear seats" and enlarge the engine or add cylinders. They can keep the engine in the rear.

I just about peed my pants on that one.... I think that the 911 is ... There's a really good quote that I will paraphrase since I cannot remember it now... "An asinine design executed to near perfection..." the Rear engine is what makes the 911. Plus it's like taming the beast getting to handle a car with a reputation for being "tail happy" :-)

as form always follows function, I would prefer a mid engine design, but would hate to give up the heritage of the 911..

This is really pretty simple. Porsche already makes all of these "flavors"!! Mide-engined, Boxster and Cayman. Rear engined, 911 ......and if you believe the press a new front engine 928 is in the works!! Where is the problem here??? I don't want a rear engine in my Boxster, a front engine in my 911, or a rear engine in any future 928.......

911 mid engine 10 or 12 cyl.....yes mid engine....keeping the 6 cyl...why change a perfect thing??

I'd vote for a V10 mid engine in the 911 ... if you want rear seats so bad, you should look at the M3/M5. Also, some might say "go Carrera GT/Boxster/Cayman" .... But 1) Carrera GT : the price point is very different - no comparison. If the price points were similar, I'd definitely buy the CGT but that is not the case hence I cannot afford one (yet!). 2) Boxster / Cayman : Porsche intentionally castrates the engine and other components to artificially keep the 911 as the "leader". So I either have so spend 1/2 a million to get the CGT or get a casterated Porsche (Cayman/Boxster). Hence I'd vote for the mid engined V10 911 Carrera and get the best porsche per dollar. Also, going rear engines to mid engine is certainly a technical progression vs breaking heritage. Air cooled 911s gave way to the better water cooled 911s. Even if you neglect cutting edge automobile engineering, simple physics dictate that the rear is the wrong place for the engine ! Of course if they can keep it rear engines and still have a 50:50 weight distribution then the point is moot....

others have abandoned it b/c they were unable to perfect it the way PAG has been able to. Sure, ignorance might have been what kept it in the rear over the years but the R&D and Engineering that has been poured into perfecting the layout is second to none. Granted that the 911 has come a long way in the last 40 years with respect to its handling with the engine in the rear, but I don't think I'd use the phrase "perfect it" to describe its present day handling. I owned a '70 911 and it was certainly tail happy, but we all thought that it was part of the "charm" of the 911. There's no question that the current 911 iteration has come a long way from those days, but in Porsche's mind the best place for the engine is in the middle. Let's not forget where the engine is on their flagship GT model. Although the optimum place for an engine is in the middle, there's little chance that Porsche will ever move its engine from the rear on the 911. It's far too risky from a marketing perspective since the majority of 911 owners are traditionalists, and Porsche risks alienating their core market by making such a radical change. Hell, a lot of Porsche traditionalists went ballistic when the headlight design was changed on the 996, and Porsche felt compelled to change it back to the old shape on their 997 offering. So the rear engine 911 is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.

I hear this all the time, but honestly if they moved it to a mid engine does anyone really think that many people are going to abandon Porsche? And abandon it for what? At the moment they have a special market niche with the 911. It outperforms everything in its class at is price point save the Vette, but that is another discussion. Virtually every other car is going to cost significantly more than a C2, and the performance not as good. Not only that the name Porsche, and heritage of Porsche, their performance, price point, and beauty of the car is what is going to sell the thing. People will bitch and moan about it, but in the end they will find they will continue to buy it if they put the engine in the middle. Hell people bitched and moaned and screamed about the 911 headlights being the same as the Boxster in 1999. Sure they changed them, but did sales slump? Nope. They won't if they move the engine either. At least not if they build a better car.

Granted, but one big reason PAG went to liquid cooling is for cost cutting and production reasons. PAG profits are way up and demand for the 911 is incredibly strong. Liquid cooling allows them to deliver these cars easier.

Would love to see that in writing. Where is your source? Everything I have seen and read has pointed to the reason for the move is that the previous aircooled motor had reached it's limts in the aircooled form and watercooled was needed to further performance developments of the flat-6. Care to explain how going from air to water is cost cutting?

There is a balancing act PAG has to follow. My proposed solution is to keep the engine in the rear, but remove the rear seats to accomodate an extra pair of cylinders. This actually achieves something a bit closer to mid-engined (because the engine is now sitting closer to the center of the chassis) but the rear-engined folks will still be satisfied. And you then have the best of both worlds and you've solved the engine displacement limit issue. The 911 was always a 2+2, but I don't think anyone ever bought the car for that reason.

I thought it was emmissions regulations driving the switch to watercooled heads.

Everything I have seen and read has pointed to the reason for the move is that the previous aircooled motor had reached it's limts in the aircooled form and watercooled was needed to further performance developments of the flat-6. I've read that the primary reason for the change was to meet US air pollution standards, but I'm not certain how true that is. I too don't understand how going from an air to water cooled engines is a cost savings for Porsche.

I loved my boxster and drove a cayman s that i thought was amazing but i too need a back seat for my 3 yr old little buddy-

To Sid's point, perhaps another way of asking the question is: If the 987 had the same HP as the 911 which would you choose? I recently ordered a 987S, and I chose that instead of a 997 because I love the way it drives and because I think it is a really great value. I wanted an open top, but I don't particularly care about having a back seat (this will be a third car...daily driver is a Cayenne S)...and performance wise, the 987 S (with the 3.4 Cayman S motor for '07) is pretty darn close to the 997 for my 'real world' purposes (0-60 5.2 v. 5.0) with arguably better handling. I will be in my custom ordered, lightly spec'd '07 987 S for $52K and change, which is probably $25-30K less than the '07 997 cabrio would have cost me...which IMO is a bargain. I suppose to some there is the "heritage" or so-called prestige factor, but that isn't why I am getting the car.

I read about this somewhere, probably Car & Driver... Porsche made 424HP with a good, old-fashioned air-cooled flat-6 � the 993 Turbo S. Actually, they have been able to make a great deal more than that in previous racing engines. You just have to pour more money into the engine design in the form of engineering and labor to get the heat out. For example, you could start using copper and more cooling fins to increase the surface area of the cylinders and cylinder heads. You could also start coating the piston tops and exhaust system to help carry more heat away from the engine. But these approaches cost a lot more money than using water to cool the engine. Also, as I understand it, the liquid-cooled flat-6 engines (such as on a 996) do not have individual cylinders. The cylinders are cast from two halves of the engine block. It is no doubt cheaper to produce an engine in this configuration vs. an air-cooled that has 6 separate cylinder liners. The simple fact is, water is better at removing heat than just about any other method, and it is therefore easier to make more power this way than the old way. Call it what you will, but PAG is a corporation that has a bottom-line just like everyone else.