Are all 911s inherently unsafe?

I keep reading articles where auto journalists write that driving a 911 is like 'throwing a hammer handle first' & recently heard someone say that as soon as you do lose grip in a big way in even a modern 911, you are traveling backwards... On the other hand it's regarded as one of the most iconic sports cars of all time. Is the rear engine layout really that dangerous once the car is out of shape? I'm keen to hear the thoughts of 911 owners? Kind regards, Tom

I don't think so. I've been told that the older turbos were a handful but my NA '99 C2 is a very nice driver. I think the original Beetles were more dangerous because they were underpowered LOL It seems to depend quite a bit on how you drive them!

If you know how to drive these cars then there isn't an issue. Many modern 911s (99 - present) have PSM (porsche stability management) or some iteration of this system. With these systems and the modern technologies, the issues you are referring to reside mostly with older 911s. In an older 911 (pre 993 I believe, may include the 993), if you were to accelerate into a turn and then lift off the gas (or god forbid hit the brake) you could induce the *** end of the car to come around on you causing a bad situtation. What magazines are you reading and about what year 911s are they reviewing?

If you can't drive, any car is unsafe. Porsche's have a different dynamic, but once you understand it, it's just as stable as any other platform. Things just don't "happen" and you don't just end up backwards. That is, unless you ignore (or don't understand) what the car is telling you. -td

Is that you Ralph Nader?

Every time we see a new generation 911 we see in print that the lift throttle oversteer is no longer a problem. That mass in the rear is what makes the car rotate early in a corner allowing the driver to get on the throttle sooner and faster down the next straight. That same willingness to rotate is why the car has the reputation of being difficult at the limit. Most of us grew with cars that understeered at all times so lifting in a corner when too fast was acceptable. Not so in a 911 - any 911. At the track, it is realatively easy to remember not to lift. On the street, maybe not. So, yes, once out of shape by being too fast in a corner, it can be more dangerous than cars with lots of understeer built in. An eletronic stability system is a damn fine idea. A fast ride with a good driver in an older 911 will produce ear to ear grins!

It's all BS and jealousy wrapped up in a neat bow. If 75% of every Porsche made, including 356's and 911's are still on the road today, that means that with a percentage rusted out, very few have statistically been crashed and written off when compared to other cars. No mention of the fact that more front wheel drive cars under steer off the road and crash. Or all wheel drives leaving the road with all wheels driving themselves into the ditch. There is an inherent trait exhibited among journalists that test Porsche's to find fault, any fault with Porsche's - especially 911 models as they know it riles owners of 911's up. I don't think anyone has an issue with criticism of 911 handling traits - as long as it's fair. When I read the 'golly gee' reports of Vette's or Viper's and how great they handle - knowing many of the owners of these cars are no longer around to dispute the reviews, only their estates could reply.... It smacks as selective bias. Any vehicle can be crashed, even a moon rover! Perhaps the great record of on the road retention of Porsche vehicles is the owners are better drivers? Ask any manufacturer rep how many of their press cars are crashed every year. You would be stunned at the number. Perhaps the question shouldn't be are Porsche's unsafe - it should be asked; 'are auto journalists unsafe'. Just saying.

I only have limited experience, since I got my first Porsche just last fall; but, having driven Hondas, Jeeps, Toyotas, Delivery trucks, etc. in my life, I find the Porsche (996 C4) to be extremely stable and solid on the road. And I live in the PacNW with rain and rough conditions. While I haven't taken the car out in the snow, I have played in the rain, and was really pleased at both the braking and handling of the Porsche (My car does have PSM - which I leave on). All in all, I find the that I feel safer in the Porsche than I do in the other cars, simply because there isn't a lot of play in either the steering or braking. If I tell the car to do something it complies; whereas, I can fiddle with the steering in the other cars, and they won't respond in as precise a manner.

I think you need to push the car really hard through a corner and liftoff for it to actually spin around. Unless you've gone completely out of your mind, you wouldn't go to that limit on the roads. That said, every time I am doing a high-speed turn I am always aware that I shouldn't liftoff or brake hard - This was something that I learnt when I was a kid playing Need for Speed Porsche Unleashed (esp the old cars)

"Unsafe" is completely the wrong word. What is true, is that a rear-engine car handles VERY differently from the way every other car on the road handles. Most cars are front engine front drive, and they handle about as well as a snow plow works in skiing. If you don't know what you are doing, AND you are driving the car VERY near its limits, then it is possible to get in more trouble in a rear-engine car than in a front engine car. However, any 996 or newer with traction control has so much stability and handling that NO ONE should take it to the limits on the street. AND, if you know how to drive a 911, then are very controllable even AT the limits (on a track).

I am sceared to death of mine. I will not even sit in it.

From what I understand, having a rear engine car is a love-hate relationship. By having the weight over the rear wheels, it allows fast entry into a corner (lighter nose, engine weight provides more traction to rear tires). However, if you upset the weight transfer dynamics in a hard corner by either suddenly lifting the accelerator or hard braking, you transfer the weight to the front tires and unload the back tires. The rear tires with less traction (thanks to the weight transfer to the front), now dramatically understeers, and will try to turn the car around. If you are worried about it - just keep the PSM on.

What "journalists" are stating that driving a modern 911 is like "throwing a hammer handle first?" -Eric

I would say that my 996 C2's handling makes the car safer than at least 95% of the cars on the road. When I first drove it I was surprised at how nimble but yet stable it was and you can't take it near it's limits on the street. I have driven other sports cars and part of the "engaging" experience comes when you feel like the car is near its limits. Many of these cars would seem like you could get close to the limit in street driving. I would be afraid to take mine to its limits on the street, that is why I autocross and do DEs.

I was always worried about that when I first bought my 996 however I broken it loose on purpose in the snow to see how bad it can be. It's pretty bad if you find your way into that situation but in the dry and rain I've never been in a position from which I have not been able to recover. Take a driving class so you can explore the limits.

GSIRM3: Have you set a reasonable price on that death trap yet? +1 on the track time, driving instruction, and enjoying the limits of the car!

Take the car to autocross to see how it handles. Even with PSM off, the car is quite controllable, and not that easy to make the back-end break loose - of course eventually you reach the laws of physics - but with PSM on - you have to be doign something very stupid to get into trouble ,,, Understeer was much more of an issue than oversteer for me ...

Cars are dangerous Having said that, I love the rear weight bias of all 911s including my current 2000 model with PSM. Driving a 911 aggressively is a challenge. Even with the chassis nanny switch on these cars can still bite. That is part of their great charm as a site like this attests. On the other hand, I am reminded each time I drive a Boxster how much better the mid engine design is in terms of balance and tossibility at, say, 8/10ths on the street. Not that they are necessarily more fun to drive, but I'll bet I could beat my own 911's autocross times in a similarly equiped Boxster with equal power. For an amature (like myself), the Boxster is a little easier to wring speed out of quickly.

Quotes source post: 9354669

Kurt, as a fellow C4 owner in Seattle, I can tell you it is fantastic car both in the wet and in the snow, with proper tires. Having owned a number of 911s over 25 years, I can say that the 996 C4 is a completely different animal compared to a two-wheel drive 911. In the NW, in the wet and snow a C4 will allow you to push it a bit farther without going over the edge. A C2, on the other hand, has completely different handling characteristics and limits. I prefer the C2 at the very edge, but for safety in daily and overall driving, I love the C4. Having said all that, be careful when you first get behind the wheel of a two-wheel drive 911- they are very different. I'd love to hear your impressions of a C2 and a C4 driven back to back...

Journalists are just people in general. One that wrote for a well know motorcycle mag for years hadn't a clue about anything mechanical and would write in depth articles about the latest and greatest techno wizardly in the industry often tripping over himself and struggling all the while. It's like he'd use a press release from the manufacturer and try to reword it. Too bad he didn't get it. I lost all what little credence I had in that publication. A neighbor of mine was the guy that did the Saturday automotive reviews for our local paper. He didn't get it either. Often he'd have me drive him up the canyons to test the latest suspension, handling or braking features. He wrote the Mitsubishi Galant sport handling control and ABS brakes without understanding what they really did. I'd pilot the car and give him a first hand demo. It amazed him as he didn't feel comfortable pushing vehicles at all. I'm sure there are a lot like this.

I know this thread is more about handling safety -- but I would like to see Porsche at some point puts its cars through the same crash tests that other manufacturers do. Over the years, I've heard the 911 family is extremely safe in a crash. But I'd like to see a relative comparison.

Quotes source post: 9355035

LOL. Do you think I could get anything for it?

All 911s are deathtraps, you should get rid of yours right now. As a service to all 911 owners I will take the car off your hands for no charge and give you a full release of liability. PM for details.

Look at the pics, both driver and passenger lived. This happened a few miles from home and 3-4 miles below where my avatar pic was taken. They went off a steep canyon road, down a steep long embankment and I believe upside down in the icy stream. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14382034

Quotes source post: 9355492

PM sent. I'll be glad to be rid of that death-trap.

Quotes source post: 9355343

I think that data is out there in massive abundance, and has been since 1973 when the 5mph bumpers first began. You need to consider reading a wider range of information. ALL MODELS and ALL MANUFACTURERS must go through ALL of the exact same crash testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration EVERY model year. All automobile models must be crash tested every time there is a change to that model. Here is their home page: http://www.nhtsa.gov/ You can browse it at your leisure. That means there are already a minimum of FIVE 991 coupes and FIVE 991 cabriolets sitting in the NHTSA junk yard out back, and results are available on their site. Crash testing is MANDATORY. Nobody is allow to sell an automobile in the United States until NHTSA and DOT sign off on it.

The engine is in the rear! Some bitch, I hadn't noticed. Really, an autocross or DE is the best learning experience you can get and calm your fears about the *** end coming around.

Thanks for all of the responses. Don't mean to ruffle any feathers. Just asking the question from an unbiased position. It's a bit hard to name the exact articles I have read over the years that use the 'throwing a hammer handle first' quote. I've also read terms like 'defying the laws of physics' or 'lift-off oversteer' I'm sure others have read this stuff over the years also. Listen to this Porsche technical instructor describe the handling to Jay Leno in this video (at about 6:42 to 7:30)... http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/...911-gt2/966781 I understand the argument that if the car is driven properly & within it's limits, by an adequately experienced/skilled driver, then there should be no problem, but this does not account for all situations on the road. Other drivers, mechanical failures, dangerous road surfaces, weather condition etc. All of these external factors come into play also. I'm not looking to buy a Volvo & understand that all mechanical designs are compromises. Just looking to get a bit more of an idea of the 996 in particular before I bother people for test-drives. Anyhow, I think these are fascinating cars. Thanks again for all of the responses.

Quotes source post: 9355524

If you can see the creek, understeer. If you come to and don't know how you got in the creek, oversteer. If there are no skid marks you are avoiding a trip to *** pounding prison by going to the hospital

Before I owned a 996, I couldn't drive from here to there without hitting something. A tree. A curb. The occasional pedestrian. However, since I have been driving the 996, I have been accident free for over 6 months! I assume that accelerating through turns, jack rabbit starts, +100mph sprints (allegedly) and last minute braking have been handled much better by my Porsche 911 than my Jaguar XK.

Porsche driving dynamics glossary: Understeer - hit the wall with the front end Oversteer - hit the wall with the back end Horsepower - how much damage you do when you hit the wall Torque - how much you move the wall when you hit it

I've put 35,000 miles on my 996 in 4 years, and haven't even killed myself once yet! As other people have said, it depends way more on the person - I know some people who are "unsafe at any speed" and in any car. And other people who have been driving 911 variants for decades. Perhaps the OP would be at home in a Saab or Volvo?

Quotes source post: 9355170

Exactly, I was quite suprised during a winter skills track day in the rain how difficult it is to get the rear loose. Even with the PSM switched off the car is balanced with understeer at the limit. Of course the rear can be loosened up with the thottle.

Quotes source post: 9356624

98% of us will die at some point in our lives. -Eric

By far, the most stable car I've ever driven. In fact, after one weekend of very spirited driving, I was going to work in my SUV and took a turn at a slower speed and almost rolled the SUV. Now that's unsafe. As Clint E. said, "a man has to know his limits". The 996 pushes mine.

Some pretty funny replies here. Great entertainment.

Growing up in the Chicago area I saw many more Corvettes straddling guard rails pointing the wrong way in winter then 911's. Putting the engine in the front does not mean the car is more stable in an emergency maneuver. And it is not always poor road conditions that make Vettes tricky to drive. There are several fun videos on Youtube of Vette Drivers loosing control on dry streets just because they do not understand the dynamics of their car and its power. Best investment any Sports Car owner can make is a club sponsored Drivers Skills day. If you really want to understand your 911 - don't read writers reviews - join the club and do Driver Skills training. Trust me you are going to really enjoy the day and your 911.

They're only unsafe if you aren't driving them. Anyway, here's a video of Ivangene's cruising partner. I'd kind of like to hear Ed's word on this subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwII0k2bSpM

Quotes source post: 9356182

I think you are missing a key point here. Any modern 911 has SO MUCH TRACTION and stability in its basic tire/wheel/suspension setup, with the addition of traction control, that there is NO WAY there should be any "situation on the road" that causes you to lose traction in a 911 more than it would in any other car. That is, if I need to avoid someone stopping, go around a falling tree, make my way over an icy patch or whatever else, it will be EASIER to do it in a 996 than in a civic, or an audi, or whatever else. (And I won't even get started on the tip over dangers of the all those high COG SUVs.) Those journalist are talking about what happens when you go into a hairpin turn on the track at 110mph and then use your instinct to lift off. I recommend driving on the street so as to never replicate approaching a hairpin at 110mph.

The rear weight bias of 911s was overcome by vast improvements in tire width and technology, and continual refinement in suspension design. By the time the 911SC series was introduced in 1978, handling limits had been raised to a level far higher than the capabilities of most owners. relinuca

I used to autocross and track a '69 911S. Early suspension; narrower tires. It rode better than a lot of new 911s and the oversteer was an absolute joy. Gave you tremendous ability to steer both with the throttle and the steering wheel.

I once read that "Porsche took a really bad design and perfected it!"

Quotes source post: 9356686

"A man's got to know his limitations." Sounds the same but is it really? You Tube

For street driving, the Porsche is very stable as long as you stay within its performance envelope. And the envelope is huge. Within that envelope, it will go where you tell it to go and do what you tell it to do with amazing precision. On the track or AutoX the rear bias will occasionally make itself known, but you really have to work it. Like others have said, an AutoX is the best way to find out. Under those conditions, you can try all of the situations: trail braking, early throttle-on, the dreaded trailing throttle oversteer, etc. I tried them all and haven't spun the 911 even once. By contrast, I spun my old BMW M-roadster a few times. It was a tail-happy little beast.

Quotes source post: 9354796

Sounds like the journalists don't know how to use hammers either!

+1 on the Autocross. I had one spin-out (PSM off), and I was able to recover very quickly. There was a sharp turn after a straight-away, where the pavement dropped down a few inches and there was a coating of loose sand. (near the beach). A Lotus did a 360+ in the same spot, and quite a few other cars lost traction as well.

I have to agree that the handling on the 996 is docile. I had the opportunity to run mine on a wet autocross layout and had a very hard time getting the back end loose. You want the wrong end of a hammer, try driving an SRF at speed in the rain.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spec_Racer_Ford I don't know if they still run these, but I remember getting very backwards, very quickly.

Quotes source post: 9354721

Cracked me up.

Quotes source posts: 9358621, 9359293

My favorite too!

Quotes source post: 9354567

Yes, it includes the 993...I learned all about lifting off the gas during an off-camber turn during an auto-x. Fortunately, the only thing damaged was my pride...talk about a lesson learned, however: I have not done anything remotely like that since.

This same question arose for me going to a 928 from a 911, or better from a 996 (all three with proper set up [I'm in Florida so tires are up to temp in the driveway) and tires and pressures). Would a 928 stick as well? Would a 928 be fun (read safe) at speed? Can its limit be approached safely? Guess what? Regards,

Theoretically, the back-end flip on 911s is solely because of all the weight hanging at the back. So I wouldn't expect a 928 to behave the same on a level road. Over the years, Porsche has been working on making the 911 more and more stable during cornering by improving the weight-balance. So compared to an early 911, the 996 is far more stable and more forgiving. With regards to off-camber turns, again theoretically, all the weight hanging at the back will worsen the situation. But then all cars are relatively more unsafe in an off-camber curve than a level road, or an on-camber curve. That said, I've pushed my '86 911 once, felt the back end move "a bit" and immediately stomped on the accelerator pedal and said to myself "I'm never going to do this again on public roads". Haven't pushed the 996 so far :P

Quotes source post: 9395824

That was most of it. But it was made worse by the tendency of swing axles to self-steer under lateral loads. I once had an off-road excursion in a Triumph Spitfire because of this. Most memorable. Multi-link suspensions don't do that. Add this to big rear rubber and the rest, and you get a 911 that has almost all the virtues of the rear engine layout - the ability to brake deeper into a corner, and exit faster - and none of the vices, IMHO.

Quotes source post: 9354439

The original Beatles sounded powerful when they turned their amplifiers up lol. Especially that one ."Shake it up baby now, twist and shout".

Its' Official - the best quip of the year goes to GSIRM3: "I am scared to death of mine. I will not even sit in it." Also, a new clinical condition has now emerged: Carreraphopia No snake oil treatment suggestions, please...this is serious.

Quotes source post: 9394808

I came to the 996 family after owning two 928s, and they are totally different cars. The 996 is light and nimble and the 928 is heavy with major torque and a 50/50 balance. Each has advantages and I love both of them

Iv laid the 99 I have sideways a few times, its very predictable. A fiero, that is almost a perfectly balanced car gets out of hand a lot fast than my 996. In fact my corvette (87) would push a lot more than my 911. Figure that one out?

It's so dangerous that you shouldn't look at it directly. Use a mirror instead.

What do you think isn't safe about the 911? I like some of the comical answers to the funny question

Quotes source post: 9398740

Why does every thread here degenerate into a discussion about oil?

ahem.. I think "snake oil treatment" here refers to questionable/jocular suggestions.. nothing to do with engine oil (luckily!) right Mark?

My 996 is my first Porsche. I definitely wouldn't say the cars themselves are inherently dangerous, but I will say that making the change from front engined cars to a rear mounted engine has been an experience. I consider myself a pretty good driver, but I need to constantly remind myself that I have no idea what I'm doing with this car when I feel like having a little fun and need to take it slow. Sliding my S4 sideways on a dirt road or kicking the *** out around a corner in my M Roadster was no big deal because I'm used to driving AWD and RWD cars with a heavy front end and what could happen when doing either was fairly predictable. Right now, I don't have enough wheel time behind the 911 to feel confident doing things like that. Long story short, I need the weather to get better so I can do a few PCA events. PS - I use Rotella T6 5w-40

Quotes source post: 9402460

2nd best quip of the year! Who is going to mention IMS? Oops.

Correct Shyamvenky, I'm afraid that people will start suggesting untested cures that have not been subjected to proper clinical trials, such as having the unfortunate afflicted owner repeatedly watch images of 911 tail lights coming around for desensitisation. This condition is clearly propagating...GSIRM3 can't sit in his car and wyovino (my vote for second best quip) can't look directly at his. Sadly, we simply don't know enough about the disease yet. Heck, I could almost swear that the back end of mine inched over about three feet in the driveway overnight.

To the OP....every 4 legged animal has a weight/power ratio that is favorable to its hindquarters. If you are a gazelle, this is good. You might live out the day. If you are a cheetah, this is good. You might eat today. My personal hypothesis is that Uncle Ferdinand recognized the wisdom of Mother Nature when he built the Porsche 64, which is the predecessor to the 356,911,964,993,996,997,991. Corvettes, Vipers and other front engine/rwd cars....Well , I ask you, how does the armadillo fare in natural selection. Full disclosure...owned 71' 911S, 08 997.1TT, 97 993TT

If that is the case, I'd LOVE to know what they would say about a Gen I Dodge Viper!

The driver creates whatever danger presented. Then it depends on what you consider danger.

The 996 model has a weight distribution of front 49% and rear 51%. Hammer? I love the weight distribution of my hammer.

Inherently dangerous? Heck yes. And you should run like a screaming little girl from the room.

Quotes source post: 9407829

I'll supply the gun fire to get thing started. I hate getting this lame subject back on top but can anyone spot any point in this video where it is unsafe? I don't think so. You'll see gazillions of cars on the road that could never handle the wet roads, gravel and mud the way the 911 does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBGl2G4yJV4

Quotes source post: 9407545

Hmm, I think you're thinking of the Boxster or the 928, 'cause there's no way the 996 has 49/51 distribution. Maybe more like 40/60.

Quotes source post: 9400868

I forgot.. I had a Fiero a long time ago... spun that thing a dozen times (admittedly, I hadn't learned about Trailing Throttle Oversteer). That car was a PIG. But it was cheap and looked cool and dumb chicks thought it was a Porsche!

Quotes source post: 9412804

Gotta love dumb chicks eah Er what are they when you drive a porsche?

discerning

Quotes source post: 9413093

What are they when you drive a Porsche? Wife. What are they when you don't drive a Porsche? Ex-wife.