Is the 911 still a sports car?

I read an interesting thread on what folks who own 911s expect in their cars and their level of satisfaction with the options. I am not sure that the current 911 qualifies as a sports car anymore. Yeah I know, it is a GT car but that is splitting hairs. One can certainly option it to be a driver's car with some creature comforts but once you start expecting the same features that you might find useful in an SUV, maybe it is no longer a sports car (in my book). My 1994 Miata was certainly a sports car. My very lightly optioned 981 Boxster S was one too. My lightly optioned 911 4s is certainly more luxurious but with the MT, I feel it still retains quite a bit of its sports car roots. Maybe older Porsches is where it is at. Or maybe I am just too old at 56. https://********.com/forums/991/1045078-options-that-you-were-disappointed-satisfied-with.html

Your pointing to options? EDIT: NM, now I understand. They are talking about fluffy stuff. ROFL. Design elements. Not performance options and colors. Especially things like LCA and Adaptive Cruise. hehe. I get it now. Thats value added pricing. PAG can sell whatever they want. But the options have NOTHING to do with whether its a sports car or not. Think about the opposite. Why do they sell PDDC in a Cayenne? PDDC doesnt turn a huge 4 x 4 into a sports car. Is the 911 still a sports car? Why do you think it ever was? 2+2 cars are not sports cars. I know this is sacrilege and 911 owners hate this but ... the definition of sports cars seems to come from SCCA No One Knows What "Sports Car" Actually Means Anymore "Before we consider what a sports car truly is, perhaps we should consider why the definition is important. After all, we live in an era where people take it for granted that they have the inalienable right to be protected from any conversation or communication that might offend or upset them."" :hilarious: " a "sports car" was any car that seated two, had a soft top, and could be used for competition. ... That same car with a permanent hardtop was considered a "Grand Tourer", meaning it would be appropriate for a young man to drive around Europe in varying weather conditions. In some cases, the "sports car" name was used for something that was meant to be an antidote or alternative to traditional sports cars—see "911, Porsche" and "240Z, Datsun." This depresses me; a Porsche 911 is certainly not a sports car. I know. I own one. A Boxster, which I also own, is definitely a sports car. That's why the Boxster, er, 718, and the 911 can co-exist. ... The word "sports car" doesn't mean "car that I like and think is really cool." BTW, the author was an editor for R&T, owns Porsches, and races. A Grand Touring de facto definition comes from Sam Dawson's book "The engines "should be able to cope with cruising comfortably at the upper limits on all continental roads without drawbacks or loss of usable power." "Ideally, the GT car should have been devised by its progenitors as a Grand Tourer, with all associated considerations in mind." "It should be able to transport at least two in comfort with their luggage and have room to spare — probably in the form of a two plus two ( 2+2 ) seating arrangement." The design, both "inside and out, should be geared toward complete control by the driver." Its "chassis and suspension provide suitable handling and roadholding on all routes" during travels." Sports cars have Two Doors, Two Seats, and emulate road racing, preferably ragtops. That falls in line with Baruth a "sports car" was any car that seated two, had a soft top, and could be used for competition. Nobody takes a production car anymore and does wheel to wheel racing like they might have in post WWII 50s. So no 911 meets the definition of a sportscar, including the cabrios. We might think of them as one but they are really GTs, and not because of size. It's that pesky 2 + 2 configurations. The Cayman neither. The Boxster is. And so was your Miata. Even we say "sports car" but technically, not really. BTW, REAL sports cars only come in Red, White, Black, Yellow, and the racing color of the country (e.g., British Green, German Silver).

Yeah true! I knew it would come to this. I sold my GR Boxster S (sports car) with a MT for a GT. I should have kept it but it is OK. My 911 is very, very nice and fun to drive. Some day, when retirement is in sight, I will add a Boxster or a Miata and get rid of my SUV.

The 991 has far more creature comforts than any luxury car had as recently as ten years ago, buy it still qualifies as a sports car. The performance of a 911 is extraordinary, even with all the creature comforts. If you want a track focused car, there's the GT3 which is street legal. Although I always thought of a sports car as having a ragtop, the definition above does specify that a ragtop is preferable but not essential. My personal preference in a sports car is the Triumph and MG models which were offered after WW II, and from which the Miata was modeled.

Definitely a sports car, but not a purist sports car anymore. I do think the Carrera T is a step in the right direction for getting back to its roots.

all it takes is a sprited drive in one to remind ourselves from time to time. if just pottering around town, it may not feel it. just to make sure, I took a drive in a 991.1 GT3 for a few laps round a track a few months back and it was FUN!.

I KNOW its sacrilege to not call a 911 a sports car. But it isn't. So I'll try this. Years ago some golf players got upset. Courses got longer and longer. Their scores went up (not the pros). They complained. Some wanted to change the game. Make the hole bigger or make the course shorter. Anyone can, of course, do that. But you don't get to call it golf. It's something else. No go back to the Baruth article. His focus was on those today who call anything from a Mustang to a Macan a "sports car". Some do it because the advertising tells them so. Nonsense. Some do it because it "makes them feel good". Also nonsense. As Baruth says: "Don't call a Mustang a sports car. It's not a sports car. The word "sports car" doesn't mean "car that I like and think is really cool." Were that the case, then I would call the Rolls-Royce Wraith a "sports car," because I really like the Rolls-Royce Wraith and I think it's just the bee's knees,..." You don't get to change the definition because you want to: "Before we consider what a sports car truly is, perhaps we should consider why the definition is important. After all, we live in an era where people take it for granted that they have the inalienable right to be protected from any conversation or communication that might offend or upset them. If you can insist that I use gender neutral pronouns to refer to you, how much more reasonable must it be that you can tell me to call your Mustang or Macan a "sports car?"" Sports cars cars were two door, two seat, ragtops that you could race on Sunday and drive on Monday. The MG Midget, Fiat 850, Boxster, Miata, etc are all sports cars. How about Targas? I might buy into Targa. T-TOP? No. Hard top convertibles that mechanically fold back? OK, technology goes forward. Watch starting at 4:06. This is a PAG documentary pushing the new Generation Panny. The 550 Spyder was the very definition of a sports car. Race on Sunday, Drive to work on Monday. They actually SAY that. The 911? Of course they advertise it. They advertise the Macan as a sports car and a Panny. Are they? C'mon, you know they aren't. And neither is a Mustang. But a Convertible Vette surely is. Coupes, hardtops, are "touring" cars. They can be faster then their cousins but that doesn't matter. The hardtop is MEANT to make the car more comfortable. What do I mean? When I was younger, ragtops were just like the 550, literally cloth you pulled up, like a current Spyder, no motors, not much rigidity. People, who owned "sports cars" routinely never locked them in the city. Why? Because thieves like to steal radios. Steal Radios? Sure. Especially upscale or aftermarket car radios. Once the radio was stolen, some wouldn't replace it. It was just going to get stolen again. But sports cars were the worst targets? Why? Because they were easy to break into. Thieves would just take a knife to the cloth material and destroy an expensive roof. Then steal the radio. So car owners with no radios would put signs on the window when publicly parked, no radio. Sports car owners would leave the doors unlocked. Why? Because it was a LOT cheaper if they just stole the radio than replace the top. Ragtops were not always fun. Sports cars were NOT practical. They had issues. OTH coupes just got their windows smashed. Put a sign up - no radio. If you want to know why the engine in a 911 is in the rear, google it. Its to ACCOMMODATE the rear seats. The rear seats are not an afterthought but a forethought A Jag XKE 2+2 coupe is not a sports car. OTH, a Jag XKE roadster is. Of course, language is a living thing. Stuff evolves. It's got nothing to do with size or options. Anyone can call, for example, an apple an orange , but its still an apple. Someone might get offended that advertising TOLD them their Macan or Panny 4 door sedan is a "sports car" and believe it. I my believe my lawn mower is a sports car. Its a convertible and its loud! And some days, I like to think of my 911s have been sports cars, and my Cayman. I had a JCW Mini. That's a sports car too. It's back seats were 911 size. It made vroom vroom noises. It was tiny and fun "on the twisties". Why not? FWD, supercharged. My Mini was a sports car (NOT). I had several Mustangs. They are sports car too. Had a Toyota CUV once. V6. Pretty fast. Its a sports car too. It could be a matter of being a purist. But I think Baruth is right about the following too: "When did the definition of "sports car" change? Well, here's the thing: It never did." But FAR more important is this shift in language, this evolution in "wow, my car is sporty! I bought the Toyota Corolla Sport, therefore its a sports car!" is killing sports cars. Baruth is right here ... "What's the harm in calling a .... a sports car? ... the evidence is all around you. True sports cars are almost gone from showrooms nowadays, simply because we've used the phrase and its attendant social baggage so carelessly. If everything is a sports car, then nothing is a sports car. If people who are not self-taught car experts decide in middle age or retirement that they've finally earned the right to have a "sports car," and that search leads them to an Audi SQ5 ... then why would any automaker bother to build a sports car? ... I beg of you, dear reader: start using the term "sports car" to apply to things that are truly sports cars, or close to them. The Miata. The Porsche 718 Boxster (not the 718 Cayman). Stuff like that." IMO, he's right. If you want the Boxster to survive (and Miata), then stop calling "sport cars", "pony cars", and please please not SUVs, sports cars. They are not.

Let's see how long it takes for this new 991.2 C4S to sell. It has neither heated nor ventilated seats. Even worse, it has manual 4-way seats with no memory. 2017 New Porsche 911 Carrera 4S Coupe at Porsche West Broward Serving South Florida, Hollywood & Fort Lauderdale, FL, IID 16231392

Regardless of picking nits, I cannot remember a time when there were as many desirable cars.

It's not a sports car any more. It used to be. I don't know what it is now. It's not a sports sedan either..... My 981 is a sports car. My 2018 911 is not IMO. I can't explain it....it's just a feeling. This was posted on ******** the other day. It's going to sell fast now that they lowered the price substantially. It's a good build but a ton of options.

The 911 R types might still be sports cars, but otherwise I agree. I have a Honda s2000 , that is a sports car, period! I have a well optioned 981 CS that is a GT. In my opinion all 981s Boxster or Caymans are GTs . Even with no options they are all too comfortable and luxurious to be true sports cars as originally defined.

After owning both a 981 BS and now a 991.2 4s (both manuals), for me at least my 911 is vastly more user-friendly and easy to live with as a daily driver. Sensing my trepidation and hesitation when I was reluctantly parting with my Boxster and placing my order for my 911, my sales guy (probably my age or older) told me the same thing, " you will use your 911 much more". My 911 rides better for one thing and all the familar Porsche elements are there but it does feel very different from a Boxster. Feels much more settled (maybe the awd). It is of course ridiculously fast and lots of fun but I can feel the heft of the car. The Boxster I owned felt much lighter on its feet, very much like a grown up Miata. If one has the means, it is good to own both cars. I think it takes more dedication to own and use a Boxster as a daily driver especially where I live. Perhaps why there are rumors that Porsche is thinking of axing the mid-engine twins.

To me, my 991.2 GTS feels very much like a sports car. Different than my previous Cayman GTS (with X73 suspension) that I also considered as a sports car. Oh, yes I also owned a 1960's TR3. Now there was a sports car in the narrowest definition of the term.

Yeah well a bit of a straw man going on here, pick a narrow and old definition of sports car. Time moves forward and definitions change. You wouldn't even be able to take some of those "sports cars" without a proper top or at least roll bar on a track. For me a lot of it is seating position and how far your butt is from the ground, and how the car handles and communicates. Most cars despite sporting pretensions will never be a sports car if only because of the seating position, ride hight and lack of communication between road and driver. As far as the Cayman (and if you don't call it a sports car, your definition is too narrow and old fashioned) vs 911 goes, I am more impressed with the similarities in cockpit feel, intimacy and feel between these two cars. It might have something to do with having a 991.2 GTS with SPASM and MT, but I sure don't feel like I've moved to some bloated GT cruiser by giving up the Cayman GTS . Man is it a fun (sports) car.

I agree with everything you said. Since getting the 911 , my wife and I find ourselves driving the 911 more, but when we drive the Boxster with the top down, we appreciate it more for what it offers.

I didn't pick anything. I pointed to Baruth's article and his points are valid. The definition never changed. "When did the definition of "sports car" change? Well, here's the thing: It never did." Of course you can call an apple and orange, and I knew saying a 911 was not a sportscar would not make 911 owners happy. But definitions are definitions. Sports cars have no roof. Coupes are GTs meant for "touring" the continent. 2+2 configurations aid the touring concept. And my Toyota Corolla with the Sport option which includes fog lights is a sports car because I say so and I'm offended if you think otherwise. Baruth nailed it. When I read articles like this I want to throw up https://www.carmax.com/articles/10-best-sports-cars-for-2017 The top 3 sports cars are the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger, all pony cars. And part of the definition of a sports car is: Eye-catching body design and Competitive zero-to-60 times Absolutely not. A Fiat 850 is a sports car. 0 - 60? Two weeks

My sports car list is short - Lotus Evora Fiat 124 Spyder Alpha Romeo 4C Porsche Boxster Mazda Miata Is it the "correct" or the "right" list? I have no idea. It is my list. And to me the 911 is a GT car.

Despite what an out-of-touch auto writer thinks, the term "sports car" is meaningless. Time marches on and new ideas take root: Bitcoin is a currency whether old-time financiers like it or not, we get most of our "mail" in digital inboxes rather than metal mailboxes, the "movie" industry has moved from cinemas to streaming titles consumed on broadband-connected TVs. By Baruth's and others' ridiculously outdated definition of sports car, no hardtop version of a Ferrari, Lambo, Lotus, McLaren or Porsche is a sports car. Right, and money is backed by gold, and the British Empire is still relevant. In terms of years on the planet I qualify as an "old fart," but I do my best to leave behind ideas and opinions that may have been relevant 50 or 60 years ago but seem just plain curmudgeonish now.

Agreed. The term is meaningless in the sense that there isn't one accepted definition and never will be. This topic has come up on P9 a number of times previously, and will no doubt again. The same arguments will be made and the same old definitions will be trotted out. Doesn't make a difference. The idea that putting on a hard roof means that a sports car becomes something else is illogical. The response, handling and every other performance measure is the same (or slightly better due to increased rigidity) in a Cayman as in a Boxster. What about a Miata with a detachable hard top? Does it switch back and forth from being a sports car every time the roof is attached/detached? Silly. You could make the same argument for the two tiny rear seats in a 911.

Chows, what you are really defining is a "roadster", a subset of sports car . A roadster is a kind of sports car for sure, but not all sports cars are roadsters. May have been 60 years ago.

I guess this morphed into something else. The 911 and Boxster do feel very different, that's for sure but that wasn't my intent with my question. I guess I was asking, when you load up a sports or GT car, a car meant for driving fun (per me), with options like deviated leather, carbon fiber interior, lane keep assist, sun visors and fuse box in leather, 5k stereos, loud exhausts, fancy painted wheels, 7k paint jobs etc., is it about the drive or about looks or both? One can get the same options in both the Boxster and the 911 so perhaps it is not the car that defines what it is called. I guess I am as guilty as anyone else to a lesser degree perhpas because I still like power seats for comfort and a glass sunroof to prevent claustrophobia. Porsche sure makes a killing selling these options and dealers seem loathe to order lightly optioned cars. Ever seen what dealers stock wrt options in their 911s ? I think they are all luxury cars now just with fewer seats. Doesn't mean that they don't drive wonderfully.

I use to race in SCCA races back in the 70s, and have a lot of seat time in race cars which are by definition, spartan. The ones I drove didn't have a heater, AC and were stripped to the bare bones to reduce weight. So if we start with a race car and then make it street legal, you have a "pure" sports car. I'm not aware of any mass produced car today that would meet that standard. The closest would be cars built in the 1950s and 1960s. The Porsche 356 and 911 of that era would qualify. My Triumph GT6 would qualify. They had a radio and a heater, and that was it in terms of accouterments. I owned all three of these cars and they were about as close to a race car in terms of being spartan, that I have ever owned. These cars were all lightweight, had little HP, but were a blast to drive, especially when compared to other cars of that era.

I am not a car guru with deep insight into what makes a car a sports car but what I see with 911s are heavily-optioned, higher end models on dealer lots. And mostly automatics. Lots of options completely unrelated to driving. These are now luxury cars living off the heritage, sorry to say. Not that they aren't wonderful cars to drive but most used examples I have seen are low mileage garage queens. Maybe it has become a status thing rather than a car that is actually driven 10-15k miles a year like any other car. Boxsters and Caymans , same thing. There must be a subset of hard core aficionados who value the drive but these cars seem to have become status symbols. A performance build for me would be a base Carrera or C4 with a stick and decent seats. Try finding or ordering one. I couldn’t. Sales guys are completely uninterested unless you add some options. Performance builds I have encountered almost always include the sport package on the S models that include PSE , RAS, a smaller steering wheel, stylized side mirrors and SC package. None of these is needed IMO.

What about a 914? It is certainly no grand tourer—way too much NVH. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't buy the conclusion. My current Porsche is a 981S Boxster, which I expect qualifies as a sports car. The thought that it was a sports car never entered my mind when making the purchase. There were certain qualities that I sought in a car, and the 981BS checked almost all of the boxes. As a matter of fact after nearly five years of ownership, I can't think of one time when I referred to my car as a sports car nor to anyone else referring to my car as a sports car. As far as I'm concerned, its classification is irrelevant. OTOH if some teenager thinks of his Toyota Corolla S as a sports car, then why not if it makes him happy. I hardly think that Porsche will stop making 718s because Toyota or Ford starts referring to some of its "sporty"cars as sports cars. Remember Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet? "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". So I couldn't care less if my 981BS is called a sports car, a roadster, or even a poor man's Porsche. It won't change how much I enjoy the car. Finally, I hardly think that manufacturers are making fewer "sports cars" because so many cars are referred to as sports cars. I think it has a lot more to do with what people want in a car. Almost everyone nowadays want practical cars, and not the impractical cars that I always sought.

We can agree to disagree. Here is the harm. Breakdown what Baruth is saying : 1 . " What I heard is that the Mustang is a "sports car," not a "sedan." Well, ladies and gentlemen, you are dead wrong—and that misunderstanding could be one of the reasons that true sports cars are so hard to find in showrooms in the year 2016." Premise. You can call an apple a banana, but its still an apple. You are DILUTING the brand (in this case the brand being a class of vehicles). 2. " After all, we live in an era where people take it for granted that they have the inalienable right to be protected from any conversation or communication that might offend or upset them." Get over it. This isn't a safe space. Don't like the definition? Deal with it. Its not going to change because it "offends you" Now why is this important? Because that kid buying a Toyota Corolla Sport is going to TRULY think he has a sports car, and end up in a ditch. There are videos where "kids" over extending wanting 15 minutes of fame. When the time comes to buy a more expensive care, they won't buy a true sports car because "THEY THINK THEY OWN ONE". Yes, that can hurt sales. 3 . " What's the harm in calling a Mustang a sports car? Why, Sir, the evidence is all around you. True sports cars are almost gone from showrooms nowadays, simply because we've used the phrase and its attendant social baggage so carelessly" In the WOTD thread, I whined about the foul language that is now common parlance on the Internet. The thing is, once something becomes common, it no longer has value, its just common. Swear all you want, it no longer has value. It's just language, not valuable for shock value. If all cars are sports car - because you think they are - then no cars are sports cars. And people will be disinclined to buy the true sports cars because when they get in their Corolla, or Mini Cooper, or Jeep, they think they are driving one. But have NO CLUE what is truly a sports car. They are living in a delusional world. I can tell you ancedotal stories of Mini owners, thinking they really had a "sports car". Sure. Drive one then go drive your box/cay. ---- There are many, many people who repeatedly, thread after thread, call the 911 a GT. Some do it to dish the car. Some because they believe it. I call it a GT following the traditional definition. Definitions matter. Go call a Muscle car a Pony Car among the Muscle car crowd and see how far that gets you. These type of vehicles have long accepted definitions (although there can be some cross pollination). I'll try to put it this way. Its almost time for me to buy a new camera. I'll wait until the Canon 1DX3 arrives. Yet some people will try to convince me there is no need to wait, go buy a iPhone X. The pictures will be just as good. Wrong. They don't know what they are talking about. Their frames of references are tiny. They have no clue as to what is needed to enlarge pictures to hang on walls, or what is need to do focusing of tiny object in flight and track them. All they know is they can take a picture of their food, slap it on Instagram, and go "ooh, ahh". They might not even know that the images are being dumbed down to the lowest common demoninator, being viewed on millions of screens, not even close to what the true resolution of photos are. Nor do they understand that all pixels are not alike. They just see numbers "oh look, 12 megapixels. Buy that one". This is what is wrong with letting that Corolla buyer or Mustang or whatever "think" they have a banana when they really have an apple. "They" have no clue of what a "banana" or whatever you are comparing is capable of compared to what they know. CNN is right. :soapbox:. You can call it a banana, but its still an apple. But if someone wants to call their lawnmower a sports car, or call their hamburger a fine steak. Sure, go for it. There is a very old saying: "You can't miss what you never had"

OH, thats another different question. OK, I'll try to explain. What you see here, and on RL or rennteam or whatever, is a small subset of owners. You are seeing "enthusiasts". Some come, get info, and leave never to be seen again. Some enthusiasts never go on forums, they just go autocross or track days with PCA. In the mid-1990s, about to go out of business, and consulting the Japanese on how to build cars, PAG did a study. Only the 911 was being built. Results. How to Segment Your Target Market: A Porsche Success Story - Stephen Zoeller's Marketing Blog There are lots of other websites using the study as a case study. http://www.mcafee.cc/Classes/BEM106/Papers/2004/Porsche.pdf A Psychographic Profile of the Porsche Buyer ( Consumer Behavior , Hanna and Wozniak, Prentice Hall, 2001, pp. 281-82) 24% are elitists, 17% jet setters. I hardly think these numbers have changes. More likely, they have increased. Its a status symbol. It should be obvious that a LARGE group of people are just buying a logo. The 911 is also used as a halo car for the SUVs. Come into the showroom, see the 911 Turbo on the floor, buy a Base Macan or Cayenne. Years ago when I asked why there are so many grey, silver, and black 911s on the lot, I was told because Executives want one. They come in, say "I'll take that grey one", write the check, and drive off in the cars. It's a status symbol. They are not buying a "sports car". They are buying a Rolex. You know that. That doesn't distract from the rest, the Proud Patrons, or Fantasists. They go autocross, track days, or just enjoy their cars for what they are. And they do performance builds.

I believe that the vast majority of Mustang and Corolla owners appreciate what high end sports cars have to offer, and the only reason that they don't own a 718BS is that they don't have $90K to spend on a car. I've been fortunate enough to have enough disposable income to spend on a sports car, and at least in my case I would feel like I were being a snob if I were to tell a Mustang owner that contrary to his belief, he really doesn't own a sports car.

That's not what I, or I believe the author is saying. Last attempt. If you BELIEVE you own a sports car, even though its a banana, then you will not go buy a real apple. No need. You "feel" you own a sports car. And no, I do not believe they appreciate what a box/cay is capable of. I read enough Mini posts, enough posts elsewhere to know that people rationalize and believe whatever the want. Some truly believed a mini was even better than a box/cay. People rationalize what they buy. They never want to admit buyers remorse. So if people believed they own XYZ, then they own it, and they will not buy the more expensive car. No need .... And that, I believe, is his point. If you THINK you own an apple, even though it is not, there is no need to buy a real apple. I give up. We can disagree

Here is an interesting perspective from the 911 chief: https://blog.caranddriver.com/porsc...er.com/porsche-911-chief-talks-philosophy-and-future-including-a-plug-in-model/ Key statements: "Last year Porsche seemed to make clear that a hybrid version of the 911 was off the plate, but that decision has been reversed. The 992 is being engineered with a plug-in hybrid derivative, to be launched after the regular models. Achleitner is guarded on the details, but he says that the 992’s hybrid system will not be shared with the Panamera and Cayenne but inspired by the 919 Hybrid LMP1-H race car. He is unequivocal on one point, however: There won’t be a four-cylinder 911 in the 992 generation, a matter of speculation from some quarters given the performance of the four-cylinder 718. Achleitner says that isn’t happening, though. The venerable 912, for the time being, will remain without a successor."

This discussion as to what is a sports car reminds me of the heated discussions as to what is or is not a catch in the NFL.