What's the worst generation of 911 and why is it the

File: 911-planes.jpg (52KB, 400x414px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x414px

>>16243896
>IMS Failure
>First major redesign coming off a relatively untouched thirty year old classic design
>Headlights got shared with the entry leveler and were so bad they had to redesign it
>Blobby and rotund, gave a bad first impression of the brand's future

I almost feel bad for all the people who bought the '99 Cabrio, it's literally indistinguishable from the Boxster. Worst 911 to ever happen IMO.

all the things wrong with the 996 are redeemed by that bargain 996 turbo and the not so bargain 996 gt2

>>16243896
nice cayman

File: 1406321932685.jpg (237KB, 1600x1060px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1600x1060px

>>16243896
>Headlights got shared with the entry leveler

um....

File: porsche-996-turbo-06.jpg (142KB, 909x465px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 909x465px

>>16243910
>>Blobby and rotund, gave a bad first impression of the brand's future
Second this
>>16243916
>all the things wrong with the 996 are redeemed by that bargain 996 turbo and the not so bargain 996 gt2
But also second this. 996 Turbos are so deliciously upgradable.

>>16243934
Not that guy, but I'll bite: Number of people that's seen a Boxster vs. number of people that're even aware of the existence of the GT1, what's your guess? 100:1? 250:1?

>>16243977
That came off as more aggressive than I intended, so apologies for that.

>>16243896
if you look at the interior of a 993 and then a 996 the difference is obvious.
the 996 is C5 bad inside.

however the turbo is still a great car

>>16244009
It's not brilliant. Steering wheel is awkward and the gear stick looks like some sort of discount robot penis.
Probably nice enough when you're driving it, though.

>bandwagoning this hard

It's like nobody here knows the 2.7 911

>>16243934
I liked those early headlights over the later ones.

>>16244165
So you're saying that the original 911 is the worst 911? That's a novel position.

>>16244884
Do you know anything about the 2.7?

Universally hated

File: 8_17_03_2_2e74a2df183d2c20f195f8ca10c88923c861a05d.jpg (274KB, 1712x1157px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1712x1157px

>>16246437
Not the early ones, no. But my impression has always been that people fawn over the early ones to a mildly disconcerting degree (2.7 RS worship springs to mind). But maybe I just hang out with nostalgiafags.
Pray tell, why is the 2.7 a suitable candidate for our hate?
>Also 996 Durrbo thread

>>16248472
"Some of Porsche’s more paranoid fans believe that Fuhrmann all but sabotaged the 1974 Porsche 911 and its 2.7L engine. The likely truth is far more pathetic. At the time, Porsche’s engineering staff was very small, and they had three major jobs in front of them: developing the all-new 928, seeing the 924 through its teething issues, and uprating the performance of the 911 to meet market needs. Surely the last of these three jobs simply received inadequate attention.

No matter what the reason, when the surprisingly handsome 1974 911 debuted, complete with the mandatory impact bumpers for the US market, it was a complete and utter disaster. Not for the first time, and not for the last, Porsche had built a car that would grenade its engine within 50,000 miles."

>http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/08/porsches-deadly-sin-5-porsche-911s-2-7/


Beautiful body, everything else a shit. The engines get better starting at the 3.2.

File: 1999-porsche-911-carrera-cabriolet-archived-road-test-review-car-and-driver-photo-546592-s-429x262.jpg (16KB, 429x262px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 429x262px

>>16243910
>I almost feel bad for all the people who bought the '99 Cabrio, it's literally indistinguishable from the Boxster.
I was going to disagree, but then I googled it. Holy shit, you're right. Without seeing the back you really can't tell at all. I guess I've only seen facelifted 996s recently.