Porsche Cayman: Coming January 2006

[Raza]

Here's a bigger pic:

[Raghavan]

It's just a drawing by MT.

It should be faster than the Boxster.  It won't handle as well, nor be as stylish.  But it should be a stronger performer.

and how do you know all this?

[Raza]

It's just a drawing by MT.

It should be faster than the Boxster.  It won't handle as well, nor be as stylish.  But it should be a stronger performer.

and how do you know all this?

How do I know all what?  It's not a statement of fact, nor even an educated guess.  I just think it should be that way--if they make a car like that.  I think it's what Porsche should do.

[Raghavan]

It's just a drawing by MT.

It should be faster than the Boxster.  It won't handle as well, nor be as stylish.  But it should be a stronger performer.

and how do you know all this?

How do I know all what?  It's not a statement of fact, nor even an educated guess.  I just think it should be that way--if they make a car like that.  I think it's what Porsche should do.

ahh.. ok...
i personally hope that Porsche doesn't do this. I think they're moving too far downmarket if they build this thing.

[Raza]

If I were to spearhead a front engined Porsche:

2 seat, 2 door coupe (convertible as an option later)
6 speed manual
RWD, no available AWD
Three versions:  929, 929S, 929 Turbo

929
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  VW sourced 2.0L turbocharged I4, 200HP (as seen in Audi A4)
6 speed manual, 6 speed AT optional
Leather standard, Premium trim optional
CD Player standard, CD Changer optional
Upgraded Stereo optional
Navigation N/A
Target weight: 2300 pounds (2400 AT)
0-60 in 5.9 seconds
MSRP: $32,000 USD

929S
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Porsche 2.7L horizontally opposed 6cyl, 225HP
6 speed manual only
Leather standard, Premium trim optional
CD Player standard, CD Changer optional
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 5.4 seconds
MSRP: $36,000 USD

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

[Raghavan]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

[BMWDave]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

Except its not 15-20K less.   A Boxster S is about 53K.

[Raza]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

[Raghavan]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

[Raghavan]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

Except its not 15-20K less.   A Boxster S is about 53K.

fine, 11k, and check a couple of option boxes and the price'll be close to $60k in no time.

[BMWDave]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:? Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

I am sure that they are sometimes crossshopped.

[Raghavan]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

I am sure that they are sometimes crossshopped.

which are?

[BMWDave]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:? Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

I am sure that they are sometimes crossshopped.

which are?

SLK and SL.

[Raza]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

[TBR]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

Just like to point out that there was a RWD turbocharged 996. It was called the GT2 and had even more power than the regular Turbo model.

[Raghavan]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

i still think the new model would be taking away sales from the Boxter, but if you know what you're saying, then it's your choice. :shrugs:

[Raza]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

Just like to point out that there was a RWD turbocharged 996. It was called the GT2 and had even more power than the regular Turbo model.

Not the same thing.  I meant a RWD Turbo, with the same power as the AWD Turbo, just a bit cheaper.  The GT2 also had no rear seats.

[TBR]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

Just like to point out that there was a RWD turbocharged 996. It was called the GT2 and had even more power than the regular Turbo model.

Not the same thing.  I meant a RWD Turbo, with the same power as the AWD Turbo, just a bit cheaper.  The GT2 also had no rear seats.

Chances are the people that would look at a rwd 911 turbo would be enthuisists and would therefore appreciate the extra power and not mind paying for it. However, I get what you are getting at, with as many variants as they had would it have been that hard to just adapt the drivetrain of the GT2 and keep the rest of the car the same as the regular Turbo in both power and price. Oh yeah, I think the deletion of the rear seats is probably pretty much a non issue for 911 buyers as they are too small to be of much use anyway.  

[BMWDave]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:? Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

Just like to point out that there was a RWD turbocharged 996. It was called the GT2 and had even more power than the regular Turbo model.

Correct, but it is not known as a Porshe 911 Turbo, but rather a Porsche 911 GT2.

[Raza]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

Just like to point out that there was a RWD turbocharged 996. It was called the GT2 and had even more power than the regular Turbo model.

Not the same thing.  I meant a RWD Turbo, with the same power as the AWD Turbo, just a bit cheaper.  The GT2 also had no rear seats.

Chances are the people that would look at a rwd 911 turbo would be enthuisists and would therefore appreciate the extra power and not mind paying for it. However, I get what you are getting at, with as many variants as they had would it have been that hard to just adapt the drivetrain of the GT2 and keep the rest of the car the same as the regular Turbo in both power and price. Oh yeah, I think the deletion of the rear seats is probably pretty much a non issue for 911 buyers as they are too small to be of much use anyway.

True--unless you have kids, back seats are useless.  I have useless backseats and I have a sedan.  However, rear seats are great for one great purpose--it's a leather covered parcel shelf.  A place to put your briefcase or what not.  Sure, in an extreme model like the GT2, it's unnecessary weight--but in a Turbo, which is meant to replace your daily driver, it's a good addition.

[TBR]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

Just like to point out that there was a RWD turbocharged 996. It was called the GT2 and had even more power than the regular Turbo model.

Not the same thing.  I meant a RWD Turbo, with the same power as the AWD Turbo, just a bit cheaper.  The GT2 also had no rear seats.

Chances are the people that would look at a rwd 911 turbo would be enthuisists and would therefore appreciate the extra power and not mind paying for it. However, I get what you are getting at, with as many variants as they had would it have been that hard to just adapt the drivetrain of the GT2 and keep the rest of the car the same as the regular Turbo in both power and price. Oh yeah, I think the deletion of the rear seats is probably pretty much a non issue for 911 buyers as they are too small to be of much use anyway.

True--unless you have kids, back seats are useless.  I have useless backseats and I have a sedan.  However, rear seats are great for one great purpose--it's a leather covered parcel shelf.  A place to put your briefcase or what not.  Sure, in an extreme model like the GT2, it's unnecessary weight--but in a Turbo, which is meant to replace your daily driver, it's a good addition.

Correct me if I am wrong (and I might be, I have never seen a GT3 or GT2 in person), but don't those two cars have the same amount of luggage space (probably more) as a regular 911? And, unless your kids are very small, the rear seats are completely useless for anything except holding a brief case etc.  

[Raza]

929 Turbo
Front engined, RWD coupe
Powerplant:  Fuji sourced horizontally opposed 4cyl, 300HP
6 speed manual only
Premium trim standard
CD Changer standard
Upgraded Stereo standard
Navigation optional
Target weight: 2400 pounds
0-60 in 4.6 seconds
MSRP: $42,000 USD

who are you kidding? that's significantly faster than the Boxter S for about $15-20k less!

I meant to take nav off...

It's stripped out, and weighs a lot less than the Boxster.  It's also not available as a convertible.

How's this, though...

The SLK55 AMG is a hell of a lot faster than an SL500.  And also 30K cheaper, at the least.  You think it steals sales from the SL?

That's a bit different. One is a sports car, another is a sports tourer/ GT. We're talking about 2 sports cars here.

Well, since you want to get technical, we're talking about one sports car and one GT.  The hypothetical 929 is a fixed roof model.  

Of course it's a pipe dream--if I had full control of Porsche, the Boxster would be more powerful and cheaper, the Box S much more powerful and more expensive, the Cayman named differently and either cheaper or with significantly more power.  The 911 would have a RWD Turbo model, not just AWD like it is now.  

The point should be that the Boxster, though more expensive and slower, is a more refined and razor sharp drive, whereas the 929 is much like the 944 Turbo was--a 9/10 on handling, but this time much more powerful.  It's a cut rate M3 killer.  It won't appeal to the same group that is buying the Boxster.  It's meant to woo Elise buyers.  After all, you know what Lotus stands for, right?  Lots of trouble, usually serious.  You know what Porsche stands for?  Perfection.

Just like to point out that there was a RWD turbocharged 996. It was called the GT2 and had even more power than the regular Turbo model.

Not the same thing.  I meant a RWD Turbo, with the same power as the AWD Turbo, just a bit cheaper.  The GT2 also had no rear seats.

Chances are the people that would look at a rwd 911 turbo would be enthuisists and would therefore appreciate the extra power and not mind paying for it. However, I get what you are getting at, with as many variants as they had would it have been that hard to just adapt the drivetrain of the GT2 and keep the rest of the car the same as the regular Turbo in both power and price. Oh yeah, I think the deletion of the rear seats is probably pretty much a non issue for 911 buyers as they are too small to be of much use anyway.

True--unless you have kids, back seats are useless.  I have useless backseats and I have a sedan.  However, rear seats are great for one great purpose--it's a leather covered parcel shelf.  A place to put your briefcase or what not.  Sure, in an extreme model like the GT2, it's unnecessary weight--but in a Turbo, which is meant to replace your daily driver, it's a good addition.

Correct me if I am wrong (and I might be, I have never seen a GT3 or GT2 in person), but don't those two cars have the same amount of luggage space (probably more) as a regular 911? And, unless your kids are very small, the rear seats are completely useless for anything except holding a brief case etc.

Dude, the GT3 and GT2 are incredibly impressive in person--you wouldn't think so.

But yeah, the luggage space is the same.  

[850CSi]

True--unless you have kids, back seats are useless.  I have useless backseats and I have a sedan.  However, rear seats are great for one great purpose--it's a leather covered parcel shelf.  A place to put your briefcase or what not.

Yeah, same goes for me. That's what the Audi's rear seats do. Because trunks and messenger bags don't seem to get along very well.

[Raza]

True--unless you have kids, back seats are useless.  I have useless backseats and I have a sedan.  However, rear seats are great for one great purpose--it's a leather covered parcel shelf.  A place to put your briefcase or what not.

Yeah, same goes for me. That's what the Audi's rear seats do. Because trunks and messenger bags don't seem to get along very well.

Plus, my messenger bag slides all over the damn place in the trunk--that's the one bad thing about a boot that's bigger than the one on an A8, small things slide.  

You know, every once in a while, I think we might be the same person.  Then I remember that you're crazy.

[Raghavan]

True--unless you have kids, back seats are useless.  I have useless backseats and I have a sedan.  However, rear seats are great for one great purpose--it's a leather covered parcel shelf.  A place to put your briefcase or what not.

Yeah, same goes for me. That's what the Audi's rear seats do. Because trunks and messenger bags don't seem to get along very well.

Plus, my messenger bag slides all over the damn place in the trunk--that's the one bad thing about a boot that's bigger than the one on an A8, small things slide.  

You know, every once in a while, I think we might be the same person.  Then I remember that you're crazy.

LOL!