Hi guys

New to the forum, and looking for some honest guidance. I want to buy a 911, but am a little concerned about the rear engine balance of the car. I guess overall im trying to decide between the carerra S or the 4S.

I know the S is more pure and a bit quicker. I know the 4s means more things to go wrong, but none of those factors concern me.

Basically I want to know whether this current trend of car journalists saying that the car is now unbelievably well balanced/safe/will not flip around on you is just as compared to previous 911s, or is actually meaning the car is easy to drive fast AND without fear of dying.

Just honest answers please, and no I don't want a Cayman, a GTR or anything else...just commentary on just how safe the 911 has become, and whether, given my concern I should just get the 4S.

 

You are responding to problems that are four decades old. Tricky handling behavior, etc., of the rear engined Porsches was engineered out of them two decades ago. Any of the modern 911s, since the early 90s, have been reasonable as to handling: no surprises.

The 4S has four wheel drive and pulls in a more balanced way through corners. It is more neutral. For all its vaunted reputation, in my experience the standard 911 is a bit of a pig in really tight twisties -- the Aston martin Vantage greatly outhandles it (I've owned both and know . . .) and for such a heavy and comfortable car to be able to do that means the standard 911 just is not that good. If you know how to use four wheel drive to advantage the 4S will handle much better in tight courses and corners a bit better: its closer to neutral and much more a tight course car. The S (two wheel drive) is lighter and a bit faster in a straight line. Personally i prefer two wheel drive . . . but then I'm old fashioned, but regardless I don't like the handling of the two wheel drive 911s.

 

Ok, that's what I was wondering...whether the new journalism was accurate. Whether the new, as you correctly say, vaunted handling was only in relation to previous 911s. Glad to hear that's no longer a safety issue.

I think I will test drive them both. My suspicion is that I'll prefer the rwd S. I will post how I find the reective driving experiences, and my ultimate decision.

If anyone else reads this, please leave your two cents. Better to have more information than less

 

You have to keep the Porsche's handling in perspective. A standard recent 2WD model 911 - either a 996 or a 997 -- whether normal or S, handles well: it will have no deficiencies vs. say, a 350Z or a Miata. Compared to a 'vette (everybody compares them to a 'vette) it will handle better in tight/slow turns (you have to really manhandle a 'vette in tight turns) but not feel quite as stable at really high speeds or in high speed curves (shorter wheelbase) but it will be better on rough roads (neither the 'vette or the Porsche has a really optimum IRS all around but the 911 is a bit better). And of course, it is not built like a toy.
However, compared to cars in its own price range, and the 4S, much less the Cayman or the Boxster, the 2WD 911's handling is just so-so: it understeers quite a bit at times and the front "pinches," if you know what I mean in really tight slow speed turns. On the other hand, mine never really upset me in 39 months of daily driving, but it was no Aston Martin Vantage.
If you are going to be looking through near the top end of the Porsche lineup you really ought to take a look at the AM Vantage. New they are a bit more than any 4S, but the things depreciate like a stone dropping of a cliff the moment they drive off the lot, and there are some year old models with less than 2K miles on them at deep discounts. Its not a faster car, but I can attest that is is a much better car -- maybe the most satsifying overall car I ever owned -- you have to go up into the quarter million range to get something that is really a more satisfying "experience."