ADias

I'm sorry but those despots must be coherent with themselves and stop producing CO2 themselves (i.e., stop breathing). We all know what this is all about and it must pass.

fxz

Lol fingers crossed
but at the end is not the CO2 the real objective
but to put down EU petrol needs

using one or another excuse

obviously sport cars need to be consistent with generic production
or they would cost billions

Mike in CA

Tony, I have great respect for you, but this notion that because humans produce C02 as a byproduct of respiration, somehow C02 is not a potentially dangerous substance when introduced into the atmosphere in large quantities is simply absurd. It's greenhouse properties aside, at sufficient concentrations C02 can cause nausea and an increase in pulse rate, physical impairment, and death. We may expel it, but it's not harmless. As with most things, it all needs to be kept in context.

To give some context, according to the United States Geological Survey the Mount St. Helens eruption spewed 100 million tons of C02 into the atmosphere. That's a lot. The USGS also estimates that the upper limit of all volcanic activity in an average year is 500 million tons. By comparison, the estimated impact of human activity from all sources is 35 BILLION tons of C02 every year. That's BILLION. The amount of C02 we expel from our bodies is NOT the issue and using that as proof in one side of the argument is, with all due respect, ridiculous.

ADias

Mike we have to agree to disagree. We all know what CO2 is, how it's produced, its (good) uses and effects (good and bad). It is an essential natural gas, not a pollutant. I am trained in science and technology and I know false science when I see it.

Mech33

What is the false science exactly?

Keith Verges - Dallas

WTF yet again! I only posted about the intrinsic performance and enjoyment of driving turbocharged cars. And it devolves into a geopolitical debate? I just pointed to the storied history of Porsche using turbos and how odd it is that Porschephiles are upset about turbos now.

bronson7

Settle down boys, it's all good.

Bonster

That will definitely make it nearly impossible for folks like me to race. I mean, I am not poor - but holy crap my budget is nowhere near the big wigs like Brumhos, etc.! I don't know if I could sell everything I own and have enough to race once at that level. Lol. Eek!

Bonster

Agreed. We are just shooting the breeze. I prefer to learn from my fellow Porschephiles than anything I read in the paper or see on tv. This, imho, has been a very educational an interesting thread. If I stuck it in the P&C, things will escalate such that any chance of learning and polite dialog will fly out the window.

dunlopnick

should be fun when they announce a hybrid turbo engined RS - I still haven't got over porsche dropping MFI

Alexandrius

First to Keith; the answer you are getting is because we are upset regulators are stepping in to tell us what we want as the consumer. I don't think the new 911 will be a bad product; but the statement Porsche made in a jalopnik article was it was between a flat 8 or a turbo 6 for the new 911 to create more power, because they felt the 911 flat 6 na engine was practically maxed out for a car on the street.

A few points of science for mike regarding the regulation that is keeping us from owning a flat 8 911 (drooling).

Each breath you exhale is approximately 100 times the parts per million of co2 in our air. Why does sitting in an enclosed space not kill us? We are breathing out a **** ton of co2. The reason why is a small bit may dissipate, but mainly you have to be exposed to completely obscene amounts for it to be harmful. Imagine drinking water until you die; that is even less extreme.

The other point is that co2 levels increasing has been linked to increased growth of plant life...farmers would enjoy that. I can't remember the numbers but I read a scientific paper on it. So I can't defend that point as well.

Now finally; ok we put out co2. How much does co2 contribute to literally the only "scare tactic" left for a certain political party to enact certain laws? Another scientific paper I read by a Nobel prize awarded physicist who is renowned mainly for his work on quantum tunelling, said look at the numbers for factors believed to affect the heat of the earth.

Sun cycle is number one I believe, followed by a truly brutal number of factors. Co2 is determined as a very minor factor, he works the math to say co2 emissions increase earths temperature by something like 1/180,000th of a degree for each degree increase in temperature. So he agrees.. We are "possibly" warming the earth !

His arguments with these facts is as follows: why not help crop production with more co2? Why not deregulate co2 emissions standards and apply common sense to eliminating true poisons. Take the billions and billions (trillions worldwide) of dollars invested in "green anti co2" emissions and work on growing our societies in other ways. Better infrastructure. More investments in proven scientific research and causes.

There is just no definitive proof of significant global warming caused by human co2 emissions. Even if there were proof, eventually one day, the sad fact is the beloved hockey stick graph is a joke, the earths temperature has been lower than now when co2 levels were over 40 times their current levels. If we do in fact raise the temperature of the earth with co2 emissions, it will be by 1/180,000th of a degree.

I spent weeks reading only facts regarding this on the governments dime.

The only science decided by a "consensus" was the notion the earth was flat. Oh, and global warming as a result of human co2 production. Why do so many scientists agree it is all humans destroying the earth? Because they are over educated for the paychecks they would likely receive to research something else. Is it a conspiracy? No I'm not wearing a tin foil hat. It's just an extremely convenient story to use for 1. Political power, 2. Funding. Politicians and scientists are silently nodding because at the end of the day they know they are not lying..they are correct that it's possible humans are raising the temperature of the earth by 1/180000 of a degree for each degree increase (something like 2 degrees over a thousand years ?). They are just incredibly overstating the importance of regulating it because that's what all politicians do when something supports their cause. Republicans make a deal with the devil to support Christian fundamentalists to fuel their campaigns, as democrats support global warming scare to fuel their campaigns. It's just how it works. Both are wrong. It's just that right now democrats are affecting my ability to one day own a cool'er Porsche (flat 8). This turbo one will be cool I'm sure. It's the principle.

Dr. G

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. I recently gave my dealer a deposit for an allocation slot for the 991.2 GT3 RS (assuming Porsche will be offering it). After my 993TT, I had a Vantage S and the R8 5.2 with the Stasis ECU tune. Currently driving an APR tuned RS7. It's a locomotive in a straight line, but I miss the immediacy of the NA cars. i'm assuming the RS will be "slightly" more nimble

Bonster

Alexandrius just won this thread.

Alexandrius

I have a few factual inaccuracies I will correct when I have access to a computer.

ADias

I, like many here, prefer NA engines, but Porsche being Porsche, will make these new turbocharged engines perform. No doubt some of the smooth/continuous rev curve will be lost, but they will perform. Notice that this is not a 'Turbo' model per se, i.e., not a no holds-barred power monster. They traded power for a wider torque curve, flat at a very low 1500RPM. For those who keep the revs high (most 911 drivers do), this means the turbo lag will not be there once the car is moving.

As far as the 991.2 goes I actually think it will be more '911' than the 991. Why? The engine is heavier and that will move the CG rearwards. That with the optional rear-wheel steering will 'correct' the 991 'balanced' dynamics. Sure, all this is accomplished by unneeded complexity (and extra mass) and that is unfortunate.

The claim that the 911 flat6 platform is maxed out is simply bogus in my view. The 9A1 engine is at the 400HP level (I pay no attention to 15/20HP back and forth) in the Carrera S, 500HP in the GT3. The previous Mezger has been shown capable of 500HP. Thus, I think that PAG could easily fashion a base 9A1 variant around 500HP. I could care less in any case. For my driving interests (spirited canyon driving) 400HP is more than enough.

Note: To calm those who will react saying that the 991 has always been a better car, I say: you are right. Some of us 911 fans do not want a better car - we like the 911 defects.