Look forward to Gerhardt's article / info Des.
It makes sense to me because Porsche definitely changed direction away from 911 & towards 924/44/28 (1980 ish) and back to 911 (1986 ish). I saw it happen, as did others of the right age. I was appalled to think the 911 would be canned...[8|]
Part of the fascination of Porsche for me is the evolution of their product up to 996 era. It was one big auto engineering party with quality and reliability at the centre. That era produced either by Porsche or their "relatives" the VW GTI (by accident, partly thanks to Audi 80GTE) the Audi Quattro (out of a 200T and their Ilitis (Landrover) transmission, the 2.7RS LWT, the 930 turbo, the 959 tech demo, - apart form the Veyron, F1 and MP4 12C, nothing really similar has been produced since.
Jonny, well spotted, yes you get a point[
]......interesting how they were trialling plastic then. I generally dislike the stuff, but McLaren use it to good effect.[8|]
Olli, I understand there is an ongoing R&D activity ahead of the current range, also very often a cost cutting activity on a current range. What I would say is - it is evident from the range of engines produced in the 1985 to 1990 time frame for the four cylinder transaxle cars, that Porsche did not really know where they were going....too much vino in Stuttgart perhaps. Why are there unused terminals in a 250 ECU in your opinion? The ECU is different to a 220 so why change it but not use it all? Seems odd to me. Pity you were not there to help them with 3.0 16v Turbo.....look forward to that once your sons car is running
The problem they had as a company IMO, is they refused to let the 911 Turbo become overtaken in development terms by any other model. The Germans are great engineers, but having worked there and with them - they can become paralysed in their thinking when things don't fit into the hierarchal order.
Look forward to more info Des, you say it is his job......
George
944t
