Porsche Boxster drivers - bigger knobs than Beemer drivers?

[Aidy]

Come on then Luthor, Aidy. Lets see it properly:

http://www.petrolheads.co.uk/gassing/to ... 324931&i=0

Plans Motorsport, the race and sports car specialist, has teamed up with PH to offer the “Pistonheads Challenge”.

Plans Motorsport runs driver experience sessions and driver training at its base at Dunsfold Park, near Guildford in Surrey. They use the very same 1.9 mile track made famous by BBC TV's Top Gear.

That looks pretty cool, would be up for that

[luthor1]

You asked me a question, I answer it, now you are saying for you to answer the answer to your question would be a waste of time? Why did you ask the question, if in answering the answer to your question would be to waste your own time?

Very odd!

You answered it in a way that showed you know little about how cars perform on track. I asked you that question pretty much assuming you'd answer exactly how you did. Not odd at all, quite clever actually

Uh, dude. Lame.

[luthor1]

as for the Top Gear thing, sounds cool

[tonigmr2]

Ok, so let's sum this up...

The MR2 will be faster on a track than the 'better' porsche, because...

1) The porsche driver won't be as good
2) He is gooning about
3) He doesn't want to drive 'dangerously'
4) Laptiming isn't allowed
5) He doesn't want to drive too quickly in case he crashes his beloved porsche

I mean, get a grip people, this is the most ridiculous conversation ever!!!

Perhaps on the day the porsche was just slower? I mean, just imagine the headlines "£3000 car with £2000 worth of crappy bolt on suspension bits, a boost controller and some half-rubbish tyres laps track faster than porsche 911"

How could you live with yourselves if that just turns out to be the case?

You're allowed to like the porsche better, but don't tell us that it laps slower because he doesn't want to crash it! That's ludicrous.

That doesn't mean they are not true.
Truth is equal driver = same track I'm sorry but MR2 would not be the winner. Yes I would put some good money on that as that is what I believe.

T

[luthor1]

All I can hear now is 'blah blah blah'.

Signing out...

[Tiamat]

Ok, so let's sum this up...

The MR2 will be faster on a track than the 'better' porsche, because...

1) The porsche driver won't be as good
2) He is gooning about
3) He doesn't want to drive 'dangerously'
4) Laptiming isn't allowed
5) He doesn't want to drive too quickly in case he crashes his beloved porsche

I mean, get a grip people, this is the most ridiculous conversation ever!!!

Perhaps on the day the porsche was just slower? I mean, just imagine the headlines "£3000 car with £2000 worth of crappy bolt on suspension bits, a boost controller and some half-rubbish tyres laps track faster than porsche 911"

How could you live with yourselves if that just turns out to be the case?

You're allowed to like the porsche better, but don't tell us that it laps slower because he doesn't want to crash it! That's ludicrous.

That doesn't mean they are not true.
Truth is equal driver = same track I'm sorry but MR2 would not be the winner. Yes I would put some good money on that as that is what I believe.

T

Toni, does that include a heavily modified MR2? With upgraded handling, and power output? given what you can do to an MR2 with £5,000.00 then surely it could be in contention and beat a Porsche?

[Lauren]

Toni, does that include a heavily modified MR2? With upgraded handling, and power output? given what you can do to an MR2 with £5,000.00 then surely it could be in contention and beat a Porsche?

How long is a piece of string?

[THE DUKE]

I'm not arguing it's the fastest

You think it's faster than an evo (snigger). So print the list of cars that are faster than an evo around Top Gear's test track and tell us all which of those you think are slower than an MR2. A car so overlooked Top Gear haven't bothered testing it despite the fact that it is faster than an evo.

Once you've done that I'll print a list of modded evos that were faster than the Top Gear time (yes, we booked a day on their track and timed ourselves, the times were better than Top Gear's).

Or you could just admit the MR2 is the fastest car you could afford and just STFU?

Top gear test new cars... Not 20 yr old ones....... (least not any i have seen!!)

[Tiamat]

Toni, does that include a heavily modified MR2? With upgraded handling, and power output? given what you can do to an MR2 with £5,000.00 then surely it could be in contention and beat a Porsche?

How long is a piece of string?

Was making the point that it is possible for an MR2 to be created that will have equivalent power / handling. I appreciate its a difficult thing as it would depend on what was bought etc, but in either way, whether in favour or an MR2 or a Porsche, it could ultimately go either way. Stock for stock then of course a Porsche would win, thats why you pay in excess of 20X as much for them compared to an MR2.

[Mike]

I'm not arguing it's the fastest

You think it's faster than an evo (snigger). So print the list of cars that are faster than an evo around Top Gear's test track and tell us all which of those you think are slower than an MR2. A car so overlooked Top Gear haven't bothered testing it despite the fact that it is faster than an evo.

Once you've done that I'll print a list of modded evos that were faster than the Top Gear time (yes, we booked a day on their track and timed ourselves, the times were better than Top Gear's).

Or you could just admit the MR2 is the fastest car you could afford and just STFU?

Top gear test new cars... Not 20 yr old ones....... (least not any i have seen!!)

20 year old imports for that matter.

[luthor1]

Toni, does that include a heavily modified MR2? With upgraded handling, and power output? given what you can do to an MR2 with £5,000.00 then surely it could be in contention and beat a Porsche?

How long is a piece of string?

Was making the point that it is possible for an MR2 to be created that will have equivalent power / handling. I appreciate its a difficult thing as it would depend on what was bought etc, but in either way, whether in favour or an MR2 or a Porsche, it could ultimately go either way. Stock for stock then of course a Porsche would win, thats why you pay in excess of 20X as much for them compared to an MR2.

This is my point, stock for stock the MR2 beat the Porsche Carrera4 in that video

[Tiamat]

This is my point, stock for stock the MR2 beat the Porsche Carrera4 in that video

Didn't watch the video as I am at work - can't normally view them.

[tonigmr2]

Just to be clear - yes even against a modded tubby. Modding it does improve the MR2's chances, but it is hard to get across how capable these (911s) cars are. One car beating another in some video proves nothing, sorry. I refer back to my earlier reply (same driver, same track).

I have just about as modded an MR2 as you can get - no expense spared - with 500bhp at the engine, Tein coilovers, carbotec brakes la de da - but I still think the 911 NA (~340bhp or so?) I drove earlier this year would outhandle it, outstop it and be comfortable to go shopping in (which the TRD isn't ). That is why they are great cars. That is why I want one.

I am not saying the MR2 isn't a great car - it is - for the money - and can shame newer more expensive cars. But if you are sitting in the drivers seat thinking it is better than a Porsche you are sadly deluded.
T
Note: I am not trying to convert anyone or prove any point. I only talk from my own experience/opinion. Think what you will.

[luthor1]

In the face of *actually race video footage* you choose to "dis-believe" your very own eyes, and maintain that something underhand must surely be going on? It's very sad and verging on the pathetic really, and sums up the astounding hatred certian people have for the Mk2 Tubby.

"One car beating another in a video proves nothing..." - except that the Tubby is faster round a track than the Porsche?

I completely fail to understand how you can watch a video, and then say "that proves nothing" when it clearly proves the point I am making.

You will be arguing that black is white next.

[tonigmr2]

Have you missed the bit where I've had half a dozen tubbies and think they are great cars?

Read my replies again. Same driver, same track, my experience, think what you will.

I have been in an MX5 (NA) and thrashed a BMW M3 - do I think the MX5 is faster/better than the M3 as a result? It might just have been that it was a better driver in one don't ya think?
T

[shibby!]

Dont like Boxters,

In fact dont like Porsche in general.

I would defo have the Mr2 of the boxter, think it looks like ass, and since its slower than Mr2, it seems hard to justify the extra 10k.


In my opinion better car for the money can be bought, but then the same goes for ALL of the Porsche models, and German cars for that matter.

And yes in general they are bigger knobs than BMW drivers, they seem to think their cars are mega fast, where in actual fact they are not really, they are one of the slowest "sports cars" available on the market today.

Maybe its the name!

Nick

[rossdymond3352]

I'm not arguing it's the fastest

You think it's faster than an evo (snigger). So print the list of cars that are faster than an evo around Top Gear's test track and tell us all which of those you think are slower than an MR2. A car so overlooked Top Gear haven't bothered testing it despite the fact that it is faster than an evo.

Once you've done that I'll print a list of modded evos that were faster than the Top Gear time (yes, we booked a day on their track and timed ourselves, the times were better than Top Gear's).

Or you could just admit the MR2 is the fastest car you could afford and just STFU?

OI! And you are who exactly?

Im VERY sure that Andy could afford more than a single evo, so why dont you put your dummy back in and go away.

An mr2 IS a fast car, if you think its not, you know less than i think.
and im more than sure a large number of cars on here would eat your evo and spit it out before lunch.

if you come on here to slate mr2's pi$$ off mate.

[Aidy]

OI! And you are who exactly?

noobs, aint they sweet

Im VERY sure that Andy could afford more than a single evo

Maybe he could, but for such a petrolhead I find it hard to understand why you would buy a 20 year old car when you could get something more modern. Car technology has moved on a lot since the MR2.

An mr2 IS a fast car, if you think its not, you know less than i think.

It is a fast car, I owned one long enough, and tracked it also so I know a fair bit about them. Unlike 99% of people on this forum I tried other cars and realised that, while the MR2 was fast, other cars were faster and handled better so I moved on. Unfortunately there are a few people on this forum that have that experience and a sensible head on their shoulders when it comes to cars (Toni and Lauren immediately come to mind - they don't say the MR2 is crap, they just say other cars are better which they are).

and im more than sure a large number of cars on here would eat your evo and spit it out before lunch.

I'm pretty sure not

if you come on here to slate mr2's pi$$ off mate.

No, I'm just here to provide some subjective balance.

[rossdymond3352]

some subjective balance being "you could only afford an mr2 so STFU" oh thats very mature. thankyou, im impressed.

Not all of us have large bank accounts and i believe, and think most people will agree, the mr2 is a very good "bang for buck" car, and provides a lot of pleasure for all of us on the forum.
I may have only been a member a short time, but it has been a steep learning curve.

I also agree there are a lot better cars than mr2's and always were. but we as a club love them. A modern car does not always mean a better car. Look at rally cars, some of the older ones run circles round the new more modern cars.

This proves that some EVO drivers are just beligerant (excuse the bad spelling although that may be correct). "i'm the big man with the lancer." i do believe there was a thread on this a while back. How right the conclusion of that thread has become.

Maybe if you didn't have your head so far up your own ar$e you could realise the points of the above comments.

[steve b]

Maybe he could, but for such a petrolhead I find it hard to understand why you would buy a 20 year old car when you could get something more modern. Car technology has moved on a lot since the MR2.

It is a fast car, I owned one long enough, and tracked it also so I know a fair bit about them. Unlike 99% of people on this forum I tried other cars and realised that, while the MR2 was fast, other cars were faster and handled better so I moved on. Unfortunately there are a few people on this forum that have that experience and a sensible head on their shoulders when it comes to cars (Toni and Lauren immediately come to mind - they don't say the MR2 is crap, they just say other cars are better which they are)..

All true.