Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj9b5qBvg3s
Porsche Club of America recently published a video illustrating 30 years of change by comparing a 1987 Porsche 944 Turbo to a 2017 Porsche Macan GTS. David Donohue lapped the cars around VIR, giving an interesting perspective on how the cars feel behind the wheel. I have to admit that I was shocked at the performance gap between the sports car and the SUV. Modern Porsches have come a long way.
Years ago when I went to One Lap of America at Hallett.
The Jeep SRT engineers brought an SRT Grand Cherokee. 305 wide Pirelli's, all interior but front seats and door cards removed, optional MOPAR stiffer springs (on the stock dampers).
It was laying down insane lap times.
I know most here are constantly "lightweight, flickability, etc".........HP and HUGE sticky tires make up for a lot.
I wonder how old the suspension and brakes on the 951 were. 30 years of age will certainly have an effect of feel and performance.
Need to compare a Macan to a modern similarly priced Cayman, not a 30 year old sports car.
Compare a 30 year old sports car to a 30 year old SUV.
This article exists solely for the old people who are buying these cars to justify to themselves why they didn't pull the trigger on an actual sports car.
ummm, the video says tires are everything. Even goes on to say that is why vintage cars are faster now than they were 'in the day', then they proceed to test a brand new car with brand new tires against something and not even mention what tires it has? They openly admit later they have no idea what the brake pads are or how old they are on the 944.
I don't disagree the 944 is probably slower at this point, but geesh, give it a fair chance.
A 1947 chevy suburban would give most 1917 cars a thorough whoopin' too. Suburban had 50% more power than the 1917 Indy winner.
Ricky Spanish wrote: Need to compare a Macan to a modern similarly priced Cayman, not a 30 year old sports car. Compare a 30 year old sports car to a 30 year old SUV. This article exists solely for the old people who are buying these cars to justify to themselves why they didn't pull the trigger on an actual sports car.
I disagree entirely. The Porsche 944 Turbo was once a top-shelf sports car and is probably on the shopping list for a number of GRM subscribers even today. It's not uncommon to see 944s at track and autocross events. So seeing how it stacks up against a late model Porsche--even an SUV--is an interesting comparison. I do wish they mentioned what tires the 944 was on though.
nderwater wrote:Ricky Spanish wrote: Need to compare a Macan to a modern similarly priced Cayman, not a 30 year old sports car. Compare a 30 year old sports car to a 30 year old SUV. This article exists solely for the old people who are buying these cars to justify to themselves why they didn't pull the trigger on an actual sports car.I disagree entirely. The Porsche 944 Turbo was once a top-shelf sports car and is probably on the shopping list for a number of GRM subscribers even today. It's not uncommon to see 944s at track and autocross events. So seeing how it stacks up against a late model Porsche--even an SUV--is an interesting comparison. I do which they mentioned what tires the 944 was on though.
This. Of course the Macan would get it's ass handed to it by a modern Cayman. So would a 951. The fact that the SUV of today is faster than the sports car of yesterday is what's interesting here.
But, 1000% agreed on the tires, too.
It's interesting no matter what and 10 seconds on a minute and a half course is an eternity, with or without the caveats. Power to weight wise you're talking 217 hp (non-SAE) in a 3150lbs car, compared to 360hp in a 4450hp SUV, so they're not far off that way. The actual acceleration stats are pretty heavily in the Macan's favor.
Having miscellaneous tires on the 944 could definitely account for 5+ seconds of the difference. Older cars definitely had a lot more body roll, but how much of that is potentially due to old, worn out suspension? The brakes pads might be unknown on the 944, but the brakes on new cars are SO much better. My RX-8's brakes destroy my Miata Chumpcars or my previous RX-7 Turbo II's, which was probably the 944's most direct competitor.
It's also amazing what they're able to do with some SUVs. Check out the X5M's lap time in C&D's lightning lap results. As much as I dislike SUVs/CUVs, even some of the enthusiast press has begun to suggest that some of them have significantly reduced the enthusiast feel/fun delta to a proper car.
then they proceed to test a brand new car with brand new tires against something and not even mention what tires it has?
I turned it up to 4k resolution and down to 0.25 speed and at 2:37 and 3:27 i got enough information to cross-reference with the Tirerack website and posit a fairly educated guess that they are a 225/55/16 Continental Extremecontact DW. You're welcome. 
Other than that, i'm generally not surprised. It's a 14-second car on 1980s-not-a-racecar suspension. It would be surprised if it's any faster around a track than a 1987 Corvette and everyone loves to hate on those. 
And they used an 87 with the smaller turbo and lowered boost?
Why not an 88S or an 89?
Oh right, then it might be a fair fight.
Finally, the origins of the 944's suspension traces all the way back to the Mk1 Golf and the Super Beetle, so the fact that it was as good as it was is pretty impressive.
I've never really taken a close look at one, but I seem Macans in commuting traffic pretty frequently and they've never struck me as being all that big....they seem about the size of my WRX, but on really big wheels. Point being, doesn't seem all that accurate to call it an "SUV" really. More or less just a jacked-up sportwagon of sorts. I wonder what the results would have been against something that is more of a "utility" SUV size, like the Cayenne.
All that said, it blows my mind what crossovers do these days. Our 4-year old Mazda CX-9 could likely beat my e30 rally car on a a higher-speed track (assuming equal tires), and it's not even particularly quick as SUVs go. Or my Porsche 924S, for that matter. Chassis rigidity, huge improvement in stock brake capabilities, and suspension designs really give modern crossovers excellent handling in many cases, and they all have 250-350hp stock, it seems. Heck, that CX-9 is heavy, but feels almost as good as my (well-set-up) WRX in the curvies....
Didn't GRM do a comparison where a Honda Odyssey beat a Jag E-type at autocross a few years ago?
How has no one mentioned that the name Macan is a cross between a bird and a nut?
And they used an 87 with the smaller turbo and lowered boost? Why not an 88S or an 89?
Probably highly dependent on what they could get their hands on that was actually ready to survive track laps and vaguely in the area and willing to be lent out for 10/10ths shenanigans. NOT an easy ask for a 30-yr-old car of ANY variety.
In reply to irish44j:
I dunno man I bet a cayenne turbo s would be pretty damn fast around a track. They're wicked things.
As someone who vintage races, forget about tires, the body roll, the horsepower, those matter, but look at the track width. The Macan has a 9 inch wider track width than the 944, even slapping a set of Hooiser R7s wouldn't give the 944 a prayer. Beyond the benefits of the wider track itself, it allows the designer to use longer control arms.
The other thing I noticed was that with the AWD the Macan is much straighter coming off corners, it's going forward while the 944 is still tracking out to the exit curbing.
My Datsun 1200 is 3 inches wider than stock and the difference in corner speed is very noticeable. I raced it for 21 of the last 28 years with the original configuration.
Stefan wrote: And they used an 87 with the smaller turbo and lowered boost? Why not an 88S or an 89?
Because 2017-1987 = 30 years?
z31maniac wrote: HP and HUGE sticky tires make up for a lot.
I remember when the R35 came out, people discovered that the OE tires (Pilot Sport Cups, I think) were super, super gummy cheater tires. And that they would fit on Vipers. And gave Vipers a significant lap time boost. You just had to make sure that you ordered the GT-R spec tire.
Interesting comparisons even if not apples to apples. No doubt new cars are mazing. Just look at what a stock Camry does a quarter mile - it's in the low 14s. How does that compare to some of the muscle cars from back in the day? It hangs with a 1966 SS396 Chevelle.
The 'test' was not supposed to be fair it was supposed to generate clicks and hence ad revenue. Seems like it did its job.
In reply to irish44j:
It really is surprising how little size, weight and height handicap a vehicle if everything else is well set up and it's got enough tire. It makes it less nimble, but for the times where that doesn't matter, the big things can still be darn quick.
As an example, on a very tight rallycross course, my Jeep will lose to damn near anything you pit it against because its weight and locked center diff turn it into an understeering pig. However, open the course up and add some fast slaloms, etc. and it'll run with or out-run WRXs, etc. It's got the power to keep up, does a good job of putting down power, no turbo lag and it's pretty light on its feet and balanced at speed on dirt.
In reply to rslifkin:
Locked diffs in an AWD are funny that way aren't they? You have to drive it like it was a rear driver, throw into corners so you[re aimed at the exit before you power out. Way different than FWD or open diff AWD where you just point the front wheels where you want to go and you go there.
A few years ago a friend of mine was complaining that his wife wanted a minivan, but he wanted something fun so I sent him the "Soccer Moms Revenge" story from GRM. Somehow, it still didn't convince him he wanted a minivan.
dculberson wrote: In reply to irish44j: I dunno man I bet a cayenne turbo s would be pretty damn fast around a track. They're wicked things.
oh, I have no doubt. I just would have liked to see the 944 against a "adult-sized" SUV, rather than what is essentially a sportwagon with big wheels. That would make it more of a "whoa" comparison, IMO....
A few years ago a friend of mine was complaining that his wife wanted a minivan, but he wanted something fun so I sent him the "Soccer Moms Revenge" story from GRM. Somehow, it still didn't convince him he wanted a minivan.
Sometimes i wonder if people aren't just asking the vehicle to put the fun in their boring driving. My driving puts the fun in 'boring' vehicles. And my minivan beat half the field in last years challenge autocross yadda yadda yadda. Or was it the driver? Whatever. My theory is now that some people are too boring for minivans! 
I've owned a couple of 944 turbos and I had a chance to take a Macon turbo around the Barber track for a few laps this past Saturday. The Macon is very impressive and it'll really hustle. Stock for stock I'd tend to agree with the test, but some minor mods and more tire and I think a 951 hangs with it just fine.
You'll need to log in to post.
