Porsche 911 Turbo S

Porsche has spent the last 49 years trying to fix a problem they invented in 1963 - putting the engine in the wrong place.

The Cayman R is a better car.

I've driven one, and it's retarded. I floored it from a roll though - you get pushed back then the first turbo hits and you get pushed back harder THEN the 2nd one hits and on any public road you're already hitting the brakes or you're going to jail.

Frankly any of those sub-5 0-60 cars is like a sportbike - fun for awhile but gets old IMO. And I'm not a good enough driver to even come to 50% of their potential.

If you are in Vegas, pay the 800 bucks and take out 3-4 super cars on the local track for a few laps each. Screw the casinos that's where I'm going when I get a chance to head down!

edit: 911 has a pretty nice roof mount for bikes. No hitches available though. 

I have a 911 Turbo S convertible (its a few years old).  I've modified it a bit too (ECU programming, wastegate actuators, divertor valves, silicon hoses, euro spec sport suspension, short shifter, gt2 clutch).  Its about 550hp and wicked fast.

It does NOT get old.  I take it to the 2.5 mile road course at Pacific Speedway and it is the funnest thing I've ever done.  150 mph is quite a rush.  Around town, getting onto the freeway is about the only place to push it but its over in about 4 seconds.

I was in the Hospital a lot as I was going through chemo a few years ago.  I passed the time looking on-line for my dream car and was fortunate enough to find it. 

That's a pretty silly statement. There are pros and cons. They have perfected the pros, they have mitigated the cons.

Nearly 50 years and still on top of the heap is not a mistake.

I used to have a Boxster S that I modded and raced.  It is very similar to the Cayman.  The mid engine car (IMO) is more fun to drive overall with the 911 turbo having a bigger thrill factor when you can take advantage of it.  They are competely different cars though.  It is like a lion vs. a deer.  I would not say one is better than the other, just different.  And yes, Porsche has done some amazing things with mitigating the cons of rear engine placement. 

You're not bringing that down to Boise 70.3 are you? wink wink.

This.

Right... and I was not trying to be a fan boy... way out of my league... I'm just saying. And yes, a mid engine Porsche is a good thing. (I would love to have one) It's just hard to call something "wrong" with the success the 911 has had for nearly 50 years even with the well known shortcomings early on.

Well Josh, I would if I could.  Aside from the bike transporting issue, my wife will not drive with me anymore.  She gets too freaked out. 

These cars do not get old! I've been on street and track in Porsches, and I have a twin turbo Audi with 550 hp/460 awhp that will outrun the 996 Porsche TT. The turbos are not sequential, and the boost level is a determining factor in how hard you get pushed into your seat back. The trick which Porsche and Audi  have mastered is being able to drive the car in a docile manner if needed. They are fun all the time and even more fun when you get on it!

When I was younger, I feel in love with Porche because of the 911.  But now, my dream car is a 912.  The bridge between the 356 and 911 era's.  No, they aren't perfect.  But to me, they are beautiful. 

This 1966 one is about as good as it get's for me.  And my wife has promised me one for my 50th. 

And to add to the discussion above, I couldn't agree more.  I would love to have 40-50 years of "failure" of having it in the back end like they have. 

Save about ~$50k and get the Nissan GT-R.

I haven't figured out how to haul a bike yet.  But I have about a year to figure it out if all goes according to plan.

Apples and Oranges  

The GTR is very cool, but almost should be driven on autopilot with all it's amazing electronics. Said technology makes the 4000 lb beast dance quite well, but this is a totally different driving experience than any turbo Porsche, even with the PASM system.