The Pinnacle of the ICE sports car

[Danoff]

On the one hand the McLaren F1 seats the driver right up front and center so that there is nothing compromised about the seating position and you have the purest driving experience. On the other hand, what is better than sharing your drive with a passenger in the passenger seat? There is something just... wrong... about putting your passenger(s) behind you.

Ok, so Veyron vs. R8 (seems like a fair comparison, they have a lot in common):
- Where the Veyron wins - Notoriety, Power, Top Speed, Lap Times, Luxury.
- Where the R8 wins - price, naturally aspirated.

But ultimately, the R8 is also a 10-second car, 200 mph top speed, and pretty darn fast around the track too. Curb weight is down a bit with the R8, which is a plus. Really, there is no way that any of us would probably care about the performance difference between a veyron and an R8. In exchange for not caring, you get to keep gobs of cash and you get a naturally aspirated engine.

I hereby declare that I was wrong about the Veyron. It's not even the best from VAG.

It's tempting to throw out something like the MX-5. Cheap counts for a lot, and it's super light. I'm not a huge fan of the short wheel base on the Miata, and though I can't say it has really bothered me when I've driven them, I don't like that the engine is in the wrong place.

If I think MX-5, I think NA W20 MR2, which I would take over the MX-5 every single time in a heartbeat. If I think MR2, I think NSX, because the NSX is really what the MR2 is capable of becoming (lotus is kinda the other route). But if I think NSX, I think Ferrari. And that's how considering the Miata puts me on Ferrari.

I'm (just a little) surprised nobody has gone rotary yet.

 

[Epic B]

On the one hand the McLaren F1 seats the driver right up front and center so that there is nothing compromised about the seating position and you have the purest driving experience. On the other hand, what is better than sharing your drive with a passenger in the passenger seat? There is something just... wrong... about putting your passenger(s) behind you.

Ok, so Veyron vs. R8 (seems like a fair comparison, they have a lot in common):
- Where the Veyron wins - Notoriety, Power, Top Speed, Lap Times, Luxury.
- Where the R8 wins - price, naturally aspirated.

But ultimately, the R8 is also a 10-second car, 200 mph top speed, and pretty darn fast around the track too. Curb weight is down a bit with the R8, which is a plus. Really, there is no way that any of us would probably care about the performance difference between a veyron and an R8. In exchange for not caring, you get to keep gobs of cash and you get a naturally aspirated engine.

I hereby declare that I was wrong about the Veyron. It's not even the best from VAG.

It's tempting to throw out something like the MX-5. Cheap counts for a lot, and it's super light. I'm not a huge fan of the short wheel base on the Miata, and though I can't say it has really bothered me when I've driven them, I don't like that the engine is in the wrong place.

If I think MX-5, I think NA W20 MR2, which I would take over the MX-5 every single time in a heartbeat. If I think MR2, I think NSX, because the NSX is really what the MR2 is capable of becoming (lotus is kinda the other route). But if I think NSX, I think Ferrari. And that's how considering the Miata puts me on Ferrari.

I'm (just a little) surprised nobody has gone rotary yet.

If race cars are not off limits I'd say the pinnacle of rotary performance would be the Mazda 787B.

 

[mustafur]

I would also give a shoutout to the VR6 engined cars, my god they sound glorious, even if the rest of the car tends to be some understeering hardly able to turn garbage(R32 is what I'm talking about), VW really should of made a Small MR sports car for that engine.

 

[05XR8]

I would also give a shoutout to the VR6 engined cars, my god they sound glorious, even if the rest of the car tends to be some understeering hardly able to turn garbage(R32 is what I'm talking about), VW really should of made a Small MR sports car for that engine.

I'll agree with that. My 2.8 was an effortless cruiser. Couldn't stop with the standard 9.4" discs(Jetta GLI), but dang, such a sweet engine.

 

[McLaren]

I'd personally put forward the second gen Audi R8 V10 Plus.

In a world where everything is getting turbocharged and/or hybridised, the R8 has remained as a last defiant bastion for the naturally aspirated mid-engined supercar. It's Lamborghini V10 has stood as one of the world's greatest engines for it's raw noise and character.

I think a lot of credit here goes mainly to Lamborghini then, since the car derived from their Gallardo platform. Audi reshaped it into something a bit more practical & less shouty with the R8, and it did technically go through a short Electric motor phase.

I'll give Audi a ton of credit as well, though. Although in its 2nd generation & receiving the same developments as the Huracan, Audi has kept the car the same at its core. Same design, same idea, just evolved over the last 10 years. It doesn't look drastically different to a design first released 14 years ago. The car has aged very well.

On the one hand the McLaren F1 seats the driver right up front and center so that there is nothing compromised about the seating position and you have the purest driving experience. On the other hand, what is better than sharing your drive with a passenger in the passenger seat? There is something just... wrong... about putting your passenger(s) behind you.

Ok, so Veyron vs. R8 (seems like a fair comparison, they have a lot in common):
- Where the Veyron wins - Notoriety, Power, Top Speed, Lap Times, Luxury.
- Where the R8 wins - price, naturally aspirated.

But ultimately, the R8 is also a 10-second car, 200 mph top speed, and pretty darn fast around the track too. Curb weight is down a bit with the R8, which is a plus. Really, there is no way that any of us would probably care about the performance difference between a veyron and an R8. In exchange for not caring, you get to keep gobs of cash and you get a naturally aspirated engine.

I hereby declare that I was wrong about the Veyron. It's not even the best from VAG.

You're comparing a modern R8 though against a car that's origins begin back before the turn of the century & took 5 years just to get a prototype going. Sure it can hit 10.5 seconds in the quarter mile & hit 201mph, today. The Veyron was doing that the back in 2010 before the SuperSport showed up. Not to mention you're comparing 2 vehicles situated in different markets with vastly different prices & development behind them.

So I'm assuming this just a comparison in jest. The R8 is a solid car, but the Veyron remains VAG's F1 of the 21st century.

 

[homeforsummer]

If I think MX-5, I think NA W20 MR2, which I would take over the MX-5 every single time in a heartbeat. If I think MR2, I think NSX, because the NSX is really what the MR2 is capable of becoming (lotus is kinda the other route). But if I think NSX, I think Ferrari. And that's how considering the Miata puts me on Ferrari.

This was sort of my thinking behind the F50. You take all the basic aspects of what makes any sports car great and then look for the car that then offers the ultimate expression of those aspects. For me that ends up with F50, Carrera GT and F1.

I like the Zonda idea someone mentioned but there's a little too much tinsel there for my tastes. I love the way they look, but styling ultimately doesn't add to the sum-total of a car's abilities. You can't really appreciate it when you're actually driving, in other words.

 

[05XR8]

What about the 959? It pretty much did it all. 6-speed gearbox, sub-4 0-60, top speed, driver comfort, awd technology, aerodynamics. So what it looks like a Beetle RSI today. The Bugatti shows us that we've seen that trick before. Just with a bigger engine. Which makes the Veyron late to the party. Porsche(and Ferrari) got us there in the 1980s. After that, nothing else had to be proven about what sports cars can do.
With the exception of the McLaren F1, LFA, S2000 and FD RX-7, we've seen it all.

 

[Danoff]

This was sort of my thinking behind the F50. You take all the basic aspects of what makes any sports car great and then look for the car that then offers the ultimate expression of those aspects. For me that ends up with F50, Carrera GT and F1.

Ok, so here's the problem with Ferrari (now that I've utterly destroyed the McLaren F1 with my devastating criticism of its seating), you can't use one every day. One of the problems that often comes with super high performance cars like the Ferraris (or even farther down the totem pole like a BMW M3), is that they're "nervous" for lack of a better word, in every day driving. Either constantly goading you to drive faster, or twitching at every bump in the road, or tramlining, or rattling your fillings out, or having terrible visibility (earlier pointed out by @Famine), or whatever else that keeps you from just sitting back and enjoying the driving experience.

If you break the cars into two groups (say, track and touring), you might end up hating the Ferraris because they make too many compromises for the road when you take it on the track. Where is the natural home of a top end Ferrari (like the F50)? The track? Maybe not hard core enough (in terms of suspension, the power is plenty). The road? Maybe not soft enough.

Or maybe the F50 is just the quintessential track car experience.

 

[VXR]

The S54 in CSL spec. The swansong for an entire company's signature layout, and it certainly hasn't been bettered by the V8 and turbocharged successors for purely subjective matters.

 

[Danoff]

The S54 in CSL spec. The swansong for an entire company's signature layout, and it certainly hasn't been bettered by the V8 and turbocharged successors for purely subjective matters.

Trust me, I love my E46. The E46 M3 was absolutely one of the great cars ever to be built. I've driven it, and I'll the NSX over it. The CSL version suffers from the SMG transmission. I'd take a stick-shift manual M3 over the CSL with SMG.

 

[McLaren]

What about the 959? It pretty much did it all. 6-speed gearbox, sub-4 0-60, top speed, driver comfort, awd technology, aerodynamics. So what it looks like a Beetle RSI today. The Bugatti shows us that we've seen that trick before. Just with a bigger engine. Which makes the Veyron late to the party. Porsche(and Ferrari) got us there in the 1980s. After that, nothing else had to be proven about what sports cars can do.
With the exception of the McLaren F1, LFA, S2000 and FD RX-7, we've seen it all.

Bugatti's party trick is that anyone can drive a 1,000hp car with a reliable motor.

The 959 was not that. Not sure how Veyron gets discredited but a S2000 gets praised for doing what the Miata has been king of for years.

 

[TenEightyOne]

For me the pinnacle of the ICE sports car is... the entire 911 concept. Easy enough for a daily drive (my brother in law still lugs the kids to school in his 'elderly' 996) but capable of being a monster when required, umistakable in shape and image, available with an eye-watering range of engines and specifications, and iconic in every generation it's existed in.

For a car whose overall engineering philosophy dates from the late 50s I'd say that's quite something and well worthy of the top spot... until they do an all-electric one, and then I'm out

 

[SagarisGTB]

TI like the Zonda idea someone mentioned but there's a little too much tinsel there for my tastes. I love the way they look, but styling ultimately doesn't add to the sum-total of a car's abilities. You can't really appreciate it when you're actually driving, in other words.

But is the Zonda (or Zonda F to be more specific) an inferior driving experience to those cars you mentioned? I guess this is a question for the likes of Chris Harris or other veteran car journalists.

I'd love to learn the answer first hand, but few ever have or will.

Ok, so Veyron vs. R8 (seems like a fair comparison, they have a lot in common):
- Where the Veyron wins - Notoriety, Power, Top Speed, Lap Times, Luxury.
- Where the R8 wins - price, naturally aspirated.

I don't think the R8's problem is the Veyron, but instead the Huracan Performante sister car that has outdone the R8 in nearly every facet and has received far more acclaim from the press.

 

[McLaren]

Well that's to be expected somewhat. VAG isnt going to let Audi build a R8 that truly outperforms the sister Huracan. That takes on a risk of potential buyers opting for the Audi for less money/better performance.

The top of the line R8 V10 Plus is already $10,000 off the sticker price of a base Huracan.

 

[05XR8]

Bugatti's party trick is that anyone can drive a 1,000hp car with a reliable motor.

The 959 was not that. Not sure how Veyron gets discredited but a S2000 gets praised for doing what the Miata has been king of for years.

Is the MX-5 the pinnacle then? No big deal about that engine. Though it does have a reliable package, it always suffered for the want of more power(I've driven a mint '90 NA, top down and couldn't give a rats ass about the power, I was smiling ear to ear).
Sure the S2000 didn't have low down grunt and before the 17" wheels was a bit squirrely, but when did we see an NA 2L 4-cylinder engine, have 120hp/liter?
If Mazda did that, then, I'd say they dropped the mic.

Would you say being able to drive an awd dragster/Bonneville Salt Flats record holder- type car, to the shops, is the pinnacle of the ICE sports car?

 

[homeforsummer]

Ok, so here's the problem with Ferrari (now that I've utterly destroyed the McLaren F1 with my devastating criticism of its seating), you can't use one every day. One of the problems that often comes with super high performance cars like the Ferraris (or even farther down the totem pole like a BMW M3), is that they're "nervous" for lack of a better word, in every day driving. Either constantly goading you to drive faster, or twitching at every bump in the road, or tramlining, or rattling your fillings out, or having terrible visibility (earlier pointed out by @Famine), or whatever else that keeps you from just sitting back and enjoying the driving experience.

If you break the cars into two groups (say, track and touring), you might end up hating the Ferraris because they make too many compromises for the road when you take it on the track. Where is the natural home of a top end Ferrari (like the F50)? The track? Maybe not hard core enough (in terms of suspension, the power is plenty). The road? Maybe not soft enough.

Or maybe the F50 is just the quintessential track car experience.

From what I understand from those among my colleagues who've driven one, it's one of the more civil of cars of that type. Good ride quality, surprisingly light clutch, easy steering. I've not got any issues of our magazine to hand but I think I can even recall some Elise comparisons, which is impressive for a car like that.

Demerits, off the top of my head, are mainly due to its width, though that's probably something that would hinder the usability of more or less any supercar. Speaking from experience, I hate driving supercars down the kind of wet, bumpy, narrow roads we often use for photography, but on the right sort of road they're magic.

Fun side note: on the road I drove the other day, the pinnacle of the sports car could genuinely have been the 200bhp front-wheel drive French hatchback with torsion beam rear suspension that I was driving, because I struggle to imagine any car that would have tackled that particular road better. By comparison, a supercar would barely have probably lost its carbonfibre splitter through the first compression and allowed use of no more than a few tenths of its maximum performance.

Edit: Really enjoying this thread, by the way.

But is the Zonda (or Zonda F to be more specific) an inferior driving experience to those cars you mentioned? I guess this is a question for the likes of Chris Harris or other veteran car journalists.

I'd love to learn the answer first hand, but few ever have or will.

Sadly, I don't expect I will either unless I'm particularly lucky, but several people I work or have worked with have driven all of the above. While I've not pitched the Zonda vs F50/other question to any of them directly, it tends to be F1s and F50s that top their greatest cars list.

Though I should point out at this juncture that about three years ago when we did our "best car we've ever driven" test it was the 997 GT3 RS 4.0 that won. That test did deliberately exclude cars built before the magazine existed - so anything pre-1998 - but did include stuff like the Carrera GT, Ford GT, 458 Speciale, Lexus LFA etc.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm (just a little) surprised nobody has gone rotary yet.

Let's see Mazda's HCCI tech leads them, maybe it isn't over. It would be a beautiful epitaph for the ICE if the Wankel was finally made without compromise and fulfilled all of it's conceptual promise.

If you take out issues regarding fuel efficiency, durability, and emissions, they are pretty stunning to drive. Lack of torque isn't a fair argument, in my opinion, because Wankels make torque quite similar to a piston engine of the same listed displacement and physical size. For instance, I don't see any naturally aspirated 1.3 liter piston engines propelling 3,000lbs/1400kg coupes with as much gusto as an RX-8's 13B.

 

[McLaren]

Would you say being able to drive an awd dragster/Bonneville Salt Flats record holder- type car, to the shops, is the pinnacle of the ICE sports car?

If the car was nothing but horsepower, no. There's far more to the Veyron than just power. It's a usable, 1001hp with a warranty that allows even a 16 year old to pilot it without much concern wrapped in high quality luxury. It's like a Rolls meeting a 918.

It's the mixture of different approaches in one, hence of course, why it's so ridiculously expensive. The way it achieves this is why it's regarded as a technical marvel. A car like it won't come around again for a while bc of the sheer development costs that ended up leaving VAG losing money on each car. Most manufacturers can't afford such a car.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If the car was nothing but horsepower, no. There's far more to the Veyron than just power. It's a usable, 1001hp with a warranty that allows even a 16 year old to pilot it without much concern wrapped in high quality luxury. It's like a Rolls meeting a 918.

It's the mixture of different approaches in one, hence of course, why it's so ridiculously expensive. The way it achieves this is why it's regarded as a technical marvel. A car like it won't come around again for a while bc of the sheer development costs that ended up leaving VAG losing money on each car. Most manufacturers can't afford such a car.

You mean apart from the Chiron?

By the time the Chiron is out of production, I'm just about certain the Veyron/Chiron range will have turned sizable profit on the program.

 

[McLaren]

You mean apart from the Chiron?

By the time the Chiron is out of production, I'm just about certain the Veyron/Chiron range will have turned sizable profit on the program.

The Chiron is technically an evolution of the Veyron so it's not really the same as another car coming out with the same approach.

It was once reported in 2013 that Bugatti loses $6-6.25 million per Veyron. If they sold 450 Veyrons, I believe that's $2.7 billion marked as a loss on the entire run, then. I'll assume on average, most Veyrons sold for $2 millon so that's $900 million in sales. That's a different of $1.8 billion which Bloomberg claims VAG can absorb. If we mark the Chiron up to $3 million a car and a similar production run of 450 cars, that's $1.350 billion in sales.

Of course that's just based on sales, so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right and the Chiron helps make the lost money. I don't know if it will make a sizable profit though; that's a lot of money reportedly lost on each Veyron for a Chiron to make up.

 

[Populuxe]

For a car whose overall engineering philosophy dates from the late 50s View attachment 667668

I agree with you that the 911 is the pinnacle of the ICE sports car. It's longevity and versatility and competence is unsurpassed. I would argue it's engineering philosophy actually dates back to the early 1930s and the Tatra 570, however. The rear-mounted air-cooled boxer engine architecture dates back to Hans Ledwinka's masterpiece. Dr. Porsche based the Volkswagen on it. The 356 was a Volkswagen with a curvier suit, and the 911 is a modified 356 with a couple extra cylinders. The idea keeps being refined, improved, updated, but other than the switch to liquid-cooling, it is an unbroken direct line.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The Chiron is technically an evolution of the Veyron so it's not really the same as another car coming out with the same approach.

It was once reported in 2013 that Bugatti loses $6-6.25 million per Veyron. If they sold 450 Veyrons, I believe that's $2.7 billion marked as a loss on the entire run, then. I'll assume on average, most Veyrons sold for $2 millon so that's $900 million in sales. That's a different of $1.8 billion which Bloomberg claims VAG can absorb. If we mark the Chiron up to $3 million a car and a similar production run of 450 cars, that's $1.350 billion in sales.

Of course that's just based on sales, so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right and the Chiron helps make the lost money. I don't know if it will make a sizable profit though; that's a lot of money reportedly lost on each Veyron for a Chiron to make up.

I think those figures you stated are a little hyperbolic. In fact:

A spokesperson for Bugatti said the company does not supply financial data, but added, " The quoted figures of Bernstein Research are not plausible."*

The highest number I've ever seen for R&D for the Veyron program is $1.6B. Other sources suggest a much more realistic-sounding $300M. If you divide that by the production run, that's $3.6M/car on the high end, and $670K/car on the low end. Apparently the Veyron sold for an average of $2.6M (including the much higher priced special editions of course) suggesting the unit loss was much less than $6M/car. Probably more like $1-1.5M. If the lower end estimate of R&D is in fact correct, VAG could have already made profit on the program, depending on unit costs for production.

Either way, with another >$1.3B to be made from the Chiron sales (excluding special editions that could probably increase that number substantially) I think VAG can soundly defend the whole project as a financial success.

*Bernstein Research originally reported the $6.2M/unit loss

 

[05XR8]

If the car was nothing but horsepower, no. There's far more to the Veyron than just power. It's a usable, 1001hp with a warranty that allows even a 16 year old to pilot it without much concern wrapped in high quality luxury. It's like a Rolls meeting a 918.

It's the mixture of different approaches in one, hence of course, why it's so ridiculously expensive. The way it achieves this is why it's regarded as a technical marvel. A car like it won't come around again for a while bc of the sheer development costs that ended up leaving VAG losing money on each car. Most manufacturers can't afford such a car.

We won't see the likes of an F20C or LFA V10 or even a 13B again. Not just for emissions sake, but because there's no need to, in today's market.

 

[boiltheocean]

I'm (just a little) surprised nobody has gone rotary yet.

I'd rank them number one in the sound department. Those quad doritos make a lewd noise.

 

[McLaren]

We won't see the likes of an F20C or LFA V10 or even a 13B again. Not just for emissions sake, but because there's no need to, in today's market.

I wouldn't rule out the LFA V10 example just yet; Lexus pushed back production on the LC500 briefly once, due to a change in the exhaust setup that was a result of Akio still not entirely happy with how he wanted the car to sound.

Otherwise, V10s still have a place as long as Lamborghini needs cheaper model to supplement the V12 flagship and the motor builds their profits.

I think those figures you stated are a little hyperbolic. In fact:



The highest number I've ever seen for R&D for the Veyron program is $1.6B. Other sources suggest a much more realistic-sounding $300M. If you divide that by the production run, that's $3.6M/car on the high end, and $670K/car on the low end. Apparently the Veyron sold for an average of $2.6M (including the much higher priced special editions of course) suggesting the unit loss was much less than $6M/car. Probably more like $1-1.5M. If the lower end estimate of R&D is in fact correct, VAG could have already made profit on the program, depending on unit costs for production.

Either way, with another >$1.3B to be made from the Chiron sales (excluding special editions that could probably increase that number substantially) I think VAG can soundly defend the whole project as a financial success.

*Bernstein Research originally reported the $6.2M/unit loss

You should include the rest of what Bugatti said:

Take that number with a big grain of salt. The authors of the report warn, "Don't take these numbers too seriously," explaining that their estimates "are obviously very, very approximate."

But, they say, "we've tried to be reasonably systematic about it."

The only source I've seen mention anywhere around $300M is $384M that says, "for research & development alone." That could mean a variety of other costs.
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2009-bugatti-veyron-spider/

Such as this below that notes Bugatti built a brand new factory to house the production. I'm sure the cost of a specialized factory for 1 of the world's most expensive supercars doesn't come cheap. I'd wager $300-500 million easily; Toyota reportedly spent double that on a just a Corolla factory in Mexico. Ford spent $1.6 billion on another in that region.

Bugatti admitted it won't make money off the Veyron, but Keller said that's due to the costs of re-establishing the brand -- including building a new multimillion-dollar factory for the first Bugatti in over 50 years.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Moms/story?id=1406161

I do not believe they sold on average for $2.6 million, either. MSRP originally set around $1.4-1.7 million for the base car, with the Super Sport starting at $2.4 million, and the Grand Sport Vitesse at $2.25 million.

As for defending the project as a success, that's called hindsight. There was discussion from within' VAG about the Veyron's costs and what Bugatti would do following it:

Now that Porsche is a majority shareholder in Volkswagen, the weather in Wolfsburg has become colder and stormier–particularly for Bugatti. In a recent corporate board meeting, there was a heated debate over the future of the marque. One participant claims that, while speaking about the VW Group’s supercar, the Bugatti Veyron, Porsche chairman Wendelin Wiedeking said it was time for “these costly sandbox exercises to end”–allegedly in the presence of Ferdinand Pich. Pich, of course, is the one who bought Bugatti and embarked on the Veyron project, which may never recover its costs–said to be some $384 million for research and development alone.

I won't doubt the Chiron can make up all the costs spent, but at the time, the Veyron was still a loss on a every car. It took 3 years after buying the brand & concepts just to get development going, and 2 years after that for a prototype. 2 years after that, production finally started.

It may be the reason the Chiron is even in production at all, since it's just building off an established platform which would be the easiest way to recoup Veyron costs. Add in that Bugatti had plans in 2012 according to its CEO to build the Veyron successor & a 2nd model with the Galiber, with the latter cut b/c all the development was focused on the Chiron, it makes even more sense; a 2nd model would have required brand new costs to develop & build in a factory only situated for 1 model.

 

[05XR8]

Would you say being able to drive an awd dragster/Bonneville Salt Flats record holder- type car, to the shops, is the pinnacle of the ICE sports car?

volkswagen-beetle-hits-330kmh-at-bonneville-salt-flats
Oh snap!

 

[daan]

For me the pinnacle of the ICE sports car is... the entire 911 concept.

I agree with you that the 911 is the pinnacle of the ICE sports car. It's longevity and versatility and competence is unsurpassed.

You could also argue that it's taken them this long to get it right. The 911 is a great car despite its engine position, not because of.

And if the rear mounted engine is so great, explain this.

 

[Vegard]

And if the rear mounted engine is so great, explain this.

There's more to a great sportscar than lap times?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You could also argue that it's taken them this long to get it right.

You could, but then you could argue the same about the motorcar in general. Every 911 has been of its time, for a long time.

The 911 is a great car despite its engine position, not because of.

Perhaps so - but it's still a great car for all the reasons I gave. Some people really dislike what Clarkson calls "the whole arse-endedness of it" but it's achieved an arguably iconic status nonetheless. In every one of the many eras of its existence.

And if the rear mounted engine is so great, explain this (2017 RSR).

Right, I will then!

That's a two-seat (or single-seat) custom track racer that moves the engine forward for extreme track performance, not the four seater that makes the 911-proper a real-world practical daily driver.

 

[Famine]

Every 911 has been of its time, for a long time.

Indeed. The 930 perfectly captured the 'live fast, die young' attitude of the 1980s, and all the suddenly-rich moneymen who bought them...