Talk:Porsche 911 GT3

Pictures

The article is, very generally speaking, OK. However, the only picture of a GT3 is of the first incarnation of the 996 GT3, no pictures of the latest, and they are all side-on, somehting that Wikipedia does not require. The last photo appears to be fine, although it could be better. I'll try and create an infobox so it's a clearer article. Abarthaddict 09:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some alternative pictures at commons:Category:Porsche 996, commons:Category:Porsche 997, & commons:Category:Porsche 911. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I had updated the gt3 for the latest generate of 997, regardsSundeep pn 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I refute the statement about the engine being the most powerful naturally aspirated engine in the world. For example, the Honda S2000 being sold in Europe still contains a 2.0 litre engine (not the 2.2 that's been introduced in Japan and the USA), and produces 240 hp.

Genius! 240hp / 2.0l = 120hp/l while article reports of 123+hp/l for Porsche. MC12GT1 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Advertising

Some stuffs in this article are written like advertisement.--NAHID 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many pictures

This article has too many pictures and too little content.....Bjmullan (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And it has just got worst :( Bjmullan (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 11

As I write this footnote 11 (which apparently supports a claim that the latest RS is not approved for various US racing series) in fact says no such thing, so far as I can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.188.67 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Complete re-read needed.

I believe that this article could be greatly improved and to that end I have taken a copy of the current version and placed it one of my sandbox's here. The first thing I have done is removed ALL of the pictures and made a start on the lede. You are more than welcome to pitch in or just have a look. God know how long it will take to convert it from a magazine article! Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced racing commentary by Krasnoyar

I have for the second time reverted the completely unreferenced racing history commentary by User:Krasnoyar. I left a note on the user's talkpage here explaining the reason for the revert only for the user to reinsert the text. I have two main objection to the edit: (1) It is completely unreferenced and therefore goes against WP:RS and (2) The information is not notable and is nothing more that a racing commentary making it fail this. I will ask the editor not to reinsert the text until consensus is reached here first. Bjmullan (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Death of Ryan Dunn

Reports of Ryan Dunn being killed in a GT3 have been put in this article. While this may be true and tragic, Wikipedia is not the news. I am reverting these additions and invite those that think it belongs to discuss it here. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with the revert. Bjmullan (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Wikipedia has a long tradition of such edits. See all the aircrft types and airline articles.--108.16.109.189 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not a good reason. This is passing news that has nothing to with the vehicle itself other than he happened to be driving one when he died. The crash has nothing to do with this article about the car. 72Dino (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Le Mans

I can't tell whether it's humor, some kind of vocabulary misunderstanding, or a reference to a bout of food poisoning that was not mentioned in the actual article about the 2006 Le Mans race, but can it really be correct that numerous competitors in that year's race withdrew after "hit[ting] bowel problems"?

Racing

I'm quite sure that an intermediate Group GT3 model exists between "2010 997 GT3 R" and "2016 991 GT3 R". I think that it's from 2012 or 2013: it's a 997 series but has a totally different areo-kit from the 2010 model. May I link here some external proofs from official sites? MC12GT1 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Homologations can be updated if approved by the FIA, therefore if Porsche altered the bodywork to the 997 GT3 R it is not a different model, just an update. Same as the original Audi R8 LMS and R8 LMS ultra are both under the same homologation. The³5₉ (Talk) 20:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Everything is clear now. I'll add a comment in the cell reserved to comments because I think we all agree it was a singular and important update. Now I'm sure it was updated for the 2013 season(s). MC12GT1 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Pre 2013.
• 
  2013 and after.

Named after?

Unless Porsche invented time travel, the second sentence is wrong: "The GT3, introduced in 1999, is named after the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) Group GT3 class, created in 2005, in which it was designed to compete." The FIA GT Championship and 24 Hours of Le Mans in those days had only GT1 and GT2 classes, but the concept of GT3 as a step below GT2 certainly existed: the BPR Global GT Series of 1994-1996, and the IMSA GT Championship and United States Road Racing Championship in 1998-1999 had GT3 classes. LRT24 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence makes no sense as is. Hard to find anything on it on the net, though I find it most likely that the Porsche 911 GT3 race and subsequently road cars were named after the (SRO) BPR Global GT series (which had classes GT1 through 5, later dropped the lower classes and then evolved into series like FIA GT and now Blancpain GT) where Porsche models from Carrera Cup to GT2 Evo's were competing. Porsche also made road cars for homologation of (LM) GT1 and GT2, I suppose for the 1997-onward 996-generation the planned naming as homologation basis for group GT3 race cars was just too late for actual race series using it - until it was picked up again by FIA in 2005. Would be much appreciated if someone had sources (books) on this to edit the text. -- Epistolarius (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You say the sentence made no sense as it was, but it's a hard fact that the GT3 race class started in 2005 which was after this model was introduced... so, whereas the previous sentence showed the temporal anomaly, it did so by telling the truth, as opposed to now where the current text contains the uncited and possibly wrong fact (how the car got its name), and hides the actual true fact that the race class was established later. (it's always possible for instance (speculating) that the class was talked about for awhile but was delayed getting started, i.e. the car may be named for the class even though it came first. But the article is wronger now than it was before. 98.13.244.125 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say and why you're being so passive-aggressive about it. Yes, that part of the article is incorrect, not just "possibly". I didn't write it if that's what you're insinuating. The car is older than the FIA GT3 class (in FIA GT, organised by SRO, making it directly related to BPR and its classes I mentioned). I'm not going to rewrite it without anything to source it on however. -- Epistolarius (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The article states that the car is named after a "linked named race class", and ONLY if you click that link and read enough are you are informed that the race class was created years after the car. Previously, the article pointed out that the race class came later which at least exposed the problem. Now, the article has been whitewashed to give it a nice shiny appearance by hiding the discrepancy. Also, you should assume good faith on the talk page and refrain from psychoanalyzing people, especially people who are pointing out flawed edits. 98.13.244.125 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Not going to get drawn into an argument over this. I did not write that section. You're replying to a talk section from two years ago discussing the very same situation. This is not a new change as you seem to imply ("the article is wronger now than it was before"). Instead you could change (if you can reference a good source) or delete the relevant sentence yourself. -- Epistolarius (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

991.1 GT3 RS

In the section called '991.1 GT3 RS', what does the '.1' mean? Similar question for the '991.2 GT3' section.  Stepho  talk  09:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, only just noticed this open question -- .1, .2, or I and II, or Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 refers to the pre- and post-"face-lift" (which can be substantial) of each Porsche model generation (typically of the 911 and 718 models) and is added to the type number (e.g. 996, 997, 991) of the car to quickly identify which generation is meant. Not sure who started it and when it started but Porsche themselves use it too (example). Epistolarius (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)