Talk:Porsche 911 (993)

Infobox

Converted the info box back to previous version. A lot of information would have been deleted which had required some significant research. Further, I do not see the authority of a "standard info car box" layout imposed by some individual. Keep the pluralism in Wikipedia!

I think a more "standard" infobox would be more familiar to readers when navigating from Porsche car page to car page. Please see Porsche Carrera GT, Porsche Cayenne, Porsche Cayman, Porsche Boxster, Porsche 997, Porsche 996, Porsche 964, Porsche 930, Porsche 928, Porsche 968, Porsche 944, Porsche 924, Porsche 912, Porsche 959, Porsche 914. Or, look at any Ferrari page, like Ferrari Enzo, Ferrari F50, Ferrari F40. Why do they all look similar? Because it aids reader familiarity. The extraneous information in the Porsche 993 infobox should be moved either to Porsche (the manufacturer addr info) or into the body of the page. The infobox should be concise, as a source of quick reference, not a complete spec. Also, I think the Porsche_993#Performance sections should be nuked--this isn't Road & Track magazine. K3rb 01:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the "standard" infobox has predecessor/successor links (where applicable). This enables users to track a line of cars. Try moving forward from Porsche 930 to Porsche 997. Well, the link breaks at Porsche 993. This is confusing. K3rb 01:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, across marques there are many different info-boxes, check [BMW Z3] (which isn't so good). This 993-box holds some good oversight of interesting and relevant information and it is not mainly about specs as it only quotes a few details. However, I like the idea of adding a hint for previous and suceeding models, if done correctly: for instance the link at the [Porsche 930] is misleading, the successor is the 965.

Apparently there is some interest for performance figures, as this section was started in the early beginning of this article. If you personally don't like the table, skip it. It is relevant information and wikipedia is about collecting information.German Autofreak 08:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have converted this to the Template:Infobox Automobile as we are currently doing for all automobile articles.--216.49.153.98 05:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not cut out information in the data table. Just leave it like it is if you don't have improvements. The quoted figures are DIN-hp. Do not put in SAE-hp--German Autofreak 13:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Similar Cars

The list of similar cars in the Infobox is now too long and seems to include any automobile capable of going quite fast. Should we not be listing models which potential buyers would have considered in preference to a new 993? Both the M3 and Skyline GT-R are variants of a front-engined family sedans, and the Corvette, RX-7 and 300ZX were several price brackets below; no 911 buyer at the time would have given any of these cars even half a glance. My suggestion is to remove all in the list bar the Ferrari 348, Ferrari F355, Aston-Martin DB7 and perhaps the Dodge Viper. Any others? --ThwartedEfforts 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Word removal

My opinion is that wording like reliable, safe and fast, or supremely fast are subjective and should be removed.

Qwazix (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made a start at tidying up and removing some of the hyperbole but, to be honest, much of this needs a total rewrite, which I don't have time for. Maybe someone else will take up the challenge.Philsy (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mild cleanup

I did a mild cleanup of this article. I removed ALOT of weasel words (removed 3-4 uses of the word 'Legendary'). rephrased alot of sentences, to sound less subjective. i also removed the whole "Historical Perspective" section. all text in that section was extremely subjective and ALL opinion-based, there was also some info that was already mentioned in other sections. im not sure how that section stayed up for as long as it did. it was so weasely and subjective i wouldnt feel good about it being on a 993 Fansite. Impreziv (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No Cup 3.8?

In the variant section - shouldn't the 993 Cup 3.8, sometimes called the Supercup, get a mention? --Falcadore (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Road and Track citation

Your reference #24 (April 12, 2017) seems incorrect. I have searched my R and T library and in the March/April 2017 issue there is nothing on the 993. Also, there is no April 12 issue. Maybe your citation was from a different car magazine, or different R&T issue? I’d like to read the review you make reference to. Thanks. Pathos8150 (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Length

Why does the infobox have to give the length in two separate sections, "1994-95" and "1996-98"? the length given is identical in both cases. It ought to just say "Length", and state the number. I don't see any other division into those years that indicates that this is some basic division of Porsche 993s and it is being stated this way in case people were wondering if the given length applied to both classes. Even if there were such a division by "pre-95 and post-95", it could still just say "Length (1994-1998)". Either that or they ARE supposed to be two different lengths given, and someone accidentally entered them both as the same. In any case it ought to be addressed. Also in the lede it says "every part was totally engineered from the ground up", and the next sentence says "only 20% of the parts were carried over". For starters, ALL car parts are "engineered from the ground up" (figuratively) at some point or another, and it doesn't say that they were engineered specifically for THIS vehicle...that is, they could have been "engineered from the ground up" for the 954 and the statement would still be factually correct. But the implication is that the whole new car was totally re-designed from scratch, down to the last bit. So how does that jive with the next sentence? If the whole car was "redesigned from the ground up", then how can 20% of the parts be the same? Are we talking nuts and bolts and switchgear? 20% is pretty high though, and it would seem that it must include some relatively major components. So the first statement must be even less accruate than it appears at first glance.

64.223.162.220 (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked in the page history and at one point it was

1993-95: 168.3 in (4,275 mm)

1996-98: 167.7 in (4,260 mm)

@RocketJohn: changed it in 2016.

I did a bit more research and found this[1] French brochure which quotes the length at 4,245 mm, I also found a owners manual with the same length. I think that there may not be a year cut off but that the numbers used now are for North America cars, and those in the rest of the world are shorter. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This[2] brochure has it listed as 4,247 mm for the turbo. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

سياره سياره سياره

231211سياره سياره سياره بيك اب 176.241.85.73 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Porsche which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)