"John", thank you for your
"John", thank you for your dullard comment. My recent clinical neuropsychological testing, placing me in the top 2% of intelligence in the UK, combined with the fact that I am an Airline Captain, would indicate that your comment is purely your own opinion, as my comment is mine. The 911 is too flawed, with it's rear engine layout and pendulous mass and too common, being an evolutionary design rather than a revolutionary one, to be considered a "supercar". 0-60 times don't make a "supercar", or do they? Are all Teslas "supercars"? Of course they aren't. Neither is the squashed beetle. I've owned 8, from the 996 C4S, to the current GT2RS, great sportscars, yes, but supercars? No. "Supercars" have their engine in the correct location (I wont bore you with the physics or the fact that the 911 has ridiculously wide and subsequently much heavier tyres to try to contain the problem) and are not a common everyday sight, they make young boys hearts race as they pass by. The 911 misses these marks considerably. Why? Because it's not a Supercar, despite the fact that many people really want it to be, because they own one. how many people look on, longingly, as you drive past in yours? I'll tell you, because it's the same as the number of people who look as I drive past in mine: No one. Now try the same exercise in a Lamborghini or certain Ferraris. But who cares? As long as it puts a smile on your face, it has done it's job, Supercar or not.