Talk:Porsche 959

Untitled

I see "group B" referred to in this article, but have no idea what "group B" is, or was--apparently a class for really high-powered cars, but what are the details? Thanx-- Doovinator 03:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Canepa Link

Why was my link to Canepa removed?

Because it is veiled advertising. It is also inferred that Canape legalized teh 959. He did not. Canepa's modified 959 wheels cracked when the car was driven during a review for an article.

Seinfeld did not pay $700,000.00 for the Sport model #027 he purchased. the car was in vacuum storage in Switzerland from new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.100.33 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was advertising before I read the whole article. I've put it back now. SamH 17:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's alright, I refrianed from putting it back myself before I could find out why it was removed. I think I'm done here and on the 911 article. I'm still working on additional information for the 928 (which I see you are a major contributor for) before I move on to the 924 and 944. Eventually I'll probably touch every page Wikipedia has about a Porsche model, I'm planning on moving to the 912, 914, Type 930 Carrera and 356 - to name a few - in the near future.

Just some advice: it might be helpful if you got a username if you're going to edit all the Porsche pages, since it'll provide you with a few useful tools like a watchlist. You don't have to disclose any information, or anything, it's just a login handle. Also, when you edit talk pages, it's helpful to sign them with four tildas (~~~~) -- that'll add your username and date/time of edit. Rlobkovsky 19:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done and done.

Flash-Gordon 06:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Porsche 959 Picture

There used to be a picture of the Porsche 959 in an orangey color (what I know as Burnt Ember). Is there any way I could get a copy of this picture, because the car was just beautiful?

Wikimedia commons is the solution to your problem. Search on google about that and you'd be taken straight to that category. U1Quattro (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

merge with porsche 959 prototype

definitely merge prototype article into this one. also, when i look at the protytpe article, it looks very similar to another webpage (see the talk page there) so moving the stuff out of there and deleting it would be good. Gzuckier 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

959 AWD Legacy

I made a few changes to the legacy section since it didn't indicate clearly enough that the four wheel drive system on Porsches built after the 964 used a much more simplified version of the AWD system - for reasons of cost and the fact that the 959's derived AWD system gave the 964 C4 a front wheel drive character according to many Porsche experts, including Porsche Guru Bruce Anderson. It is now a known fact that the cost to repair the 964's AWD system if it goes kaput can be absolutely terrifying, to the point that a 964 C4 is worth substantially less than a 964 C2 on the used car market today. Recently, Porsche Club of America's own magazine Panorama featured an article on how to convert a 964 C4 to a C2 in order to get a way from potential problems with the 964 AWD system. Kanitz 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification

I believe the 959 is an undisputed supercar and should be classed as such. [[User:Wikiarrangement] seems intent on classifing it as a sportscar because I was involved in a discussion that resulted in the Nissan GT-R being labeled as a sports car and I list the 959 as one of my favorite cars, a clear violation of WP:POINT. I have provided the following references from reliable source all of which class the 959 as a supercar. The result of the discusion on the GT-R talk page was to reserve the supercar label for clear cut examples and based on the number of sources that use the super car label in reference to the 959 and the lack of any sources that dispute the its supercar status I feel the supercar tag is clearly needed. In addition the Wikipedia Porsche template classess the 959 as a Supercar and miss matchiing classes from the template to the individual vehicle pages is confusing. In addition to the list below, Evo Magazine one of the most credible sources in sports car magazines classifies the 959 as supercar.

Sources

[1] Fifthgear

[2] autozine

[3] Topspeed

[4] Sports Car Market

[5] Velocity (a book about supercars)

[6] Car-Directory

[7] Speed TV

[8] Maxim Magzine's top ten supercar list

[9] Thecarconnection.com

A supercar indicates the car that stands out the design and the price. The performance is not asked. Because the performance is excellent, the "sports car" of Porsche is suitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 07:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you follow what myself and others have said. It is not a matter of opinion. We decided on the GT-R that if reliable sources disputed a car's supercar status we would list it as a sportscar. The 959s status is not disputed by any reliable source and thus should be listed as a supercar. We don't get to argue about whether we think it actually is a super or not. This is a complex distinction and personally I think that you may not be able to understand it given your limited English skills (I do not mean this as an insult in any way) so I will not go around in circles debating this with you as we did on the GT-R page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic of GT-R is unrelated. The definition of a supercar is designs special. And, special price. This is a general common view of people in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You still do not understand. I have provided high quality sources which show the 959 is an undistputed supercar, your opinion does not matter. In any case the 959 is clearly special. At the time it was sold it was the fastest production car in the world, had a revolutionary drive train unlike any other car at the time and one of the most expensive cars available. It is not a borderline case it is about as clear cut as could be. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The evaluation of the automotive performance and the magazine is not essential. Only the car with the impact even if the person who doesn't have the knowledge of the car sees is a supercar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion does not matter. There is a high number of sources and that is all that matters. Please do not edit articles just to prove a point. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 18:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting old again. We are going in circles. Wikiarrangementeditor feels we should class the car based on his opinion rather than sources. The idea that only cars he thinks look like super cars should be classed as such is ludarcris. I feel the next step should be some kind of admin intervention. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to consent to your double standards. The performance and the number of people of supporters are unrelated. It is a thing learnt from you. Porsche is absolutely a sports car. Directionality is different from Ferrari and Lamborghini etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, please read. Information must be verifiable, not "true." It doesn't matter what you feel a super or a sports car is, all information written on Wikipedia must be from a source, and it doesn't matter what it is. Wikipedia is verifiable, not the truth. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be curious what Wikiarrangementeditor's standard for classifying a car as a "supercar" (and thus not the 959) is. At the time the 959 was in production, there was only one other automobile that had performance numbers or a price tag even close to it, and that was the Ferrari F40. And the car magazines I read generally considered the 959 to be the superior car; even though the F40 was slightly faster, it was really a race car with the minimum effort put in to make it street legal in most jurisdictions, whereas the 959 incorporated considerable technology to make it very drivable at any speed and under any road conditions (wet, dry, etc.). It was a limited-production vehicle designed to reflect Porsche's newest technologies. Granted, the numbers the car put up aren't as impressive now, but they couldn't be touched during the car's production run. And the way I read the Wikipedia page on supercars, that makes it the quintessential supercar of its time. Nolefan32 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The supercar classification is too subjective, and hence should not be used here for any car. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_11#Supercar_eradication and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Return_of_the_Supercar_category. swaq 14:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was once a true supercar that was born. It DEFINED the term. It certainly did shake and hypnotize its audience on its first arrival, and still does so 25 years later on entry. Yes, it was 1983 that the world saw what was to become a production sports automobile which was not only the fastest in the world, quickest to the 60 mph mark (for over a decade infact -longer than any other production car!), possess technology that the rivals could only genuinely marvel at, and finish 7th overall at the most famous of all endurance races 7 YEARS after its creation as a racing version, was blisteringly expensive (at one time prices hit $2 million in the U.S!)but also achieved the unthinkable... To enter a rally (considered so difficult and punishing that it was banned) and finish not only first, but also second, under the same name as its mighty road version, the Porsche 959. These feats, along with the duration between specificational supercession, is what takes a sports car, and turns it into a supercar. If the new Ferrari Enzo is still only just as quick to 60, and just .8 of a second infront by the 400m line, 15 years later, then Porsche's 959 deserves a new title altogether... (altiyan/september 26 16:25) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.123.195 (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

959 0-60 3.6 s f 40 0-62 3.8 s 959 0-100 8.3 s f40 0-100 7.6 s

enzo 0-60 3.14 s enzo 0-100 6.6

--— Typ932^{T | C}  08:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If i read something like you just did before your reply, i'd be sending you sprinting stats to hide behind too (funny how Ferrari themselves claim 3.7 to 60). What else could i do? Literally nothing. You'd think that the newest super Ferrari would be a record breaker. Not even close. Do you know who you are messing with? Let me tell you, you are messing with a marque that has the most overall wins in the history of motor sport. Still means nothing to you, right? Please, spare me your wishful thinking. There is an arrogance that follows most Ferrari followers, shaming themselves in embarrassing arguments when it comes to one of the most clearly defined Supercars ever, the ground breaking, benchmark-busting 959. (how long will it be before Bugatti or Ferrari enter their Veyron's or Enzo's into the most gruelling races in the world? Perhaps they wont. (altiyan/sept27/17:07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.123.195 (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh this isnt talk forum but "that has the most overall wins in the history of motor sport." there is no evidence for this...case over --— Typ932^{T | C}  07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

hehe, What a silly thing to say, as all motor sport events are documented.(altiyan/27/09/08/17;20)

Well then count them? unless proved its not right to say so --— Typ932^{T | C}  09:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact is they have already been counted. And even if i sent you the link, you know very well that this statistical compilation would not be enough to subdue the foolishness that i'm reading from you. There is no personal 'opinion' or 'feeling' attached to that, for it is truly just that, foolishness. It is infact, and seemingly sadly for some, true that the above statemant you reffer to is indeed correct and verifiable. But rather than start circles with you or anyone else, i will leave you with the previous true words that i have tried so sincerely to convey to you. The 'evidence' you seek will also provide you with other startling facts, like how the Porsche 956/962 is the single most successful racing car in history. And how the most successful production/racing car is the Porsche 911. I will also leave out this 'evidence' because it may bring a twist to the knife in the side when you hear the boss of Ferrari (during the time of the Porsche 50th anniversary celebrations) exclaim by his own addmission in a live and existing interview that, in light of the statistical facts, Porsche were "the greatest car in the world". Yes, as the banner says, discussions may sway from topic. But sometimes its only because of those who squint, not because they cant read, but because they cant stand the light. Be sure that i will no more consult Wikipedia when i'm looking for clarrification when, thanks to the likes of those who delete worthy and notible additions to the content, it cannot even get it right with something as clear-cut as the brilliance of the Porsche 959. Wake up to the power of Porsche. You want speed my friend? These guys were getting to 60 in 1.9 back in '71! What did you expect? The father of this legacy was designing cars before the combustion engine came into existance. Clearly there is nothing left for neither me nor Porsche to prove to men that cant appreciate what truly makes a sports car 'super'. No reply necessary. 9INE. (altiyan/270708/02;45) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.123.195 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If they have counted all big marques in motorsport history can you give the numbers or direct link to that study?

Caneva

I removed the Caneva advertising. It is not even closely encyclopedic. Khutuck (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

References

I have added some "citation needed" tags in the article. It needs inline citations to show where the references are used. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. swaq 16:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Production figures

I replaced the unsourced production and sales figures with the ones given by Karl Ludvigsen in his book. Also, the figure of 292 given in the infobox, was taken from the Porsche website allright, but apparently excluded the cars produced in 1986 (16 prototypes and 21 preproduction models, according to Ludvigsen) and the 8 cars built in 1992. It is unclear, though, if the 961 is included in that figure. --328cia (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Porsche 959

I'm not quite sure why the link was removed as the link was relevant to the porsch 959 car, linking to videos, and articles that specifically apply to this car

Is this link irrelevant to the content of this page Porsche 959 Video although i think i may have put this one in before which gives more options than jsut one videoAll 959 related articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAR Online (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines on external linking. The links removed were not specific to the Porsche 959. Also, at least one of the pages required Flash. Wikipedia is not designed to be a collection of links. swaq 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Stephan Wilkinson is referenced as the source on Bill Gates car. GAte's car is a 1988, # in the 200's. The car was in a free trade zone in Oakland, CA, not Seattle. Gates did not buy the car until 1990. Paul Allen had not imported his car as of 2004. Jerry Seinfeld's car was imported mid 2000's. It received an EPA exemption. Why, I do not understand. Paul did not have anything to do with the Show and Display law. Nor did Canepa despite what Canepa states at his website.

Rolandpage (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gates and Paul Allens Role in the "Show and Display" Law

In the "Gates 959" section it is cited that Bill Gates and Paul Allen helped pass the "Show and Display" law that made it legal to bring the 959 into the country. However neither citations actually say this is true. The Gold-Plated Porsche by Wilkinson also makes no mention on their involvement. It is true that Gates and Allen are mentioned on pages 21 and 22, but only in the fact that they both tried to import one unsuccessfully. (You can read those pages on the Google Books preview)

The link to the NHSTA site dosent mention Gates or Allen at all.

Other searching leads me to similar dead ends. Any concrete evidence this is true? Because it seems like its just an internet myth at this point.

Racingfreak92 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this article: http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/display-speed-under-show-or-display-exemption-americans-can-now-import-previously

"...This urban legend does not come from Gates himself, but it comes from enough vehicle importers, collectors and Department of Transportation worker bees to believe it's true..."

still no evidence however Drachentötbär (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

short-lived

In the racing section we have: "Thus ending short-lived the career of the 961." "Short-lived" doesn't add any information and is personal opinion by the editor inserting his personal standards and therefore should be removed. Many racing cars don't last a full year (Formula 1 cars are replaced every year by a new car with a new name), reading "short-lived" I'd think of cars like the Dauer 962LM which had only one participation. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Rallying

I feel like much greater clarity is needed regarding the 959's relationship with rallying. The opening paragraph says it was originally manufactured as a group B rally car (implying the first examples manufactured were built as rally cars - I suspect not), but the opening paragraph of the "Racing" section seems to imply that Porsche never intended the 959 as a rally car at all, and later it's stated that the 959 was "never seriously considered for a Group B rally season" (as cool as that would undoubtedly have been), albeit without a source.

Presumably the inseparable association of Group B and rallying has muddied the waters here - I'm sure a lot of people have read that the car was developed for group B spec and immediately made the assumption it was intended as a rally car - and possibly also the 959's famous win at the Dakar rally, but surely there's a source to be had on whether the 959 was developed with any consideration of rallying. Ichigoichigo (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

In the history section. It states that it was intended for rallying. That's confusing now since there has been confirmation and denial of facts at the same time. U¹ _quattro TALK 11:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Road&Track https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a22001159/porsche-959-paris-dakar-for-sale/ writes: "Porsche's legendary 959 was originally conceived to enter Group B rally, but the class was banned before it had the chance." Most sources name Henri Toivonen's death on 2 May 1986 immediately followed by the FISA ban of the class for 1987 as end of Porsche's rally plans. Speculations whether Porsche would have taken part 1987 or 1988 if Group B still existed don't need to be in this article and should be removed. The "seriously" makes the sentence unclear and misleading.

I suggest removing the first paragraph from the article and adding its content into the second one and the history section. Drachentötbär (talk)

We all know that Group B was cancelled but denying that Porsche was not serious at all to enter the car in group B is beyond me. U¹ _quattro TALK 17:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Define "not serious at all". Does the statement apply to all possible definitions of it at all times ? Drachentötbär (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You can find it in the racing section. I don't have to define anything. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Never seriously considered" has the same meaning. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Connection with Group B

The article implies in the lead that the 959 was developed for Group B racing whih required in excess of 200 street legal units to be built. Even in the history section, it states the development name of the car as Gruppe B and then in the Racing section, this is denied altogether. This is very confusing to the readers. There has to be a source confirming that the car was not seriously intended to compete in Group B. As I don't see why any company would develop a technologically advanced car, get it approved for rallying and then build so many units of it for no reason in the wake of economical crisis.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Give this a read [10], it covers the development history of the 959 quite well, and it has some info on why the 959 never went racing in Group B (by the time they met the homologation requirement Group B no longer existed). I think the motorsport section should cover this. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the source. I have reworded the section and added this source.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

959 successor

Anton V. what proof do you have that the 911 GT1 succeeded the 959? The GT1 has an entirely different purpose and philosophy than the 959 and hence is not a successor to the 959. U¹ _quattro TALK 06:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a turbocharged rear engined homologation special, I can see the similarities. The road cars diverged quite a bit, but so did the Carrera GT having a NA V10, removable roof and no use in professional motorsport. I think that no successor is probably fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Its not rear engined, but rear, mid-engined. Also, the GT1 wasn't developed for Group B class racing but GT1 class racing and was mostly a 962 underneath. I don't see any similarities other than both using flat-6 engines.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Denloc beads

I think the article should explain WHY the car was fitted with the special Denloc bead tires and hollow wheels. The main text just says that it was fitted with hollow wheels, but gives no information, which is kind of baffling to a reader that doesn't know why. Later is says that new, normal rimmed wheels were developed for US import cars (again not explaining why the old ones were not allowed), and says "new high performance Michelin tires were fitted that allowed the same performance" (or something like that). The reason for the special Denloc beads is because they didn't think that tires of the time could withstand the unprecedented forces of such quick acceleration, and would spin on the rims when the car was launching (IIRC they were also supposed to support and internal tire pressure adjustment system for the eventual Group B cars, which explains the hollow wheels, otherwise all they would need is some sort of bead locks). These were not legal in the US, because like many trivial things like covered headlights, they did not meet the letter of US regulations on what sort of wheels were legal for street use. When they finally imported them, the law still stood, but modern tires had proven themselves safe for the acceleration forces and there was no longer any need for the hollow wheels or tire pressure system. I believe this was all in an article of Road & Track or Car and Driver (possibly Automobile) sometime in 2016 or 2017, although I'm sure it can be found elsewhere.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Canepa Design modifications

I believe that the Canepa Design modifications section should be removed. I wasn't able to find a single source showing that Porsche had anything to do with it - No support, no comission, not even any acknowledgement. It would be fine if there was an offical lik such as the McLaren P1 LM, wich was made by a third party company but with support from McLaren. However this doesn't appear to be the case. The Canepa Design modifications of the 959 are just like any other aftermarket modifications, and in my opinion those shouldn't have a significant portion of the article devoted to a particular aftermarket conversion. If we did so, the VW Beetle article would just be a massive list of dune buggy and kit car conversions.

I believe the way this should be handled should be similar to the Dauer 962 Le Mans. There is only a brief mention of it on the Porsche 962 article, and since the Dauer 962 is notable by itself, it has a dedicated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frongicide (talk • contribs) 23:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)