TR Forums

Singer and Williams Williams Advanced Engineering unveil 500hp 964 and holy cow is it amazeballs!!!

Singer Vehicle Design’s latest project, built in collaboration with Williams Advanced Engineering, has broken cover. Commissioned by Porsche enthusiast, Scott Blattner, the car is based on a 1990 964 designed to be the ultimate 911 on both road and track. The result of a two-year study and development effort by Singer Vehicle Design and Williams – part of the Williams Grand Prix Engineering Group – it has been built in collaboration with the likes of Michelin, Brembo, and BBS in order to achieve the project’s main goals: adding lightness and increased performance to an air-cooled 911 in ways never seen before.

The power unit was developed by Williams Advanced Engineering in consultation with Hans Mezger. Norbert Singer assisted CFD analysis in the creation of underbody aerodynamics.

Chris Harris commented: “I’m not an engineer by trade, but just look at the list of clever people around me and you’ll see that’s no great problem. I’m here for two reasons: to help define how the car drives, how it feels – how it will interact with each of the lucky owners. And to document the entire process from start to finish.

https://www.pistonheads.com/news/genera ... -964/37089

http://gtpurelyporsche.com/singer-willi ... -revealed/

Perspective is everything I guess. My greatest car ever will be one that has a 300+ mile range, all electric, and a two minute charge time.

Edit* and be cheap

300 mile range and 2 minute charge?

And the lights of the city dim as you pull that many amps through the charger, I think.

I think he just meant topping up the Mr. Fusion

I have a Kia Soul EV which will charge at the local Ikea at 390V 125A DC. There are 2 of the DC fast chargers in the parking garage - I can just imagine the lights in the store dimming if 2 of us plug in at the same time.

In fact my car will actually charge at 175A - just that there are no 100kW CHAdeMO chargers in Canada.

Heiwashin wrote:

Perspective is everything I guess. My greatest car ever will be one that has a 300+ mile range, all electric, and a two minute charge time.

Edit* and be cheap

That one kinda defies the laws of physics; regardless of battery tech. The amount of power required (and hell, even the thickness of the DC power cable) would not be remotely reasonable.


I think if they were able to get a 300 mile charge down to 30 minutes and do it on a large scale (without huge expense), it would probably be culture-changing. People with 30 minutes to kill would want to grab a bite to eat at a diner, get a manicure/massage/etc; and charge facilities capable of supporting many vehicles would start to become the anchor for strip malls that spring up around them. I know most strip malls across the country could certainly use the help right now.

I can dream

Man Singer are sick. Amazing that they'll be able to sell 75 of these considering the nosebleed prices.

Seems like a good move for Williams too.

Loved the blue one they did, not as much of a fan of this paint job but I guess you get whatever you want with them. I wonder what Porsche think...

Saw it on Jalopnik earlier. I like a lot about this car, though I have to say that I feel the interior is way too over the top. Also, some of the exterior styling choices are a little too far from the classic styling. Certainly I would take one in a heartbeat, but from my internet armchair I'm not wildly crazy about it. Also, as all Singers go, it's going to be wildly, insanely overpriced even despite the incredible attention to detail and quality. These are toys for the uber rich. For someone who already has owned a few Ferraris and McLarens. I was a bigger fan of Singers back when they were 100K/car, rather than the 300k+ and five year waitlist they are now. Couldn't afford one either way, ofc, so it really makes no difference anyway I suppose.

Cuhulin wrote:

300 mile range and 2 minute charge?

And the lights of the city dim as you pull that many amps through the charger, I think.

He also wants wireless charging. A 1 sq. km. area has been designated no-man's land for this purpose.

End User wrote:

Singer and Williams Williams Advanced Engineering unveil 500hp 964 and holy cow is it amazeballs!!!

Singer Vehicle Design’s latest project, built in collaboration with Williams Advanced Engineering, has broken cover. Commissioned by Porsche enthusiast, Scott Blattner, the car is based on a 1990 964 designed to be the ultimate 911 on both road and track. The result of a two-year study and development effort by Singer Vehicle Design and Williams – part of the Williams Grand Prix Engineering Group – it has been built in collaboration with the likes of Michelin, Brembo, and BBS in order to achieve the project’s main goals: adding lightness and increased performance to an air-cooled 911 in ways never seen before.

The power unit was developed by Williams Advanced Engineering in consultation with Hans Mezger. Norbert Singer assisted CFD analysis in the creation of underbody aerodynamics.

Chris Harris commented: “I’m not an engineer by trade, but just look at the list of clever people around me and you’ll see that’s no great problem. I’m here for two reasons: to help define how the car drives, how it feels – how it will interact with each of the lucky owners. And to document the entire process from start to finish.

https://www.pistonheads.com/news/genera ... -964/37089

http://gtpurelyporsche.com/singer-willi ... -revealed/

Sorry, but a car with rear-engine is fundamentally wrong. I'd rather have a Cayman 981 GT4 (if you are into Porsche) or Ferrari 458 (no, not the latest turbo one).

I'd like to test drive a Dodge Demon. A factory warrantied car that can lift the front wheels at launch and cover 1320 feet in less than ten seconds would leave an ear to ear grin on my face for quite while.

ptsant wrote:

Sorry, but a car with rear-engine is fundamentally wrong. I'd rather have a Cayman 981 GT4 (if you are into Porsche) or Ferrari 458 (no, not the latest turbo one).

Porsche's success, numerous world records and race wins beg to differ.

I sort of agree with you that the engine should be in the middle for most agile handling, but it's not always about agility. Rear wheel grip is paramount in a performance car, since it effects both the acceleration and the maximum cornering speed before the back end loses traction and starts to drift. An engine behind the rear axle still puts the car's center of mass between the front and rear wheels, it just shifts it closer to the rear wheels for vastly improved traction in a RWD car.

The only downside to a rear-engined car is that the moment of angular moment, and angular intertia are a bit different. It's a compromise that works - you can either have agility in a mid-engined car but lose out on rear-wheel grip, or you can have grip in a rear-engined car but lose out on agility. There is no right answer, but because I'm not a hardened, experienced RWD driver, I'll take a front-engined or mid-engined car every time.

Chrispy_ wrote:

ptsant wrote:

Sorry, but a car with rear-engine is fundamentally wrong. I'd rather have a Cayman 981 GT4 (if you are into Porsche) or Ferrari 458 (no, not the latest turbo one).

Porsche's success, numerous world records and race wins beg to differ.

I sort of agree with you that the engine should be in the middle for most agile handling, but it's not always about agility. Rear wheel grip is paramount in a performance car, since it effects both the acceleration and the maximum cornering speed before the back end loses traction and starts to drift. An engine behind the rear axle still puts the car's center of mass between the front and rear wheels, it just shifts it closer to the rear wheels for vastly improved traction in a RWD car.

The only downside to a rear-engined car is that the moment of angular moment, and angular intertia are a bit different. It's a compromise that works - you can either have agility in a mid-engined car but lose out on rear-wheel grip, or you can have grip in a rear-engined car but lose out on agility. There is no right answer, but because I'm not a hardened, experienced RWD driver, I'll take a front-engined or mid-engined car every time.

Most people who have actually driven both feel that the Caymans are more agile, for the exact reasons you describe. And the older 911s, when electronic aids were much less abundant, were notoriously difficult to drive. Plain dangerous, even. Porsche itself regularly promotes the 4-wheel drive versions who have more balanced weight distributions. And, in fact, some of the race versions had to get a mid-engine (http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports ... -walliser/). The 918 spyder was also mid-engine.

Anyway, many people are passionate about the 911 and, since I've never driven one, I have to guess that they have very valid reasons. I still would get the Cayman.

farmpuma wrote:

I'd like to test drive a Dodge Demon. A factory warrantied car that can lift the front wheels at launch and cover 1320 feet in less than ten seconds would leave an ear to ear grin on my face for quite while.

I've never been a fan of the Challenger styling. Now, the Charger Hellcat, that I could do.





Not really a fan of the gray, but its still sharp. Yeah, it gives up ~140hp to the Demon, but my wife wants one so there! Actually, I'd look at the SRT 392 for her. Beyond being about ~$20k cheaper, I'm a bit more confident in her ability to safely drive a 485HP car versus 700+.

To the original discussion, I've never really been a fan of Porsche styling, but I've got to say that the Singer looks pretty sweet in a retro sort of way.

On the electric front, a Challenger Demon versus a 2017 Tesla S P100D (with ludicrous speed) would be a very interesting drag contest. Would almost certainly come down to the skill of the Demon driver.

Fun times we live in.

--SS

Air-cooled 911s are all about their weird handling, the layout is objectively inferior but I'd still way rather have one then anything else Porsche has made. Well, I could be forced to accept a Carrera GT

TwistedKestrel wrote:

Air-cooled 911s are all about their weird handling, the layout is objectively inferior but I'd still way rather have one then anything else Porsche has made. Well, I could be forced to accept a Carrera GT

I'd take a current gen 911 GT3 Touring over a GT.

As far as the layout being inferior I think that discussion has been well put to rest. A current gen 911, or any well sorted 911 (Singer), is a wonderful thing to drive from what I can gather. The current GT3 being the latest example of 911 handling perfection.

ptsant wrote:

Sorry, but a car with rear-engine is fundamentally wrong. I'd rather have a Cayman 981 GT4 (if you are into Porsche) or Ferrari 458 (no, not the latest turbo one).

A 991.2 GT3 will grind a 981 GT4 to a pulp and not think twice about it. Porsche hampered the GT4 with overly tall gearing.

I can do so much more with my Tacoma.

DeadOfKnight wrote:

I can do so much more with my Tacoma.

but you have to do it slower.

DeadOfKnight wrote:

I can do so much more with my Tacoma.

Best of both worlds... 1991 GMC Syclone...

cphite wrote:

DeadOfKnight wrote:

I can do so much more with my Tacoma.

Best of both worlds... 1991 GMC Syclone...

With a 500lb rated cargo capacity.

SecretSquirrel wrote:

On the electric front, a Challenger Demon versus a 2017 Tesla S P100D (with ludicrous speed) would be a very interesting drag contest.

In a thread about a manual 911 you mention drag racing?

The Demon is cool but it is based on a pig of a car. On VIR's Grand West Course a 707 HP Hellcat is on par with a 355 HP V6 Camaro. As far as a Tesla on a track you can forget about it. After roughly 40 seconds into a lap a Model S P85D entered reduced power mode to save the battery - it was way slower the V6 Camaro.

DeadOfKnight wrote:

I can do so much more with my Tacoma.

You can tow the 911 to a track.

ptsant wrote:

Porsche itself regularly promotes the 4-wheel drive versions

And yet the ultimate performance 911 models are rear wheel drive:

GT3
GT3 RS
GT2 RS

The greatest Caymen ever made (GT4) does not even come close to the above 911 models in terms of performance, handling, and driver satisfaction both on and off track. Arguably that is because the 911 is Porsches halo product. Don't **** with the king.

The 911 RSR had to go mid engine primarily for the aero (bigger diffuser):

2016


2017

Renault had a much better attempt at convincing Williams to make the greatest car ever back in 1995:


https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/anyt ... -espace-f1

End User wrote:

ptsant wrote:

Sorry, but a car with rear-engine is fundamentally wrong. I'd rather have a Cayman 981 GT4 (if you are into Porsche) or Ferrari 458 (no, not the latest turbo one).

A 991.2 GT3 will grind a 981 GT4 to a pulp and not think twice about it. Porsche hampered the GT4 with overly tall gearing.

You are comparing a car costing (local prices) $180k vs ~$120k. I sure hope the GT3 wins. The GT3 is the only 911 I would consider but for the price I would be sorely tempted by the Ferrari.

Edit:
It appears that the Cayman gt4 has a very fast lap time at he Nurburgring, compared with such exotics as the GT3 RS and the Audi R8.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015 ... ound-the-n
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB9qJlpHvEs

Take this with a grain of salt, of course. But still, the expression "grind to a pulp" is probably not completely accurate.

ptsant wrote:

Most people who have actually driven both feel that the Caymans are more agile, for the exact reasons you describe. And the older 911s, when electronic aids were much less abundant, were notoriously difficult to drive.

You're confusing driver performance and car performance here:

Yes, older 911s were difficult to drive well, but assuming a professional driver, equally competent in both mid-engined and rear-engined cars were to set lap times in both, the rear-engined 911 simply had more grip through the corners than equal weight cars of a more balanced F/R weight distribution.

Average joes like me can't handle a real Porsche; Without the computer assistance It offers superior grip up until the point that it lets go and you have an enormous high-speed crash. At least when the more balanced cars let go and start to slide it's much easier to recover them, and thus much easier to learn the limits in. That doesn't make them better cars, it just makes them easier cars.

If you're into racing at all, you know that the single biggest performance upgrade you can give your car is better tyres. It's not as glamourous as more horsepower but cornering grip is the most decisive factor in reducing laptimes. Having more power is only useful if you can put that power down on tarmac, and maintain the speed that power bought you through the corners. Porsche's rear-engine design is just providing more grip by putting more weight over the tyres than other designs, at the cost of manageabiliy and turn initiation speed.

EndlessWaves wrote:

Renault has a much better attempt at convincing Williams to make the greatest car ever back in 1995:

That Espace is awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGUyIOGVa0M

I can't get into any of the new american muscle cars. They've got crazy high HP and I'm sure they're a blast, but they're also rather oaf'ish by today's standards. They don't have the character of the classics, and high horsepower alone just doesn't impress me these days.

It also seems like american sports cars have been priced well outside the range of their target demographic since at least the mid-90's.