Author | Message |
---|---|
◊ 2006-05-29 23:00 |
Looks like a 993 Turbo S (not Turbo). |
◊ 2007-03-23 15:21 |
Do you know the model year of this car? |
◊ 2007-03-23 15:25 |
i think it's 1997, and actually, i don't think that's a Turbo S, because Turbo S had a side vent in the rear, like this, and also yellow brake calippers: Link to "medias.forum-auto.com" -- Last edit: 2007-03-23 15:28:15 |
◊ 2008-06-19 02:25 |
Aftermarket bumper bib on 911 |
◊ 2008-10-22 20:29 |
-- Last edit: 2008-10-22 20:30:34 |
◊ 2008-10-22 21:32 |
Comparing the thumbnail and the main image, the car they shot up looks to have been an empty shell (no seats!) that was previously damaged (warped rear fender; rear end collision or engine fire?). Other than that, though, they did a pretty good job making the wreck match the actual car they used in the establishing shot. |
◊ 2010-07-29 16:09 |
it is, ähh it was a turbo S -- Last edit: 2010-08-26 17:35:30 |
◊ 2013-01-28 13:32 |
I dont think this is a Turbo S. No Turbo S fog lights/airducts. And I dont think there are any Air scoops in rear fenders, just body damages. Rear wing also looks wrong. Turbo S: Link to "i233.photobucket.com" Link to "www.motorcars-intl.com" Link to "flatsixes.com" |
◊ 2013-02-23 20:51 |
Neither car has Turbo front valence, so despite Turbo-ish rear arches and wing and the sills and front snow plough, I think 95+ Carrera 4 for white sidelights is safest. |
◊ 2020-05-05 10:39 |
|
◊ 2022-05-24 17:33 |
911 Turbo Disguise, isn't it?? Y E S |