Throughout this article and many others in the substantial volume of articles written about the 911 talk about 'the purists' in disparaging terms, as though the

Throughout this article and many others in the substantial volume of articles written about the 911 talk about 'the purists' in disparaging terms, as though they are some unappeasable group. 'The Purists' are a straw man that must be run through before a model can introduce changes. It's more than a bit disingenuous, though. 'Purists' never complained about going from Torsion bars to coil-over, or from k-Jetronic (CIS) to Motronic, or even lengthening the wheelbase and using aluminium suspension parts. 'Purists' never complained about extra power or displacement or bigger brakes. The reality is that regulations are what have driven most of the changes - from the body structure to the engines and electric steering to things like the rear bumper height. Everything from Targas to impact bumpers, exhaust thermal reactors and catalytic converters, flashing seatbelt lights and quiet inductions and exhausts are not done because that's what the buyers want, but because that's what the Ralph Naders of the world want. Maybe they're necessary. That's not the point. The 'Purists' are just those people who point out that these things haven't necessarily made the car better. Funny how the 'Purists' these days are more likely to want a Singer than a brand new 911, because the Singer is a small, light car with a modern efficient engine and big modern brakes and suspension. In fact, if you list the differences between a Singer and a new 911, you get a list of all the things the 'Purists' have simply pointed out haven't necessarily been changes for the better. So enough with 'the purists' already. They're just an imaginary group made up to skip over the fact that some change was actually for the worse when it came to the primary purpose of it being a sports car.