A few years ago, it was pretty much a guarantee that cars would feature rear windows, but that’s no longer so certain. Recently, a few enterprising companies have seen no need for glass on the back of a car for a variety of reasons, some of which make less sense than others. For instance, the Polestar 4’s packaging seems like a cop-out. So, when might it actually make sense to ditch the rear window? Well, driving something fast enough to make giving point-bys unlikely might qualify for the rear-windowless treatment. This is the Manthey Racing Porsche 911 GT3 RS, and it’s what happens when you take one of the most track-optimized production cars on the road today and turn things up to 11.
If you’re not familiar with Manthey Racing, don’t feel ashamed — this Porsche majority-owned motorsports and tuning company caters to the daring few who look at Porsche’s already upper-echelon GT cars and crave more. More downforce, more cornering speed, shorter lap times, and an obsession with going faster on a closed course while still being able to drive home on public roads.
It’s easy to spot how Manthey Racing has made Porsche’s most track-focused 911 even more extreme, because the entire rear window has been replaced with a giant carbon fiber fin. Porsche claims it draws inspiration from the 963 race car, increases cornering stability, works with additional roof fins to keep hot extracted radiator air out of the stream of the rear air intakes, and weighs 25 percent less than the lightweight glass it replaces.
In addition to the giant fin, a split DRS element in the wing, larger wing end plates, a wider diffuser, a much larger front splitter, new gurney flaps, and more canards than a pond all combine to generate more than 2,204 pounds of downforce at 177 mph — that’s like parking an entire Porsche 914 on the roof, but without nearly the same drag penalty.
A significant increase in downforce usually requires an increase in spring rates to maintain proper suspension geometry under aero load, and that’s exactly what Manthey Racing’s done here. The front springs in this kit are 30 percent stiffer than stock, while rear spring rates climb by 15 percent. A new computer for the adaptive dampers keeps everything under control, and you can even get racing brake pads for, say, shedding speed into Road America’s first corner. Steel-sheathed brake lines come standard for improved pedal feel, although it’s not like the standard GT3 RS is said to be lacking in that department. This is simply going that step further, a car for those obsessed with lap times.
Unlike most tuner packages, Manthey Racing kits pose no threat to the factory warranty and are sourced through actual Porsche dealerships. However, don’t expect these improvements to come inexpensively. Between the sheer amount of research and development that went into the Manthey Racing GT3 RS and the low volume this kit will see, a price tag well into the five-figure range is virtually guaranteed.
However, for a certain audience, there really is no substitute. For now, this is the ultimate new 911, a machine for people who dream in braking points and sector times. Expect the first GT3 RS Manthey Racing kits to hit the streets of Europe in January, with U.S. deliveries likely happening in the Spring.
(Photo credits: Porsche)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The Trackday Special Porsche 911 GT3 RS Is Back With Red Stripes And A DRS-Equipped Wing The Size Of Australia
-
This One-Off Asymmetric 911 GT3 RS Is Porsche’s Quirky Tribute To Canada
-
The 2025 Porsche Taycan GTS Gains 100 Horsepower And Keeps The Sweet Sport Turismo Wagon
-
The 1,019-Horsepower 2025 Porsche Taycan Turbo GT Makes You Feel Like A God
-
The New Porsche 911 Carrera T: Less Weight, Less Roof, And A Sticker To Show The World You Can Drive Stick
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
“…and weighs 25 percent less than the lightweight glass it replaces.”
A polycarbonate replacement rear window would weigh 50 percent less than the glass. Plus you could see through it.
But polycarbonate is much harder to charge tens of thousands of dollars for. So this whole mess is just marketing.
My dream track day car is a series 2 Exige 260. That has a rear window, but it’s entirely blocked by the intercooler, and not by bullshit.
…unless the carbon fiber shares in the load-bearing capacity for the fin+wing assembly, in which case polycarbonate wouldn’t be up to the task.
The wing struts hold the wing up, and the fin is something I’ve seen made from polycarbonate on drift cars. So the use of carbon is entirely to sell shiny things for huge amounts of money.
We’ve long since passed an era where useful rear windows came on all vehicles. This is just evolution.
Myself, however, I want a large greenhouse with ample windows – so I can see what’s going on with depth perception that doesn’t currently come from cameras. Like a VW Golf or Subaru Forester – and not like this thing, or a Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
It’s not ideal, but I can’t see out the rear window of my truck while towing or hauling large objects, so this gets a big old shrug from me. Also, this seems like a super low volume example, so when the Camry deletes its rear window maybe I’ll be able to muster up some outrage. Until then this is a tempest in a teacup.
So no rear window is more racecar? Some days I get to drive a 2 seat high output V-10 with no rear window. It is so expensive I couldn’t have bought it. It also has poor rear visibility. E-350 box van, FTW!
Considering how small, high up, and obscured by headrests most rear windows are, they’re nearly useless anyway. Yeah, I disagree with losing them, but I disagree with just about everything in modern cars and this is way down the scale. I’ve also driven large vans and a box truck with no rear windows or camera and didn’t have an issue (nice, big mirrors, though).
Unpopular opinion: A rear window is necessary safety equipment in a roadgoing passenger vehicle, and I would be 100% fine with road safety regulations making it so track-oriented versions of cars were not street legal at a higher rate. This isn’t an unfair burden. If you have $200k+ to spend on a track toy, you can also afford a road car. If you’re just trying to be seen in something that looks like a track toy on your way to work, the manufacturer will figure that out and make sure they’re road legal.
I never understood these kinds of track cars. Very few of them are ever used on a track as they’re too valuable to risk, expensive to run, beyond the capabilities of most even trained drivers, and a much better track car that’s cheaper to run could be built or bought for a lot cheaper if it didn’t have to conform to road car rules and compromises. Of course, they lose the insecure rich guy element of their customer base and that seems to make up about 99% of exotic cars sales, so I understand the manufacturer’s position, just not the appeal.
I don’t know what kind of numbers Manthey sells, but I see quite a few GT3 and especially GT4 MR’s out on track.
They aren’t even close to my budget, but I’d track it if I had it.
Not stated in the article, but I’m gonna guess there’s a rear-view camera to go with the side mirrors. (It has to have one to be street-legal, correct?) I’m sure it’s fine for whatever small amount of time a car like this would ever spend on a public road. And given that much of the reason a car like this is purchased is for bragging rights, the giant fin makes lots of sense. You’re not likely to find anyone else there on track day who has one of those!
Looks fine, doubt many will be driven on the street so the rear window delete doesn’t really matter. Bump into something backing up, just write a check. I do like that green paint.
WTF are these comments? Was the HoA meeting cancelled today or what?
Your mailbox needs painting. Here’s a ticket.
No, it’s not fine. For a truck or bus being driven by a professional with a CDL, terrible direct visibility is fine, given decent mirrors, but for the punters there should be minimum visibility requirements (and those standards should be HIGH), not sensors and cameras.
Still more nails in the coffin containing my desire to ever buy another new car. It was fun while they didn’t suck.
As for this nonsense, seems like a lot of money to ruin a Porsche. If you want to spend a lot of money to go fast on a track, buy something open-wheeled that was actually meant for track use in the first place, not something that was really meant for successful dentists to cosplay as racing drivers and was tuned up from there.
The standard GT3 is considerably faster than a not-insignificant number of open-wheel cars and can also be driven to and from the track.
You can buy an open wheeler that is plenty fast, a trailer for it, and truck to pull it for a fraction of the cost of a GT3. And it will FEEL faster – and be far cheaper to run in terms of consumables. And if you stuff it into a wall or blow up the motor, you won’t be out hundreds of thousands of dollars and walking home. If you have the money to write off a GT3 and not even think about it, you do you. I will still think you are an idiot.
I agree with you on mass produced cars but this is a kit for a car that was already extraordinary. Seems like a better comment would have been “Still more nails in the coffin containing my desire to ever buy a GT3 RS Manthey Racing kit for my Porsche GT3!”
No, no, no, you can’t just trust mirrors and cameras 100%. Gotta spin that head around and actually LOOK back there.
Fine on a race track. Not so fine on a public road.
Everything has to back up sometime, apparently rear windows need to be federally mandated safety equipment, who’d have thought…
Backup Cameras are also federally mandated. I wonder if one supersedes the other.
Indeed, so you’d think a window that actually shows more than the camera would be required too, but apparently not. Just seems silly to me.
But don’t backup cameras mostly exist to see below the window so you don’t back over inattentive children whose parents didn’t teach them to be safe around cars?
IIRC every car I’ve been in with a rear view camera has warning messages to check the windows and mirrors and not rely entirely on the camera.
I wonder if that is a legal CYA thing, but you are right.
I have to admit that I check them all, but in the full-sized pickup, I use a lot of camera….
Wait until you find out box trucks exist and don’t require a CDL.
It’s a brand new Porsche, of course it has a back-up camera. What even. And even the standard road car has high-back buckets with head restraints and a roll cage – you’re not turning your head to look behind you even when there is a rear window. It’s like someone left the gate open to the Consumer Reports comments section today.
Porsche: “What’s behind me is not important”
“Objects in mirror are getting their ass kicked”
Objects in mirror are about to disappear
Man,they don’t even list prices on their website, but they do call a tow lug a “toe lug” and I bet it would cost me a week of slaving away at Excel to afford.
My toes are so huge I have to lug them around everywhere.
My all-nighter is going okay, I’m as coherent as can be expected
So on the one hand, never doubt the ability of a company to cheapout on an implementation where it makes things less safe for consumers…. on the otherhand, I 100% must concede that the angle and view of the side cameras on my MY is dramatically more useable and helpful than the mechanical side mirrors ever have been, and likewise is true for the rear camera.
Done correctly, I think it can be a huge benefit to either have both or just have a properly done, high resolution, framerate camera based system… but I also expect most implementations will suck ass.