RE: Porsche 911 turns 50
Discussion
sleep envy said:
Twincam16 said:
In some ways you could say that the Cayman is closer in spirit to the 911 than the 991, which I see as more of a cross between 959 development and 928 replacement. The only water-cooled 911s that seem anything like the original 911 design are the GT2s.
You what?GT2?
The GT2 still has this rawness, as does every Cayman, but there's no denying that the 996, 997 and 991 are more luxurious, more friendly and more technologically sophisticated than the aircooled 911 ever was. This is because the 996 is not an evolution of the 993, it is a completely different car that just happens to have a rear-mounted flat-six.
Twincam16 said:
Also, mechanically the 996's engine was derived from the 959's, and has always been a water-cooled unit developed separately from the aircooled car.
Absolute nonsense.The 959 engine was directly developed from the 956/962 race engine, and had water cooled cylinder heads but an aircooled crankcase.
The 996 engine has nothing to do with the 959/956/962 unit. Why say this?
Twincam16 said:
IMO the 911 was a very pure, rather raw sports car in both concept and design. Even up to the last 993s they were never what you could call luxurious, and the focus was on a rear-mounted engine, rear-wheel drive, air-cooling (so to hell with any NVH suppression, and all the better for it) and handling that needed to be learnt in order to get the best out of it, knowing how to corner to get the power down out of bends.
The GT2 still has this rawness, as does every Cayman, but there's no denying that the 996, 997 and 991 are more luxurious, more friendly and more technologically sophisticated than the aircooled 911 ever was. This is because the 996 is not an evolution of the 993, it is a completely different car that just happens to have a rear-mounted flat-six.
Please stop spouting bThe GT2 still has this rawness, as does every Cayman, but there's no denying that the 996, 997 and 991 are more luxurious, more friendly and more technologically sophisticated than the aircooled 911 ever was. This is because the 996 is not an evolution of the 993, it is a completely different car that just happens to have a rear-mounted flat-six.
ks, I don't recall the original 1963 car having twin turbos. If you'd have said GT3 then you may have a point.Twincam16 said:
By contrast there was a step-change between the 993 and 996. Not one part is interchangeable between the two.
BTW, having had a good crawl under my 996 I've spoted a few key components which have 964 part numbers. 
HAB said:
Absolute nonsense.
The 959 engine was directly developed from the 956/962 race engine, and had water cooled cylinder heads but an aircooled crankcase.
The 996 engine has nothing to do with the 959/956/962 unit. Why say this?
Scroll down to pages 160-166: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RaanuEGHWuwC&am...The 959 engine was directly developed from the 956/962 race engine, and had water cooled cylinder heads but an aircooled crankcase.
The 996 engine has nothing to do with the 959/956/962 unit. Why say this?
Seems to be more 959 and Porsche Motorsport development in the 996 engine than the aircooled version. It's certainly not merely a 911 engine merely converted to water cooling.
Granted, mechanically there is some crossover with the 964 and 993 (suspension etc), but the 996 is ostensibly a different kind of car to the original 911.
smilo996 said:
Yawn. Driven 2 Porkas. A 911 turbo from the early 90's which to be honest was dangerous. Great until it let go without warning. When it did, difficult to correct. A dinner table sized spoiler on the back trying to make up for the engine being in the wrong place, plain & simple.
4wd 99?. Better but only because of the 4WD. Sounds terrible & roots in the Beetle.
Apart from being easy to drive round Chelsea what on earth is the attraction of a car that looks 50 years old, sounds aweful & is difficult to drive unless you have a really modern one?
Contraversial I know but really.
Of course the newer ones are much easier to drive but that's the same for any modern car because manufacturers are continually reducing the importance of the driver. If you take the time to understand how a 911 responds to inputs (especially the earlier models) it becomes a very rewarding car to drive. Driven properly, it's twisty roads and race tracks where it comes into its element. 4wd 99?. Better but only because of the 4WD. Sounds terrible & roots in the Beetle.
Apart from being easy to drive round Chelsea what on earth is the attraction of a car that looks 50 years old, sounds aweful & is difficult to drive unless you have a really modern one?
Contraversial I know but really.
I've never owned a 911, but have driven quite a few. The first was a 1965 car, reckoned to be the first ever right hand drive car as sold by AFN, a white one with the 2 litre flat six, twin triple choke Solexes and skinny wheels. Driven within its limits it was quite good and 130 bhp pushed it along well enough. The legendary 2.4S was fast but quite hard work and it felt a bit scary over 100, even with its chin spoiler.
I always preferred the 1973 on impact bumper shape to the early ones although I'm probably alone in that. My favouriute is probably the 1974 Carrera 2.7, the 210 bhp RS running gear in the later shell. Not much faster than a good late model SC but the way it accelerated - and the noise! Like the 2.7S, it rode well and handled very nicely on its tall tyres. I'd love to have a go in an earlier Turbo. My Old Man had a 964 C4 when they were current but I found it just a bit characterless compared to the earlier cars.
A pity the 928 never took off because they were really good.
I always preferred the 1973 on impact bumper shape to the early ones although I'm probably alone in that. My favouriute is probably the 1974 Carrera 2.7, the 210 bhp RS running gear in the later shell. Not much faster than a good late model SC but the way it accelerated - and the noise! Like the 2.7S, it rode well and handled very nicely on its tall tyres. I'd love to have a go in an earlier Turbo. My Old Man had a 964 C4 when they were current but I found it just a bit characterless compared to the earlier cars.
A pity the 928 never took off because they were really good.
Twincam16 said:
Scroll down to pages 160-166: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RaanuEGHWuwC&am...
Seems to be more 959 and Porsche Motorsport development in the 996 engine than the aircooled version. It's certainly not merely a 911 engine merely converted to water cooling.
Granted, mechanically there is some crossover with the 964 and 993 (suspension etc), but the 996 is ostensibly a different kind of car to the original 911.
No. The 964 and 993 have different rear suspension (trailing arm vs multi link) It is the 993 & 996 that have the same rear suspension configuration.Seems to be more 959 and Porsche Motorsport development in the 996 engine than the aircooled version. It's certainly not merely a 911 engine merely converted to water cooling.
Granted, mechanically there is some crossover with the 964 and 993 (suspension etc), but the 996 is ostensibly a different kind of car to the original 911.
And there is absolutely no reference to the 996 engine being derived from the 959 in your link. It mentions that Porsche developed a new M96 water-cooled race engine from a variety of older units, including the 964,959,930.
How you've managed to reach the opinion that the production 996 engine is derived from the 959 from this info is anybody's guess.
Had the privilege of sourcing a 911 for my boss 9 years ago. He wanted a 2.7 RS lightweight; fortunately having seen too many rough 2.7s I managed to convince him to buy a 1974 3.0 RS with a fantastic racing history instead. The price differential then was only about £15/20,000; how much is it now? He still owns it and the only modification is the fitting of 16 inch Fuchs rims with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tyres (he still has the origional 15 inch rims. When I drove it, most people saw just an "M" registered Porsche with a body kit, external ignition cut out, and a roll cage, little did they know! There was no soundproofing, and the mechanical noises that used to come from it just added to the sensory overload of driving it. It weighed next to nothing (I believe about 1060 kg) and had about 230 bhp with 917 brakes, so it stopped as well as it went.
Regarding rear-engined 4-seaters, the obvious alternative is the Renault Alpine GTA. Don't want to be controversial but I think it handled better than a contemporary 911.
Regarding rear-engined 4-seaters, the obvious alternative is the Renault Alpine GTA. Don't want to be controversial but I think it handled better than a contemporary 911.
j90gta said:
Had the privilege of sourcing a 911 for my boss 9 years ago. He wanted a 2.7 RS lightweight; fortunately having seen too many rough 2.7s I managed to convince him to buy a 1974 3.0 RS with a fantastic racing history instead.
Bloody hell, that's some serious artillery! Iirc they had twin master cylinders, floating discs and all kinds of goodies. I would imagine it has tripled in value. Envious.
The best Porsches are small ones. I like the look of the new Cayman. While there have always been larger versions with bells 'n whistles for the US market. It has clouded the urban legends of the older models. Hence the punters slurring their speech at the bar over the 959/956/993/996
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff