Discussion
Slippydiff said:
Tactile and enjoyable to drive around the twisties and on bumpy roads ? Not really . . . .
Well with the RUF suspension and uniballs on mine it is better than any version of GT3 I've had on the twisties and in the Alps this year was quicker on the Alpine passes than any of the other GT3s on the trip. So with the right setup they will produce whatever combination you are after.As for something between the GT3 and a Turbo I'd not put a GT2 there, I'd put it the other side of the GT3 in terms of the commitment and focused required driving it. There is ALWAYS more power than grip where in a GT3 you do get to floor the car far more and stretch it more on public roads, the GT2 get illegal so quickly!
B16 FYS said:
jackal said:
is it true what they say.... will it swap 2 lanes when running over an expansion joint ?
has anyone had a 996 GT2 centre-of-gravtied ? did it help ?
how hard is the ride compared to a 96 Gt3 ?
Hi Jackal,has anyone had a 996 GT2 centre-of-gravtied ? did it help ?
how hard is the ride compared to a 96 Gt3 ?
Dont bother with the 996 GT2, miss it out, go and test drive a 997 GT3 or 997 GT3 RS, then come back and tell us all what you think !!!
te!
Slippydiff said:
The 997 bodyshell has almost forty percent more flexural strength than that of the 996 (and is 8% stiffer torsionally) That alone should tell you Porsche AG realised that the 996 bodyshell had some pretty basic and intrinsic shortcomings . . . .
Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
At last the first retort that I have read on pistonheads that explains succintely the basic problem with the 996 shell. I take my hat off to you sir. This is exactly why the 996 in any guise holds no real interest for me although I have been tempted with the RS and the GT2. I have no first hand experience of the 997 but it still has no true rear bulkhead. I've seen a 997 GT3 on a four post ramp and in truth I view it as a 911 with a fur coat and no knickers. It is a sudo 911. Has the engine in the right place but that is as far as it goes. It is a 911 in name and nothing more.Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
Hence Porsche offered the Club Sport with the proper rear cage which according to RUF makes it as stiff as a 997 (and Porsche say fitting a rear cage to a 997 GT3 does not offer and additional rigidity). But yes you do need the cage to minimize flex in the car if you are really pushing on or the road is really bad.
SpeedYellow said:
Slippydiff said:
Tactile and enjoyable to drive around the twisties and on bumpy roads ? Not really . . . .
Well with the RUF suspension and uniballs on mine it is better than any version of GT3 I've had on the twisties and in the Alps this year was quicker on the Alpine passes than any of the other GT3s on the trip. So with the right setup they will produce whatever combination you are after.As for something between the GT3 and a Turbo I'd not put a GT2 there, I'd put it the other side of the GT3 in terms of the commitment and focused required driving it. There is ALWAYS more power than grip where in a GT3 you do get to floor the car far more and stretch it more on public roads, the GT2 get illegal so quickly!
But I digress, bolt on some good quality springs and dampers. Bilstein PSS9s in your case (And EXACTLY what the tight fisted beancounters should've fitted to the car originally) and remove the compliance in some of the suspension bushings (specifically the rear toe links) add in some decent geo and you end up with a car that is "better" equipped to deal with the previously mentioned roads.
However try a 996 or 997 Turbo (with similar horsepower to your car) on poorly surfaced, uneven, bumpy and wet roads and I think you may see the GT2s shortcomings brought into sharper focus ! !
Don't get me wrong, the GT2 is a formidable weapon in the right hands, but suited to bumpy, poorly surfaced, uneven roads ? I remain to be convinced
these threads always end up in mines better than yours 
I have driven a 997 GT3RS and loved it but was it 30-40k better than my car? no way.
Would I swap for one if they were same value? for track yes, for road no! you cant beat 500bhp+ for the road!
I had a 996 turbo and modded it.... I still got bored.
Very competent just not as exciting.
I have driven a 997 GT3RS and loved it but was it 30-40k better than my car? no way.
Would I swap for one if they were same value? for track yes, for road no! you cant beat 500bhp+ for the road!
I had a 996 turbo and modded it.... I still got bored.
Very competent just not as exciting.
PHOENIXUK said:
B16 FYS said:
jackal said:
is it true what they say.... will it swap 2 lanes when running over an expansion joint ?
has anyone had a 996 GT2 centre-of-gravtied ? did it help ?
how hard is the ride compared to a 96 Gt3 ?
Hi Jackal,has anyone had a 996 GT2 centre-of-gravtied ? did it help ?
how hard is the ride compared to a 96 Gt3 ?
Dont bother with the 996 GT2, miss it out, go and test drive a 997 GT3 or 997 GT3 RS, then come back and tell us all what you think !!!
te!
C.
Slippydiff said:
However try a 996 or 997 Turbo (with similar horsepower to your car) on poorly surfaced, uneven, bumpy and wet roads and I think you may see the GT2s shortcomings brought into sharper focus ! !
Don't get me wrong, the GT2 is a formidable weapon in the right hands, but suited to bumpy, poorly surfaced, uneven roads ? I remain to be convinced
why doesnt the 996tt have the same rigidity issues ?Don't get me wrong, the GT2 is a formidable weapon in the right hands, but suited to bumpy, poorly surfaced, uneven roads ? I remain to be convinced
graeme36s said:
Slippydiff said:
The 997 bodyshell has almost forty percent more flexural strength than that of the 996 (and is 8% stiffer torsionally) That alone should tell you Porsche AG realised that the 996 bodyshell had some pretty basic and intrinsic shortcomings . . . .
Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
At last the first retort that I have read on pistonheads that explains succintely the basic problem with the 996 shell. I take my hat off to you sir. This is exactly why the 996 in any guise holds no real interest for me although I have been tempted with the RS and the GT2. I have no first hand experience of the 997 but it still has no true rear bulkhead. I've seen a 997 GT3 on a four post ramp and in truth I view it as a 911 with a fur coat and no knickers. It is a sudo 911. Has the engine in the right place but that is as far as it goes. It is a 911 in name and nothing more.Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
also, how come the 996 has too much bodysheel flex whereas (presumably) the 993, 964, 3.2 etc.. don't ?
theredbaron said:
a certain well known tuner, always recomends a turbo above a gt2/3. not as raw, but with a few choice mods is devastating on track. gets the grunt down !
but just look at it
thats impossible to resist !
proper hardcore presence
Edited by jackal on Wednesday 18th November 22:42
graeme36s said:
Slippydiff said:
The 997 bodyshell has almost forty percent more flexural strength than that of the 996 (and is 8% stiffer torsionally) That alone should tell you Porsche AG realised that the 996 bodyshell had some pretty basic and intrinsic shortcomings . . . .
Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
At last the first retort that I have read on pistonheads that explains succintely the basic problem with the 996 shell. I take my hat off to you sir. This is exactly why the 996 in any guise holds no real interest for me although I have been tempted with the RS and the GT2. I have no first hand experience of the 997 but it still has no true rear bulkhead. I've seen a 997 GT3 on a four post ramp and in truth I view it as a 911 with a fur coat and no knickers. It is a sudo 911. Has the engine in the right place but that is as far as it goes. It is a 911 in name and nothing more.Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
I think the Moto GP boys found that early CF frames and swing arms, whilst theoretically providing the perfectly rigid chassis (nee platform) for the job, were just too stiff, and thus some of the riders preferred the twist, give (call it what you like) that a traditional alloy frame conferred over the cCF versions.
One of the WRC teams experienced similar issues after designing a shell and integral rollcage using computer stress analysis techniques. They found that the car was blighted by a handling issue that proved impossible to alleviate using tried and tested suspension/differential adjustment techniques, but by removing a few sections of the rollcage (there to increase front end torsional stiffness, not provide additional safety) it reintroduced some much needed flexure which in turn made a massive difference to how the car handled.
jackal said:
graeme36s said:
Slippydiff said:
The 997 bodyshell has almost forty percent more flexural strength than that of the 996 (and is 8% stiffer torsionally) That alone should tell you Porsche AG realised that the 996 bodyshell had some pretty basic and intrinsic shortcomings . . . .
Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
At last the first retort that I have read on pistonheads that explains succintely the basic problem with the 996 shell. I take my hat off to you sir. This is exactly why the 996 in any guise holds no real interest for me although I have been tempted with the RS and the GT2. I have no first hand experience of the 997 but it still has no true rear bulkhead. I've seen a 997 GT3 on a four post ramp and in truth I view it as a 911 with a fur coat and no knickers. It is a sudo 911. Has the engine in the right place but that is as far as it goes. It is a 911 in name and nothing more.Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
also, how come the 996 has too much bodysheel flex whereas (presumably) the 993, 964, 3.2 etc.. don't ?
jackal said:
theredbaron said:
a certain well known tuner, always recomends a turbo above a gt2/3. not as raw, but with a few choice mods is devastating on track. gets the grunt down !
but just look at itthats impossible to resist !
proper hardcore presence
Edited by jackal on Wednesday 18th November 22:42
jackal said:
Slippydiff said:
However try a 996 or 997 Turbo (with similar horsepower to your car) on poorly surfaced, uneven, bumpy and wet roads and I think you may see the GT2s shortcomings brought into sharper focus ! !
Don't get me wrong, the GT2 is a formidable weapon in the right hands, but suited to bumpy, poorly surfaced, uneven roads ? I remain to be convinced
why doesnt the 996tt have the same rigidity issues ?Don't get me wrong, the GT2 is a formidable weapon in the right hands, but suited to bumpy, poorly surfaced, uneven roads ? I remain to be convinced
The Turbo won't be feeding all of it's torque and HP through the rear wheels the majority of the time (before the pedants out there feel obliged to comment) !!
I think the combination of big HP and torque in addition to the stiffer/lower suspension of the GT2 (when compared to the Turbo) all being fed through the rear of the car makes for the worst case scenario for the 996 'shell.
The Turbo has (IIRC) different engine and subframe mounts to the GT2 (not to mention nice soft long- travel suspension that works in unison (nee masks) the shortcomings of the "blancmange" 996 shell. It was after all designed for it (whereas the GT2 was it's "b
d son afterthought") the differing mounts were no doubt designed to make for a more "focused" drive and overcome the shells intrinsic flex. In reality I think they exacerbate the 996 shells worst traits.jackal said:
graeme36s said:
Slippydiff said:
The 997 bodyshell has almost forty percent more flexural strength than that of the 996 (and is 8% stiffer torsionally) That alone should tell you Porsche AG realised that the 996 bodyshell had some pretty basic and intrinsic shortcomings . . . .
Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
At last the first retort that I have read on pistonheads that explains succintely the basic problem with the 996 shell. I take my hat off to you sir. This is exactly why the 996 in any guise holds no real interest for me although I have been tempted with the RS and the GT2. I have no first hand experience of the 997 but it still has no true rear bulkhead. I've seen a 997 GT3 on a four post ramp and in truth I view it as a 911 with a fur coat and no knickers. It is a sudo 911. Has the engine in the right place but that is as far as it goes. It is a 911 in name and nothing more.Drive a 996 GT2 with standard suspension along an undulating and poorly surfaced road and you'll feel two things.
The problem being that the dampers and springs don't have a sufficiently stable platform to function from.
Drive the same section of road in a 997 GT3 and the "platform" is so much stiffer with no obvious torsional flexing or lack of flexural stiffness. Quite simply the dampers actually control the wheels as opposed to fighting a losing battle with a bodyshell that doesn't provide the stiffness to allow them to function as they were intended to.
IMO the Moton equipped 996 GT2 I passengered in didn't address the inherent issue with the 996 chassis/bodyshell it merely masked it with top quality damping and a vastly better choice of spring and damper rates !
HTH
also, how come the 996 has too much bodysheel flex whereas (presumably) the 993, 964, 3.2 etc.. don't ?
Regrettably the 996 was "built down to a price" (not to mention speed of assembly) and it shows.
And just for the record I'm not knocking the 996 in any of its iterations (well apart from Cabs, Tips etc)
I do after all own one of the bloody things.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff