EVO - 911 Generations Feature **** SPOILERS ****
Discussion
Just a heads up for those interested that there is a feature in EVO this month (175) comparing 8 generations of 'standard' manual RWD 911's from 911T to 991.
They have attempted to leave rose tinted specs behind and just compare them on tactility and feel alone. It was carried out at Silverstones PEC.
There are some interesting views and the SC, 964 and 996 seem to come out best in driving terms. Of course, there is lots to shout at and argue with, and I question whether all of the older cars are in the best of health mechanically and truly represent a standard car, BUT, I guess thats difficult to achieve.
The 3.2 and 993 get a bit of a kicking which is a surprise. 3.2 is too 'heavy' and 993 too soft.
MTR
They have attempted to leave rose tinted specs behind and just compare them on tactility and feel alone. It was carried out at Silverstones PEC.
There are some interesting views and the SC, 964 and 996 seem to come out best in driving terms. Of course, there is lots to shout at and argue with, and I question whether all of the older cars are in the best of health mechanically and truly represent a standard car, BUT, I guess thats difficult to achieve.
The 3.2 and 993 get a bit of a kicking which is a surprise. 3.2 is too 'heavy' and 993 too soft.
MTR
A pretty pointless "test" really MTR.
As you've highlighted, the cars will differ in condition and set up massively.
Back in 1995 Autocar raved about the silver UK press demo 993 RS. They used the same car in another test against the NSX twelve months later, and couldn't believe it handled so poorly (or was even the same car !)
It could've been driven over a deep pothole or clipped a kerb, and the geo would've been thrown out. A change of tyres from Bridgestone S02's to Pirellis would've also ruined a previously sweet-handling, grippy car too.
The last big Porsche group test Evo did featured a 2.7 RS, 3.0RS (IIRC), 3.2 Carrera CS, 964 RS, 993 RS, 993 GT2, 996 GT3, 996 GT2. The 964 RS ran spacers all round and the 993 RS ran on track biased tyres (MPS Cups or similar)
Whilst bolting spacers on to a 964 RS does wonders for its looks, it also totally changes the weight and character of the steering and the car itself. Bolting Cups onto a car has same effect.
If the cars aren't representative of how they left the factory (and I doubt they will be) it makes for a somewhat pointless exercise.
As you've highlighted, the cars will differ in condition and set up massively.
Back in 1995 Autocar raved about the silver UK press demo 993 RS. They used the same car in another test against the NSX twelve months later, and couldn't believe it handled so poorly (or was even the same car !)
It could've been driven over a deep pothole or clipped a kerb, and the geo would've been thrown out. A change of tyres from Bridgestone S02's to Pirellis would've also ruined a previously sweet-handling, grippy car too.
The last big Porsche group test Evo did featured a 2.7 RS, 3.0RS (IIRC), 3.2 Carrera CS, 964 RS, 993 RS, 993 GT2, 996 GT3, 996 GT2. The 964 RS ran spacers all round and the 993 RS ran on track biased tyres (MPS Cups or similar)
Whilst bolting spacers on to a 964 RS does wonders for its looks, it also totally changes the weight and character of the steering and the car itself. Bolting Cups onto a car has same effect.
If the cars aren't representative of how they left the factory (and I doubt they will be) it makes for a somewhat pointless exercise.
crystalmethod said:
Slippydiff said:
A pretty pointless "test" really MTR.
Pointless, but nevertheless interesting to read I expect 
Anyhow, I still found it an interesting comparison based on driving enjoyment as opposed to the usual, value/cost/maintenance/reliability/depreciation comparisons.
MTR
Not read it and prolly wont as i never read the magazine. I agree though that a 993 isn't exactly an epihany as standard. A stock 964 feels a lot more connected and hooked up. A 993 shines after its been modded and honed and had a fair amount of slop taken out. This is the form most of them exist in now in enthusiast circles. So yes, im in agreement with the above commensts, a fairly pointless exercise.
3.2 Carreras are very subjective. Much raw-er than a 993, Ive had both, much more connected, but a bit of a mare round town with no pas, and a notchy 915, its hard to get into 3rd and stay under the 30mph speedlimit. I used to take mine to golf of a sunday morning, and would be in fourth maybe once. The box and clutch on the 3.2, even after rebuild, are a challenge, approaching a roundabout you really have to be switched on for gear selection. It all requires timing, and not trying to rush anything, because that really can get you into trouble. Its not hard to see why lots of them got backed into hedges. The 993 on the other hand was so much more refined, easier in town, nicer ratios, but cushioned you from a real sportiness that should be intrinsic to 911 driving. As Jackal said, they are much better when sorted.
Personally I think my next 911 will be a 964, the look down the bonnet from the drivers seat is what I want. The flatter front of the 993 never matched to the mickey mouse headlamps and wings of the earlier 911's.
That aside,EVO, its only someones opinion. Like arseh-les, everyone has one, and to be that shallow as to be told whats good and bad in such a broad based , I'd like to call it test, but can't, comparison maybe, should be done by owners,and in person.
Hot air.
Personally I think my next 911 will be a 964, the look down the bonnet from the drivers seat is what I want. The flatter front of the 993 never matched to the mickey mouse headlamps and wings of the earlier 911's.
That aside,EVO, its only someones opinion. Like arseh-les, everyone has one, and to be that shallow as to be told whats good and bad in such a broad based , I'd like to call it test, but can't, comparison maybe, should be done by owners,and in person.
Hot air.
I absolutely fail to see why any enthusiast would be anything other than fascinated by this piece.
Its certainly not pointless.
Saying that the cars vary either in condition or individual set up is being very harsh. Fact is the mag has made every effort to source comparative cars, all Carreras, all 2 wheel drive , all manuals etc
Very interesting conclusions based on having all the cars together at the same time and being driven back to back. None of us have really ever had the chance to do that I would suggest.
Yes they may be changed from their new condition but its telling that a 100,000 mile 996 did so well.Its the 3.2 and the 993 that have come out less than their reputations, the 996 in particular rather better.
The 2 newest cars were seen to confirm what everyone's been saying, the 991 is a great car but diminished by being less"911" like,
Its a great piece as was the RS/GT article back in 2001. Just had a re-read of that today and even in light of the points made above, its exactly what makes EVO the best.
Its certainly not pointless.
Saying that the cars vary either in condition or individual set up is being very harsh. Fact is the mag has made every effort to source comparative cars, all Carreras, all 2 wheel drive , all manuals etc
Very interesting conclusions based on having all the cars together at the same time and being driven back to back. None of us have really ever had the chance to do that I would suggest.
Yes they may be changed from their new condition but its telling that a 100,000 mile 996 did so well.Its the 3.2 and the 993 that have come out less than their reputations, the 996 in particular rather better.
The 2 newest cars were seen to confirm what everyone's been saying, the 991 is a great car but diminished by being less"911" like,
Its a great piece as was the RS/GT article back in 2001. Just had a re-read of that today and even in light of the points made above, its exactly what makes EVO the best.
Agreed, I thought this was a great article. The fact that it challenges preconceived notions of which models are best makes it all the more interesting and is in no small way due to the impartial approach taken by the highly experienced motor journalists who wrote the piece.
I would probably be a little upset if I owned a 993 and was absolutely sure it was the best 911 iteration as this article does rather challenge that point of view, but at the same time I might be a little elated if I was a 996 owner. Regardless, this article does not set out to hurt or massage the egos of 911 owners, it is an objective test, devised and written by highly regarded journalists who worked hard to bring together the most similar examples of nearly every 911 generation they could with some support from Porsche GB (the test was conducted at the Silverstone Experience Centre).
The results are of course subjective, but every car test is, otherwise they would be nothing more than a collection of performance and measurement figures. This subjective opinion is what keeps us reading magazines, some very skilled journalists are able to impart some of the passion and feeling of driving cars via the written word and like it or not, this has fueled our passion for cars over the years and is probably part of the reason we are all on this website. It is ridiculous to dismiss this article simply because the results don't sit comfortably with you, they are nothing more than the honest findings of a couple of journalists that had the great opportunity to drive so many 911 generations back to back. In fact, as Porsche enthusiasts we should be grateful that such articles continue to be written.
Personally I thought the findings were really interesting and now I'm looking forward to driving my mates 964 next weekend even more than I was before. However, the article isn't going to make his car any better or worse, I'll let the car do the talking, just as I'm sure he will do when he gets behind the wheel of my 997.
I would probably be a little upset if I owned a 993 and was absolutely sure it was the best 911 iteration as this article does rather challenge that point of view, but at the same time I might be a little elated if I was a 996 owner. Regardless, this article does not set out to hurt or massage the egos of 911 owners, it is an objective test, devised and written by highly regarded journalists who worked hard to bring together the most similar examples of nearly every 911 generation they could with some support from Porsche GB (the test was conducted at the Silverstone Experience Centre).
The results are of course subjective, but every car test is, otherwise they would be nothing more than a collection of performance and measurement figures. This subjective opinion is what keeps us reading magazines, some very skilled journalists are able to impart some of the passion and feeling of driving cars via the written word and like it or not, this has fueled our passion for cars over the years and is probably part of the reason we are all on this website. It is ridiculous to dismiss this article simply because the results don't sit comfortably with you, they are nothing more than the honest findings of a couple of journalists that had the great opportunity to drive so many 911 generations back to back. In fact, as Porsche enthusiasts we should be grateful that such articles continue to be written.
Personally I thought the findings were really interesting and now I'm looking forward to driving my mates 964 next weekend even more than I was before. However, the article isn't going to make his car any better or worse, I'll let the car do the talking, just as I'm sure he will do when he gets behind the wheel of my 997.
Edited by DYKWIA on Monday 10th September 22:30
Dblue said:
I absolutely fail to see why any enthusiast would be anything other than fascinated by this piece.
Its certainly not pointless.
Saying that the cars vary either in condition or individual set up is being very harsh. Fact is the mag has made every effort to source comparative cars, all Carreras, all 2 wheel drive , all manuals etc
Very interesting conclusions based on having all the cars together at the same time and being driven back to back. None of us have really ever had the chance to do that I would suggest.
Yes they may be changed from their new condition but its telling that a 100,000 mile 996 did so well.Its the 3.2 and the 993 that have come out less than their reputations, the 996 in particular rather better.
The 2 newest cars were seen to confirm what everyone's been saying, the 991 is a great car but diminished by being less"911" like,
Its a great piece as was the RS/GT article back in 2001. Just had a re-read of that today and even in light of the points made above, its exactly what makes EVO the best.
I guess that depends on whether you're still "dazzled" by Evo as a magazine. Whilst you might think it the best, I'm not convinced you're setting the bar particularly high. I ceased to be a fan some years ago. Its certainly not pointless.
Saying that the cars vary either in condition or individual set up is being very harsh. Fact is the mag has made every effort to source comparative cars, all Carreras, all 2 wheel drive , all manuals etc
Very interesting conclusions based on having all the cars together at the same time and being driven back to back. None of us have really ever had the chance to do that I would suggest.
Yes they may be changed from their new condition but its telling that a 100,000 mile 996 did so well.Its the 3.2 and the 993 that have come out less than their reputations, the 996 in particular rather better.
The 2 newest cars were seen to confirm what everyone's been saying, the 991 is a great car but diminished by being less"911" like,
Its a great piece as was the RS/GT article back in 2001. Just had a re-read of that today and even in light of the points made above, its exactly what makes EVO the best.
Sorry, I don't think I'm being harsh at all, just realistic. The very minimum I'd expect would be cars of a similar specification.
But I maintain a well set up 964 will always be better than a dog of a 993, and this applies to all the cars tested irrespective of their age or model (excluding the 991 obviously)
Any conclusions drawn will have been based on the individual cars tested, some of those tested will not be representative of the model/marque. Thus a freshly fettled 996 will outshine a poorly set up 993. Try a leggy poorly maintained 996 against a freshly sprung, damped and bushed, ride height optimized, corner weighted and geod 993 and the results would be different once again.
As an avid Evo reader you'll remember Metcalf ran a 993 Turbo 4 for a year or so, all of his minions who drove it and raved about it. Some years later another example was used against a P1 Impreza in Wales(and I can't remember what other cars) but those who drove it didn't rave about its handling quite so much second time round. . . . . . different geo ? tyres, tired dampers, bushes or indeed one of a hundred other things could've "afflicted" it, and in the process meant it wasn't representative of a well fettled example.
I think it's rather presumptuous to assume the 993 on test here is a "dog" or that the 964 is particularly well set up. The only car on test that was apparently a little ragged was the 996 and that did very well.
By the way, I just did a little research and it looks like this is the 993 they tested:
http://www.paul-stephens.com/Porsche-911-993-Carre...
By the way, I just did a little research and it looks like this is the 993 they tested:
http://www.paul-stephens.com/Porsche-911-993-Carre...
Slippydiff said:
Dblue said:
I absolutely fail to see why any enthusiast would be anything other than fascinated by this piece.
Its certainly not pointless.
Saying that the cars vary either in condition or individual set up is being very harsh. Fact is the mag has made every effort to source comparative cars, all Carreras, all 2 wheel drive , all manuals etc
Very interesting conclusions based on having all the cars together at the same time and being driven back to back. None of us have really ever had the chance to do that I would suggest.
Yes they may be changed from their new condition but its telling that a 100,000 mile 996 did so well.Its the 3.2 and the 993 that have come out less than their reputations, the 996 in particular rather better.
The 2 newest cars were seen to confirm what everyone's been saying, the 991 is a great car but diminished by being less"911" like,
Its a great piece as was the RS/GT article back in 2001. Just had a re-read of that today and even in light of the points made above, its exactly what makes EVO the best.
I guess that depends on whether you're still "dazzled" by Evo as a magazine. Whilst you might think it the best, I'm not convinced you're setting the bar particularly high. I ceased to be a fan some years ago. Its certainly not pointless.
Saying that the cars vary either in condition or individual set up is being very harsh. Fact is the mag has made every effort to source comparative cars, all Carreras, all 2 wheel drive , all manuals etc
Very interesting conclusions based on having all the cars together at the same time and being driven back to back. None of us have really ever had the chance to do that I would suggest.
Yes they may be changed from their new condition but its telling that a 100,000 mile 996 did so well.Its the 3.2 and the 993 that have come out less than their reputations, the 996 in particular rather better.
The 2 newest cars were seen to confirm what everyone's been saying, the 991 is a great car but diminished by being less"911" like,
Its a great piece as was the RS/GT article back in 2001. Just had a re-read of that today and even in light of the points made above, its exactly what makes EVO the best.
Sorry, I don't think I'm being harsh at all, just realistic. The very minimum I'd expect would be cars of a similar specification.
But I maintain a well set up 964 will always be better than a dog of a 993, and this applies to all the cars tested irrespective of their age or model (excluding the 991 obviously)
Any conclusions drawn will have been based on the individual cars tested, some of those tested will not be representative of the model/marque. Thus a freshly fettled 996 will outshine a poorly set up 993. Try a leggy poorly maintained 996 against a freshly sprung, damped and bushed, ride height optimized, corner weighted and geod 993 and the results would be different once again.
As an avid Evo reader you'll remember Metcalf ran a 993 Turbo 4 for a year or so, all of his minions who drove it and raved about it. Some years later another example was used against a P1 Impreza in Wales(and I can't remember what other cars) but those who drove it didn't rave about its handling quite so much second time round. . . . . . different geo ? tyres, tired dampers, bushes or indeed one of a hundred other things could've "afflicted" it, and in the process meant it wasn't representative of a well fettled example.
The other problem of course is that the journalist who wrote the piece didn't actually spend his hard earnt money on the winner at the end of it. When real ownership comes into play it changes everything. A car purchase is a whole complex melting pot of emotional and mental forces. Folk like to compare cars by a narrow set of criteria (acceleration, 'handling' etc.) but there is so much more to it when it comes to actually picking somehting with your own money and sitting in it every day.
That said, I would agree that a stock 993 is pretty soft and not very direct/accurate/focused especially on 17's. The whole point of the 993 for porsche was to move it away from being an enthusiasts car and to work very seriously at increased isolation from NVH and user friendly handling and responses. I suspect a stock 964 with its non isolated subframe and directly coupled outer tie rods, and also a 996 with its far more advanced chassis and light fingertip steering woudl score a much higher EVO rating on the EVONESS analysing machine.
Edited by jackal on Monday 10th September 23:23
Slippydiff said:
I guess that depends on whether you're still "dazzled" by Evo as a magazine. Whilst you might think it the best, I'm not convinced you're setting the bar particularly high. I ceased to be a fan some years ago.
Sorry, I don't think I'm being harsh at all, just realistic. The very minimum I'd expect would be cars of a similar specification.
But I maintain a well set up 964 will always be better than a dog of a 993, and this applies to all the cars tested irrespective of their age or model (excluding the 991 obviously)
Any conclusions drawn will have been based on the individual cars tested, some of those tested will not be representative of the model/marque. Thus a freshly fettled 996 will outshine a poorly set up 993. Try a leggy poorly maintained 996 against a freshly sprung, damped and bushed, ride height optimized, corner weighted and geod 993 and the results would be different once again.
As an avid Evo reader you'll remember Metcalf ran a 993 Turbo 4 for a year or so, all of his minions who drove it and raved about it. Some years later another example was used against a P1 Impreza in Wales(and I can't remember what other cars) but those who drove it didn't rave about its handling quite so much second time round. . . . . . different geo ? tyres, tired dampers, bushes or indeed one of a hundred other things could've "afflicted" it, and in the process meant it wasn't representative of a well fettled example.
We'll have to agree to differ about your poor opinion of EVO, I saw a drop off for a couple of years after the Dennis takeover but I reckon its right back to its best now and articles like this one are the proof. They did all they could to try similar specced cars. The 993 does not appear to be a bad example at all and the 996 was by far the most leggy. Didnt do it any harm in the comparison.Sorry, I don't think I'm being harsh at all, just realistic. The very minimum I'd expect would be cars of a similar specification.
But I maintain a well set up 964 will always be better than a dog of a 993, and this applies to all the cars tested irrespective of their age or model (excluding the 991 obviously)
Any conclusions drawn will have been based on the individual cars tested, some of those tested will not be representative of the model/marque. Thus a freshly fettled 996 will outshine a poorly set up 993. Try a leggy poorly maintained 996 against a freshly sprung, damped and bushed, ride height optimized, corner weighted and geod 993 and the results would be different once again.
As an avid Evo reader you'll remember Metcalf ran a 993 Turbo 4 for a year or so, all of his minions who drove it and raved about it. Some years later another example was used against a P1 Impreza in Wales(and I can't remember what other cars) but those who drove it didn't rave about its handling quite so much second time round. . . . . . different geo ? tyres, tired dampers, bushes or indeed one of a hundred other things could've "afflicted" it, and in the process meant it wasn't representative of a well fettled example.
I think its interesting that on a given day the received wisdom about some past versions seemed
The Turbo they ran was not disregarded against the P1, it just wasnt as impressive on that day , on those roads against a talented rival. Its not likely that its all about geo, corner weighting and optimised set up, just it wasnt quite as good as it had seemed in isolation.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff