RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: Porsche 911 996 GT3

[agtlaw]

Chris Harris said:

Haven't use the word 'faster' in that last post. I'm talking about delivery characteristics - the gen.2 has much better response, far more mid-range, sounded better. It was and is much more pleasant to operate the gen.1 motor. Sharper, much more like the 996 Cup engine. That it is also miles faster is just an added bonus. If that doesn't make it better, I'm not sure what does.

single mass flywheel?

[GT Glee]

Chris Harris said:

Gary11]hris Harris said:

Drive a good 2.7 and it will always feel magnificent, and still quick today.

Here's the rub. Drive a 997 GT3 and a 996 Gen2 GT3 and they feel pretty similar in terms of power, torque and overall performance. Then drive GT3 gen 1 and it just feels breathless. How does that make it more special than the car which replaced it? I agree with almost all of EVO's verdicts, in fact I wrote many of them myself! But the GT3 gen.1 thing is subjective bobbins. Plain and simple.




A GT3 breathless? Come on thats just a throwaway comment any n/a engine producing even 350bhp isnt breathless ,let alone a glorious IMO the finest engine produced in a road car you will say a GT3 is slow next....

Read the full sentence old bean: it's all about context. After the Gen.2 car, the Gen.1 feels much, much weaker. Fact. In isolation, of course it's a fast car. N one said it wasn't.

"much, much weaker" makes the 1999 3.6 sound pants! Personally I didn't feel there was that much in it overall, but they do deliver differently due to additional induction trickery on the mk2.

Personally, I prefer the lumpy, punchy character of the '99 because it's so removed from typical modern road engine behaviour.

[Bezza1969]

Well Chris, you've driven them all so you should know, but you seem to be in a minority that prefer the earlier model. My experiences are limited to a passenger ride in a generation one GT3 in 2004 and I found it exciting enough. The owner, interestingly, wasnt interested in chopping it for a gen 2 GT3 as he preferred his earlier model. Used values at the moment prefer the earlier one, don't they.....perhaps its just the old scenario of the original being considered best.

On another note you refer to the "suspiciously rapid standard 996", something that has always puzzled me. The Autocar road test figures for the standard 300 BHP 996 were indeed ridiculously rapid. Quicker from 0-150 than the 2012 basic Carrera. any idea why? The performance car 996 tested in December 97 was more like it, hitting 100 in 12.0 secs, not 10.6 or something silly!!! Always wondered why that autocar test car was so fast and as you say, the GT3 Mk1 was no quicker.

[Gary11]

Chris Harris said:

Read the full sentence old bean: it's all about context. After the Gen.2 car, the Gen.1 feels much, much weaker. Fact. In isolation, of course it's a fast car. N one said it wasn't.

Come on Chris "just feels breathless"
G

[Mermaid]

Gary11 said:

Chris Harris said:

Read the full sentence old bean: it's all about context. After the Gen.2 car, the Gen.1 feels much, much weaker. Fact. In isolation, of course it's a fast car. N one said it wasn't.

Come on Chris "just feels breathless"
G

Chris, maybe it was just a throw away comment. not intended as it was understood

[pSyCoSiS]

I wouldn't say no to either one!

[anniesdad]

Both will get you into a whole heap of trouble and scare you stless!

I prefer the Mk2 for looks...

What's going on with the headlights on those Mk1's!

[red997]

I'm gonna stick me 2p in here....cos I can !

I've got a Mk1 996 GT3 clubsport (std suspension, only upgrade is front PF discs pads & 6 pots)

I've driven a 996 GT3 Mk2 round spa

I've got a 997 cup car

yes, the mk1 is the slowest (duh...) - but I don't think I'd call it breathless - maybe I got a good one ?

but I actually get more enjoyment out of that car than any of the others.

To me it just seems to come together better in the Mk1 - the eum of all the parts just seem to gel into a more rounded car, that can flit betwixt road and track effortlessly.

[Gary11]

red997 said:

I'm gonna stick me 2p in here....cos I can !

I've got a Mk1 996 GT3 clubsport (std suspension, only upgrade is front PF discs pads & 6 pots)

I've driven a 996 GT3 Mk2 round spa

I've got a 997 cup car

yes, the mk1 is the slowest (duh...) - but I don't think I'd call it breathless - maybe I got a good one ?

but I actually get more enjoyment out of that car than any of the others.

To me it just seems to come together better in the Mk1 - the eum of all the parts just seem to gel into a more rounded car, that can flit betwixt road and track effortlessly.

+1 New Porsches are normaly always quicker than old ones,in terms of speed and depriciation!
Everything is gearing to everydayness and cars the wife can drive these days. I like it that the missus hates my 911 long may it continue!

[UJM3]

You can make the mk1 go and stop like a mk 2 easy enough. You can make the mk2 handle like a mk1.

Are many still going around as they left the factory, original suspension settings, original brake specs, standard exhaust ,mapping etc? Will when buying be factory spec vs factory spec.

So it's really going to come down to looks & build vs investment potential & status of having one of the first.

Couldn't care,I hope to have one of ethier at some stage and wouldn't feel short changed by which ever one I manage to get.Although I prefer the rear end of the mk2 particuarly the bumper, and of course the front lights.

Edited by UJM3 on Monday 30th July 20:37

[Slippydiff]

monkey said:

The list of improvements was long, many of them contained in the engine bay - I won't list them here but the result was 381hp compared to 360hp. Drive them back-to-back and the difference feels far greater. The reason being that if you put the older car on a dyno it might just give you 355hp at the wheels - on a good day it'll be the full 360hp - whereas pretty much every Gen.2 car is giving 390hp. It revs more freely, it sounds better, has far more torque and the gearshift is more positive.

No so fast Chris. A few observations. Firstly, you're correct, most Mk1s didn't make the specified power, however this seems to be attributed to the throttle cable/linkage not being adjusted at the factory correctly. Once rectified the full quota of ponies will be be there (but you won't ever find a standard car giving 355 at the wheels !)

I'd be interested to know where your got your information regarding the Mk2 engines producing over and above the quoted 381 HP. Please don't quote rolling road dyno figures, they're aren't acceptable (but that's another debate in itself) As you'll know, the factory mysteriously rated the 996 GT3 RS engine at circa 400 Hp, this was attributed to the ram effect lent by the modified engine cover, when in fact the RS used different heads (actually pretty close in design to the 997 Gen 1 GT3 heads) to the "cooking" Mk2 engine. I struggle to believe the factory regularly produce engines with more than the quoted horsepower.

The Mk2 engine has "far more torque" ? The headline figures would tend to indicate otherwise, however the later engine may have more torque "under the curve". Regrettably I've not been able to find the factory torque curve for the Mk2 (if anyone would like to provide a scan from their owners handbook, we can put this argument to bed once and for all)
My experience (I concede against a GT3 RS) indicated that the Mk1 was torquier low down, this may however be due to the differing port design of the RS heads)

Revs more freely ? I concede this point, but as previously stated, only above 6K rpm. IIRC some of that willingness to rev was down to revised gear ratios, not just an increase in HP/reduction in mass of internal engine parts.

Sounds better ? exhaust sound is subjective, better to you maybe ? (as an aside I thought the video of your Akropovic equipped Gen 1 997 faintly ridiculous, as on the whole I don't like noisy cars, however, having lived with my Manthey K400 conversion for a few thousand miles, my views have changed somewhat . . . . )

The whole Mk 1 Vs Mk2 handling issue is an interesting one. As you've stated, the Mk 2 came with uprated springs and dampers, as a result its front end (in standard form, correctly set up within the factory tolerances) felt more aloof on initial turn in (in my experience it required a leap of faith insofar as the initial steering input was met with little response) not something that afflicted the Mk1 with a factory standard set up.

The Mk2s front end used spring rates that were IIRC nearly 15% stiffer (and rears 50% stiffer !) than those utilised on the Mk 1. Therein lies the reason the Mk1 makes for a car better suited to use on the UKs poorly surfaced roads. On the road compliance is king (for confirmation, try an Impreza 22b (with its Japanese developed suspension) along your favorite bumpy, wet B road. Then try the same in the P1 (with its Prodrive UK specific developed suspension)

That's not to say the Mk2 can't be made to turn in with the same alacrity as it's elder brother, with suitable front end toe and camber adjustments, the effects of its stiffer springs and dampers can be nullified to produce a car that turns in just as well as the Mk1. I suspect that the earlier cars shell has some bearing on its compliance too. I remember being shown the additional (and thicker) material used in the shell of the later car (primarily to improve it's side impact resistance) I imagine the later shell has increased torsional and flexural strength compared with that of the earlier model as a result.

Both are great cars, many will have chosen the later car because it offered a car that could be five + years younger than the first Mk1 that rolled off the line. At five years the Mk1 could have been trashed, crashed and abused. Poorly serviced and set up ones are horrible to drive and cost a lot to get up to scratch. But give a prospective buyer an example of each (both perfectly maintained with similar mileage and totally standard geo sets ups) and I suspect that styling and cost differences apart, many would plump for the earlier car as a road car.

Me, I've got the best of both worlds, with a Manthey K400 converted Mk1 (all reputed to produce closer to 405Hp) that effectively tops both the Mk2 and the RS versions for HP (and an exhaust note that makes all standard 996 GT3s sound tame)with the addition of bigger than standard Mk2 front brakes (but utilising the same calipers) and the icing on the cake in the form of Ohlins 3 way adjustables (the damping of which at high speed makes the standard fit Bilsteins (and to a lesser degree KWs) look a tad on wallowy side . . . . Add in a Clubsport rear cage to stiffen things up on the chassis front, and some Cup rear toe links (and a Manthey quickshift) and you have the perfect 996 GT3 !




Let me know when you want to have a drive Chris . . . .

[agtlaw]

mark 2 (non RS) curve as requested.



slippydiff, you really should get that car on a track.

[Alnassma]

Slippydiff said:

monkey said:

The list of improvements was long, many of them contained in the engine bay - I won't list them here but the result was 381hp compared to 360hp. Drive them back-to-back and the difference feels far greater. The reason being that if you put the older car on a dyno it might just give you 355hp at the wheels - on a good day it'll be the full 360hp - whereas pretty much every Gen.2 car is giving 390hp. It revs more freely, it sounds better, has far more torque and the gearshift is more positive.

No so fast Chris. A few observations. Firstly, you're correct, most Mk1s didn't make the specified power, however this seems to be attributed to the throttle cable/linkage not being adjusted at the factory correctly. Once rectified the full quota of ponies will be be there (but you won't ever find a standard car giving 355 at the wheels !)

I'd be interested to know where your got your information regarding the Mk2 engines producing over and above the quoted 381 HP. Please don't quote rolling road dyno figures, they're aren't acceptable (but that's another debate in itself) As you'll know, the factory mysteriously rated the 996 GT3 RS engine at circa 400 Hp, this was attributed to the ram effect lent by the modified engine cover, when in fact the RS used different heads (actually pretty close in design to the 997 Gen 1 GT3 heads) to the "cooking" Mk2 engine. I struggle to believe the factory regularly produce engines with more than the quoted horsepower.

The Mk2 engine has "far more torque" ? The headline figures would tend to indicate otherwise, however the later engine may have more torque "under the curve". Regrettably I've not been able to find the factory torque curve for the Mk2 (if anyone would like to provide a scan from their owners handbook, we can put this argument to bed once and for all)
My experience (I concede against a GT3 RS) indicated that the Mk1 was torquier low down, this may however be due to the differing port design of the RS heads)

Revs more freely ? I concede this point, but as previously stated, only above 6K rpm. IIRC some of that willingness to rev was down to revised gear ratios, not just an increase in HP/reduction in mass of internal engine parts.

Sounds better ? exhaust sound is subjective, better to you maybe ? (as an aside I thought the video of your Akropovic equipped Gen 1 997 faintly ridiculous, as on the whole I don't like noisy cars, however, having lived with my Manthey K400 conversion for a few thousand miles, my views have changed somewhat . . . . )

The whole Mk 1 Vs Mk2 handling issue is an interesting one. As you've stated, the Mk 2 came with uprated springs and dampers, as a result its front end (in standard form, correctly set up within the factory tolerances) felt more aloof on initial turn in (in my experience it required a leap of faith insofar as the initial steering input was met with little response) not something that afflicted the Mk1 with a factory standard set up.

The Mk2s front end used spring rates that were IIRC nearly 15% stiffer (and rears 50% stiffer !) than those utilised on the Mk 1. Therein lies the reason the Mk1 makes for a car better suited to use on the UKs poorly surfaced roads. On the road compliance is king (for confirmation, try an Impreza 22b (with its Japanese developed suspension) along your favorite bumpy, wet B road. Then try the same in the P1 (with its Prodrive UK specific developed suspension)

That's not to say the Mk2 can't be made to turn in with the same alacrity as it's elder brother, with suitable front end toe and camber adjustments, the effects of its stiffer springs and dampers can be nullified to produce a car that turns in just as well as the Mk1. I suspect that the earlier cars shell has some bearing on its compliance too. I remember being shown the additional (and thicker) material used in the shell of the later car (primarily to improve it's side impact resistance) I imagine the later shell has increased torsional and flexural strength compared with that of the earlier model as a result.

Both are great cars, many will have chosen the later car because it offered a car that could be five + years younger than the first Mk1 that rolled off the line. At five years the Mk1 could have been trashed, crashed and abused. Poorly serviced and set up ones are horrible to drive and cost a lot to get up to scratch. But give a prospective buyer an example of each (both perfectly maintained with similar mileage and totally standard geo sets ups) and I suspect that styling and cost differences apart, many would plump for the earlier car as a road car.

Me, I've got the best of both worlds, with a Manthey K400 converted Mk1 (all reputed to produce closer to 405Hp) that effectively tops both the Mk2 and the RS versions for HP (and an exhaust note that makes all standard 996 GT3s sound tame)with the addition of bigger than standard Mk2 front brakes (but utilising the same calipers) and the icing on the cake in the form of Ohlins 3 way adjustables (the damping of which at high speed makes the standard fit Bilsteins (and to a lesser degree KWs) look a tad on wallowy side . . . . Add in a Clubsport rear cage to stiffen things up on the chassis front, and some Cup rear toe links (and a Manthey quickshift) and you have the perfect 996 GT3 !




Let me know when you want to have a drive Chris . . . .

wrong color, zanzibar red the only acceptable one

[Chris Harris]

Slippydiff said:

No so fast Chris. A few observations. Firstly, you're correct, most Mk1s didn't make the specified power, however this seems to be attributed to the throttle cable/linkage not being adjusted at the factory correctly. Once rectified the full quota of ponies will be be there (but you won't ever find a standard car giving 355 at the wheels !)

I'd be interested to know where your got your information regarding the Mk2 engines producing over and above the quoted 381 HP. Please don't quote rolling road dyno figures, they're aren't acceptable (but that's another debate in itself) As you'll know, the factory mysteriously rated the 996 GT3 RS engine at circa 400 Hp, this was attributed to the ram effect lent by the modified engine cover, when in fact the RS used different heads (actually pretty close in design to the 997 Gen 1 GT3 heads) to the "cooking" Mk2 engine. I struggle to believe the factory regularly produce engines with more than the quoted horsepower.

The Mk2 engine has "far more torque" ? The headline figures would tend to indicate otherwise, however the later engine may have more torque "under the curve". Regrettably I've not been able to find the factory torque curve for the Mk2 (if anyone would like to provide a scan from their owners handbook, we can put this argument to bed once and for all)
My experience (I concede against a GT3 RS) indicated that the Mk1 was torquier low down, this may however be due to the differing port design of the RS heads)

Revs more freely ? I concede this point, but as previously stated, only above 6K rpm. IIRC some of that willingness to rev was down to revised gear ratios, not just an increase in HP/reduction in mass of internal engine parts.

Sounds better ? exhaust sound is subjective, better to you maybe ? (as an aside I thought the video of your Akropovic equipped Gen 1 997 faintly ridiculous, as on the whole I don't like noisy cars, however, having lived with my Manthey K400 conversion for a few thousand miles, my views have changed somewhat . . . . )

The whole Mk 1 Vs Mk2 handling issue is an interesting one. As you've stated, the Mk 2 came with uprated springs and dampers, as a result its front end (in standard form, correctly set up within the factory tolerances) felt more aloof on initial turn in (in my experience it required a leap of faith insofar as the initial steering input was met with little response) not something that afflicted the Mk1 with a factory standard set up.

The Mk2s front end used spring rates that were IIRC nearly 15% stiffer (and rears 50% stiffer !) than those utilised on the Mk 1. Therein lies the reason the Mk1 makes for a car better suited to use on the UKs poorly surfaced roads. On the road compliance is king (for confirmation, try an Impreza 22b (with its Japanese developed suspension) along your favorite bumpy, wet B road. Then try the same in the P1 (with its Prodrive UK specific developed suspension)

That's not to say the Mk2 can't be made to turn in with the same alacrity as it's elder brother, with suitable front end toe and camber adjustments, the effects of its stiffer springs and dampers can be nullified to produce a car that turns in just as well as the Mk1. I suspect that the earlier cars shell has some bearing on its compliance too. I remember being shown the additional (and thicker) material used in the shell of the later car (primarily to improve it's side impact resistance) I imagine the later shell has increased torsional and flexural strength compared with that of the earlier model as a result.

Both are great cars, many will have chosen the later car because it offered a car that could be five + years younger than the first Mk1 that rolled off the line. At five years the Mk1 could have been trashed, crashed and abused. Poorly serviced and set up ones are horrible to drive and cost a lot to get up to scratch. But give a prospective buyer an example of each (both perfectly maintained with similar mileage and totally standard geo sets ups) and I suspect that styling and cost differences apart, many would plump for the earlier car as a road car.

Me, I've got the best of both worlds, with a Manthey K400 converted Mk1 (all reputed to produce closer to 405Hp) that effectively tops both the Mk2 and the RS versions for HP (and an exhaust note that makes all standard 996 GT3s sound tame)with the addition of bigger than standard Mk2 front brakes (but utilising the same calipers) and the icing on the cake in the form of Ohlins 3 way adjustables (the damping of which at high speed makes the standard fit Bilsteins (and to a lesser degree KWs) look a tad on wallowy side . . . . Add in a Clubsport rear cage to stiffen things up on the chassis front, and some Cup rear toe links (and a Manthey quickshift) and you have the perfect 996 GT3 !




Let me know when you want to have a drive Chris . . . .

Hope you're on a word-rate!

Suffice to say my sources are reasonably well-informed. The gen.1's throttle cable is not the main problem. I concur on the spring-rates for UK use.

Your comprehensive reply does kind of answer my initial point though: to make the gen.1 a ripper you have to tweak it. Given Olaf's prices, your car has probably had nearly 50% of the list price spent on upgrades.

Me? I'd have a Gen.2 every day of the week. Remove some spring rate, new dampers, hey-presto.

Would love a go in yours

[Slippydiff]

Chris Harris said:

Hope you're on a word-rate!

I should be so lucky ! Gizza job ?

Chris Harris said:

Your comprehensive reply does kind of answer my initial point though: to make the gen.1 a ripper you have to tweak it. Given Olaf's prices, your car has probably had nearly 50% of the list price spent on upgrades.

Boxed clever and bought mine with all the upgrades carried out by previous owners ! ! (bar the dampers and Cup toe links , which I previously had fitted to a 996 GT2) A glowing testimony to the durability of Olaf's handiwork (the car has done 54K miles, 40k of which have been with the K400 upgrade)

Chris Harris said:

Me ? I'd have a Gen.2 every day of the week. Remove some spring rate, new dampers, hey-presto.

But that Mk2 rear spoiler ! Dull. dull, dull. I suspect/hope ! the Mk1 will be the collectors choice in years to come. As we both know, the last of the cars built in the Motorsport dept is a misnomer, but it's this kind of "myth" that adds to the cars "mystique" . . . . . .

Chris Harris said:

Would love a go in yours

The car runs on Cups, so best you drive it in the dry !

Alnassma said:

wrong color, zanzibar red the only acceptable one

Bin there, done that, got the . . . .

Edited by Slippydiff on Tuesday 31st July 23:45

Edited by Slippydiff on Friday 24th August 00:04

[Mermaid]

Speechless

[Housey]

Mk1 looks like a C2 with a bodykit, for me this is a big problem, never liked the look as much as the Mk2 and I also prefer the spoiler on the Mk2 as well. Henry giz a go, I've been in a mates Mk1 Manthay car around Donington so I can confim it goes well and sounds faulous, but Mk2 is where my money went as you know. Keep looking at buying it again too, they have this effect.

[911p]

Chris Harris said:

I concur on the spring-rates for UK use.

Me? I'd have a Gen.2 every day of the week. Remove some spring rate, new dampers, hey-presto.

Perhaps a good Ohlins or EXE-TC chassis setup (similar that found on your old 997.1) would make all the difference?

[Great Pretender]

Output Flange said:

How different is the driving experience of a 996GT3 and something like a 997C2S?

Similar power, manual boxes, guess the 7 would be a bit heavier, but for road driving is a 6GT3 worth the c.£10k premium over the 7?

(I've not had the pleasure of driving a GT3 - perhaps that shows)

I'm late to this party, but I can answer this one:

The GT3 is lighter, faster, grips harder, stops better, corners flatter, revs higher...

If the C2S was a thoroughbred nag, the GT3 (even 996 flavour) would be the same nag, skinned and dipped in tabasco.

C2S a far better daily proposition though.

[Great Pretender]

Mermaid said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

porsche fan boys YAWWWWNNNNNNN

You are right - the M3 CSL (only one generation, for it was good from the get-go) is better than both versions of the 6GT3.

Now that is a debate!

Owned both (996.2 GT3), and I have to say that out of the box, the CSL was a 'better' road car than the GT3, simply because it coped with our typical b-road lumps and bumps better than the Porker. However, with revised geo (I never got the opportunity), the GT3 might have clinched it.

On track though, there's no comparison. The GT3 walks it.