RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: Porsche 911 996 GT3
Discussion
The early evolutions of great cars are always the ones to go for. Look at Jaguar E-Types, the early flat-floor cars are the ones that command the money and desirability over a later 3.8, despite the two cars being basically identical aside from the later 3.8s being more comfortable to drive with the extra footwell depth.
Lotus Elises will be the same. The early cars have Aluminium metal matrix composite brakes that melt when you use them hard on track, toe-links that break when you do the same, squeaks rattles and build quality issues that the later S1s don't have. The later cars are perhaps 20-30kg more heavy, and are an easier ownership prospect, but for some reason with all its little foibles and zero-options spec they originally were released in they just "feel" sweeter to drive. Again, the earlier cars in years to come will be the ones to nab.
It's just the way things go I guess. The "original" car is often the best, the most focussed and turns out to be more popular than was ever originally intended. The Jaguar E-Type, Lotus Elise and a Porsche GT3 are certainly all the same here. I guess what Monkey is saying is that arguably, the cars have become MORE focussed over time, not less. Still, if I was after a GT3, I think I'd be after a 996.1, and I'm buggered if I can explain why!
Lotus Elises will be the same. The early cars have Aluminium metal matrix composite brakes that melt when you use them hard on track, toe-links that break when you do the same, squeaks rattles and build quality issues that the later S1s don't have. The later cars are perhaps 20-30kg more heavy, and are an easier ownership prospect, but for some reason with all its little foibles and zero-options spec they originally were released in they just "feel" sweeter to drive. Again, the earlier cars in years to come will be the ones to nab.
It's just the way things go I guess. The "original" car is often the best, the most focussed and turns out to be more popular than was ever originally intended. The Jaguar E-Type, Lotus Elise and a Porsche GT3 are certainly all the same here. I guess what Monkey is saying is that arguably, the cars have become MORE focussed over time, not less. Still, if I was after a GT3, I think I'd be after a 996.1, and I'm buggered if I can explain why!
ker Monkey. In the face of your slathering over the motor in question, some of us have been making the point since it was released!jeremyc said:
What a strange argument: generally subsequent versions of a model are better - the manufacturer has time to improve on most aspects of the design with the benefit of time and customer feedback.
The something that Monkey can't put his finger on is the originality; the first of a breed; the raison d'etre of such a car. The Mk1 996 GT3 is such a beast:
- produced to homologate the model for GT racing.
- the last to be hand built by Porsche Motorsport rather than on the main 996 line.
- limited numbers.
- non-Americanised compromises - they are lower & meaner than the later cars.
So objectively - yes, Monkey is correct. But using this argument you'd simply buy a 997 GT3RS4.0 and be done with it, knowing that you had the best of a long model development.
However, subjectively and yes, romantically, you are wrong. They are bought, owned and cherished for what they are and what they represent.
BULLLLLLLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT.The something that Monkey can't put his finger on is the originality; the first of a breed; the raison d'etre of such a car. The Mk1 996 GT3 is such a beast:
- produced to homologate the model for GT racing.
- the last to be hand built by Porsche Motorsport rather than on the main 996 line.
- limited numbers.
- non-Americanised compromises - they are lower & meaner than the later cars.
So objectively - yes, Monkey is correct. But using this argument you'd simply buy a 997 GT3RS4.0 and be done with it, knowing that you had the best of a long model development.
However, subjectively and yes, romantically, you are wrong. They are bought, owned and cherished for what they are and what they represent.
GT3 brand raison d'etre was to make money. Make an "RS-esque" car that didnt cost so much to make, but which would appeal to more ppl than just those who traditionally bought an RS. It was produced entirely and utterly with accountants and profit margin in mind.
I tend to disagree. Given that a replacement engine on a 996 GT3 costs around £40,000 which represents a much higher proportion of the car's purchase price, I'm willing to bet the profit margin was lower than a non-GT 911.
Secondly, although you may be right that the lack of an RS designation may have opened the car to a wider market (and for which Porsche was criticised at the time), the reality is the GT3 turned out to be a very specialist bit of kit that was only really genuinely quick in the hands of a pro. Some argue that earlier RSs may be slightly more forgiving. I personally know two people who bought a 996 GT3 and immediately sold when they realised it demanded too much from them.
Secondly, although you may be right that the lack of an RS designation may have opened the car to a wider market (and for which Porsche was criticised at the time), the reality is the GT3 turned out to be a very specialist bit of kit that was only really genuinely quick in the hands of a pro. Some argue that earlier RSs may be slightly more forgiving. I personally know two people who bought a 996 GT3 and immediately sold when they realised it demanded too much from them.
jeremyc said:
The something that Monkey can't put his finger on is the originality; the first of a breed; the raison d'etre of such a car. The Mk1 996 GT3 is such a beast:
- produced to homologate the model for GT racing.
- the last to be hand built by Porsche Motorsport rather than on the main 996 line.
- limited numbers.
- non-Americanised compromises - they are lower & meaner than the later cars.
Delve into the people and processes that made these cars and you will discover that there is no evidence of the first being more 'special' than the second. It's an urban myth. If people really think Porsche 'hand-built' 1868 cars in 99/2000, they must be a touch misty-eyed. What isn't factually deniable is how much better the second car is mechanically.- produced to homologate the model for GT racing.
- the last to be hand built by Porsche Motorsport rather than on the main 996 line.
- limited numbers.
- non-Americanised compromises - they are lower & meaner than the later cars.
Harris_I said:
For once, Chris is wrong. 
The mark 2 (to my mind, "gen 2" was used by enthusiasts to differentiate the 997) has the improvements as he pointed out, but fundamentally with similar geo the cars are very similar. For anyone looking to get into a 996 GT3, buy on condition, don't worry too much about mk 1 vs mk2 (unless shaving a few tenths off your lap time is of critical importance).
Both engines are exceptionally strong. On a public track day, the driver will make more difference than the extra 21bhp. The engine was always about motorsport durability, not 0-60 times, so the comparison with the base Carrera is just for Top Trumps.
Many cars have been uprated to cope with heavy track use, so the inferior synchros and brakes discussion is becoming increasingly moot. By this stage, the original dampers will be in at best mediocre condition, so you may as well go aftermarket on those anyway.
What about the extra horsepower - far greater than the claimed 21hp? The better gearshift? The mark 2 (to my mind, "gen 2" was used by enthusiasts to differentiate the 997) has the improvements as he pointed out, but fundamentally with similar geo the cars are very similar. For anyone looking to get into a 996 GT3, buy on condition, don't worry too much about mk 1 vs mk2 (unless shaving a few tenths off your lap time is of critical importance).
Both engines are exceptionally strong. On a public track day, the driver will make more difference than the extra 21bhp. The engine was always about motorsport durability, not 0-60 times, so the comparison with the base Carrera is just for Top Trumps.
Many cars have been uprated to cope with heavy track use, so the inferior synchros and brakes discussion is becoming increasingly moot. By this stage, the original dampers will be in at best mediocre condition, so you may as well go aftermarket on those anyway.
fsmlittler said:
I love Monkey boy but he has definitely got this wrong...
I had a 996 C2 first which was a bitter dissapointment and never felt particularly fast which I subsequently part exchanged for a first gen GT3-the difference was massive in every respect and there is no way on earth anyone who drove both would have said the performance was similar.
Also using data logging I found the 0-60 times were almost unbelievably consistent and it was very easy to match factory times-around the same time I had a little Citroen C2 and couldn't get within a second of it's official 0-60 time...
As someone has already said if I wanted the best GT3 I'd by the latest model-as Octane magazine have established this month a well prepared BDG engined mk2 escort is slower than a modern Fiesta rally car but I know which one most people would choose. I'm equally sure that most of us would pick a 2.7RS in preference to any GT3 and I doubt for one second that it would be the better car objectively.
Really hoping that Monkey boy is just being contraversial to stimulate debate?
Finally Evo magazine felt the first gen GT3 was the best of the 996s even though the original probably would have posted the slowest lap time.
Drive a good 2.7 and it will always feel magnificent, and still quick today.I had a 996 C2 first which was a bitter dissapointment and never felt particularly fast which I subsequently part exchanged for a first gen GT3-the difference was massive in every respect and there is no way on earth anyone who drove both would have said the performance was similar.
Also using data logging I found the 0-60 times were almost unbelievably consistent and it was very easy to match factory times-around the same time I had a little Citroen C2 and couldn't get within a second of it's official 0-60 time...
As someone has already said if I wanted the best GT3 I'd by the latest model-as Octane magazine have established this month a well prepared BDG engined mk2 escort is slower than a modern Fiesta rally car but I know which one most people would choose. I'm equally sure that most of us would pick a 2.7RS in preference to any GT3 and I doubt for one second that it would be the better car objectively.
Really hoping that Monkey boy is just being contraversial to stimulate debate?
Finally Evo magazine felt the first gen GT3 was the best of the 996s even though the original probably would have posted the slowest lap time.
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.
Chris Harris said:
Harris_I said:
For once, Chris is wrong.
The mark 2 (to my mind, "gen 2" was used by enthusiasts to differentiate the 997) has the improvements as he pointed out, but fundamentally with similar geo the cars are very similar. For anyone looking to get into a 996 GT3, buy on condition, don't worry too much about mk 1 vs mk2 (unless shaving a few tenths off your lap time is of critical importance).
Both engines are exceptionally strong. On a public track day, the driver will make more difference than the extra 21bhp. The engine was always about motorsport durability, not 0-60 times, so the comparison with the base Carrera is just for Top Trumps.
Many cars have been uprated to cope with heavy track use, so the inferior synchros and brakes discussion is becoming increasingly moot. By this stage, the original dampers will be in at best mediocre condition, so you may as well go aftermarket on those anyway.
What about the extra horsepower - far greater than the claimed 21hp? The better gearshift? The mark 2 (to my mind, "gen 2" was used by enthusiasts to differentiate the 997) has the improvements as he pointed out, but fundamentally with similar geo the cars are very similar. For anyone looking to get into a 996 GT3, buy on condition, don't worry too much about mk 1 vs mk2 (unless shaving a few tenths off your lap time is of critical importance).
Both engines are exceptionally strong. On a public track day, the driver will make more difference than the extra 21bhp. The engine was always about motorsport durability, not 0-60 times, so the comparison with the base Carrera is just for Top Trumps.
Many cars have been uprated to cope with heavy track use, so the inferior synchros and brakes discussion is becoming increasingly moot. By this stage, the original dampers will be in at best mediocre condition, so you may as well go aftermarket on those anyway.
This is an invite for you to come and have a drive of my Manthey K400 equipped, Ohlins suspended, Alcon braked [Mk/Gen 1] 996 GT3. Let me know when you're free, and we can discuss the whole Gen 1 vs Gen 2 "thing" ad infinitum over a coffee or two. I'll await your PM . . . . . . .
monthefish said:
Schnellmann said:
The 996 TT is a great car in its own right....but it is laughable to say it is not that different from a GT3.. At least in my experience. They may have similar performance but how that is delivered and the feedback you get are very very different.
They are different - I said that - but the difference between it and the turbo isn't as great as those people described above would have you believe. The turbo is soft, comfortable, easy, quick, effortless.
The GT3 is harsh, compromised, slightly nervous, quick, and requires effort to extract the most out of it.
I suspect back in 2003 there were very few cars which could get from Land's End to J.O.G. quicker than a 996tt, in any weather conditions, but i reckon the guy chasing him in the GT3 would have the sweatier palms and much bigger grin...
I didn't realise the Mk1 was generally thought of in higher esteem than the Mk2 and I'm not sure that's the case anyway? Sometimes I wonder if these tell me in wrong pieces are designed purely to stir up debate.
If it's true then perhaps it's down to the drive of the two cars. I remember reading in EVO when they did a best drivers car of the last 10 years or something, where both GT3's got stuck in and and went head to head. There was a fascinating breakdown of the differences between the two with the majority of testers preferring the original because the more supple ride gave the front end a more reassuring bite. The Mk2 while otherwise being an objectively better car all round was found to be two 911-ny understeery because the harder front suspension made the front end pattery (if that's a word?). I think only Dickie Meaden preferred it out of around a dozen guys because he said you could drive around that and in every other way the Mk2 was superior, especially the engine.
I also remember other tests in EVO with the base 911's that complained of a loss of composure and an overly hard front end leading to and understeery car when the 996 changed from 3.4 to 3.6 litres (when the headlights changed from fried eggs to bizarre sharp edged fried eggs). A 3.6 996 crashed and burned (metaphorically) in an EVO car of the year because of this trait which was 'shock! horror!' event at the time. This was the same revision that made the difference between Mk1 and Mk2 GT3's. I remember David Vivian saying how in the transition to the 3.6 (still the base 996) the car had lost the ability to perform these glorious four wheel drifts exiting corners (wider tyres also being part of the problem). It seems likely that whatever handling philosophy was prevalent at the time in the minds of the Porsche engineers transferred over to the GT3 slightly also.
Also...not that fast?!! really?! I remember reading CAR's handling test after not taking much notice of car magazines for years and being blown away by this Porsche (the Mk1 GT3) that posted a quicker lap time than a Ferrari 360 which supposedly had more power, had the engine in the 'correct' place and was supposed to be this revolutionary mega fast, efficient, and thoroughly engineered Ferrari which made it's predecessors seem very old fashioned. How could the Porsche do that? unless it was a superbly engineered and balanced fast car (which of course it was).
Without ever driving either of them (poor me!) and based on what all these different testers said at the time I'd say if you could go for a long extensive hoon in both, had the skills to really drive them (also poor me!) and then at the end of the day you could only keep one of them, it does sound like the Mk1 would be the one to have.
So is there also a consensus that of the base 996's the earlier 3.4 is the car to have also? I've never heard of that but it sounded like the differences were bigger than in the equivalent generation GT3s?
It's interesting because people certainly go on about the 993's, because they are air cooled, look so nice and sound so nice, but it really sounds like the early 3.4 996's could be a future classic because it sounds like they were a far better drive and might also be looked at as the last truly organic drivers 911 after the 997 went a bit technoey with PASM and a bigger more GT feel to it.
That's if there's any 996's left after the last of them blows it's RMS!
If it's true then perhaps it's down to the drive of the two cars. I remember reading in EVO when they did a best drivers car of the last 10 years or something, where both GT3's got stuck in and and went head to head. There was a fascinating breakdown of the differences between the two with the majority of testers preferring the original because the more supple ride gave the front end a more reassuring bite. The Mk2 while otherwise being an objectively better car all round was found to be two 911-ny understeery because the harder front suspension made the front end pattery (if that's a word?). I think only Dickie Meaden preferred it out of around a dozen guys because he said you could drive around that and in every other way the Mk2 was superior, especially the engine.
I also remember other tests in EVO with the base 911's that complained of a loss of composure and an overly hard front end leading to and understeery car when the 996 changed from 3.4 to 3.6 litres (when the headlights changed from fried eggs to bizarre sharp edged fried eggs). A 3.6 996 crashed and burned (metaphorically) in an EVO car of the year because of this trait which was 'shock! horror!' event at the time. This was the same revision that made the difference between Mk1 and Mk2 GT3's. I remember David Vivian saying how in the transition to the 3.6 (still the base 996) the car had lost the ability to perform these glorious four wheel drifts exiting corners (wider tyres also being part of the problem). It seems likely that whatever handling philosophy was prevalent at the time in the minds of the Porsche engineers transferred over to the GT3 slightly also.
Also...not that fast?!! really?! I remember reading CAR's handling test after not taking much notice of car magazines for years and being blown away by this Porsche (the Mk1 GT3) that posted a quicker lap time than a Ferrari 360 which supposedly had more power, had the engine in the 'correct' place and was supposed to be this revolutionary mega fast, efficient, and thoroughly engineered Ferrari which made it's predecessors seem very old fashioned. How could the Porsche do that? unless it was a superbly engineered and balanced fast car (which of course it was).
Without ever driving either of them (poor me!) and based on what all these different testers said at the time I'd say if you could go for a long extensive hoon in both, had the skills to really drive them (also poor me!) and then at the end of the day you could only keep one of them, it does sound like the Mk1 would be the one to have.
So is there also a consensus that of the base 996's the earlier 3.4 is the car to have also? I've never heard of that but it sounded like the differences were bigger than in the equivalent generation GT3s?
It's interesting because people certainly go on about the 993's, because they are air cooled, look so nice and sound so nice, but it really sounds like the early 3.4 996's could be a future classic because it sounds like they were a far better drive and might also be looked at as the last truly organic drivers 911 after the 997 went a bit technoey with PASM and a bigger more GT feel to it.
That's if there's any 996's left after the last of them blows it's RMS!
Edited by sege on Thursday 26th July 09:33
Slippydiff said:
ear Mr Harris,
This is an invite for you to come and have a drive of my Manthey K400 equipped, Ohlins suspended, Alcon braked [Mk/Gen 1] 996 GT3. Let me know when you're free, and we can discuss the whole Gen 1 vs Gen 2 "thing" ad infinitum over a coffee or two. I'll await your PM . . . . . . .
So: engine upgrade, bigger brakes, new suspension on a gen1 996 GT3 - Porsche should have done that too....This is an invite for you to come and have a drive of my Manthey K400 equipped, Ohlins suspended, Alcon braked [Mk/Gen 1] 996 GT3. Let me know when you're free, and we can discuss the whole Gen 1 vs Gen 2 "thing" ad infinitum over a coffee or two. I'll await your PM . . . . . . .
(I'd love to drive it though!!!)
Chris Harris said:
jeremyc said:
The something that Monkey can't put his finger on is the originality; the first of a breed; the raison d'etre of such a car. The Mk1 996 GT3 is such a beast:
- produced to homologate the model for GT racing.
- the last to be hand built by Porsche Motorsport rather than on the main 996 line.
- limited numbers.
- non-Americanised compromises - they are lower & meaner than the later cars.
Delve into the people and processes that made these cars and you will discover that there is no evidence of the first being more 'special' than the second. It's an urban myth. If people really think Porsche 'hand-built' 1868 cars in 99/2000, they must be a touch misty-eyed. What isn't factually deniable is how much better the second car is mechanically.- produced to homologate the model for GT racing.
- the last to be hand built by Porsche Motorsport rather than on the main 996 line.
- limited numbers.
- non-Americanised compromises - they are lower & meaner than the later cars.
You aren't making friends!
Dan, you should have said on Sunday! Big difference.
Harris_I said:
For once, Chris is wrong.
The mark 2 (to my mind, "gen 2" was used by enthusiasts to differentiate the 997) has the improvements as he pointed out, but fundamentally with similar geo the cars are very similar. For anyone looking to get into a 996 GT3, buy on condition, don't worry too much about mk 1 vs mk2 (unless shaving a few tenths off your lap time is of critical importance).
Both engines are exceptionally strong. On a public track day, the driver will make more difference than the extra 21bhp. The engine was always about motorsport durability, not 0-60 times, so the comparison with the base Carrera is just for Top Trumps.
Many cars have been uprated to cope with heavy track use, so the inferior synchros and brakes discussion is becoming increasingly moot. By this stage, the original dampers will be in at best mediocre condition, so you may as well go aftermarket on those anyway.
so you're agreeing with him?The mark 2 (to my mind, "gen 2" was used by enthusiasts to differentiate the 997) has the improvements as he pointed out, but fundamentally with similar geo the cars are very similar. For anyone looking to get into a 996 GT3, buy on condition, don't worry too much about mk 1 vs mk2 (unless shaving a few tenths off your lap time is of critical importance).
Both engines are exceptionally strong. On a public track day, the driver will make more difference than the extra 21bhp. The engine was always about motorsport durability, not 0-60 times, so the comparison with the base Carrera is just for Top Trumps.
Many cars have been uprated to cope with heavy track use, so the inferior synchros and brakes discussion is becoming increasingly moot. By this stage, the original dampers will be in at best mediocre condition, so you may as well go aftermarket on those anyway.
monthefish said:
My work car is a diesel 3 series, and my weekend (special) car is a 996 turbo.
I'm afraid you might well be missing the point.
SirSamuelBuca - There are a lot of people on the internet, most of whom have never owned (and often have never driven) a GT3, who bang on about it being the weekend/special car choice and the turbo being an everyday car. This is because the GT3 is a lot more compromised than the turbo, but it is no faster.
The GT3 is sharper/purer vehicle for track work, but the difference between it and the turbo isn't as great as those people described above would have you believe (as I say, this is because they haven't driven one and therefore don't know what they are talking about).
I just thought for the price difference you could end up with a faster car with a turbo + few mods. I understand the gt series are track orientated but for someone where price matters the 996 turbos seem very good value for money I'm afraid you might well be missing the point.
SirSamuelBuca - There are a lot of people on the internet, most of whom have never owned (and often have never driven) a GT3, who bang on about it being the weekend/special car choice and the turbo being an everyday car. This is because the GT3 is a lot more compromised than the turbo, but it is no faster.
The GT3 is sharper/purer vehicle for track work, but the difference between it and the turbo isn't as great as those people described above would have you believe (as I say, this is because they haven't driven one and therefore don't know what they are talking about).
. I am long way off owning a 996 turbo! Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff