RE: Porsche 911 Carrera (996): Spotted
Discussion
kambites said:
I think you're both saying the same thing. If you try and drive a 911 (or any other nose-light car like an Elise) like a hot hatch, throwing it into a corner and expecting the front end to just grip, it'll under-steer like a pig on turn in. If you drive it appropriately for its weight distribution (which, yes, is aided by gently trailing the brakes and/or the throttle) the balance is very good.
It's not really any harder or less natural than the way you'd drive a nose-heavy car; it's just different.
Is a Boxster nose light? I could drive that like the Clio and the grip was phenomenal even on 205 section 17's.It's not really any harder or less natural than the way you'd drive a nose-heavy car; it's just different.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 8th November 14:21
shantybeater said:
I should have been more specific - I was talking more about the front end which everyone seems to slate.
The reasons the 996 front end was "slated" 1) It did not have round headlights like every 911 in history before it.
2) Rich people buying 911s did not like the fact the poverty boxster had the same lights. They did not want to get mistaken!
I think the world has got over both of these. Porsche dropped the ambers quickly and then gave it the 996.2 horrible melty mess lights to separate from the boxster. Lots think the 997 looks better, I think it looks a bit "new beetle" retro pastiche. The 996 is orginal (even if its lights came from a GT car).
Personally I prefer the ambers generally - they continue the body line from the bumper and separate the indicators a'la older 911s.
Edited by was8v on Thursday 8th November 15:19
Sbloxxy said:
Like a few others on here, I dreamed of owning a 996 (especially after selling a 964 quite a few years ago and then watching the values sky-rocket). Buying a good one is quite tricky and I made it even harder as I definitely wanted a 996.2 and I most definitely did NOT want a silver one. That's a big problem as most seem to be silver with black leather and of course the buyers guides told me that I wanted a manual box, no sunroof and no four wheel drive. Sounded sensible.
However, as I looked for a car over the course of a few months, I started to re-assess my logic. For starters, the car would mostly be used by my wife as a daily driver and in my opinion (sore point) her gear-changing skills are not the best, eventually leading me to realise that maybe a Tiptronic 'box would be a better bet. A drive in one confirmed that its a good thing and I discovered that its possible to add flappy paddles in place of the steering wheel buttons which makes it rather more intuitive.
Next the 'no sunroof' thing: I like sunroofs and the only reason I can see for not having one is possible extra body stiffness which might be desirable for track days etc. I have other cars for track use (including a Boxster S and a quick-ish Eunos) so the 996 won't go near a track anyway. For me, the sunroof has proved to be a nice thing to have - especially over this last hot summer.
Regarding C2 vs C4, my new logic reasoned that as we live in the Scottish Borders where the roads are fantastic but often wet and muddy. four wheel drive might not be a bad thing anyway. The extra eight over the front end helps negate some of that 911 front end lightness too which is fine with me.
This opened the market right up for me and I bought a 2003 996.2 Carrera 4 Tiptronic in Lapis Blue with a slightly crazy Savannah (tan) interior. For me, the colour scheme its almost so odd that its quite fantastic.
We love the car of course; its massively competent and sounds just wonderful. I've many Porsches over the years and I know fine well that this will need a couple of grand a year thrown at it but then we hopefully have no depreciation to contend with.
The best result - you buy the car that you want, that best suits your circumstances. Spot on, rather than slavishly follow the purists' advice. OK, it may be worth a bit less, but then you probably paid a bit less for it then the ubiquitious silver/black leather/manual spec.However, as I looked for a car over the course of a few months, I started to re-assess my logic. For starters, the car would mostly be used by my wife as a daily driver and in my opinion (sore point) her gear-changing skills are not the best, eventually leading me to realise that maybe a Tiptronic 'box would be a better bet. A drive in one confirmed that its a good thing and I discovered that its possible to add flappy paddles in place of the steering wheel buttons which makes it rather more intuitive.
Next the 'no sunroof' thing: I like sunroofs and the only reason I can see for not having one is possible extra body stiffness which might be desirable for track days etc. I have other cars for track use (including a Boxster S and a quick-ish Eunos) so the 996 won't go near a track anyway. For me, the sunroof has proved to be a nice thing to have - especially over this last hot summer.
Regarding C2 vs C4, my new logic reasoned that as we live in the Scottish Borders where the roads are fantastic but often wet and muddy. four wheel drive might not be a bad thing anyway. The extra eight over the front end helps negate some of that 911 front end lightness too which is fine with me.
This opened the market right up for me and I bought a 2003 996.2 Carrera 4 Tiptronic in Lapis Blue with a slightly crazy Savannah (tan) interior. For me, the colour scheme its almost so odd that its quite fantastic.
We love the car of course; its massively competent and sounds just wonderful. I've many Porsches over the years and I know fine well that this will need a couple of grand a year thrown at it but then we hopefully have no depreciation to contend with.
An old friend bought a limited edition 911 some years back which had the aircon and music system deleted in the name of saving a few grams. Guess who loved his car, but got so fed up with the lack of aircon that he soon moved it on, at a modest profit too!
Olivera said:
Ahonen said:
I reckon the understeer was more a problem with the cockpit spacer than the car. 996s handle very well.
No, it's an inherent trait of older 911s, hence why those in the know (Steve Rance on here etc) frequently discuss turning in on the brakes to prevent the front washing out.One of Steve's old posts:
"Make an light initial application of the brakes for a few tenths of a second, that loads up the nose. Then firmly apply brakes. it is effectively two stages of braking. Do not bleed of of the brakes after the initial application, keep the pressure on ready for the main application. That will prevent the abs from cutting in early as the front is loaded befroe heavy braking commences. A 911 driver needs to work the nose of the car from braking zone to apex, often by using trail throttle in medium corners or trail brake in slow corners. If you don't, you will get understeer and have to wait to get on the power for the exit".
Pretty much everyone acknowledges the 911's weight distribution is a big problem if you're not used to it, and a big advantage if you are.
Drive it like a hot-hatch and it'll either understeer like a master or chuck you backwards into a ditch*. Drive it as it needs to be driven (by making deliberate use of weight transfer) and it will reward. I think much of the reason that Porsche has tried to 'engineer-out' this characteristic from successive generations is that the average buyer doesn't understand this and doesn't really care.
Ref Boxster (post above), it's a mid-engine'd car, which typically respond well to most styles but especially smooth/balanced inputs. Rather different to a car with an anchor out behind the rear wheels.
* Part of the S2000's bad rep was due to hot-hatch boys going to it from EP3 Civics and trying to drive it the same way...and that was an FR car.
In my experience, they're a nice size, plenty quick enough, happy to live outside, net-net pretty cheap to run, don't attract too much attention, can be driven hard at the weekend as well as do the commute, and respond very nicely to tweaks.
Some people get the look, others don't. Can be said for most cars.
Lots of reliability tosh.
Anyone thinking that it's an entry level 911 needs to have a long think about that, and why it's a brilliant thing. Unless you've experienced a 911 at full chat, you probably don't understand. Yes, people use them as daily drives, particularly newer ones. Don't, for a second, think that makes them any less special.
PS I love how this has turned into a new "early 996" thread! Hello chaps!
Some people get the look, others don't. Can be said for most cars.
Lots of reliability tosh.
Anyone thinking that it's an entry level 911 needs to have a long think about that, and why it's a brilliant thing. Unless you've experienced a 911 at full chat, you probably don't understand. Yes, people use them as daily drives, particularly newer ones. Don't, for a second, think that makes them any less special.
PS I love how this has turned into a new "early 996" thread! Hello chaps!
Patrick Bateman said:
Is a Boxster nose light? I could drive that like the Clio and the grip was phenomenal even on 205 section 17's.
Not particularly. Boxsters are about 50:50 aren't they? The Boxster is certainly a pretty easy car to jump into and drive fast; the 911 is not (although it is increasingly becoming so). Edited by kambites on Thursday 8th November 19:32
I bought one in February this year for a lot less than the one in this article - a 1999 Carrera with 93,000 miles. It had a great spec and good history but an interesting interior colour (Nephrite), hence the price.
I then drove it 2000 miles round Europe this past summer, doing a lap of the Nurburgring, pretty much maxing it out on the Autobahn and lots of mountain passes including the Stelvio (see below).
I have had to replace a couple of bits: two front toe arms and one front radiator, but on the whole it's been nothing unexpected for a 20-year old car.
There do seem to be some bad examples, and some unlucky ones (fingers crossed it's not me), but a well-cared for one (mine's had £30k of work over the last 20 years) is far better than you'd ever expect. Mine feels fitter and better put together than a lot of MUCH newer cars I've owned.
It sounds quite good too: https://youtu.be/ROqx6tR_k5w
I then drove it 2000 miles round Europe this past summer, doing a lap of the Nurburgring, pretty much maxing it out on the Autobahn and lots of mountain passes including the Stelvio (see below).
I have had to replace a couple of bits: two front toe arms and one front radiator, but on the whole it's been nothing unexpected for a 20-year old car.
There do seem to be some bad examples, and some unlucky ones (fingers crossed it's not me), but a well-cared for one (mine's had £30k of work over the last 20 years) is far better than you'd ever expect. Mine feels fitter and better put together than a lot of MUCH newer cars I've owned.
It sounds quite good too: https://youtu.be/ROqx6tR_k5w
BFleming said:
The most hated (i.e. cheapest) 996's are auto's and cabrio's. Avoid those two, and you're on the right track.
Like this thing, the 996 didn't help the 911's prestige much.. https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
BFleming said:
The most hated (i.e. cheapest) 996's are auto's and cabrio's. Avoid those two, and you're on the right track.
Or, seek them out and get even more of a bargain and a car that might better fit your usage?In theory a tip cabrio would be less likely to have been ragged
Edited by was8v on Friday 9th November 10:20
was8v said:
In theory a tip cabrio would be less likely to have been ragged
That's actually part of the problem - A lot of Tips are used to just slush about, and often for very short journeys, which means the engine isn't getting worked properly. And it's not a case of 'ragged or not ragged' either; peak power is just north of 6000rpm, so bumbling around using 3000rpn or less all the time is going to cause more harm than good, IMO.Edited by was8v on Friday 9th November 10:20
anonymous said:
[redacted]
In reality it wasn't that much to do with the geometry (same-era TVRs were more tail-happy, as was the Z3M), it was down to:-- Original-spec (bespoke) Bridgestone S02 tyres was more of a semi-trackday tyre, but not marketed as such - it had poor water-dispersal performance so aquaplaned easier than most 'summer tyres' of the time
- It was bought by people expecting either CTR- (or any hot-hatch)-like chuckability, or expecting MX5-like docility.
Honda designed the S2000 to be pin-sharp, and dialled-out more of the understeer safety-net than anyone expected, BUT fundamentally a 1999 S2000 on original geometry was not a widowmaker if you treated it as it was - a powerful rwd car with no traction or stability control.
The geometry changes were introduced to take away the throttle-steerability of the car, which was deemed to be the easiest solution to lack of talent amongst owners. First thing I did when I got my 2003 was increase the chassis bracing and take it to CentreGravity for revised geometry (closer to 1999 spec but with less camber all round). And in 3 years / 16k miles I never span mine and only had one tank-slapper in the wet. Not because I'm a goatee-wearing PH-director type, but because I treated the throttle pedal as an analogue device not a digital on/off switch.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff