The seemingly oft maligned 996 GT3 RS ........
Discussion
Quoted from another thread :
I totally "get" that we're all different, and indeed that one mans "too stiff, too flighty and follows cambers" is another mans "rawest/best water-cooled drive available".
But genuinely, few cars seem to be as divisive as the 996 GT3 RS. Let me set out my stall from the off, I've never tracked one, and I've only ever driven one example, that being the one I owned (briefly).
From memory the press weren't particularly kind to the 996 RS, most citing it as being too low, too stiff and just plain hard work for the road. I believe Olaf Manthey was equally scathing in his summation of the RS as a road car, and that's the important bit, so I'll repeat it, as a road car.
We've previously discussed the modifications carried out to the GT3 RS over and above the "standard" 996 Mk2 GT3 (and for the sake of argument the Mk1, as they're the same suspension components with differing spring/damper rates)
The differences center primarily around the suspension pick up points, and I suspect roll centres ? As I understand it these were modified to enable the car to run at lower ride heights on slicks, whilst retaining the correct geometry and reducing bumpsteer at those reduced ride heights that a race/track car would be run at.
If I have a beef, it's that few/any ? RS's used on the road will actually be running at the ride heights prescribed for a race/track set up, nor will they be running slicks or indeed the optimum toe and camber settings required for those slicks. So does this possibly mean that their geometry is compromised ?
Certainly that's exactly how my car felt, nervous, twitchy, badly unsettled by cambers and bumps, poor rear end grip (which kind of begs the question, why have so many of these rare cars been shunted on trackdays ? Poor drivers/lack of ability ? or is the car intrinsically difficult to drive (even for the average 996 GT3 driver) because of it's compromised suspension ?
I'll make no bones about it, I hated mine, and whilst the front end was mightily impressive with it's massive grip, crisp turn in and zero understeer, the back end of the car always left me second guessing as to whether it would grip or not.
I came to the car after writing off my beloved Zanzibar Mk1 996 GT3, so I'd be the first to admit my confidence was at an all time low. Accordingly, what I needed was a car that I had absolute faith in. In my (albeit limited) experience, that car was not the 996 GT3 RS.
For all the car's front end's brilliance, it felt rather unnecessary on the road, I far prefer the more benign (almost lazy ?) front end of the Mk1. The pointy front end of the RS only served to unsettle the rear of the car, and whilst that maybe a useful trait under trail braking to rotate the rear end on track ? It wasn't particularly endearing on a road car.
I hope Steve R will contribute to this thread (hi Steve !) but there's a caveat to his sage words. When I've previously questioned Steve as to his useage of his car on the road, he inferred he used it sparingly. So whilst Steve's input on the this subject regarding track use is beyond question, I'm more concerned with the car's road manners.
So my summation was (and bear in mind I'm no driving god, neither do I have an "agenda" or an axe to grind, unlike a certain other regular contributor to this forum ......)
Engine : Impressive at the top end, but possibly lacking some of the Mk1's torque lower down ? The RS engine certainly lacked some of the "character" of the Mk1's engine, that being the lumpy tickover, the various steps in the power delivery and the very mechanical feel/sound of the earlier seminal powerplant.
Noise : Mightily impressive over the last 2k rpm, but largely lacklustre elsewhere.
Gearbox : Did exactly what it said on the tin. Nothing more, nothing less.
Suspension : Where to start ?
With spring rates (for the road remember) a sizable leap over those of the Mk1 (not so much over those of the Mk2) the car felt overly stiff and displayed all the traits one would normally attribute to overly stiff spring and damper rates on a road car.
Whereas as a Mk1 with OE dampers in tip top condition (and preferably new springs), feels hugely compliant (on the road remember) and almost floats over poor surfaces, the RS felt more akin to a poorly suspended and lowered 964 RS, that being too bouncy and it's suspension struggling to keep the tyres in contact with the road surface.
Interestingly, I know Mike at Sports and Classic drove a 996 GT3 RS that had been fitted with KW's (not sure if they were V3's, Clubsports or Manthey's), a car Ade (Keep it Lit) has driven too. Mike proclaimed that RS to be the most compliant/best handling GT3 he'd driven to date (that was some three years ago IIRC ?)
Handling : Bearing in mind the above, it won't come as a massive surprise to learn that I found the handling "difficult and wayward". Put bluntly I've not known another 911 bumpsteer, tramline/follow cambers and generally struggle with poor road surfaces so badly. Even my first GT2 (which was blighted with a chassis I struggled to get to handle "sweetly") wasn't as recalcitrant as the RS over bumps or across give and take A & B roads.
The proof of the pudding came when I threw the towel in and was afforded the opportunity to drive my recently sold Manthey Mk1 back to back along the same stretch of road as the GT3 RS. Where the RS had bumpsteered and jumped all over the road (quite literally changing lanes of it's own accord) and it's waywardness imposed a limit to just how quickly I could drive it, the Manthey Mk1 (on worn Cups no less) breezed along the same stretch of road, the only limits being my wish to preserve my driving license (and my lack of bravery above ...... Leptons)
So rather than "doing a Demon" and demonizing GT3 RS's generally, lets have your input on these rare (and it seems often misunderstood) cars.
Do please be totally frank, and state whether the car was yours, a mates you got to drive, a testdrive with a view to purchasing, how long/many miles you drove/owned it for, over what type of roads etc etc. Whether it was standard, modified, what/who's geometry set up was on the car etc etc.
And let me be very specific, I'm not looking for views on the car's ability on track, this debate centres solely on your views regarding the car's behaviour as a road car on the road !!
If we can avoid turning the thread into bun fight about how values have increased/perceived values/ future values/value for money etc etc, it would be all to the good.
So if you think they're the best watercooled car Porsche have ever produced, tell us why. If on the other hand you think they're the polar opposite, do please elucidate.
I'm now comfortably ensconced on the fence
mpbcs said:
I found the 996RS I drove was disappointingly slow and too hard for the roads. I guess that makes a market though.
I find the above quote intriguing, primarily because I concur wholeheartedly. I totally "get" that we're all different, and indeed that one mans "too stiff, too flighty and follows cambers" is another mans "rawest/best water-cooled drive available".
But genuinely, few cars seem to be as divisive as the 996 GT3 RS. Let me set out my stall from the off, I've never tracked one, and I've only ever driven one example, that being the one I owned (briefly).
From memory the press weren't particularly kind to the 996 RS, most citing it as being too low, too stiff and just plain hard work for the road. I believe Olaf Manthey was equally scathing in his summation of the RS as a road car, and that's the important bit, so I'll repeat it, as a road car.
We've previously discussed the modifications carried out to the GT3 RS over and above the "standard" 996 Mk2 GT3 (and for the sake of argument the Mk1, as they're the same suspension components with differing spring/damper rates)
The differences center primarily around the suspension pick up points, and I suspect roll centres ? As I understand it these were modified to enable the car to run at lower ride heights on slicks, whilst retaining the correct geometry and reducing bumpsteer at those reduced ride heights that a race/track car would be run at.
If I have a beef, it's that few/any ? RS's used on the road will actually be running at the ride heights prescribed for a race/track set up, nor will they be running slicks or indeed the optimum toe and camber settings required for those slicks. So does this possibly mean that their geometry is compromised ?
Certainly that's exactly how my car felt, nervous, twitchy, badly unsettled by cambers and bumps, poor rear end grip (which kind of begs the question, why have so many of these rare cars been shunted on trackdays ? Poor drivers/lack of ability ? or is the car intrinsically difficult to drive (even for the average 996 GT3 driver) because of it's compromised suspension ?
I'll make no bones about it, I hated mine, and whilst the front end was mightily impressive with it's massive grip, crisp turn in and zero understeer, the back end of the car always left me second guessing as to whether it would grip or not.
I came to the car after writing off my beloved Zanzibar Mk1 996 GT3, so I'd be the first to admit my confidence was at an all time low. Accordingly, what I needed was a car that I had absolute faith in. In my (albeit limited) experience, that car was not the 996 GT3 RS.
For all the car's front end's brilliance, it felt rather unnecessary on the road, I far prefer the more benign (almost lazy ?) front end of the Mk1. The pointy front end of the RS only served to unsettle the rear of the car, and whilst that maybe a useful trait under trail braking to rotate the rear end on track ? It wasn't particularly endearing on a road car.
I hope Steve R will contribute to this thread (hi Steve !) but there's a caveat to his sage words. When I've previously questioned Steve as to his useage of his car on the road, he inferred he used it sparingly. So whilst Steve's input on the this subject regarding track use is beyond question, I'm more concerned with the car's road manners.
So my summation was (and bear in mind I'm no driving god, neither do I have an "agenda" or an axe to grind, unlike a certain other regular contributor to this forum ......)
Engine : Impressive at the top end, but possibly lacking some of the Mk1's torque lower down ? The RS engine certainly lacked some of the "character" of the Mk1's engine, that being the lumpy tickover, the various steps in the power delivery and the very mechanical feel/sound of the earlier seminal powerplant.
Noise : Mightily impressive over the last 2k rpm, but largely lacklustre elsewhere.
Gearbox : Did exactly what it said on the tin. Nothing more, nothing less.
Suspension : Where to start ?
With spring rates (for the road remember) a sizable leap over those of the Mk1 (not so much over those of the Mk2) the car felt overly stiff and displayed all the traits one would normally attribute to overly stiff spring and damper rates on a road car. Whereas as a Mk1 with OE dampers in tip top condition (and preferably new springs), feels hugely compliant (on the road remember) and almost floats over poor surfaces, the RS felt more akin to a poorly suspended and lowered 964 RS, that being too bouncy and it's suspension struggling to keep the tyres in contact with the road surface.
Interestingly, I know Mike at Sports and Classic drove a 996 GT3 RS that had been fitted with KW's (not sure if they were V3's, Clubsports or Manthey's), a car Ade (Keep it Lit) has driven too. Mike proclaimed that RS to be the most compliant/best handling GT3 he'd driven to date (that was some three years ago IIRC ?)
Handling : Bearing in mind the above, it won't come as a massive surprise to learn that I found the handling "difficult and wayward". Put bluntly I've not known another 911 bumpsteer, tramline/follow cambers and generally struggle with poor road surfaces so badly. Even my first GT2 (which was blighted with a chassis I struggled to get to handle "sweetly") wasn't as recalcitrant as the RS over bumps or across give and take A & B roads.
The proof of the pudding came when I threw the towel in and was afforded the opportunity to drive my recently sold Manthey Mk1 back to back along the same stretch of road as the GT3 RS. Where the RS had bumpsteered and jumped all over the road (quite literally changing lanes of it's own accord) and it's waywardness imposed a limit to just how quickly I could drive it, the Manthey Mk1 (on worn Cups no less) breezed along the same stretch of road, the only limits being my wish to preserve my driving license (and my lack of bravery above ...... Leptons)
So rather than "doing a Demon" and demonizing GT3 RS's generally, lets have your input on these rare (and it seems often misunderstood) cars.
Do please be totally frank, and state whether the car was yours, a mates you got to drive, a testdrive with a view to purchasing, how long/many miles you drove/owned it for, over what type of roads etc etc. Whether it was standard, modified, what/who's geometry set up was on the car etc etc.
And let me be very specific, I'm not looking for views on the car's ability on track, this debate centres solely on your views regarding the car's behaviour as a road car on the road !!
If we can avoid turning the thread into bun fight about how values have increased/perceived values/ future values/value for money etc etc, it would be all to the good.
So if you think they're the best watercooled car Porsche have ever produced, tell us why. If on the other hand you think they're the polar opposite, do please elucidate.
I'm now comfortably ensconced on the fence
Hate to ask the obvious slippydiff, but was your car properly sorted geo wise? If I remember correctly, pistolp started off being rather unimpressed with his car until he had sent it to parr and steve rance has always stated that the car is pretty sensitive to setup.
Will leave further posts to those with actual experience as I've managed to somehow miss out on driving any of the 6 gt3 generation but I'm really quite interested by this thread as the 6rs is one car I would be pretty tempted to swap out for...
isaldiri said:
Hate to ask the obvious slippydiff, but was your car properly sorted geo wise? If I remember correctly, pistolp started off being rather unimpressed with his car until he had sent it to parr and steve rance has always stated that the car is pretty sensitive to setup.
Will leave further posts to those with actual experience as I've managed to somehow miss out on driving any of the 6 gt3 generation but I'm really quite interested by this thread as the 6rs is one car I would be pretty tempted to swap out for...
Good question. Whilst it's geo was correct, we didn't check the ride heights and corner weights, and as those that have experienced the before and after of a completely and properly set up 996 GT3 (in all its iterations) that was a major failing on my part. Will leave further posts to those with actual experience as I've managed to somehow miss out on driving any of the 6 gt3 generation but I'm really quite interested by this thread as the 6rs is one car I would be pretty tempted to swap out for...
However ...... one would assume (rightly or wrongly) that the press cars were correctly/accurately set up, yet IIRC there were quite a lot of dissenting voices amongst the ranks of the press when the car was launched and in subsequent reviews.
Evo tested the Ferrari 360 CS against the RS and came out in favour of the car from Stuttgart, another road test (which despite looking on the WWW on several occasions, I've been unable to find it) stated the CS was easier to drive because it was so much more compliant.
lboase said:
I was wondering however how the 996rs compares in terms of stiffness, to the 964rs which was also once deemed too stiff for road use?
Apologies if a little O/T
Until recently I owned both and back in 2002, my first 964 RS was also my first Porsche. Strangely enough I "accept" the 964 RS's ride, it's not perfect, in fact many (most) would say it's hopeless, but a nicely set up example (not slammed to the deck as many LHD examples imported from Germany were) with modern, new tyres and fresh dampers, is the most tactile engaging Porsche I've driven. BUT, that's for getting up early on a Sunday morning and seeking out the best (for which read deserted) roads N.Wales has to offer, and for me it provides the perfect 911 hit. For any kind of commuting or indeed use on roads that are anything else but billiard table smooth, they're somewhat hard work.Apologies if a little O/T
But having gone from a well fettled Mk1 996 GT3, I expected the GT3RS to be a quantum leap forward, and if I'm honest, peerless, with exemplary road manners. That it wasn't (from my perspective) left me a little perplexed and somewhat surprised. Thus when I read that others think they're the finest iteration of the 996 GT3 produced, my bewilderment only increases further (though I have to say my bewilderment is reduced when I read that plenty share my sentiments)
Had an RS from new, I'd go along with the poor road car vibe.
I had mine set up by Parr for fast road/track after a few months, but both before that and after it was a pain to drive on the road, constantly needing correction.
Tracked it quite a bit, and thought it was great, one glorious powerslide at Bedford on fairly worn tyres followed by a massive tankslapper a lap later.
However, I'd say it was a pretty special car notwithstanding the road manners.
I had mine set up by Parr for fast road/track after a few months, but both before that and after it was a pain to drive on the road, constantly needing correction.
Tracked it quite a bit, and thought it was great, one glorious powerslide at Bedford on fairly worn tyres followed by a massive tankslapper a lap later.
However, I'd say it was a pretty special car notwithstanding the road manners.
Beaver said:
Had an RS from new, I'd go along with the poor road car vibe.
I had mine set up by Parr for fast road/track after a few months, but both before that and after it was a pain to drive on the road, constantly needing correction.
Tracked it quite a bit, and thought it was great, one glorious powerslide at Bedford on fairly worn tyres followed by a massive tankslapper a lap later.
However, I'd say it was a pretty special car notwithstanding the road manners.
Totally agreed and identical to mine but as u say it's not a daily driver. I had mine set up by Parr for fast road/track after a few months, but both before that and after it was a pain to drive on the road, constantly needing correction.
Tracked it quite a bit, and thought it was great, one glorious powerslide at Bedford on fairly worn tyres followed by a massive tankslapper a lap later.
However, I'd say it was a pretty special car notwithstanding the road manners.
On track great but too much of a risk to track them now given cost of damage
Ha! Slippy. I wouldn't call it much maligned at all. Almost everyone that I know who's driven one were blown away by it. Each to his own and all that. That includes the journo's that actually understand what they are doing in a car.
I think that it's one of the best Porsche 911's ever built.
It doesn't suffer from any bumpsteer, the springing and damping are well judged - some would say soft by current standards, and it is extremely forgiving.
Frankly, driven at mincing road speeds I'd be amazed how anyone could get themselves into any trouble in one!
I think that it's one of the best Porsche 911's ever built.
It doesn't suffer from any bumpsteer, the springing and damping are well judged - some would say soft by current standards, and it is extremely forgiving.
Frankly, driven at mincing road speeds I'd be amazed how anyone could get themselves into any trouble in one!
Slippydiff said:
Oi, naff off you, near Cup spec cars don't count 
Added to which, you're one of the few around who think driving on the road with in excess of 4 degrees neg camber on the front wheels is "normal"
Evening Ade
H Added to which, you're one of the few around who think driving on the road with in excess of 4 degrees neg camber on the front wheels is "normal"
Evening Ade
they (all 996 GT3) are suspect road cars in any guise tbh.. the more you make them track biased the more you exaggerate this matter... they are road going race cars and belong really on the track and in this their home environment they really shine!"
Steve Rance said:
Ha! Slippy. I wouldn't call it much maligned at all. Almost everyone that I know who's driven one were blown away by it. Each to his own and all that. That includes the journo's that actually understand what they are doing in a car.
I think that it's one of the best Porsche 911's ever built.
It doesn't suffer from any bumpsteer, the springing and damping are well judged - some would say soft by current standards, and it is extremely forgiving.
Frankly, driven at mincing road speeds I'd be amazed how anyone could get themselves into any trouble in one!
I think that it's one of the best Porsche 911's ever built.
It doesn't suffer from any bumpsteer, the springing and damping are well judged - some would say soft by current standards, and it is extremely forgiving.
Frankly, driven at mincing road speeds I'd be amazed how anyone could get themselves into any trouble in one!
Slippy said:
I totally "get" that we're all different, and indeed that one mans "too stiff, too flighty and follows cambers" is another mans "rawest/best water-cooled drive available".
Evening Steve !Yep, I've already covered that base with the above specially for you ^
I struggle to believe that this is purely a set up issue, or indeed that so many of the these cars are that poorly set up ?
As I've said on here previously, I'd genuinely like to try a properly set up (within factory specs) car with accurately adjusted ride heights, corner weights and geo along with fresh dampers and new tyres. Does anyone on here have such a car (as in all honesty I'd happily settle for pax ride along a suitable section of testing A or B road in such a car)
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff