The seemingly oft maligned 996 GT3 RS ........
Discussion
Slippy, happy to line up a 4.0. 6RS, and 6GT3 for a unique comparison across the range...you do the write up.
4.0 is standard
6RS is standard apart from cup diff plates and a mildly pointy geo to my preference
6GT3 has GiroDisc brakes, cup diff plates, and Nitron dampers with dual springs (much stiffer than standard...but the helper springs make it road friendly) with an aggressive geo.
4.0 is standard
6RS is standard apart from cup diff plates and a mildly pointy geo to my preference
6GT3 has GiroDisc brakes, cup diff plates, and Nitron dampers with dual springs (much stiffer than standard...but the helper springs make it road friendly) with an aggressive geo.
Edited by LaSource on Thursday 17th July 12:27
Steve Rance said:
isaldiri said:
If I could ask a potentially slightly out of topic question here - how does the driving experience of a CGT compare to the 6RS? The CGT for me was by far the most 'race-car' feeling road car I had ever been lucky enough to drive (infinitely more than the 7 gt3s) and if the 6RS can offer something like that, at 1/3rd the cost of a CGT with far lower maintenance costs, it's got to be a steal!
I drove a CGT at Lemans Bugatti shortly after it's launch. To me, it was a car that had been developed beyond the tyre technology of the time and felt a little gripless as a result. Wonderful chasis but more of a sports prototype feel than a GT car. Equally as impressive in this context as the 6RS. Quite amazing on current technology tyres I would imagine.However, like the 6RS, it provides huge amounts of feel through it's chasis for the driver to act upon but ultimately relies on the driver to provide all of the primary inputs. Fantastic drivers car
But what's the same is the DNA. That sense of being a massively over engineered car (Mezger flat six; Le Mans developed V10 with 9 oil scavenge pumps!); the fact that there are no electronic aids (I am ignoring the billy basic TC in the CGT); the challenge to drive it well; exceptionally well balanced and weighted controls; a complete lack of "flash" - form follows function. I could go on, but you get the picture.
P.S. I agree the CGT was under-tyred at launch. On Supersports, the tyres have finally caught up with what the car can do.
stefan1 said:
Two comments caught my eye above:
First - absolutely agree that having a Cup rear diff improves the car; the standard diff wears out quite quickly.
Second - I strongly agree with Steve; the harder these cars are driven, the more they reward. And I'd go further - this is car to learn in and develop one's skills. The better you are as a driver, the more you can get from the GT3 (RS or not). I am still firmly in the learning phase - and that's a big part of the fun. Few cars reward this learning process as richly.
Also, the diff plates need to be properly measured and shimmed...not everyone does that. NineExcellence sorted mine out...superb result.First - absolutely agree that having a Cup rear diff improves the car; the standard diff wears out quite quickly.
Second - I strongly agree with Steve; the harder these cars are driven, the more they reward. And I'd go further - this is car to learn in and develop one's skills. The better you are as a driver, the more you can get from the GT3 (RS or not). I am still firmly in the learning phase - and that's a big part of the fun. Few cars reward this learning process as richly.
I also wanted to highlight Steve's second point. This is what it is all about!
When I previously mentioned honing the car to your need...I badly omitted the point above.
It is about you and the car together:
- How to drive a rear engined car
- How to mange the weight transfer
- Using a data logger to get a baseline of yourself and the car on a particular track and coming back the year after and seeing are you getting better, is the car performing ok, etc.
- Changing a few choice components - brakes, geo, suspension (there has been some chat on this thread and the other one about spring rates, etc...well change them if you want something different)
- Much of the above is common across all the 996 GT3s...I personally felt my development massively accelerated after I got my first 996 RS. Before that I had a 996 GT3 in which I was not really there. Whereas the 996 RS felt a lot more adjustable nearer the limit with better two way communication. BTW, my starting point was the same as any petrol enthusiast here...no track/race/competition training etc. Though I have subsequently taken some tuition every now and then.
I do not believe there are very many 'track slags' around. Frankly the car will too heavy on consumables for 10 track days a year...and unless you are unemployed or living off a lottery fund, you will not have that much free time over and above family holidays, etc.
I think the most anyone will do is say 4-5 days over a summer...and then they get over maintained as a result...and they can take that kind of load.
Slippydiff said:
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.
Reminds me of the 996GT2 press comments when launched, another potentially misunderstood version of the 996.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.
d41d8cd9 said:
KWv3s are 40N/mm front (same as stock 996.2 GT3, RS is 45N/mm), rear are 170N/mm (996.2 stock is 95N/mm, RS is the same). All linear springs. Not sure if the Mantheys have different springs or valving. 996.1 is 35/65.
It is interesting to see these spring rates, firstly because the RS is so little different to the non-RS and secondly, the dramatically higher rate used on the rear for KWs.35 / 65 - 996.1
40 / 95 - 996.2
45 / 95 - 996.2RS
40 / 170 - KWv3
Are KWs unusual among the typical GT3 options with spring rates that high?
LaSource said:
Slippy, happy to line up a 4.0. 6RS, and 6GT3 for a unique comparison across the range...you do the write up.
4.0 is standard
6RS is standard apart from cup diff plates and a mildly pointy geo to my preference
6GT3 has GiroDisc brakes, cup diff plates, and Nitron dampers with dual springs (much stiffer than standard...but the helper springs make it road friendly) with an aggressive geo.
Sounds a plan. Deal. 4.0 is standard
6RS is standard apart from cup diff plates and a mildly pointy geo to my preference
6GT3 has GiroDisc brakes, cup diff plates, and Nitron dampers with dual springs (much stiffer than standard...but the helper springs make it road friendly) with an aggressive geo.
I genuinely wish we had more threads like this on PH. In the space of three pages there's been a wealth of information both proffered and dissected, and all with good grace. It's real pleasure to find owners willing to put pen to paper to explain their thoughts and findings having owned, lived with and driven these superb cars.
I agree wholeheartedly with Steve, the 996 GT3 cars (in all their iterations) marked a high point in Porsche AG's ability to produce an analogue road/track car. If I could've held onto my Manthey Mk1, I would've done, but alas the funds are needed elsewhere, and faced with the choice of selling the GT3 or the 964 RS, I considered the 964 the better "investment".
For me a massive part of the joy of owning the Manthey GT3 was that it wasn't a garage queen. I used it hard and enjoyed it accordingly, it collected a lot of battle scars along the way, but when you're enjoying the time spend behind the wheel so much, not even they mattered.
My 964 RS is regrettably a garage queen, and though I'm all too aware these cars were built to be driven, doing so in the manner the car deserves, would only serve to devalue it now.
On the positive side, I'm now on my fourth 964 RS, I consider myself very lucky to have been able to drive the other three examples whilst not hamstrung by their values. My first Midnight blue example cost me the princely sum of £23K back in 2001. Suffice to say, it was enjoyed to the maximum (I even did a track day in it ! !)
As someone mentioned, with 996 GT3 RS prices heading towards the stratosphere, it'll mean that many/most ? will now disappear inside Carcoons or under car covers. I guess that's the downside of the rapidly increasing values.
Damn, I've just introduced the V word into the thread .........
braddo said:
It is interesting to see these spring rates, firstly because the RS is so little different to the non-RS and secondly, the dramatically higher rate used on the rear for KWs.
35 / 65 - 996.1
40 / 95 - 996.2
45 / 95 - 996.2RS
40 / 170 - KWv3
Are KWs unusual among the typical GT3 options with spring rates that high?
I just installed and did a trackday with KW's (thanks Ade!) Front main spring is actually 60Nm, rears were 170Nm. To my liking it was too oversteery so I put 120Nm rears from my old set up in there. 35 / 65 - 996.1
40 / 95 - 996.2
45 / 95 - 996.2RS
40 / 170 - KWv3
Are KWs unusual among the typical GT3 options with spring rates that high?
So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear.
JarmoL said:
I just installed and did a trackday with KW's (thanks Ade!) Front main spring is actually 60Nm, rears were 170Nm. To my liking it was too oversteery so I put 120Nm rears from my old set up in there.
So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear.
Where'd you get the 60N/mm number from? Was that regular KWv3s (my numbers) or the Manthey versions? The regular KW v3s are listed as 40-170 front, 170-170 rear, where the second 170 is the spring length in mm; see http://docs.kwsuspension.de/ea-KWGFwEA-h68671007.p... The Manthey's may be different, or it's possible an older version of the v3s used different front springs.So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear.
Edited by d41d8cd9 on Thursday 17th July 22:10
JarmoL said:
braddo said:
It is interesting to see these spring rates, firstly because the RS is so little different to the non-RS and secondly, the dramatically higher rate used on the rear for KWs.
35 / 65 - 996.1
40 / 95 - 996.2
45 / 95 - 996.2RS
40 / 170 - KWv3
Are KWs unusual among the typical GT3 options with spring rates that high?
I just installed and did a trackday with KW's (thanks Ade!) Front main spring is actually 60Nm, rears were 170Nm. To my liking it was too oversteery so I put 120Nm rears from my old set up in there. 35 / 65 - 996.1
40 / 95 - 996.2
45 / 95 - 996.2RS
40 / 170 - KWv3
Are KWs unusual among the typical GT3 options with spring rates that high?
So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear.
My 996.2 GT3 is running dual springs:
Front: 80 main / 40 helper
Rear: 140 main / 60 helper
I love the way it drives...though it would appear a lot stiffer at the front compared to the list above
Quite easy to drive on the road though...perhaps closer to the 996.1 for small bumps/dips (not sure the maths works that way)
d41d8cd9 said:
Where'd you get the 60N/mm number from? Was that regular KWv3s (my numbers) or the Manthey versions? The regular KW v3s are listed as 40-170 front, 170-170 rear, where the second 170 is the spring length in mm; see http://docs.kwsuspension.de/ea-KWGFwEA-h68671007.p... The Manthey's may be different, or it's possible an older version of the v3s used different front springs.
I bought this KW Clubsport set up from Ade. He said is has Manthey spec. Anyway the numbers are correct for this set up, those are stamped on the springs. And I have helper springs as well of course, 60Nm from memory. Those are fully compressed when the car is stationary so they just keep the main springs seated if catching air. Edited by d41d8cd9 on Thursday 17th July 22:10
Sorry for OT btw. But yes, the ride comfort is better with KW's compared to original Bilsteins even if the springs are stiffer.
Slippydiff said:
As someone mentioned, with 996 GT3 RS prices heading towards the stratosphere, it'll mean that many/most ? will now disappear inside Carcoons or under car covers. I guess that's the downside of the rapidly increasing values.
At the price this one is at and the very low mileage LHD example, this is a serious consideration for me. I like to drive my cars not look at them through the garage doors. Any small bit of damage that could mean a single replacement panel or a touch of paint and you've wiped off most of its value. JarmoL said:
So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear.
Same goes for the 993 kit ... just doesn't make sense and more importantly, doesn't work.Once had an argumnet with the chap at KW about it and what their resaoning was and all he could say was the proof was in the driving and i told him, yeah, my car on your kit drives crap. Proof indeed.
Edited by jackal on Friday 18th July 10:47
Sexual Chocolate said:
At the price this one is at and the very low mileage LHD example, this is a serious consideration for me. I like to drive my cars not look at them through the garage doors. Any small bit of damage that could mean a single replacement panel or a touch of paint and you've wiped off most of its value.
Apart from some very top end unique examples (e.g. the 1000 miles one) where a significant premium on origionality is priced in, I do not think the cars are all that sensitive to a touch of paint, etc. These cars are now some 10 years old and getting older. All will have seen some use - and therefore required the odd stone chip spray, scuff mark, etc. Their value is in how they drive and therefore need to be in a good mechanical state, straight/unbent chassis, etc. Therefore if you use as intended (and as long as you do not crash it!) I dont think there is a material impact on value.
Of course, in the situation where you buy a premium pristine car, have a major off which requires a significant rebuild...yes, you will lose value. But that goes for any car with such history.
jackal said:
Once had an argumnet with the chap at KW about it and what their resaoning was and all he could say was the proof was in the driving and i told him, yeah, my car on your kit drives crap. Proof indeed.
Fioran0 is also not a big fan. I suspect the Manthey variant must be quite different as my car drives incredibly well on them: close to Cup lap times, ceteris paribus (slicks, aero, weight).LaSource said:
Sexual Chocolate said:
At the price this one is at and the very low mileage LHD example, this is a serious consideration for me. I like to drive my cars not look at them through the garage doors. Any small bit of damage that could mean a single replacement panel or a touch of paint and you've wiped off most of its value.
Apart from some very top end unique examples (e.g. the 1000 miles one) where a significant premium on origionality is priced in, I do not think the cars are all that sensitive to a touch of paint, etc. These cars are now some 10 years old and getting older. All will have seen some use - and therefore required the odd stone chip spray, scuff mark, etc. Their value is in how they drive and therefore need to be in a good mechanical state, straight/unbent chassis, etc. Therefore if you use as intended (and as long as you do not crash it!) I dont think there is a material impact on value.
Of course, in the situation where you buy a premium pristine car, have a major off which requires a significant rebuild...yes, you will lose value. But that goes for any car with such history.
Sexual Chocolate said:
So you don't think they are becoming mileage sensitive like their Italian counterparts?
Well, it depends.So yes if you are buying today, a 1k miler is more expensive than a 20k miler which is more expensive than a 40k miler.
Compared to the Italians, I think the sensitivity is less. i.e every 1k miles does not drop £5000 in quite the same way (Ignoring a freaky v low miles car).
However, I think the usage penalty is almost nonexistent (again barring the 1k miler example). So say you buy a 20k miler today, use it for 5k miles a year ,and then tried to sell a 30k miler in two years...you will at worse get your money back. At best, it will have appreciated further. At least that has been my experience over the last 5/6 years. Of course, the last 12 months have seen a significant acceleration which I wont speculate whether it continues at the same pace - but it would appear you could now use it even more per year without a usage penalty.
...its as close as you can get to free motoring
(man maths alert!)
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff