what is an 'early' 3.4 996?
Discussion
Whilst we're all salivating over the Mark 1 996, let's not forget the Mark 2 has a 25%-stiffer body shell ......which is a LOT.
PSM is no bad thing, either; it can be turned off, plus it can save your car in bad situations.
In my experience, the VariocamPlus 3.6 is a significantly punchier engine, too.
PSM is no bad thing, either; it can be turned off, plus it can save your car in bad situations.
In my experience, the VariocamPlus 3.6 is a significantly punchier engine, too.
EGTE said:
Whilst we're all salivating over the Mark 1 996, let's not forget the Mark 2 has a 25%-stiffer body shell ......which is a LOT.
PSM is no bad thing, either; it can be turned off, plus it can save your car in bad situations.
In my experience, the VariocamPlus 3.6 is a significantly punchier engine, too.
Being a 3.6, it'll also trash itself, so punchier it may be, but bore scorey it also is.PSM is no bad thing, either; it can be turned off, plus it can save your car in bad situations.
In my experience, the VariocamPlus 3.6 is a significantly punchier engine, too.
The 996.1 is hardly 'poor' in stiffness. Those people who salivate all over their 993s would do well to know the 996 is significantly stiffer in torsion and beam than the older car (which is naturally based upon the original 901, ultimately).
The early 996 is a bit creaky because of the slightly naff interior quality, but that can be cured with some care and attention. I love the simplicity of my early car which keeps it as close to as pure a 911 as a 996 can be. Later cars get gradually heavier and more insulated, which takes away some of the 'joy' for me.
Does anyone know what changes were made to make the 996.2 25% stiffer than an equivalent 996.1? Presumably this figure is for standard C2s with sunroof?
I think a 996.1 C4 with no sunroof is a pretty stiff thing, I can't remember the %figure but it's significantly stiffer than a 996.1 C2 with sunroof.
I think a 996.1 C4 with no sunroof is a pretty stiff thing, I can't remember the %figure but it's significantly stiffer than a 996.1 C2 with sunroof.
bgunn said:
EGTE said:
Whilst we're all salivating over the Mark 1 996, let's not forget the Mark 2 has a 25%-stiffer body shell ......which is a LOT.
PSM is no bad thing, either; it can be turned off, plus it can save your car in bad situations.
In my experience, the VariocamPlus 3.6 is a significantly punchier engine, too.
Being a 3.6, it'll also trash itself, so punchier it may be, but bore scorey it also is.PSM is no bad thing, either; it can be turned off, plus it can save your car in bad situations.
In my experience, the VariocamPlus 3.6 is a significantly punchier engine, too.
The 996.1 is hardly 'poor' in stiffness. Those people who salivate all over their 993s would do well to know the 996 is significantly stiffer in torsion and beam than the older car (which is naturally based upon the original 901, ultimately).
The early 996 is a bit creaky because of the slightly naff interior quality, but that can be cured with some care and attention. I love the simplicity of my early car which keeps it as close to as pure a 911 as a 996 can be. Later cars get gradually heavier and more insulated, which takes away some of the 'joy' for me.
EGTE said:
They all wear out eventually, but post-hartech I'll take the 3.6 every time. If the 996.1 was stiff enough, why would Porsche have gone to the trouble of increasing the .2 so significantly?
Slightly facile comment really: Of course you'll take a 3.6 if it's had a complete rebuild.Also, same on the body stiffness. Why did Porsche create the 996 when the 993 was 'fine' (and preferable to most people). It's called 'progress'. Doesn't mean the .1 is intrinsically bad.
I fail to see what you're getting at. This thread is about 3.4 996.1s and there are a number of people who say they prefer them. You may prefer the .2. Good! That's what makes the world an interesting place..
Edited by bgunn on Thursday 23 August 14:17
EGTE said:
Whilst we're all salivating over the Mark 1 996, let's not forget the Mark 2 has a 25%-stiffer body shell ......which is a LOT.
I knew the C4 used the same stiffer shell as the GT3 but I had no idea the .2 was stiffer than the .1 - not something that ever seems to get mentioned despite the regular debates about which is better.How did they stiffen it, any idea?
LordHaveMurci said:
EGTE said:
Whilst we're all salivating over the Mark 1 996, let's not forget the Mark 2 has a 25%-stiffer body shell ......which is a LOT.
I knew the C4 used the same stiffer shell as the GT3 but I had no idea the .2 was stiffer than the .1 - not something that ever seems to get mentioned despite the regular debates about which is better.How did they stiffen it, any idea?
This is why a mk1 mx5 weighs nothing and will fold up easily in a side impact.
I had a Renault 5 turbo when I was a lad. The panels on that felt like aluminium.
ATM said:
LordHaveMurci said:
EGTE said:
Whilst we're all salivating over the Mark 1 996, let's not forget the Mark 2 has a 25%-stiffer body shell ......which is a LOT.
I knew the C4 used the same stiffer shell as the GT3 but I had no idea the .2 was stiffer than the .1 - not something that ever seems to get mentioned despite the regular debates about which is better.How did they stiffen it, any idea?
This is why a mk1 mx5 weighs nothing and will fold up easily in a side impact.
I had a Renault 5 turbo when I was a lad. The panels on that felt like aluminium.
Earlier, safety equalled massive weight penalty as the answer was just to throw more material at it. Technology moved on and structural integrity being achieved isn't always in proportion to weight gain.
nebpor said:
Give me the lighter weight and simplicity of an early 3.4 over a .2 any day of the week.
Agree with this. Having run a .2 and a .1 (x2) I can say without a doubt I prefer the looks of the .1.
Just don't get the half curved half straight line on the headlights of the .2. Ruins it for me.
richthebike said:
Agree with this.
Having run a .2 and a .1 (x2) I can say without a doubt I prefer the looks of the .1.
Just don't get the half curved half straight line on the headlights of the .2. Ruins it for me.
I prefer the gt3 bumper on the .2 and I'd go for the .2 headlamps too if it meant I could have that bumper. Then I'd go for the big flat .2 rear wing too and max power the F out of it.Having run a .2 and a .1 (x2) I can say without a doubt I prefer the looks of the .1.
Just don't get the half curved half straight line on the headlights of the .2. Ruins it for me.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff