996 Carrera -how fast?

[Bezza1969]

I picked up a copy of Autocars excellent Porsche 911 road test book for £3 in a charity shop last week. Flicking through the pages, one test jumped out, the revised base model Carrera tested in December 2001. Mainly the issue is that I have never understood how that 315 BHP car clocked 100 in 10.1 secs when today's base carrera, managed 10.8 seconds with 345 BHP when tested earlier this year. Even the 997 Carrera S tested in 2004 wasnt that quick! It doesn't really add up.

Chris Harris tested that car, so I guess we need him to confirm that it wasnt a bit "hot". Can any 996 owners out that confirm, are they really that quick? If so, I think I need to get one, as they are dirt cheap right now, bargain compared to a new 991!!

[mollytherocker]

Mid to late 10's should be possible as long as the car is healthy.

Is this your key criteria?

[mrfunex]

10.1 may be a bit optimistic.

The standard 996 turbo (420bhp) is quoted at 9.5s 0-100mph, and the turbo's a LOT faster than the standard Carrera.

[pmr01]

I remembered your post, and then I read this...

http://pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=26071

'It wasn't that quick either. I can remember struggling to extract acceleration figures from it that were better than the stock Carrera - it was barely any faster than the admittedly suspiciously fast 996 C2 launch cars.'

maybe helps

[Bezza1969]

Yes I read this article, he says the launch cars were suspiciously quick-i should say so, 0-100 in 10.6 from the 300 BHP car, again this is faster than the 991 base model. However, the autocar road test car had done something like 7,000 miles so was far more run in than normal road test models, which could account for the difference

Similarly, would say 10.1 secs seems too quick for a 315 BHP 2001 car, unless it had a sports exhaust and some other trick bits.

Just wondering if anyone who has owned a facelift 996 carrera 2 can confirm whether they really do have similar or better acceleration than the new model. Either way, the 996 stacks up well as an 11 year old car on a bangs for bucks basis!!

[Olivera]

I wouldn't believe that original Autocar 996 test at all. This was the an era where many manufacturers were sending ringers to road tests, such as the Ferrar 360, Octavia vRS and of course the 996.

[Johnfrancis]

Olivera said:

I wouldn't believe that original Autocar 996 test at all. This was the an era where many manufacturers were sending ringers to road tests, such as the Ferrar 360, Octavia vRS and of course the 996.

What makes you think they dont do it now?

[Gibbo205]

Bezza1969 said:

I picked up a copy of Autocars excellent Porsche 911 road test book for £3 in a charity shop last week. Flicking through the pages, one test jumped out, the revised base model Carrera tested in December 2001. Mainly the issue is that I have never understood how that 315 BHP car clocked 100 in 10.1 secs when today's base carrera, managed 10.8 seconds with 345 BHP when tested earlier this year. Even the 997 Carrera S tested in 2004 wasnt that quick! It doesn't really add up.

Chris Harris tested that car, so I guess we need him to confirm that it wasnt a bit "hot". Can any 996 owners out that confirm, are they really that quick? If so, I think I need to get one, as they are dirt cheap right now, bargain compared to a new 991!!

Some reviews have tested the 997.1 C2S as quick as 9.7s 0-100mph, so many factors can effect it, environmental conditions, surface, tyres, driver, petrol, mileage of the car, cars condition or the manufacturer supplying a special faster version tut tut.

[Dblue]

Ferrari were notorious for "hot" test cars and fell out with Chris Harris over it. The test figures for the 1998 360 Modena were a bit of a joke. 4.2s 0-60 was ridiculous and no one's ever got a stock 360 near that since.
Ferrari horses were notably skinny as well throughout the decades. Only the last 10 years have we seen more realistic power figures and subsequent performance stats

[Callughan]

Autocar always publish quick times, I remember for the C32 they had a time that was not achievable by any one.

[mollytherocker]

It's not only manufacturers that are guilty of this.

Most of the mags employ extreme techniques like ramming into the next gear without the clutch, just to get the times.

Auto car infamously sheared both drive shafts on a 964t many years ago doing this!

[Stevej33]

4.6 second 0-60 for a 996 C2................ Wow!

[911 (997)]

Bezza1969 said:

Just wondering if anyone who has owned a facelift 996 carrera 2 can confirm whether they really do have similar or better acceleration than the new model. Either way, the 996 stacks up well as an 11 year old car on a bangs for bucks basis!!

I had a 996.2C2 and now have a 997.1C4S and I don't think the 996 was any quicker. If it was I don't notice it in real life but i've never gone from a standing start to 100 as fast as I can anyway. Best way to score the bores so I've heard.

[uktrailmonster]

Bezza1969 said:

Either way, the 996 stacks up well as an 11 year old car on a bangs for bucks basis!!

I can't verify the accel figures, but a new 991 made zero ground on my 3.6 996 C2 from Silverstone to Towcester on the A34. They are quick enough in the real world and faster than most people seem to think.

[911p]

The 3.6 996 C2 is very quick, we couldn't believe the pace of it when we had one. The 996 turbo doesn't gain much ground on it at all below three figure speeds.

[monthefish]

911p said:

The 3.6 996 C2 is very quick, we couldn't believe the pace of it when we had one. The 996 turbo doesn't gain much ground on it at all below three figure speeds.

Indeed.

But if the turbo driver releases the handbrake, then it's quite a different story....

[jackal]

Olivera said:

I wouldn't believe that original Autocar 996 test at all. This was the an era where many manufacturers were sending ringers to road tests, such as the Ferrar 360, Octavia vRS and of course the 996.

Agreed. No way it can post 10 something. More like 12's.

Edited by jackal on Monday 3rd December 12:37

[anonymous-user]

911p said:

The 3.6 996 C2 is very quick, we couldn't believe the pace of it when we had one. The 996 turbo doesn't gain much ground on it at all below three figure speeds.

Doesn't make sense. With 40% more power and 4WD the Turbo will annihilate the C2 from the word go, or certainly should do.

[uktrailmonster]

REALIST123 said:

Doesn't make sense. With 40% more power and 4WD the Turbo will annihilate the C2 from the word go, or certainly should do.

If you take the average 0-100 mph time from the various road tests linked to above, it's 9.5s v 10.9s. Obviously the Turbo is quicker and feels quicker, but they are both very quick cars in the real world. Anyone who says a 3.6 996 is slow (or a 3.4 for that matter) is talking bks.

[Crimp a Length!]

uktrailmonster said:

Bezza1969 said:

Either way, the 996 stacks up well as an 11 year old car on a bangs for bucks basis!!

I can't verify the accel figures, but a new 991 made zero ground on my 3.6 996 C2 from Silverstone to Towcester on the A34. They are quick enough in the real world and faster than most people seem to think.

You be careful of the Rozzers and speed cameras on that stretch i've had a ticket on there mate.