993 vs 996

[keep it lit]

I chose the hand built 'Weissach' 996 option with most important 'M96.76' engine code ...

Still very very happy..

Ade.

[mollytherocker]

kayc said:

996 a crock of ste build wise ..ive had 4 of them..to even compare a hand built air cooled Porsche with a mass produced(we are going bust if we dont do it)range is ridiculous.Build cost of a 996 was 70% cheaper than a 993...drive and work on them both and you can see where the corners were cut.Imo of course.

The '996 was 70% cheaper to build than the 993' comment is quite a statement. Any back up you can share?

MTR

[graemel]

mollytherocker said:

kayc said:

996 a crock of ste build wise ..ive had 4 of them..to even compare a hand built air cooled Porsche with a mass produced(we are going bust if we dont do it)range is ridiculous.Build cost of a 996 was 70% cheaper than a 993...drive and work on them both and you can see where the corners were cut.Imo of course.

The '996 was 70% cheaper to build than the 993' comment is quite a statement. Any back up you can share?

MTR

There are not too many times that I agree with kayc but he is not far wrong. A couple of years back my other half drove her first 911. A 993 C2 Coupe at a dealer and she loved it. But she was not overly keen on the colour. She then test drove a 996 C4S Cab. Within half a mile she pulled over and said you drive this car back. My Smart car is built better than this piece of crap. She now owns a 993 C2S

[berni29]

Hi

I went through the same conundrum and decided on a high mileage 993 rather than a low mile 996. I then changed the whole suspension including every bush front and rear and you would never know the miles if you did not look (all my own work, not cost effective if you cannot do).

I was also attracted by the smaller footprint. For me you could sum up the build quality difference by looking at the door catches which is the first thing I noticed when I opened the door of a 996.

If I had needed an everyday driver I may well have gone for a 996, but would have still been a little put off by the size. They are a fine car no doubt, but having come from a 964 it was a leap too far. Funnily enough most people (it seems to me) who would not have a 996 would have a 997 so it must be a looks thing to a large degree.

All the best

Berni

[kayc]

mollytherocker said:

kayc said:

996 a crock of ste build wise ..ive had 4 of them..to even compare a hand built air cooled Porsche with a mass produced(we are going bust if we dont do it)range is ridiculous.Build cost of a 996 was 70% cheaper than a 993...drive and work on them both and you can see where the corners were cut.Imo of course.

The '996 was 70% cheaper to build than the 993' comment is quite a statement. Any back up you can share?

MTR

I was reliably informed by my local Opc a few years back as we discussed the relative values and the future values of 911's and as to why every 996 i owned had lost a ste load of cash.."you have to realise Kev they dont make them like they used to but Porsche had to start making money"...hence i took a view and bought an old one .

Edited by kayc on Tuesday 21st September 07:18

[monthefish]

Mousem40 said:

Risotto said:

.

I found >>this<< a handy summary of 996 checkpoints. Not exhaustive, but it collates most of the common problems into a single, brief document which you can use as the basis for further research.

Cheeky bloody sods! That's mine and Richard Hamilton's check list from our buyer's guide that we wrote for PCGB! I'll be having words.

"The selected Attachment does not exist anymore"

I take it you 'had your words' then?

[Steve Rance]

I think that the door shut and thickness of body panel comparisons between them is a little misguided. I would much rather have a stiff and strong chasis with light body panels cladding it. Heavy doors and body panels are less desirable than light ones on a sports car providing that it has a very strong chasis both in terms of impact resistance and torsional loads exerted in cornering. The 996 has a lighter, stronger and stiffer chasis than the 993 which makes it a better platform. I own a 993RSR and a 996RS and each car has it's own unique character. For a potential buyer making a decision between the 993 and 996 I would suggest that you simply base it entirely on which driving character you prefer and ignore the weight of the doors etc..

[POORCARDEALER]

Having owned most 911's at some point I would have a nice 3.2 Carrera coupe over the 993/996.

Feels nimbler, nicer steering, and has a more classic look.

Love the look of the 993, but I think they are horrendously expensive...........

[kayc]

Steve Rance said:

I think that the door shut and thickness of body panel comparisons between them is a little misguided. I would much rather have a stiff and strong chasis with light body panels cladding it. Heavy doors and body panels are less desirable than light ones on a sports car providing that it has a very strong chasis both in terms of impact resistance and torsional loads exerted in cornering. The 996 has a lighter, stronger and stiffer chasis than the 993 which makes it a better platform. I own a 993RSR and a 996RS and each car has it's own unique character. For a potential buyer making a decision between the 993 and 996 I would suggest that you simply base it entirely on which driving character you prefer and ignore the weight of the doors etc..

I think you are over simplyfying it...its not just the door shuts that are different..its the quality of plastics used on the dashboard/door trims etc.The switchgear,seat construction,carpets all have a general feel of quality that can only come with attention to detail and lack of cost-cutting that the earlier cars had imo

Edited by kayc on Tuesday 21st September 11:11

Edited by kayc on Tuesday 21st September 11:11

[Steve Rance]

kayc said:

Steve Rance said:

I think that the door shut and thickness of body panel comparisons between them is a little misguided. I would much rather have a stiff and strong chasis with light body panels cladding it. Heavy doors and body panels are less desirable than light ones on a sports car providing that it has a very strong chasis both in terms of impact resistance and torsional loads exerted in cornering. The 996 has a lighter, stronger and stiffer chasis than the 993 which makes it a better platform. I own a 993RSR and a 996RS and each car has it's own unique character. For a potential buyer making a decision between the 993 and 996 I would suggest that you simply base it entirely on which driving character you prefer and ignore the weight of the doors etc..

I think you are over simplyfying it...its not just the door shuts that are different..its the quality of plastics used on the dashboard/door trims etc.The switchgear,seat construction,carpets all have a general feel of quality that can only come with attention to detail and lack of cost-cutting that the earlier cars had imo

Edited by kayc on Tuesday 21st September 11:11

Edited by kayc on Tuesday 21st September 11:11

It is interesting that we all see things differently. To me the 993 and 996 are driving tools and I view them almost entirely on that basis. I don't really have much of an opinion on the dials or plastic fittings at all providing they work and do not detract to the driving experience. They certainly wouldn't effect my preference between one car and another. My interest is in the chasis and drive train, how they interact and how this translates into the driving experience. I've thought about it and I think that 95% of my decision on buying any 911 would be the driving expereince and the other 5% on the rest of the package. Ultimately I suppose the decision is subjective and each driver will have slightly different criteria when making it.

[shoestring7]

One can't help noticing that the dashboard of a pre-996 911 is a piece of structural steel across the car with holes in it for the instruments, whereas the same item in the 996/7 is the same composite moulding unit as every other modern car, presumably as it allows a modular installation when the car is built.

SS7

[Mousem40]

monthefish said:

Mousem40 said:

Risotto said:

.

I found >>this<< a handy summary of 996 checkpoints. Not exhaustive, but it collates most of the common problems into a single, brief document which you can use as the basis for further research.

Cheeky bloody sods! That's mine and Richard Hamilton's check list from our buyer's guide that we wrote for PCGB! I'll be having words.

"The selected Attachment does not exist anymore"

I take it you 'had your words' then?

Yup. I would have let it slide if we got an apology or promise of a mention of it's source. No apology, just an email telling me I should know it's not possible to check everything on the site.

[blueyonder]

I went throught the 993/996 dilemma when looking to buy my first 911 just over 18 months ago and I was leaning towards to the cheaper, more modern looking (particularly the interior) 996 but soon realised that the 993 is just a much better looking car and it has a presence on the road which belies its years. That and the fact that they hold their value along with finding one in a colour I liked (always a bonus) made me shell out £3/4k more for a 993 C4.

Having come from owning a TVR Chimaera I immediately appreciated the superior 'hewn from granite' build quality and it's amazing 'planted' feeling.

It's been to Le Mans twice and southern Germany last Christmas and never missed a beat and has 93k miles on it!! The only criticism is that my back suffers on long (2hrs plus) stretches but tbh as it is mainly used as a weekend car and the the run down to Le Mans involves plenty of stops, it's not a major issue. If I was doing regular long journeys then maybe a 996 is a better choice but for the more pure involved driving experience the 993 is way better....just wish I could afford a turbo!

[Geneve]

I've had a lot of Porsches over the years, mostly bought new, including 2x964s, 2x993s, 2x996s, 2x997s....

I had one of the first 3.4 996s and one of the first 3.6 996s and they were both excellent, trouble free, well built, more practical, more comfortable, and a lot of fun - especially with the PSE.

Yes, the 993s were great as well, but I do think they get a bit over-rated these days, and if I wanted a retro-911 I'd probably prefer a late G50 3.2.

993 v 996 is really down to personal preference - traditional air-cooled or modern water-cooled.

Oh, and I had an rms replaced on one of 993s.

[Homer J]

Geneve said:

I've had a lot of Porsches over the years, mostly bought new, including 2x964s, 2x993s, 2x996s, 2x997s....

I had one of the first 3.4 996s and one of the first 3.6 996s and they were both excellent, trouble free, well built, more practical, more comfortable, and a lot of fun - especially with the PSE.

Yes, the 993s were great as well, but I do think they get a bit over-rated these days, and if I wanted a retro-911 I'd probably prefer a late G50 3.2.

993 v 996 is really down to personal preference - traditional air-cooled or modern water-cooled.

Oh, and I had an rms replaced on one of 993s.

At last, a decent reply

[kayc]

Homer J said:

Geneve said:

I've had a lot of Porsches over the years, mostly bought new, including 2x964s, 2x993s, 2x996s, 2x997s....

I had one of the first 3.4 996s and one of the first 3.6 996s and they were both excellent, trouble free, well built, more practical, more comfortable, and a lot of fun - especially with the PSE.

Yes, the 993s were great as well, but I do think they get a bit over-rated these days, and if I wanted a retro-911 I'd probably prefer a late G50 3.2.

993 v 996 is really down to personal preference - traditional air-cooled or modern water-cooled.

Oh, and I had an rms replaced on one of 993s.

At last, a decent reply

Bit condescending to the rest of us that replied..and also have a fair bit of experience with these cars.

[TB993tt]

kayc said:

Homer J said:

Geneve said:

I've had a lot of Porsches over the years, mostly bought new, including 2x964s, 2x993s, 2x996s, 2x997s....

Yes, the 993s were great as well, but I do think they get a bit over-rated these days, and if I wanted a retro-911 I'd probably prefer a late G50 3.2.

At last, a decent reply

Bit condescending to the rest of us that replied..and also have a fair bit of experience with these cars.

Especially since he appears not to have actually owned a G50 3.2

[Geneve]

TB993tt said:

kayc said:

Homer J said:

Geneve said:

I've had a lot of Porsches over the years, mostly bought new, including 2x964s, 2x993s, 2x996s, 2x997s....

Yes, the 993s were great as well, but I do think they get a bit over-rated these days, and if I wanted a retro-911 I'd probably prefer a late G50 3.2.

At last, a decent reply

Bit condescending to the rest of us that replied..and also have a fair bit of experience with these cars.

Especially since he appears not to have actually owned a G50 3.2

Ah! Actually, I had an '88 3.2 'Club Sport' for 12 years. In many ways one of the nicest 911s of all time.

[Diesel130]

aby76 said:

... The car would be used as daily driver if possible, approx 10000k per annum. ...

Crikey, that's a lot of miles.... are you driving it 24/7 by chance???

[Crimp a Length!]

Diesel130 said:

aby76 said:

... The car would be used as daily driver if possible, approx 10,000k per annum. ...

Crikey, that's a lot of miles.... are you driving it 24/7 by chance???

What 10k pa, thats nowt.