Discussion
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....
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 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.
I've had a few 911's and have just owned a 996tt.
I thought the quality was good inside and out for a modernish car.
To be honest my 993c4s didn't feel as solid as the Supersport/964 Turbo or my lates car a mint 930T.
Obviously they are not as solid as an old air-cooled car, but old cars always appear more solid.
Edited by Crimp a Length! on Thursday 23 September 23:53
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Looks lovely and pretty rare in Silver, if the spoilers not your thing you can remove for the "clean" lookAt 12k from a dealer it seems cheap to me so it would need inspecting as an 11-12k car can cost you 20k in the long run & you are better buying the 15k+ car in the first place.
Good investment.
A lot of people are coming out of the more modern stuff into the impact and pre impact bumper cars.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Crimp a Length! said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Looks lovely and pretty rare in Silver, if the spoilers not your thing you can remove for the "clean" lookAt 12k from a dealer it seems cheap to me so it would need inspecting as an 11-12k car can cost you 20k in the long run & you are better buying the 15k+ car in the first place.
Good investment.
A lot of people are coming out of the more modern stuff into the impact and pre impact bumper cars.
So its not the "wrong type", wrong box, wrong etc etc 911 ?
He has had it up for some time, started at £15.5k
They can hide a lot serious corrosion these cars, then your into big wedge so tread carefully but if not then this car is a bargain.
just clarifying here .....
when people speak about '996s', I presume they are talking about 996 turbos, C4S's and GT3's are they not ?
because a basic 996 C2 or C4 is about as desireable and enticing as a daewoo tacuma:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1951692.htm
I mean seriously, look at that, there's absolutely no reason to buy that at all. It doesnt even look like a porsche does it ? Loosk wise its just a total mistake is it not ? you can't compare it to a 993, or a 964 or a 997, a 3.2 etc..
when people speak about '996s', I presume they are talking about 996 turbos, C4S's and GT3's are they not ?
because a basic 996 C2 or C4 is about as desireable and enticing as a daewoo tacuma:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1951692.htm
I mean seriously, look at that, there's absolutely no reason to buy that at all. It doesnt even look like a porsche does it ? Loosk wise its just a total mistake is it not ? you can't compare it to a 993, or a 964 or a 997, a 3.2 etc..
Edited by jackal on Tuesday 28th September 00:35
I think the 1st generation 996 Carrera, with clear lights and a 'drop' on MO30 or aftermarket suspension is becoming a really classic looker, as can be seen in the photo posted above! I am more in love with mine now, than when I bought it, to be honest! Yes, it has seen an awful lot of work, but I am really growing into the smooth, pebble shape 
jackal said:
just clarifying here .....
when people speak about '996s', I presume they are talking about 996 turbos, C4S's and GT3's are they not ?
because a basic 996 C2 or C4 is about as desireable and enticing as a daewoo tacuma:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1951692.htm
I mean seriously, look at that, there's absolutely no reason to buy that at all. It doesnt even look like a porsche does it ? Loosk wise its just a total mistake is it not ? you can't compare it to a 993, or a 964 or a 997, a 3.2 etc..
I think it looks good.when people speak about '996s', I presume they are talking about 996 turbos, C4S's and GT3's are they not ?
because a basic 996 C2 or C4 is about as desireable and enticing as a daewoo tacuma:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1951692.htm
I mean seriously, look at that, there's absolutely no reason to buy that at all. It doesnt even look like a porsche does it ? Loosk wise its just a total mistake is it not ? you can't compare it to a 993, or a 964 or a 997, a 3.2 etc..
Admittedly, the more sepcial variants (GT2/3/Turbo/C4S) look better, but that's true of most 911's (except perhaps the very early cars), including 993 & 964.
jackal said:
just clarifying here .....
when people speak about '996s', I presume they are talking about 996 turbos, C4S's and GT3's are they not ?
because a basic 996 C2 or C4 is about as desireable and enticing as a daewoo tacuma:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1951692.htm
I mean seriously, look at that, there's absolutely no reason to buy that at all. It doesnt even look like a porsche does it ? Loosk wise its just a total mistake is it not ? you can't compare it to a 993, or a 964 or a 997, a 3.2 etc..
That 996 looks a hell of a lot better than this 993 which, to use your analogy, is less enticing than a Daewoo Tacuma:when people speak about '996s', I presume they are talking about 996 turbos, C4S's and GT3's are they not ?
because a basic 996 C2 or C4 is about as desireable and enticing as a daewoo tacuma:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1951692.htm
I mean seriously, look at that, there's absolutely no reason to buy that at all. It doesnt even look like a porsche does it ? Loosk wise its just a total mistake is it not ? you can't compare it to a 993, or a 964 or a 997, a 3.2 etc..
Edited by jackal on Tuesday 28th September 00:35
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/2091829.htm
You've got to remember that every "entry level" edition of a model looks pretty poor whether it be made by Porsche, BMW, or Ford.
The basic 996 C2 was a very good car - used to win countless group tests and Autocar ran a 3.6 for their European Editor on long term test, and declared it one of the best cars in the world.
As I said above, I ran two from 1998 to 2006 and thought they were both first class derivitives of the 911, looked good, drove faultlessly, and gave me no issues. Yes, the 997 moved the game on further, but that's the nature of the 911's evolution - each derivitive being better than the last.
Obviously a 10+ year old 996, that's been around the world 3 or 4 times, had several owners, etc has to be judged with some care, but these cars are now a 1/5th of what they cost new.
A good one is a fantastic bargain IMO.
As I said above, I ran two from 1998 to 2006 and thought they were both first class derivitives of the 911, looked good, drove faultlessly, and gave me no issues. Yes, the 997 moved the game on further, but that's the nature of the 911's evolution - each derivitive being better than the last.
Obviously a 10+ year old 996, that's been around the world 3 or 4 times, had several owners, etc has to be judged with some care, but these cars are now a 1/5th of what they cost new.
A good one is a fantastic bargain IMO.
Geneve said:
The basic 996 C2 was a very good car - used to win countless group tests and Autocar ran a 3.6 for their European Editor on long term test, and declared it one of the best cars in the world.
As I said above, I ran two from 1998 to 2006 and thought they were both first class derivitives of the 911, looked good, drove faultlessly, and gave me no issues. Yes, the 997 moved the game on further, but that's the nature of the 911's evolution - each derivitive being better than the last.
Obviously a 10+ year old 996, that's been around the world 3 or 4 times, had several owners, etc has to be judged with some care, but these cars are now a 1/5th of what they cost new.
A good one is a fantastic bargain IMO.
Good post.As I said above, I ran two from 1998 to 2006 and thought they were both first class derivitives of the 911, looked good, drove faultlessly, and gave me no issues. Yes, the 997 moved the game on further, but that's the nature of the 911's evolution - each derivitive being better than the last.
Obviously a 10+ year old 996, that's been around the world 3 or 4 times, had several owners, etc has to be judged with some care, but these cars are now a 1/5th of what they cost new.
A good one is a fantastic bargain IMO.
Also, the boggo 996 C2 was Evo's car of the year in 97 or 98 - the only thing is that it was superceded and 'bettered' by the variants that came thereafter (GT2, Turbo etc), which, as has been said, is the nature of the 911 evolution, but this doesn't detract from the base cars' ability.
Edited by monthefish on Tuesday 28th September 09:55
monthefish said:
Battlecat said:
You've got to remember that every "entry level" edition of a model looks pretty poor whether it be made by Porsche, BMW, or Ford.
A standard, rwd, normally aspirated, manual, coupe, 911 (of whatever generation -'63 to 2010) has always been a gem, and for many the perfect '911'. Remember, 'less is often more' with Porsches
anonymous said:
[redacted]
...admittedly I am biased, but in a few years, I guarantee the aesthetics of the statndard 996 (pre-facelift) design will be appreciated more so than the 997. O.k., the 996 could do with more of a hip (corrected by the C4S), but it's a slick, classic design nonetheless. With the 997 was Porsche trying to appease the dinosaurs for whome the 993 was the pinnacle of 911 design. IMHO, the 997 looks a bit of a mess (especially the hunched rear and front headlight treatment that just looks wrong.Hopefully with the next iteration of the 911, Porsche will try a bit harder and design something fresh and classy.
Geneve said:
monthefish said:
Battlecat said:
You've got to remember that every "entry level" edition of a model looks pretty poor whether it be made by Porsche, BMW, or Ford.
A standard, rwd, normally aspirated, manual, coupe, 911 (of whatever generation -'63 to 2010) has always been a gem, and for many the perfect '911'. Remember, 'less is often more' with Porsches
The very early 911's look best in their purest form, but IMHO everything from 964 onwards looks better with the added body agenda. (even the 1973 911 RS with ducktail looks better than a standard car).
IMO the durability and success of the 911 design has been down to the purity of its lines, especially the roof line from the front screen to the rear bumper. - and always better without a sunroof, spoiler or wiper. The proportions are just right.
The 993 was a bit unpopular because the 911 lost the trademark defining front wings and lights, and the 996 softened the lines, whereas the 997 rejuvinated the harder edges.
Spoilers, wide arches, bigger wheels and agressive vents are all very well on the performance models, but they don't necessarily look better and some of those pictured above just look vulgar.
The 993 was a bit unpopular because the 911 lost the trademark defining front wings and lights, and the 996 softened the lines, whereas the 997 rejuvinated the harder edges.
Spoilers, wide arches, bigger wheels and agressive vents are all very well on the performance models, but they don't necessarily look better and some of those pictured above just look vulgar.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff