The seemingly oft maligned 996 GT3 RS ........

[Slippydiff]

Quoted from another thread :

mpbcs said:

I found the 996RS I drove was disappointingly slow and too hard for the roads. I guess that makes a market though.

I find the above quote intriguing, primarily because I concur wholeheartedly.
I totally "get" that we're all different, and indeed that one mans "too stiff, too flighty and follows cambers" is another mans "rawest/best water-cooled drive available".

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.

We've previously discussed the modifications carried out to the GT3 RS over and above the "standard" 996 Mk2 GT3 (and for the sake of argument the Mk1, as they're the same suspension components with differing spring/damper rates)

The differences center primarily around the suspension pick up points, and I suspect roll centres ? As I understand it these were modified to enable the car to run at lower ride heights on slicks, whilst retaining the correct geometry and reducing bumpsteer at those reduced ride heights that a race/track car would be run at.

If I have a beef, it's that few/any ? RS's used on the road will actually be running at the ride heights prescribed for a race/track set up, nor will they be running slicks or indeed the optimum toe and camber settings required for those slicks. So does this possibly mean that their geometry is compromised ?

Certainly that's exactly how my car felt, nervous, twitchy, badly unsettled by cambers and bumps, poor rear end grip (which kind of begs the question, why have so many of these rare cars been shunted on trackdays ? Poor drivers/lack of ability ? or is the car intrinsically difficult to drive (even for the average 996 GT3 driver) because of it's compromised suspension ?

I'll make no bones about it, I hated mine, and whilst the front end was mightily impressive with it's massive grip, crisp turn in and zero understeer, the back end of the car always left me second guessing as to whether it would grip or not.

I came to the car after writing off my beloved Zanzibar Mk1 996 GT3, so I'd be the first to admit my confidence was at an all time low. Accordingly, what I needed was a car that I had absolute faith in. In my (albeit limited) experience, that car was not the 996 GT3 RS.

For all the car's front end's brilliance, it felt rather unnecessary on the road, I far prefer the more benign (almost lazy ?) front end of the Mk1. The pointy front end of the RS only served to unsettle the rear of the car, and whilst that maybe a useful trait under trail braking to rotate the rear end on track ? It wasn't particularly endearing on a road car.

I hope Steve R will contribute to this thread (hi Steve !) but there's a caveat to his sage words. When I've previously questioned Steve as to his useage of his car on the road, he inferred he used it sparingly. So whilst Steve's input on the this subject regarding track use is beyond question, I'm more concerned with the car's road manners.

So my summation was (and bear in mind I'm no driving god, neither do I have an "agenda" or an axe to grind, unlike a certain other regular contributor to this forum ......)

Engine : Impressive at the top end, but possibly lacking some of the Mk1's torque lower down ? The RS engine certainly lacked some of the "character" of the Mk1's engine, that being the lumpy tickover, the various steps in the power delivery and the very mechanical feel/sound of the earlier seminal powerplant.

Noise : Mightily impressive over the last 2k rpm, but largely lacklustre elsewhere.

Gearbox : Did exactly what it said on the tin. Nothing more, nothing less.

Suspension : Where to start ? With spring rates (for the road remember) a sizable leap over those of the Mk1 (not so much over those of the Mk2) the car felt overly stiff and displayed all the traits one would normally attribute to overly stiff spring and damper rates on a road car.
Whereas as a Mk1 with OE dampers in tip top condition (and preferably new springs), feels hugely compliant (on the road remember) and almost floats over poor surfaces, the RS felt more akin to a poorly suspended and lowered 964 RS, that being too bouncy and it's suspension struggling to keep the tyres in contact with the road surface.

Interestingly, I know Mike at Sports and Classic drove a 996 GT3 RS that had been fitted with KW's (not sure if they were V3's, Clubsports or Manthey's), a car Ade (Keep it Lit) has driven too. Mike proclaimed that RS to be the most compliant/best handling GT3 he'd driven to date (that was some three years ago IIRC ?)

Handling : Bearing in mind the above, it won't come as a massive surprise to learn that I found the handling "difficult and wayward". Put bluntly I've not known another 911 bumpsteer, tramline/follow cambers and generally struggle with poor road surfaces so badly. Even my first GT2 (which was blighted with a chassis I struggled to get to handle "sweetly") wasn't as recalcitrant as the RS over bumps or across give and take A & B roads.

The proof of the pudding came when I threw the towel in and was afforded the opportunity to drive my recently sold Manthey Mk1 back to back along the same stretch of road as the GT3 RS. Where the RS had bumpsteered and jumped all over the road (quite literally changing lanes of it's own accord) and it's waywardness imposed a limit to just how quickly I could drive it, the Manthey Mk1 (on worn Cups no less) breezed along the same stretch of road, the only limits being my wish to preserve my driving license (and my lack of bravery above ...... Leptons)

So rather than "doing a Demon" and demonizing GT3 RS's generally, lets have your input on these rare (and it seems often misunderstood) cars.

Do please be totally frank, and state whether the car was yours, a mates you got to drive, a testdrive with a view to purchasing, how long/many miles you drove/owned it for, over what type of roads etc etc. Whether it was standard, modified, what/who's geometry set up was on the car etc etc.

And let me be very specific, I'm not looking for views on the car's ability on track, this debate centres solely on your views regarding the car's behaviour as a road car on the road !!

If we can avoid turning the thread into bun fight about how values have increased/perceived values/ future values/value for money etc etc, it would be all to the good.

So if you think they're the best watercooled car Porsche have ever produced, tell us why. If on the other hand you think they're the polar opposite, do please elucidate.

I'm now comfortably ensconced on the fence

[Slippydiff]

isaldiri said:

Hate to ask the obvious slippydiff, but was your car properly sorted geo wise? If I remember correctly, pistolp started off being rather unimpressed with his car until he had sent it to parr and steve rance has always stated that the car is pretty sensitive to setup.

Will leave further posts to those with actual experience as I've managed to somehow miss out on driving any of the 6 gt3 generation but I'm really quite interested by this thread as the 6rs is one car I would be pretty tempted to swap out for...

Good question. Whilst it's geo was correct, we didn't check the ride heights and corner weights, and as those that have experienced the before and after of a completely and properly set up 996 GT3 (in all its iterations) that was a major failing on my part.
However ...... one would assume (rightly or wrongly) that the press cars were correctly/accurately set up, yet IIRC there were quite a lot of dissenting voices amongst the ranks of the press when the car was launched and in subsequent reviews.

Evo tested the Ferrari 360 CS against the RS and came out in favour of the car from Stuttgart, another road test (which despite looking on the WWW on several occasions, I've been unable to find it) stated the CS was easier to drive because it was so much more compliant.

[Slippydiff]

lboase said:

I was wondering however how the 996rs compares in terms of stiffness, to the 964rs which was also once deemed too stiff for road use?

Apologies if a little O/T

Until recently I owned both and back in 2002, my first 964 RS was also my first Porsche. Strangely enough I "accept" the 964 RS's ride, it's not perfect, in fact many (most) would say it's hopeless, but a nicely set up example (not slammed to the deck as many LHD examples imported from Germany were) with modern, new tyres and fresh dampers, is the most tactile engaging Porsche I've driven. BUT, that's for getting up early on a Sunday morning and seeking out the best (for which read deserted) roads N.Wales has to offer, and for me it provides the perfect 911 hit. For any kind of commuting or indeed use on roads that are anything else but billiard table smooth, they're somewhat hard work.

But having gone from a well fettled Mk1 996 GT3, I expected the GT3RS to be a quantum leap forward, and if I'm honest, peerless, with exemplary road manners. That it wasn't (from my perspective) left me a little perplexed and somewhat surprised. Thus when I read that others think they're the finest iteration of the 996 GT3 produced, my bewilderment only increases further (though I have to say my bewilderment is reduced when I read that plenty share my sentiments)

[Slippydiff]

keep it lit said:

Oi, naff off you, near Cup spec cars don't count
Added to which, you're one of the few around who think driving on the road with in excess of 4 degrees neg camber on the front wheels is "normal"

Evening Ade

[Slippydiff]

Steve Rance said:

Ha! Slippy. I wouldn't call it much maligned at all. Almost everyone that I know who's driven one were blown away by it. Each to his own and all that. That includes the journo's that actually understand what they are doing in a car.

I think that it's one of the best Porsche 911's ever built.

It doesn't suffer from any bumpsteer, the springing and damping are well judged - some would say soft by current standards, and it is extremely forgiving.

Frankly, driven at mincing road speeds I'd be amazed how anyone could get themselves into any trouble in one!

Slippy said:

I totally "get" that we're all different, and indeed that one mans "too stiff, too flighty and follows cambers" is another mans "rawest/best water-cooled drive available".

Evening Steve !

Yep, I've already covered that base with the above specially for you ^

I struggle to believe that this is purely a set up issue, or indeed that so many of the these cars are that poorly set up ?
As I've said on here previously, I'd genuinely like to try a properly set up (within factory specs) car with accurately adjusted ride heights, corner weights and geo along with fresh dampers and new tyres. Does anyone on here have such a car (as in all honesty I'd happily settle for pax ride along a suitable section of testing A or B road in such a car)

[Slippydiff]

LaSource said:

You are on slippy...come on down.
Pax ride awaits...

You sir, are a scholar. I'll look forward to it. Will PM you

[Slippydiff]

jackal said:

Drove one on kw and it was awful, all over the shop.

Drove a standard one and it was really nice. Not as fluid and well mannered as my mk1 but still real sweet and no big deal.

Come on Rich "Not as fluid and well mannered as my Mk1" tells us everything, but nothing. Neither does your experience of a similar car on KW's.
Your car on KW's was hopeless (though a massive part of that was down to the round black things being as old as the Ark) whereas my Manthey car on shot Cups and KW's was impressive compared to my RS (see my OP) albeit not a patch on the Ohlins.

[Slippydiff]

stefan1 said:

I've owned my RS for about 5 years; before that I had a 996 Mk2. I did about 30,000 in the Mk2, and now 13,000 miles in the RS.

My RS was completely stock when I bought it. On the road, it was better out of the box than the stock Mk2; sweeter steering (thanks to those revised geometry pick up points); lovely tactile handling and very throttle adjustable (and I don't mean when sliding - the front end would push on or tuck in mid corner as you applied / removed gas).

On track (mainly at the Ring where I used to race 996 / 7 GT3 Cup cars in the VLN) the OEM dampers were a bit too soft, but with a good geo it was excellent.

The car now has Manthey KWs, Manthey brakes (replacing the PCCBs), revised aero but stock engine. On the road it is actually rather fantastic. It is, of course, stiff, but the front end is sensationally pointy and provided I am sensible over the bumpy bits I can make good progress. Indeed on a recent run between Nurburg and Cochem, which is very fast section of road with smooth tarmac, the car was incredible.

On track (recently at DN10) it was perfection (thanks to Manthey's spot on set up). A much more experienced friend drove the car at race pace and the combination of accurate steering, no understeer (if you drive it properly) and huge traction was amazing.

So in both stock and modified form it is, for me, one of the best cars I have ever driven on road and track. But then I am biased. I love the challenge of driving 911s and the GT3s are without doubt, in my view, the best of that breed. And I enjoy the 996 above all other GT3s (including my 4.0). It's not necessarily better; it's just more fun, more engaging. And I love the fact that you have to really rev the engine to get the most out of it. A high water mark for analogue cars.

Cheers

High praise indeed for the 996.
A superb (not to mention constructive) summation Stefan.
But let's dig a little further, specifically this bit :

stefan1 said:

It is, of course, stiff, but the front end is sensationally pointy and provided I am sensible over the bumpy bits I can make good progress.

My experience of the Manthey KW's on my Mk1 leads me to believe that whilst they're stiffer than the standard Mk1 spring/damper rates, they're not as stiff as the standard RS rates.

That you find them stiff, and you have to be in your words "sensible over the bumpy bits" leaves me thinking that yes, the standard RS rates maybe a tad on the soft side for track use, but a bit like the 964 RS before it,they're "less than optimal" on anything other than billiard table smooth roads. That's certainly my experience. That Mike at Sports and Classic reported the KW suspended version he drove as being superb, only adds further credence to my theory the KW's front spring rates are softer than the OE RS items (as I believe the front springs in their 996 GT2 kits are too) or certainly they're progressive springs and the initial rate is softer.

[Slippydiff]

LaSource said:

+1
Agree with so much of what you say there
It is particularly interesting when one does compare with the 4.0...both amazing, yet each has its own place. Perhaps surprisingly, I think I would find the 4.0 easier to get rid of then the 996 RS

Slippy, there is so much that could be said here but trying to keep it brief

First of all, I think you are asking the wrong question. If you put is as 'is this a good car or a bad car' question, you end up getting opposing views from each camp.
Everyone's needs, uses, roads, experience, desires, other cars in the household, etc, are so different that the answer is always personally loaded.
Plus as we know, there is so much adjustability in these cars added to which they are so so sensitive to each degree of adjustment, that no two cars are quite the same.
Therefore one of the joys in my view is to hone the car to your own particular needs over time....yes this usually means that those that spend more time on this, perhaps use it a little on track as well, will extract greater pleasure. Those that just jump in and drive around (perhaps with someone else's setup) may find it unrewarding.
In addition, I think not every car is running in tip top condition - are the dampers in good nick? Is the rear diff optimum? Are the tyres 'round' (I've had silly handling issues from two sets of used rubber only to be cured by a brand new set of tyres)? Is the engine working optimally (I had one car with a malfunctioning cam actuator..it was losing around 40/50 bhp...difficult to detect but takes away the sharp edge from the engine).
Stefan1's description of adjustability on the throttle (push/tuck in/rotation) only happens with a well functioning diff..ideally the more aggressive cup plates
I personally find alien reports of 'it threw me off the road' 'sniffs every camber' etc...but I cannot tell if they are due to other people's duff cars (e.g. setup) or something missing in driving ability (unlikely)

So, I think you need to consider it not as good/bad, but as what space it fills in the ownership experience.

- Old school analogue feel in a more modern and reliable package
- More analogue than the later variants....if you jump out of a big 997.2 RS into a svelte 996 RS the levels of connectivity and feel go up the scale (I've got both so not a biased opinion)
- Drive to a euro circuit, round all day, and back home without skipping a beat
- Heritage linking back to the 1999 LM GT1 and earlier race cars (yes, I know, all pre 991 GT3s share this)
- The first GT3 RS
- The closest RS to the race car of the time
- I found my second 996 RS (fresh dampers, a strong engine) easier to drive on the road than my first 996 GT3 mk2 (Parr stage 1 geo)
- Its an RS!...love the RS bits - carbon fibre bonnet, plastic windows, carbon spoiler, etc
- I can't put this into words, but even driving on fast A roads, sweeping bends, its like you are dancing on your toes...it reminds me of the old clint eastwood film 'firefox' where he is controlling the plane with his thoughts...I feel I can communicate with the car and it with me across so many interfaces (hands, bum, feet, pedals, etc)...and it translates your inputs almost immediately.
- yes, it skips around a little, the steering is fighting under your loose grip...but you need to learn to trust those steering movements and learn to read which ones are just 'road feedback' and which one need some corrective input...especially when you start to push on.
- I feel I can tell the car is slightly lighter on its toes than the standard 996 GT3 (which I also have) especially when the ceramic discs are on too...its a small difference...but noticeable.
- you can just sense that it is something special...in my view destined to be special in the future...that is just personal opinion

Some of us have been lucky to try it on a track and understand what it does and how it does it...yes, that is likely to reduce as the values go up.
Mine is now basically a garage queen..it is almost like a piece of art, a piece of automotive history (a bit sad that)...but each time I look at it, I 'know' what it is capable of...and funnily enough I do not need to spank it round a track to remind myself of it. It is like owning a 240mph Veyron...not many owners have been near 200mph with it...but they know it can and therefore love it for what it can do.

Of course, if it is your only sports car (in additional to the daily driver), then it may not fill all the usage boxes (i.e. take the girlfriend to a nice restaurant and park outside)..if you never take it to a track or have done in the past then you may wonder what the fuss was about...if you have not nurtured the setup you may never bond with it...etc

Also, lets be honest, the values debate is part of the charm...I like the fact that almost with all 996 GT3/RSs you can own them, drive them, and then sell them for more than you paid for them...I've done this for the last 6 years and it continues to be the case (yes, ignore the maintenance costs because if you get too hooked to the 'nurturing' game then its man maths time!)

Finally, at some point, I may need to let go of one of my Porsches to free up some capital. I will at some time put up a thread asking 'if you had to sell a 4.0 or a 996 RS, which one would it be?'...because right now, the head may say keep the 4.0 but the heart does not agree

Sorry...that was the brief version!

No need to apologise, it's cracking post !
I suspect we could spend a very long night in the pub discussing all the above......
But in essence I agree with pretty much everything in your post. It appears we share the same ownership philosophy and have arrived at the conclusions, all be it mine have been based solely on road usage, whereas you
and others have served your time on track too. Some (many) will maintain that's where these cars really shine. I'm not in complete agreement with that, as whilst flawed for many as a road car, I tend to view that as their primary raison d'être, and when it comes to providing a blend of practicality, durability, tactility & engagement in a road car, I tend to think the RS & GT models have NO peers.
Thank you too for posting in an unpatronising manner, I may be considered by some to be "only an enthusiast" (aren't we all ?) because I've not raced or served my time on track, but I suspect that in the last twelve or so years, I've spent more time behind the wheels of a greater number of water and arircooled GT/RS cars than many. I've also owned them, which I again suspect makes me better qualified than some individuals to comment on them and their road manners ! !

Interesting comments on the KW spring rates, they mirror and confirm exactly what I felt through the seat of my pants. And whilst a reduction of 5 n/mm sounds nothing, it makes a massive difference to how the front end of a 911 behaves over bumpy Tarmac.

Edited by Slippydiff on Thursday 17th July 09:00

[Slippydiff]

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.

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 .........