The seemingly oft maligned 996 GT3 RS ........ - Page 5 - 911/Carrera GT - PistonHeads UK

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

Apolo will soon be along to get you off the fence,one side or the other

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...

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.

I once drove a 360 CS and a LP 640 around a track...I found the CS a bit so and so...whilst I preferred the manual and possibly agricultural LP 640....I am sure another driver may have taken a different take. More response to your question later...

I owned a CS and found it much more exciting and thrilling than the RS. I have had a few Porsches so am no porscheophile... I understand were made in limited numbers, but prices getting a little silly.

Great topic!.I cannot own a 6RS my side of the pond but have been tempted to keep one in Europe. Mainly as a track car, but I am very interested in peoples' conclusions here as to how practical it is on the road.

Interesting thread. I've not driven a 996rs so have no experience to share. 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

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)

[Image-only or quote-only post; no author-written text.] http://thumbsnap.com/sc/8PtCEmdK.jpg

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

Had an RS from new, I'd go along with the poor road car vibe. I had mine set up by Parr for fast road/track after a few months, but both before that and after it was a pain to drive on the road, constantly needing correction. Tracked it quite a bit, and thought it was great, one glorious powerslide at Bedford on fairly worn tyres followed by a massive tankslapper a lap later. However, I'd say it was a pretty special car notwithstanding the road manners.

Beaver said: Had an RS from new, I'd go along with the poor road car vibe. I had mine set up by Parr for fast road/track after a few months, but both before that and after it was a pain to drive on the road, constantly needing correction. Tracked it quite a bit, and thought it was great, one glorious powerslide at Bedford on fairly worn tyres followed by a massive tankslapper a lap later. However, I'd say it was a pretty special car notwithstanding the road manners. Totally agreed and identical to mine but as u say it's not a daily driver. On track great but too much of a risk to track them now given cost of damage

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!

Slippydiff 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 H they (all 996 GT3) are suspect road cars in any guise tbh.. the more you make them track biased the more you exaggerate this matter... they are road going race cars and belong really on the track and in this their home environment they really shine!"

Absolutely Old Fruit. They are not and should not be regarded as daily drivers. To expect such a thing is frankly missing the point

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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

Nicely put Stefan. I have nothing to add to this thread, having never driven a one, but I'm enjoying the different views. I've mentioned a few times on here that the 996RS has been my dream 911 since its release. I doubt I'll ever own one now due to the prices and the fact my mk1 offers 90% of the experience for 50% of the cost, but I still enjoy the chit chat around them and they are a special 911.

Slippydiff said: 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. Apologies, i should have been clearer H. First car was bad because of the geo, rather than the kw. At least thats the way i read it. Edited by jackal on Thursday 17th July 00:03

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.

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 +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! Edited by LaSource on Thursday 17th July 00:56 Edited by LaSource on Thursday 17th July 00:58

This is a superb thread ,no posturing,just lots of really good balanced information. I am grateful to those with experience and knowledge of this model for being able to describe it in more detail than I have previously seen.

Slippydiff said: 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. KWv3s are 40N/mm front (same as stock 996.2 GT3, RS is 45N/mm), rear are 170N/mm (996.2 stock is 95N/mm, RS is the same). All linear springs. Not sure if the Mantheys have different springs or valving. 996.1 is 35/65.

what do people call road speeds, legal speeds or real speeds ? My car was set up as soft as I could get away with, but you could not do the fosse way at 120mph which is still in 3rd gear ! :-) And I still put it more down to the ARB's and not the dampers, any thing but full soft on the front ARB will have you in a ditch at speed on a bumpy B road. I guess on track the dampers and springs will feel too soft, and there are no bumps to upset the ARB's and steering. ie doing the A43 was no issue at speed. but who wants to drive a GT3 on A roads ?

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

I have had only a brief spell in a 996 GT3 RS after expressing an interest in one of the two that were for sale in circa 2010/11. Paragon kindly offered me a test drive. Whilst obviously not at full pelt in the rural roads of Sussex I enjoyed the experience. It certainly did not bounce me around anymore than my straight 996 GT3. Again it depends what you want or expect but the raw feeling and close contact with everything on the road is what does it for me. Anyone who has ever driven the road from Monschau to Eupen (Monschauer Strasse N67/L214) through the Eifel Region in a 996 GT3 at full pelt will realize that experience. Until fairly recently it was concrete blocks covered in potholes with crests and dips along the 5 mile straight. In the last twelve months it has been covered in tarmac. I put the bad experience with GT3/RS into the same box as those that complain of hard drives (suspension as opposed to effort) and descriptions of the tiring effort with a hard clutch pedal. It is not for everyone. Hard work when driving is part of the enjoyment for me at least. Pip Ps as for this (below) it is surely a difficult one especially as the prices of both are so far apart that this will throw in the question of how much you need to realise. On top of that it limits peoples opinions mainly to those who have driven/owned a RS 4.0 not solely of course but.... LaSource said: 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! Edited by LaSource on Thursday 17th July 00:56 Edited by LaSource on Thursday 17th July 00:58

Slippydiff said: 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) I think that this is the nub of it to be honest. The GT3 in it's 996 form was a dumbed down race car. Far more extreme that previous RS models. I think that this gave porsche the green light to produce an uber extreme version of the car for the RS version - which it did. Based on this , there was only one way for Porsche to go which was to build the car even closer to the 996 Cup which was effectively the 'doner' car for the GT3 range. Like any race car, the closer you drive it to it's performance envelope - 9-10/10ths, the more it will reward. I suppose that based on this, your argument that standard GT3's having 'better' road manners has merit. It is only a matter of degree as all of the 996 GT3 range was extreme and needs to be viewd as such when driving on the road. The RS was just a more extreme version of an already very extreme range. In answer to your question Slippy, i've probably driven 10-15K road miles in various 996RS's in different states of set up from standard to full race. Never had a problem, always lovely and benign on the road. No 'bouncing' or scary waywardness at all. What I would say is that the 20+K Road miles that I travelled in my MK1 (wish i'd never sold it) were slightly more compliant and comfortable. The difference was that the RS always felt far more connected and responsive. One thing that may be a factor in our relative experiences is that All of the cars that I drove on the road had well developed set ups which worked and had a good balance. Well i though so because I set them up! I havnt driven any (dont think) on the road that had other set ups on them. I have - however driven pleny of cars on the circuit with horrible set ups applied by tuners that didn't know what they were doing. These cars are VERY sensitive to geo changes and there was a tendancy to apply more rake to GT3's to improve turn in. This was NOT a good plan at all and would make cars VERY nervous on the road. The car already had good turn in. More rake made the car horrible. maybe this was the issue with your car. All of the 6 GT3's are in my opinion extremely special. If you want a road compliant version and had little intention of track driving then I'd go for a Gen1. If you want a genuine GT race car experience for the road then the 6RS has absolutely no pier. I believe it to be the pinacle of the genuine modern (relatively) GT road/race car and falls into a very small and exclusive category which includes the 250GTO, 288GTO, D, Type, C type, F40. These are the cars by which the 6RS should be judged and in this company, it more than holds it's own. Considering that you are buying into that experience with the provenance of being based on one of the most the most successful sports racing cars of all time, the 6RS is an absolute bargain never to be repeated. The D type and the F40 have far worse road manners than the RS ( lucky enough to have driven them ) but they all bring a thrill to driving on the road that is so rare that it's almost priceless. Get them on the track and it gets even better. So to get to your point. No, the 6RS is not a better road car than other 6GT3's but it offers something far rarer to the decerning driver Edited by Steve Rance on Thursday 17th July 10:56 Edited by Steve Rance on Thursday 17th July 11:05

RDMcG said: This is a superb thread ,no posturing,just lots of really good balanced information. I am grateful to those with experience and knowledge of this model for being able to describe it in more detail than I have previously seen. ^^, +1 Steve Rance said: All of the 6 GT3's are in my opinion extremely special. If you want a road compliant version and had little intention of track driving then I'd go for a Gen1. If you want a genuine GT race car experience for the road then the 6RS has absolutely no pier. I believe it to be the pinacle of the genuine modern (relatively) GT road/race car and falls into a very small and exclusive category which includes the 250GTO, 288GTO, D, Type, C type, F40. These are the cars by which the 6RS should be judged and in this company, it more than holds it's own. If I could ask a potentially slightly out of topic question here - how does the driving experience of a CGT compare to the 6RS? The CGT for me was by far the most 'race-car' feeling road car I had ever been lucky enough to drive (infinitely more than the 7 gt3s) and if the 6RS can offer something like that, at 1/3rd the cost of a CGT with far lower maintenance costs, it's got to be a steal!

Two comments caught my eye above: First - absolutely agree that having a Cup rear diff improves the car; the standard diff wears out quite quickly. Second - I strongly agree with Steve; the harder these cars are driven, the more they reward. And I'd go further - this is car to learn in and develop one's skills. The better you are as a driver, the more you can get from the GT3 (RS or not). I am still firmly in the learning phase - and that's a bit part of the fun. Few cars reward this learning process as richly.

Pip1968 said: I have had only a brief spell in a 996 GT3 RS after expressing an interest in one of the two that were for sale in circa 2010/11. Paragon kindly offered me a test drive. Whilst obviously not at full pelt in the rural roads of Sussex I enjoyed the experience. It certainly did not bounce me around anymore than my straight 996 GT3. Again it depends what you want or expect but the raw feeling and close contact with everything on the road is what does it for me. Anyone who has ever driven the road from Monschau to Eupen (Monschauer Strasse N67/L214) through the Eifel Region in a 996 GT3 at full pelt will realize that experience. Until fairly recently it was concrete blocks covered in potholes with crests and dips along the 5 mile straight. In the last twelve months it has been covered in tarmac. I put the bad experience with GT3/RS into the same box as those that complain of hard drives (suspension as opposed to effort) and descriptions of the tiring effort with a hard clutch pedal. It is not for everyone. Hard work when driving is part of the enjoyment for me at least. Pip Ps as for this (below) it is surely a difficult one especially as the prices of both are so far apart that this will throw in the question of how much you need to realise. On top of that it limits peoples opinions mainly to those who have driven/owned a RS 4.0 not solely of course but.... LaSource said: 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! I know what you mean! The roads in the Eifel region are relatively smooth with great sight lines...perfect playground for these cars! My final point on 996RS vs 4.0RS is perhaps more loaded towards future appreciation then it is towards driving experience...which I think more people can have a view on then just owners...but I see your point. Edited by LaSource on Thursday 17th July 11:23

isaldiri said: If I could ask a potentially slightly out of topic question here - how does the driving experience of a CGT compare to the 6RS? The CGT for me was by far the most 'race-car' feeling road car I had ever been lucky enough to drive (infinitely more than the 7 gt3s) and if the 6RS can offer something like that, at 1/3rd the cost of a CGT with far lower maintenance costs, it's got to be a steal! I drove a CGT at Lemans Bugatti shortly after it's launch. To me, it was a car that had been developed beyond the tyre technology of the time and felt a little gripless as a result. Wonderful chasis but more of a sports prototype feel than a GT car. Equally as impressive in this context as the 6RS. Quite amazing on current technology tyres I would imagine. However, like the 6RS, it provides huge amounts of feel through it's chasis for the driver to act upon but ultimately relies on the driver to provide all of the primary inputs. Fantastic drivers car

isaldiri said: If I could ask a potentially slightly out of topic question here - how does the driving experience of a CGT compare to the 6RS? The CGT for me was by far the most 'race-car' feeling road car I had ever been lucky enough to drive (infinitely more than the 7 gt3s) and if the 6RS can offer something like that, at 1/3rd the cost of a CGT with far lower maintenance costs, it's got to be a steal! The 6 is a bit closer to the CGT than a 7, but only a bit. The controls on the CGT, as you already know, are more precise, and obviously the balance of the cars is different.

stefan1 said: And I'd go further - this is car to learn in and develop one's skills. The better you are as a driver, the more you can get from the GT3 (RS or not). I am still firmly in the learning phase - and that's a bit part of the fun. Few cars reward this learning process as richly. Excellent thread, agree with Stefan that this is the great deep end to learn & learn so well. But therein is also the issue - the entry cost is now so high that this facility is not available to most ( sorry value content in that post ). Not instant gratification (and why so many misunderstand ) but long term reverence if you persist - and you are a reasonably good driver.

Mermaid said: stefan1 said: And I'd go further - this is car to learn in and develop one's skills. The better you are as a driver, the more you can get from the GT3 (RS or not). I am still firmly in the learning phase - and that's a bit part of the fun. Few cars reward this learning process as richly. Excellent thread, agree with Stefan that this is the great deep end to learn & learn so well. But therein is also the issue - the entry cost is now so high that this facility is not available to most ( sorry value content in that post ). Not instant gratification (and why so many misunderstand ) but long term reverence if you persist - and you are a reasonably good driver. That's why the real sleeper is the 996 GT3

LaSource said: That's why the real sleeper is the 996 GT3 The MK2 is a real bargain

Steve Rance said: isaldiri said: If I could ask a potentially slightly out of topic question here - how does the driving experience of a CGT compare to the 6RS? The CGT for me was by far the most 'race-car' feeling road car I had ever been lucky enough to drive (infinitely more than the 7 gt3s) and if the 6RS can offer something like that, at 1/3rd the cost of a CGT with far lower maintenance costs, it's got to be a steal! I drove a CGT at Lemans Bugatti shortly after it's launch. To me, it was a car that had been developed beyond the tyre technology of the time and felt a little gripless as a result. Wonderful chasis but more of a sports prototype feel than a GT car. Equally as impressive in this context as the 6RS. Quite amazing on current technology tyres I would imagine. However, like the 6RS, it provides huge amounts of feel through it's chasis for the driver to act upon but ultimately relies on the driver to provide all of the primary inputs. Fantastic drivers car +1. As noted above, the CGT's balance is very different. And it is even closer to a race car for the road; the engine in particular with almost no flywheel effect is like a scalpel (and means matching revs on gear changes is a real challenge). It has the best brake pedal feel of any car (bar a 959) that I've driven (makes me wonder why Porsche now over servo ceramic brakes). But what's the same is the DNA. That sense of being a massively over engineered car (Mezger flat six; Le Mans developed V10 with 9 oil scavenge pumps!); the fact that there are no electronic aids (I am ignoring the billy basic TC in the CGT); the challenge to drive it well; exceptionally well balanced and weighted controls; a complete lack of "flash" - form follows function. I could go on, but you get the picture. P.S. I agree the CGT was under-tyred at launch. On Supersports, the tyres have finally caught up with what the car can do.

thanks chaps for the replies on the CGT/6RS, much appreciated for that.

stefan1 said: Two comments caught my eye above: First - absolutely agree that having a Cup rear diff improves the car; the standard diff wears out quite quickly. Second - I strongly agree with Steve; the harder these cars are driven, the more they reward. And I'd go further - this is car to learn in and develop one's skills. The better you are as a driver, the more you can get from the GT3 (RS or not). I am still firmly in the learning phase - and that's a big part of the fun. Few cars reward this learning process as richly. Also, the diff plates need to be properly measured and shimmed...not everyone does that. NineExcellence sorted mine out...superb result. I also wanted to highlight Steve's second point. This is what it is all about! When I previously mentioned honing the car to your need...I badly omitted the point above. It is about you and the car together: - How to drive a rear engined car - How to mange the weight transfer - Using a data logger to get a baseline of yourself and the car on a particular track and coming back the year after and seeing are you getting better, is the car performing ok, etc. - Changing a few choice components - brakes, geo, suspension (there has been some chat on this thread and the other one about spring rates, etc...well change them if you want something different) - Much of the above is common across all the 996 GT3s...I personally felt my development massively accelerated after I got my first 996 RS. Before that I had a 996 GT3 in which I was not really there. Whereas the 996 RS felt a lot more adjustable nearer the limit with better two way communication. BTW, my starting point was the same as any petrol enthusiast here...no track/race/competition training etc. Though I have subsequently taken some tuition every now and then. I do not believe there are very many 'track slags' around. Frankly the car will too heavy on consumables for 10 track days a year...and unless you are unemployed or living off a lottery fund, you will not have that much free time over and above family holidays, etc. I think the most anyone will do is say 4-5 days over a summer...and then they get over maintained as a result...and they can take that kind of load.

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. Edited by LaSource on Thursday 17th July 12:27

Slippydiff said: 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. Reminds me of the 996GT2 press comments when launched, another potentially misunderstood version of the 996.

unclepezza said: Reminds me of the 996GT2 press comments when launched, another potentially misunderstood version of the 996. Very good car.

d41d8cd9 said: KWv3s are 40N/mm front (same as stock 996.2 GT3, RS is 45N/mm), rear are 170N/mm (996.2 stock is 95N/mm, RS is the same). All linear springs. Not sure if the Mantheys have different springs or valving. 996.1 is 35/65. It is interesting to see these spring rates, firstly because the RS is so little different to the non-RS and secondly, the dramatically higher rate used on the rear for KWs. 35 / 65 - 996.1 40 / 95 - 996.2 45 / 95 - 996.2RS 40 / 170 - KWv3 Are KWs unusual among the typical GT3 options with spring rates that high?

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 .........

Steve Rance said: unclepezza said: Reminds me of the 996GT2 press comments when launched, another potentially misunderstood version of the 996. Very good car. Enjoyed that for a short while- now that is a great road car for a petrolhead, good stablemate to the 6RS.

braddo said: It is interesting to see these spring rates, firstly because the RS is so little different to the non-RS and secondly, the dramatically higher rate used on the rear for KWs. 35 / 65 - 996.1 40 / 95 - 996.2 45 / 95 - 996.2RS 40 / 170 - KWv3 Are KWs unusual among the typical GT3 options with spring rates that high? I just installed and did a trackday with KW's (thanks Ade!) Front main spring is actually 60Nm, rears were 170Nm. To my liking it was too oversteery so I put 120Nm rears from my old set up in there. So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear.

JarmoL said: I just installed and did a trackday with KW's (thanks Ade!) Front main spring is actually 60Nm, rears were 170Nm. To my liking it was too oversteery so I put 120Nm rears from my old set up in there. So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear. Where'd you get the 60N/mm number from? Was that regular KWv3s (my numbers) or the Manthey versions? The regular KW v3s are listed as 40-170 front, 170-170 rear, where the second 170 is the spring length in mm; see http://docs.kwsuspension.de/ea-KWGFwEA-h68671007.p... The Manthey's may be different, or it's possible an older version of the v3s used different front springs. Edited by d41d8cd9 on Thursday 17th July 22:10

JarmoL said: braddo said: It is interesting to see these spring rates, firstly because the RS is so little different to the non-RS and secondly, the dramatically higher rate used on the rear for KWs. 35 / 65 - 996.1 40 / 95 - 996.2 45 / 95 - 996.2RS 40 / 170 - KWv3 Are KWs unusual among the typical GT3 options with spring rates that high? I just installed and did a trackday with KW's (thanks Ade!) Front main spring is actually 60Nm, rears were 170Nm. To my liking it was too oversteery so I put 120Nm rears from my old set up in there. So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear. Interesting. My 996.2 GT3 is running dual springs: Front: 80 main / 40 helper Rear: 140 main / 60 helper I love the way it drives...though it would appear a lot stiffer at the front compared to the list above Quite easy to drive on the road though...perhaps closer to the 996.1 for small bumps/dips (not sure the maths works that way)

d41d8cd9 said: Where'd you get the 60N/mm number from? Was that regular KWv3s (my numbers) or the Manthey versions? The regular KW v3s are listed as 40-170 front, 170-170 rear, where the second 170 is the spring length in mm; see http://docs.kwsuspension.de/ea-KWGFwEA-h68671007.p... The Manthey's may be different, or it's possible an older version of the v3s used different front springs. Edited by d41d8cd9 on Thursday 17th July 22:10 I bought this KW Clubsport set up from Ade. He said is has Manthey spec. Anyway the numbers are correct for this set up, those are stamped on the springs. And I have helper springs as well of course, 60Nm from memory. Those are fully compressed when the car is stationary so they just keep the main springs seated if catching air. Sorry for OT btw. But yes, the ride comfort is better with KW's compared to original Bilsteins even if the springs are stiffer.

Slippydiff said: 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. At the price this one is at and the very low mileage LHD example, this is a serious consideration for me. I like to drive my cars not look at them through the garage doors. Any small bit of damage that could mean a single replacement panel or a touch of paint and you've wiped off most of its value.

JarmoL said: So Yes, I would say KW set up has unusually big difference between front and rear. Same goes for the 993 kit ... just doesn't make sense and more importantly, doesn't work. Once had an argumnet with the chap at KW about it and what their resaoning was and all he could say was the proof was in the driving and i told him, yeah, my car on your kit drives crap. Proof indeed. Edited by jackal on Friday 18th July 10:47

Sexual Chocolate said: At the price this one is at and the very low mileage LHD example, this is a serious consideration for me. I like to drive my cars not look at them through the garage doors. Any small bit of damage that could mean a single replacement panel or a touch of paint and you've wiped off most of its value. Apart from some very top end unique examples (e.g. the 1000 miles one) where a significant premium on origionality is priced in, I do not think the cars are all that sensitive to a touch of paint, etc. These cars are now some 10 years old and getting older. All will have seen some use - and therefore required the odd stone chip spray, scuff mark, etc. Their value is in how they drive and therefore need to be in a good mechanical state, straight/unbent chassis, etc. Therefore if you use as intended (and as long as you do not crash it!) I dont think there is a material impact on value. Of course, in the situation where you buy a premium pristine car, have a major off which requires a significant rebuild...yes, you will lose value. But that goes for any car with such history.

Yep. A light shunt, front wing or PU etc should be fine. But a lot of cars had very major offs on the circuit and some on the road. These are the cars that will need a good look at but if repaired properly again should be fine in the long term.

jackal said: Once had an argumnet with the chap at KW about it and what their resaoning was and all he could say was the proof was in the driving and i told him, yeah, my car on your kit drives crap. Proof indeed. Fioran0 is also not a big fan. I suspect the Manthey variant must be quite different as my car drives incredibly well on them: close to Cup lap times, ceteris paribus (slicks, aero, weight).

LaSource said: Sexual Chocolate said: At the price this one is at and the very low mileage LHD example, this is a serious consideration for me. I like to drive my cars not look at them through the garage doors. Any small bit of damage that could mean a single replacement panel or a touch of paint and you've wiped off most of its value. Apart from some very top end unique examples (e.g. the 1000 miles one) where a significant premium on origionality is priced in, I do not think the cars are all that sensitive to a touch of paint, etc. These cars are now some 10 years old and getting older. All will have seen some use - and therefore required the odd stone chip spray, scuff mark, etc. Their value is in how they drive and therefore need to be in a good mechanical state, straight/unbent chassis, etc. Therefore if you use as intended (and as long as you do not crash it!) I dont think there is a material impact on value. Of course, in the situation where you buy a premium pristine car, have a major off which requires a significant rebuild...yes, you will lose value. But that goes for any car with such history. So you don't think they are becoming mileage sensitive like their Italian counterparts?

Sexual Chocolate said: So you don't think they are becoming mileage sensitive like their Italian counterparts? Well, it depends. So yes if you are buying today, a 1k miler is more expensive than a 20k miler which is more expensive than a 40k miler. Compared to the Italians, I think the sensitivity is less. i.e every 1k miles does not drop £5000 in quite the same way (Ignoring a freaky v low miles car). However, I think the usage penalty is almost nonexistent (again barring the 1k miler example). So say you buy a 20k miler today, use it for 5k miles a year ,and then tried to sell a 30k miler in two years...you will at worse get your money back. At best, it will have appreciated further. At least that has been my experience over the last 5/6 years. Of course, the last 12 months have seen a significant acceleration which I wont speculate whether it continues at the same pace - but it would appear you could now use it even more per year without a usage penalty. ...its as close as you can get to free motoring (man maths alert!)

This is an incredibly useful thread with very constructive and knowledgeable people. I am taking away the following: (1) Rewards very competent driving more than most cars. (2) Proper setup critical (3) Less useful as a road car than as a track car. I want one.

I couldn't let this thread pass without offering up my own experience. I owned a 996RS for two years purchased after a Mk 2 996 GT3. I live in Central London. I used it totally indiscriminately - on occasion, as a daily driver, to commute, to shop - couldn't care less. I've had quite a few Ferrari's since then (scuds, etc) and other exotica etc and driven cars like the CGT, F40, Enzo etc comprehensively (especially the former two). I've actually got a modified Scud (wheels, susp, exhaust) atm. However, for me the 6RS for me remains THE car. It had clearly been compromised (by that I mean sharpness taken away) on it's stock susp settings when I picked it up, but £500 + VAT at Parr for a geo transformed it. Regardless, the point is, it is easily the most engaging, and involving car I've EVER driven (alongside the CGT/F50) and, provided you know what you're doing behind the wheel (which I didn't/don't because I'm a 5h1t driver), it's actually forgiving. It requires understanding and then gradually as you figure it out, it becomes an utterly thrilling experience. Noise, control, the feeling YOU are driving the car, the mechanical transparency, the response, the performance... It's awesome. And I must say, in ethos,very much like the CGT. The problems the car has are simple: a) An unjust reputation for being too hard (it's softer on the road than my Mk2 GT3 was). OR maybe people are just using to driving much softer cars (like 430's 997 TTs etc) in which case their concerns are valid but what are they doing in an RS. b) People can't live with the pointy front end. They just don't know how to/don't want to, adjust their driving style to actually get the best from it. CGT needs the same steering wheel control might I add. c) People want instant, unrewarding, performance: Floor throttle, mash brake, turn in, floor throttle. Sorry, but the 996RS is so much more interesting than that.... It's about getting the best from you to access devastating on road performance which makes it a BRILLIANT long-term ownership proposition (that's why a CGT is just soo much more interesting than an Enzo). It's the last RS. After 6RS, Porsche started, iteratively and slowly, building cars around electronic inputs instead of driver inputs. That made for progressively faster and less rewarding cars.... I'm going to buy another one. Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Friday 18th July 16:01 Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Friday 18th July 16:02

Murcielago_Boy said: I couldn't let this thread pass without offering up my own experience. I owned a 996RS for two years purchased after a Mk 2 996 GT3. I live in Central London. I used it totally indiscriminately - on occasion, as a daily driver, to commute, to shop - couldn't care less. I've had quite a few Ferrari's since then (scuds, etc) and other exotica etc and driven cars like the CGT, F40, Enzo etc comprehensively (especially the former two). I've actually got a modified Scud (wheels, susp, exhaust) atm. However, for me the 6RS for me remains THE car. It had clearly been compromised (by that I mean sharpness taken away) on it's stock susp settings when I picked it up, but £500 + VAT at Parr for a geo transformed it. Regardless, the point is, it is easily the most engaging, and involving car I've EVER driven (alongside the CGT/F50) and, provided you know what you're doing behind the wheel (which I didn't/don't because I'm a 5h1t driver), it's actually forgiving. It requires understanding and then gradually as you figure it out, it becomes an utterly thrilling experience. Noise, control, the feeling YOU are driving the car, the mechanical transparency, the response, the performance... It's awesome. And I must say, in ethos,very much like the CGT. Dear Boy! I wondered how long it would be before you bought another one.. The problems the car has are simple: a) An unjust reputation for being too hard (it's softer on the road than my Mk2 GT3 was). OR maybe people are just using to driving much softer cars (like 430's 997 TTs etc) in which case their concerns are valid but what are they doing in an RS. b) People can't live with the pointy front end. They just don't know how to/don't want to, adjust their driving style to actually get the best from it. CGT needs the same steering wheel control might I add. c) People want instant, unrewarding, performance: Floor throttle, mash brake, turn in, floor throttle. Sorry, but the 996RS is so much more interesting than that.... It's about getting the best from you to access devastating on road performance which makes it a BRILLIANT long-term ownership proposition (that's why a CGT is just soo much more interesting than an Enzo). It's the last RS. After 6RS, Porsche started, iteratively and slowly, building cars around electronic inputs instead of driver inputs. That made for progressively faster and less rewarding cars.... I'm going to buy another one. Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Friday 18th July 16:01 Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Friday 18th July 16:02

Murcielago_Boy said: I couldn't let this thread pass without offering up my own experience. I owned a 996RS for two years purchased after a Mk 2 996 GT3. I live in Central London. I used it totally indiscriminately - on occasion, as a daily driver, to commute, to shop - couldn't care less. I've had quite a few Ferrari's since then (scuds, etc) and other exotica etc and driven cars like the CGT, F40, Enzo etc comprehensively (especially the former two). I've actually got a modified Scud (wheels, susp, exhaust) atm. However, for me the 6RS for me remains THE car. Amen. I'm obviously biased but I also think that the Mk1 is similarly special. What it gives up in the last degree of sharpness and connectedness to the RS it makes up for by way of an overall homogenity or rightness in the sum of all its parts. It's fluidity and suppleness is its trump card and it plays that card whilst still retaining a very bespoke, special, racecar-derived feel.

JarmoL said: I bought this KW Clubsport set up from Ade. He said is has Manthey spec. Anyway the numbers are correct for this set up, those are stamped on the springs. And I have helper springs as well of course, 60Nm from memory. Those are fully compressed when the car is stationary so they just keep the main springs seated if catching air. Sorry for OT btw. But yes, the ride comfort is better with KW's compared to original Bilsteins even if the springs are stiffer. Ah, Clubsports. Interesting, the non-Manthey version have 80N/mm front springs. Thanks for the response, been trying to find info on the Manthey bits for a while!

jackal said: Amen. I'm obviously biased but I also think that the Mk1 is similarly special. What it gives up in the last degree of sharpness and connectedness to the RS it makes up for by way of an overall homogenity or rightness in the sum of all its parts. It's fluidity and suppleness is its trump card and it plays that card whilst still retaining a very bespoke, special, racecar-derived feel. I think that all 6GT3's are special. I regret selling my MK1. Wonderful car

Slippydiff said: 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 ......... Sounds like you need to throw a seriously well sorted "road going" 996 GT2 into the mix just for reference of course;-) ..... I've never driven an RS, would love to. If it's like the GT2 then a softer front / stiffer rear spring rate will help. Although the progressives from my Exe-tc managed GT2 work well. The shriek of the N/A engine is quite appealing and I think the RS looks immense.

Just to add in a little of my musings while I sit in an airport lounge.. I ( along with my wife) took a 3,300 mile road trip in a 996.2 GT3 with RS wing and a bunch of upgrades (mono balls etc) running on 80N/mm, 120N/mm spring rates (and adjustable shocks). We drove over a mixture of road types and surfaces, many of which were far from perfect and in all sorts of weather (Desert with 115degF+ temp, dirt tracks, rain and hail storms etc) on PS2 tyres and the car was never short of impeccable. Geo/ride height was setup to what would most definitely be called "track". I would call it "in the window". A cage and bucket seats did nothing to reduce the enjoyment of the journey and remained comfortable throughout. Fitting a cooler into the back of the car each day remained a faff but can hardly be considered a negative. The only issue on the whole trip was hitting a coyote that had already been hit by a truck partially knocked off the splitter and I had to reattach it before continuing the next morning (and enjoying a lovely coyote bio-juice soup all over my hands and arms in the process). This car was also used daily (though not the only car) and performed wonderfully in that use. The one caveat being scrapping the nose on steep entries once in a while would always provide an accompanying uncomfortable grimace. I struggle to think of a single car that is better to get into as a driver and can operate in this way. This car was not a track car in any respect, I had it set up simply to where it represented the most enjoyable drive. I only ever tracked it once and briefly. But then I have Cups and in that company on a track it was never going to satisfy. On a more general vein, and in perhaps more relevant fashion to this thread.. These cars are incredibly tuneable with respect to behaviour and as a result highly dependent on setup. Not only in order to operate properly (i.e. the correct basic geo) but also to work with driving style. I have to assume that those that find them anything other than sublime are either: A) totally in the wrong car (and thats fine but realise it rather than project blame to the GT3); or B) have a car that is poorly set up (and that means as much for them as it does having the correct fundamental settings). Too often I see cars that are setup on their nose and thus excruciatingly terrible to drive. You gain what feels like wonderful turn in but actually have a car with no rear grip when it really matters (and that is allowing for street cars which are generally better more on their nose than Cups are). It makes for a terrifying drive in my view and I certainly never enjoy any time in a GT3 set up this way. Others may of course love it this way. One can see where disappointment could arise if someone looking for one alternative found themselves in the other. This holds for all the 996 GT3 versions and I would wager a significant contributor to much of the discontent one hears from time to time. Reading Henrys post just screams that this is the case in his instance. I have never found a 996 RS any different from a regular car in terms of actual feel (apart from the rear wing downforce improvement which I have mentioned previously) but the additional presentation from the drivers seat certainly makes it feel that bit more of an event to be out in one. One also needs to remember that everyone comes to a car with differing expectations and experiences. I left my car above with someone for a week and upon returning was surprised to hear them suggest that it felt like an animal hunting out the road. They enjoyed it but it had been mixed with trepidation each time they drove and a lingering sense of being wary of it. A quick drive (admittedly because I assumed they had broken it in some fashion) revealed that it was still just fine and as benign as before, certainly no more aggressive than a regular C4 for example under general use. Their car history is very much made up of hatchbacks and SUVs with the resultant overload that any sports car would have brought. To hear them talk of their time with a GT3 would be to think of being tied on to a wild animal and just holding on for the ride, hardly representative and yet this was reality for them. My own personal view is that all of the 996 GT3s represent something very special in terms of sports cars. The later cars, while offering more performance and a wider envelope do not match the 996 varieties in terms of the drive. It is a car that offers many facets to a driver willing to learn coupled to a direct link with motorsport that seldom occurs and always creates something special. It is not a car that can be measured by a clock and those wishing to only mark them in this way are not only missing the point but heading very much for disappointment. This held when the car was new of course but it is something that is especially relevant today. One last thought on what has ended up a much longer post than I had intended. With the wick turned up just a bit one can have what must be in a very short list as one of the greatest drivers ever. Take a ferrari esque approach - dial up the specialness, knock back a touch of daily comfort but not enough to just handicap the whole thing and it is just sublime. This is the approach I was after with my project car. I could have easily built the same project using a 997 model (and for less overall outlay) or pushed the envelope on an air cooled car but the 996 represents a moment where many things came together in one of those rare moments of magic and it left it a simple decision. Edited by fioran0 on Sunday 20th July 15:48

C fioran0 said: Just to add in a little. I ( along with my wife) took a 3,300 mile road trip in a 996.2 GT3 with RS wing and a bunch of upgrades (mono balls etc) running on 80N/mm, 120N/mm spring rates (and adjustable shocks). We drove over a mixture of road types and surfaces, many of which were far from perfect and in all sorts of weather (Desert with 115degF+ temp, dirt tracks, rain and hail storms etc) on PS2 tyres and the car was never short of impeccable. Geo/ride height was setup to what would most definitely be called "track". I would call it "in the window". A cage and bucket seats did nothing to dampen the journey and remained comfortable throughout. Fitting a cooler into the back of the car each day remained a faff but can hardly be considered a negative. The only issue on the whole trip was that hitting a coyote that had already been hit by a truck partially knocked off the splitter and I had to reattach it before continuing the next morning (and enjoying a lovely coyote bio-juice soup all over my hands and arms in the process). This car was also used daily (though not the only car) and performed wonderfully in that use. The one caveat being scrapping the nose on steep entries once in a while would always provide an accompanying uncomfortable grimace. I struggle to think of a single car that is better to get into as a driver and can operate in this way. This car was not a track car in any respect, I had it set up simply to where it represented the most enjoyable drive. I only ever tracked it once and briefly. But then I have Cups and in that company on a track it was never going to satisfy. On a more general vein, and in perhaps more relevant fashion to this thread.. These cars are incredibly tuneable with respect to behaviour and as a result highly dependent on setup. Not only in order to operate properly (i.e. the correct basic geo) but also to work with driving style. I have to assume that those that find them anything other than sublime are either: A) totally in the wrong car (and thats fine but realise it rather than project blame to the GT3); or B) have a car that is poorly set up (and that means as much for them as it does having the correct fundamental settings). Too often I see cars that are setup on their nose and thus excruciatingly terrible to drive. You gain what feels like wonderful turn in but actually have a car with no rear grip when it really matters (and that is allowing for street cars which are generally better more on their nose than Cups are). It makes for a terrifying drive in my view and I certainly never enjoy any time in a GT3 set up this way. Others may of course love it this way. One can see where disappointment could arise if someone looking for one alternative found themselves in the other. This holds for all the 996 GT3 versions and I would wager a significant contributor to much of the discontent one hears from time to time. Reading Henrys post just screams that this is the case in his instance. I have never found a 996 RS any different from a regular car in terms of actual feel (apart from the rear wing downforce improvement which I have mentioned previously) but the additional presentation from the drivers seat certainly makes it feel that bit more of an event to be out in one. One also needs to remember that everyone comes to a car with differing expectations and experiences. I left my car above with someone for a week and upon returning was surprised to hear them suggest that it felt like an animal hunting out the road. They enjoyed it but it had been mixed with trepidation each time they drove and a lingering sense of being wary of it. A quick drive (admittedly because I assumed they had broken it in some fashion) revealed that it was still just fine and as benign as before, certainly no more aggressive than a regular C4 for example under general use. Their car history is very much made up of hatchbacks and SUVs with the resultant overload that any sports car would have brought. To hear them talk of their time with a GT3 would be to think of being tied on to a wild animal and just holding on for the ride, hardly representative and yet this was reality for them. My own personal view is that all of the 996 GT3s represent something very special in terms of sports cars. The later cars, while offering more performance and a wider envelope do not match the 996 varieties in terms of the drive. It is a car that offers many facets to a driver willing to learn coupled to a direct link with motorsport that seldom occurs and always creates something special. It is not a car that can be measured by a clock and those wishing to only mark them in this way are not only missing the point but heading very much for disappointment. This held when the car was new of course but it is something that is especially relevant today. One last thought on what has ended up a much longer post than I had intended. With the wick turned up just a bit one can have what must be in a very short list as one of the greatest drivers ever. Take a ferrari esque approach - dial up the specialness, knock back a touch of daily comfort but not enough to just handicap the whole thing and it is just sublime. This is the approach I was after with my project car. I could have easily built the same project using a 997 model (and for less overall outlay) or pushed the envelope on an air cooled car but the 996 represents a moment where many things came together in one of those rare moments of magic and it left it a simple decision. Nice post and excellent summation IMO. I'm sure it's by no coincidence that for a 'long good hard drive' my wife much prefers when I have chosen that we take the 6GT3RS - and this is from a middle aged woman who does not relish discomfort! The car has always come across superbly on the road to my mind and has never done a dis-service to itself in comparison to others.

In fewer words. Bought a 2004 GT3RS in 2007. Since then have done Monza track day x2 Imola track day x1 Spa track day x 7 Nurburgring Touristfahten and track days x 7 Budapest track day x 1 Anglesey track day x3 Donington track day x 4 Cadwell track day x1 Pau track day x 1 Mas de Clos track day x1 Various visits to Bergerac. All driven to and from. No trailers were used. So I guess its not a bad track car and Euro tourer.

Lovely. I do hope that you continue to use the Old Girl as the Chaps at Porsche intended Old Boy?! Now 'that the line them up and polish them all day' bregade have 'discovered' them, I fear that too few will be left in the hands of the 'drive fast and scare yourself stupid' contigent of our broard little church..

Dont be silly, collectors dont collect 'mongrels' remember ;-)

another unhelpful article in P911W this month banging on about rising values (£100k minimum now) and how they becoming too valuable to track, becoming collectors cars, blar blar. nonsense, off to Spa and the 'ring next weekend.

Steve Rance said: Lovely. I do hope that you continue to use the Old Girl as the Chaps at Porsche intended Old Boy?! Now 'that the line them up and polish them all day' bregade have 'discovered' them, I fear that too few will be left in the hands of the 'drive fast and scare yourself stupid' contigent of our broard little church.. Interestingly, my local tech who are currently doing a full engine rebuild suggested I leave the battlescars in place on my car (all of them picked up in racing): a wonky rear bumper, a crack in the carbon fibre on one of the fenders, a scratch here and there. They felt (as I do) that it was all part of the charm and provenance of the car. Providing there's nothing material to worry about (like evidence of rust), I kind of like the idea of as-new mechanicals underneath the patinated body. I hear the Classic Sports Car Club are now running a post-2000 production car race series. Very tempting.

seawise said: nonsense, off to Spa and the 'ring next weekend. You are a bad man!!! My new to me LHD 996.1 CS K400 and Cup everything else is still awaiting the paperwork from the DVLA in the garage, while the weather is perfect for getting lost on the one way toll road between Adenau and eerrr Adenau Shutting down the local office is nothing but a joke as I now have to rely on the Welsh...

seawise said: nonsense, off to Spa and the 'ring next weekend. Are you doing the RMA days at Spa?

LaSource said: Are you doing the RMA days at Spa? on Monday the 22nd, yes - touristfahrten @ Nordschiefe on sunday followed by a spot of lunch.

I have had the same car rejected twice by the DVLA because the muppet/s configured a o and an 0 wrongly and an s and a 5.. you couldnt make it up. This took five weeks to resolve because it wouldnt clear NOVA 1. In Germany my friend imports a car, takes it to the TUV, goes to the very local registry office and has the licence/ plate ready on the same fricking day. Our record is FIVE months for one car to be registered since DVLA local offices closed.....

seawise said: LaSource said: Are you doing the RMA days at Spa? on Monday the 22nd, yes - touristfahrten @ Nordschiefe on sunday followed by a spot of lunch. Ah - see you at Spa then I dont do touristfahrten...though you are making it sound interesting...

mischaRS said: Our record is FIVE months for one car to be registered since DVLA local offices closed..... Snap. 5 months to register my car.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqa6q95ayk8

that's odd, the link I clicked on bar a short intro was overlaid with loud dance trance music that I only recognise from my daughters bedroom when she's in a strop with me - some commentary and analysis would have been a bit better, than the dire dance muzak. also the 996 had some dodgy exhausts tips and the rear wing on the 997 gen1 appeared to have been borrowed from an Easyjet airbus.