68 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHis the 996 considered slow for today?
Reported or suspected cause
porsche brakes
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Reported cause
I remember that episode....C2 S vs M6 vs Vantage and it was the Porsche brakes that won the race.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
[Of course you could do the opposite thing at the other end, but generally you adjust the other end only when you run out of options at the end with the problem].
Leading evidence: 'porsche brakes' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'porsche brakes' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Adjust other end only' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Car and Driver tested the 2003 C4S at 4.6 zero to sixty.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
[Of course you could do the opposite thing at the other end, but generally you adjust the other end only when you run out of options at the end with the problem].
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that suspect a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suspected cause
and gearing is probably the more important of the two.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Keep in mind that if you have only 1-way adjustable shocks, you can't change bump independent of rebound.
These are separate views of the same evidence. Frequency alone does not establish a fix, and these counts must not be added together.
Adjust other end only
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
[Of course you could do the opposite thing at the other end, but generally you adjust the other end only when you run out of options at the end with the problem].
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
With that being said, I've run against my buddie's stock to stock and the cars from 10mph and around 30mph are about the same from down low, he'll get an initial jump then we go even and I start to pull away at the topside of things.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
68 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Outcome without a verified action link
Look at performance numbers and they're astonishing once the cars are rolling, but still not much more impressive from a standing start aspect.
maybe i am magazine racing but is the porsche 996 sandbagging or is it just considered a slow car for its specs?
2920lbs and 320hp does 0-60 in 5 seconds and 1/4 in 13.5?
now a 335i with 700lbs more and 20hp less can do the exact same thing...
is there some sort of explanation for this?
If you are looking at 0-60 times for a car like a Porsche to compare it to a car like a 335i then you are missing the point. The 335i is a straight line car while the Porsche shines when you actually turn the wheel left and right.
FYI, the 335 is more like 500 pounds difference and has a a butt load of torque (remember it's a turbocharged inline 6) and does it in 5.4 while the 996 does it in 4.9 so I'm not sure I would say that a 7 old car like the 996 320hp version is slow.
perhaps another video showing a motorcycle beating a porsche from a dead stop on a straight road is required?
or
maybe like Dell suggests, we can do the same test with some turns both left handed and right handed and see that motorcycle in the rear view mirror with the rider thinking,.,,,, "my bike is FAST... why am I loosing my @ss"
That said, I am 100% sure there are faster cars out there than the 996... who cares...
Porsche is what it is and wasnt designed to drag race (though some have been very successful at doing so)
I'll bite on this troll thread, lol.
It took BMW over 5 years and 2 turbochargers for it's 335 to hold a candle to a naturally asprirated Porsche. Even my old MKI 996 (300 HP) could pull a 5 second 0-60. It's taken other manufacturers much longer to even get close.
And despite it's age, the 996 can still hang with the vast majority of cars out there - at a fraction of the cost. A 996 can be had for around 1/2 the price of a new 335. Bump to the same price range as a 335 and you are talking a MKII GT3 - which is WAY faster than a 335.
And as another point of useless information - everything you said about the 335 equally applies to BMWs own E46 M3.
-td
While I think the 996's straight line performance is still relatively impressive, as others have said the 996 is more than straight line speed. Drive a 996 and a 335 back-to-back on a proper road course and you'll see there is no comparison. As Dell points out, evaluating the 996 (or any P-car for that matter) solely on the basis on straight line speed is most definitely missing the point.
didnt mean to troll but i was just commenting on if the factory is sandbagging the 996 as it has 2900lbs and 320hp doing 0-60 in 5 flat and 13.5 quarter .. because it should be faster than that...
Car and Driver tested the 2003 C4S at 4.6 zero to sixty.
When you're talking about tenths of a second, there are lots of things that come into play that can affect performance.
Even if my car was 4.0, or 5.2, or whatever... what would that mean to me? Nothing.
I think it may be the 273 ft lbs of torque that you are missing.
Do you have some calculation that allows you to dump in HP and weight and it spits out 0-60 and 1/4 mile times? If so, you should throw it away.
They could not be more different. The only constant between these 2 cars are the # of variables that make them different.
Front engine versus rear engine.
inline six with 2 turbos as opposed to a flat six without turbos.
Direct injection for the BMW and port injection for the Porsche.
4 years worth of innovation (2004 for the last 996 and the 330I came about in 2008 I believe)
Oh and that 273ft lbs doesn't come in until 4250rpm.
the 335I is churning out far more tq far earlier.
Why should it be faster than that? It is what it is, and those times are not slow. If you want something fast in a straight line go buy a blown muscle car.
911 variants have always been fast if the Porsche driver gets to pick the road/track. They're even reasonably quick in a straight line if the Porsche driver has time to drop two gears before accelerating.
Otherwise, modern turbo cars--from my wife's S4 to the 335--just plain drive away from Porsches in a real-world roll-on. Any turbo that goes Porsche baiting is likely chipped and running 350+ lb-ft of torque.
This is a very easy question to answer........torque! The 996 does not make the torque the 335 makes down low.
Torque makes the quickest short burst acceleration. HP is for top speed.
The other thing is there is no 2920 lb / 325 hp 996. 2920/296 is more like it.
The 335 has more than it's stated 300hp. With that being said, I've run against my buddie's stock to stock and the cars from 10mph and around 30mph are about the same from down low, he'll get an initial jump then we go even and I start to pull away at the topside of things. They have a lot of torque but if in the right gear it's about the same until we get up to near triple digits where I can start to get some ground on him. It's an impressive car but it's heavy as a boat.
Drive one and compare and it's willingness to turn is not as nice as the 996. Also the driver involvement/feedback is no where near as good. Granted the car is really just a fast GT car it is what it is. Then add the fact that the car does not have an LSD and anytime you come out of a tight corner that car is a one wheel tire fire really adds to the buzz kill. As a driver's sports car it really can't compare but that's not what it's design parameter is. As for it's acceleration times, it's not that difficult to gear a car for 60 and the quarter but it like many other cars starts to run out of steam at triple digits (According to the owner).
New BMWs are really heavy but fast on the highway cars now a days (some would also debate this applies to the M cars as well).
And by the way, my buddy sold the car after 2 years and picked up an E90 M3. A better car by comparison to the 335 by every stretch but still no where near as rewarding to drive as the 996. I got a chance to drive his new M3 at an autocross and it's impressive but at ~3600 wet, it's a heavy car to toss around. It's got gobs of power and it's pretty sure footed but you can't deny physics of that weight transitioning.
Considering my car is 10 years old at this point, I can't complain about the performance. It holds it's own. Is it the fastest thing out there? Not by a long shot. There are plenty of other cars that are quicker (C5 Z06's, Lotus Elise are just a few that come to mind). Is it one of the most fun to drive that you can drive everyday with very few comprimises? Yep. You bet.
Magazine test results vary quite a bit.....
fwiw.....
I remember Mazda launched a new Miata a few years ago saying it had 20 more hp or something.
But the testers were not getting any quicker 0-60 speeds.
Turns out the car only had like ~ 5hp more and Mazda looked pretty silly and had to correct its product literature, etc.
Or sometimes "pre-production" models have different tuning (or boost levels), that happened with the WRX as other magazines could never match the initial test results.
-- The bottom line is 300hp from an n/a 3.4L is still very respectable 10 years later....
so the 2002+ models have significantly more weight than the MK1s?
I am in the market for a MK2 C4S and that is why i am asking...
Have owned sportscars like bmw m's and such but a porsche is a porsche
another reason i asked was because sure I know i am not going to track the car (like the majority of porsche owners - i just want a nice quality made car thats reasonably fast and has the features and prestige), and i am mainly driving it highway or on the street on occasional basis.
Guys, I don't think it's really legitimate to consider HP vs. weight as an indicator of acceleration from a standstill. Acceleration is about available torque at a given RPM, which is governed by engine design and gearing... and gearing is probably the more important of the two. Horsepower as an abstract number is next to useless in this context.
Porsches are meant to be fast at speed. In other words, they're meant to be able to accelerate, say,
from
60 more than
to
60. This suits their supposedly intended use, is the reason that normally aspirated Porsches tend to favour horsepower over torque, and is the reason that horsepower peaks at such relatively high RPMs. They are the right tool for that job, and the wrong tool for drag racing.
Accelerating from a stop requires the ability to overcome inertia. That's torque. Speed requires the ability to accomplish 'work'. That's what horsepower measures. The horsepower required to move a car through the air cubes with speed, IIRC. When I switched from the naturally torquey inline 6 of my BMWs (where almost 90% of the total torque was available at something like 2500 RPM) to the 996, I was struck by how comparatively docile the Porsche was at low speeds, and how overwhelmingly more powerful it was at high speeds, where it would just keep accelerating after the Bimmer hit the wall of wind. It's horses for courses.
MK II C4S weighs more like 3350, because of the extra drive train and wider body, and bigger wheels and tires. If you
really
want a Porker Porsche get a C4S Cabriolet or Turbo Cabriolet with Tiptronic. Of course the Turbo has a lot more horsepower to work with...
Lightest 996 was the '99 Carrera 2 coupe with 6-sp. THAT is the car that weighs closer to 2950 you quote. But it has 295 HP, not 320 HP. Everything else newer weighs in well over 3,000lbs. And just to put that in perspective again, my '99 C2 coupe 6-sp weighs 2950 in the owners manual, but it weighs 3070 Lbs on the race scales at Roebling Road Raceway.
Good post. as well as BruceP`s post
Just got to add
The mk II C2 0-100 kph is 5.0 sec which equals 0-60 mph in 4.8
The C4S is slightly slower 0-100 in 5.2 which equals 0-60 in 5.0
Am I in the wrong place?? Oops, my bad. I didn't mean to sign up to a drag racing or JDM forum. Sorry, I thought this was a Porsche forum
...
Man, last time I heard "0-60" & "freeway roll-on" so many times was when I accidentally stumbled onto a "JDM boi racerz yee 2 FastZ 2 FiureeZZZ forum." I googled "Motul San Diego" & I guess those words were in a thread so the ungodly site showed up.
oh when you post a compario please post the specs of both cars. we dont know what year, motor, EXACT model bmw your talking about.
PS if your looking for the best 0-60 car, go AWD. like a STi with a big turbo or something.
This is hilarious! Porsche baiting. My 05 Lotus wasn't that fast in a straight line, but every little bmw 3-series that challenged it was modded to hell. You're right, stock m3's, or 330 based cars are never the one's picking the fight. It's always the ones that have 25 grand in friggin turbo upgrades that wanna play. Bastards.
Wow, tough crowd. FWIW, I don't get the impression that the OP is trolling, I get the impression that he's just trying to figure out why the 996 would be slower in a straight line considering the numbers. I would base it on the fact that the 335 is underrated by a decent amount and the lack of torque of the 996.
We all buy our cars for different reasons. One of the biggest factors in my decision was that the 996 was one of the few cars I was considering that had a back seat.
I'm sure it was an honest question, but just a slightly under-informed one.
The 335i claims 300 lb ft of torque, of which most is available by 1400 RPM, and the curve stays flat to about 5000 RPM. A monkey could win a drag race in this car.
My '00 996 is supposed to make something like 276 lb ft, which peaks at about 4500 RPM (sorry, this is from memory).
When you look at the numbers, it's astonishing that in most road tests, the 996 and the 335i are still neck and neck to 60. From a standing start, the Bimmer should leave us for dead.
The poster who said that BMW understated its output is in good company: Automobile magazine put one on a dyno, and got 300 lb ft
at the rear wheels
. That is some serious sandbagging.
BTW if you think your car is slow...try this on for size. I can outrun a new Nissan GT-R fairly easy...and the other day I was tinkering with a stock 996 and I didn't beat him too badly. Actually took a little oomph to catch him.
I dont know what you drive but a stock GT-R wouldnt just embarrass a stock NA 996, it would DEMOLISH it in a straight line.
To the OP, why compare the car to the 335i when you can compare an 01 996 to an 01 M3? 296hp, 3.4L in the Porsche, 333hp, 3.2L in the BMW. A pretty close "NA straight line, similar vintage" comparison... both do 0-60 pretty close to 5.0, I believe the 996 is 5.0 and the M3 is 5.1...
If you're going to do some cheesy mag racing at least get the numbers right. Most magazines put the Mk II 996 at 4.6 seconds 0-60 and in the 12.9 - 13.1 range for the 1/4 mile.
A 335i is a heavy pig. Fine in a straight line, but the "sedan" size really shows up in the corners.
the 335 falls on its face in 4th gear... as does the e46 m3... 4th/5th and 6th gear on a 996 are shorter and therefore accerate faster..... also the 335i is a pig and on the track you will go through brakes and tires like crazy as they weight punishes you...
hummm...My E46 M3 pulls on my 996 above 100mph. First hand experience with my own personal cars.
The E46 will hold it's own at the track too, but you're correct the weight is a huge penalty when it comes to going through consumables.
This thread isn't about BMW vs. Porsche though. I think anything that can run a sub 5.0 second 0-60 time is still very much a quick car by todays stadards. HP wars have gotten a bit crazy as of late but MOST of the really big HP cars are also bit heavy pigs. Look at performance numbers and they're astonishing once the cars are rolling, but still not much more impressive from a standing start aspect.
For the street I think power to weight is more important. anything 10:1 is going to be entertaning to drive from an enthusiast standpoint.
Andy
I kind of agree with the orginal post...magazines numbers more often than not doesn't reflect the real world driving experience. Here are 2 vids on Youtube that surpised me and there are many more.
BTW, I bougth my 02 996 C2 after test driving the 04 M3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTRAO...eature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwG6R6WhGnI
hmmm.... my friend has an E46 ZCP edition with dinan mods and is pushing about 360 HP... and @ mosport international raceway on the mario andretti strait away I always pull away from him in top of 3rd and 4th BIGTIME.... its a no contest.... there must be something wrong with your 996... were you driving it when your own e46 pulled away? who was driving yoru e46?
Agree with everything you said. But it's worth clarifying your M3 comment. The E46 M3 is a totally different animal than the 335. The 335 is a forced induction motor, and those are characteristically torquey and thus quick off the line. The S54 engine is a high revving, normally aspirated motor that's meant to make horsepower rather than low end grunt. So it makes total sense that it would be a better match for the 996 on the track, but that experience doesn't reveal much about what a 335 would be like. Chalk and cheese.
Most of the marketing claims of horsepower in the car business are just that, marketing claims. They're peak numbers that, in the worst examples, were actually
engineered
to make good ad copy. But they have nothing to do with real world driving, or even performance, just as you pointed out.
Interesting as I read all of these posts, that these days the trend if for Turbo's to be considered torquey off the line and at low RPM, sooner than Normally Aspirated. In the beginning, back in the 70's and 80's, turbo's were constantly criticized for being piggy off the line because of turbo lag and no low-end torque. LOL! Of course, "In The Beginning", turbo's were singular installations and the size of General Electric Turbofan jet engines. These days, they are small (less rotational mass to spool up thus less centrifugal resistance), and often come in pairs.
I read the comparo tests and track performance is not a big concern(stopping distance is). I look for the best overall driving experience. If I did not have a dedicated track car that would be different.
Did you have corner exit speed on him coming onto the straight? I've made runs on much faster cars than my own at the track from carrying more corner speed. Despite my 996 being slower in a straight line I consistantly see 4-5 mph more at the end of the back straight at Mid Ohio in the Porsche than I do in the M3. The Porsche puts down the power soo much better after apex it has a huge advantage.
My E46 m3 dyno's 292 at the wheels and the 996 at a 255 wheel. Both where they should be. Me driving the 996, my heavier brother driving the M3. 40-140 freeway rolls. (in mexico I swear).
Andy
If set up right the 996 really kicks it in the *** going thru the second 1/2 of a turn... that's by far my favorite part of the car
and I have said it before and will say it again. Yup, there are faster cars out there... I dont give a rat's @ss they are ugly
Consider the TopGear episode where they compared the Porsche with the BMW and Aston Martin. The Porsche had the least horsepower of the three, but posted the fastest time on course (the Stig driving all three). They made the point of it not being the total hp, but how much of it is useable combined with handling.
I remember that episode too. And as long as we're bench racing it's a good thing there wasn't an STI or EVO in the mix, as either would have destroyed the rest on those roads in those conditions.
Every Porsche owner owes it to themselves, and to the car, to take it to the track
at least once
.
I don't care if it's a 356 or a GT3 - it's worth it to experience these cars in a different environment.
Simply put: you'll always be able to find a more luxurious, faster, better stereo, better family car, smoother ride, cheaper maintenance, etc. car. But, after feeling the reward of pushing the car at the track (whether you're a novice or a pro), you learn what makes a Porsche a
Porsche
. And then you wonder why people drive anything else!
There are hundreds of Porsche club race and DE videos out there (youtube, vimeo, etc). I posted a pretty funny video of me in my old 996 (300 HP - with suspension mods) going head-to-head with a 550 HP 996 Turbo. Lots of power, but not so good in the twisties. lol.
-td
Wow! Really? I have the opposite perception of driver involvement in a BMW vs a Porsche.
* I have an '01 330i Sedan w/ Sport Package and an '02 996 C2, both bone-stock, both riding on PS2s
* The 330i's steering feel, balance and general
linearity
is better than the 996, no question. Maybe 335's aren't like 330's?
* I have tracked both cars and much prefer the BMW. I'm pretty sure I'm actually faster in the 330i (sad comparing the 100 hp difference) because of the 996's body roll and suspension "float".
* I'd be the first to admit I haven't quite figured out the Porsche when I'm running @ 9 - 10/10'ths; not a problem (never has been) in the Bimmer
Perhaps not the same comparison, but I still prefer my 330i, as a driver's car, to my 996. The 996 looks the part and is definitely faster in a straight line. But in the twisties... I have just the opposite impression of the two cars. I find the Porsche very easy to drive up to about 7/10'ths, then it gets tricky; the Bimmer is easy up to 9/10'ths.
The "terrible handling" in a Porsche is caused by it's rear engine design. You know, it's in the "wrong place." It's against all the rules... In reality these are just excuses for lack of skills on the driver's part in my honest opinion, & I'll admit I'm one of these people who lack the skills (for now). I'm still learning more & more about controling my 996 after a year of ownership & lots of hard driving. I'm far from a pro, but those times when I do get it "just right" (a combination of perfect steering, throttle control, braking, etc.), the car is just magical. If you know how to use it, the rear engine design allows for later braking into a turn, getting on the throttle faster coming out of a turn, very "tossable" & maneuvarable handling, etc.
Another thing is that I think a lot of people confuse "easy" with "fast." The 3 series cars are known for their easiness to drive fast, & from what I've seen, it's true (my brother owns an E92 M3). Going fast takes almost no effort, & therefore it's easier to get better laptimes or w/e than in a 911. But if you work on your skill, concentrate, & work the magic, the Porsche is so much more rewarding. Both in feel as well speed.
Sounds cheesy, but there really is no substitute.
Your suspension might be a bit worn in your 996 as you should not have excessive body roll.
I've had the opportunity to drive every model 3 series since 91 with the exception of the E30 M3 in an autocross or track environment. If you think your E46 is good, you should try driving the E36 and the E30. While the E30 isn't as fast on the track with out some mods the cars level of involvement and balance is without a doubt better than successive generations. With each generation the numbness and weight has been increased and some of the magic has been lost. I personally favor the E36 as the speed and power it great and the car can be made to be very neutral with only alignment tweeks. The E36 M3 is one of the easiest cars to drive fast that I've had the pleasure to drive (campaigned several M3's in SCCA and BMW CCA Autocrosses).
I'll also echo the sentiments of Raphael. The 996 requires a different driving style and technique as it is a rear engine car. Where is front engined cars can enter corners a bit quicker and brake a bit later in to the corner. Where our cars really shine is corner exit. If your really comfortable with a rear engine car, you can brake late, allow the car to rotate and get on the gas and the corner exit is incredible. Also the 996 and all Porsche's for the most part respond to very delicate inputs. The smoother and gentler you drive the faster you go. While this is the same with the BMWs, they really let you get away with much more dramatic inputs. It feels faster because the weight transitions are harder but it's not faster in reality. The 996 penalizes you for driving it like a front engine rear drive car. It took me a bit to adapt and re-learn my driving style to get the most out of my car and I'm still learning it. BMW really sets up their cars to be very easy to drive fast and forgiving if you make mistakes. The opposite is true for the 911 and that's the fun and challenge of the 911. Extracting the most out of the 911 really pushes you to be a better driver. Just wait until you mod your 996 and it becomes really sensitive to your inputs. My frist 996 with all the goodies (PSS9s, GT3 sways and alignment) was so razor sharp and crisp it eclipses my current stock 996. It's almost a day and night difference.
Just so you know, my buddy with the E90 M3 stock to stock in autocrosses was loosing to me by around a second compared to my 10 year old 996 with 296hp and original suspension. It took him, wider tires, 2k in suspension mods and custom alignment to close the gap and there are days when the course is right I can get him. When I drove his car, I was amazed at the amount of "mistakes" and manhadling I could get a way with in his car as compared to mine.
With stock alignment in the 996, it's easy to over power the front tires if you try and brake and turn in due to the lack of weight up front and relatively skinny front tires. If your smooth and do most of your braking before corner entry, you can load your fronts and the turn in is fantastic. If you need more, trailbrake, rotate the car, get on gas when your pointed the right way and squirt out of the turn. With the right tire pressure tweeks this car can be fairly neutral and produce nice TTOS if you over cook a turn.
As regard to steering feel and linearity, I will have to aggree to disagree with you as my E36 (with an x-brace, 3.4 degrees of camber and 0 toe) and even the E46 M3 (with H/R suspension, custom alignment and non staggered wider tires) I co drove for several years, didn't come close to the sensitivity and turn in of my stock suspension and alignment 996.
I don't mean to imply that you're not driving the car with the correct driving style but when I compare the 2 types of cars steering and involvment these are my observations.
LOL At that Vid Van - I love his comments!!
"now obviously I'm not going to ride the bike because I am a heterosexual..... and I don't like wearing rubber trousers"
"Neil is a brunette with a 40-30-30 figure"
"His ambition is to grow an avocado tree... from a stone"
"Jason has a 36" nose"
This is one of the best 996 videos out there!
This is also an excellent thread with great info. My question: What tire pressure setup will give the 996 more neutral handling?
OP SAYS
If you can find a 996 or 997 to test drive on the highway you will see the light. Your limits might be lower than the cars top speed. Also the cops might throw you in jail. These things have incredible high speed stability. Zero to 60 seems like a non issue in this respect.
td,
In fairness that video reflected your skill as a driver more than real difference between the cars.
With equal drivers a 996TT should fairly stomp a 996 C2 on any road course.
Crazy stuff like this can and does happen at DE's. I've passed multiple 996TT's in my lightly modded 986 (I even passed a 997 GT3 RS once) at DE's before but I have no illusion that I was driving the faster car, rather I was passing a less experienced driver.
Tire pressure is really for fine tuning. You should change other things long before you touch your tire pressures.
The first step is to address the end that is having the issue. If you are oversteering, you should start by softening the rear bar. If understeering, you should soften the front. [Of course you could do the opposite thing at the other end, but generally you adjust the other end only when you run out of options at the end with the problem]. Same goes for the shocks and springs (soften rear for oversteer, soften front for understeer). Keep in mind that if you have only 1-way adjustable shocks, you can't change bump independent of rebound. All that being said, if you don't have ANY adjustable parts, then you really have no choice but to mess with the tires.
It is commonly touted that 996s understeer, but I honestly can't remember this happening to me at the track when I had my stock setup. You really need to be going close to 9-10/10ths for this to manifest itself anyway. And, if you are understeering a lot, you can try trailing into the corner a bit to rotate the car and also keep some extra weight at the front. Anyway, to take out some understeer, you should stagger the pressures front to rear by lowering the rear or raising the front. But there isn't much room for movement in most tires before you start exceeding optimum temperatures. And not all tires react the way you would think when you change pressures.
I have found that the main reason most people in 911s complain about plowing on entry (severe understeer) is actually due to their braking technique and NOT setup.
Back to the original post - I have taken my 335 out to the track, and it is nowhere close to my old 996. Those 0-60 times mean very little if you can't put the power down coming out of a corner.
-td
+1 335 Is a good car for what I use it for DD. It is quick as others have mentioned, which can be fun on the street. It also handles well, for street driving. BUT when you take it on the track, it feels like you have the car full of the contestants on the Biggest Loser! Suddenly that "Torque" is hidden by the low reving engine and it is HEAVY in every way. Not to mention it'll try and overheat on you if you are a good driver and know how to "push" a car.
Again, as someone mentioned before. It depends on what you are looking for in a car to decide which one fits your needs. Both good cars in there own regard.
OT... This is what you do to get rid of the ****ty Run Flats on the 335.. So yea that torque can be fun
Well, that once was the case, but not so much anymore. A stock 996 6-speed will accellerate a new Mustang GT, a new Camaro SS, and a new Dodge Challenger SRT8 (and the recent Pontiac GTO and G8). They have more engine but they all have far more weight. Looking back to the original premise of the OP, horsepower-to-weight ratios on these cars are actually worse than the 996. And whereas torque gets the show in the road, there is a lot whole lot more show to move on those cars. And, interestingly, they have no more rubber in the rear than a stock 996, and they have no weight over the drive wheels. Tons of magazine write-ups and camparisons to research if you care, but the numbers don't support the current heavy metal pony cars as drag racers, without serious upgrades to the suspensions, and a serious visit to Jenny Craig.
I frequent
www.challengerforumz.com
and there is constant discussion there about the accelleration comparisons with the other three, and how to get the lead out and the power down on these cars.
man you all are wasting your time, the 996 AND bmw are sandbaggin.
I actually got to drive one of the old 1989 Turbocharged 3.8L V6 Trans am's.
its 0-60 is
4.6
for a 3346 curb weight car! and it was produced 20 years ago!
referance=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Trans_Am#Trans_Am
http://89tta.turbobuicks.net/ttaspecs.htm
ok moderator we can lock and archive this thread now.
