987 vs. 996 handling

I own a 2002 C4 Cab and have recently driven a 2005 Boxster. I love the way the Boxster handled (I know the 987 has the advantage of mid-engine design) and wondered if any set of suspension mods (M030, X74, etc) would get the 996 to the 987 level of handling.

I would have to say yes, my 04 c2 with H&R springs with the Bistein sport shocks, with the GT3 sways helps ALOT...

Suspension mods help a lot, but . . . . I personally am partial to the handling of the Boxster. I think that mid-engined is superior to rear-engined, so no amount of mods will make up for that difference. That said, one "flaw," if it can be called that, is that the Boxster will retain its grip (all other things being equal) far longer than a 996, but when it lets go, it spins so quickly that only the best drivers can recover. A rear engined 911 will let go much sooner, but it will give you more warning and it can be easier to control. Think in terms of dynamics and moments . . .

I had a Boxster S and noticed that the handling was better than my C4. I opted for the X-74 suspension. Huge difference. If you are looking for improvements in the handling area, a change in the suspension will give you what you are looking for.

Had an '00 Boxster, Boxster S, and '01 996 Cab. Having recently driven a 987, I am impressed. Built my current '02 Carrera Coupe to X74/RoW M030 spec. IMHO, my car is a lot less nervous than the stock 987. It was no contest before, but advantage goes to the 3.6 996. Having had Cab, it appeared that an evoms front strut brace made things a lot crisper up front. The torsional rigidity in a Cab really needs to be bolstered, IMHO. My suspension mods cost about $1K. The Cayman is going to make the stock NA 996 a backseat-er on the track, IMHO. Talk appears to Porsche looking at the Cayman as a platform it can start running in series to help market the Porsche racing heritage via building on it. If sales do well, we will see the Boxster Coupe platform do some damage to other marques. FWIW, the turbo Boxster has already been evaluated at Weissach's test track about 4 years ago. Eyewitnesses from Kramer's board heard the blow off valves cycling while being very impressed with the exercise. I guess paranoia about cannibalized 911 sales haven't happened in 8 years, so Dr. W. is allowing performance expansion of the 98x line. The downside of this platform, as previously stated is the low polar moment of inertia. When the Box lets go, you spin like a top. A bit scarier than leaving the track backwards in classic 911 fashion, IMHO.

True, the Boxster has a very low polar moment of inertia. But that's what makes it turn so quickly and effortlessly. It's the difference between skidpad numbers and slalom numbers. The Boxster transitions so easily. When I drive friends' M3, Z4, etc. with a front engine/rear wheel drive, the handling balance (F/R weight distribution) is in the same ballpark, but the cars feel heavy/slow, like I'm driving a dumbell. It is true that when you push a Boxster too far, it will let go and also spin on a dime. I just had to recalibrate my internal gyroscope to be more sensitive. I can now drive my Boxster (with some mods, of course) at 10/10 without hardly any worries. It also allows me to drive non-mid engined cars towards their limits rather easily because things happen in relative slow-motion for me compared to the Boxster. I would say that if you have a 2004 C4, don't worry. It is a beautiful car, and will always be more prestigious than a Boxster. (Better looking than the Cayman photos IMHO.) Although, you have a weight penalty for the AWD, your extra horsepower and traction allows you to put power down a lot more reliably which is something I wish I could do. Without traction control/PSM, if I put too much power down in a corner (or in too low of a gear) in my 986S, I can easily blow the back end out and around. I'm sure your AWD allows for a lot more man-handling and fun in a lot more places. Do some aftermarket mods and you can probably satisfy your thirst for improved handling and more importantly improved fun factor. When Porsche finally decides to put a TT or GT3 motor in a Cayman, then we can both consider upgrading and get the best of both platforms. For now, I think all 3* are too close--just slightly different personalities. *TT/GT2/GT3 excepted

I agree with everything else you said, but do you really think that AWD is necessary for a 986s? I had a 986S, and I cannot imagine needing AWD to put the power down. Your comment sounds like you are suggesting the power output on a 986S is so prolific that the extra weight of AWD would be justified by the ability to put the power down. Do you really believe that? I didn't feel that way at all. In fact, I personally do not think that AWD is necessary at all for 996s, apart, perhaps, from the TTs. I mean, at most, it might be useful in snow, but even there, I think you are fine with a C2 and good snow tires. Of course, I can imagine that the C4 and C4S owners will come out in droves, but diversity of opinion is a good thing, right?

AWD will slow you down on a dry track, not even considering the weight penalty. 2nd that AWD on a 996 is unnecessary, coming from a 996 TT.

How true, afterall, variety is the spice of life, right? I am speaking from the point of view if the power in the Boxster/Cayman platform were significantly increased. At 250 HP to 300 HP, I don't think I would opt for AWD because traction control/PSM would be sufficient when I wanted it. But power in the 350 HP to 400 HP+ range (hypothetically speaking of course), I don't know. I'd probably be willing to trade off some of that HP for AWD. My basis being that it might be "a little too easy" to throttle steer the mid-engine platform. Maybe I'll change my opinion after I put in an LSD (not any time soon, unfortunately)... Keep those ideas/comments flowing. That's why we're all here...

Very valuable comment coming from someone having a TT. How do you feel about AWD the rest of the time when you are not on a dry track, i.e, wet or local backroads/highways assuming you obviously tone it down a bit. Did you ever feel that the AWD gave you that margin to push it a little more than you would have without it? Perhaps, also, the 996 is in less of an need with the rear-engine over the driving wheels.

I believe the rumoured bi-turboed 3.2 986 was doing 350HP "nicely balanced" on the test track.

Basically, the steering feel was impaired with more inherent understeer. I was able to drive a GT2 about a year ago and remembered that it felt like my current C2 Coupe in terms of steering feedback and balance. The power was intoxicating. Having recently driven an '04 GT3, it has instilled a 'must have' impression on my soul. Let's see how much will power one needs to avoid the seduction. Also, coming from many Audis and a WRX; I think street available tire compounds pocess the technology to replace the benefits of AWD in all but snowbound regions. Just $.02.

Great commentary. In the interest of avoiding marital/financial ruin, I think I need to keep my butt out of a GT2/GT3. My neighbor is in the market for an F-car. That will be bad enough influence... Sorry, porch, for taking this thread off on an AWD/HP tangent. Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread. I love my TRG/GT3 sway bars. There are a lot of other mods you can do. Also, don't underestimate the importance of alignment in terms of feel.

No sweat - I enjoy reading about the AWD stuff since I have one. For me, the AWD feels a little more planted on non-dry pavement, but it probably is a bit of a liability in other cases. As for the suspension... I just found the 987 handling so amazing compared to my stock 996 suspension - no comparison and frankly somewhat disconcerting. I've heard raves about the transformation that the x74 suspension makes but didn't know where that would get me relative to the 987. That thing was just soooooooo nimble.

OK, tell me about this "re-animated" X74/RoW M030 suspension you put together. What is the recipe and what does it buy you over x74 or ROW M030 by themselves?

I've heard others make these exact same comments, and on an engineer's drawing board there is physical basis for them, but in my ownership and driving of both a Boxster and 996, I find my experiences to be quite different. In my 30k mi of Boxstering, I found the the transition from understeer to oversteer very predictable and easy to catch and control. The car could then be balanced, and sort of drifted through the rest of the corner. This, while tons of fun, is obviously not the quickest way through a corner. I find my 996 to have FAR MORE rear grip than my Boxster had. Front grip is comparable, but my 996 has larger front wheels and tires which may explain the slight additional front grip of the 996. The advantage of the 996 over the Boxster is on throttle post apex, where the substantially greater rear grip in the 996 is readily evident and usable. The 996 simply hunkers down (rear weight bias transfered to driven axle) allowing the driver to accelerate much more strongly out of the corner. I should note that my car has standard suspension, which of course understeers. Row 030 or X74 may allow a driver to get the 996 rear out moreso than standard suspension, but this will occur after attaining much greater corner speeds. I would describe the Boxster as "nimble, light, quick in transition" as it's slalom speeds indicate. I would describe the 996 as less so, but more planted and stable, and faster through corners. An interesting site is http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp , which actually has corner speeds and lateral acceleration in g's for a variety of cars on both the N'ring and Hockenheim short ring. For example, on the Hockenheim short ring, of the four turns that were measured, the Boxster S equaled the 3.4 996's lateral acceleration on one turn. The 996 produced higher g-forces on the other three measured turns, and higher speeds in all turns. On the N'ring, of the five turns measured, the Boxster S exceeded the 996 in g-force in one turn and equaled it in another. The 996 produced higher g-forces in the other three turns. As for speed, the Boxster S equalled the 996 in one turn. The 996 had higher speeds in the other four measured turns. So, I would say that if a driver prefers light, nimble, precise, quick handling, he may enjoy the Boxster more than a 996. However, if ultimate speed is the desired outcome, the 996 will be the faster car. Even through corners.

In stock form, there is no question that my '02 996 is faster than was my '02 Boxster S. That said, I hated, and I really mean hated, my 996 when I first bought it with the stock suspension. In stock form, the 996 floated around like my father's oldsmobile. The front end lifted on acceleration, dove on braking and the back end drifted out through long, sweeping high-speed corners in a way that did not inspire confidence. That all changed when I installed PSS9s and adjustable GT3 swaybars on the 996. Now, I love my 996, and my only complaint is that it is not as light as was my Boxster S. The more I drive cars on the track (and I am no expert by any means), the more I grow to appreciate the detrimental effects of weight, and the more I have the urge to rip everything out of my car that is not necessary. Of course, my wife would kill me if she saw me destroying my 996 with its integrated dry sump, so I bought a 944 that has everything already stripped out of it. But, back to the subject at hand, I think that if a mid-engined Boxster and a rear-engined 996 had exactly the same (1) engine (say you were to drop a 3.6 in the back of the Boxster ala RUF) (2) brakees, and (3) suspension, the mid-engined Boxster would leave the 996 behind whether driven by novice drivers or very good drivers. If you did not have PSM on either vehicle, drivers who were neither novices nor experts might be a little better off in the 996 due to fact that it is easier to control slip angle (e.g., the back end kicks out more smoothly and predictably) and a lot more difficult to catch the Boxster when it does slip out. Just my .02, and a very interesting discussion, I think. Moral of the story? IMHO, if you get a 996, the first thing you should do is modify your suspension. My preference is with PSS9s and adjustable GT3 swaybars, but that is just me.

I agree the 996 stock suspension leaves a lot to be desired, but I wouldn't compare it to an Oldsmobile. I may install row 030. I only plan to keep my car for 1 more year, so putting more than $1k into suspension is not gonna happen. Also, I don't drive my cab on the track, so row 030 should be fine for me. As for the track, I find driving street cars on the track frustrating and a waste of time. As for a modded Boxster outrunning a 911: I would like to point out that simply because the Boxster is a mid-engine design does not mean a 3.6 Boxster will go around a track faster than a 3.6 911. The 911's front/rear weight distribution is ~ 40/60. The Boxster's is ~47/53. You'll find high performance mid-engined cars to have weight distribution MUCH MORE SIMILAR TO 911 than Boxster. A few examples (from memory, and someone please correct them if needed): Lambo Murcielago: ~42/58 Lambo Gallardo: ~42/58 Ferrari Enzo: ~42/58 Carrera GT: ~42/58 F360 and 430, and Ford GT probably yield similar ratios. So, the 911's weight distribution is 250% closer to that of these high performance mid-engined cars than that of the Boxster. The Boxster is most likely TOO NEUTRAL and traction limited for high horsepower applications. But you're right, it IS an interesting discussion.

In stock form, the 996 floated around like my father's oldsmobile. Well, when you say 996, it probably mean all varaiants of it, the C4S may be AWD, but it's stock suspension is far superior...yeah, as you can guess I read the previous comments on awd

Basically, it is RoW M030 springs over aftermarket Bilstein Sport dampers with rear RoW M030 snubbers and rear M030 rear anti sway bar only. It has been confirmed by Bilstein technical that the aftermarket Bilstein Sports are have the same specifics in valving and rod sizing as the Bilsteins used in the X74. Not to mention that RoW M030s are linear springs vs. the progressive rears on X74.

Interesting. I get using the more predictable linear springs, but beyond that, other than cost, is there any further advantage beyond a full x74 setup? You will be at ROW M030 ride height so I would think that you lose some of the advantages of the lower x74 height.

I see the 10mm increase in front ride height as an advantage for a road car. I scrap on nothing. By doing only the rear sway bar, the 10mm increase in altitude of the nose is negligible, IMHO. Linear rates are the biggest advantage with paying only 1/3 the cost of an X74, though.

996 Carrera C2 weight distribution is 38/62

Boxster/S weight distribution is 46/54 (986).

One of our local PCA members weighed his Boxster on racing scales producing the 47/53 I quoted. (remained consistent with and without driver, btw) As for the 911 at ~40/60, I've seen this figure frequently. The current Panorama has an excellent tech article on braking systems in which they also reference the static weight distribution of the 911 as 40/60. FWIW.

I took a look at the track test data and it appears that the Boxster detailed data is for the older 986. My original comments were on the new 987 which has a faster Hockenheim lap time than the 997 and just a tick slower thatn the 997S. I think the 987 is a significant step up from the older cars.

40/60 is closer to the turbo weight disrtubtion. I dont know about your local PCA friend, but Porsche's spec for the 986 and 987 is 46/54 and the Cayman is 45/55.

I also may have found a partial answer to my original question: Can a suspension modded 996 match the handling of a 987? I found a post over on renntech that quotes the following Hockenheim times for a 996 C2: 1:16.9 min stock 1:16.2 min 030 1:15.7 min X74 The 1:15.7 matches the 987 time, but the 996 has a power advantage. My conclusion would be that the x74 gets you close handling wise, but still a little short. The combined packages are about the same.

Which is faster, 996 GT3 or 987?

The GT3 lapped in 1:14.9 so yes, it's faster as I would have guessed. But then again, a GT3 is more than a suspension modded 996 right?

The mid engine design of the Boxster is easier to drive for a novice, but once you get used to using the rear weight bias in a 911 there's no going back. Having said that, I lost the back-end a few times in my previous 911. I swore my next one would be a C4. The C2 996 w/PSM is much more planted then previous C2s, but I like the feeling of being on rails in the corners w/the AWD plus in the rain, which we get from time to time out here, there's no comparison.

I also like my C4 in non-dry conditions. Given the track times of the 987 vs. 997 and 997S, it seems to me that a 987 with a 997S engine and brakes would kill a 997S.

The 996 GT3 is just one of 13 different 996 models. It seems to me the premise of your question was whether or not a 996 (rear-engined) can match 987 (mid-engined) handling. The answer is that it can EXCEED 987 handling (in terms of speed). Btw, the time I've seen published for 996 GT3 at Hockenheim short ring is 1:13.2 on track-challenge.com. They also show the 3.4L 996 @ 1:15.9. (X74 was not available for the 3.4 IIRC.) A comprehensive test drive of each of the cars you are interested in should answer your questions regarding their capabilities. The difference between the driving experience of the Boxster and 911 is such that you'll probably prefer one over the other. Drive them both, and you'll know which you like best. Both are fantastic cars.

Porsche publishes dry weights. Add half a tank of gas and the ratio becomes 47/53.

I think that's why a lot of us are hoping Porsche will but a big motor in the Cayman. Somewhere, I read a project that was underway to put the 3.8L 987S engine in a 987. Should be a fun car. I like my convertible 986S, but with my suspension mods, I realize my limiting factor is the torsional rigidity of the chasis. For the ultimate in handling, a seam-welded Cayman would be the best platform--not the Boxster. I'm just not sold on the Cayman looks, and 295 HP does nothing for me considering the 987S has 280. There are many older 986S's with some aftermarket headers/cats/chip/intake that are making 290HP--and the older 986S is 100lbs lighter. I wouldn't consider a Cayman unless it had the 3.8L or GT3 type motor. Getting back on subject again, I found there was a lot of room for improvement in my 986S in the areas of handling, so I would guess there is a similar amount of room for improvement in the 996. There are just not too many people that really understand these cars and are more interested in selling snake-oil.

Well yes, the basic rear-engine / mid-engine comparison was part of my question. More specifically my question was: I *own* an 02 C4 Cab and have driven a 987. I liked the 987 handling compared to my car and wanted to know if I could make changes that would get my car to approximate that handling that I liked. BTW, I'm in Roswell.

Yeh, I just realized that the thread (and myself specifically) had gotten a bit off track of your original question. Both row 030 and x74 are said to eliminate understeer (for the most part, if not entirely) from the 996. You can get your 996 to outcorner a 987, but it will not have the Boxster's light feel, ultra-quick transitioning, and neutral balance at the limit. Some people prefer the Boxster's driving experience to that of the 911. Of the guy's in our local group drives who've moved from a Boxster to a 911 (and there are quite a few), none are considering moving back to a Boxster that I know of. There are a quite a few threads here regarding row 030 and x74. I did a search recently when shopping for a suspension upgrade, and I decided that for a cab which I drive entirely on the street and only plan to keep for another year, row 030 would be sufficient and is reasonably priced (which I have yet to order and install). I'm gonna have another mtn drive soon. You should definitely come drive with us. Last drive we had 25 cars. Here's some pics from our last drive: http://www.pcars.us/viewalbum.php?a=268

Here are the actual weights of my friends Boxster S and 2002 Turbo, both weighed on the same four pad racing scales with a full tank of gas: Boxster S: 47/53 @ 3014 lbs. 2002 Turbo: 38/62 @ 3480 lbs. Another data point: 996GT2 has additional 130 lbs over the rear axle than GT3. So, I think the ~40/60 for a normally aspirated 996 is probably accurate. FWIW.

A little track time comparison at the link. 996 C2 vs. 996 C4 The '98 996 is scrolled at the bottom of the selection boxes to run 3.4s against each other. 5 second advantage to the C2. Power to weight ratios appear to negate the theoretical advantages of AWD on short and long tracks while slalom and evasive test speed advantage go to the C4. View the detailed box in comparison. It appears that at Hockenheim and The Ring the C2 is 'real world' faster than C4 despite better tire management of the tested AWD system. Not to re-direct the thread again, but I just had to get this out.

Are you talking about Dock? I've seen the threads on PPBB on the 986/987 vs 996/997...I won't even go into that. I'm going with Porsche's specifications. Plus its an accurate way to compare the weight distribution across the board.

Are you talking about Dock? I've seen the threads on PPBB on the 986/987 vs 996/997...I won't even go into that. I'm going with Porsche's specifications. Plus its an accurate way to compare the weight distribution across the board.

You think Dock is lying about his scales results? Again, Porsche publishes dry weights. When you put fuel in the car, as you must in order to drive it, it changes the ratios.

Like I said, I'll go with Porsche's specs. He posted a number of different ratios. Such as without a spare in the front...45.3/54.7( cause I asked). Like I said Porsche's specs are more accurate across the board.

My bad. It was 45.8/54.2 without spare(he said 30lbs) and top down, (weight shifts forward .01% with top up, according to him)..like I said he posted a lot of ratios.

Again, Porsche publishes dry weights. You can't drive a car dry. Here's another source: Road & Track "Best all-around Sports Car" comparison test June 18, 2005. 987 S : 47/53 997 S : 39/61 And the mid-engine handling Holy Grail: Lotus Elise: 40/60. We can quibble over 1%, but the point of my post remains intact. That the weight distribution of the 911 is closer to that of high performance mid-engine designs than that of the Boxster.

Here exactly what he posted: My '00 Boxster S had the following weight distributions with a full tank and no occupants... *Top down, with the spare = 46.5/53.5 *Top down, spare removed = 45.8/54.2 // *Top up, with the spare = 46.6/53.4 My spare weighed 30 lbs. I dont think Porsche weights its car with a spare so I think it is 46/54.

I'm not quibbling over 1%. I'm stating a fact. Its 46/54. I can't prove my point?

My owners manual say 44lbs with spare (jack/tools also). Im not trying to get under your skin. But I would think Porsche doesn't weigh the car with spare/ Jack/tools. (so the road and track ratios COULD be off). My point stays intact, Porsche spec are more accurate across the board.

2005 Pagani Zonda F...46/54.

If the spare/jack/tools are standard equipment, the car's curb weight should inlcude them. The Road and Track weights were published with and without a 190lb driver, and the 987S curb weight of 3130lbs represents 165 lbs of fuel and options over Porsche's published curb weight of 2965lbs. The 987 does not offer a spare tire. Basically, the point of my posting this data is that there seems to be a general perception that the optimal weight distribution for a sports car is 50/50. In actuality, a rear weight bias is prefered in high-performance cars, as demonstrated by each of the cars we're discussing here, and ~42/58 seems to be a favored ratio. The front engined Dodge Viper and Honda S2000 each manage to achieve a rear bias! 49/51 for the Viper and 48/52 for the Honda. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that if Dodge could move more weight from the front axle to the rear, they would do it! As for the "optimal" 50/50, the BMW Z4 is the only car in the R&T "Best All-Around Sports Car" test with 50/50. I think one factor producing the Boxster's 47/53 (or 46/54 if you prefer), is that of it's smaller engines. Most certainly, a Boxster engineered with a 3.6L engine and transaxle and the accompanying chassis strengthening, the ratio's would become more rear biased, perhaps approaching that of these other cars. And of course, turbocharging, with the turbos, intercoolers, piping, and further transaxle and chassis strengthening would increase the rear bias even further (as it does in the case of the 911 GT2 vs GT3, where the GT2 engine/components weigh 130lbs more than GT3). The technical data from this test is available for download in PDF format. It's interesting to see such different car's specs and performance side by side. http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1 BTW, you would be pleased to know that the majority of the article's writers chose the 987S as their objective winner! A couple of them chose the 997, one even chose the Viper. The 997S won the subjective ratings overall when price was not a factor.

Ok, I knew all this was coming. That's fine and dandy. My point WASN'T what was the preferred platform (mid or rear). My point was the actual ratio. Obviously your biasness is coming out. Not once was I arguing about which is preferred or better.

Okay.......so you believe the ratio to be 46/54. Others have weighed cars producing 47/53. The difference in these two numbers is half a tank of gas?!

Yea, OK...settled.