30 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHUm, i dunno...
Leading reported evidence
Set standards (performance, build, reliability
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
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 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
But these cars are going to set the standards (performance, build, reliability....
Leading evidence: 'Set standards (performance, build, reliability' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Set standards (performance, build, reliability' (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.
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.
30 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.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T044418Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hey Chris, I think the cool think to do is say something like "it was better when.....". It always seems to be like that. Hang onto the old and trash the new.
I guess the air cooled guys mock the water cooled, and the 996 guys bash what's new. It's pretty common that new auto styling is hated before it's loved, so only time will tell. Soon we can all laugh at the exposed carbon fiber that was so cool at the turn of the century.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/thumbup.gif
https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/beerchug.gif
I saw this tear drop rear lights 3 years ago (spy pics)... hated them back then. But, I think they look great now. You wait, its just a metter of time. Though I love the 996 lines, compared to the new cars... they are starting to show its age because of the new trends and innovations of todays auto market. Todays' cars are truly more of a do it all cars.
We're are lucky to have the raw feel of the 996 compared to these cars. But these cars are going to set the standards (performance, build, reliability.... etc) the same way the 911/930/964/gt1 blocks did.
+1
When I first saw the 996 back in late 90's I thought it was ugly, now I rub my hands over it and say sweet nothings as often as I can. I think mine is beautiful....I love it (her) even though she shows her age a bit.
If I had a new 997.2 I am sure the same thing would happen (though I like less of the computer involed driving controls, those too might grow on ya)
I like how they propped the headlights up a bit more and not so layed back too.....also look at the hood lines very closely.... looks like the 550 Spyder to me, there is some heritage in there....
i'm sorry but the new tail lights are horrendous. As is Porsche's attempt at appeasing the C4s light strip crowd with that narrow band.
the 996 strip looks quite a bit better than the 997 4s attempt because it is integrated as one continuous line.
I can see why they dropped those lights... the rear of the 996 has its flaws. Especially the turbo. I never did liked how the wing intersected with the lights.
VS
