1999 996 faster than '00 or '01?

I've read on this board that some think the 1999 996 may have a stronger engine or perhaps lighter than the '00 or '01 models. I'm not sure if thats true but I will say that I just drove a '99 that seemed quicker seat of the pants then the recent '00 or '01 that I've driven. Granted, it did have a fabspeed exhaust and intake so the sound alone may have distorted reality but it was an animal in comparison to the later models. Also, I remember reading a british magazine saying that perhaps the 3.4l of 1999 had more hp than actually stated, I think they used the term "hairy". Anyone experience this as well?

The different feeling could be e-gas vs. mechanical linkage.

You may have read the same euro mag article that I found not long ago--I distinctly remember the term "hairy" as well as it referred to the 3.4 engine. Was it EVO? I also remember the repeated recording of 4.9 second 0-60 by some magazine. As for the seat of the pants feel; my 99 cab is decidedly fast, and I too think of it as an animal Geert

couple of yrs ago, i tested 7, maybe 8 '99 996s on dealer's used lot. some felt slighty faster than the next, there seemed to be no correlation between mileage/condition and perceived differences in power. seat-of-the-pants observations are highly fallible, to say the least. in reality, they probably all measured the same. the signifcant dif in 996s came w/ the '02s.

Do also remember that not every car has exactly the same hp. There are tolerances and some car just tend to have a few more ponies.

Fahren wrote: "the signifcant dif in 996s came w/ the '02s" Well, not performance-wise if early 996's did indeed get to 60 in 4.9 seconds. I realize this is just my view, but I had a first model year Carrera (84) and a first model year 964, and since I have been a fan of the earlier rather than the later cars of the same model. Surely this will spark some discussion, but I don't necessarily agree with the Bruce Anderson adage that the newer cars are always the better ones. It is true that the newer versions of the same model usually* benefit from Porsche's version of real world testing--which they galantly delegate to its customers--but at times they have also introduced systems in the later cars that introduced problems where there were none to start. An example of this would be the Freudenberg dual mass flywheel in the second year 964. Geert *"usually" since it is apparent that there are still 996 problems that have not been sorted.

99's are ligther-

I've heard same story when 996 first came out, porsche want prove to the world that watercooling is better than aircooling so they tune early MY996 more aggressive to impress people. EVO data did show MY99 faster than MY02 facelift. personally, I don't feel faster but did feel car is lighter and engine rev faster. I could be wrong. just my thought.

Well after reading the responses I became even more curious and I dug up an Evo magazine that I had picked up in London earlier this year. It doesn't have the article that I remember reading but it does have the road test results at the end of the magazine. Interestingly, they tested the 3.6 and the 3.4 models. The 3.6 did 0-60 in 5.1 and the 3.4 in 4.6sec. More telling though is the rating and the little commentary. The 3.6 got 4 1/2 stars while the 3.4 got 5 stars. Also, the commentary for the 3.6 was "Faster, more secure than the 3.4 but a little less thrilling, the 3.4 was "Beautifully polished 911, some like a bit of rough." I am not by any stretch making the arguement that Porsche made an inferior car in the 3.6 over the 3.4 variant just that I have heard this before and this particular magazine seems to think the 3.4 is a more engaging and quicker vehicle. As for the '99 vs the other 3.4's, that is yet to be determined........

We need a shoot out. Anyone?

Alex is right. I checked an EVO magazine as well and the 3.4 C-2 is listed at 4.6 seconds to 60. The 3.4 C-4 came in at 4.9. What struck me in reviewing some of the numbers is that the 3.4 came in substantially lighter than the outgoing 993, and with quite a bit more power. GP

what is the hp/weight ratio between the cars???? Bobby

I have a 99' Carrera Motor Trend Reprint. It shows the HP at 300 and the base curb weight at 2904 lbs. Not sure of the other years though... My 99 is a C2 Cab which I believe is a little heavier than the coupe although I am not certain about that. I do know that in Guards Red, it is definitely faster than any other color

Induction temps on the day of the 0-60 timing can make a quite a difference in performance. Colder air has more concentration of oxygen and allows more efficient burning and power. Thats why cars can feel slower in summer then in winter.

Ok fellas, got some info off edmunds.com. Here is what i gathered. Hope the format makes sense. Year model curb weight Horsepower weight/hp ratio 99 C2 2901 296 9.8 99 C4 3031 296 10.2 02 C2 2910 320 9.09 02 C4S 3395 320 10.6 Unless the 99 HP rating is low, the 99s should be slower. However, the C4s is significantly heavier so each horse needs to carry more weight. My conclusion, the 02 C2 should be faster than a 99 C2 but a 99 C4 is faster than a 02C4s. Bobby

I'll put my 3.4 up against any POS 3.6

the 3.6's aren't POS's in fact they're nicer at the track because of the torque coming in lower. that is not to say that I can't wring out the 3.4 and be on par but coming out of a corner it doens't have to be as near readline necessitating a quick upshift etc. Otherwise not too much differences

I hope you know I was joking.

oh I know, but I didn't want someone getting all upset and turn the post into a flaming match-

That's an interesting notion about the 3.4L being more aggressively tuned than the 3.6. A lot of guys are plugging 996 engines into Boxsters, and the 3.4L seems to be the engine of choice. I think this is due to the 3.4L conversion being easier (issues with eGas, etc.), but also that most don't feel they're giving up much to the 3.6. I don't think there was a big difference between the Ruf 3400S and the 3600S.

Im pretty sure my C4 has egas as well even though it is a 3.4L. Maybe Im wrong but I thought 99C4s and later C2s has egas. Maybe it has to do with the engine mounts. If not, then why don't people who have engines replaced, replace the 3.4s with 3.6s? Bobby

Forgive my ignorance but what is egas?

what I remember from the Evo review was the steering in the 99 996's was more precise... is that true; I can't say... I don't have the time behind an 02 model... I certainly like the engine noises of the 3.6 though.... more snarly and throaty... although the PSE on my 99 is simply awesome!

I don't know where edmunds is getting their info from but it clearly shows that a 99 C2 and 02 C2 are 9 lbs apart... hmmm wonder if they are in err... Page 183 of my 99 c2 manual states 2909.9 lbs... iI believe Edmunds is wrong on the 02 C2... can somebody pull out their 02 C2 manual and lookup the weight under capacities section? I would gestimat e that the 02 C2 weighs in at 3150 (aprox)

interesting thead. i just checked porsche.com and shows C4s 3296lbs(manual) and 3417 (tip). i wasnt aware that c4s weighs 400-500lbs more than 99 c2.that seems to be a huge difference to me (yes i know you get awd and 200cc bigger engine ,beefed up strucutre)

remeber that the c4s is a widebody!!! maybe thats why the gt3 is based on the narrow body style?????

I am pretty sure the 02 is heavier by about 200lbs??? egas didn't occur in 99's unless you had a c4. BTW another thing I remeber about 99's is they have a different rack and pinion and I blieve different ratio??? I seem to remember someone telling me that through a post a while back. They remarked that the 99 felt better, but I don't remember exactly how they described it.

My 2001 C4 definately felt more nimble than my 04 C4s cab. The cab is heavier but they are both awd's, it just had a much different feel.