Model Guide: The 996-generation 911 ? Part I

https://www.pca.org/news/2016-12-28/...ion-911-part-i

The referenced PCA News article has a small error. My. Burris' side bar suggests that clutch replacement necessitates engine removal, which in turn streamlines AOS replacement. While I agree that engine removal facilitates such replacements, engine removal is not required, only transmission removal is required. At least that applies to early 996s. In any event, its a well written article and side bar. relinuca

Interesting article.

My problem with the entire article is even PCA seems to forget that there were 996's sold as 2005's!

Quotes source post: 13857628

Worse, the first ones sold as of '97, not '99!!! Volkert

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 996 offered as a model year 1998 product? Hmmm. edit: Appears that I'm late with that breaking news. oops.

Well, they discuss model years, not actual deliveries. So technically the "2004" is OK I guess. But the 996 got introduced late 1997 (so model year 1998) but was it officially available only as of late 1998 (so model 99) in the USA? Volkert

Quotes source post: 13858706

Whelp, I don't know about production dates, but what makes a car's model year is the check digit in the VIN. I assure you that there are plenty of 996 models with a 1998 check digit in the VIN. Around 8000 or so? We have one here on this board. My car is a model year 1999 by a few SNs, as it was produced in Feb 98 as a 99 model. I think the official Porsche position is it was 1998-2004, although there were some delivered in 05-ish.

There are definitely model year 2005 996s: the 996tt and C4S were sold as 2005 model year vehicles alongside the 997. Also, I thought there were Mk II C4 coupes, but the article says no C4 coupes after 2001. I don't understand the first sentence of the article, specifically the 2nd half of it: We maintain that a front-engined, four-cylinder, water-cooled model is the least-expensive way into Porsche ownership, but we know there are those who may only be able to stomach one of those descriptors in their own Porsche

Also, I disagree with about half of what Bill Burris says about buying and maintaining these cars. An owner should only DIY an oil change and keeping air in the tires: everything else should be done by a professional? WTF?

If I'm not mistaken the author was referring to the Porsche 944 as being "the least-expensive way into Porsche Brand" ownership, with the engine being a 4 cylinder front mounted and water cooled.

Quotes source post: 13857810

This is a PCA article, so presumably it's only concerned with the cars that were sold in North America.

"With the arrival of this 996-generation 911 for the 1999 model year , Porsche no longer made air-cooled engines."

in 2005 (in the US) the base carrera were 997 but the C4S and TT remained as 996's.... this article says C4S 996's stopped in 2004

"The reality of the IMS bearing issue The truth is that 9 out of 10 original intermediate shaft bearings will never have a problem. It�s also the truth that 9 out of 10 buyers will always have a problem with the original intermediate shaft bearing. "

Maybe this is just a 996 owner trend but a non-"doom and gloom article" is written about 996's, and the Rennlist folks need to find everything possible that's wrong with it? Why? Not enough negativity in the 996 world already?

I think many of "us" just expect those touted as "experts" would have accurate info and not just opinions. It is PCA after all.!

Well I thought it was a good article. And I won't be to rough on the guy for the inaccuracy's although there were quite a few. Like most things Porsche, nothing is simple or strait-forward. All the idiosyncrasies and exception to the rules, ya just get used to it ! If he puts to much detail/side bar/exceptions in there it could get boring or hard to follow. It's like a "new to Porsche" tech looking for some engine specs on a 1998 996 M/96 engine in the Porsche workshop manuals. THEY'RE NOT THERE !! He knows by the vin its a 1998, but the workshop manual doesn't SAY 1998 996. I know it's the same as a 1999 996, but HE doesn't, and the workshop manual doesn't say OR even LIST a 1998 996 !! That's just one example, there are tons of them.

Quotes source post: 13860904

Not sure about anyone else, but when I see a published article by an 'expert' organization I expect not just accuracy but a desire to at least work towards mastery of the subject matter. As a teacher, I'm sick and tired of people working to the lowest level of passable functioning. Yes, the guy who graduates from med-school with a 71% score on his tests is called 'doctor' but lets be honest - no one wants him taking out a spleen. This is PCA, recognized by the mfg as a major organization dealing with the Porsche marque. If they can't organize and/or express their thoughts in an article, I will call them out. It's very clear that none of these people have gone through dissertation peer review, much less defense by the chair of the dept. If someone like ME can find glaring errors in an article by PCA - something is wrong, and calling them out is fine with me.

Quotes source post: 13861319

Isn't this "article" simply entertainment created by club volunteers and should be enjoyed as such? And come on, none of you are upset that it's x51, not x50???

+1

Quotes source post: 13861377

" Model Guide : The 996-generation 911 — Part I"

Quotes source posts: 13861377, 13859050

Yes, that part of the article left a lot to be desired.

Other than the couple of minor details and all quibbling about model year aside*, I thought it was a pretty decent article overall. Not a ton of new information there, but you get the broad strokes. And calling out the IMS as being an overhyped issue is a rational stance, in my opinion. (Which isn't to say that it isn't real, but definitely blown out of proportion to some degree, at least on early cars. Obviously, anyone who has had an IMS failure can tell me to GFY, and fair enough, it's relatively easy for me to call it overhyped when I haven't had to throw five figures at an engine rebuild). *Regarding model years - technically production of the 996 was from 1997 to 2005, but PCNA's press releases for the 996 US launch/introduction talk about it as a 1999 model (deliveries starting in late 98, maybe some of the cars came off the line as 98s - seems like the Porsche factories were a lot less organized back then compared to now.) And I think it was considered as "replaced" when the 997 came and replaced all of the narrow body cars. Technically, yes, the 4S, Turbo/S, and GT3 lived on, but those are special models and run on a different timeline than the regular cars. (You can argue that the C4S wasn't "special", but I'd argue that being the only widebody made it closer to special than not, and the resale values now I think support that.) So if you tell me that the regular 996 was MY99-04, I think that's a totally valid statement. And probably the official Porsche (NA) line (which you're free to disagree with, but they actually were the ones who sold the cars...)

Quotes source post: 13861319

I agree, the article also left out the fact that 99 and earlier model year 996 had optional Traction control and a LSD which is an important factor to many 996 buyers. It looks like the article was written up quickly by a person who has general knowledge of Porsche cars but is not an expert on the 996 or didn�t consider asking one. I believe that if you say you are superman and someone asks you to put on your cape you should do so, the same way that if the PCA considers themselves a representative of true Porsche enthusiasts and makes a guide for a particular model they should consult with actual enthusiasts and experts. I really like the PCA and im a member but every organization probably has room for improvement and this is something that needs to improve IMO.

Being that im a PCA member and appreciate the organization I sent the author of the article a message through the PCA website to bring his attention to this thread and maybe he will read it and respond and we can contribute in a way. I think that it would be nice to have a really precise Guide to the 996 and the PCA is the perfect organization to do it. They have done great work for the community that has contributed to the rise in value of the 911.

Hello everybody, although I am a frequent Rennlist visitor, this is my first “official” post representing PCA digital media. I’m here to join the discussion thanks to the email MoeMonney sent. Before addressing your concerns, I’d like to thank you all for the interest in this article. The article is catered to people who may or may not own a Porsche, meaning it doesn’t get too specific with all the little idiosyncrasies of the 996. It is meant to be a guide to help individuals navigate the confusing world of Porsche model variants. Each month, we will cover all of the “normal” production models, so by the end of the year there will be a large resource to help get Porsche newbies started. We also will invite a PCA Tech Expert to share basic knowledge in each model guide, such as what Bill Burris did in the latest one. He’s the club’s 996 expert, and I will share your responses with him as well. While there’s always room for improvement, please know I did reference expert sources for this guide. If there are factual errors, we have the luxury to update the articles at any time. The goal here is to give those who have interest in Porsches the opportunity to make an informed buying decision, and to share our passion for the marque. If you would like to point out areas that need improvement in this or other articles that I’ve written or that have appeared on PCA.org, please contact me at [email removed] or call PCA’s office and ask for Damon. In the meantime, since we have a thread going here, I’ll attempt to address the issues that have been raised. VivG actually answered one for me… VivG: So if you tell me that the regular 996 was MY99-04, I think that's a totally valid statement. And probably the official Porsche (NA) line (which you're free to disagree with, but they actually were the ones who sold the cars...) And I’ll add that only 996 Turbo S coupes and Cabs were sold as 2005 models. GT2/3 and Turbo models will be covered in 996 Part II. From my research, C4S was not offered as a 996 in model year 2005. If there’s a valid source that says otherwise, please share. I am happy to make a correction if the current info is proven wrong. To avoid confusion, I tend to go with model years rather than year of production, and I also only cover cars that were sold in North America. For reference, Porsche’s official North American model lineup did not include a 996 C4S, according to Porsche: http://press.porsche.com/archive/pro...005/index.html I did miss the obvious fact that Carreras got X51 and Turbos got X50. Thanks for pointing that out Garrett376. I will update that. MoeMonney: I agree, the article also left out the fact that 99 and earlier model year 996 had optional Traction control and a LSD which is an important factor to many 996 buyers. It looks like the article was written up quickly by a person who has general knowledge of Porsche cars but is not an expert on the 996 or didn�t consider asking one. I believe that if you say you are superman and someone asks you to put on your cape you should do so, the same way that if the PCA considers themselves a representative of true Porsche enthusiasts and makes a guide for a particular model they should consult with actual enthusiasts and experts. I really like the PCA and im a member but every organization probably has room for improvement and this is something that needs to improve IMO. Some things were left out, with the assumption that somebody who’s looking to buy a 996 will continue to research using materials more qualified to point out year-by-year differences in equipment and options. However, I agree TC and LSD are worth mentioning and will make an update after confirming how these features were available each model year. Thanks again for the interest in the article and for your comments. I look forward to your feedback in the future. Damon Lowney Digital Media Coordinator Porsche Club of America

hey Damon - thanks for the reply. You asked us to share a valid source that C4S's were offer as 996's in 2005. I own a 2005 911 C4S that is a 996. link to thread when I got it: https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...-grin-off.html here is the COA

IkoIko911, thanks for sharing this! I'm pretty sure that's a valid source I will update the article asap. Upon searching the thread you shared, it seems there could be more 996s built in '04 and sold as MY '05 than just the C4S and Turbo S. My apologies to those whose models were not included in the guide and should have been. I'll search for the official answer and will update the article if there were '05 stragglers in addition to the C4S and Turbo S.

Quotes source post: 13862455

Not to disagree with you, but that's not a COA, but rather just the options build list that any dealer can pull up in the service department. I've seen errors on these as well. Look at mine, see anything obviously incorrect?

Damon: I wondered the same thing about 996s in 2005 after I purchased my 2005 996 C4S. I thought they were all 997's except for the premiums. I was wrong. Forum member on Pelican Parts sent me the attached "996's produced and sold as 2005's", as info. Bill: 728 4S Coupe 763 4S Cabs 201 Carrera Cab 276 GT3 122 Turbo 18 GT2 129 Targa 90 GT3 Cup 127 Turbo Cab 598 Turbo S 960 Turbo S Cab Total 996 production of all models for Y 05 was 4012 Data from: Porsche 996 The Essential Companion

COA or not, my car is a 2005 911 C4S and it's a 996

Quotes source post: 13862877

Not disputing that - just saying that the build sheet can be incorrect.

http://www.vindecoderz.com/EN/check-...AA2997WS620024

Anyway, some details aside, it is a fine article!! No problemos!! Volkert

Thank you Damon for this article and your efforts! Makes it a pleasure to be part of PCA.

How many forum posters does it take to change a light bulb? 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" Another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp" 15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct 19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a light bulb forum 11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum 36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty 5 People to post pics of their own light bulbs 15 People to post "I can't see S$%^!" and use their own light bulbs 7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs 4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's 13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too" 5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy 4 to say "Didn't we go through this already a short time ago?" 13 to say "Do a search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs" 1 to bring politics into the discussion by adding that George W. isn't the brightest bulb. 4 more to get into personal attacks over their political views. 1 moderator to lock the light bulb thread. 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again

^ Agreed! Fun, ain't it?!