8 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH996 wannabee
Leading reported evidence
Recommend '02 or newer
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
Depending on how much you want to spend, I would recommend '02 or newer.
Leading evidence: 'Recommend '02 or newer' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Recommend '02 or newer' (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 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
PCNA did replace my engine so that was a good thing but I was under warranty.
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.
8 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: 20261026T063944Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I usually hang around the 964 board but lately I've got an itch for a 996 carrera 2. Can you guys tell me what year I should look into if I decide to get one? What should I look for good/bad.
oh yeah, dont tell the 964 guys about this, they'll kill me!
I'd have to say 2002+ models because they are stiffer and the engine is bigger and faster. If you get a pre-2002 model, I'd avoid the 1999 since that was the first year for the 996 and has some bugs according to some posts I have seen.
The worst thing I can think of is the RMS problem which has not been solved, it seems. I had it on my 2001 c2 cab and have read about 2003 vehicles having the same issue. PCNA did replace my engine so that was a good thing but I was under warranty. I had a 2003 c4s and it was a great car but I did not want to deal with the potential RMS issue as well as the introduction of the 997.
The 996TT and GT3 cars have a different engine than the 996 and they do not have the RMS design flaw. If I had know this, I would have sucked it up and gotten a TT but I am still happy with my 01 c2cab. Let us know what you decide!
I went for a low mile 1999. Boy am I a happy camper. I'm sure that a later model would be nicer, but frankly a 1999 is nice enough already. Fast enough, also. I did not want a cabriolet. The 1999 just now at 36,000 miles is rattle free and solid. I had a complete 30,000 mile service done and there are no issues to report. Plus it leaves me money left over for my boat and travel trailer which I really like to use.
No Rear Main Seal leak. Plenty of brake pad left. Brakes had been bled.
We were specifically looking for a 2000 or newer thinking that there might be issues with the first model year. Now that I own it I have absolutely no fears about the 1999.
i also bought 99 996C2 w/12K miles from my friend. we had the dealer check out the car and we found zero problem. (almost they did note a minor leak in a coolant tank which is quite common)
it may be just me but i think the aero kit (GT3 body) makes the car look a lot more exciting than one w/o it.
got my '99 996 with 35k miles on it - it was a certified pre-owned porsche w/ warrenty. runs quite well, no history of RMS problem either on this car. its not the power so much as the ride- this car is so smooth its like you're riding on glass. what an expereince! i make up excuses to go out for a drive. problem is i've put 9k miles on it since january
I am looking for a 99' or 2000' with sunroof delete option at the moment. I'll make sure to get the PPI done with the RMS problem in mind.
A GT3 kit is what I have in mind too for the 996, they look so sweet. Thanks for the tips!!
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
