Auto-X and Track. 2002+ C2 or C4S /Boxster S ???

I'm researching the used market for my next Porsche. Currently driving a 01 Boxster S. The car is brilliant in Auto-X, but in the race track it lacks some power. Looking at the specs on the C2, I was surprised that the 996 is lighter than the 993. I took the weight on my Boxster S last week and it was 2936 lbs (no spare tire, tools, almost empty gas tank). I'm decided to get a 2002+ 996. My common sense says the C2 is the car to get. But everybody describe the C4S as the best N/A 996 under 100K. The C4S is 220 lbs heavier, but it has wider track and wider wheels. Any idea on how much weight I could save going with the sunroof delete option? Thanks

How about some engine work to your boxster S? I know you're decided, but many would agree than the boxster S is one of THE best handling Porsche's... So why throw away a great platform? It's not too hard to add more power...its a lot harder to make a 996 drive like your boxster. Have you test driven a 996?

see NJRacer? I told you! You alaready have THE best handling car. The closest mid-engine car that handles like the Boxster is a Ferrari 360, and you can get 3 of yours for 1 of those. The only Prosche I would upgrade (from a Boxster S) for the use you and I want of our cars would be a GT3. That's why I'm getting the Elise next year and waiting for a good opportunity (bargain) on a slightly used GT3 in late 04 or 05. A stripped down (low weight) version of a 320hp 996 would be a great track car, but I doubt it would be any faster than a Boxster S at an AutoX course. As Adrial points out, the engine in your car is subutilized. There must be at least 35-40hp that you could unleash with basic modifications (intake, chip tunning , and headers/exhaust) that would not hurt reliability at all. 93hp is a huge margin of difference between your engine and my car's engine for the same displacement. and it's amzing that with that horsepower deficit, it's posible to run the same times thanks to the much better handling and lower weight of the Boxster. The 3.4 upgrade is an alternative, but I think the performance difference with a nicely (and safely) tuned 3.2 wouldn't be that much.

The Boxster S is the better AutoX car, no doubt. The C4S is the better track car, also no doubt. The Boxster's lightweight and better balance are it's defining characteristics for autocross. Lack of ooomph define it at the track. I don't believe simply getting a stronger engine will cut it. Performance is all about how well everything works well together. If you get a stronger engine, you have to counter that with better brakes, tune the suspension differently, add chassis rigidity....... The list can be endless. Now, if you can get a Ruf version...... Heavy weight, rear bias define the C4S for autocross. Power, stability, running on rails, and confidence inspiring characterize the C4S at the track. At the 'Ring, the C4S is faster than the C2 by a few seconds. For us mere mortals driving DE's, the C4S advantage is that it is very confidence inspiring. It is easy to drive very fast. It just seems to stay planted, and goes where you want it to go. With enough time, you can even start using the rear weight bias and AWD to advantage. As always, this is IMHO. GT3 would make an awesome track car. Lotus Elise would make an excellent rack and autoX car, so long as reliability issues are addressed.

Uhhhmmm, interesting. This is news for me. I always thought that in professional hands the C2 will be faster than the C4S. Is that the same case for a C2 with the Sports Suspension? I fully agree with you that for the average driver, confidence inspring plays a big role in how fast you can be on any given car (Have you ever driven a 930 Turbo at the track?), and that's probably why you see people at DEs going faster in a C4S than in better cars. On you comment of the Boxster S with more power, I would say that chassis, suspension and brakes can easily cope with 290-300hp.

Tested in the 'Ring with stock cars. With mods and upgrades, it's anybody's opinion. Of course, since I own a C4S, my opinion is that the C4S, with the better brakes, wider track and AWD, will always win .

Not to delve into this argument again, but Palting that's probably why they chose to make the GT3 a narrowbody, and the GT2 RWD. An equally equipped factory C2 will beat a C4S when driven by a professional or an experienced racer. In fact add two things to a C2 and I'm sure it'll have faster times, 18" wheels and M030. Its nearly 300 lbs. lighter. It stops faster than a C4S while still having the smaller brakes (due to the weight difference). The only advantage to the C4S might be that of a 2 inch wider track. OH MY GOD, all bow down in front of such a powerfully wide track. LOL. Its funny how GT3's keep up with GT2's around the corners to a large extent with their narrowbody. On the straights its the extra power of the GT2 and obviously has nothing to do with the wider track. I will admit if you are talking about an inexperienced driver, then the C4S will be "easier" to drive well, but you can't compare cars on an absolute level in terms of inexperienced drivers. Oh and anybody who claims that the, "mods and upgrades" is the only way to make them equal is simply using slight of hand in a similar fashion that Bill Clinton used as President. A C2's base price is approx. $68,000. Nobody, and I repeat nobody, takes a C2 without options. The car is highly configurable and one is able to add options which cater to their use of the car. The C4S has a base price in the $80,000 price range. The C4S is basically a compilation of packages placed together on a car. Yes you get the widebody styling and the bigger brakes (which you definately need with the extra weight of sheet metal covering the empty space which turbos occupy in a TT or GT2). Now if you want an equal comparison between the two vehicles one should add options onto the C2 such as the 18" wheels (99% sold come with these) and the M030 (the C4S has a sports suspension). In fact I would just add these two and then I'd like to see the C4S beat the C2 around the track. There is no way it should be physically possible aside from poor driving. You can't beat the basic laws of physics. If you want to tell me that the C4S is a great everyday road car that embodies safety, the great feeling of driving a Porsche, and the widebody looks that is fine, but the rest is propaganda.

This sounds more accurate to what I expected and felt when driving both cars at an AutoX: C2 with Sports Supension (no mods, just the M030 package) and a C4S. Weight is the biggest enemy of a true SportsCar!

Don't take all these things too seriously. Numbers, stats, weights, theories...........one opinion is as good as the other. All P-cars are great cars. It's what you do with them and how you do it that matters. Let me just give you some examples. In the novice class at our region's autocross, there were a lot of Boxsters, S and otherwise, C2's, C4S's, older 911's. The C4S won the season convincingly. In the expert category, it was a 944 that won the season, also convincingly. At the track, I've seen stock 993's, weighted down by the true enemy of the sportscar relative to the 996, run around 996's in several categories. In "B" group ( A is the racing group), I've passed C2's, 993's, even a 360. OTOH, simillar cars have passed me, even an RX7!! I've had a lot of fun in previous posts debating all these theoretical points. Shorter braking due to less weight (?), faster around corners due to AWD (?), bow down to the wider track, bow down to the lighter car.....What does it all mean? I doubt that most of us can or are willing to drive these cars so close to their limits that these litttle thngs will make a difference. Absolute level? Now, THAT"S funny. All are great cars. There will always be a C2 that I can pass on the track, there will always be a C2 that can pass me. This will be true despite whatever theories we may have. That's reality. If you want theory, we can discuss this 'til hell freezes over. In theory, the C4S will beat a C2 with 030 . The C4S brakes will fade less over multiple hard applications due to their design, allowing for later hard braking. The bigger rubber and wider track will let you get into the corner a little hotter. You can get back on the gas a little earlier since the AWD will pull the front around and rotate the car better for faster exit speeds and faster straight speeds. Shorter lap times is the inevitable result. Narrow Gt3 vs wide Gt2. Now that's a fun discussion. We can throw opinions all day long. But, this is getting long. We'll start another thread with that one.

Ok..so yeah...my C4S is better looking than the narrow body C2

LOL. Wah Wah Wah Narrowbody vs. Widebody. Palting: Exactly, right on. Theories abound and aren't likely to be proven correct. The cars are so similar on so many levels, yet different on others. Curves4S: Different flavors for different people. Your car just has thunder thighs. :-P I do have to say I think the most beautiful 996 combo would be the GT3's front with the TT or GT2's rear.

Back to my point. It seems that a 2002+ C2 with the M030 and 18" (standard on the C4S), is faster than the C4S in auto-x and track. The 18" will increase weight to around 3050 lbs. I like the look of the widebody 911, but the look is the last factor I will consider on buying a 911, because in my opinion all the 911 coupes look very good. Considering a 02+ C2 with 18" and M030, and some other cars we have: - C4S has 11" rear wheels and the C2 10" wheels. - C2 in 18" is around 250 lbs lighter. - Power to weight ratio in the C4S is worse than the E46 M3 which is a heavy car. - All the current Porsche race cars are RWD. - In the right hands the C2 is faster than the C4S. - In the average hands the C4S is faster than a C2. - In the right hands the GT3 is faster than the Turbo. - In the average hands the Turbo is faster than a GT3. My Boxster S has the standard suspension (no M030). It has been in the track and auto-x. It is excellent in auto-x, but in the race track, it lacks power. With $20k I can transplant a 996 3.4 engine. With $12k I can upgrade the current engine up to 280Hp. At that point I will need a different suspension and brakes. $25k-$30k in mods. Hell no!. It is a 40k car before and after the mods. The C2 and Boxster S have pratically the same weight. The C2 with the X51 has almost 100 more Hp. Track: C2-> C4S -> Boxster S Auto-x: Boxster S -> C2 -> C4S I suspect that in the right hands a C2 could be faster than the Boxster S in auto-x. The SCCA has the C2 is SS class and the Boxster S in AS class. Probably they know the truth.

good observations. i set my sights on a boxster before buying a 996 and used simlar criteria. inspite of the fact the 996 has the engine in the 'wrong' place, it is clearly the superior platform to build on. as great as the boxster is--especially the handling balance--the 996 is better in every regard. fwiw, i found the 996 to be easier to hustle 'round the track at or close to it's limit. the boxster has a low polar moment of inertia, which can make it a handfull for the unsuspecting driver--but it's a blast if you know what you're doing

I guess that makes C2 the best for all around performance use . And it's cheaper to boot. It's a great car. Congratulations. Post pics when you get it, NJ-GT.

hurley haywood was quoted as stating (in racing terms) that a 2wd car is most likey the quicker of the two over one lap, but an awd car would be faster over a race-distance. awd cars are easier on tires and requires less pit stops. he was drawing the comparison as it relates to c4 vs c2. in the real world, the c4 makes sense to the fast driver who primarily travels over wet/icy roads. personally, i never considered a c4 'cause i'm in dry climes and hrdly could benefit from that.

What I heard is that 911s (993 and 996) in stock form can be fast in AutoX but are difficult to dial-in b/c of the weight that lies behind the rear axle The Boxster S is a car that requires a less tunning and less experienced hands to set it up appropriately because it has the perfect configuration (mid engine, low polar moment of inertia, etc.) It will be good to see someone like Pat Salerno setup and drive a 993 or 996 just to see what the real potential is. The 996 is in SS mostly because it costs $70K+ and SCCA doesn't want to risk that a car that expensive dominates and becomes the car-to-have in a Stock class. The same reasoning applies for the TT, GT2 and GT3 being in ASP and not allowed in Stock. NJ-GT, a well setup (for Stock Auto-X) 993 or 996 might drive very differently than the regular (or even track optimized) car. For AutoX setups there are a lot of compromises to be made, as you probably found out from driving my car last Saturday As for the 18" wheel you can always get Custom wheels that are no heavier or even lighter than 17"s

How is a heavier car easier on tires? In the speedvision GT series, the Audi's (quattro AWD) eat through tires...

where there's parity re weight, awd will have an advantage. witness audi's trans-am championship in '88. it was it's only year in the series and rule makers promptly outlawed awd in '89 as an unfair advantage. audi almost won the IMSA GTO title in '89 w/ an awd car. if it weren't for rule makers moving the goal post all-season-long in an effort to de-rail audi. speedvision gt series? what's that

ummm, weren't the c2 vs c4s times at the Ring by "experience" drivers? if so, then where's the speculation on that head to head comparison. how's that song go???? "I like big butts..."

Yes, but the C2 wasn't equipped with M030 which makes quite a difference as many of the members know. Also the cars weren't driven by the same driver on the same day. Its just not an accurate enough way of comparing the two vehicles.

That's the real key isn't, just exactly how much more weight is there and where is the weight located? Is it really 300lbs or might it be something less? What about driver's weight? (Holiday diets coming up I'm sure) The quest comes down to can the physical advantages of the AWD system overcome the increased weight if everything else is equal. It would seem that in regards to the C4S vs. C2 that in some instances and in some hands it can, in others it cannot. I think we would all agree that if the C4S had no weight penalty it would prevail over the C2 every time. It would be interesting to see how "light" you can make a C4S and how "heavy" you can make a C2 with options as well. As far as AWD systems go in terms of performance add vs. weight handicap, the Porsche system seems to be pretty good.

I guess I can post on this topic, having some experience. I have the above described car...an 02 C2 with just sport seats,M030, 18" Carreras and that's basically it. I ran almost a whole season of SCCA autocrosses in the DC region. I have Hoosiers and that's it, no other mods. I was getting to be within 1 sec of the Z06s that ran our local club. I ran the one National event that was held in DC and was about 5 secs slower than the top Z06s on a course they were doing in 55secs. I'm sure alot of that was due to driver error. The big drawback to running one of these cars in auto-x is not the rear weight bias or lack of power compared to the Z06, it's the lack of a limited slip differential. I ordered my car without PSM. Before you comment on that, let me say the auto-x is MUCH different than road racing. In auto-x sometimes sliding around the corner is the fastest way. PSM can be turned off, but once you get hard on the brakes it intervenes. Another drawback is the lack of alignment adjustability. The Hoosiers love negative camber.The mostI could get out of my car in the front was less than 1 degree. 2 degrees in the front would make a ton of difference. This being my first season running it, I spent half of it checking tire pressures and things like that. I could also do the few other mods that are allowed in Stock class, like shocks (expensive), brake pads and air filter. BTW, I was consistently faster than the Boxster S cars that ran in AS.

Weird! LSD. Probably that's the reason the 40th anniversary edition has LSD as well as the GT-3. My common sense says no to the 40th edition when $10k more reach a GT3. Is it possible to install an aftermarket LSD in a 996?

This C2 vs. C4S debate reminds me a little of the common 911 vs. M3 debate. You can spend all day comparing these cars according to their statistics, and they might seem very comparable.... and then when you drive each of them, you feel sort of stupid because you then realize how completely different they are. I just purchased an '03 C2. Until this past weekend at the track, I had serious buyer's remorse because I think the C4S looks so much better. Then I had a chance to drive them both at the track... I liked the C2 so much better it was no longer a comparison. It had much more of a sports car feel to it (in my opinion). Many people think the C4S drives so much better that it's not a comparison. The point is -- I wouldn't get too caught up in comparing these cars based on their statistics. Try to take a meaningful test drive with each... after that, the decison might be easy.

abetaque I agree with you 100%. I was lusting after a C4S until I was able to drive a C2-030 back to back with a C4S. Then the decision on which car to get became totally obvious. I think it just depends on what types of roads you will be driving on and what you want from your car.

abetaque, tstanding: I share your preferences. I've been reading a lot about 996 and everybody says "the best Porsche money can buy" or " the best Porsche".... In my opinion an almost 300 pounds ligther C2 with M030 and 18" will run circles in auto-x and racetrack against a C4S even if the C4S has the power kit (on the right hands). BTW, I found a deal on a 2003 brand new 911 with a $10k under sticker. Problem: it doesn't have the M030 and no xenons.

I'd pass on the lack of xenon's. That's because I would spend my time kicking myself for not getting them, especially when driving at night. The lack of the M030 isn't a big deal because you can buy the RoW M030 from carnewal. Keep looking and you'll find the perfect one.

LOL. Make sure about your quotes and statements. They may have said that in 2001 0r 2000. In 2002, experts who said that were talking about the C4S, not the C2. For 2003, those same quotes are being said about the GT3. Enjoy your choice, but don't get carried away and delude yourself . Running circles around another Porsche......... Only if the C2 is spinning out of control, which is what will happen if you try to keep up with a stock non-X51 C4S at the track .

i know that was written tongue-in-check, but in all seriousness, the c2's penchant for 'spinning' is an exaggeration. my car is tracked a half-dozen times a yr and set-up for 'mickey-mouse' courses and auto-x--which means it's biased toward oversteer, on and off the gas. i have found the 996 to be a real pussycat and very easy to drive at the limit. the car is very easy to 'catch' when the back steps out. i've intentionaly tried to upset the car by stomping on the brakes and turing-in at 100+ mph (fontana turn 4 coming off the oval) and still the car remains very predictable. Guys who regularly spin the car are driving over their head and need add'l instruction

NJ-GT, don't worry about the std suspension, you'll be adding RoW M030 most likely. RoW M030 is superior to the US M030 in terms of looks and performance. Sounds like a great buy.

Me, too. I saved up for years thinking I was getting a C4S until I drove them back to back. For me it wasn't about raw capability, but rather that intangible "feel" thing. I ended up buying the C2 without hesitation. I can't wait to get the ROW M030 installed next week!

The problem with the C4S is that its just the thunder thighed, big gutted, version of the C2, and since when is the fat kid the fastest in the race? :-P

When he has slicked back hair for lower CF, bigger shoes for stopping and turning, and can use his hands to grab the apex in turning!!!!

Nah, that just means he's a greasy haired fat kid with goofy HEAVY feet to match who is sniffing for scraps of food on the ground. I think the only way this could deteriorate more is if our two cars has a pissing match.

ROFLMAF!! I have way too much idle time today time today, and I am seriously tempted to take you up on it .

I always thought tires had more to do with braking than rotor size. The C4S is a fine car, all things being equal I prefer a C2...of course my brother says the same about his C4S. I'll give the C4S one thing for sure, it looks better.