Considering 996 cabrio - some questions

Hi. I'm having trouble staying in love with my 965 Turbo 3.6, and am considering the possibility of moving to a 996. Because I'm short of headroom, I'm thinking of the cabrio which seems to have significantly more headroom than the coupe. I have a few questions and would appreciate some feedback on them: - Aside from being slightly slower than the 996 coupe, how does the handling compare? - How is it on the motorway/highway/autobahn in terms of wind noise, stability etc? - I assume it has the same amount of luggage space in the front of the car...? - Does it squeak and rattle more than the coupe? - Can you hear more engine sound than the coupe? - Is there still plenty of headroom with the soft top up? (I have only sat in them with the hard top on) - Finally - are there any cabrio-specific problems to look out for on the early cars? Many thanks for your help..

Howdy, I own a 2000 996 Cab that I drive daily. I used to drive a 993 C2s and have only test driven a 996 Coupe. My .02 worth is: - Aside from being slightly slower than the 996 coupe, how does the handling compare? Handling is based on which suspension the coupe has. The stock suspension is simular to the Cab imo. I changed my springs to the ROW springs and noticed a much crisper turn in. While the car rides great, if you run up against a 996 Coupe with sport suspension it will kill you... There are some guys who have installed H&R and other setups on their cab and could add some insight here... - How is it on the motorway/highway/autobahn in terms of wind noise, stability etc? Stability is not an issue. I have the wind screen; when it is on you will notice very little buffeting especially if the windows are up. With it off you will get buffeting which is helpful on a hot day. Wind noise is what you would expect for a convertable... - I assume it has the same amount of luggage space in the front of the car...? C2's all have the same luggage space. C4's have less... - Does it squeak and rattle more than the coupe? imo no. Most of my squeaks have been fixed in warranty. I get a bit of creaking with the hard top on but very little. - Can you hear more engine sound than the coupe? The 99 - 01 cars are very quiet. You can hear more with the softtop; the hard top is very quiet... - Is there still plenty of headroom with the soft top up? (I have only sat in them with the hard top on) I have not noticed a difference between the ht and the softop. - Finally - are there any cabrio-specific problems to look out for on the early cars? Some people have said that the 99 cars have squeaking issues. I have not had any problems other than minor ones corrected under warranty. Good luck. Roy

I had a '99 cab that was a daily driver and that I traded in last Oct. for an '02 cab and I echo everything ROW stated. I never experienced any squeaks in the top of the '99 although I did with the '02 which the dealer fixed. I did like having the hardtop in winter with its heated glass window. I also think the cab with the hardtop on looks better than the coupe.

I am 6'1" and had simillar concerns. The coupe's are reportedly designed to accomodate drivers up to 6'4". One of my partners had a cabrio, and he dissuaded me from getting a cabrio. He sold his to get a coupe. His main complaint: They leak. He had it to the dealers several times, and it just leaks in a different spot each time. There is a prominent disclaimer in the owner's manual, and I quote "No folding top is 100% leak proof". What follows then is a whole paragraph explaining the disclaimer. So, I guess I am here to try to dissuade you from a cabrio, as my partner did for me. I ended up with the 2002 C4S. At 6'1", I don't have the seat all the way bottomed out, and I still have several inches above my head. Yes, I still have the sunroof, which I understand can take away 1 1/2" head room. So, unless your car will purely be a good weather car, or you are either taller than 6'4" or have a disproportionately longer upper torso, go for a coupe. Hope this helped.

I have driven my Cab for 2 years daily. No leaks here unless the door is open Roy

Greg1234 cheating behind your 964's back. Tut tut....

I wasn't..errr.. cheating, I was... checking out the competition, you know, just to.. umm.. confirm that the 964 is best really.... So what's your excuse for visiting the board then...?! PS just spent an hour in a 996 cabrio. I am amazed at how poor the interior is - no offence to current owners. I know that you buy these cars for the driving, not for the interior but I'm actually quite surprised how bad it was. I even cut the back of my hand on a sharp plastic edge whilst fumbling for the seat adjustment. The 964 and 993 certainly have the 996 beaten in terms of interior quality, no question about that.

Just checkin' out how the other half live!! Some of their dilemma's are heartbreaking - whether to go for a '02 C4S widebody or Cab?? Decisions, decisions.... I am, in truth green with envy, as I too would plump for a 996 'cab - I would keep the 964 for my son (hes only 4) for his first classic when he grows up. Agree with some of your comments re interior. I just think the bunched up 996/boxster dial cluster and all that satnav centre console etc is all too mondeo/renault/saab/merc/salesman's car. Don't get me wrong - for $60k+ you deserve a great interior etc etc, but its a bit sterile I think. Anyway, thats my .0226 Euro.

I'd go further and say it's worse than sterile. I also don't like the bunched up instruments, different font on the dials etc etc - and I don't like the way Porsche have tried so obviously to use ovals and ellipses wherever possible. There's nothing wrong with round or rectangular!! But it's the poor quality that surprised me. I see the quality of the interior as being a big step backwards from the 993 - even that wouldn't have won any awards but it was simple, effective, functional and solid. "Cheap" and "flimsy" are words I would use for the new interior. I mean - can you believe I cut my hand on a sharp plastic edge??? However I must be in a minority since the cars are selling well enough.... And if it had been a source of serious complaint Porsche would have improved it for 2002, but as I understand it the interior is staying the same. I found the 996 a *very* different feel from 964/5 and 993's... initially it felt a lot more "rubbery" and less "directly connected" - but I guess that's how you achieve refinement, by insulating yourself more from the mechanical bits. But it's certainly easier to drive, easier to get 100% from the car... and cabrios are always going to be fun when it's not raining.. I'd want it to be faster, but there are various things that can be done to achieve that. Also I didn't enjoy the exhaust note, even though the car I drove already had a sports exhaust... not sure what else could be done in that area.. However I wasn't impressed enough to want to sell both cars or spend all of my savings to buy it.

[quote]Originally posted by greg1234: <strong> "Cheap" and "flimsy" are words I would use for the new interior. I mean - can you believe I cut my hand on a sharp plastic edge??? However I must be in a minority since the cars are selling well enough.... And if it had been a source of serious complaint Porsche would have improved it for 2002, but as I understand it the interior is staying the same. </strong><hr></blockquote> I have to agree on this point. I still don't think that Porsche have 'got it' yet though. Even the 2002 isn't great compared to other similarly priced cars - I've been looking at the Maserati Spyder and it makes the 996 look CHEAP. DIRT CHEAP. <img src="graemlins/crying.gif" border="0" alt="[crying]" /> <img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" /> The turn and light switch assembly is an automotive lesson in how not to impress customers with soft, flimsy, cheap feeling plastic controls. I HATE the feel of these things which is annoying when you consider how much you use them. The Light stalk even has moulding seams on it which even the cheapest auto makers seem to avoid. I think this is disgraceful. <img src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" border="0" alt="[soapbox]" /> I have a 2000 cab and the rest of the cabin is much, much better than the '99 in terms of plastic quality - just the stalks cause me a problem. <img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" /> I can live with the other glossy switches (now better in '01 & '02). My cab has had a few squeeks & rattles from the roof - each trip to the dealer kills one off another one until now things are pretty much quiet. Leaking roof? I've NEVER had a problem up here in the beautiful pacific NorthWET. Even the rain gutter seems effective and you don't get drenched when you open the door. Mine is faultless. I'd make sure that you get a leather trimmed car for a '99 - the non-leather dash is horribly cheap looking. Dynamically the car is great. Engine sound is muted with the standard car, although one of the friendly aftermarket exhaust systems vendors will rapidly solve that issue!! I don't have a problem with wind noise and the cab gets better aural feedback from the exhaust anyway. The induction roar is a blast with the cab. The coupe is definitely quieter. The hardtop seems just as solid to me as a coupe would be - it's great for the winter and is the best of both worlds. Hope this helps <img src="graemlins/icon501.gif" border="0" alt="[icon501]" />

All very interesting feedback, thanks guys. Graham - are you suggesting that cabin quality has improved over the years in the 996? I was told the cabin was the same in the later cars..

02 cars have different switchs and look much better than 99-01s. If you get full leather interior option, it does improve the look imo. My cab has the stock interior and I like it. It wears well and the "shiny" buttons are not an issue for me. Frankly, I don't see the issue that others point out; this is my 10th 911 and I would not say the older cars are any better than the current car in terms of interior quality. In fact, the 996 has so much more refinement, it's closer to a Lexus than a Porsche... I have the full leather in my TT. The dash looks a bit better but it's not worth the option cost imo ($3K as I recall?). The 02 cars are better than the earlier cars. I'm looking for one now. If you are interested in a used car, let me know and I'll e-mail you the details on mine. Good luck. Roy

How can you pass up a Cabriolet w/harttop...you get the best of all worlds; coupe in winter and wide open in the summer. [IMG] <a href="http://www.986host.com/albums/doncapecod/02_C4_Cab_10.sized.jpg[/IMG]" target="_blank">http://www.986host.com/albums/doncapecod/02_C4_Cab_10.sized.jpg[/IMG]</a>

[IMG] <a href="http://www.986host.com/albums/doncapecod/02_C4_Cab_10.sized.jpg[/IMG]" target="_blank">http://www.986host.com/albums/doncapecod/02_C4_Cab_10.sized.jpg[/IMG]</a>

3 strikes and I'm out, I guess Don's" target="_blank">http://www.986host.com/albums/doncapecod/02_C4_Cab_10.sized.jpg]Don's</a> Cab

Someone is against me here. I own a Cab and love it. That is what you should get. Sorry for the bandwidth...I used to be able to post pics from the 986host site, but apparantly no more?????

Don - I agree that "on paper" a cabrio with hardtop makes a lot of sense. That's why I took one for a test drive. I just found the test drive disappointing. Aside from the interior, I didn't enjoy the driving experience - it was too refined and very competent - but still (obviously) a lot slower than my 1993 Turbo. It just felt like a competent modern car - nothing more. I didn't feel any magic. Whereas at least the Boxster S felt different - it did feel like a sports car. OK it's the slowest of the bunch, but I really liked the handling. (BTW you can get a twin-turbo power upgrade for the Boxster 2.7 that takes it to 430hp...!)

PS Don - that is a nice looking car though...

2001 C4 cab w 17000 miles. Never a leak in the roof no squeeks never been to the dealer! I service myself! I came from a 1995 993 cab. This 996 is much better!! I do have full leather interior so that may be the "quality of interior" issue. I use hardtop and snows in winter and it goes better thsn my jeep! <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />

This entire thread cracks me up! First, my cab, nor ANY 996 cab I've ever been in or heard about save for the ONE on this thread has EVER leaked provided the car had never been in an accident and has the original top. Porsche makes THE most advanced and aerodynamically efficient convertibles on the planet. In addition to performance, this is why they DON'T leak and are relatively quiet. Second, you can have the 15 year old+ interior found in pre-996s. It may not have seemed cheap and flimsy, because there was nothing there to begin with! The only thing I can say is that I miss the open area down there about where the driver's jnee hits in front of the console. I'm going to do the GT3 console delete to take care of that. Other than that, I'm not sure we can confuse the "basic, plain, boring, absent" 15 year old+ interior of pre-993s with "greater quality". Third, the 996 is THE fastest normally aspirated 911 EVER created. And those who want to compare inferior old turbos, need compare them to the butt kicking 996TT. I was on the track with my CAB (heavier, more flex, etc than a coupe) with two 3.6 turbos piloted by folks with at least my level of driving and I couldn't get them to let me by even though I was ON THEIR BUTT like a pimple! Fourth, after coming from a 98 993 cab into my 01 996 cab, I can tell you unequivocally that the 996 STOMPS the 993 in EVERY way - save maybe visceral experience. My 993 went up for sale the day a stock S2000 kept up with me from 40 to 100 mph. The 993 (and other pre-996s) are dead weight til well over 5k RPM. The 99-01 996 comes alive shortly over 4k RPM and the 02 comes alive shortly after 3k. The pre-996s are visceral alright- for about 2k rpm - max! They are setup like the S2000 Honda - only they don't have as much RPM to run in that power band as the Honda. Fifth, the cab top on pre-996s is archaic and SAD! Does anyone else enjoy taking 3 to 5 minutes to snap that stupid cover on every time you lower the top? Does anyone else enjoy having to slam the door when the windows are up to get the door to shut all the way (the 996 windows auto drop an inch when the door is open and auto raise an inch upon closer for seal)? Sixth, the chassis and body rigidity of the 996 is appx FIFTY % greater than the 993 which was itself MUCH greater than the cars that preceeded it. THAT translates into MUCH better performance, and a better ride (softer spring rates are able to be used when not compensating for a "cheap and flimsy" chassis. Really I could go on and on, but the pre-996s are inferior and I'm sure the 996 will join the ranks of the inferior cars before it when the next model comes out. This is improvement and progress - period.

Hi Ben. I don't think we agree on the meaning of the word "quality". The old interiors were not to everyone's *taste* but at least there weren't any rough plastic edges that would cut you and make you bleed if you weren't careful enough!! I will bet money that as time goes by the 996 interiors will wear quicker than the 964 or 993 interiors. My 965 Turbo is 9 years old, but the interior is *as new*. I don't think the 996 interiors will be as solid. The older cars may have had "basic, plain and boring" interiors - but they were of a higher *quality* than the 996 interiors I've experienced. I will take basic, plain, boring and quality over cheap, flimsy, trying-to-look-more-modern-whilst-saving-money any day... In terms of comparisons with older cars - you used a good word - "visceral". In my opinion the 996 has achieved greater levels of refinement by removing the driver from the mechanicals. There's no doubt that my 965 Turbo is a lot more involving and much more of an "experience" than the 996 cars are. If you prefer refinement then the 996 is a great step forwards... if you want the full-blooded sound and feel of the 911 experience then the 965 Turbo is far, far better. And it's a lot faster than the NA 996 cars. Yes, it's slower than the 996TT, but that is an awful lot more expensive. And even if you can afford one.. I doubt that the driving experience is like the older Turbos. Faster, yes... but I bet it's also more comfortable, quieter and more refined. Which is not what everyone wants from a 911. Anyway - as any sane person knows - if you're lucky enough to own any Porsche of any age - you're a winner - enjoy!

Re Porsche cabrios: My 4.5 year old Boxster with a top similar to the 996 cabrio has never leaked. And it's of an inferior or thinner material than the 996. And, as mentinoned above, it uses a self contained hard boot. About time.

"The old interiors were not to everyone's *taste* but at least there weren't any rough plastic edges that would cut you and make you bleed if you weren't careful enough!!" I've yet to hear a story like this other than yours. In fact, I installed my GT3 seats myself and while not paying any extra attention, managed to escape without even a scratch. "I will bet money that as time goes by the 996 interiors will wear quicker than the 964 or 993 interiors. My 965 Turbo is 9 years old, but the interior is *as new*. I don't think the 996 interiors will be as solid." It's a little premature to determine whether that is an accurate prediction or not. However, there are plenty of high mileaged 996s to examine for interior durability. That said, all this talk of visceral experiences and performance is inconsistent with "interior quality" concerns, IMO. Even if the above prediction turns out to be accurate, I'm pleased to have the additional performance (and believe me there is a TON of it) found in the 996 over it's predecors at roughly the same inflation adjusted cost new if it means employing some "efficiency" measures which lowers durability of the "interior" parts. No one can argue that the remarkable, overengineering and excess tolerances that Porsche was famous for (before introduction of the Japanese manufacturing influenced 986/996s), took several steps backward with the 986/996. The 986/996 is a more "mass produced" oriented product which has been created to cater primarily to the poseur (who buys the car for status and therefore will not own it as long as previous model Porsche owners as the "status" is diminished by newer models) and secondarily to the enthusiast - the opposite of Porsche's mindset pre-986/996. "Yes, it's slower than the 996TT, but that is an awful lot more expensive." Well, of course. You get what you pay for. Your 965 turbo may be slower than a Toyota Corolla, but that is an awful lot more expensive. "I doubt that the driving experience is like the older Turbos. Faster, yes... but I bet it's also more comfortable, quieter and more refined. Which is not what everyone wants from a 911." I agree with you there, and the story is the same for NA 996s. However, with a little effort and cash you can have your cake and eat it, and 965 turbos :-) too!

FYI - the place where I cut my hand was the inside edge of the plastic that covers the door sill. I was fumbling around trying to find the front/back electric seat switch and cut the back of my hand just behind the fourth knuckle. Try running your fingers along the inside edge of the piece of plastic - you'll probably see what I mean. Surely it would have been just as easy to have the plastic shaped so that it "clamped" down into the carpet, instead of presenting a sharp edge like that....? Anyway the thing I always liked in Porsches (and in other quality marques like Mercedes) was precisely the sort of over-engineering you referred to. That's how they achieved durability and lasting quality. I bought my wife a new Mercedes C-class, and although I can't immediately fault it, it just doesn't feel anywhere near as solid and bulletproof like the older cars used to. I wish I hadn't felt so disappointed with the 996 I tested, because for the same money as my 965T plus the Boxster S I will probably buy, I could afford a new C4S or a 996 cabrio. I would prefer one car that does everything to two cars. Then again it's a *2 year* wait in the UK for a new C4S. I don't think I could even wait 3 months for a new car, let alone 2 years...

"Anyway the thing I always liked in Porsches (and in other quality marques like Mercedes) was precisely the sort of over-engineering you referred to. That's how they achieved durability and lasting quality. I bought my wife a new Mercedes C-class, and although I can't immediately fault it, it just doesn't feel anywhere near as solid and bulletproof like the older cars used to." Yep, I think build quality (save for the Japanese cars) has gone the way of GM. "I wish I hadn't felt so disappointed with the 996 I tested, because for the same money as my 965T plus the Boxster S I will probably buy, I could afford a new C4S or a 996 cabrio. I would prefer one car that does everything to two cars." Your disappointment as an enthusiast does not surprise me as I was similarly disappointed initially as compared to my 993 cab and E36 M3 (E46 M3 was even more disappointing to me for the same reasons you cite about the 996). However, there are some mods which are not "real" expensive (say $6k) that transform the experience back to visceral - at least for me. Changing the seats to GT3 invokes the go kart sensation on top of being more supportive both laterally and lower back than either the standard or sport seats in addition to resulting in a 64lb decrease in weight for me (electric seats were replaced). The coilover suspension is much more involving and produces more feedback than probably any stock street Porsche (save for the GT2 and GT3 which each have coilovers stock) has ever. Adding in the adj GT3 sway bars will also make the car extremely neutral and more predictable than any street production Porsche (save for the GT3 and GT2 which already have this stuff) - and this goes double for the old 911s with **** out tendancies. These two mods were by far the best in my mind and came at a cost of about $6k including installation. I've also added TT (GT3) brakes, but despite selling my stock brakes and bringing the total installed price down to about $2500, I'm not sure that was money well spent. Then again, my ABS now comes on way earlier than it did with stock brakes and my theory is that these brakes are exceeding my tire grip max quicker which is a bit defeating of their purpose. BFG KDs are supposed to have a little more straight grip and lots more lateral grip (stronger sidewalls) and we'll see then if I'm able to use all that add'l braking power more effectively. Sure wish they had those ceramic brakes available for retrofit cause a 70 lb reduction in unsprung weight (17.5 lbs a wheel) would be sweet.