82 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHIs the 911 underpowered?
Reported or suspected cause
first year of
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
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 report identifying a cause
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.
Reported cause
Yeah, it was the first year of that more of a rounded design, not as boxey as the first generation.
Leading evidence: 'first year of' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'first year of' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check here' (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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
This section of the forum has changed SO much since I got here, it seems as these cars become cheaper and more attainable, people don't appreciate them the same way as the original buyers did and it's very obvious.
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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
Ben - You're clearly not in the defensive camp, but here an interesting analogy I used on this thread in the 997 forum :
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 suspect a cause
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.
Suspected cause · Original poster
Don't know how they are on a track, but I suspect with a decent suspension they do okay.
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.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
This section of the forum has changed SO much since I got here, it seems as these cars become cheaper and more attainable, people don't appreciate them the same way as the original buyers did and it's very obvious.
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
I wouldn't dream of trying to stick an adult couple in the back of any car I bought to use like I do my 911, but it was absolutely necessary that I can get my small child in there.
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.
82 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: 20261026T174436Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
It's all relative.
Going from my everyday 1999 A6 wagon with 200 hp - no way is the C4S underpowered. Going from a 911 turbo - then perhaps it might be. I had a 1988 Honda CRX Si. It only weighed 1920 lbs. and had a little over 105 hp, but it was sure peppy (notice "peppy" but not powerful).
the 99's are a bit underpowered...but for an 8 year old car the 996 is right on the mark.
the 997 gen cars are all a bit screwy cause of the HP war totally changing the ballpark
Are you trying to be witty? Bravo .... good for you!
I'm coming from the perspspective of owning a Turbo and a Carrera. The question I posed is simply to get your opinion ... nothing else. I like both cars .... if anyone shares my sentiment ... great, if not I'd be interested to hear why you think differently.
I gather you'd prefer not to go the 997 forum, so I'll post the original question in this thread as a separate message.
Here's the original question I posted:
I'm interested in your honest opinion on whether you think the Carrera and Carrera S are underpowered by todays standards.
I currently have a 2002 Turbo and 2002 Carrera. As I recently posted, I think the Carrera is an incredible car and I'm partial to it in many ways. I love the way it drives, looks and it's overall feel. In my opinion it's sleek, elegant and somewhat discreet. However, by todays standards I think it's just a little under-powered. I recently tried the 997 Carrera S but although it looked nicer and sounded better, on the street I just didn't feel there was a HUGE difference in performance from my 02 Carrera (I'm sure more differences will come out on the track) ... not meant to be inflamattory, just my opinion from my test drives.
I realize Porsche's have different attributes than all-out speed and hp, but I do think Porsche needs to do something with the baseline Carrera's to make them more of a performance benchmark - at least against M3s, RS4s and the like. I believe Ferrari faced a similar problem years ago and responded with a solid entry level car - the F430, that can hold it's own with almost anything out there.
Straight answer: I think they are underpowered, regardless comparison.
Just what I like - a super fast car, high powered.
I like your question, and I do not find it vague * smiles *
If I had a choice between a Porsche Carrera 996 C4S with 320 Hp, 600 Hp or 900 Hp from
factory, I would not hesitate in choosing the 900 Hp car- all else being equal.
Not only I feel 911 s should have more HP, I think as we head into the future they will,
and should.
John
I had an acquaintance make a similar remark a while ago. He has a 996, but doesn't drive it for sport,only for show. He wanted more horsepower so he could brag to his buddies, and maybe do the odd stoplight dragrace.
It's a question of balance. In my opininion my 2002 996 has just the right amount of power for the chassis. If I was to mod the suspension and maybe up the brakes, then a little more power would be justified. The Porsche engineers know what they're doing mate...
I for one don't need a powerful engine to go fast. I had a 1986 Jetta for a while - 76 horsepower. It needed new struts, so I put in some very firm sport things. I got more speeding tickets in that car (way to many in fact) than any other car I'd ever owned. I kept my foot deep in it absolutely everywhere I went. It topped out at 100 mph...fast enough for North America.
You want to go fast, put your foot down and bloody leave it down. You'll soon realize the 996 is plenty powerful.
I do agree that the Carrera (996 and 997) are both great cars - quick, well balanced, and with a timeless beauty that's hard to find in most other cars.
I think Porsche has a fantastic history and should in some ways should be paving the way for others to follow. The 911 epitomizes the classic image of Porsche I think it should be a clear benchmark in its class/price point. I'm not sure it is anymore. It's good but not necessarily great at everything .... arguably even in the handling dept many people I know fork out an extra 3-4K on the suspension. If you spend 80K on a car (new), that's just not right in my books.
I good friend of mine (die-hard Porsche guy) recently drove the E92 M3 and put his deposit down for earliest delivery. That really made me think about the 911s (more specifically the 997s) standing amongst similarly priced sports/GT cars. Haven't done any research on this - but from what I hear the E92 M3 trumps the base 997 in EVERY performance category (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Finally, a hypothetical for you - If Porsche sent out a campaign saying "we're going to install a power pack to bump up hp by say 35hp," would anyone refuse and say no thanks, I have enough as is?
My '99 996 is plenty fast. I'll never need more power - never. I might want more power, but that would just be for my ego. I don't race, and I don't have an autobahn.
I think that the 996 carrera has just the right amount of
useable
power.
What I mean by that is in most conditions it's good. Because of the cars handling abilty in city driving you car carry more speed into corners. I have had a couple of vette's, C4 and C5. I found that yea these cars had plenty of straight line power, but under hard cornering they were a real handful. I can't tell you how many corners I went through sideways in those vettes. More power is secondary to cornering abilty. The 996 has a good combination of power and cornering abilty. Thats what makes it such a great car overall.
Standard 911's have always had very decent amount of power for their NA flat six's when compared to comparable cars, such as M3 and the like. They continue to do this with the 997 and 997S. This formula works in spades, as Porsche has so many other great attributes, so in the end, higher powered cars just can't compare overall.
Comparing yesterdays 996 to today's cars, IE the new M3, S4 etc... of course they are underpowered, that simply isn't a fair comparison.
That said, if you want all this great package that Porsche is AND MAD power, you'll have to pony up and buy a Turbo. This in MY book is having your cake AND eating it too.
This section of the forum has changed SO much since I got here, it seems as these cars become cheaper and more attainable, people don't appreciate them the same way as the original buyers did and it's very obvious. I guess it's expected and normal. My point is, had you bought a '99 911 Carrera back in '99 when it was new, this question never would have been posed, as that car would have fulfilled ever amount of desire you had.
a 911 underpower????
compare 964 with M3 E36....964 wins.....(964 has less power Vs to an M3)
993 with M3......again...993 has less power and again wins....
996 has 300 ps and later on 320 Vs to M3 343 Ps...again 911 wins...
997 S Vs M3 420 Ps....same .....
this a small comparison between Porsche and BMW and I am not trying to compare the 2 brands...
I am just trying to show that in any cae what matters is the way that a car delivers the power and not the peak power of it
harris
p.s again if you go to turbo 911 ....... always turbo 911's had less power to any of their rivals....and again turbo 911 were faster
in general I think though that Carreras.....were and are just fine....
Aside from the Carrera, I do have a Turbo
It's the silver car on the left of my avatar.
But to follow on your point, how does a 997 Carrera (or Carrera S for that matter) compare to an E92 M3 ... both current model cars. I'm not sure of the answer to this one, but I'm guessing they are going to be very close in perfomance - acceleration, handling etc, with the M3 possibly having the edge.
My opinion is that with its rich heritage (and arguably premium pricing), Porsche should work to make the base 911 the clear leader in its class and I'm not so sure it is right now compared to the other $80K +/- sports and gt cars.
It's interesting to read the responses. In general it appears most people (both here and in the 997 forum) think the 911 is adequately powered with most defficiencies overcome in a track setting. If this sentiment is shared amongst the broader segment of customers who purchase 911s, I imagine Porsche will continue to make incrementally small power increases in the 911 as the generations change. I suppose that's why they offer a Turbo also. Hopefully, they will at least consider lightening the base 911 at some point.
I started this thread not to argue one way or the other, more to get other folks perspectives.
Yes, I'm trying to be witty.
Why are people obsessed with HP? My C4S Cab goes more than fast enough for any street legal road in the US.
Would more HP get you to safer passing speed?
Would more HP get you passed the 196mph top speed of the Turbo?
Why do you need any more power than what the Turbo has to offer if you're not competitively racing?
What's your goal, your end game?
No, the 911 Turbo, C2, C4, C4S have all the power they need to deliver an exhilarating driving experience.
I think it's more a question of price/performance. If I had paid over $70k for a new '03 C2 I would have felt that performance was significantly less than price. When I purchase it used at 1/2 that price I feel a lot better about the performance however still I feel the stock C2 is underpowered by ~50hp.
Yeah that's really the gist of it, isn't it? At $70k I would definitely walk away from it but at $35 it was much more competitive.
I knew when buying my used '99 that even at only 4 years old it really wasn't the best price/performance bargain on the market. I'm still satisfied with my decision.
Definitely not the most practical car(M3/AMG/CTS), or bang for the buck(Vette/Subie), or most powerful but it does a lot of things reasonably well and since Porsche has been evolutionary in their styling it actually looks a lot newer than it is. People are honestly surprised when I tell them the car is 9 years old.
Would I like more HP? more Torque? Absolutely, hands down that would be fantastic. With about 50 more horsepower it would feel very different and be an even more well-rounded car. Yeah it's already more than fast enough for the street but so is a base model Civic. So what. If Porsche had had that attitude they wouldn't have had to increase the power from the 1984 models, right?
Even more than power I wish they'd go on a weight loss program, it isn't terrible but they started porking up over the years. If the base C2 was sitting at 2400 lbs wet it would be in a different league altogether and make the Turbo a friggin rocketship.
Today there are a lot more fast sedans and coupes out there in the same general price space. Of course nothing else is a 911 (whatever that may mean to you) but this isn't 1985 when the choices for high performance cars were limited to American sleds, lower performing Japanese marques or tempermental English brands.
for me it's less about horsepower, and more about the feel (handling) and sound of the car. does it feel connected to your inputs like you'reone with the machine?
romping on the throttle surely provides some giggles and machismo, but at the end of the day, it's that connectedness in steering and the turns and braking that gets my $. thus the reason why i love the spirit of the GT3 more so than the powerful Turbo 911s.
c4s is just a stepping stone for me. ferrari is it.
In a segment comparison, dollar per dollar, a 997 (or 996) is “underpowered.” But I don’t think anyone buys a 911 for it’s hp rating. Its about balance and usability. I love the idea of a car that is so much more efficient in its use of “power” that it only needs 2/3 the competition to compete. The only thing I disagree with is the pricing of the options…
There are a lot of reasons why Porsche needs less hp to perform better than other cars. First of all weight. a 3k lbs C2 with 300-320hp is much faster than nowadays G35s or Z4Ms that all weight at least 3.5k lbs. Second, the so much critizised rear engine helps to push the power on the wheels. Below is a great link to a comparison between the E92 M3, 997 GT3 and new Skyline that illustrates this effect. Third, the rear engine helps to balance weight under hard braking so the 911 with it's already great brakes can be stopped even more effectful due to the weight distribution. This gives his driver the freedom to drive more aggressive and brake later. The gear ratio, the clutch kit, the weight of the flywheel ... there are just much more components that make a fast powerful car than hp. Porsche was always dedicated to make sports cars whereas BMW, Honda, Nissan or even Dodge ... make everyday cars and pep-up some models with more hp. This formula doesn't automatically make a car fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo-ZFiF21SI
-I don't see how the 300-320hp 996 is much faster than the Z4M because it's not
-You're comparing an outright GT coupe to a "sports car" that is the 911 in case of the Infiniti let alone one having more than double the sticker price original MSRP
-The GT3 and GTR absolutely, resoundingly kill the 996 Carrera along all fronts
-Porsche 911s have grown porkier over the years just as the other brands
C'mon, man.
It's lighter than most of it's competition and the rear engine placement nets it less driveline loss and superior traction. That's why a 320hp 996 is quicker to 100 mph than a 333hp e46 M3 a 350hp C5, and a 380hp Vantage.
Ray, what are you smoking, dude?
Line-up a bone stock E46 M3 next to a bone stock 3.6 996 Carrera... neck and neck, will be largely dependent on driver skills.
You guys get on this tip about the 911 being light... it's NOT light. A Lotus Elise is light. A water-cooled 911 is NOT light enough to call it out as evidence that it's more efficient than any other comparable car.
Ben, just because your C4S is a tank, you don't need to think all 996 are heavy. I love BMWs and really considered a Z4 M Roadster but why should I trade my 3,083 lbs car* against a smaller car that weights more. There are not many 3k lbs cars out there with the performance of the 996.
*
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-forum/403389-weight-of-my-2000-c2-cab-3-083-lbs.html
If we're going to get right down to outright QB racing styles and you think my "tank" or what I prefer to call it as my Pork4S is any slower than your "lightweight", please please step away from the keyboard and take a couple of shots of good espresso. 'Ring time QB racing, right? The C4S posted faster times than the narrowbody.
All I'm saying is the weight thing is a poor example of the 911 being more efficient than its competitors. It still fetches the same mpg and about the same lap times (armchair QB, right?) as the E46 M3 which is not much heavier nor slower than my Pork4S and your hollow-boned 3083 Carrera.
How else would you suggest comparing the dynamic execution of a design?
If you re-read my post I didn’t disagree with the premise of this thread.
Having the engine weight over the drive wheels is a “special” part of the 911 design that Porsche readily exploits.
As for “Armchairing” isn’t that the idea of an internet thread discussion?
Full disclosure: I do not own a 911. Flame Suite: On
9.8m, I couldn't care less whether you own a 911 or not. I'm not one of those.
I know I got a lot of crap from some of the Rennlist idiots back when I came to provide input, but was readily dismissed cuz I wasn't an owner. Ridiculous attitude if you ask me.
Special can be good and bad. I like the rear engine thing, but can readily see why Porsche would outfit their one and only supercar with a mid-engine chassis.
Laptimes are a decent ballpark measure and a silly application in a case where weather conditions, driver skills, type of tires can easily switch up the outcome. Using it as an absolute is rather myopic and insecure.
Thanks, I am currently in the yearlong search for my next car: a 996!
I agree that lap-times aren’t everything but how else do we measure how a 911 could have less hp then its competition
and
thrive?
My point is the competition is "thriving" as well and provides some very compelling substitutes to put holes in the infamous Porsche marketing slogan we all love to quote: "There is no subsitute."
That the 911 "efficiency" isn't any more efficient than what the competitors are offering and delivering in real world results.
Laptimes are a good measure of things, but not in absolutes. Especially when we got a bunch of track nerds who think their hobby makes them pros.
LOL no offense
The 911 is part engineering, part legend and part massive mark-up. For me it (a used 996) has the right mix of usable power, versatility, chassis feedback, style and engine note.
Comparing a 997 C4S, a R8 and the new GTR is a different story (I left the C6 out because it has leaf-springs for rear suspension.)
agreed. without the heritage, it'd really be... an ugly duckling with a dated engine layout. but it does and will always have it so long as they continue to be made. i bought into it myself, right?
Out of the 3 you mention, I'd pick the 997C4S. I love that car with the aerokit. best looking 997 version sans GT2 where the GT2 has always been the best looking and performing out of its generation of cars (993,996,997) and fitfully so. GT3 997 is special, but strictly looks, the c4s with its clean wide body with the aerokit is simply mesmerizing. saw one rolling down hollywood blvd with pse blastin... loved it even on stock wheels!
the r8 and GTR are awesome machines in their own right, but it just simply doesn't have 40 yrs .
It's natural for most folks to be somewhat defensive on this subject. Afterall, we currently have 996s/997s ... but think about this thread in terms of the next Porsche you might buy. How would you like it to be improved over the 996/997 .... more power, less weight, more creature comforts ??? Fact is, today with a new price of $80K there are other options to the 911.
Ben - You're clearly not in the defensive camp, but here an interesting analogy I used on this thread in the 997 forum :
To use a Ferrari analogy again, if the 348 to 355 was a small incremental jump I don't think Ferrari would be doing so well today. Looking at their competition, Ferrari realized they needed to step up their game and really made significant changes after the 348. Porsche is in a different market segment, but I think the analogy with competition holds true.
There were a lot of responses along the lines of : "if you go to the track, then ..." or "if you want a stoplight racer, then get something else". Below is a response I posted to some of those messages.
I also have a Turbo, so some of this is a moot point for me, but I think Porsche's entry car should be something like the current 997 GT3, and not the entry level 325 hp carrera.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
response message posted in 997 forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the early 90s, I thought the 964 was worth of being called a "benchmark car."
Same goes for the 993 and 996 at their respective times. 993 was around in the time of the E36 M3 (US form 240 hp) and 996 was around at the time of the E46 M3. I honestly felt that the 996 was a better car, which is why I bought one. It was slightly less powerful, but made up for it in different ways. Corvette at that time I think was 350hp, but the performance differential wasn't huge and I still felt the 996 was a better car.
However, here's where things started to change - in my opinion the 996 to 997 jump was not as big as it could have been.
Back in 1990 a car like a corvette was much different from a Porsche. Today, they are still different cars but the delta is not as huge. The 2008 corvette has a relatively nice interior, is quick, fun to drive and though it's not my cup of tea, I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to be driving one. Don't know how they are on a track, but I suspect with a decent suspension they do okay.
One more point I'd like to add, I noticed a few responses that said something to the effect of "if you want to drag race, get a corvette." I DON'T drag race, but probably like most other folks here I enjoy the rush of getting on an on-ramp or the occaisonal quick burst of speed when passing a slower car. Not saying the 911 is inadequate in this respect, but a little more hp/tq wouldn't hurt.
... And I don't think every discussion should resort to "try driving one on a track" or "try running at WOT on a track." Most owners don't track their cars, but most do get on and off an on-ramp every day.
In my experience with Product Development and Marketing, good companies in general try to cater to their customers needs. If the typical 911 purchaser is satisfied with the cars power as is (which is totally fine), you will only see small incremental increases in hp/tq.
Many people here will be repeat 911 customers. If the rest of the 911 competition takes a 20% jump in the next model generation and Porshe makes the 998, 5% better would you be happy?
To use a Ferrari analogy again, if the 348 to 355 was a small incremental jump I don't think Ferrari would be doing so well today. Looking at their competition, Ferrari realized they needed to step up their game and really made significant changes after the 348. Porsche is in a different market segment, but I think the analogy with competition holds true.
I believe the term is "track ******".
But anyway, after 4 pages what's the verdict? The guy should have just put up a poll..
My Pcar with bolt ons easily kepted up with a Single Turbo G35 Coupe(370whp uncorrected and dyno'd only 1hr before the run) on a 1/2 mile straight. Enough power for me.
Thanks for your open-minded and level-headed post. I think along similar lines as you. I think there is most definitely a requirement for Porsche to step up in a bigger way with the 998 than they did with the 996 to 997.
Truly greater efficiencies like direct fuel injection. A more daring change in the headlights, rear lights than simply harking back to the 993 days with plain round headlights in an era where the LED lighting package will most definitely provide a much bigger design headroom than ever before.
I could've been a buyer of the 997S, but I chose to stick with the 996 because the overlap was big enough that I would prefer a modified to my tastes 996 over a stockish 997S since the enhanced driving experience of the newer car didn't usurp the satisfaction I'd get from a car that today even after a year love to look at and admire.
No regrets. Because of what the competitors have put out, I may or may not be a repeat 911 buyer. But the 911 has the homecourt advantage.
Sat in an R8 over the weekend. That car is really impressive. I'm keen to see what the owner experience is 1 year out.
Back on discussion, as for power, Porsche makes a more powerful 997...it's called the turbo. If you are going to compare apples to apples, than the bone stock 996 and 997 should really be compared to a 3 series and not the M3. The Porsche 'M3' is the GT3 and I'll take the latter any day of the week over the bimmer.
As for Vette, they just don't seem to last a full season of racing. So why would one want to chance day in and day out driving in one of them?
Lastly, I drove my pal's 997 S over the weekend. It's a nice feel. It has more power than my car (though I'm a bit modded so not 'that' much) and feels newer, but agreed: it's hard to rationalize 100K on a new 997S cab when you can have purchase a 996 C4S cab for almost half the cost.
As for a new M3 cab which will sticker near 80 when it's out, I just don't see myself ever going there over a 997S cab all things equal.
Listen, if you really want power, then we're all driving the wrong car. The Corvette Z06 will annihilate almost anything straightline for the money. I just don't love the feel day to day.
I think we can agree that bone stock, a current 911 is faster around the track than a current BMW M3. The bimmer is heavier and the brakes are a weak spot. with a 911 you pay for and get balanced performance, acceleration, cornering, braking and let's not forget safety. An Elise is wonderful but I would not want to have an accident in one.
Ok Ben, I'm not going to get in another M3 argument here (from what I've seen the M3 has similar perf to the 3.4 996). However, even if you say the 996 has the same performance as the cars I listed, it does it with 13 to 60 less hp!! Not bad in my book.
Further more the 996 absolutely IS a light car by todays standards. A reasonably equiped C2 can be found in the 3,100 - 3,200 pound range which is very light (unfortunately) by today's standards. The car is hundreds of pounds lighter than the BMW 1 Series, 3 Series, Nissan 350, Infiniti G35/37, Aston Vantage, the new porky Skyline, Mustang GT, or the soon to be introduced Camaro and Charger.
Unfortunately, I can't even think of very many sub 3,000 pound "sports cars" left any more.
You've got the Elise/Exige, Boxster/Cayman, S2000, Miata and that's about it.
Sad but true, the 996 is a light car.
That's a dumb question. I don't want to get into an accident with ANY car, though I'm not sure that I'd be any more worried about crashing my 911 than any other average vehicle on the road.
But it's not like the other cars are giving you 0 net benefits from being porkier. The E46 M3 can fit four adults. It's got a pretty huge trunk as compared to the 911. The 996 back seats simply do not count. The 1, 3, 350 all have better appointed interiors than the 996 with a lot more electronic gizmos. You get more for the weight.
So I'm not here thinking oh gosh the 911 is so sweet and more efficient cuz it's lightweight. It ain't.
Actually having seen the kinds of hits a Porsche can take, I would much rather be in a Porsche in an accident than many other cars. Of course you get hit by a truck, you are in a bit of trouble.
The S2000 can take crazy hits as well and it's a smaller, lighter car.
All I'm saying is to use this as some sort of advantage over the other makes/models is... absurd.
I think the striking thing (see page 3 of the thread on 997 forum) is the advances which the Chevys and AMGs have made in creating more power from less dry engine weight in their atmospheric engines over the past 10-15 years. They were all at parity on their base motors, about 50% power to engine weight. Porsche made a major step up from 94 to 2002 in this regard by increasing specific output, but has been very lax by comparison over the past few years. The competition has really stepped it up though, not by adding weight, and not necessarily by maximizing specific output, but by utilizing increasingly lighter weight head and connecting rod and valvetrain technology, more aggressive breathing, and more bore/stroke in the same blocks. All of this can be had in a GT3, which if I were a track guy I'd take over a CLK63 black or Z06 any day of the week because hey guys it's fast there. The Z06 LS7 is cheap cheap cheap, I think <$20K in crate, the AMG and GT3 motors have to be somewhat equivalent, figuring 40s to 60s, with much more margin for the manufacturer.
That's the measure to me in this whole discussion, not specific output, which porsche does well in M97 X51 trim ~100bhp per liter, but bhp to engine dry weight. I know that flat six packaging will dictate diferences, but when I see AMG making 525bhp from 430lbs of motor, and BMW 400+ from a pretty light V8, regardless of the fudge factors for dry/wet accessories, I think Porsche will likely have to step up the base carrera's torque/horsepower in the next few years.
Who knows though? The fuel crisis of the 70s crippled the corvettes and other contestants in the 60s horsepower wars, and it happened very suddenly. Porsche emerged a giant killer. If something similar happens over the next couple of years (non-zero probability) then we may not be crying about 320ish horsepower, might b return of the giant killer.
I'm not crying today either, in fact the reason I bought a 996 C2 over a 997 C2 was exactly because I didn't want to pay so much more (at the time) for what I considered a nominal performance improvement on the base model, and finding a Carrera S with X51 in my color was looking like a depreciation nightmare. All in all,while I don't feel the base 997 powerplant is enough of an improvement to justify personally buying one, tens of thousands of other people have voted otherwise with their hard earned. If HP figures are marketing tools, I don't think the 911 needs them for most of its target market, and for those who want serious power, hey speed costs money and Porsche can legitimately ask, how fast do you want to go?
No, they absolutely DO count. I wouldn't dream of trying to stick an adult couple in the back of any car I bought to use like I do my 911, but it was absolutely necessary that I can get my small child in there. When my kid gets older and can ride in the front seat, I'll be getting rid of the 911 to get something a little more hardcore, i.e. Exige S or the like.
I only considered cars with rear seats when shopping, and the 911's were not only good enough to make my short list, it actually won the contest (over RX-8, Evo, and STi).
True true I guess I was looking at it from a bachelor's perspective where they absolutely DO NOT count.
But even if I was lucky enough to be a father, I wouldn't drive them in the 911.
At a bachelor's time of desperation you do have the option of dropping the seats down..
I like them to throw groceries in back, duffle bags etc. It is a nice bonus to have but not a difference maker for me.
Back to the original question, of coarse most of us on this forum want more hp. At least 1/3 of the posts here and other similar forums are on increased hp, speed, performance. Exhausts, intakes, plenums, superchargers, etc. are all driven by our desire to obtain more hp, eg fun. More is better, any way you look at it. My old E39 M5 was faster than my C4S untill I supercharged. Now its fast enough, almost. Will
You can call the point "dumb". A bit impolite IMO.
Having seen a number of nasty accidents on the track, if I had to crash, I would rather be in a 911 than in an Elise. Part of the weight in a 911 (or almost any modern German car for that matter) is related to safety.
Regards
The 996 is one of the best balanced DD sports cars to be had. With that said I also desire more and in the future plan on making some conservative moves to get that bump in hp, minor as it may be.
Personally I am not one to go the SC route, would rather sell and get a TT
Not true, much of what makes the 996 feel so lithe and nimble compared to other cars is it's (relatively) light weight. Unfortunately, the 997 is way up compared to the 996 (in spite of the fact that they removed the spare tire).
Why????...Porsche threw a bunch of crap in the car, that's why. Do we really need an electronic wart (stopwatch) right in the middle of the dash!! Then there's neon glowing door sills, power everything, rain sensing wipers, parking sensors, etc..
IMHO, you can keep all that heavy luxury crap and electronic gizmos that BMW, Audi, and others are sticking in their cars. These are sports cars for crying out loud!
Finally, the rear seats in the 996 are not useless. I've gone on double dates in my car (men in front, ladies in the rear). If you can't get a date back there Ben she's fat......
Very much agreed RE: bachelorhood part, but still I've shoehorned some shorties into the back of 911s (easier in the cabs, probably better to TAKE a cab but hey).
But why not drive kids in the (modern) 911? It's gotta be more crashworthy than most normal cars, especially the ones I remember being in as a kid, and the passenger area in the rear is about as far as you can get from the fenders in the event of a side impact. I have to say the worst injuries I've seen and heard of from auto accidents involve SUV rollovers, which one might think would be the safest way to go.
as a moderator, i would think you'd actually read beyond the post i posted and go back to what tooloud wrote out.
again, excuses/excuses. ALL US cars have to conform to the very same set of safety regs. my point is, it sucks to be in an accident period elise or 911 or suburban suv.
go big or go home, right?
if u guys want purist, lightweight then go big (or small/light) and get the elise. don't call up a 996 911 for its lightweight qualities. it's 3100lbs+ for a small two seater car with jokes for rear seats.
all of you guys and your thin women... post up some damn pics of you and your "shawties" in the back seat and make things entertaining for us will ya v. just typing out characters like anyone else can do?
now that's a challenge for all you fools who have a certain disdain for the fattys! (that's so inconsiderate you vain fools, post pics of your damn self too while you're at it and ill have my shawties judge you).
LOLLLO
i may be there soon for work - let's grab some dinner at Boka. i like that joint. or if it's just the fellas, let's hit up G & G for some meaty cuts.
You sure about that? I got a chance to drive one of the new E90's, and my god was that thing snappy. Granted, a 2001 C4 is not exactly a pocket rocket, but with the limited time I got to drive it.. (heresy) it was impressive.
An E90 M3 is a V8..lets be fair....I've driven Z3M's & Coupes and the Z4M Coupe. I thought the Z4 M Coupe was it..my next car (still like the shifter, clutch and steering wheel better), but the PSM vs DSC is a no brainer, the Porsche seats are more comfortable (sport to sport), and the interior layout in the Porsche is better. Now, if you compare new $ to new $ then the Z4M is a bargain compared to a new 997....all of this is spirited street driving BTW...I don't track..yet.
OK - summary time (shamelessly biased):
1) 3100 lbs (mine weighed in at 3080) is light by todays standards.
2) Rear seats are crucial for fathers (like me), or even for touring. 25% of the reason I am a 911 man.
3) Rear engine is, and always has been a benefit for braking and acceleration.
4) Porsches are faster at the 'ring - yes this a valid measure of performance.
5) 320 hp is ample hp for a 3100 lb Porsche, but not for a 3500 lb BMW. You wan to go faster, buy a Turbo or a GT3.
I actually like that my Porsche has lower hp than the guy next to me at the track. Makes for easy gloating when you beat them.
"oh geez - is your car not running right because I'd think you should have walked all over me, but you didn't".
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
