How much "better" is a 2002-2004 996 compared to a 1999-2000?

I have a dillemma - I have come across many 1999-2000 996s in what I consider to be the Very Affordable Range ($30,00 -35,000). It seems like there is a bit of price bump, however, when you start to look at 2002 996s. Am I better off waiting a bit longer, racking up a bit more disposable income, to get a 2002 P-Car? Or is a 1999 for $30k a deal that I should leap on? (Assuming a clean PPI, of course)

as my understanding, 2002 used to be fac. wanrrany, so they command a few extra groud. btw, i have a 2001, feel great. additional house power? i don't need it. too many tkts already.

The '99-'01s are still great cars. Significant advantages of the '02+ are (IMHO) - Max torque at lower revs (power diff is less relevant to most driving) - Proper glove compartment - Headlights that don't look like a Boxster Apparently the '02+ also has significantly less lift at speed. The main reasons I stretched to an '02 were CPO and nicer headlights!

02+ P-cars have the larger 3.6 engine with 25 hp more, redesigned bumpers, and interior. You need to evaluate whether the extra cost for these improvements is worth the price difference.

Thank you very much for the feedback - I appreciate it a lot. It sounds like I have to decide if a savings of $10,000 is worth not having a proper glovebox and putting up with funky headlights - this will be a daily driver, so those really will be important considerations. On the other hand, a lower price means I get a P-Car that much sooner. I think I know which direction I will go.... (I want to graduate from PCA's Quest program to full-fledged memebership status)

i have a 2001 and no regrets. The side compartments hold enough stuff that the glove box isnt necessary.

I have a 2000 and love it, but would probably go '02 if I had to do it over again. I would love to have 25 more HP without having to do aftermarket mods to get it. I don't miss having a glovebox and my lights look fine to me. That said, if you want to save the $10 grand, I don't think a 99 to 01 will disappoint.

I recently bought a 99 and have been extremely pleased. Budget was the biggest deciding factor for me...I didn't want to spend more than 35 +/-. I did a ton of research and read all of the RMS horror stories but felt I could still find a good car. I found a low mileage, one owner car and when it passed a PPI I was happy to plunk down my money. -Mike

"" with the '01. The hp difference is 20 from '01 to '02, and the '01 is slightly lighter. The interior got a subtle face lift as well after the '99's.

Very happy with my '99. I like the headlights better before the face lift in 02, and while the 3.6 has more horsepower it is heavier, though I wouldn't mind the stiffer chassis in the post 02s.

i kind of think the 01 and the 04s are the sweet spots. 01s they got all the gremlins out of the 3.4L, plus gave it the 02s tricks (i.e. improved bumper, LED lights inside). 04s was the last model of the 996.

You will have a lot of people telling you that the 02+ have 25 extra horses due to the 3.6L engine. What most people forget is that the 02+ cars are also heavier. The 99-01 are lighter. Specifically, 1999 - 2950lbs 2000-2001 - extra 200lbs 2002-2005 - extra 250lbs With race seats a '99 can be under 2900lbs ! Also the bhp/lbs on the '99 is better than the 02+. Remember that power alone is meaningless without mass/weight. Check http://www.track-challenge.com/ for additional details. You'll notice that on the track the '99 is 2 seconds faster. In real life (i.e. streets at legal speeds) I don't think you will notice this "year 1999" performance advantage. Leaving that difference behind, 1999 === Pros: 1) Significanty cheaper 2) delivers (negligibly) better performance for 2 mpg cheaper !! 3) Normal industry compliant audio system (easy to upgrade, swap out etc) Cons: 1) out of factory warranty 2) extra miles in general due to 3 years older. 3) No glove compartment But the side pockets and the central compartment are enough for paperwork, maps etc. 4) To a lot of people, headlights like a boxster. Mostly to those who were bothered with this went 02+ or changed them for ~$3000 (whole job). To those who liked it or didn't matter went ahead with the 99-01.So these two groups already have their preferences setup - to there will be bias (and looks ... as they say ... are subjective!) Personally I like that older style and passed off an opportunity last week to switch to 02+ style lights for "almost free" (due to some overlapping ~$5k work). What I totally love is the new Boxster (987) headlights ... awesome !! 5) No cup holder (!!!). Err ... yes. Not that I'm slurping sodas when driving a stick, but hey - I had to mention this ! 2002+ ==== Pros: 1) WARRANTY ! 2) Newer car by 3 years, so chances are lower miles and lower wear 'n tear. 3) Newer headlight style (if that style tickles your fancy) 4) Glove compartment, cup holder Cons: 1) Much more $$ than the 99's for sure 2) Slightly more gas consuption (~2 mpg) for negligibly lower performance. 3) "MOST" audio setup. MOST is an optical digital system and is a pain to deal with when upgrading since a lot of the high end (and low end) products don't work with MOST. So the way I see it the biggest difference is in that factory warranty which you will have for a few months/years. One VERY good thing about the car industry is that you can get an 1 year older car (say 99) with 1/2 the miles for the same price or cheaper than the next years model (say 2000 or 01) with 2x the miles !!! And I believe that miles are a true indicator of a car's age and wear and tear indicator. So do this ... 1) hunt for a 99 with low miles and your choice of options 2) buy a 3rd party warranty (you will only get "listed components coverage" - NEVER as good as factory but the most important parts are covered) as a safety net if you're paranoid 3) Invest the rest of the money in stocks/funds. That money will grow till you need to do some work. That way you have a win-win feeling !! I think you'll still come out cheaper than going all out for the newest Porsche. And the porsche driving experience is identical. Ok, now why am I writing such a long post ... its because I went thru the same steps a few months back and I could not convince myself to spend 10K extra when I could equalise every other factor for much cheaper AND have 10K left over for partying/mods/investing whatever. $10k can buy you a lot of happiness (but not much of a car sadly!!) I eventually bought a black on black, 1999 C2 coupe. I love that decision ! Hope that helps ! Sid

Sid - you are a GOD!!! Thanks for the input. All of you guys are great - THIS kind of feedback is why rennlist.com is way better than 6speedonline.com (and why I had no qualms about paying to be a member) I have identified one more big plus to a "less expensive" 1999 - I can put the money I save aside to buy a 2004 in a few years.

Plus - adding to Sid's write-up, You can purchase cupholders for a 99-01... For two cupholders, probably ~130 at the dealer. they came standard on my car.

got a 99...lovin' it........ front facelift and interior mods....about $4K total and it looks and feels much newer now.....

The other side. I started looking for an 99 to 01 and ended up buying an 02 and love it! No way could I find an early car with all the options that I wanted for a daily driver. The 02 I bought came with and option list of about 6 or 7 codes that put everything on the car but navigation which I do not need or want. Found an 02 for $40K and I was ready to spend $35 on a compromise 00 with a CPO. Glad I held out. Also, I know guys on this board do not subscribe to this but every dealer and independent mechanic I know said to get an 02 or newer as they have fewer gremlins(especially RMS). I do not know this for myself but most of these guys that gave this advice I have known for 20+ years and they have never steered me wrong. Really like my new old 02 car!

I hope this is wrong. I'd be pissed if I'm carrying around an extra 200lbs and 4 more hps.

This board is the best, no question. You can add one more important point to the benefits of the 1999, and thats fairly limited depreciation left. Since you can probably find one with 50k miles or less for around 31-32k, you could drive it for three years (assume 30k miles more) and probably still sell it for 20-22k. Anytime you are losing less than 4 k a year in depreciation for a luxury/sports car, you're doing quite well! Now if you blow an engine this calculation goes out the window ( which is possible), but for the most part I still feel that these cars are extremely reliable.

But the newest 911 you can afford, both great cars enough said

This is interesting...My MY03 manual says: Empty weight (depending on equipmnet) is 3020lb to 3262lb for a manual coupe. A lot of sites quote 2959lb curb weight for an '03 and 2910lb for a '99 coupe. Can someone please confirm? Thanks, - Ahsai

I faced the same hard decision when I was searching for a 996, I picked a 99 C4 as the price was right in my budget and I didn't want a car payment. Certainly would be nicer to have a 2002 model for all the reasons mentioned by others, but again I didn't want a car payment.. so.... My ideal 996 would have been a 2004 C4S, but the going price for that car is almost twice what I paid for the 99 C4. So far I have no regrets in going with a 99 996.

I bought the nicest car I could find that I liked.....It was a stripped 02 C2 coupe, but then I drove a loaded 99 C4 cabriolet and I LOVED the 99....the 02 was ok...but when you get the full leather,full power comfort seats, and the 99 ran better in my opinion than the 02. I think the differences are so minor that you need to drive them and see which one you like better....No RMS, and I did the 02+ facelift....The difference between 300hp and 325 hp is insignificant to me....so the 3.6L motor was not a factor....I did like the AWD and the surefooted handling in bad weather....everytime it rains, I smile....Plus it was like 15K LESS....so I had INSTANT mod money!

99-o1= plastic rear window.dark ages

Very slight correction. MOST system started in MY 2003. MY 2002 has a rational system.

You can add factory cupholders?

for whatever it's worth, my '01 that I got 3 months ago, came with 13,133 miles and cupholders, LOL!

Actually its very tough to nail down the actual weights. I got those numbers from a guy on 6speedonline (can't recall his ID ...). I tried a bunch of different references online but all have different numbers. But the common trend was 1999 lightest 2000,2001 medium 2002+ heaviest This is on top of the usual (i.e. C4 heavier etc). And yes, if you figure a cab, then you might want to go for a newer one ... the older ones had a plastic rear window and the newer ones have a glass rear window. I wanted a coupe badly so that wasn't my criteria. And porschedog, "Sid - you are a GOD!!! " ... please !! No way - I'm FAR from that. I'll keep such recognition for guys like Loren, Toolpants and the rest of the gang at renntech.org. These guys know Porsches better than the Porsche Engineers !! Incredible technical knowledge there.

Right on!

Yes...it takes up a slot, goes above the radio... Do you not have the pair?

I have a 1999 and am very happy with it. if you are into / obsess about the subtile differences (glove box, 25HP, front face lift, etc, I would wait. if not, get a 99-01 and save the dollars.

if you don't mind what did you pay for the 01' . I am currently looking. Thanks Vic

Thanks everyone for the insights, good stuff. There was a recent post in the Racing/DE forum where a knowledgable p-car resource indicated the 3.4 cannot/will not stand up to much in the way of Ax or DE, let alone club racing as it will oil starve and well, you know the rest. Does anyone have experience of this? And, what is a ballpark 3.6l run if it does happen? I'm looking at options myself. Thanks, Grant

It can be replaced with a top with the glass window if you want, BUT the plastic field of view has MUCH MUCH better visibility...

If you are able to buy a 2002 car, go ahead. If you are not, buy a nicely optioned 1999-2001 and you will love it. I am not sorry for my decision.

3.6L have the same problem....the only way around this is the Oil starvation kit....There are PLENTY of 3.4L car being used as AX/DE cars....

Newport996, Do I misunderstand or can the 3.4l be retrofitted with the oil kit or is it only the 3.6l that you can protect? Thanks, G

2nd on this. i was set to 02+ cause the glass window. but ended up with MY01. the plastic window in fact is big and better. even in heavy rain.

new top cost 7 grand. over the long run glass is always better than plastic. from 02 till now on porsche uses glass. just one point out of many.

if you don't mind what did you pay for the 01' . I am currently looking. Thanks Vic Way too much Vic. I discovered this resource right after I got the car. I paid 51k, and as I said, it had 13,133 miles on it, and a host of options bringing the original sticker to 90k. I'm convinced I could have gotten it for 5k less. That said, the car is pristine, and the indy mechanic I use was formerly a trainer for Porsche. He agreed that I paid too much, but he also said that mechanically, it's much younger than its model year.

don't think it cost that much, and if glass is all it matters, u can always get this. http://www.gahh.com/product_info.php...oducts_id=1575 we discussed this a few weeks ago. do a search on GAHH

It's not that hard to nail down (the weights you originally reported are wrong). Porsche publishes the weights for every car they sell. According to Porsche the Mk 2 cars (3.6l) weight a mere 55 lbs. more than the Mk 1's (3.4l) When I was searching for my 996 I drove 3.4's and 3.6's back to back on more than one occasion. There is a definate power difference IMO. That being said it doesn't change the character of the car dramatically. To the original poster I would say the advantages for a '99 would be... - limited slip option - significantly lower pricing The advantages for an '02-'04 would be - 24 extra hp - more torque at a lower rpm (thanks to VarioCam Plus) - Better aerodynamics (significantly reduced front and rear lift) - 20% stiffer chassis - improved interior - improved oiling Unfortunately the later models are selling are much higher prices. All of the 996's are great cars. In my opinion you should get the latest model you can afford.

and let's no forget: - improved cooling

I was talking about a top from porache.oem.not after market.stealer told me 7k

hey dud buy the 99-2000 and use the 10k for asupercharger and you'll blank the others and be glad you did

Taking care of the front end lift on the 99 is as easy as installing ROW 030 (should come standard IMHO!!)... I did it and completely transformed the car... the 3.6 does have more grunt below 3500 rpm but when your racing and revving your never below 4,000 rpm anyways... I also did the GIAC flash on my 99 and saw some very nice hp and tq increase and it eliminated the lethargy that occurs @ 3,000 in the 3.4 - the chassis on the 3.6 is stiffer but like I said a good sport suspension will fix things up and give your car a new character.... I have a 99 and *do* like the 02 lights... think the round ones look sharp...

I can get a OEM Porsche top, frame and motor for under 3K......Aftermarket top only, like $1700....

I don't know where Sid came up with 2002+ cars weighing 250 pounds more than the '99s, because this is the correct info. The 2002 car gained 25kg. over the earlier cars, got a bigger engine and better fuel economy. Sid is wrong on the power to weight ratio also. Assuming a 300 HP pre 2002 car weighs 2900 pounds (they're actually about 2920) that's 9.67 pounds per HP. Assuming a 320 HP 2002 car weighs 3000 (mine is 2977 with full fuel), that's 9.375 pounds per HP. Better power to weight ratio and more torque at a lower RPM equates to a slightly faster car, both in acceleration and top speed. The pre 2002 cars are fine machines, but as is Porsche's typical practice, the 2002 and later MY cars are improved over the earlier versions. The folks trying to tell you a stock '99 3.4 is faster than a stock '02 3.6 are the folks with the 3.4.....................

Actually thanks for correcting me. I checked up my excel sheet and was reading the wrong columns ! The weight/power ratio is 4.6 Kg / PS for 2002+ and 4.7 Kg / PS for 1999 - not the other way around. For the non-metric, 1 PS is = 1 bhp. So that gives the 2002+ a slight advantage on paper. What I'm not getting is the differences in what we're thinking is the real weight of the cars. I have it as 1467 Kg (2002+) vs 1399 Kg (1999). That's almost 150 lbs heavier !! Its less that my prior post of 250 lbs that I heard at 6speedonline.com but more than what you say. The run-of-the-mill edmunds mentions that they weigh the same ... what gives ? I'm quite curious to find out the real weights of these cars. (And I've never weighed the car myself!). Anyone with more accurate numbers ? Finally about the track times .... The average track time for both these cars on the Nuerburgring is same (8.17 min). And on Hockenheim the 1999 is actually (noticeably) faster, 1.17.1 min vs 1.15.9 min (1.1 seconds faster). Anyway, like I said the the performance differences are very marginal. Finally, I'm not trying to sell anyone a 3.4L car ... I think all the 996s are awesome cars ... just wanted to present the facts (and also learn something new in the process!). People can then make a more informed decision. Every car has its pros and cons. cheers !!!

It is my understanding, that the MY01 bumpers are identical to MY02+.... so a MY01 does in fact have the increased airflow/cooling characteristics... (I could be wrong).

I had my 2001 for 4 years, loved it, but the 2004 seems much more refined inside and out.

Check out the post titled.... White smoke not at start-up (99)...... IMO.... I would/did buy a less optioned but newer 996, than a better optioned 99-01.....

Porsche publishes the "real" weights (do you think they are lying?) - 996 C2 Mk 1 ('99-'01) 1,320 kg (2,910 lbs) - 996 C2 Mk 2 ('02-'04) 1,345 kg (2,965 lbs) - 996 C4 Mk 1 1,375 kg (3,031 lbs) - 996 C4 Mk 2 1,405 kg (3,097 lbs) - 996 C4S ('02-'05) 1,495 kg (3,296 lbs) - 996 GT3 Mk 1 1,350 kg (2,976 lbs) - 996 GT3 Mk 2 1,380 kg (3,042 lbs) Obviously, the list above will vary with optional equipment. The only way to find the weight for your car is to weigh it yourself. Next you claim the new car is slower around a track than the old car??? Let's use some logic on this one........ Porsche decides to upgrade the car. They give it more hp, more torque (earlier in the curve), a stiffer chassis, better aero (reduce lift), a little more weight (55 lbs) and after all that they come up with a slower car (according to you)????? Let's be honest. The "ring" times you are quoting are on different days, with different drivers, different tires (possibly), different track temperatures, different atmosheric conditions, etc, etc..... In the end I believe the later cars are faster (I drove them before I bought mine and I could feel a difference). Is it a HUGE difference???? Not in my opinion. Does it change the entire character of the car??? Once again no. Can a good driver make up the difference?? Absolutely!! The early cars are great cars!!!! The late cars are great cars!!! But, come on Sid do you really believe the stuff you are posting?? I'm not trying to flame you I promise I'm just asking....

my owners manual for my 99 states 2907 lbs (1321 kg) if the 2002 is 1467kg (3227 lbs) then we are talking a diff of 320 lbs!!! thats significant; I think the 2000,2001 MY cars were heavier than the 99 by quite a bit (200+ lbs) and it could be the data you are looking at has the 2002 cars gaining 25KG over the 2000-2001 cars... as for speeds and track times check out www.track-challenge.com and you can compare a 99 3.4 to a 2002 3.6 side by side and you'll see acceleration and round times around the ring and hockenheim are very similar. Unfortunately that site doesn't have times for a 2000-2001 c2 carrera but does list times for a 2001 c4.... and I wouldn't say the 99 3.4 is faster but on par with a 02 3.6 with the nod going to the 3.6 for the "extras" that came with the new model year additions... hope this clears things up.

Ray, where di u get info from above... I've never seen a 2002 c2 weighing in @ 2,965!!!

I went thru a simular delema and searched for the "perfect" car for me for 15 months. I studied all the changes, upgrades, etc from year to year and decided that the year wasn't that important. Most of the parts were designed years earlier and used on the Boxster so a '99 was actually the third production year. I ended with a '99 three years ago and have been very happy with the car in all areas. Most of the improvements over the years have been mainly statistical and undetectable in the real world of driving. Things like more HP but more weight also, less lift at speed (how often do you drive over 150 mph?), 20%(?) more rigid chassis (maybe to deal with the excess weight?) Anyway, I much perfer the mechanical throttle of the '99 and most owners will concur that have driven both. The lighter weight factor is a huge plus also. My '99 has the full leather interior with lots of interior options and sports seats that make the car absolutely stunning. The dealer said lots of '99s were very heavily optioned due to the Dot Com spike in frivolus income. The plastic window in my Cab has never been an issue. The hard top is a bonus and works very well too. My car has a factory replacement motor which is a big bonus as it has the later larger intermediate shaft and other late improvements. Finally, if you look a many cars over the decades, it is apparent the first models are the most desireable in many areas. It's like the factory spent the most time and energy trying to get it right. Subsequent years tend to loose some of the essence of the original concept and have a lot of stuff added or changed solely to increase sales. I would buy another '99 and it may well be the best buy out there.

There are two initial factors which one should consider when purchasing a Porsche. 1/. What you can afford which means using your head first. 2/. What your heart says is the car for you. This also requires part of the head because it's the size of the grin across your face that counts. Then you have a PPI carried out by a reliable, reputable and knowledgeable person. If he passes the car then you can drive away happy, but understanding a USED car is NEVER perfect no matter what. Oh yes always get a second opinion. Your spouse mainly especially if they have to foot some of the bills. Porsche ownership can get expensive. I purchased the 99 C4 because it was the best of the models around at the time and it had and did everything I wanted it to do at a good price. I admit I got it at wholesale not retail. Ciao, Adrian.

Unbelievable.....where are you getting your info??? My info is from Porsche....period! I got this info from four sources 1) off of the Porsche web site (before they changed models), 2) off of Porsche Model Brochures (I pick one up at the Chicago Auto Show every year), 3) My owners manual for my '02 996, 4) Model listings in Total 911 magazine (they list the specs for every 911 ever produced). Porsche's lists all of their weights empty (the '99 C2 included) and without optional equipment. I am looking at my '02 manual right now and it lists the "Empty Weight" as 2,965 lbs. Where are you getting your data for an '02 C2 weight of 3,227?!?! Furthermore Track challenge lists data from multiple different references all with different drivers, on different days, with different conditions, on different tires, etc. This is fine for making very broad comparisons, but it leaves a lot to be desired when trying to draw the conclusions that your are trying to make. In my opinion the '99 is not on "par" with the later cars. It is significantly down on power and has virtually no weight advantage. The difference can easily be felt "seat of the pants" on a test drive (I drove Mk 1's and Mk 2's back to back before I purchased my car). Finally, I stated my sources. What is your "source" for your '02 weight of 3,227?

Not try to complicate the matter further. Just wanna add one more data point. My MY03 manual says "empty weight 3020lb to 3262lb depending on equipment" (coupe with manual transmission). - Ahsai

Guys, Before too many people get their knickers in a knot Porsche provide a number of different empty weight figures. Specifically US and EU Homologation. The EU figure which includes the driver adds 75kg or 165lbs over the US weight. Then you have the Manual, Tiptronic, Coupe, Targa, Cabriolet C2 and then the C4 model individual weights. It would be very easy to end up with some of these large splits by mistake say comparing an American C2 Coupe with a EU C4 Tiptronic if you know what I mean. Ciao, Adrian.

Well, I don't believe in any conspiracy theory that its Porsche who is "lying". And I don't believe in posting garbage, so what I posted was "good" - to the best to my knowledge. What I was getting at was with ALL the various modifications done (bhp, weight etc), the absolute final end result is - identical 0-60 times (4.8 seconds) - almost identical lap times - almost identical handling metrics (lateral grip, slalom speeds) And I'm not talking about a vague 'seat of the pants' or an intermediate metric (like weight or bhp) - we're talking FINAL, END performance for similarly optioned cars. I'm not that surprised or shocked - we're talking of a car which is even sold as the same model number - 996 ! In the end, I'm not trying to glorify a car model (there are a ton of better cars there) nor sell someone a 3.4L car nor spread anything propaganda !! Propaganda generally needs a motive ... Peace !! To the original poster - I guess you pretty much got all the information you wanted about the car models !! You should be able to make a well informed decision. And either way you go - enjoy the ride !! cheers !!!

LOL !!! I've never heard that phrase ... its funny !! Knickers in a knot ... gotta use that sometime ...

This is a great thread. These cars are great years. I have driven my own 2000 996 C2 cab and my father's 2004 996 C4 cab. First and foremost, there is an aesthetic difference, especially on the widebody cars. Maybe the newer car is faster, but barely detectably. The newer interiors have been modified noticeably, though not tremendously (I'd still love a glove compartment). So, all things equal, if someone were to offer me a 2004 C2 or a 1999 C2 all options equal, I'm taking the newer car. Other than that, it's up to the end buyer to determine what options, configs, and price are acceptable. I could have bought a new car, but went used because I can't stand depreciation anymore after owning other Porsches, BMWs, and even VWs. It gets my goat when I eat 50% of MSRP so I thought to let someone else do it this time. So far, it's all good and I've not had a problem. But, let's be honest, price is a very big deciding factor for some people. So, I would NOT stretch my wallet to get a 2003 over a 1999 for the extra 20-30 ponies; it's just not that big a difference. But, if you have the cash and life is good, get the newer car; some of the upgrades really are nicely done.

My source for the 25kg increase from 2001 to 2002 was Paul Frere's "Porsche 911 Story", seventh edition. His book lists the weight of a '99 - '01 coupe with a manual as 1320kg. Coupes with a Tip are 1365kg and a Cabrio adds 75kg to these figures. A C4 is listed as 1375kg with a manual, 1420kg with a Tip and 75kg more if a Cabrio........... He lists the 2002 coupe as 1345kg manual, 1400kg Tip; Cabs are 1425 manual, 1480 Tip, Targa 1415 manual, 1470 Tip. My car on a public scale with full fuel was 2977 pounds..............

Ray's figures are identical to those quoted in Paul Frere's "Porsche 911 Story" seventh edition, which is a quite authoritative text......................my 2002 C2 weighed 2977 on a public scale with a full tank and no me.

Wrong again. Your weights turned out to be incorrect. Now your performance figures are suspect. Porsche did publish different performance statistics for these cars. In the 1999 Porsche product line catalog they list the 0-62 time as 5.2 seconds, and a 174 mph top speed. The 2002 catalog list the C2 stats at 0-62 mph in 5.0 seconds and a 177 mph top speed. While I would agree that Porsche seems to understate performance figures. Their published data shows a performance difference between the cars. Porsche does not publish lap times or "handling metrics" magazines do. I have never seen a comparison test between a 3.4l car and a 3.6l car. Do you know of any such test? Without a side by side test you are not going to prove these difference without resorting to the kind of "vague 'seat of the pants' or an intermediate metric (like weight or bhp)" that you have stated you do not like. From a common sense stand point you have two cars that are nearly identical. Except "car B" has 20 more hp, 15 lb ft more torque, produces less lift, has a chassis that is 20% stiffer, has bigger tires (the rears on the '99 are 265/35's vs 285/30's on the later cars) and weighs 55 lbs more. You seem to be saying if you put the same driver in each car you expect them to post similar results (lap times, acceleration figures, etc.) I'm sorry I just don't see it the same way.

That's impressive w/a full tank!!

First, you need to drive both to see the difference. I could have bought a clean low mileage 2000. I chose to spend the extra money after driving a couple MY02's. There are a lot of differences of differences and there isn't as much of a weight difference as indicated. First the actual weight difference between a MY99' and MY02' is 40 kg (84 lbs). They did gain about 20 kg in 2000'. For reference, the production 99' US Carrera Car and Driver tested in 1998' weighed 3100 lbs without driver. The 99-01' 3.4l engine has a varioram intake and variable cam timing on the intake only. The newer 3.6l adds variable valve lift and variable cam timing on the exhaust, hence why it has so much more torque in the midrange and still more power on top. The aerodynamic changes are more than just headlights. The front bumper and fenders are different to reduce front end lift by 25%. There are changes to the front radiators and air ducts to improve cooling. The rear quarters and bumper were reshaped to reduce rear end lift by 40%. There were suspension changes with reinforced strut towers, different springs, struts, shocks, bushings and sway bars. The brake pads are even different to be more compliant with the newer chassis tuning. There were new options like the Bose stereo, that is a huge improvement over the older digital-sound system. Porsche continually works to improve cars. A 02-04' is a better car than a 99-01' . The newer the car, the better the car. If you want the best car, buy the newest one you can afford. Is the different worth $10-15K? That's up to you. When I was making my decision, it was to me and I've never regretted it. In fact, if something happens to this car I will either get a 996 GT3 or move up to a 997. If you are more financially constrained, buy an older one and be happy with it.

And how much to have dealer install it.

The differences are so subtle it would come down to the driver. A few pluses of the 3.4l: *Digital speedo under the tach where it should be *No variocam surge @3200 RPMs *MY03+ get the MOST system, making it much more difficult to upgrade the stereo *I have seen more MY02 w/RMS problems then any other year - anecdotal evidence only.

First of all let me say nobody is saying the 99 is the "better" car... it has some features like cable by throttle instead of e-gas, lighter weight and an engine management system that will give you 15-20 hp easy with a GIAC flash simply because of the version of engine management system. The 3.6 does have better engine flexibility and more low end torque which means less changing of gears during street driving and more tractability; but on a race track? MY porsche owners manual www.track-challenge.com (which by the way shows a 99 heavier than my manaual's # of 2910 lbs... but the difference between the 99 and 2002 from THAT source is 170 lbs... that's still some extra weight) same driver, dry days. your certainly entitled to your opinion.... I've raced with a few 02's and they didn't pull on me... I even raced with a 997 with *lightweight* champion rims and we were dead even from 40-140 roll on.... probably because the 99 3.4 runs motronic 5.x which yields more hp from a GIAC flash than a 2002 (3.6 gets nothing from a flash and this has been documented in a porsche publicationi by Steve Weiner) and this is certainly a +ve for the 99; especially when somebody is considering the bottom line $$$. www.track-challenge.com shows 1477 kg = 3277 lbs. the 3.6's also have bigger tires 285 vs 265... the 285 tires weight about 3 lbs each more putting more weight on the outer edge and hence increasing rotational mass... and when you increase rotational mass you lose some torque... so its important to take all these differences into consideration because some speed testing reveals the 99 3.4 is *very* fast... motortrend documents 0-60 in 4.6 and 1/4 in 13.1 and I have duplicated those #'s on my testing... put a GIAC flash on a 99 3.4 and you'll feel the difference from 4000 and beyond... of course this is a debate for the value conscious buyer who may want to save 10K or so for a car with *similar* performance... and Ray at the end of the day.. the 2 cars do have *similar* performance... my friend with the modded 997 would agree with me on that one.

How do you do this, other than replacing the entire top?

As I said buy what you can afford as long as you get a PPI done on the car, So what if the car is 3000 lbs or 3100 lbs. I had a 99 C2 and compared to my 04 C2 it was garbage, but you know what they say one mans trash is another mans treasure.. Its a Porsche its the classic 911 , **** guys some of you are starting to sound like the 993 guys. * and you 3.4 owners I said mine was garbage not yours**

LOL

Perfect, so you take a no option empty weight for a '99 and then decide to use a "Track-Challenge" weight for the '02? So you claim. This is not listed anywhere on the site. Track-challenge is a "compilation" site. They do no testing they simply publish data from different sources. Were these days cool days or hot? What tires were on the cars? What wheel sizes? Was it humid or dry? Who was the driver? The funniest thing about the site is they indicated that the '02 is superior in 8 out of 9 (they tied on on one) acceleration and handling categories yet it supposedly can't get around a track faster It's a pretty big level of denial to think that you could have two cars that are nearly identical. Except "car B" has 20 more hp, 15 lb ft more torque, produces 25% less front lift, 40% less rear lift, has a chassis that is 20% stiffer, has bigger tires (the rears on the '99 are 265/35's vs 285/30's on the later cars) and weighs 55 lbs more......yet it has identical performance stats to "car a" and it can't get around a track faster. I'll take some of what you're drinking. I guess I'll continue to believe Porsche's published stats. But what do they know??.......after all it's not like they built them or anything.....

well... I can tell you that my 99 with the stock suspension does feel like crap compared to a 3.6 car... I've driven a few including a 40th anniversary and upgrading to the ROW 030 suspension with a proper alignment COMPLETELY changed the character of the car... I'm having so much fun with it now its unreal! as for the 3.6 cars they feel smoother and more refined; if that's what you want... if that means something cause I drove a 40th anniversary and I felt it had a non-involving antiseptic feel to it... FWIW... I also hated the e-gas on the newer models but I hear GIAC has a fix for it... I recall CAR magazine (unbiased British magazine) saying something was lost in the "feel and rawness" of the car from 99-2000-2001 and THEY liked the 99 more as well... ; wonder what they thought of the 993?

nope, don't distort my post please. nope, so TRACK-CHALLENGE claims! wheel sizes and tire brands are listed on the site; weather conditions you'll have to inquire by writing them an email... it's very logical... cause of the extra WEIGHT! it's not all about acceleration... if it were we'd all be driving corvettes. 55 lbs... did you put your car on a diet? more importantly they MARKET them. all I can say is I'd LOVE to race ya...

If you want to compare track times with comparable drivers, then look at what Walter Rohrl did in both at the Nurburgring. The times are in the official track records. Back in 98' in a 3.4l ROW M030 (Euro sport suspension) coupe he ran a 8:17. 3 years later in a ROW standard suspension 3.6l Targa (Euro standard suspension is the same as the US sport suspension), he ran the same 8:17. The Targa weighed almost 300 lbs heavier than that original coupe. In the article in Sport Auto Walter Rohrl was quoted about how improved the car was with the revisions, despite the additional weight. Walter Rohrl never had an offical track time on 3.6l coupe, but it isn't hard to guess it would definitely be faster. By comparison with other generations, he ran a 8:23 in a 993 Carrera coupe and 8:06 in a 997 (non-S) coupe. A 997 is better than a 996 3.6l, which is better than a 996 3.4l, which is better than a 993. Fact! That doesn't mean each car is not a great car. A lot of 993 owners feel their cars are the last of the "true" 911's because the new ones are air cooled. The reality is Porsche had to go to 4-valve heads to get better performance out of the engine. With 4-valve heads, they have to be watercooled. Even the best 901 chassis car ever built, the 959, had to be water cooled due to its 4 valve heads. Porsche, like most automobile manufacturers, continually develops their cars to be better and it is ignorant to think otherwise. If everyone reads the intent of the tread, there was no question that the performance of a 3.6 is better than a 3.4. The question was if it was worth the cost difference? The question comes up all the time and the responses are always the same. When reading responses, keep in mind: There are a lot of 3.4l owner who CAN'T afford a 3.6l when buying their cars, but there are NO 3.6l owners that could not afford a 3.4l when buying their cars.

Depends on who the buyer is and how prudent they are with their $$$ Although this may be true for some owners the original question is about value, not affordability; I think we can conclude there is value in buying a well-kept 99 if you like what that particular flavor of year has to offer.

Good one.

Today yes. There was no 3.6l when I bought my car. I paid cash for it. The MSRP was $106,125 plus tax and license. I've also put about $12k into mods. Would I trade it in on 3.6l? Hell no. Would I trade it in on a base 997? Hell no. Would I trade it in on a 997S? Maybe if Porsche would put the 996 interior in it. Those bickering about a tenth of a second could better spend their money improving their driving skills.

After reading comments like this it clearly shows that this forum has a long way to go before it reaches the standard of an "Enthusiast's Forum." I wonder how "owners" have "bought" their 996s as against "leased" or "financed them." There is affording to purchase outright and then there is affording the lease or finance payments which are very different levels of affordability. I had a cash budget which put me into a nice GT-3. However I decided that for the purposes I now use a Porsche for, I needed something more practical (if a Porsche can ever be claimed as practical). My wife also needs a replacement car so I will use the difference to purchase her a nice Audi S4. To read this kind of put down statement on Rennlist or any other 996 forum is something the 996 community is known for, and in my opinion needs the shed from its reputation. 996 owners are widely considered as snobs by their fellow Porsche "other model" owners around the world. I am now a 996 owner and I am not a snob, I am a Porsche Enthusiast, and one thing Porsche Enthusiasts do not do, is put down other owners and their cars in their own model ownership group. There is enough of that from elsewhere to go around. Ciao, Adrian.

Read again, he wanted to know the differences. Performance difference (or rather lack of that difference) was where this all started off. Well he got that information (and some drama too!). Also keep in mind we're talking very specifically talking about the 1999 3.4L engine which I've researched to be a very sweet spot. That's quite an assumption. I had started off my purchase with the intention of buying an 2003/02 model since I "didn't want a car older than 2 years". You know the usual buying-a-used-car syndrome - where its possible a lot of people would "play safe" simply out of ignorance. Then as I researched more it wasn't making any sense with the performance stats available to spend the additional money ($13k+) on the same kind of machine !! I couldn't bring myself to pay that extra money I had saved up just for the car once I learnt more detail about the cars !! All I had to do was pick one with low miles and well maintained. Its not about affordability - its more about using your brains. If I hadn't researched I would have ended spending $13K more for virtually the same stuff. Of course, its EASIER to find a 2002+ in good condition and low miles than a 1999. Finally I don't see why everyone is getting so defensive about comparing the 1999 3.4 to the 2002 3.6. I'm just trying to tell the original poster that the peformance is so identical (yes Ray, 0-60 included - I'm sorry !) that it pretty much boils down to the 10-13K he saves. To me that $13K can buy a lot of happiness if put towards entertainment (club cover charges are rising in san diego!), vacation, gifts etc. I guess at 25 those factor in too. For those who are still convinced that the 3.6L is a "much better" performer than the 3.4L 996 - sorry - I think you guys bought the wrong car !! There are a ton of cars better than our faithful 996 - some springing right from our Porsche factory themselves (GT3, turbo). Anyway, enuff said on this thread. RIP. And remember, its a car - not a religion. And so as Adrian says in Switzerland, gentlemen, please - don't get your knickers in a knot !!!! LOL !!

Don't forget that tires improve dramatically from year to year. Comparing track times between a 3 year span is making a lot of assumptions. Think about how much a few tenths of a G helps out on every single corner on a track as long as the Nurburgring, by virtue of those newer technology tires! And of course even Walter Rohrl is gonna improve a little bit after 3 more years of practice.. The point is that the performance difference is insignificant. Equal drivers on a race track and neither the 02 or the 99 are gonna pull away from the other car- they'll be in striking distance the entire time.

Another important issue with Forums today is people using their uninformed opinions and claiming them to be facts as shown in this set of statements. Firstly claiming one version is better than another is nothing but personal opinion unless you can provide some expertise and knowledge on the subject providing verifiable examples. Magazine articles and tests as presented do not provide the background for each test to provide fair comparisons. If you had ever visited and driven the N�rburgring you would know what I am talking about. Tyres used and the weather (just the time of day) play signifcant roles during these tests. Often you get the best time of the day not necssarily the best possible time. If you want some examples of retrograde steps and the winners of the "Bright spark awards" on previous models read my books. If you want a direct example related to the 996 try the first generation of PCCBs. An expensive retrograde step especially with the highly powered 996s. I know I used to hurtle around in a 996 GT-2 which was retrofitted with steel brakes on safety grounds, my safety grounds. The original brake distance testing done on the PCCB versus Steel by Porsche in 1999 (I have it all at home here) showed that the only advantage of the PCCBs was the fade meaning thebrakes did not go off as quickly when they hot. Under normal driving conditions there was no advantage to the PCCBs over steel. The Porsche tests started at braking from 80kph to 0 and ended with braking from 240kph to 0 under varying conditions. The primary reason the 996 engine is water-cooled was to meet new European Noise and Exhaust emissions requirements not because it has 4-valve heads. Plus by making the 911 engines water-cooled it allowed Porsche to reduce internal production costs. If you ever visit and talk to Porsche engineering staff I am sure they will be more than willing to tell you what was going on in those days at Porsche in 1995 through to 1998. I know they were happy to tell me. One thing they also said was that the air-cooled flat-six engine had reached the end of its economically viable development. However that does not in any way suggest the water-cooled engine is better. I have both air-cooled and water-cooled 911s and my old 964 engine has over 100K miles on it and has never been opened and cranks out 285HP. Porsche do not always make things better and I can assure you I am not ignorant when it comes to matters related to Porsche cars especially 911s. Ciao, Adrian. PS: Just because Walter can drive quickly around the N�rburgring deosn't mean the average Porsche owner can either. He took a Porsche Cayenne TT around the Ring in a faster time than he did previously with a 996TT. PSS: One overlooked issue when comparing older and newer designs of any car is the tyre technology. There was statement about 99 running 265s and the newer ones with 285s. Well my 99 came from the factory with 285s fitted. However tyres in 1999 were of lesser capability than they are today. Redo the tests under the same conditions with similar specifications (not weight), same brand and version of tyres and then compare.

To me, it always comes down to price. One 'could' say that a 2002 911 is better than a 1999 911 just because it's newer and has more horsepower. However, it does cost a 'good' bit more to purchase. So, the more important question should be posed as what does a buyer want to spend and THEN go and get the best car in that price range (it could be a base 996, a TT, a GT3, a cabrio, etc). It's been repeated a dozen times in this thread, but it bears repeating again: those of us who stretch financially to impress others are monkeys. Buy the best you can afford and believe you me, any of these Porsches will put a damn grin on your face. Heck, I drove a Boxster S for 5 years prior to my 911 and never once thought that I was missing out. There are pros and cons to everything in this world, but the biggest 'con' is paying more for something than you can or need to.

Edward, I could not agree more with what you say. There are two types of Porsche owners which you are describing in your post. 1/. The person who goes out and buys a Porsche because he or she wants to own one. 2/. The person who goes out and buys a Porsche because he or she wants to say they own one. These are two very different groups of people with the first group being the "Porsche Enthusiasts." The second group can do as they please. Porsche or any other marque of car Enthusiasts know what they are looking for and will purchase their right car when they find it. A true Enthusiast gets out there, test drives everything they can and are able to work most things out for themselves. An Enthusiast also seeks value for their money as well as having a fair idea of the cost of ownership well into the future. 20 grand saved now WILL be spent as time goes by in maintenance and or modifications. My dick is bigger and richer than your dick or my watch is more expensive than your watch type of discussions create the wrong image for forums like Rennlist IMHO of course. Adrian.

Gentlemen, having started this thread, I know declare that all that could - or should -be said has been so. Thank you all for your input. The bottom line? I will buy the "best" P-Car I can find, based upon its condition, options, and "ease of ownership" (ie, I would prefer to buy one from a seller located 5 miles from me as opposed to one in Nevada). If that is a nicely-maintained and optioned 1999, so be it. If it turns out to be a 2002, that'd be ok too. They're all "better" cars. So now let's move on to more important issues, like whether P-Car owners wear briefs or "boxsters." (My wife is soooo tired of that joke).

I hope you find what you are looking for. Patience is the key and waiting until you have found exactly what you are looking for is the joy of Porsche ownership. This P-car owner wears briefs. I find wearing Boxsters too evenly balanced for my tastes. I like mine a little heavier on the rear as compared to the front. Ciao, Adrian.

AMEN!

Pointing out all the holes and inconsistencies in your posts is hardly a distortion. Keep drinking the cool-aid it seems to be working for you....

I disagree, an 05-06 is "better" than an 02-04 but this is an example of situation where I would stick with the older version. The performance difference (even between the 997 GT3 vs. 996 GT3) doesn't justify the substantial greater expense and the styling of the new cars is not at all an improvement. (just my aesthetic opinion of course) but the resale value of these car, particularly the widebody ones will be interesting in years to come. If Porsche stick to the retro fron end look for the 911 I wouldn't be surprised to see 02-04 911's depreciating at a slower % rate than 997s after both are out of warranty. I think the 02-04 were the first 911's I thought that could never be confused with a VW (like the 993 and 997).

I'm happy with my 04. I don't drive at the limit most of the time and it feels very SOLID. I like that. I'm also out of the market for future P-Cars. I have the last car with no PSM, PASM, or similar nanny technology. They even have PASM in the GT3 now. Too much technology for me.

Lee, I hate to break it to you, but unless I am mistaken, PSM was standard on all '04 996s . . .

Sorry you feel like that Ray... you analysis skills leave something to be desire of.... my facts are from published sources and yes you are distorting my post as I have not posted any information with holes or inconsistencies... just facts and links to those facts. you should try some cool aid yourself - maybe it will help you lighten up a bit and your 3.6 as well..

Your "facts" are strangely inconsistent with Porsche's published info. Keep drinking.....

They are the posted facts from reputable sources... I think *your* facts are strange... bottoms up

Mmmmm good..... My facts come from Porsche. But then they would seem "strange" if one wanted to believe the cars were equal......or in your case that the '99 is faster on the ring than an '02...... Drink up

Honestly fellas, who cares? The performance of all 996s, whether '99-01 or '02-'04, are so similar that very few of us on this board, if any, would be able to eak out an extra second at any race track or public street due to those differences. Each have their advantages (particularly the 99 with the LSD and ability to order without PSM) and disadvantages. Just love the one you're with and stop arguing about koolaide!

FWIW, I looked on KBB and found the following data: 1999 C2 coupe = 2910 lbs / 3009 lbs wet 2004 C2 coupe = 2959 lbs / 3080 lbs wet On Edmunds, they list the following 1999 C2 coupe = 2901 lbs 2004 C2 coupe = 2959 lbs So, in my book, I think that the horsepower and torque increases should definitely have made up for getting very slightly porkier in 2002+ (but also stiffer, better aero, glove compartment, etc). AND I drive a 2000. Again, all of them are great. You're splitting hairs. If you really want a performance difference, go get a TT, GT3 or a Vette (I know, oh the sacrilege!).

BTW, I love kool-aid. Reminds me of camp when I was a kid.

I echo all that Sid said; bought a '99 in Jan '04 for $33.5K. It was a 1 owner, had 76K miles BUT a new factory engine at about 70K. To me, that was a huge plus - low miler engine in a fairly high miler chassis. It has been a daily driver, now with 90.3K miles and all has been great. I wonder about the 2002's sometimes - stiffer chassis and better interior appointments but love my '99 for what it represents at the price.

What ^ said

What is the fair asking price for a 2002 C2 with 25k miles in mint condition? Yellow over black, new tires recenlty serviced. TIA

This is rennlist at its best - a long fight punctuated by ocassional hockey playing. Re subject of post: factor in mod expenses as well as unexpected maintenance - they both WILL occur.

here you go again... who said anything about the cars being "equal"... is english your second language?

TD, You are mistaken. It's not in the equipment codes, I don't have a switch, I've never seen an indicator.. I've had it sideways at the track... If I have PSM, it certainly is discreet...

Well Lee, it is not the first time I have been mistaken, so I may have been wrong. Nonetheless, before posting, I checked out the order guides for the '04, and I did not see it. Also, pages 58-59 of the manual state that PSM automatically comes on automatically when you start the motor, which confused me. Upon a second review, I see that it was mandatory only with the technics and advanced technics packages, both of which were very popular. so, you could get a car without PSM if you did not get certain packages. I wonder why people talk about the option to not have PSM as being an advantage for the early cars. If you always had the option to not buy PSM, what is the advantage for the '99? Oh well, you learn something every day.

Maybe the person who ordered it (I bought it off the lot) had it deleted...

Yours has the technics or advanced technics package? Here is what the ordering guide says: P82 Technic Package Includes options: 342 Heated Seats, 446 P83 $6,085 Wheels Caps w/Color Crest, 476 PSM , 680 Bose Sound Package, P15 Power Seats, P74 Bi- Xenon w/Washers P83 Advanced Technic Package Includes options: 342 Heated Seats, 446 P82 $10,185 Wheels Caps w/Color Crest, 476 PSM , 680 Bose Sound Package, 692 Remote CD Changer, P11 Rain Sensor/Dimming Mirror P15 Power Seats, P16 PCM, P74 Bi-Xenon w/Washers My car has the advanced technic package so it was included . . .

I don't think so. I have US M030, Bose, Thick Steering Wheel, leather seats, 18' alloys, Wheel Caps (I sold them to ekename after upgrading to Boothe). No mention of PSM in the standard equipment column. I'm sure it would be there, and there would be a switch to turn it off. They even list stuff like OBDII and power steering.

Well, that makes more sense. I was trying to say in a confused manner that PSM is mandatory only as part of the technics or advanced technics packages. since you do not have either of those packages, you could order, or not order, PSM as you choose. If you had the choice whether to order PSM or not, why do so many people bitch about PSM on the 996? If you don't want it, don't order it.

QED. You can't NOT have PSM and PASM in a 997.

It goes away in a hurry once I get in................

LSD interferes w/PSM ( like on the CGT ), it was an option for MY99 C2s, that combined with direct throttle linkage ( no e-gas ) makes those MY99s very desirable - IMHO.

First, I like how I'm being fought by supporting my points. If you can afford and choose to buy a 2-3 year old 3.6l, you could obviously afford to buy a 3.4l, but don't. There is a big difference between saying both are equal and saying that the price difference doesn't justify the cost difference. Pointing out that the more expensive 3.6l Turbo and GT3 also have better performance and costs more also supports the same points I made. Weight is only a single factor. Having less unsprung weight matters more than less chassis weight. Power to weight taking into account the "area under the curve" along aerodynamics (coefficient of drag and frontal area) determine acceleration. Aerodynamic forces increase at a cubed rate with speed meaning weight matters less the faster you go. A reduction in weight can't counteract aerdynamic forces, but an increase in HP can. Chassis improvements and braking can also make significant improvements in track times. The C6 Z06 weighs almost 200 lbs less, has almost 50 more hp, a wider wheel/tire combination and bigger brakes than an 02' GT2; yet only matches track times at the Nurburgring. On paper it is better in every area, in execution it is only equal. It is the same reason why a 300 lb lighter 3.4l Carrera Coupe is only able to match a 3.6l Targa at the Nurburgring. Porsche didn't add weight just to add weight; they did it to improve chassis and steering response. Why would you ever add a strut tower brace, roll bar or subframe connectors if they just added weight? I went through the same decision myself as being asked here. Rather than read or ask opinions, I drove at over a dozen cars to make up my mind. I never put a post on a board for input. I recommend anyone else trying to make the decision, do the same. I drove a couple 3.4l's. I almost bought a low mileage 00' Coupe. I drove a 3.6l just to see the comparison and the difference is extremely noticeable, substantually more than I would have expected. If I had kept my limit at 35K, I would have bought the 3.4l and been very happy with it. I also drive a very low mileage 01' Turbo that was about $15K more than the range of an 02' Carrera (almost twice the price of the 00' Carrera). To be honest, I noticed less of a difference between the Turbo and NA 3.6l than I did between the 3.4l and the 3.6l, but the Turbo is a very different car. My compromise was to get a 3.6l Carrera, that does not mean it is better or equal to a Turbo in performance. If I had gone the Turbo route, it would have quickly gone Stage 4 within the first couple of months. I don't regret not buying the turbo, but I am currently considering moving up to a GT3 in the fall. If you believe the performance is the same for a 3.4l and a 3.6l, I have a simple challenge. Keep in mind that Porsche always under rates their performance figures. Porsche rates the 0-60 as 4.9 for the 3.6l C4S and 4.8 for the 276lb lighter 3.6l Carrera and the new 997 Carrera. I am going to spot this challenge 276 lbs to start with by only using the C4S numbers. Both Car & Driver and Motor Trend both did long term tests of production US 3.6l Carrera 4S models. For 0-60, Car & Driver got a 4.5 and Motor Trend got a 4.6. At the 1/4 mile Car & Driver passed the traps in 13.0 @ 108 while Motor Trend was able to do a 12.9 @ 108.7. Porsche quotes the acceleration figures for the new 997 Carrera the same as the 996 due to an increase of 5 hp offset by 55 lbs of increased mass, so for reference Car & Driver was able to achieve a 0-60 of 4.3 and a 1/4 mile of 12.8 @ 109 for a non-S 997 Carrera. My challenge is for you to prove the performance is the same by simply finding a single independent article of a production US 3.4l Carrera from ANY source were it shows it was able match the numbers the either of these C4S cars. Good luck.

I don't want to get into the mix here. But I saw a challenge, and it just so happens I saved a link to this information when I was shopping for my 2000 C2. I actually haven't confirmed the veracity of this, but it at least points north. Specs are for 3.4L 996's (1998-2000). Shows 0-60 at 4.6 (Road and Track + Car and Driver); QM at 13.2 (R&T + C&D). Autobahn Site Or click here to select from different models and specs. Comparisons match your previously posted numbers. I know this isn't definitive, but does this count as "ANY source"? Is there a prize for meeting the Challenge? I'll take a RUF Turbo Upgrade Oh, while I'm at it, here is another source with *slightly* different numbers: 4.9 and 13.4 for a 99 911 . And don't forget MSN autos: . (anything Microsoft puts its seal on MUST be true!) -> 4.73 and 13.28 and that's TWO decimal places of accuracy - sweet. And, this is clearly bootstrapping, but it has numbers: "And that's all I have to say about that" (Gumpism) -td

A reduction in weight by 10% is equivalent to increasing HP by 10% The wheels on the 3.6 cars (5-spoke lightweights) are MUCH ligher than the fat twisities used on the 3.4 car... there is definitely some torque loss by using the 3.4 turbo twisties as they are very heavy and one can extract more noticeable performance by going to lighweight rims like a Champion RG5. stock vs. stock your completely right; especially in terms of engine flexibility - this is where the extra tq of the 3.6 shines*** but if you slap on a ROW 030 kit/PSS9 with the $$ you have saved they will feel similar/better based on suspension option... less of a difference? in what sense? the turbo is *blazingly* fast and a 3.6 car doesn't have a chance in hell in keeping up with a turbo.... Motortrend tested an early 996 (stock 99) @ 4.6 and 13.1 ; my own roll on tests with a C4S revealed to me that I slowly pulled on that C4S (not by much but I was slowly getting by him); also my friend has a well broken in 997 with Champion lightweight wheels and he could not get by me all day... (this is through strait line racing from roll ons betweeen 40-120) and we did this run many times... at the end of the day he commented on how my 996 was the first 996 he couldn't get by... all I've done is a GIAC flash, PSE and K&N;

I have a 1998 3.4 model and love it, but I have no basis for comparison with an 02 but I really doubt you will notice the difference. The real plus is that you can spend all the money you saved on mods like sports exhaust, SSK, improved audio (a must on earlier models), improved suspension and control arms etc. etc etc. Each little mod makes you like it even more and so my recommendation is find a really good car (one thats been cared for) and dont worry too much about the year. A good 99 beats a crappy 02 IMO.

This statement makes you lose all credibility.

Great thread. A little ironic that Adrian from Switzerland doesn't want to talk about watches but please lets not start the thread about underwear. I worry we may get photos.

oooh, another fantastic point . You're so worried about 0-60, why would you 'move up' to a GT3, wouldn't the turbo be faster at 0-60 than a GT3?

I am not Swiss. Adrian lives in Switzerland, but is not from Switzerland. My homeland is a few miles west of yours. I do not discuss watches because I only use them to tell the time and nothing else. Ciao, Adrian.

Adrian: there is nothing a few miles west of NZ. Where are u from?

Wouldn't that be Australia, though it is a tad bit farther than a few miles west, eh?

Holy crap! I started to read this thread to find out the weight difference and got drawn *completely* into the debate. In my heart want a 99 because it will (theretically) save me a lump of cash, and is mechanically throttled. BUT I have found an '02 with no PSM and some carbon fibre interior bits for only $5K more than what I expect to pay for a good 99. New clutch, CPO, why the heck shouldn't I. In fact I've just showed the wife the pictures and even she agrees. I'm a-comin boys!

Pics? Did someone say PICS? Good luck on your purchase and post some pics of her here after you get her (I mean the the car, not the wife).

All in due time my friend. I'll hold off posting the pics until it's actually mine. Who knows, maybe I'll end up with a 1999 instead. Don't worry though - my post count may say noob, but I'm a well seasoned Pelican and live for the pics just like you all. Here's a couple snap of me and my current 911 at Laguna Seca to tide you over:

Cool vintage 911. Wild tailpipes!

Thanks - I am going to weep openly when that car sells. I've had it for ten years and have modified it steadily over that tiime. The tailpipes are thus because there was a 92 dB sound limit at LS that day. The sound shack is on the right side of the track, so the diverters are installed to drive sound down and to the left. They work too. My friend with a similar but quiter "one out" system and he got black flagged for noise. (no diverters installed on his car). By the way - after a sleepless night worrying about spending extra money I don't really have on the 2002 - I'm back to thinking I want a 1999. You know I don't like e-gas, and I want to install some suspension and maybe some exhaust mods. With the '02 I don't think I will. Man this is tough! Think I'll start a post on the merits of a 33K miles 1999 versus a 60 K miles 1999 with a new clutch.

Got a '99 in 2004; had 5K on a factory engine, 76K on chassis. Has been the best Porsche (vs '64 356SC, '66 912, '88 944) I've owned. Now have 92K on chassis. BTW, wife claims it's the most comfortable car she's ever ridden in. Will keep this one forever.............

Monsmike - I'm in Pensacola also and mine is a '99 black cab. I'll keep a look out for you! I've had it for about three months. I'm still grinning every time I drive it

I have a 99 and have no desire to change to a 02+ model, not because I believe my car is better (although it is ) but because I really like what I have right now and have a lot of other toys I would rather spend the additional money on. I would consider a newer C4S cab, but only because I love the way the wide body and front and rear looks on the car. Probably wouldn't be any faster than my current one, but I never drive it as fast as it will go anyway. I would guess the maintenance costs of the different model years would be about he same if the mileage was similar. I would agree that the newer are have been improved, it just depends on what those improvements are worth to you. This post does a great job of pointing out the differences. It would have been nice to have those differences included in 4 pages instead of 9+, but that is the beauty of the web. If this same discussion would have taken place with all of us in one room it would have never got beyond 4 pages as a huge fist fight would have broken out, which I am sure would have proved once and for all who was really right. I wonder if we would all take the same tone with each other in one-on-one conversations. In any event alot of great points here, certainly enough to know how to compare the two. For me the decision was finding a car that had all the options I liked for the best price and a car in the best condition. I would make a list of the options you really want and then wait until you find one with all those options in a price range that you are comfortable with. If I were looking today, it would be full leather, litronics, PSE, SSK, heated seats (I would get a cab again), sport seats, 18 inch wheels, automatic switch for the cab, 3 spoke steering wheel and upgraded audio. Some of this you can add your self. Good luck and be willing to wait until you find what you want. There are a lot of these great cars out there. Kris

99 is the lightest and the fastest!!!!! It's the only real porsche.

It's not that I don't believe you, but I want to hear Dallas' opinion first!

Really? I am a long time subscriber of Motor Trend and they only did 2 99' 996 Carrera tests. The early European car they tested in 11/97 was estimated at 0-60 in 5.0 and a 1/4 mile in 13.5 @103. The production one they tested in 5/98 was better: 0-60 in 4.9 and a 1/4 mile in 13.4 @ 105.2. Nice ficticous numbers. An interesting comparison is to also look at European road tests. Autocar tested an 02' 3.6l Carrera in 12/01 that ran 0-60 in 4.6 and a 1/4 mile in 12.9 @ 112. This was an Aero, Sports Suspension, with lightweight GT3 seats and no other options. With the lightweight seats, lack of a sunroof and other equipment we get standard; it was up to 100 lbs lighter than our version. It is a very good article about how the real the improvements are in the 3.6l engine and chassis in performance. For reference this was very close to the performance of the MKII GT3 (Euro GT3 seats, no sunroof) they tested in 5/03: 0-60 in 4.5, 1/4 mile in 12.6 @ 115. Typically a lighter car in Euro form is 1-2 mph faster in the traps than what we get.

WOW! That's a 99....looks great!!

Jasper: I haven't read this entire thread, so someone may have already mentioned this but, for what it's worth and since this thread is still alive, I absolutely love my '99 996. I say get the '99 model and take the extra cash and slap an EVOMS supercharger system on it with some high flow cats and race exhaust with suspension and brake mods, then be done with it . . . . . . okay . . . . . . okay, you'll do a little tinkering here and there after that, but that will get you long ways toward where you will definitely want to be. Did I mention that I love my '99 996. My car has over 93,000 miles on it and is still going strong. The EVOMS kit was installed around 72,000 miles.

I agree 100% - I also bought a 1999 about 1 1/2 years ago and absolutely love it. I paid a premium price but it had the aero kit, Techart suspension, wheels, exhaust and other extras that made me fall in love with the car. If you get the right one it will look MUCH better than some of the 02+....Mine has 40,300 miles and going strong issues-free!

Got a 99 and love it. Also the headlights of the 99 model are bigger... bigger is better when it comes to headlights, I guess you all agree right?

996 Brethren! Let us stop fighting amongst ourselves! Don't we have enough air-cooled old cronies to contend with without dividing ourselves? Beside, we all know my '03 Targa was the greatest Porsche ever made bar none.

Air cooled cronies... I nearly spit out my beer just now.

Yeah, sorry about that. I actually love all Porsche's but I'm getting sick of some of the biased crap against 996's I read over in aircooled land. I think it's strange and unwarrented.

The tide is turning. Today marked the last day I drove my air cooled car for pleasure. The new owner is taking ownership (but not possesion yet - ong story) tomorrow and I'm taking the same of my 996 on monday. After ten years as a dyed in the wool airhead, I'm ascending! My air cooled friends are not particularly impressed, but they see the writings on the wall. The GT3 helps our cause.

traitor ;-)

Thanks for the great posts. I am looking at purchasing my first Porsche, and I really appreciate the information on the model year differences; it helps. thanks.

Here is some ammunition you can use over there: I know many of the purists who were against water cooling. But, to be honest; there never was an air cooled Porsche. I also have a 911 S/C. It is actually oil cooled with additional air cooling. It uses 15 quarts of oil with a 7-quart dry sump and 2 oil coolers: a big one in front and a second one at the engine. There are a few facts that really kills the whole air cooled/oil cooled philosophy. 1. Porsche has NEVER made a single car with 4-valve heads that was not water cooled. With a higher compression/better breathing 4-valve head, you can not sufficiently cool the head without water cooling to control detonation. Oil does not have sufficient cooling properties for this level of heat reduction. 2. Those famous Porsche 962 race cars had 4-valve heads and were water cooled. Reason: see #1. 3. The 959, the best of the early 911s, had 4-valve heads and was water cooled. Reason: see #1. 4. When the new 996 came out, it's .2L smaller water cooled engine made more HP AND Torque, than the air cooled engine it replaced due to its 4-valve heads. 5. Despite adding weight from larger 4-valve heads, front mounted radiators, a full heating system, a body that is longer and wider; the 996 weighs LESS than a comparable 993. 6. You will never hear these comments at a DE as the newer cars are simply much faster than the older cars. A competant Blue student in a 996-997 can often outrun a top G-stock racer/instructor.

Acutally most of the 996 styling inside and out is based on the 1993 Boxster Concept car...six years before the the first 996's were rolled out. I like the 2002-2004 headlights better too. Wish they made their way to the CaymanS and new Boxster.

I agree with you on the headlights. When I showed off my new-to-me '03 Targa, to one of my fellow Porsche heads he said I could buy something to update my headlights to his 997, to which I honestly replied "I really like em just the way the are!" He thought for a second and said, "Yeah, I guess I do to. I wonder why people make such a fuss about em?"

'99's are the best, lightest, fastest, and best tasting.

Dallas, have you been licking your car again??

Yes. It tastes like chocolate.

Hope you weren't licking your seat . . . because that's probably not chocoolate, particularly if you have a pre PSM model, not that there is anything wrong with that (having PSM that is, I think licking evidence of Code Brown moments is just, well, wrong)