17 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH997 pics
Leading reported evidence
Test mechanicals, not
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The car posted is a very highly disguised example to test the mechanicals, not to give previews of new styling.
Leading evidence: 'Test mechanicals, not' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Test mechanicals, not' (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.
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.
17 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: 20261026T152433Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
The wider rear is nice, but I much prefer the front of my C4S. The 996 lights are beautiful and modern and the grill is more understated.
IMO, the application of traditional design cues to a modern design is not working. But in person, it may look great. The Cayenne surprised me that way.
I like my 996 c4s better. The 997 front grill looks cheap and flimsy with the lights visible behond the grill.
I hope this 997 slows the depreciation process on my 996's.!
The front grille will look a lot like the C4S/TT grille with foglights in the upper section of each of the large openings on the end.
The silver 996ish look to the headlight assembly may or may not stay. If that silvery look stays the washer popups will remain silver colored...if not they will probably be body colored.
I also think the shape of the front trunk lid will be different...probably won't have the sharp corners like the 996.
Does it sound like I know what I'm talking about??
I think the 996 look is just a disguise, which includes the rings around the headlights. I see the intakes below the foglights/turnsignals, so you might be right about the C4S/TT look.
I'm glad that the 997 has sinilarities to the 996 and is an evolution of it. I shudder to think that a complete redesign will destined the 996 as the forgotten 911.
You are kidding, right? From the looks of the better pictures, it has combined the contemporary 996 looks with the sweetness of the 993. It appears as if it is going to be one sweet vehicle. Also note that the turn signals in front of the wheels are fake. I don't know that anything beats the 993, but it is really apples to oranges-
I am not kidding. It is just my personal preference. Why go back to the 993 styling? Time moves on and things change. I did not like the front bumper on this 997 prototype.
I don't even think that headlights shown in the pics are the real headlights...the whole front end is camouflaged...you can see a line across the hood and over the middle of the front fenders. And behind the grills you can see lights that are parts of the new front fascia....
I'm sure it will look sweet...
My whole point was that the grille you speak of that IS ugly is obviously not final production parts. The car posted is a very highly disguised example to test the mechanicals, not to give previews of new styling. That front bumper thing is an add on, the turn signals in front of the wheels are fake, the 996 (gen 2) gray headlight paint addition is fake, and the wheel offset appears mismatched in the rear which looks ugly--all of this stuff dramatically detracts from the final design which is exactly what they want to do. If you take common logic and remove the fake crap on the pictures Scouser posted, I have a feeling this is going to be one SWEET vehicle if it has the performance to back it up. PS- I do not mean any personal attack, I was just stating the facts about that grille.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.