2001 or 2002 996 - what to buy?

I'm ready to buy an '01 or '02 996, and am trying to decide if the extra $5-10K premium for the '02 is worth the money. I know the engine & interior was upgraded from '01 to '02, but am more concerned about reliability. Looking for any recommendations that could help... Thanks! Ryan

In 2002, the upgraded a bunch of things. I went through the same thought process that you did and opted for the 2000 because of cost. However, bear in mind that that 2002 redesigned the front headlights, front and rear bumper, Bose stereo upgrade, 20 extra ponies in a 3.6 engine instead of the 2001's 3.4, etc. A lot of people might want to pay for that improvement. However, in terms of quality and reliability, I would rank them equal with the exception that an older car more than likely may have been driven more miles and may not have any warranty left for you. What you should so is go out and drive both cars and see if you can tell a discernible difference. That'll satisfy you a lot more than the affirmation from guys on the forum that you are making the right choice.

I think that 02+ cars have the MOST optical bus, which makes sound upgrades, etc. harder to do. All the Porsche stereos, even the Bose are pretty marginal.

Only 2003+ plus has the MOST, 2002 has the same as the 2001 System

2002 is the best of the breed. 2003+ are essentially the same car except that they have the notorious MOST bus system for the radio. Get a 2002 if you can.

Buy the newest Porsche you can afford, Porsche is always improving the car from the previous year. Good luck and lets us know what you end up with!

Drove them all before buying a 2002. Like nycebo says, drive them both and make your own judgement. I bought the 2002 for the better torque band. I felt that the power band difference between the 2002 and the earlier models was well worth the money. The other improvements had no bearing on my decision. Tom L 2002 C2

2002, this is a no brainer.

While I have never driven a 2002, I'm very happy with my 01 C4 Cab.

If you value performance you may not be happy with a '01. Damn, how many rigs sport 300 hp these days? To get mods on an '01 to reach 320 hp would cost about $5k, and the other improvements are worth about $2k, so the break even difference should be $7k.

I agree with Paul 110%. Just like Joel Reiser(PCA Tech Section Guru) say, buy the newest car you an afford. The factory collects all the defect datum from the service centers as they find them and incorporate the corrective actions on the newer cars.

The performance is virtually the same ( 0.1 seconds to 100 kph), the extra weight offsets the 20 hp. The 3.4l is lighter and has more linear acceleration, no surge from the variocom plus.

Coupe or cab? If cab, 2002 is a must as the top comes w rear glass in addition to all the upgrades on a coupe If coupe, price may sway you in getting an 01. Some 01 w aerokit look real nice and if you can get a nicely optioned one, I wouldn't rule it out compared to 02. You can find a lot of 00-01 that are low mile and cream puff. However, 02 may be harder to find. If you don't mind shopping for a while to find the right car, 02 is worth the price IMO. I would not buy an 01 without an aerokit.

To get a real feel of the power difference you need to drive the cars back to back. While the difference may be only 20hp the real difference comes from the torque bump. The 3.6 torque peak comes earlier in the rev range, is higher (more torque), and the curve is flater (The surge you mention is much more obvious in the 3.4 cars than the 3.6's). In summary the 3.6 produces a lot more power under the curve. Finally porsche changed more than just the engine on the 3.6 models. They made chassis revisions that yield a 20% increase in stiffness. They also revised the aerodynamics to significantly reduce front and rear lift. IMHO, the advice to buy the latest model you can afford is sound.

Buy mine.... It runs great and is in great condition.

The advice to buy the newest Porsche you can afford is of course sound and has been repeated thousands of times. My comments were in response to Shark's claim that there is a huge performance difference between the two. The 3.6l feels faster because of the increased torque. Track Challenge has them both doing doing the Nuerburgring in the exact same time @ 8:17 and lists the the 2001 doing the shorter twistier(is that a word?) Hockenheim 1.2 seconds faster then the 2002, due to the lighter weight ( 1:15.9 & 1:17.1 respectively). There have been numerous threads about the variocam plus surge in the 3.6l cars, ( HERE'S ONE ) the 2004 models have a software revision to get rid of this, also some who have received rebuilt motors due to RMS say it's less apparent in the rebuilt motors.

First, Track Chalenge compiles data for hundreds of cars as far as I can tell they listed the 996 MkII time (8:17) on the sheet for the MkI in the absence of other data. The 8:17 time was from a MkII and was published in Sport Auto 06/01. Do you have a source for and 8:17 time with a MkI? As far as the Hockenheim times go there is zero info as to the source. When was the test? Who drove? What were the conditions? Here are the facts - The 3.6 liter produces significantly more HP and Torque and brings that torque much lower in the rev band. - The 3.6 liter produces more power under the curve. - The 3.6 produces more power at every point along the curve. - The MkII chassis was stiffened by 20% (according to Porsche) - The MkII received aero improvements that significantly improve front and rear lift over the MkI (according to Porsche). - The MkII's have significantly improved engine cooling as a result of the aero changes (according to Porsche) - The baffles in the oil pan were redesigned on the 3.6 liter motor to improve high g' oiling (according to Porsche) - The MkII's get better fuel economy (according to Porsche) - The MKII's have improved transmissions (according to Porsche) - The MkII's received several cabin and exterior improvements (according to Porsche) - The weight increased 55lbs for the MkII vs the earlier MkI (according to Porsche) (However, the power to weight ratio is significantly improved in spite of the small weight gain) Now you can choose to believe anything you want. If you want to believe that Porsche made all those changes to revise the car and ended up with a slower car around ANY track because they added 55 lbs so be it. My personal experience driving these cars is as follows (I looked for a used 996 for over a year before I picked up my car). I drove almost a dozen different 996 examples (both MkI's and MkII's) during my search (many back to back). Based on these drives I came to the conclusion that the 3.6 liter cars were significanlty more powerful and the chassis improvements could definately be felt. In addition I can honestly say I never noticed a 3,200 RPM surge on any of the 3.6 liter cars that I drove. However, I did notice that the 3.4 liter cars seem to have a power surge around 5,800 rpms (I feel a similar surge around the same point on my 2.7 986 and I like it). The original poster asked if these improvements are worth the price premiums. I think that question is really the point of this discussion (the changes made to the newer cars are obvious major improvements). You can get a '99 right now in the $30's vs an '02 or newer for $50K +. That's over a $10k difference! For me the improvements were worth it, but I absolutely understand that it may not fit the opinions or budgets of others.

i LOVE my '00 Cab that I bought a couple months ago, but......these guys are right - I let price become too much of an issue for me. I could have afforded an '02 but didn't spend the extra money because I thought this would just be a weekend driver. Now I drive it WAY more than I anticipated and if I had to do it all over again, I would have found this site sooner in my search and would have gone '02. I think the added HP, higher reliability, and slight improvements in creature comforts are worth it if you have the money. That said, if you can't afford an '02 or newer, a low mileage '99 to '01 will still make your heart race.

Well said!

BlackCab996 and Ray S, Please explain how a 2002 is any more reliable than a 2001. Having extensively driven both, I was never able to really notice any significant power difference between my 2001 and my best friend's 2002. In general it's very sound advice to always buy the newest Porsche you can afford. However, this advice usually pertains to questions of "964 vs 993" or "993 vs 996", not "old 996 vs new 996". If you have the money to burn, then by all means get the newer 996. However, since you're asking the question, that tells me you should just get the earlier 996 and save your money for some suspension mods, which will make a MUCH bigger difference than the extra 20 HP in the newer car. Then you'll still have thousands left over to customize the car more to your liking in other ways too, such as a nice custom exhaust. It's a no brainer if you ask me.

As far as you can tell? Yet you want the source, the when, the who, and the conditions for the Hockenheim times? I took delivery of my car in 6/01. Porsche doesn't start production for the new model year until after they shut down and retool during the month of August. The testing date for the 3.6l is listed as 10/01; the 3.4l was tested in '98. If you click on the details section you'll also notice some other info. For example the 3.6l does the slalom course faster (stiffer chassis?), but the 3.4l stops faster ( lighter ?). Again my comments were in response to this: The performance between the two is just not that significant. And again, buy the newest Porsche you can afford. A few of the other improvements on 3.6ls that Ray missed are lighter wheels ( less unsprung weight )and improved emissions. They also moved the digital speedo away from the tach (which I don't consider an improvement) .

You average 996 is not marketed towards a "track junkie", hence the improvements could have been in other areas....

Your totally guessing. I'd "guess" that you could swap either stat with a driver or tire change! Not to mention track surface differences, temperature differences, etc. I believe that you would need a back to back test with similar equipment to really document the improvements. Unfortunately, Porsche is probably the only organization that has done this, and they don't publish. In your opinion. In my opinion, I really doubt Porsche would go to the time effort and expense to make an "insignificant" performance difference. Additionally, I have driven a 3.4 and a 3.6 back to back (more than once). Each time I felt a big "seat of the pants" difference (my opinion). Finally, if you watch the pricing differences between models you may notice a big jump in asking (and I suspect selling) between '01's and '02's (greater than '00 to '01 or '02 to '03). Could this be the buying public's opinion?? Ahhhh........we finally agree!!!

i dunno, but i kinda like the 01 lights. espec w/ a gt3 bodykit - which imo looks way better than mkii. also, remember that the 3.4L motor has a more "porsche" quality to it. It revs more freely. Lastly, i believe that its easier to get (what little extra hp you can out of NA engines) more HP out of the 3.4 or so i hear...

Yup, hence the question marks. We're debating semantics here: my "not that ( that - meaning someone who "values performance wouldn't be happy" w/a 3.4l ) significant" vs. your "insignificant." IMHO, "not that significant" means in the end the final outcome might depend on a single item like temperature, driver, or tires (suspension) etc., just like you said. So have I and so did I. Like I said it's the torque, which is very nice - especially in low rpms/traffic, but on familiar roads/curves I can't going any faster in 3.6l ( I couldn't in a base 997 either, but in a 997S I felt I could go WAY faster). Of course it is, but I suspect this is due to the newer/current look (glovebox? ) more than performance (like qirex some of us prefer the look of the old lights -on the narrow bodies ).

teflon_jones: I agree with most of what you say, but let's please remember - I drive a 2000, not an '02, and I've mentioned that I love it. I do agree that you can make a great case to go with a 99 to 01 when money is an issue - you can add cold air intake, suspension mods, etc...- but if you want to drive a car off the lot and not do much (or anything), and if price is not an issue for the buyer, go '02 or newer. Perhaps there is an insignificant difference between the 2 cars when driven on a track by a pro, or many of the people here. However, to the every day driver, 20HP and a different torque band make a difference you can feel (read the recent posts about driving in cold weather vs warm). I guess you asked about reliability too - I've only been on this site for 6 weeks or so, but it seems that the vast majority of the problems I read about on this site, and any I've experienced (I know, I know, but I have a '00, not an '01) seem to be more common in years '99 to '01. It may be possible to be proven wrong, but that would take access to actual stats that I don't have, so I guess I'm providing more of an educated guess...

I'm going to be looking for a 996 to use as a daily driver and I'm running through the same questions. My problem is that I like the looks of the '99 and '00 but I want the '02 improvements. The front and rear restyling ruins what was an extrememly clean design for me.

Not that there is anything wrong with doing so, but it's really getting a bit nit-picky in here. It's pretty simple really, buy the best and newest and lowest mileage car you can afford. Yes, the 2002 does have some improvements on it, many of which I really wish I had such as the glass rear window on my cab and a glove compartment. But, at the end of the day, I found a 2000 cab with very low miles in fantastic shape and I could not rationalize spending 10-15k more for a 2002. However, there are lots of other drivers that can and definitely will do so. Is the 20hp really that big a deal? Dude, who can tell you other than yourself? Are you buying this car to show off to your friends or to drive enthusiastically on your own? I have a friend with a 1995 911 that's in pristine condition and he loves it better than anything. Listen, here's the answer: Drive the car. If you notice a difference and don't mind ponying up the extra cash, then do it. You'll be happy. If you do mind spending more, then don't. You'll be happy. These are great cars. I have a 5 year old car that puts a GIGANTIC smile on my face EVERY time I start it. I mean, could it be faster? Sure. Could it be newer? Sure. I mean, it could be a brand new 997s, right? The point is: these cars are fun. If you drive them both and notice a difference that seems worth the cost, then you already know the answer. The rest is all PERSONAL taste when it comes to look and finish.

I think this can largely depend on the particular cars being run too. I'm a strong believer that all Porsche 911's are NOT created equal. My '01 C4 with no engine mods regularly pulled on 2002+ C2's on the highway. I'm pretty much in agreement with you though. In my 5 years experience with 996's, I haven't seen any real reliability difference between the early and late models. The only model that's more prone to problems is the '99. I think you may just have happened upon the site when there were more people complaining about their pre-2002 996's. Also, remember that those cars are a few years older in general than the newer 996's so of course they're going to have more problems.

Teflon - Your points are definitely valid and well put, and it sounds like you got a great car from the '01 batch...or maybe you're just a better driver than your friends with newer cars! RyanT (original poster) - after all of this debate, PLEASE let us know what you get and share pics upon your purchase. Don't know if this post made your choice more difficult...HA HA Just make sure you have the car inspected (a full PPI by someone who specializes in looking at Porsches) and you'll be happy, no matter what year you choose.

The improvements were made in the areas that I mentioned. Most of them (glove box and headlights aside) were made in performance areas (power, chassis, aerodynamics, cooling, oiling, etc.). I'll stand by my assertion that these are significant performance enhancements. The great thing about this board is that anyone can have a different opinion!!

Dude...what's with a chick car in your avitar....j/k

Surely you're not refering to my "race car"!!! What is up with the car in your pic.......I'm not sure that will buff out!!

That's MY race car... And yeah...I'm slowly buffing it out...

Then buy mine!!!

You guys rock! This has been a great thread. I'm still looking at both '01 and '02, and will let you know what I decide on. I have driven both (but not back to back) and the differences weren't significantly noticable. I'd still like to get the '02, but I think it's all going to come down to price... More to come! The search continues...

Trust me, Paul, I would look seriously at yours, but timing is everything. I need to pay for my impending marriage, then sell the M5, then finally get the 996. Car stuff has to wait until after next May.

I'm in the same boat: 99-01 or 02. Nice chunk of change for the improvements mentioned throughout this thread. Anyone know if you can replace the 99-01 front (I'm assuming headlights, hood and bumper) with an 02+?

It can be done, but you must also replace the front fenders. However, I like the look of both cars (99-01 & 02-04). If it were my money I'd spend it on other areas.

the real problem is how S-L-O-W these cars are...both 99-04. You need a turbo

I think thats irrelevant. 996's are not slow, and its all relative don't you think? If speed is the case the 996 TT is a stone compared to whats out there, I mean come on now