10 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHGreat source of 996 info
Leading reported evidence
Run version of chrome)
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Hmmm, it's the computer I'm using (old IMac running old version of Chrome)!...
Leading evidence: 'Run version of chrome)' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Run version of chrome)' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Hmmm, it's the computer I'm using (old IMac running old version of Chrome)!...
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
Maybe it's my browser - I usually use Chrome or Safari...
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.
10 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
Came across this great info and thought i'd post for everyone. Probably been posted before but couldn't hurt to post again:
https://www.stuttcars.com/porsche-models/911/996/
^^^
Stuttcars is a nice site (with big potential), but there's not much going on there... Great historic info! Unfortunately the 996 pages are mostly disabled (all photo's pixillated unless you give them more $ or something)...I don't really get it. I've been a "member" (free mind you) there for years (since I got my car in 2014) but rarely log on, as very little if anything ever changes and they have a "coercion" mindset...
Yeah, that's crazy! For me, all the photo's (but not the video's) are blurred... Only the 996 section is like this (and always has been) - bizarre. Maybe it's my browser - I usually use Chrome or Safari...
Hmmm, it's the computer I'm using (old IMac running old version of Chrome)!... I just opened it on a different computern(HP laptop Windows 10/Chrome) and everything shows up just fine. Strange thing is, I had another HP laptop a short time ago also runing Chrome, where all the photo's were blurred... Oh well, learning everyday!
Absolutely! I've always loved the site, but was disappointed by the 996 info (it also took them years to get the info up - I joined in 2014 and the 996 page was "under construction" til some time around 2017 - 18). The photo's/Illustrations make a huge difference in the interest/readability. Thanks for posting!
** Just as an aside - I find the anti 996 bias amusing
Oh yeah... it's also got all the "even though the 993 is the most beautiful of all 911's the 996 has a lower drag coefficient" type comments as well... in addition to the "fried egg" comments. They rarely just leave a good point on it's own - they always try to drag it back down... It's really pretty funny
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
