Are the manual features (cable throttle and no TC) on the 1999s worth holding out?

How much different a driving experience is there between a 1999 911 that has manual cable throttle paired with no TC/PSM verses a 2000+ which does? I've been interested in the "last" of the manual 911s but it's also been recommended that you buy the latest model year you can, and 1999 obviously isn't it? Should I not worry about as much as I am? Limiting my options quite a bit

First if you are buying a car buy the best kept 911 you can afford maintenance over mileage as far as experience my 99 throttle response tends to be a minute quicker but in my drives of both types the average driver wouldn’t notice if your looking for future value it might be worth a very small gain if it was early built pre 10/99

I wish there was some better data on throttle lag for the egas, I'm somewhat doubtful it exists enough to be noticeable or if its just the variance in cars people notice when comparing. I've linked below some analysis done on a 1999 Mercedes Benz SLK 230, which I assume would have comparable performance based on them being the same age / country. The measured lag between pedal and throttle is stated at < .1 seconds, which I don't think would be particularly noticeable during driving. As egas has matured across the manufacturers they've added stuff like sporty pedal modes and rev hang, but I'd be surprised if porsche chose to add stuff like this to their first implementation instead of trying to replicate the performance of a cable. PSM is one of those things where unless you plan to significantly track the car I'd say is more of a pro than a con, it doesn't intervene nearly as much as other stability systems of the time. Driving on the street there's basically no scenario where PSM would get in your way, and it might save you in a pinch, there was another thread with a really nice millennium edition which got smashed up on a highway on ramp and the guy had turned off PSM right before. If I could cheaply add PSM to mine I would, but the amount of work to add it now is stupid expensive so I've made my peace with it. https://www.evilution.co.uk/wp-conte...intbooster.pdf

One thing I lost with drive-by-wire feature on all my cars equipped with it is the ability to rev the engine from engine compartment, which can come handy every now and then (e.g., revving up after oil change to build up pressure, revving up to check for rattles or noise, etc.) For those who don't work in the engine area at all, of course, this would be a moot point.

I can't speak to the performance difference question. As a former professional mechanic I have noticed that early fuel injection cars I worked on (Honda, Subaru, Toyota) were much easier to repair and troubleshoot. Once CAN and other high speed networks became the operating system for everything down to the power windows voltmeter based diag and logical deductions about failure modes were replaced with laptop and oscilloscope - I just bought a 99'

Seriously, cable throttle is the "oxygen free copper" of the 2020's. There's very little CANBUS on any 996. None of the car's accessories are run by CAN. The only CAN connects the ECU, instrument cluster, ABS, immobilizer, and transmission ECU if equipped with Tiptronic.

Unless you're extremely in tune with the car and even then I highly doubt you can tell the difference. Like others said, focus on finding a car with proper maintenance records. That's key with these cars. My 2004 car e-throttle feels damn near immediate when rev matching on down shifts. I feel zero delay.

Quotes source post: 18361455

The simplicity of the 99� is what I am referring to. The OBD 2 pre- can controlled everything era 1996-2005 ish has been a pleasure to work on across many brands compared to the newer stuff. The 99� 996 lacking traction control and e gas seems more blissful to own and diy maintain.

I bought mine because it has a lack of electric dodads it really is the last of an era

"Buying the latest model year" is a gross oversimplification. Between the 1999-2004 996 models, just choose the one that is in the best state and resonates with you. Each model year has their pros and cons. I've never driven a cable throttle 996 unfortunately. The e-gas on my 2000 has a rapid enough throttle response, but, it does seem to be a little harder to get 100% accurate rev-matching than in my '72 with MFI. Sometimes the engine doesn't do exactly what you had in mind.

As the owner of an early 99 with those features my answer is... NO. I have no regrets about the car I chose as it was spec'd exactly how I wanted and is a very solid example, but go with whatever is the best 996 example you can find. If that's a later 3.6 car so be it. I love how simple and old school mine feels but get the best 996 you can. The facelift cars with the bigger engines are great as well.

I have a '99 C2, my dad has a 2000 C2. There is ZERO noticeable difference in throttle response between the two. A lot of modern DBW cars do indeed have significant amounts of lag in their throttle inputs but that is a stupid tuning (possibly emissions) issue and has nothing to do with the mechanism (DBW or cable). Cars with electronic throttles are also easier to tune and, at least in the 996 world, have slightly cheaper parts + more modding options. The speed of light is so fast that it would be literally impossible for a human to notice a response difference between a cable throttle and a DBW throttle unless a lag was tuned in. I do like that my car has an LSD but the cable throttle is meaningless.

Quotes source post: 18362178

I think the emissions tuning forces the throttle blade to close slowly not snap shut. When you let off the gas pedal residual fuel in the intake manifold needs to be burned. If the throttle snaps shut you have residual fuel but no air so you get a rich spike. If the throttle closes a little slower the mixture stays correct as the residual fuel gets burned. At least that�s what I gathered from an engineering explained video. Also not sure if this strategy is used in early 2000�s cars. according to the video this makes shifting a manual less ideal since you get a sort of slow throttle response on the throttle down side of things. I imagine throttle response when increasing revs is the same with either system. I think the residual fuel is because fuel and air are swirling around during normal engine operation and coating the runners etc. I don�t know if this whole concept applies to direct injection.

All modern EFI has a complete fuel cut on lifted throttle at something like 2200 RPM or higher. If you take your foot off the gas the injectors don't fire at all. So I don't think that a slow close of the throttle body has anything to do with unburned fuel. It's much more likely that the ordinary E-gas car has deliberately slow throttle reactions to keep from blowing up the undersized automatic transmission, or trashing the undersized 1st gears. It costs real money and takes real weight to make auto or manual gearboxes that can hold up to full torque starts. Car makers take advantage of E-gas to limit torque in all kinds of situations to allow intentionally undersized drivetrain components to stand up to ordinary driving. None of this really applies to 996's, the car makers hadn't thought up these uses of E-gas back then.

The answer to the question in the OP is no, in my opinion. Get the best car you can, neither the electric TB or PSM will have an impact on road performance if you drive on the road as a semi civilized hooligan and not an all out *** hole. On track, the PSM can be a positive or a negative, or both. For me, it was likely a positive as I gained experience and once my pace and experience had risen, the PSM was more of a hinderance than a benefit. I would recommend, keep your net as wide as possible and pick up the car that hits you right in the feels, you won’t think back later… man I wish I had got a cable throttle car.

I think the biggest advantage to a '99 is in the early car (pre 9/98) differences and not cable throttle or lack of stability management, but the ambers (if you like them), certain '99 only colors (Glacier White, Vesuvio, Arena Red ('99-'00), etc), potential for LSD and 408s, and there seems to be more '99s with high "sport" options. There are also some interior differences too like the "speckled plastic" which I think is much nicer, 4 spoke wheel (usually a con, but pro for some), Space Gray interior seems far more prevalent in '99 and is a fantastic interior color, manual sport seats instead of power. I do think the manual frunk and engine cover latches are nice, but it isn't that hard to jump the electric ones open or reroute the emergency cables. Also, dual row IMS from the factory, although now days most 996s have been retrofitted with an aftermarket dual row and '99s suffer from D-chunking (not super common, but only an issue in '99 and maybe '00). You can check out the several early '99 threads by @bdronsick if you want to learn more about the differences. I would just pick .1 or .2 and then look for anything in that bucket, rather than focusing on a specific year, unless you are really willing to wait. If you don't already know headlights, 3.4L vs 3.6L, and better auto trans in .2s are the big differences. I wasn't always seriously looking, but it took 4.5 years of cross country searching to finally find my car that aside from being my second choice color is exactly how I would have ordered it new.

If you are concerned about throttle response on non-cable 996, a software tune will provide the necessary throttle response. Regardless, buy the car you want, not what someone else wants. You gotta look at it, service it and drive it, not them.

Quotes source post: 18362276

e gas that limits you to 64.9 mph or 50hp whichever comes first is probably coming next.

Type65 you described my 911 almost to a T 6/98 build glacier white space grey interior and a factory aero 6speed I wish I had a posi rear though

My 2001 doesn't have PSM or TC. :shrug: