1999 vs. 2000 Carrera questions...

Often it is mentioned that the '99 model 996 still utilizes an old-school wire cable to connect the gas pedal to the throttle and the 2000 uses an electronic drive-by-wire setup. Aside of the issue of wired old-school cable not being susceptible to electronic failure, what are the advantages (if any) to either system vs. the other? Basically, I'm just wondering why this a talking point???

I don't know of any legitimate reason why someone would want the mechanical linkage over e-gas. The 99 C4 also has e-gas; only the C2 has the holdover mechanical throttle. The e-gas throttle does need occasional calibration and may not be 100% reflective of throttle position (i.e. 100% throttle may not necessarily require full travel of the pedal). There is also talk of "lazy" throttle response by folks who favor the analog gas pedal, but as many or more people swear e-gas is superior. I think it depends on which flavor of voodoo you subscribe to. Some e-gas folks have employed the "Sprint booster" product to modify their throttle response. The US-spec '99 C4 also uses a fuel cooler; for 99% of us, they're just oddities and don't really make a difference... It's a talking point because people love to postulate, and there will always be an "old is good, new is bad" crowd trying to shout down the "new is good, old is bad" crowd. As long as gas disappears when I stomp on the skinny pedal, I'm satisfied.

reasons to make an owner feel that his/her car is special/better/unique, etc.

You can see the wire move. You can't see e-gas electrons move.

I don't give a rip, but I am glad I don't have to memorize the e-gas calibration exercise.

From a track perspective - left foot braking with a wire gas pedal doesn't freak the car out the way e-gas does. That's always been my understanding. My 997 freaks out a bit when left foot braking on track.

Quotes source post: 13750145

This sounds like it might have some good merit if tracking the car and you like to drive go-kart style... Also, the comment about seeing the cable move vs. electrons. Might make troubleshooting a fuel delivery problem a bit more cut-and-dry. Otherwise, seems much like 98% non-issue... Thanks for the responses.

Quotes source post: 13750145

I hadn't heard that but it makes since. My coach is really big on left foot braking but I haven't tried it yet on the track.

One advantage I can think of about the 2000 is it has the 7.2 DME. The 5.2.2 is the only thing I'm not a huge fan of in the '99s.

I believe in a post on the 99 (somewhere here) Jake Raby discussed his preference for the 99 with as early a build date as possible. Something to do with a fire in the factory as well as other issues.

Quotes source post: 13750508

Yup. He said the early 99's are "the one to have."

If anyone would like my HIGHLY desirable '99 with a Q3 '98 build date, please let me know. It's available for the low, low price of $40K. 5-chain engine, dual-row IMS bearing, DT-40, and spin-on filter adapter. It's a fanboi's nocturnal emission. It is "the one to have." I'm willing to take one or more 993's in trade as long as you'll throw in some cash.

Quotes source post: 13750650

On a side note, I love those aero kits!

I couldn't tell the difference in throttle response between my '99 C2 and '00 C2.

The 2000 model is not susceptible to Y2K catastrophic failure. (snicker)

Quotes source post: 13750650

Put an IMS Guardian on there and you'll get $45k! LOL! (nice car)

Quotes source post: 13752643

Yup, luckily the ECU's in these aren't IBM mainframes...

Quotes source post: 13750259

As someone who doesn't know, what is the differences between the dme? What makes the later better?

99 was the only year the 996 used the 5.2.2. Although I believe 97-99 Boxsters and 00-02 Cup cars use it as well. The 5.2.2 doesn't have as many values to pull from and was an absolute pain to get working fully with a Durametric. It also isn't supported by most of the data acquisition systems. The 7.2 is a little better but the mk II 996s have much better integration.

Quotes source post: 13753647

I wonder if that is why my mechanic kept getting 0.0 value as my cam deviation. Mine is a 99 that has been on the road since '98.

Imagine all the amazing cars that raced and drove and were built without data acquisition systems. The Ferraris and Cobras and Porsches and Maseratis and Fords and Chevys and Bugattis and Mercedes and Delahayes and Packards and Aston Martins and Austin Healeys and people drove them all over the world and when they got a flat tire they didn't have to call a flatbed...and when the engine wouldn't run they had to only look for three things, fuel, air and spark. It is worth reading The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph A. Tainter...yes old is good and new isn't nearly as good as the koolaid salesmen would have you believe. Go for the 99.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the '99 is the best 911 Porsche ever produced. But having been accused of being a '99 zealot or even called worse, a salesman, I wanted to at least point out the only downside I've found. As for data acquisition, it's an amazing tool for accelerating driver development on the track.

Quotes source post: 13753520

The way I understand it, Porsche's DME 7.2 software update was necessary to manage the new e-Gas, PSM, and European emissions regulations on updated '99+ cars. This came with a few mechanical changes such as a secondary air injection system.

Point of order: The '99 C4 was equipped with the newer DME version 7.2 (because PSM). I was only 99.6% kidding when I said the '99 is "the one to have."

Quotes source post: 13753771

Careful what you ask for. Along with all that simplicity you get tune ups every 3000 miles, brakes that require skill to use, large steering wheels for leverage in parking lots, polluted air, and bad gas mileage. I own and drive a car with no electronic controls, no PS, no power brakes. It does have a stealthy electronic ignition. It's a blast to drive but requires thinking way ahead of time before turning sharply or slamming on what are quite good brakes. A lot of drivers would prefer to walk. If you think that a fuel management system with O2 sensors, a MAF, fuel injectors and a DME is complicated to maintain try a pair of carbs. They make fantastic noises and are magic when synched but it is way easier to replace a MAF than to synch carbs. As much as one can grow to hate a CEL, its way easier to get a code and troubleshoot than to diagnose a mechanical system. Cars have become hugely more reliable and capable since computers moved into them.

Quotes source post: 13754662

This. Anyone who as ever fought with the art of getting a carburetor just right understands that "the old way" can suck. When it works, you feel like a GOD. When you're standing there with the timing light after three hours and it's still running like absolute sh*t, all you can do is fight the urge to douse it in gas, strike a road flare, and walk away before the fire department shows up. People forget how exhausting it can be to drive a relic...no synchros, no ABS, no power steering. That steering that felt so "direct and communicative" for the first 30 minutes generates an ear-blistering stream of blasphemy a couple of hours later; when the front discs and rear drums get hot and start shaking hard enough to make your fillings rattle every time you have to stand on the brakes, and your cheeks flush with permanent embarrassment because even double-clutching you still grind first at EVERY stop. The mental image you had of blasting down the road into the sunset has been replaced with the reality of an unanticipated rain storm; it's hard to look cool when you're cold, wet, miserable, and trying to drive with the tonneau cover in place so the seats don't get ruined... I lasted less than 2 weeks with my daily driver being a '56 MGA. My clutch knee has never been the same, and the last straw was the brake linings bursting into flame on the 405. It is awkward to pull into the driveway of the house nearest the offramp, grab the garden hose away from the surprised homeowner, and try to get the fire out before it spreads to the engine bay. It always cracks me up when I'm talking cars to someone new (because it's a good icebreaker), and I hear the line "I used to work on cars, but now they're all computerized and you can't do anything yourself." I love that cop-out line. What you really mean is "I finally have enough money to take it to the dealership when it isn't running right." It's fine - some people just don't enjoy working on their cars every weekend, but it would be better if they'd just OWN it instead of blaming it on them dad-gum computers.

I'll let the "simple" facts speak for themselves. Yes the "simple" cars did require better driving skills, but for many of us that was the whole point. Buy the 99.

simple

Quotes source post: 13754765

Didn't your last 911 have an automatic trans? #driverscar

So does his current one.

This is all wonderful advice. Get the car and then send your 912 to me

There are still rather simple MODERN cars on the market that have just enough computer tech to keep you happy, but not enough to annoy. I am thinking thoughts about upgrading my car park next year, and I wanted both cars to have manuals. I ended up with Xterra Pro-4x, and 370z Nismo. Both come in 6 speed manual forms, both are modern, but simple enough to be reliable. 370z Nismo really had me smiling with the rev match function, "Driving God" mode is activated.

I'm right there with you - people complain that the rev-matching feature is cheating or evil, and I have no idea why. It's brilliant.

Nothing wrong with rev-matching, but at that point why not just drive with PDK? For me the fun of driving a manual is primarily in matching revs, not selecting gears with my right hand/arm when a single finger will do.

Quotes source post: 13755209

The pic in my avatar is of a 1969 911 T my Dad owned when I was in 4th and 5th grade and we were living in Germany. I already own a 2000 cab. and posed the question out of sheer curiosity... Reading some of the threads and what some people have to say about the '99, I was just wondering why the throttle cable gets mentioned regularly. From this thread, it seems there are potential advantages and disadvantages to each set up. I've driven '99s and my 2000 and can't really tell a difference in throttle response. Based on what's presented itself in this thread, if I were shopping a 99 vs. an equal 2000, I think the upgraded diagnostics and resulting enhanced troubleshooting capabilities of the DME upgrade might actually make enough difference to sway me towards the newer car. Having seen what's available to look up about my car in my mechanic's computer, I'd not want to give that up as it's such a huge advantage for troubleshooting. I guess I'm glad I ended up with a 2000 then! LOL.

I have a 99 C4 and do love the FBW throttle on it. Or saying that I can't tell any difference between it and a cable drive. I had to chuckle at a previous comment on how difficult it is to sync,reset, or whatever you want to call it , the throttle body. Tun on the key and wait 30 seconds, click, click and it is done. My main deal is motorcycles and I have a few with FBW and a few with cables and you know what? They all work just fine. Marc

The early 99 is THE one to have... preferably one built in 1998. 2000, not so much.. too many cracked heads, which is what I deemed "Y2K Syndrome".

Quotes source post: 13755547

Failed argument, Nissan's rev matching system is THE FIRST of its kind on the manual transmission. If you don't want to use it, there is a button to turn it off. You still get all of the the control and experience of the manual transmission with an added benefit of auto rev matching. Car is still 100% analog, and you can drive it without rev matching enabled. Having the system will help younger drivers get into manual and require one less action on the track. Your point is akin to saying "what is the point of having synchronized gears? All of the skill is in double clutching and matching revs. If you can't do that you should get one of those automatic boxes". I enjoyed driving the 370z Nismo with the system, it was definitely unique. When driving the car quickly, it seemed like the great add on. I would not dismiss it.

I have a 2000 C2 with FBW. Only thing I notice is when I rev match with this car which I enjoy doing with everyday driving is I have to push the peddle more than with the 99 Boxster I used to have and with my 2001 BMW 330ci. The BMW and Boxster have the same peddle response (easier to rev match). I have calibrated the e peddle (not the issue). Anyone else notice this?

Quotes source post: 13755712

I have a March 98 Cab - Kerching - get in there! I'm all ready spending the appreciation value.. I would just say that I have driven a later model & whilst not on the track I was equally impressed.. O_Sr

Quotes source post: 13755644

I have done this coincidentally several times while just sitting in the car before work...doping off reading or whatever and...clickity click. Not exactly the most involved process...

Quotes source post: 13756715

Ooooh, March, you say? Sorry to hear that, that's the month that pack of rabid Rottweilers burst into the factory and caused mayhem not seen on such a level since the Dresden firebombing raids.

Quotes source post: 13760837

+1, my 2/98 is significantly quicker than my 3/98 build around the track. It's not even close.

Quotes source post: 13760837

Rats - had to be a catch. I will have to look out for an April 1st car then

You yanks are just joshin - gets me every time

Quotes source post: 13760908

There actually was a fire.

Here's a capture from the surveillance video system. I couldn't post the actual video - the lamentation of the women is unbearable.

Quotes source post: 13762975

His IMS must be very tender after that!

Quotes source post: 13755857

I understand your point about the new driver - hadn't thought of that. Problem with the newer Porsches with rev-matching manuals (like Cayman GTS) is that you can only turn it off by also de-activating PSM in sport+, IIRC from a test drive. If you already know how to and enjoy heel-toe/rev-matching, probably don't want the auto-blip variety.