996 Handling Characteristics and Driving Style

I've been reading about the 996'es handling on this forum. It seems that many owners say that their car understeers (and that a limited slip dials in more understeer?). I've track-driven 50/50 fr/rr static weight distributed cars (FD Rx7 and E36 M3), and love the neutral handling. Both the 3rd generation Rx7 and 2nd generation M3 have enough hp/tq to power-on oversteer to turn the car through the apex. This has been my track-driving style for 10 years. I've tried a student's '99 996 in Oct 2004, and while it did understeer more than I liked, I found rotating the car took a little different approach--late braking with a bit more braking while turning, and blending the throttle in early while releasing the brake (left-foot braking helps tremendously when there's no heel-toe-downshift required for the turn). For opentrack 996 drivers, what is your technique for turning the 996 effectively? How do you tune in more neutral handling with the 996? Should I be looking at the Boxster S instead (better static fr/rr weight distribution and neutral handling)? Thanks! -Manny

I found that the European front struts and springs fixed the problem on my 03 C4S (but I also run GT2 wheels with 245/40/18 - 335/30/18 tires). I'd like to talk with the guy who thought it would be OK to raise the front end 20mm!

I haven't had my car on the track yet but have autocrossed it several times since I have owned it (Septeber 06 purchase). Without a doubt this car will understeer slightly, no where near as bad as my E36 before mods. Even after mods, if I over cooked a turn with my 323is with PSS9's, camber plates (-3.4 degrees front camber and -2.4 in rear) and LSD, it would still oversteer a bit more than my 996 with LSD. With that said, I need to preface that my car (996) is fairly modified with PSS9's, GT3 control arms, sways, custom alignment (aggressive) etc... This car if you over cook will give you a bit of understeer (gentle) and if you lift will go into trailing throttle oversteer (fairly quickly) so you must be ready to apply throttle slightly to stop the cars rotation when you want to. It's quite different than the E36 I had as it requires gentle inputs where the E36 you could be a bit less sensitive (and let you get away with it). If you do it right, the amount of throttle you can apply during exit is amazing when the weight goes on the back tires. With my E36, if I understeered in a turn (at the track or autocross) open up the wheel a bit, if need go neutral on throttle and/or trailbreak would take care of this pretty easily as the front end tucked right back in. What I have learned so far is in corner entry do your breaking first and go into the turn, don't try to do too much trail breaking as it will rotate pretty darn quickly and could bite you (see my first three spins on the autocross in an off camber portion of course where my E36 would never have had this issue). Of course this could be the way my car was set up as the previous owner wanted a very neutral car. Once you clear the turn, you can really apply throttle as even in the wet, this car won't oversteer too drastically on power (more like a twitch). The corner exit speeds are amazing when you do this. As long as you work with this car it is crazy fun. As for tuning out the understeer, the discussions I had with the PO you can tune it out with alignment, and suspension settings. Hope this helps, Pete

Pete, thanks for the reply--it helps.

Manny, I'm not sure about autocross but on larger tracks the understeer problem with a 996 is drastically overstated and can easily be fixed a bunch of different ways. (dampers, sway bars, wheels, tire size, etc.) If you upgrade your suspension like most do you will find that car is very tune-able. You can make it handle however you want. I've always thought the minimum track suspension should include two way adjustable dampers and adjustable sway bars for tuning but many are happy with just PSS9s or even ROW M030. I think I've told you this before but the way you drive the car fast is brake a little early, a little light and trail brake on nearly every corner. If you're good you'll turn in pretty early and get the car rotating under braking so that even though you're apexing early you've got the car headed in the right direction. Then it's just a matter of giving it as much throttle as you can and still keep it on the track. Do not over slow the car. Take advantage of the great chassis and carry a lot of speed through the corner. Disclaimer, if you screw any of this up you crash so adjust for your skill level. BTW, LSD will always induce a little understeer. Even partially locked rearends don't like to turn. Jim

Understood. Any thoughts on the Boxster S's handling compared with 996? Thanks!

I agree with most of what's said above. The 996 understeers at low speeds, but on track it's not a big deal and can be tuned out. There's nothing magic or even particularly desirable about 50/50 weight distribution, and on track a rear bias is (basically) always better. The "issue" with the 996 in slow turns is with where the weight is (in the trunk) - it just can't turn as quickly as a mid-engne car with similar weight distribution.

Go and drive one - i think it comes down to personal preference I like the mid-engine balance better myself...

Ram, if that were true the 907, 917, 962 and Spyder RSs would all have been rear engine. When Porsche isn't hamstrung by history they always put the engine in the middle. Manny, A Cayman S with similar power will out-perform a 996 any day. The Boxster S is great but gives up a lot of stiffness to the 996 and Cayman.

917 weight distribution was something like 35/65. New Audi R8 'supercar' is 44/56. Bill

I'm pretty sure the 917 numbers are without driver or fuel. Put 350 lbs in the front third of the car and the number change drastically. Having said that, I was refering to the mid engine layout more that the specific weight distribution. As you know, it's not just the distribution but where the weight is located.

Yes, I test drove a new Boxster S last year--probably the best handling car I've ever experienced--one word describes its handling response--"telepathic". I can't imagine what the Cayman S is like. The new Cayman S has a 3.4-L 295 hp motor, but I understand it's not the same motor as the '99 996's 3.4-L motor? Sadly my budget limits me to used P_cars, and thus I'm looking at the '99 996es, and am wondering about the handling differences between Mk I 996 and 986S/987S cars--and whether I'll like the 996 or be able to adapt to the rear-engine weight bias? Thanks for the replies, gentlemen! -Manny

Yes, I know that. I had a '67 911, and a 914-6 with a 2,2E motor. Bill

The Cayman S 3.4 and the 996 3.4 are not the same motor. I have both a 986 and a 996 and I actually prefer the handling of the 986. IMHO the 986 is more "telepathic" (as you put it) that the 996. This is not to say the 996 handles badly (far from it), but given equal motors and brakes, I'd bet I could turn a better lap time in a Cayman than a 996. I would not worry too much about the lack of an LSD (if you get a car without). 986's and 996's really don't have much problem putting the power down on corner exit as long as it's dry. Good luck!

i agree... the cayman is a better performer... the 911 is a bigger cult......

With the standard suspension and alignment, they definitely understeer at the limit; but that is a very high limit. They are not hard cars to drive until you get over the limits. They are very stable and you don't have to be worried about the back end snapping around like an old 911. With the stock US ride height, the front starts wandering at speeds above 130 mph. It is the ride height that also adds to the numbness in the feel of a stock 996's front end. Switching to a different suspension, such as an M030, ROW M030 or X73 will significantly change the car. The steering immediately tightens up. The car turns in sharper, but not immediate like an old 911. The car is neutral at the limit with the right alignment. Last, the nose stays true at high speeds. I run a ROW M030 suspension with GT3 control arms and I am very satisfied with the results. I run -1.6/-1.9 camber with 18x9/18x11 wheels and 235-40/295-30 MPSCs. My car is perfectly neutral on the skidpad and a perfect balanced for my driving style. Despite the camber settings, it is still extremely stable at high speeds (tested to 165 so far). As a previous 911 owner, I have a hard time adapting to a 986 Boxster. I can get them to oversteer on tighter corners, just not very controllably at the limit and they like to push on bigger corners. The balance of the new 987 Boxster is far improved. The nose seems to stay where you aim it and you can play comfortably with the back end. They are many other benefits to the 987 over the 986 as the chassis is noticeably stiffer, the top is tighter, the top no longer rattles, the engine noise and vibration do not transmit through the back firewall. They also sound a lot nicer, like they already have a sport exhaust. Although the Cayman is on the same chassis, they make the back end a little stiffer and grippier. At the same time the front end is a little softer. As a result, all it does is push at the limit and makes the nose light at higher speeds. I actually prefer the point and shoot feel of the Boxster over the Cayman. Neither are anywhere near as comfortable for me to drive as a 996. Keep in mind that this is based on my driving style, not yours. I like a neutral to slightly oversteering balance and I am used to transitioning onto throttle early in a corner. I can't nail the throttle as early in a corner with a Boxster as I would like or it will push wide. If you are used to late braking and trail braking, the Boxster will seem more natural. You also tend to control a Boxster with steering and not throttle inputs mid-corner. At my level, I brake late and less in a straight line. I turn in early for the drift. I shift to throttle at turn-in to set the weight balance on the back wheels. I modulate throttle to control my line and I'm close or at full throttle at corner exit. I tend to use very little change in steering input in mid-corner as the car is easy to control my the right pedal.

excellent thread!

02 Carrera, excellent info. I'm disappointed to read about the Cayman S's soft front-end handling. Your opinion on the 987S explains why I was so impressed with that car on my thorough test drive. I now understand why so many PCA 911 racers run taller tires in back, and shorter tires up front--for a steeper rake angle to minimize front-end lift at high speeds down the straights. Your car sounds very well-sorted. The 9-fr/11-rr widths are wider than stock; I'm curious if you needed extra extra bodywork? Can you post a pic of your car?? I'm glad this thread is getting positive comments and helpful replies.

[QUOTE=SleepRM3]02 Carrera, excellent info. I'm disappointed to read about the Cayman S's soft front-end handling. Your opinion on the 987S explains why I was so impressed with that car on my thorough test drive. I now understand why so many PCA 911 racers run taller tires in back, and shorter tires up front--for a steeper rake angle to minimize front-end lift at high speeds down the straights. Your car sounds very well-sorted. The 9-fr/11-rr widths are wider than stock; I'm curious if you needed extra extra bodywork? Can you post a pic of your car?? [QUOTE] For what it's worth, I think Carrera is nuts. I've spent a lot of time on the track in my GF's stock Cayman S and it's far better than either a stock Boxster or a stock 996. The car is great at speed and loves to turn. I love the car and I'm used to driving what's arguably the most developed 996 in the country or my cup car. Look at the PCA club racing results. You�ll see Ernie Jabakowski (sp?) in his little Cayman S beating up on a lot of 3.6L 996s. You don't want to run taller tires in back to get more rake. If you wanted more rake you should do it with adjustable ride height dampers. In fact, at the track you want your back end pretty low. The other problem with tall back tires is that they effectively give you taller gears which slow your acceleration. Jim

That's not the point I was making. I didn't say that rear-engined is better than mid-engined. I think I implied that mid-engined is better than rear-engined, which I believe to be true, certainly for agility. I was pretty clear that slinging the motor out back is less than ideal relative to a centralized mass. The point I was making was that having more weight in the rear of the car is better than 50/50 weight distribution on track. Traction and braking are both improved. I find this to be true whether the car is mid- or rear-engined. The idea that 50/50 is somehow "ideal" is a myth. As much as I love 996s (and 911s generally), I think the motor's in a stupid place (at least for those of us who don't use the backseat). Works, though.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. We are in violent agreement.

Ahh...thanks for clearing this up! The Cayman S has received nothing but rave reviews from all the car mag pundits. Unfortunately for BMW, the Cayman S has been favored over the Z4 M Coupe despite the large price advantage the bimmer has over the P-Cayman S! Something about how easily one can drive the Cayman S at a fast pace on the track--compared with the Z4 M Coupe which requires a little more "man handling" to make it go quickly around the turns? Ahh...well then I'm not sure why the 911 club racers chose taller tires in back then in front (shrug)? Agree with the shorter tires giving better acceleration (I run shorter tires on my M3 for that very reason--235/40-17 all around instead of 245/40-17 all around).

In driving my friend's E36 M3, I loved the 50/50 distribution, and it was very easy and neutral to drive hard. Similar feeling, but more "clumsy" was a different friend's Z4. The biggest difference to my 986S is that the BMWs just felt like everything happened in relative slow motion due to very different polar moments. The mid-engine platform is radically more responsive. The downside is that you have to be on your toes at the limit. Also, you can bust the rear end out with too aggressive throttle application in a corner (assuming no electronic aids, speed dependent, etc.). The 987 handling is much improved over the 986 (stock). Also, the biggest difference to me is how much stiffer the Cayman is compared to the Boxster. The Cayman is very fun. You may also want to check out the Boxster Racing Board: http://boxcar-racing.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0

I second the motion for Excellent Thread. There's a ton of value in seeing how different drivers perceive the dynamic characteristics of the same car(s) in different ways, and therefore use different methods to drive quickly.

50/50 is a great goal for a front-engined car, and certainly a 3-series handles better than my 65/35 Audi S4. That said, the S4 is very neutral (due to it's setup), as is my 38/62 Lotus Elise or, for that matter, a Cayman. The key things that matter here (it seems to me) are a) where the mass is in the car (i.e. polar moment and roll axis), and whether the car is set up appropriately for neutral handling. Further, even a front-engined car benefits from having more weight over the rear than the front, which is why Ferrari and Maserati work so hard to get rearward bias for cars like the 612 Scag and Quattroporte. While a mid-engined car is somewhat more inclined to spin (and once it begins it goes around faster), I disagree that it's more inclined to power-on oversteer. A front-engined/rear-drive car (such as my 50/50 S2000), due to it's lower traction, is generally more inclined to go around on the throttle.

More options are emerging but historically if you wanted to win you had to run Hoosiers. Most 996 guys have 18 inch rims so our options in front were 245/40s and 245/35s. There are several reasons to run 35s. They are lighter, they are stiffer and you get a little closer to the ground with the same suspension geometry. Remember, we all run these cars much lower than they were designed for. On back we could run 285/30, 295/30 or 315/30. There are a few tradeoffs to consider. 285s were the shortest by nearly an inch providing the best gear ratios. They are also the lightest. I ran a 245/35-285/30 combo in 2005 and did pretty well. The downside was they were narrow and you'd overheat them much faster than the taller tires. I think this happened for two reasons. The smaller diameter meant the same section of rubber was used more often and being narrower they were working harder to maintain grip. Another issue identified by Hoosier engineers was that the sidewall was not tall enough to concurrently deal with both cornering and acceleration torque. There was no reason that I could see to use the 295 as they were as tall as the 315 and weighed almost as much. In 2006 I ran a 245/35 � 315/30 combo and had my best year ever including setting class track records at Mid-America, Road America and Daytona. I had tall tires in back but had the rear slammed as low as I could. So, I think the answer is we run/ran taller tires in back then in front because it was the best tire combo rather than the rake it created. Jim

Thanks for the link. Cool in-car vid of a Boxster (nonS) chasing a real light and fast 914-6. http://boxcar-racing.com/forum/index.php?topic=332.0 That little 914-6 really pulls away on the straights, but the 600-lb heavier Boxster is all over the 914 through the turns! Laguna Seca must be awesome to drive, but we midwesterners are lucky to have Mid Ohio and Road America within a few hours drive. Ahh...so the rake was just the by-product of running tires that WIN!

I find that my setup is very neutral. (See signature after "Now have:"). Four wheel drifts, just enough to increase traction, are easy to produce. Early full throtle exits also controlable. I've driven the cayman, but still prefer my 911. Maybe I've just grown attached to it.

Not only do they run bigger in back, most GT3 track runners run 235's in front and 315's in back. I have a set of Corsas in these sizes I will be running after I go through my MPSC's later this year. My CCW 3-piece classic race wheels were custom built to fit correct offsets for a 996 without modifications. You can run as big as a 255/35-18 in front and 315/30-18 out back on these wheels without modifications. For the rear tire heights, it probably has more to do with tires size availability than anything else. The stock rear tire on a 996 with 18" wheels, a 285/30-18, is actually shorter than the front tires, 225/40-18. 235/40-18 is the most common size for a front upgrade. A 315/30-18 is significantly taller than the stock 285/30. If you want to go wider, then you have to go taller. Porsche makes the front of our cars 10mm higher than other other markets. This includes both our stock and M030 suspensions. Bascially they design the car to function aerodynamically at a certain front and rear ride height to balance out aerodynamically. They always design and release cars for other markets first. They then adjust the suspension to meet US market requirements. Swapping to the European suspensions isn't necessarily improving it, rather correcting it. Here is a pic of me chasing a little tail

Great thread. Let's keep it drama-free! I have a question for you guys. Do you think what has been typed here will be different from the AWD 996's? I have yet to take my 4S to Buttonwillow (scheduled in August) and some low-speed auto-x'ing. I was wondering if the dynamics and what most have typed would be somewhat similar for AWD cars.

Jim, Few things: 1. There is a big difference from a completely setup club race car and a stock car. If you don't like the way a car handles you can always change it. I owned my 996 2 weeks before I ordered a different suspension. So, you can see where I stand here and it is tracked in my previous comments. 2. A stock Cayman S is not as fast as a stock Carrera. It came from Walter Rohrl's own mouth that he runs the Nurburgring 5 seconds faster in the 997 Carrera as he does in the Cayman S. Also, check out the Best Motoring Cayman S versus the Carrera where as a result of the power difference the Carrera left the Cayman behind on a tight circuit. 3. I never said the Cayman doesn't handle well. Keep in mind it was Porsche who intentionally restrained the handling and power of the Cayman to keep it below the performance of a Carrera. A Cayman still handles well, but it understeers safely at the limit. Everything I have posted is completely truthful. The Cayman has handling traits I don't find favorable from the factory. I find it stock versus stock a Boxster that the Boxster more compatible with MY driving style. This is coming from someone who moved from the Yellow group to the White group last year. Despite the fact that I could fix the handling with PSS9's and TRG sway bars ($3K just parts). This still leaves with a slower car with need of some power increases. There is also no cheap way to fix the handling as there is no optional ROW M030, X73, of GTx versions you can pull parts from other markets like you can a Carrera. 4. Borrow your Girlfriends Cayman S and take it to the track. Drive it for a while at or over the limit, come back and comment. If you like a car that drives safe and understeers at the limit, you love the Cayman. I don't like understeer and hence it is less than desireable for me. I do happen to like the point and shoot handling of the 987 Boxster. There are other minor differences I don't like, such as: I don't like that the acceleration it is noticeably slower (also in the Boxster) and the Bose stereo is terribly balanced (except for 2 small speakers in the sides behind you, all the sound comes from the front). Why are the speaker position different from the Boxster, which has much better balance? Although I have these quibbles, it is the handling traits that stick in my mind. 5. There is a very good video you can grab off the web that really shows the differences in cornering balance between a stock Boxster S and a stock Cayman S. Go out to a site like YOURTUBE or RACINGFLIX and download the episode of Best Motoring with the Cayman S challenge. The run the Cayman against a 3.2l 987 Boxster S on a road course. Pay special attention to how the rear of the Cayman tracks versus the Boxster in both tight and wide sweapers and note the lap times at the end between the cars.

Carrera, I hope you didn't take my "nuts" comment too seriously. I was just taking a light hearted jab. I've actually had her Cayman S pretty much flat through what I believe is the fastest corner in North America. T1 at Brainerd. I have quite a few hot laps in the car. It has the normal CYA understeer but overall the car handles great. I wouldn't expect it to handle exactly to my liking as delivered but the potential is there. I realize it's not as fast as the 997 but it sure could be. I'm a diehard 996 guy but I really think the Cayman is a much better track car. If I was building a new racecar I'd start with a Cayman but since I already have one too many I'm a 996 guy for now. So, you like 996s. How about a nice X51? With straight pipes it'll scare the hell out of the guys in the white group. Jim

If I upgrade, most likely it will be a GT2, but I can see what your hinting on. I don't think straight pipes will frighten any of the white drivers I drive with. Many run aftermarket exhausts (I run a Fabspeed) and several of the GT3s run muffler bypasses. It is a pretty normal sound on the track for us. I suspect you won't have much problem moving a well sorted out 996 once we get into the middle of race season. Offereing a demo drive? I agree and think the Cayman has the potential to being a great track car. The question will be what class would be open enough to let it be fully developed. I think a well stripped out chassis with flared fenders, a CUP motor a a fully developed suspension (Motons, Monoballs and TRG upgrades) could be a pretty unstoppable combination. The question is what is allowed in the rules? As a performance improvement, the rear tire limit is probably the biggest negative factor since you can't get anywhere near as much rubber on the back due to the suspension geometry and relatively limited fender clearance. I know a couple of people running Carrera wheels as track wheels on a 987 and they do stick out, but this is not a problem with the stock suspension. Going lower, this can create some significant rubbing issues.

I have a 1999 996 C2 convertible with standard suspension, to be replaced with PSS9 soon. Would it be possible to use: 235/40 R18, 8.5 285/30 R18, 11 I want to stay with 235/40 in the front to get some more comfort since it's also my daily driver.