3 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHCredibility of "spy stories/pics", model predictions.
Leading reported evidence
Replace happens
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 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
Once the model change happens, it will be very interesting to compare some of these predictions/spy shots to the actual product...
Credibility of "spy stories/pics", model predictions.
Read full discussion summary
Leading evidence: 'Replace happens' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace happens' (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 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
The usual flat black test mule was shown in a grainy picture.
Credibility of "spy stories/pics", model predictions.
Coverage and how to read this overview
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.
3 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: 20261026T161109Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
There have been dozens of posts regarding the 997. The descriptions have gone through the full range. I guess this way they can always claim they made that prediction regardless of what kind of car eventually comes out.
I have some questions for those long time Porsche owners or Porsche watchers. In the years preceeding the eventual introduction of the 996, what were the "spy-photos" and the assumptions that were made? Were any of them correct? What was the most off-beat one? Did ANYONE actually predict the headlight configuration and front end of the 996 TT in a significantly early enough time before the real thing came out?
The 997 is supposedly a MY 2005, and predictions/assumptions/spy shots have been out since 2002. So, for the 996 introduced 1999, I'd be interested in what was being said and the pics being circulated in 1996 regarding the 996.
I've got a June '97 issue of Excellence that shows a spy shot of the 996 Cabrio. The big point of this spy photo and article was the fact that the new 996 was supposed to have a removable aluminum hardtop. The usual flat black test mule was shown in a grainy picture. The only disguise seemed to be rear tail light covers which masked the actual lense of the light. Otherwise, the car looked like a 996 does now.
The last paragraph of this article read: "Initially the 996 will be powered by a 290 hp water cooled DOHC flat-6 with 4 valves per cylinder, but Porsche is expected to offer the 996 later with an all new 350 hp V8..."
The book "Porsche 911, The Evolution" (996 evolution history) has some interesting shots of the full size models of the 5 development stages of the new body. The first one was done in June 1992 (964 era!). The book shows the final design was in June 1993. All of these show rear shots of the car. The front end seems to remain the same in all of the shots.
I've been watching Porsche's new models since '87. The biggest thing I remember about all the 996 hype before the car was introduced was the water cooled motor and the departure from air cooling. Everyone seemed to be wondering "are they really gonna do a water cooled motor or not?".
Jay
<a href="http://www.jays911.com" target="_blank">90 964</a>
