5 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCH99 specs?
Leading reported evidence
Test january 1998
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.
Leading evidence: 'Test january 1998' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Test january 1998' (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.
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.
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
Variations in test times probably have as much to do with conditions, driver, etc.
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.
5 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: 20261027T013556Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
The '99 996 was rated at 296HP. Here are some performance comparision times from Car & Driver road tests:
1999 C2 6 sp tested January 1998
0-60 4.6 sec
1/4 mile 13.2@107mph
70-0 161 feet
1999 C4 6sp tested May 1999
0-60 5.0 sec
1/4 mile 13.5@104mph
70-0 160 feet
2001 C2 6sp tested May 2001
0-60 5.0 sec
1/4 mile 13.7@103mph
70-0 168 feet
Variations in test times probably have as much to do with conditions, driver, etc. as with the individual cars. The 4.6 0-60 time for the '99 C2 is particularly quick, for example, and just about the lowest I've seen for that model although I've also read other tests where 0-60 was under 5 seconds. I think it's a fair judgment, however, that the '99 gives away little, if anything at all, to the later model year 996's in the way of performance.
I agree - I think the slightly higher hp of '02 911 is offset somewhat by the increased weight of the car relative to a '99-01 model - so 0-60 times will be similar. That being said, the '02 has a "better" torque curve and a better sounding stock exhaust. Not enough to cause me to trade in my '99 (given the beating we would take on a trade in), but head to head, the '02 is an improvement overall.
How much weight difference between the MY-99/01 vs MY 02? Regards. Mike. IMO I take any car that has 0-60 at around 5.0 and does really well on the track. The dragging thing doesn't interest me too much but it ain't no slouch either. Whatever tenths of seconds you may lose or gain(dependent on driver skill) takes a backseat when you go on the track and it's measured in seconds not tenths and more likely you're the victor. Regards. Mike
[quote]Originally posted by 996FLT6:
IMO I take any car that has 0-60 at around 5.0 and does really well on the track. The dragging thing doesn't interest me too much but it ain't no slouch either. Whatever tenths of seconds you may lose or gain(dependent on driver skill) takes a backseat when you go on the track and it's measured in seconds not tenths and more likely you're the victor. Regards. Mike[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Mike,
I agree. The numbers from the road tests were just for comparision purposes to answer the original question about performance statistics. Differences of tenths of a second in theoretical straightline performance are made meaningless by the difference in skill between drivers, and this really shows up on the track. Still, as a performance tool for a competent driver, the '99 model is very competitive with it's successors.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
