Is this guy the biggest douche or what? 996 hater

So I came across this article and I just had to share it. This guy, Jack, most likely still lives in his moms basement and probably drives a Ford Tempo around. The article completely bashes the 996 in every way possible, but yet I thought he was wrong on every point. I guess it never occurred to him that maybe we are the most savvy Porsche owners out there. I mean I get the same thrill, looks, compliments etc out of my 20k Porsche as people do out of their 100k Porsche. I know a 100k one will be better, NO ****, but I still have a Porsche. I get the thumbs up, the waves, the "what do you do for a living" questions everyone else gets and I didn't break the bank. So are we fools for buying the dreaded 996, I think not. Plus most the points he makes are just dumb. I found his buy here pay here car lot comment especially funny because just YESTERDAY I said to my better half, you see Corvettes at every used rinky dink car lot, but you never see a Porsche. A Porsche is a step above, even if its a 996 so let all the haters hate. I plan on buying one or two more because A) they are fun as hell and B) I do believe they will continue to rise in price. Look at the trend over the last 4-5 years, nothing but up. And if it goes down, I still have some cool looking fun cars. How does one lose??? https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...e-collectible/

Quotes source post: 15017957

What a ******* ****! And an idiot. He's pretty much wrong about everything related to the 996. It's telling when he says the reason he likes the 997 is because "If you squint a bit, a 2005 997 looks quite a bit like the current car. That matters to people regardless of what they say or write on the Internet" -- so he is the poser that bases his value assessment on how much it can be passed off as a new car. And what does looking like the new model have to do with long-term value? Is he not aware that the 997.1 also has an IMS? Is he not aware that, unlike the 996, the 997.1 IMS cannot be proactively replaced without completely dissembling the engine? The 997.1 IMS is pretty robust but, if you are looking at long-term value as the cars age, which is the entire point of the article , wouldn't a fresh 996 IMS be much better in peace of mind than a 20 or 30 year old IMS in a 997.1? What are the parts that are so horrendously expensive on a 996? What exactly are the issues where the 996 " stereo and HVAC systems are nothing but trouble "???? Has he checked out the AC, heating, and sound systems in the air-cooled cars? I've owned air-cooled 911's and driven a huge number. My favorite model to drive, is the 70's 911e (the "s" was too peaky). Next in line, by a wide margin, is the 996, because it feels like a light sports car like the 911e, but it has all the creature comforts of a modern car and you can drive it anywhere and be comfortable. I loved my 87 3.2 Carrera and 74 911s, but the 996 is a lot more fun to drive - much more powerful and, most importantly, a lot lighter on its feet. I don't really care about the investment value of the 996, but I think there will be a day when the 996 is recognized for its unique position in the 911 model lineup of being the only modern (daily drivable) 911 that is lighter than the 993, 964, and much lighter than the 997. I've said it several times on this forum, but at 2900 lbs (2wd/6-speed/coupe), the 996 is the only model that recaptures the spirit of 60's and early 70's 911's from back when they were lightweight sports cars. From the thread title, I thought this was going to be some random guy with a blog. I can't believe the guy works for Road & Track. All those words in the article, and only 1 reference to driving any Porsche (an SC). It's a sad day for automative journalism when the sum total of "experience" from a writer is having been "educated" by the internet.

They said the same thing about the 911SC and the 912 and the 914. There are already some 996 variants (Turbo s, GT2, GT3 and GT3RS) that have appreciated over list price. So there is always hope.

I read that article when I was researching the 996 and 997 cars. Did not want a fried egg car, but they were over $10 000 cheaper. I hate to say it, but he is not necessarily wrong, lol. Does remind me of the mustang fanboys hate for the Mustang Il.

I remember this article when it came out. It's amazing how many "automotive journalists" are nothing but preening narcissists with no real appreciation for anything that doesn't make them look good. His screed on the 914 alone proves that he know nothing about cars. By mentioning the fact that a Mustang can outrun a 914 he kind of misses the point, doesn't he?

Quotes source post: 15018195

I bought my 911SC in 1999 for $5500 and sold it in 2013 for $40K. I wish I'd had 5 of them. LOL. In 20 years the same might happen to the 996...the 996's claim to fame is still that it's the last analog Porsche. For those of us who like the track that's a big deal. New Porsches cover up all the driver's mistakes with electronic assistance.

Quotes source post: 15018200

I have to agree with you here. While his writing style and some of the snarky comments about the 996 cars are unnecessarily harsh, I agree with a few of his points. Threads that are posted on Rennlist about car values appreciating always amuse me. Even a car that is considered collectible by speculators will only really appreciate if the owner keeps it in temperature controlled storage and rubs with with a diaper every so often. I loved my 996, but I never bought it as an investment or with any thought that it would appreciate. I didn�t buy it to impress my neighbors. I bought it to drive it, and I drove it like crazy. It had almost 150K miles on the clock when I sold it. I think most 996 buyers are similar, and they understand the value of the 996.

Quotes source post: 15018200

The issue isn't with his overall conclusion. He may be right or may be wrong, only time will tell, the problem is that just about every "fact" about the 996 in the article is wrong or misleading. I'm not even slightly offended by any article that says the 996 won't appreciate. In fact, I think it is very easy to write a well-reasoned article that makes the case that it won't appreciate. That doesn't mean the "well-reasoned" article will prove to be right, but it can't be criticized because it is based on facts. The problem with this particular article, however, is that it is just regurgitation of the worst of 996 horror stories he read on the internet and he has zero knowledge about the subject he is writing about.

I highly doubt Jack Baruth drives a Taurus but he is a divisive character in the auto journalist community. His writings border on satire. The article is strictly about the investment potential. The 996.2 doesn't have the fried egg headlights and the interior had several improvements. Just like the 997.2, it will be the one that appreciates fastest. This article is a bit kinder to the 996 https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...a-porsche-996/

I bought my 996 because I wanted it. I could have spent more and gotten a newer model. I like that my 996 is relatively simple and light. I fully intend to track it one of these days when my work schedule allows. If it gets banged up, I will be sad, but it won't be a big deal financially. I feel kind of good inside knowing that I saved about 15k over a 997.1 because my car has "fried egg" headlights instead of oval. It's my dirty little secret. If course you guys are in on the secret too. I say "let the ignorant be ignorant".

Journalists aren't exactly the wisest people anyways. He even admits that he was skeptical in the past of the 914 and look what happened to their values. Then he says noone will be nostalgic about the 996. That's not true. Nostalgia is relative to the present. When all Carrera 911s are hybrid and the cheapest new 911 is $130,000 people will be very nostalgic for the 996.

Quotes source post: 15018387

Exactly! I didn't mind savi g all that money and using it on mods (and repairs) just because of the headlights! just like Doug Demuro said.

A friend of mine has had a long string of new Porsche Turbos. His most recent was a new Turbo S in 2017, though he may have another by now since we haven't talked in a few months. He also has a Ferrari 458 Spyder and a few other very nice cars. When we were talking about his new Turbo S right after he got it, he said that the Turbos for him were all about the adrenaline rush, but his favorite Porsche to drive was his old 2005 6-speed 997. He loved that car because it was just so fun to drive. He regrets trading it in and said he often thinks about getting another one. That is the value of the earlier water-cooled cars in terms of being just fun sports cars. From his description of what he liked about driving his 2005 997, I feel like all of those characteristics are even more pronounced in the much lighter 996 (which he never owned). Next time he visits, I'll have him take our 996 for a spin and get his thoughts. When people self-depricate these earlier cars by saying "of course the new ones are better", I cringe a just little bit because, even though the new cars are better in many ways, they are also worse in many ways if you like sports cars.

Quotes source post: 15018465

For sure. The later cars get so fat and heavy they don't have the "momentum" feel of the earlier water cooled cars or the air cooled cars and require massive HP to make up for it. Faster in a straight line, yes but if you want that buy a Mustang, that's not what a Porsche is about.

Quotes source post: 15018465

I have 3 older cars and I honestly don't find much appealing about newer cars. I've been in a few recently, the styling is ridiculous, the electronics are distracting, the various safety nags are annoying as hell and the driving experience is numb.

Doug DeMuro, who has driven pretty much every desirable modern car (plus many awesome rides from the 1980s/90s/00s) in the past 3 years, said if he could buy a personal car to drive it would be a 996. He also worked for Porsche and once owned a 996 Turbo. Watch this You Tube

To be fair, Doug also unabashedly rocked a Cube and a Land Rover. (Just kidding, Doug.)

Quotes source post: 15018529

lol. I may be a little biased here, but the 996 just can't hold a candle to the new S550 Mustangs, let a.one the GT350s, sorry. 20 years of progress will do that.

Quotes source post: 15018675

True, but they are different animals. I have owned 3 different generations of Mustang GTs and I loved each one. New GTs are about 40k well equipped.

Quotes source post: 15018675

True, but that being said, at the end of the day...it�s still a Ford. No disrespect, I just got rid of my Mustang last fall.

2 thoughts: 1) This author might get paid by clicks, rather than quality thought; so writing an article that gets a reaction from people might generate good revenue, regardless of whether it's factual, well-thought-out, or reflects majority opinion. 2) As for the facts of whether the cars will appreciate, I think his next-to-last paragraph is spot-on. To me the future of 996 values has much less to do with how good or bad the 996 is, and much more to do with legislation and how hard it becomes to own a gasoline-powered car. There is NO doubt that if the world didn't change, the 996 would increase in value. I can't think of a single Porsche model that has gone down in value for 20 years and then never recovered. Even some relatively ugly, unreliable, high-volume, low-price cars have all had their day when it looked like they were done and would gradually become completely worthless, but they've all bounced back strongly in value. There's no reason to think the 996 won't do the same thing. BUT, if it becomes difficult, expensive, or impossible to drive an internal-combustion car in the future, that's going to completely counteract whatever value these cars might gain on their own in the meantime. If you're in it for the investment, I think at this point you gotta just hold the car and wait. If it happens to go up, great! If it doesn't, oh well, it didn't cost much to get in!

Quotes source post: 15018675

I think you misinterpreted my comment there.

Quotes source post: 15018716

lol. Don't worry, I have a thick skin. Besides, I am well aware of Ford's performance products and they compete with the best out there. No one coild convince me otherwise. .. Focus RS, GT350, Ford GT, absolute dreams. but I do like the 996.

I think that people who bash the 996 have typically never driven one, and certainly never owned one. I still believe it is one of the best ways to get into Porsche ownership, and one of the best sports car values on the market. It’s simply a wonderful driver’s car. I understand that the design may not appeal to some people, but why bash it? If you don’t like it, then don’t buy one! I’ve driven many variants of 996, 997, and 991 cars. I’ve owned a 996, a 997, and a 991. Porsche DNA is present in all of them. They all offer a great driving experience. I believe that my 991 is the best 911 that I’ve owned so far for my needs, and I’d probably never go back to a 997 or a 996. This isn’t because the 996 or the 997 were bad; it’s because the 991 is so good. The 997 was an evolution of the 996, and the 991 is an evolution of the 997. Arguing about which one is “better” is pointless, and everyone’s view of what makes one car better than another is subjective. In my opinion, people who criticize the 996 are people who are interested in things other than driving, and things other than the true Porsche experience.

It is DEFINITELY the best way to get a 911. Happy we did it

Quotes source post: 15018730

Yep! Also the models and options are important. No offense to the owners but I don't imagine the Carrera Cabriolet Tiptronics ever becoming a collectors item. Same can't be said for the 40th Anniversary models and nicely-optioned manual cars. The same reason 993 cars are worth so much is the reason these 996s will be valuable: They offer a driving EXPERIENCE that is worth XX $$. For example, the driving experience of a 911/964/993 was not in line with their prices several years ago so the market corrected rapidly. When a new car is $60,000 and the used one is equally fun they go from $15,000 to $60,000. This is the sentiment I gathered from this video . You Tube It's funny listening to them talk about how the 993 Turbo was $50-60,000 and nice 964s were $20,000. Would love to own a 964 C4 but they are $$ now.

One other thought: Describing these cars as 'ugly' is laughable. 90% of the world population can't tell the difference between the different generations of 911, and thinks a 996 looks virtually identical to a brand new 911. I'm stealing somebody else's line that I read on here, but owning the "worst 911" is like dating the ugliest Victoria's Secret model. Anybody who says they wouldn't jump at the opportunity is lying.

Quotes source post: 15018776

LOL that's awesome.

Quotes source post: 15018730

To point number 2, there are lots of other things that will cause a bloody revolution before this happens. This lunacy will stop or they can pry the gas can out of my cold dead hands.

It's an editorial, meaning it's onion, not based on facts. The main premise of the article was that the 996 is not a car to invest in. He's probably not wrong. Many other statements are incorrect, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine? I didn't buy the car as an investment, and those that do don't make a lot of sense to me. But I'm not a day trader either, so what do i know. No, i bought the car because I don't clear a half mil a year, and at the same time, love cars very much. More specifically, German cars. More specifically, Porsche cars. Like most of you, Mercedes, BMW, Audi and most frequently Porsche were on the cover of R&T when I was growing up and those were the cars touted as the best on the planet. Bought a 944 Turbo on my 21st b-day and quickly realized that owning a Porsche is far more expensive than buying one, particularly if you can't turn a wrench. So I sold it, went to BMW and never looked back. I've also spent the last 20 years learning how to work on cars (well anything that burns gas really). But last year I came to the realization that the 996 is every bit a real 911 AND are are at the rock bottom of the bell curve based on age, lack of being air-cooled, don't have round head lights and 5-7% of them failed due to a design flaw. Once i realized the latter could be remedied for a few bucks, the only thing that mattered was the 996 was a real 911 and i could afford one. The rest led me to today. Oh and i didn't drive mine to my high school reunion, I drove the e30. Partly because it felt more period correct, but mainly because i didn't buy a Porsche to impress people. I love the car. But that's just my opinion. Just like our friend Jack Baruth. And it's nice to know others are on my side, not Jack's

The new one may be �better� but valets sure as hell cant tell the difference. Every time the wife and I go out to dinner we find the valet always parks it right up front next to the $200k Ferrari (we�re in LA, so lots of big $ cars everywhere you look). Pretty funny and makes me feel kinda smart for spending $20k and not $100k on a new one. Not that I could even if I wanted to. Plus I�d bet the new ones are not 5 times more fun to drive than a 996.

Quotes source post: 15018776

And by extension, whining about the shape of the headlights is like objecting to the earrings that a beautiful woman is wearing. It tells us much more about you than about that woman.

Just to clarify by no means did I buy the car as an investment, but I just felt his overall perspective was crappy. I bought it for a fun toy, that being said its a really fun toy!!!

I've owned 30 cars myself (not counting what I've bought for the wife). I've driven many more. I recently made a list of the most awesome cars $20K can buy, and the 996 is on the list. The '03/04 Mustang Cobra almost made the list but didn't. Ever see a Mustang interior after 20 years and 100k miles? Ever compare that to a Porsche or Audi interior? Want to compare squeaks, rattles and ride quality in them? No way; it's not even close. I've owned 9 Mustangs for the record and 3 Porsches. I will likely own more of each as time goes on (GT350 maybe.... great toy), but seriously take everything you read in any autorag with a huge grain of salt. These guys are deranged folks that get to drive everyone's cars for free. They have no say in your world. Look at what they really own and drive. It's usually not what they put down in words when writing an article for a deadline.

Quotes source post: 15019344

My last two mustangs were bought model year new (2015) and both had more rattles than my 996 (...which has none after 15 years)

Had a 1995 Mustang GT 5spd soft top that I added a Paxton blower, exhaust from headers to tips, 3.73 rear etc etc. talk about squeaks and rattles and cowl shake!! Was it fast?? Scary I�m a straight line but couldn�t hold a candle to my 996. I just went for a quick blast up Litte Tujunga (tight canyon road just north of LA). The 996 was flawless. I refuse to believe I�d have had more fun in a 991 for 5 times the price.

One aspect, not just in this article, that bugs the crap out of me is production numbers. The 964 and 993 ran for 10 model years and there was round about 125k of them produced. The 996 ran for 6 years (if we don�t count 05) and 165k produced. Granted, there were fewer of the other models, but neither one is rare. They were all mass produced cars. The newer 997�s and 991�s are even more prolific. That being said, and taking into account that 75% of all 911�s are on the road today (if you can believe it), that would say that all of them are hyper inflated or they truly are worth the price of admission because they are great cars. As much as I�m into these cars, it takes my brain a second to register the model when I see any of them. I have to look at specifics to identify a 996 from a 991. At first glance they all look the same, like a 911. I�m talking only a fraction of a second for me, but to the average person looking to get into the cars, I�ll bet they have a very difficult time. When it comes to mechanicals, they all have expensive Achilles heels. How much does it cost to stop a 964 from puking oil all over your garage? Valve guides on the 993 aren�t cheap. How is that different from an IMSB? At this current point in time it�s a bunch of 60-70 year old men whining about change. We�ll do the same with the 991 and beyond, it�s already started. �They�re not analog�, �All the computers take away drivers skill�, �they�re all fat pigs�. Soon it will be �but it�s got an electric motor�.

I've had Lotus Elise SC, Vette Z06, Jag XKR-S, two 997 911's, 986 Boxster S, and currently own a 2013 GT500, and a 996 C4S. Three of these cars have more than 500hp. Which one offers the best all around driving experience??? IMO the 996 C4S. It's just a very solid package for what it is and a tremendous value. Truth be told the 13/14 GT500 is legit. Very solid car, no rattles, and a pure beast to drive. Actually surprised me how good it is. Mine is set up for a straight road and she put down 720hp at the wheels with a few bolt ons. However it does not have the finesse nor the sporting rawness of the 996. I disagree with the editor's opinion about the 996 in general...But I'll be honest. 5 or 6 years ago I never thought I'd own a 996; I was a 997+ snob. For this mistake I apologize.

Quotes source post: 15019500

997 snob. Lol. I was and still am a bit obsessed about getting a 997.2 but for some reason the 996.2 really got its hooks in me. A quote from the contemporary review of the 996 C4S said something like "This just may be the best of the 911 lineup. This makes it the best 911 ever." Here is a contemporary long-term review of a 996 from C&D. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...term-road-test People aren't that different and what was good then is still good...mostly.

If he's wrong, I get to drive a fun car that will be worth a pile of money someday. If he's right, I get to drive a fun car that didn't cost me a pile of money to buy. I have trouble finding the part where I lose. Anyone who buys ANY mass-produced car in hopes that it will become a collectible better have a crystal ball (or at least a very accurate Magic 8-Ball); I'm sure there are plenty of Delta 88's and Cutlasses in mint condition in garages all over South Florida, but I don't think we'll be seeing one rolling across a Mecum block any time soon.

Someone brought this up last time and there's a long thread on it. I agree the author, I don't think the 996 will be valuable. If you want to break even with running costs + purchase price, good luck. But the rest of the article is just an unfettered attack 996 that is often unwarranted. I do wonder why so much venom. He harbors no ill will towards the 997+ and he has a nice article about the 986, so it's not water cooling. Do the lights really bother him that much?

Between "fried egg mobile" (which is witty writing for middle school, but really?) and listing "character" as the difference between a "good" 911 and a "bad" 911, it's clear the author isn't being objective. Automotive writing is by nature subjective, but I don't think it's necessary to demean the 996 (or those of us who like 'em) in the process. It's the automotive journalism equivalent of being the 9th grade bully who never lets anyone forget you wet your pants in third grade.

Headlights have absolutely zero impact on the driving experience. Completely absurd that there�s that much focus put on them. Seriously, who gives a sh*t??

Thing is- when I bought my 964 IT was the ugly duckling of the Porsche world. It wasn't old enough to be cool and the newer cars were "better" for whatever reason. At the time I would have bought a 996 in a second if I could have afforded it! I bought the 964 because it was what I could afford at the time. I bought it to drive it. The Porsche community is a fickle bunch- what is looked down upon at one time may be tomorrow's darling. Good cars are good- regardless of what "they" say. The 996 is a great package.

Back in the late 80's, I bought an unloved 911T with the intent of building a Carrera RS replica (or 'tribute car' as they call them these days). Heck, who could afford a real RS?? The parts were all available to put together an RS, all you needed was a good friend to help you source those parts, and in my case, that was Paul Resnick of PAR Porsche. I distinctly recall pitching Paul on the idea of buying-up 1970-1973 911's as I was absolutely convinced that these cars would be highly prized and collectible in the years that lie ahead, because Porsche got it so right with that series of 911. We never did it, and years later I look like a genius but certainly not the wealthy one that could have been if we had taken action rather than just talk. I absolutely believe that the 996 is getting caught in the Porsche-value updraft that has been happening. Why? Well, they are fundamentally incredible performance cars that signaled the future of the post air-cooled 911, and they are within reach of mere mortals. A fantastic chassis coupled to a DOHC/24 valve engine that retains the 911 essence and sounds? Buyers will increasingly come around to realize how good they are, and the values will rise. In fact, they are on the rise right now; yep, you missed the bottom if you ask me. Wish I had enough spare capital laying around to buy-up the good ones, because I do believe there will be a run on them in the years that lie ahead. Here's my RS replica that I built back then and wish i still had it...

Quotes source post: 15019839

oh my gosh! That color combination is absolutely perfect! In my mind is a C4S or GTS (996 or 997) with a brown wrap and brown Fuchs. Don�t care what ppl think. I shared these on Brown Car Appreciation Society

I'm with you guys ... in the real world .. not the media world like this guy. I've been enjoying the heck out of the bottom-of-the-barrel Porsches for 30 years now, all daily drivers. And I am proud to say I kept each one until they were worn out, pretty much discarded them, and loved every minute with lots of reliable and enjoyable miles: 924 Turbo (155K), 911 SC (296K), 944 (only 6 months), 968 (over 200K now), 996 with 89K and it looks promising to take it to well over 200K miles. I ain't the weekend / garage queen type. The investment was to enhance my time in this life, not to speculate on a financial gain after some decades. This guy lives in the media world; remember ... they have always been for-profit enterprises and therefore never reliably fair-and-balanced.. Poor guy, he doesn't understand, its really odd how people write an article and then believe its publication makes them credible.

Quotes source post: 15019556

Amazon Prime has a documentary about Porsche starting from the beginning. It spends some time discussing the 996 but skips right over the 997 completely and goes on to the 991. Why? The 996 was a new paradigm in the 911 series. The 997 had round headlights and minor improvements, but was otherwise not much different. Personally I don't care if the prices go up as I have no intention of selling mine. It's actually nice knowing that I can pick up another one without breaking the bank should the need arise.

The author doesn’t seem to like 996s, but I don’t think he made any judgements about driving one. His point, although while being pretty negative, was saying the 996 will never appreciate. I think he’s correct because Porsche deviated from it’s legacy of producing cars that could be rebuilt to live on. A 996 engine was not designed to be rebuilt. And in my opinion, was designed to discard once it’s design life was met (after the warranty expired and the original owner traded it in for the new model). Can the engine be rebuilt? Yes, and successfully, and maybe better than Porsche did it. But rebuilt does not restore it to “factory” like an air-cooled engine can be. I doubt the big dollars are being paid for previously-owned Frankenstein cars. And yes, the engine internals are ridiculously expensive. And I suspect many “rebuilders” do not replace many of the expensive parts with the “affordable” rebuilds. And I agree with fast wearing. These engines wear (maybe starting as early as 50k) faster than other makes. And yes, engine tear down is required to renew. Best deal is finding a roller and installing a properly rebuilt engine. Or find a way to love your 996 enough to pay $15k - $25k on top of the money you paid for a marginally running 996. Or get a turbo or GT3.

Quotes source post: 15019708

Agreed!!

Quotes source post: 15019450

Well put!

Quotes source post: 15018200

Hardly the same as �the mustang II�... That was just a ugly/poorly designed car, and a massive departure from the classic mustang design (which thankfully they�ve gone back to). In the case of the 996, the design took all of its cues from the classic 911 and modernized them. It was really quite a elegant update and imo incredibly successful (which is backed up by the sales figures).

Quotes source post: 15019876

The color was Sepia, and was the original color of the 911T. All of my buds lobbied me to shoot it another color, but I maintained that, done right, Sepia will be amazing. The shop that did the bodywork and sprayed the car did an unbelievable job; the paint seemed almost wet and 10 feet deep. The only other color I liked better on the early 911's was Aubergine.....

Quotes source post: 15020313

Agreed, here is the Mustang II compares to the Mustang before it, and then a Porsche 996 compared to its predecessor..... Not even close to the same discussion!

Coming out of the shadows to post a little Mustang love. Here�s one I�ve had for about 35 years. Definitely love the German cars. My DD is an S4. A Porsche is in the future plans though. I don�t know how anyone couldn�t look at the 996 as an excellent value.

I have to say that I don't really get the Mustang comparisons. I've always liked Mustangs, but the few times I've driven one, I didn't like it at all for only one reason: the steering . I drove my friend's 67' Mustang a lot in the late 70's and didn't like the way it steered. Then I drove another friend's brand new (at the time) 1994 5 liter with a manual transmission. I drove that car a lot and, although the drivetrain was awesome, again I did not like the steering at all. Then I drove a (I'm guessing) 2007 Mustang -- this time from a rental agency, so it was a low-end model (probably a 4-cylinder, felt like 2-cylinder ) with hood scoops attached so it looked "sporty" (but wasn't). Again, the thing I did not like about that car, 2 decades later from the '67, was still the steering. The newest model of Mustang is probably the best looking American car currently in production (in my opinion), and I suspect it drives really well, but the older versions of Mustangs I did not enjoy driving. I'm not a Mustang hater, and my sum total of experience with them is the 3 cars above, so I'm very happy to be corrected, but I have to say that I don't see any comparison with the any Porsche.

For the guy who wrote that article, even though his bio indicates he races, it seems like 100% of his education comes from the internet and he has zero experience with most of the cars he writes about. As someone who grew up reading R&T and C&D, it's really disappointing to see what qualifies as an "automotive journalist" today. Regarding his 914 comments, I owned three 914's when I was young and, while there is no question they were not fast, the author's depiction of 914 handling could not be further from the truth. They were mid-engine cars , it's almost impossible for them to have bad handling, much less, the author's words " in a corner, they were prone to behavior that was by turns fascinating and terrifying ". It's actually the air-cooled 911's he spent the whole article fawning over that had "tricky" handling as a result of the rear engine and Newtons's pesky laws. That's why the 60's 911's had 48 lbs of useless cast iron weight embedded in the front bumpers (ironically, Porsche added that dead weight after a bad review of handling in period by the author's employer, Road & Track), that's why Porsche extended the 911 wheelbase by 2.3" in 1969, that's why the early 911's had two batteries in the front, that's why they changed from aluminum to magnesium engine cases in 1968 to reduce weight in the rear (which ended up being a very significant failure point on later models when Porsche increased the displacement to 2.4 liters and especially for 2.7's). All of that was to tame the odd handling of the air-cooled 911's. In fact, the 911 handling wasn't fully tamed until ... (wait for the full irony to reveal itself) ... the 996.

Mustang II was a massive sales success and today has a significant following (myself included), and is highly missunderstood by the hardcore Mustang fansboys, just like the 996. But I think you all missed my point. But I have learned not to push it when people don't get what I was saying, so I'm dropping it now.

Quotes source post: 15020600

Probably most of us don't know enough about the full breadth of the Mustang II model to appreciate your point. When the Mustang II first came out, it only had a 4-cylinder and optional 6, then when they later added the 302 V8, it only put out 140 HP (which was more the fault of emissions regulations than Ford). That's probably not a complete picture of the model, but that initial release is what's etched in my mind (and I suspect others). I'm guessing from your comments that later models were better, and I'd guess that all Mustang II's that exist today perform much, much better than they did in period because they are no longer strangled by the primitive anti-pollution technology that severely limited power and drivability. So it's not your point, it's us (or at least me) The comparison does break down a bit though in that the 996 performed significantly better than any 911 model before it. Sport Auto found the 996 C2 11 seconds faster (same driver) around Nurburgring than the 993 C2 (8:17 (996) vs 8:28 (993)). In fact the base 996 C2 was only 5 seconds off the 993 Turbo time (8:12). People just didn't like the looks of the headlights (primarily) and the "non-aircooledness" of it.

The author is a little sarcaustic, but despite his demeanor, he has a valid point. That is, the 996 will not be a good investment for those wishing to make money. He is right, if you want a bargain 911, go for it. Prices are low and the cars are reasonable to maintain. The problem is the numbers. There are simply too many produced and their is nothing magical about the car as compared to "the last air-cooled 911s" or the classic early 911s. Rarity is what makes things like gold valuable. The other problem is a paradigm change. He is right that in about 30 years owning and driving a gasoline powered car is going to be both expensive and prohibitive. Already a number of cities are preparing legislation to ban then in the next 10 to 20 years. Once the number of EVs surpass a threshold, gasoline prices will spike (supply and demand will see to that). Governments will reward people to buy other forms of transportation and punish those that won't. The automotive collectable market will be relegated to mostly museum pieces. While the Turbo and the GT cars may be a different story, I'm not holding my breath! That's why I'm driving the snot out of my GT3 (put 125K miles on it so far) and not looking back. My advice is to stop wasting time reading these articles and subsequently arguing about them. Get out there and drive while we still can. That's why Porsche built these cars in the first place.

The 996 headlights were modeled after the 911 GT-1 evo race car ... which I think look pretty damn nice.

The author sounds like a total jerk. Either he is determined to insult 996 owners or he is determined to dissuade people from buying the best bang-for-your-buck sports car that I, for one, could get my hands on. I bought my 2000 Cabriolet two weeks ago because I knew that I would enjoy the hell out of it, and I would probably end up spending around $22k by the time I was done getting a few key things done to it. That to me was a great choice to have the freedom to make, ESPECIALLY as I am getting older, and there is no telling when I might not be able to do it anymore. Beyond that, if I decide to sell it in 1-3 years for whatever reason, I might get all or most of my money back depending on a few factors. This to me was a fairly risk averse way to have a really good time doing something I have loved to do since I was 16 years old, 38 years ago... that is to drive a sports car and have the option of putting the top down.

The crazy thing is just how capable these things are. Second DE day at limerock Park yesterday and I�m getting point by from a couple 997 S. I have a C2 tip. I�m very inexperienced but was having a good session... or maybe they were just weren�t pushing it... either way these cars just offer so much fun and with the prices they command as of now just so much value

All I know is that I love my 996. It's loads of fun to chuck around and drive purely for the sake of driving. And I can afford to put miles on it. Nothing else matters.

I probably missed a few, but here is a list of the "facts" he is dead wrong about in the article. Quotes from the article are in blue italics: “It was a 914 2.0, the infamous Vanagon-engined misery-mobile that wasn’t even considered worthy of a Porsche badge in its home country ... In a straight line, they were easy meat for a 2.8-liter Chevrolet Citation” While it is true that the 914’s were slow, he even screwed this up because the 914 2.0 version he is specifically talking about actually had very good performance for its time. The 914 2.0 did 0-60 in 8.8 seconds ( https://www.zeroto60times.com/body-style/classic/ ). The Citation X, though 10 years newer with a 2.8 6-cylinder, did 0-60 in 9.1 or 9.8 seconds depending on the year, so it was slower than the 2.0 914 4-cylinder by 0.3 or 1.0 seconds. He continues “…in a corner, they (the 914) were prone to behavior that was by turns fascinating and terrifying.” The 914’s were mid-engine cars and did not have any handling issues. That statement is totally untrue – he is actually confusing air-cooled 911 handling for the 914. 911 handling was always “fascinating and terrifying” because of the rear-engine weight bias. Porsche went to great lengths to cure the handling in the air-cooled 911’s and they didn’t tame it until (ironically) the 996 (when they introduced PSM because only computer assist could overcome Newton’s laws on a rear-engine performance car). “The smart money bought an old BMW 2002, which could also be had dirt cheap and which would blow the proverbial doors off the VoPo. The BMW 2002 did 0-60 in 11.2 seconds and even the tii 2002 did it in 9.7 seconds. So it was 2.4 seconds slower than the 2.0 914, and 0.9 seconds slower for the tii. “The (996) interiors did not wear well and the paint was subject to fading" The 996 interiors could look cheap, depending on options -- that’s true -- but it doesn’t wear poorly, nor is the paint any worse than any other car. My 18-year-old 996 has original paint and it is perfect except for a rock chip or two. “so many of the 996es out there look pretty crummy nowadays.” I rarely see any 996’s that look crummy. In fact, I can't think of one I've see on the road. The 996's are approaching 20 years old and the percentage of 996’s that look crummy in my experience is much less than any other car brand/model I can think of from that same time period. Talking about IMS failures -> "This is particularly true of the 1999-2001 models." He is totally wrong about being “particularly true of the 1999-2001 models” – those years had the stronger dual-row IMS with the smaller 3.4 engine. It is the 2002-2004 models that have a smaller IMS even though the engine size was increased to 3.6. This is a pretty important piece of information to have dead wrong. “The stereo and HVAC systems are nothing but trouble” Again, he is totally confusing the air-cooled 911 issues for a 996 issue. AC was marginal in all 911 models until the 996 because effective AC and heating on an air-cooled car is difficult. There is a thread about 996 A/C on RL right now where many have said the 996 has the best A/C of any car they've owned. The sound system in 996’s, while not amazing, was much better than the sound system in the air-cooled cars. "I would suggest buying a 997-generation Porsche instead. Although the pre-facelift 997s continue with the troublesome M96 engine, they are much nicer-looking inside and out. If you squint a bit, a 2005 997 looks quite a bit like the current car. That matters to people regardless of what they say or write on the Internet." Looking like the new models has nothing to do with long-term value (the point of the article). Also, after going on and on about the 996 IMS issues, it is totally irresponsible to have his facts wrong about the 997.1. The first 997.1's had the same issues as the 996 (which he does mention by talking about continuation of M96), but the second version (mid-2005) of 997.1 had a new issue that the 997.1 IMS can't be proactively replaced without totally disassembling the engine. An IMS that can be replaced as maintenance on a 996 is safer for long-term ownership (the subject of his article on investment) than the 997.1 IMS that can’t be replaced. “There are worse ways to absolutely blow $15,000, I suppose.” How does he make the leap from "not being an investment" to equating buying one as "absolutely blowing $15k"??? To describe a car that you can buy, drive for 5 years, and sell for the same price you paid, paying only for maintenance, as “blowing” $15k is insane. My Point Everyone is entitled to an opinion. At least to keep to themselves or share with friends. However, anyone who is going to write their opinion in an auto magazine has the responsibility of knowing what they are talking about. He is dead wrong about so much that Road & Track should pull this article. It is irresponsible and embarrassing for the magazine. I have no issue with a conclusion that the 996 won’t appreciate if the article is based upon facts, but this is just total uninformed slamming a particular model from somebody who, PCA member or not, knows nothing about Porches overall or the 996 in particular. It's totally irresponsible journalism to point out the wrong years for increased IMS focus on the 996. People who assume that the 996.2 are less prone to IMS failures, the inference from this article, might end up paying a heavy price as a result of R&T's shoddy journalism.

Quotes source post: 15024384

I agree with your arguments, except the one quoted above. The premise is wrong. It's just too simple and there are many examples that show that to be untrue. The first Chrysler Mini Van looks a whole lot different than today's Mini Vans, but I wouldn't call those old vehicles collectable. The 996 looks different from the 991, but the 996 is not collectable. At least if the definition of collectable is seen as a growing monetary investment.. Obviously collectability rides on many factors, among them would be the number available and their perceived stigma.

If you didn't like this article, definitely don't read the letters to the editor in Panorama for May 2018 (available online if you're a PCA member). There's one response to last month's 996 article: hoo boy! The end quote: "The word you couldn't seem to find to accurately describe the 996's headlights? Ugly. They were ugly then, and they are ugly now."

Quotes source post: 15024815

Good point. I edited the post to delete that comment. I was going to edit it to say it a different way, but there's no short way to make the point I was trying to make. Definitely I agree that anything being different from current model of anything doesn't ensure it becomes collectible, I was just saying that in 30 years, nobody is going to say "I love the 997 because it almost looks like a 991" (the point the author was trying to make). If a "not crazily rare" car becomes collectible, part of that value I think has to come from it having something unique that no other model offers. The me, that "one thing" for the 996 is the uniqueness of its driving character as the only truly lightweight modern 911. To know whether that will actually make it collectible will take probably take a decade or so. I plan to spend that entire decade trying to get my "nothing but trouble" 996 HVAC to try to spit out some cold air .

Quotes source post: 15024874

I haven't seen them, but those letters wouldn't bother me at all. I'm not offended by any criticism of the 996 and individuals should say what they want in a letter to the editor because they are only representing their own opinion. When somebody is an automotive journalist, however, and writes a detailed article with most of the facts wrong, and when he speaks authoritatively about details when he clearly doesn't even know anything about Porsche, much less the model he is talking about, that is totally irresponsible. I find the whole thing entertaining, honestly. My post probably sounds like an emotional rant, but I was laughing out loud the whole time I read the article. I'm surprised R&T hasn't pulled it, but I actually hope they don't because the entertainment value is priceless.

Sugar scoop headlights were the ugliest ever to be fitted to a 911, unless 'no headlights' on the slantnose makes it on a technicality. Pulled head studs, ballistic oil temps, Carrera tensioner refits, exploding airbox pop off valve refits, head gasket retrofits, laughable hvac, rust, door stop tearouts....all 911s have their character traits and IMO are representative of the times during which they were produced. Jack Baruth is an eloquent troll. I'm sure he's hunched over his laptop laughing at all of us right now. I enjoyed the article for enterainment value alone. He's writing for the People, and the People want their own stereotypes and world views fed back to them by the media. That's what sells. Don't feed the trolls

Quotes source post: 15025010

He actually chimed in the first time this article was brought up, right after it was published: https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...m-r-and-t.html

Quotes source post: 15025176

I scanned that thread, but didn't see any posts I would attribute to him? Maybe my hyperbolic combustion chambers are scored?

Quotes source post: 15025777

He Is user Pzkw993 - See post #45 on Page 3, it's his first in the thread.