C4 v. C2

How noticable is the performance improvement of a C4 over a C2 on a 996? Is it worth the premium for day-to-day street and highway driving? (I'm not planning to take the p-car on a track.) Thanks!

Are you talking about in inclimate weather, such as snow or heavy rain? There is a good advantage to the C4 in northern climates. If you are talking about the dry, there is no point in having 4WD since the majority of what it will do in that situation is just add weight and as a result have poorer performance. Keep in mind that Porsches top 2 performance cars (NA and Turbo) are both 2WD (the GT2 and GT3) for this reason.

C2 all the way

The common compliant about the c4 I always read is that it is too hard to lose control / have fun in. I consider this a positive but I like the control aspect. Also, the C4 is awesome in the rain. I think the main reason there are not more on the road (outside of the TT where it is standard) is that it adds about $5,000 to the sticker price. I personally think it a good value when you consider the fact that the large aluminum or large Carbon package is about the same price!

If you are never going to drive it in the weather, and don't care about the extra's on the C4S, (widebody, Turbo bumpers, bigger better brakes, better suspension, better handling components, wider tires, upgraded full leather interior standard, stiffer steering, standard PSM, standard full auto seats w/ seat memory) go with the C2. I would HIGHLY recommend PSM on ALL C2's for the rain. If you get a C2, learn to drive it well, ie get used to kicking the rear-end out and controlling it. The C2 is prolly a better track-car and over-all a little quicker and more fun to drive, IMO.

You don't need AWD to drive in the rain or snow. A C2 with proper tires will very well. AWD adds grip and therefore peace of mind as the road surface deteriorates, but is far from necessary as long as you have the right tires that are in good condition. i drive my 78 911SC in the rain on the race track on full tread RA-1's and regularly pass much newer cars except for those evil STI's and EVO's. A C4 or C4S will handle and feel very different than a C2. The car is heavier and feels that way. Some like it and some don't. It's up to you. All that said, if you are planning to regularly drive in the snow, you really can't get better than a C4 with snow tires. A C2 on snow tires will do fine, but Porsche's AWD is one of the best and gives you an added measure of security.

you are too funny, Gant . Lets make sure we are talking about the same thing, though. The C4 is NOT a C4S. I do, however, disagree with the "C2 is prolly a better track-car and over-all a little quicker and more fun to drive". Videos are better than words, I guess, so here's a link: C4S passing fun BTW, this is probably one of the most hotly discussed threads in 996. Ad infinitum ad nauseum. Just do a search, then be prepeared to read until daybreak.

Palting - nice vid! Maybe the saying... "it's not the arrow, it's the Indian" applies here.

I drive my C2 daily (non PSM, non TC) and this includes through some very heavy Florida rainstorms and standing water (terrible drainage in certain areas of St. Pete/Clearwater). With the rear weight bias these cars have incredible grip and at this point I haven't been through anything that caused me to even come close to losing traction. Would I prefer a C4S? Absolutely, but I don't feel the least bit underequipped in a C2. If I lived in a climate with more variable weather (NE or mountains) I'd probably consider it more seriously. Certainly nice to have but it wasn't worth the premium for me.

Nice video Palting!

Thanks for the compliments. Sometimes, I get myself going when I read posts that say the Porsche AWD is about snow and wet traction rather than dry performance. There is some truth to both, but one doesn't exclude the other .

Palting, palting, palting Nothing is to say that you cannot drive a C4 or a C4S very well on the track and have a blast. You can. However, if you are focusing solely, or even primarily, on track usage, you just need to look at what people are racing . . . I am nearly certain that you will find only C2s (ok, maybe C4 for a turbo, but that's different). In the end, love the one you're with. Now if you are talking rally, then I agree with palting (trying to be diplomatic)

I'm a C4 daily driver in Minnesota. The AWD makes it a very solid car in bad weather. It takes away some of the 'OMG, we are going to die" out of the corners that you would hit day to day - but still a hoot.

Did he say C4? Oh....Nevermind...

My biggest problem with the C4 is that it dilutes a little bit the essence of the Porsche experience: the responsiveness and sharpness of the steering.

All true - but I would let my wife drive my C4 in the winter/rain. (grin)

I guess this goes right along with saying the 996 diluted a little bit the essence of the Porsche experience from the 993. Didn't the ALMS outlaw Audi's AWD due to complaining from other racing teams saying it was an unfair advantage? Or was that a different race series? Ok I need to leave now; this should stir up a nest of hornets. Hehehehehehehe

comparing ALMS to what 99% of us do with our Porsches is, well, an exxageration I love 996 C4Ss. I think that they are probably the most beautiful of the 996s, even more so than the turbo. I think they make great cars for both road and track. I do not think that they are better for track use than C2s. For track use, I prefer the C2 (at least for normally aspirated cars). Why? Two main reasons. First, unsprung (and sprung) weight. The AWD and turbo brakes of the C4S are not necessary (it has the same engine as the C2), and yet it increases the unsprung weight, which is the worst weight to have. I mean, the whole point of ceramic brakes is to get that weight down. If it is unnecessary, then why have the weight there in the first place. It also increases sprung weight, and it is unnecessary. Second, is the understeer issues. AWD increases the tendendency for the car to understeer, which 996s tend to have anyway. Is it a problem? Not at all. It is a very, very capable car. But, it is not as good as the C2 in the dry. In the wet, maybe it is better. I don't want to buy a car for optimizing the "rare" occurance. If I lived in a different part of the country I might have a different opinion. In the end, the C2s, C4s, and C4Ss are all far about the capability of probably 98% of their drivers, including me.

TD, TD, TD, , let's not start this all over again. I think there was a segment in Top Gear, where, THE STIG, the man with no name who was born wearing a driving suit, who remarkably looks like TD's avatar, drove both the C4S and the C2. He was faster with the C4S by several seconds, but he felt like he drove the C2 faster. I think that pretty much sums up the prevailing sentiments.

I think in the same segment Jeremy summed up the differences between the C2, C4 and C4S by analogy to women. The C2 = a perfect handful. The C4 = well endowed. The C4S = a full body kit with implants - pretty but doesn't really do much that the others don't do, but it looks really good. Sadly all three cars were blond.... probably because of the rear engine.

yeah, I later went back and did a lap in the dry and knocked 5 seconds off, I just didn't bother to air it out of respect to you. I think this requires multiple rounds of drinks to settle . . .

I'm an AWD fan. Security, safety, easy to push it to the limit...any weather condition...bad quality roads. Much more forgiving...can power your way through pretty much anything at a much higher limit. Having owned high power FWD, AWD, and RWD cars before the C4...that's my preference. thanks, Amir

So the L�hner-Porsche, Porsche 953, 959, 961, 964 Carrera 4 RS, 993TT, 996TT and 997TT also dilute the Porsche experience then as well as the normally aspirated C4s? I agree that the standard tyres used for the 964 Carrera 4 made the responsiveness a tad vague as compared to the Carrera 2, but this was easily corrected and certainly does not apply to the 993 and 996 series. I will concede on point. I have never driven American versions of the 993 nor 996. With the different suspension, higher weights and higher ride heights there maybe a more noticeable difference between the C4s and Carreras as compared to the ROW/European versions I am used to driving. Americans who have visited me and driven my cars of over the years have all commented saying they found my C4s steering sharp and precise. This includes blasting around certain special places in France. Ciao, Adrian.

AWD causes erectile disfunction. So, if that is not an issue for you, grab one. Seriously, I read up on these cars before buying one and found the page of a guy who has test drove, inspected and owned hundreds of 911s. (Some sort of expert on the cars). When he got to the 996, he commented that is was a more refined feeling car than the air cooled and a wonderful handler... He also made the same comment about AWD feeling different than RWD and not necessarily better for everyday driving... I think the final comment was that it was a subjective assesment (spelling?), but I sure would like to try one. JKC

I believe you are right about the tires. As I said before, the C4 and C4S are incredibly able cars that perform well on the street and the track, and will have far more capabilities than 98% of us on this list could ever tap into. I also excepted for TT and the power delivery issues. But all that aside, on the pavement, what do people race . . . C2s or C4s and C4Ss. You really need to look no further than that to see your answer about what is more ideal from a pure track perspective. What say you?

My advice is always to go and drive them yourself and base your comments and opinions on your real life experiences not on those read in magazine articles or on internet forums. If I found four 996s of the same option and mod status (2 Carreras and 2 Carrera 4s or 3 of one and 1 of the other) took the badges off and taped up the centre panel switches and said drive this one and then that one and so on, very few if any here could genuinely identify which ones were 996 Carreras and which ones were 996 Carrera 4s. Ciao, Adrian.

First, you have to admit that that is a bit of an exaggeration, no? Second, if it were true, then it would just prove that the C4s and C4Ss are a complete waste of money and add absolutely unnecessary weight.

My comments were aimed at a general statement made on this forum that the Carrera 4 dilutes the Porshe experience. In the real world of professional motorsport you are not allowed to race AWD Porsches so the question is irrelevant because there is nothing to compare it against. There is no GT-3 AWD. We have not seen a professionally prepared Carrera 4 racing car since the early 1990s and the French Quattro Team. At the club level of motorsports many people go out in their Carrera 4s, but if I was club racing competively I would be out there in a GT-3 because it's a race car in road clothing. If Porsche made a racing GT-3 AWD version I would certainly race it, but they don't, so to be competitive I would have to use the GT-3. I would not contemplate going out racing in either the standard 996 Carrera or 996 Carrera 4, but if I had to choose for the sake of pure theory the Carrera is lighter so I would take that. Ciao, Adrian.

On point one certainly not; because it was done in Italy with a bunch of well known motoring journalists a few years ago. None of them could honestly tell the difference. It was done again in bad weather conditions and then more got it right. On point two this coming from a Targa owner with the massive weight of the glass mountain over his head Seriously in some ways your point is correct depending upon where you live. Where I live in the mountains there comes a time when RWD cars of all types have to go to bed and leave the real work of driving to the FWD and AWDs. Eventually even the FWDs are off the road and just the AWDs are left. I guarantee you could not get your Carrera out of my driveway in winter. If I lived back in my home town in Australia I would not consider owning the Carrera 4. In fact my old 996 GT-2 would make a comeback. Ciao, Adrian.

C'mon Adrian. You have to admit that, unless you have massive amounts of HP that you are having difficulty delivering to the ground, that C4 is unnecessary on the track, and perhaps even harmful since it tends to make cars understeer, in dry weather conditions. There is more to it than "Porsche just doesn't make one" Maybe in Europe it is different, but in the U.S. you don't see very many people at all racing C4s or C4Ss at the club sport level. There is a reason for this. Again, all of my comments are aimed at track usage. It rubs me the wrong way when I hear people suggest that the C4 is BETTER than the C2 for track usage. I don't buy it. I also don't think that there is anything wrong with using a C4 or C4S on the street and the track. Hell, it might even be better for the street, but that is not the point I personally am debating.

Yeah, you are talking auto journalists? Please. I would hardly consider "most" of them to be experts. Hell, most of them know less about cars than many on this board. And the fact that I own a Targa for use on the street proves my point. The extra weight of the Targa or the C4S is fine for the street. Most people will never notice it. I prefer the Targa because I like the roof. Now, you would NEVER hear me say that the Targa is preferable to a coupe for the track. That would be ridiculous, just as I believe it is ridiculous for people to claim that a C4 or C4S is preferable than a C2 for the track. It just isn't true. Now, can you use a Targa on the track? Absolutely. In fact, it is a blast. Would most of us notice the extra weight, or even its placement? No, most would not. Nonetheless, it is not BETTER than a coupe, just like a C4 or C4S is not better than a C2 for the track. I have nothing against C4s or C4Ss for street use or dual street/track usage. Nothing at all. I would consider a C4S myself (well, probably not, but not because it would be inadequate in any way). People just need to be reasonable in their claims. The reason Porsche didn't make the GT3 a C4 was not because they were afraid of making the car too capable P.S. My race cars are 2wd coupes

Go, Adrian, Go! Heh-heh . It's been a while since I joined in this C2 vs C4S discussion. There's been tons of them, and frankly, I was getting tired of them. Learned a couple of things on this one, though. Thanks, Adrian. Let me reiterate some old points, and throw in some new ones. 1. Performance in the DRY. The 996 C4S laps Nurburgring faster than the 996 C2. 2. Understeer. The AWD system is not the same AWD system as an SUV. Power is distributed R-F as needed. I find that at the limit, driven properly, the front wheel drive system in the 4S AWD help TURN IN the front and rotate the car, allowing for earlier gas and full throttle with faster exit and straight speed. Granted, I'm not a race car driver, but so is almost everone who will buy these cars. 3. Racing. C'mon, you said it yourself, TD. We are talking about street cars and their relative performace. Race cars are set up differently. Anyway, there have been AWD race cars in recent history, and there have been rules banning AWD in some races due to the unfair advantage of AWD. 4. Weight. All that extra weight is dedicated to performance. The AWD system, the wider track, the larger wheels and tires, even the bigger brakes. All add weight. All add performance. What is important is the net result. I refer you to point number 1 for the net result. 5. Looks. The C4S look sets it apart from any other 996, even from the turbo. It's unique, and, IMHO, the best looking 996. But then, I'm biased . 6. Cost. There are several large ticket items that are standard on the C4S, optional on the C2. Net result is that the C4S costs less than a C2 optioned out to the same extent. I'm talking about when ordered new, though. OK, I think I'm done again.

Firstly I should point out that one of those Journalists was myself and among the others were two former F1 drivers and another who won Le Mans in a Porsche. The rest of them had pretty good Journalistic credentials as well. Thanks for the insults on behalf of myself and my colleagues. The original poster asked about street use. The ONLY person in this thread who has mentioned the racetrack was in post #7 and you starting in post #12 and spreading it on. You asked me a question and I answered it, but nowhere in my posts along in this thread have I suggested the C4 is a better track car than a Carrera so apart from Palting who provided some video evidence of his claim and figures to support his argument at the Ring I do not believe anyone been unreasonable in this thread except somebody starting to hurl insults. Hey Palting I am also sick sorry and fed up with this C2 versus C4 nonsense. This has been going on since Al Gore invented the Internet and each time new models come out with a C4 variant their owners get hit again by the C2 owners. Ciao, Adrian.

One lap time means nothing . . . abslolutely nothing. I bet I can find different times. If the C4 is so great, then why is a GT3, which is Porsche's idea of the pinnacle of a street/track car, only a C2 rather than a C4. C'mon smart guy, answer that! (BTW, for those who don't know, Palting and I engage in this debate occassionally and it is all in good fun) C'mon Palting The 996 platform tends towards understeer in general. When you ask the same set of tires to both steer and carry power, it increases the tendency towards understeer. The fast guys on the track who are driving TTs or C4Ss are all about managing understeer, and they frequently complalin about the awds pushing like pigs when you are really on it. Also, the very best 996 platform car for Turn-in is the GT3, and it is not a C4 car. AWD does not help with turn in. It may turn in perfectly adequately well, but it is not BECAUSE the car has AWD that it turns in well. With resepct to street cars, none of this debate matters. I have been hearing people throwing around BS that the AWD system is superior than the C2 on the track. That is just untrue. No ban prevented Porsche from putting AWD on the GT3. They didn't do it. Why? Because RWD is superior for on track usage. PURE BUNK. As an engineer, I will tell you that weight matters, and that you should not make components bigger or heavier than absolutely necessary for the application. The C2 brakes are perfectly adequate for their application, which means that the Turbo brakes for the SAME EXACT ENGINE is overkill and, therefore, unnecessarily heavy. It is, quite frankly, pure bling. Nothing wrong with that, but just don't claim it is better. Also, larger rims and tires that weigh more are BAD unless they are necessary to correct a lack of traction. On my race car, you can actually go slower if you but on rims and wheels that are too big. Finally, you are placing way to much importance to that silly time you found. I am sure I could find contrary results. I never said the contrary, but I am partial to the Targa. Assuming that you want all that bling.

Calm down Adrian. I am a long-time member of this forum and several people around here have met me in person. I know that you are a journalist. I was giving you a hard time. I was not being serious. You are taking all of this too seriously. In retrospect, I should have used a winky smilie but I just forgot. You are absolutely right about when and why I weighed in. On the street, I don't care, and I have posted numerous times that the C4s and C4Ss are great, and that many people couldn't notice the difference. No argument there. I weighed in when the euphoric praise of the C4s and C4Ss reached the point where it started to sound like "it is even better on the track." I disagree. I have made it clear throughout this mini debate that I am ONLY talking about the track. Why can't I weigh in to keep the debate realistic? Is that so wrong? I used to live in Konstanz am Bodensee. I visit occassionally still. Maybe the next time I go we can meet for a drink, which will be on me since my sense of humor apparently insulted you In the end, though, I have hardly been "hurling insults" Trust me, things would be completely different if that had been my intent. I think that even Palting knows that I am being partly serious and partly joking.

OK Palting. Read it and weep. Here are ring laptimes for the ring This is a list of the fastest production cars in Norschleife N�rburgring. 6:55 - Radical SR8 7:32 - Porsche Carrera GT (7:32.44) 7:44 - Pagani Zonda S 7:46 - Porsche 996 GT2 7:47 - Porsche Gt3 RS (sport tyres) 7:50 - BMW M3 CSL (sport tyres) 7:52 - Porsche GT3 (381hp) 7:52 - Lamborghini Gallardo 7:52 - Lamborghini Murcielago 7:52 - Mercedes SLR mclaren 7:56 - Porsche 996 Turbo 7:56 - Ferrari 360 stradale (sport tyres) 7:57 - Lotec Porsche 993 Turbo (600 HP, racing suspension) 8:07 - Ferrari 550 8:09 - Lamborghini Diablo SV 8:09 - Ferrari 360 Modena 8:10 - Chrysler Viper GTS 8:12 - Porsche 993 Turbo (430 HP version) 8:15 - BMW Z8 400 HP 8:17 - Porsche 996 C2 8:18 - Ferrari F355 8:22 - BMW M Coupe 321 HP 8:25 - Audi RS4 375 HP 8:28 - Porsche 993 C2 8:28 - BMW M5 400 HP 8:32 - Porsche Boxster S 8:35 - BMW M3 Coupe 321 HP 8:37 - Mercedes C32 AMG 8:38 - Honda NSX 8:39 - Honda S2000 8:40 - Chevrolet Corvette 8:42 - Audi S4 265 HP 8:42 - Lotus Exige 8:49 - Jaguar XKR Coupe 8:52 - Mercedes CLK 430 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_lap_times" It is important to note the difference in time between the GT2 and the TT. The GT2, which is the TT in RWD form is significantly faster . . . . hmmmm I don't even see a C4S time.

I go on what I read and that is all. I do not know your intent and I judge a lot by the use the Smilies to see if a person is possibly joking. You are more than welcome to drop by and have a beer. I am also more than willing to get at least of one of those Journalists that you have such a low opinion of around to have a chat. He lives not far from me. This particular person did a show a couple of years ago testing the various stability control systems installed on many cars including Porsche, BMW, Mercedes etc and how they worked in the snow andon ice. I hate to tell which car took the corners fastest and stayed on the road longest, but it was the narrowbody 996 Carrera 4 closely followed by the widebody Carrera 4S. If you want the rest of the story you may have to tune into your History channel in a few years time when these European shows are sometimes aired. For the record my 996 gets stored in winter and its place taken by my little Alfa Romeo 145. The salt used here in winter literally destroyed my last Carrera 4 from the inside out so my current one will not be subjected to this. You will never see Carreras on the roads around here in winter and the Porsche that competes in the French Andros Ice Racing series is AWD. Ciao, Adrian.

I have made very clear in all of my comments that I was not talking about anything other than dry pavement "ON THE TRACK" That's it. If you are on dry pavement "ON THE TRACK," the 996 C2 is superior to the 996 C4 or the 996 C4S. That's it. In fact, I said numerous times that for rally or in inclement weather, all bets are off . . .

I agree and have agreed with this since Noah was knee high to a grasshopper. Mind you I would have liked the GT-3 AWD project to have gone further than what it did, but it was cancelled due to lack of a profitable customer base much to a certain Porsche employee's displeasure. Remember I only entered this thread when it was suggested that somehow the C4 dilutes the Porsche Experience whatever that really is. Sounds like a marketing department sound byte to me, but anyway. Ciao, Adrian.

That's because you removed it from the list to prove your point!!

No, I didn't. I cut and pasted directly from the list I found. My real point is that ring lap times are all over the map, and you can ususally find times to prove your point if you search long enough. Here is one from track challenge: 911 Carrera (996) 911 Carrera 4 (996) Manufacturer Porsche Porsche Testing Date 1/1998 2/2001 Engine 3387 cccm, 6 Zyl , 24 V 3387 cccm, 6 Zyl , 24 V Power 300 PS (221 KW) @ 6800/min 300 PS (221 KW) @ 6800/min Torque 350 Nm @ 4600/min 350 Nm @ 4600/min Transmission 0 (6) 0 (6) Weight 1399 Kg 1466 Kg Weight / BhP 4,7 Kg / PS 4,9 Kg/ PS 0 - 100 Km/h 4,9 s 5,4 s 0 - 200 Km/h 17,9 s 19,9 s 0 - 200-0 Km/h 22,9 s 25,5 s Top Speed 280 Km/h 280 Km/h 80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gear 5,5 s 5,9 s 100 - 0 Km/h hot 36,8 m , 10,5 m/s 40,6 m , 9,5 m/s Transverse Acceleration 1,2 g 1,25 g Slalom Course 36 / 110m 121 / 129 Km/h 129 / 136 Km/h Round Time Nuerburgring 8.17 min 8.23 min Round Time Hockenheim 1.15,9 min 1.16,6 min Here is another from track-challenge: GT2 (996) 911 Turbo (996) Manufacturer Porsche Porsche Testing Date 6/2001 6/2000 Engine 3600 cccm, 6 Zyl , 24 V 3600 cccm, 6 Zyl , 24 V Power 462 PS (340 KW) @ 5700/min 420 PS (309 KW) @ 6000/min Torque 620 Nm @ 3500/min 560 Nm @ 2700/min Transmission 0 (6) 0 (6) Weight 1450 Kg 1569 Kg Weight / BhP 3,13 Kg / PS 3,7 Kg/ PS 0 - 100 Km/h 4 s 4,2 s 0 - 200 Km/h 12,4 s 14,6 s 0 - 200-0 Km/h 17,4 s 19,8 s Top Speed 320 Km/h 305 Km/h 80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gear 3,3 s 3,5 s 100 - 0 Km/h hot 36,1 m , 10,7 m/s 36,1 m , 10,7 m/s Transverse Acceleration 1,35 g 1,3 g Slalom Course 36 / 110m 128 / 154 Km/h 128 / 139 Km/h Round Time Nuerburgring 7.46 min 7.56 min Round Time Hockenheim 1.12,6 min 1.14,6 min

OK, so sounds like we don't even disagree at all. TAKE THAT PALTING. THE ESTEEMED JOURNALISTS ALL AGREE WITH ME . . . EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!!!!!! BTW, I actually weighed in and supported you in your response to the "diluting" the Porsche experience. I believed your tire explanation. Also, an AWD GT3 would make an outstanding rally car.

Here's a slightly longer list, but clearly driver skill and track condition has the edge over pure HP with the GT-3RS faster than the factory production Turbocharged Porsches. Ciao, Adrian. 6:59 --- Ferrari 312T, Niki Lauda, German GP, training (1975) 7:06 --- Ferrari 312T, Clay Regazzoni, German GP, race (1975) *1.2m longer circuit than standard Nordschleife 6:11 --- Porsche 956, Group C, Stefan Bellof, training (1983) 6:26 --- Porsche 956, Group C, Stefan Bellof, race (1983) 6:41 --- Porsche 956, Group C, Derek Bell 7:50 --- BMW X5 Le Mans V12, Hans Stuck (2001) *0.232 km longer than current, standard Nordschleife 7:06 --- BMW M3 GTR, 24hrs, test session, J�rg M�ller (2003) 7:18.1-- Donkervoort D8 RS (12/2004) 7:19 --- Radical SR3 Turbo (2003) 7:20* -- Opel Astra DTM V8 Coupe, set-up for 24hrs race (sport auto 2003) *estimated 7:25 --- Alzen Motorsport Porsche 996, 24hrs race, Uwe Alzen 7:28 --- Porsche Carrera GT, Walther R�hrl, Autobild July 2004 7:32.4 -- Porsche Carrera GT, definitive time by Horst Von Saurma 7:32.5 - Gemballa Porsche GTR 600 EVO, Wolfgang Kaufmann (2001) 7:36 --- Porsche Carrera GT, factory test driver Walther R�hrl (2002) 7:40* -- Porsche Carrera GT, *estimated time on cold and partially wet track (2003) 7:40 --- Mercedes Benz McLaren SLR, Klaus Ludwig, Autobild July 2004 7:42 --- Radical 1500 SR3 (2002) 7:43 --- TechArt GT Street (2001) 7:43 --- Porsche 996 911 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Rohrl, MOTOR Magazine 7:43.5 - Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine, 2002) 7:44 --- Pagani Zonda C12S (07/2003) 7:45 --- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600 (12/2000) 7:46 --- Porsche 996 GT2 7:46 --- SHK Porsche 993 GT2, 652 PS (1999) 7:47 --- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, 381PS (996) (2004) 7:49 --- Porsche 996 GT3 Cup 7:50 --- BMW E46 M3 CSL (08/2003) 7:50 --- Blitz Supra, 750 PS, Herbert Sch�rg (1997) 7:50 --- Honda RC30, Helmut Daehne (1993) 7:50 --- Lamborghini Murcielago (06/2002) 7:52 --- Gemballa Porsche 911 Le Mans (1995) 7:52 --- Lamborghini Gallardo E-Gear (12/2003) 7:52 --- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren (06/2004) 7:54 --- Porsche GT3 (996) (2003) 7:55 --- Caterham R500 Superlight (2002) 7:56 --- Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale (02/2004) 7:56 --- Porsche 996 Turbo 7:56 --- Honda NSX-R - Motoharu Kurosawa, Best MOTORing 7:56 --- Chevrolet Corvette CE Z06 7:56 --- Chevrolet Corvette C6 (tested by Dave Hill) 7:57 --- Lotec Porsche 993 Turbo, 600 PS, racing suspension 7:59 --- Porsche 911 Carrera S (997) (Performance Chassis) (Walter Rohrl - WHEELS June 2004) 8:02 --- Porsche 911 Carrera S (997) (Sport PASM setting) (Walter Rohrl - WHEELS June 2004) 8:03 --- Porsche 996 GT3 (1999) 8:04 --- Lamborghini Diablo GT (07/2000) 8:05 --- Ferrari 575M Maranello F1 (12/2002) 8:05 --- Porsche 911 Carrera S (997) (Normal PASM setting)(Walter Rohrl - WHEELS June 2004) 8:06 --- Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG 8:06 --- Caterham 7 Superlight R, Robert Nearn 8:06 --- Subaru Impreza Sti spec C - Motoharu Kurosawa, Best MOTORing 8:07 --- Ferrari 550 Maranello (06/1998) 8:09 --- Honda NSX-R 3.2 (08/2002) 8:09 --- Ferrari 360 Modena (10/1999) 8:09 --- Lamborghini Diablo SV (no ABS?) 8:10 --- Chrysler Viper GTS, 411PS, UK-Spec, no ABS (10/1997) 8:10 --- Donkervoort D8 180R 8:11 --- Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX 8:12 --- Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG (04/2002) 8:12 --- Porsche 993 Turbo 8:13 --- Lotus Esprit Sport 350, 354 PS (05/1999) 8:13 --- Dodge Viper SRT-10, 506 PS (10/2004) 8:13 --- BMW M5 (E60) (12/2004) 8:15 --- Ruf 911 CTR 2, 520 PS 8:15*-- Holden GTS (2000), *estimated 8:15 --- Porsche 911 Carrera 2 (997) (Walter Rohrl - WHEELS June 2004) 8:16 --- AC-Schnitzer E36 M3 CLS II, 350 PS (11/1997) 8:16 --- AC Schnitzer Z4 V8 Topster (01/2005) 8:17 --- Aston Martin Vanquish (2003) 8:17 --- Porsche 996 C2 8:18 --- BMW Z8, 400 PS (08/2000) 8:18 --- Chevrolet Corvette Z05 Commemorative Edition, 344 PS (09/2003) 8:18 --- Ferrari F355 (06/1997) 8:20 --- Audi RS6 (2002) 8:22 --- BMW E46 M3 (12/2000) 8:22 --- BMW M Coupe, 321 PS (10/1998) 8:22 --- Mercedes-Benz C55 (07/2004) 8:23 --- Aston Martin DB7 GT (2003) 8:23 --- Porsche 996 Carrera 4 8:24 --- Subaru Impreza WRX STi (2004) 8:25 --- Audi RS4 375 HP 8:25 --- Callaway C12 8:25 --- Mitsubishi Carisma GT Evo VI (11/1999) 8:25 --- Mitsubishi Carisma GT Evo VII (11/2002) 8:26 --- Mercedes Benz SLK 32 AMG (05/2001) 8:26 --- Nissan 350Z (2003) 8:28 --- BMW M5, 400 PS(also confirmed by Motor Commodore magazine, 2000) 8:28 --- Nissan Skyline GTR, 277 PS 8:28 --- Porsche 993 Carrera 2 8:29 --- Mercedes Benz CLK 55 AMG (05/2000) 8:29 --- Audi S4 4.2 Avant (11/2003) 8:30 --- Maserati Coup� Cambiocorsa (10/2002) 8:31 --- Ferrari F355 GTS, 380 PS 8:32 --- BMW M Roadster, 321 PS (09/1997) 8:32 --- BMW Z4 3.0 SMG (05/2003) 8:32 --- Porsche Boxster S 8:32 --- Volkswagen Golf R32 8:34 --- Acura NSX, 276 PS 8:34 --- BMW Z3 Coup� 3.0i, 231 PS (04/2001) 8:35 --- BMW M3 Coupe, 321 PS 8:35 --- Brabus-Mercedes Benz C V8 Sportcoup� (02/2002) 8:35 --- BMW 130i 8:36 --- BMW E36 M3 EVO, 321 PS 8:36 --- Alpina-BMW B3 3.3 Coup� (07/1999) 8:37 --- Maserati 3200GT (2002) 8:37 --- Mercedes Benz C32 AMG (09/2001) 8:37 --- Nissan Skyline GTR V-Spec, 350 PS 8:37 --- Subaru Impreza GT Turbo 8:37 --- Honda NSX 3.0 (07/1991) 8:38 --- Honda NSX 3.2 (08/1997) 8:38 --- Mercedes Benz SL500 (12/2001) 8:38 --- Porsche 996 Carrera, 296 PS 8:38 --- Brabus-Mercedes Benz CLK 5.8 (12/1998) 8:39 --- Honda S2000 (01/2000) 8:39 --- Morgan Aero 8 (04/2003) 8:40 --- Holden GTS, on an in and out lap (2000) 8:40 --- Chevrolet Corvette C5 Targa Automatic (07/1997) 8:41 --- Aston Martin DB7 (1999) 8:41 --- Audi S3, 210 PS (06/1999) 8:42 --- Audi S4, 265 PS (08/1998) 8:42 --- Lotus Exige (11/2000) 8:43 --- Honda Integra Type R (12/2000) 8:44 --- Chevrolet Corvette C5 8:45 --- Chevrolet Corvette, 339 PS, automatic 8:46 --- Porsche 993 Carrera S, 285 PS 8:47 --- Honda Civic Type-R, 200 PS (11/2001) 8:49 --- Jaguar XKR Coupe (07/1998) 8:49 --- Renault Clio Sport V6 8:49 --- Audi TT 1.8T quattro Coup�, 225 PS (11/1998) 8:50* -- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG (2000) 8:51 --- Mercedes Benz C43 AMG (02/1998) 8:52 --- Mercedes Benz CLK 430 8:58 --- Lotus Esprit Turbo SE (07/1991) 9:09 --- Volkswagen Golf V6 4Motion

Thanks Adrian!

I love my C4. And I drive it everyday.

I was kidding!

This is serious business!

And that, my folks, is all that really matters. I love my Targa and drive it every day . . . even in the snow.

I think what I said earlier is probably pretty right on, and in-line with what you said after me. Agree?

Geez, again with the mixing and matching with the wrong info. I was talking about the C4 S , not C4. The C4 just has AWD, no better brakes, no wider track, no bigger wheels, no better suspension. The published time for the C4S at the ring is 8:15 and change. I'm at work and have the source at home and will post it when I get home. One reason I remember is that the 997 C2 beats the C4S, but, the C4S beats the 996 C2. Weight DOES matter, I agree. I never said it didn't . It's how you put the weight . The added performance from the C4S add on's makes up for the added weight resulting in faster time. Not like the head heavy targa, that just adds weight in the wrong place The 911, by inherent design, will oversteer. The Porsche AWD, by inherent design and by proper driver input, will make up for the understeer. It is NOT your regular SUV AWD. It's a question of balancing the need to turn and the need to pull the nose in. Slow in-fast out never made more sense than in the C4S. Slow in with the wheel turned, apply some gas to set the front drive going, front wheel drve of AWD pulls in the nose quicker toward the apex, straighten wheel slowly as you go WOT and all 4 wheels rocket you towards the track out and down the straight faster than possible exit speed with just the rear wheels pushing with the C2. I never said they outlawed a GT3 AWD . What I said was that AWD would give an unfair advantage. The absence of a GT3 AWD has more to do with marketing than performance. It's bowing to the "race cars have RWD, therfore GT3 should have RWD" mentality of the buying public. "Bling"? You know better than that, TD . Better brakes, better suspension, wider track, wider wheels is not "bling". BTW, better brakes ALWAYS make a difference, even if it's the same HP. It wil make for a shorter braking distance, allow for later braking and therefore faster top speed at the end of the straight, and makes that slow-in fast out tenet easier to apply. Bottom line, we are talking seconds or even fractions of seconds difference in performance. Probably really never REALLY see the difference among regular drivers. They are all great cars. Even the Targa, heh-heh . It's all about BRAGGING rights. The 996 C2 better performer than the 996 C4S? OVER MY DEAD BODY

Palting you can't really believe what you type

It's my religion, brother . OK, gotta go to work now. See y'all later.

OK, I want to dig into this in a little more detail. OK, here's a shocker for you . . . on a dry TRACK (not the streets), my preference would be C2, C4 and then C4S in that order. The extra weight of the C4S is not necessary, and I still don't understand why you think bigger wheels and heavier brakes are better. AFAIK, stock for stock suspensions of the C4S over the C4 is not substantially better. I am glad you agree that weight matters. However, there is zero added performance from the C4S's weight since it is all unnecessary. Arguably, the Targa's extra weight makes more sense because you can actually perceive and enjoy it. I will explain my point about no added performance below. I flat out disagree with you. On this point. Stock 996s . . . all of them . . understeer. In fact, they are all pigs in this respect. The C4Ss only magnify this characteristic when seriously pushed. You will need to go slow-in, fast-out. A C2 driver will have a better chance of going fast-in, fast out, which will be faster. Now that's just crazy talk. Adding a sunroof to 997s was bowing to marketing. Making the GT3 RWD was just common sense. Have you been drinking again? What are better brakes? Bigger, heaver brakes are not always better. No way. All that a brake has to do is be able to lock up the wheel, and do so repeatedly without fade. The great brake systems add excellent pedal feel and feedback to the equation. The brakes on the C2 are more than capable of locking up the wheels repeatedly without fade. The only reason why you would increase the size of brakes is so that you can get better resistance to fade. It is not a problem in the stock C2s, so the bigger brakes are totally unnecessary and add NOTHING. The bigger brakes on the C4S DO NOT result in shorter stopping distances than the C2. AS such, they are totally unnecessary bling. I'll give you this point wholeheartedly. Ok ok ok I would rather drink than fight anyways

Yeah, just to clarify--I believe the C2 has been shown to be faster around the Ring than the C4, and would probably be faster around most dry tracks. The C4S is faster around the ring than the C2. This is almost undoubtedly due to its suspension changes, larger brakes and tires than a stock C2, and has nothing to do with its AWD. If you put equivalent brakes, tires and springs on a C2, it would best a C4S around the track. And to expound on an earlier point, there is a difference in steering feel between the C2 and C4/C4S. If you've done much back to back driving in them, you know what I mean. The C2 feels quicker and more responsive through the steering than a C4. If on the other hand, you prefer the "riding on rails" feel, you can choose a C4 (or alternatively, a heavy SUV, NO--just kidding, don't go through the roof, C4 drivers!!).

C4S has same brakes from Turbo, they stop the car faster with less fade. This mean that into a turn, you can break later, fade less and increase time. This is where ALOT of time is made up by the C4S on the track.

I'd love to see quarter mile times on all 3 cars. I've lQQked and have not found. Anyone, anyone?

no, no, no. Stopping distance and fading are only indirectly related. Let's talk about the first stop [which means that fade is irrelevant]. Your stopping distance will be a function of your tires and the ability of your braking system to lock up the wheels. If you have two cars with the same tires but different sized braking systems, the stopping distances will be IDENTICAL provided that the smaller braking system is capable of locking up the wheel. I mean, after you lock up the wheel, there is not much more you can do. So, provided that you "can" lock up the wheel, threshold braking at that point right before lockup should be identical regardless of brake size PROVIDED that the smaller system is capable of locking up the wheels. At this point, the ONLY reason to have bigger brakes is to: (1) create better heat dissapation (which will reduce fade over repeated braking applications) and (2) create better modulation through additional pistons. With respect to the C2, the brakes modulate VERY well, and fading is not a big problem. As such, larger brakes are entirely unnecessary and WILL NOT result in shorter stopping distances. You could install a braking system that is twice as big as the C4S system and you just will not stop any sooner (provided you have not also changed the brakes). The single biggest error that many Porsche drivers do is to start installing bigger brake systems based upon the erroneous assumption that bigger is necessarily better. It ain't always so. There have been some great articles about this in Panorama, but I don't have any links to them. Sorry.

The quarter mile times of a C4S are slower than those of the C2 (due to weight), but quarter mile times are really unimportant since you would have to be a moron to buy a Porsche for the dragstrip

Good point. Many slap on bigger brakes hoping to shorten the braking distance. A set of wider tire will do a much better job

as will improving ventilation and using better brake pads and fluid . . . And Eli K knows what he is talking about. Hell, look at his avatar!!!!!

I love my C4 even in the rain and snow.

OK. On coffee brake. C4S brakes are cross ventilated, C2 not. Better heat dissipation. True, not true? C4S rotors larger. Again, more surface area, better heat dissipation. True, not true? BTW, have you looked under the fender of a C2 and a C4S? There are air ducts behind the lights and radiator on the C4S, sorta like shark gills. More air to the brakes, better ventilation, better heat dissipation. Where the heck is that Kahlua?

if only it was a C2, all the goodies would've been put to good use

Palting, probably all true (the C2 brakes are also cross ventilated I believe, but it is irrelevant), and certainly none of it is bad BUT since the C2s don't really have fading problems, it is really all, how can I say, overkill? Worse yet, it is overkill that increases unsprung weight . . . Where is that martini!!!! TD

Not true....they both are. The C4S's advantage over a C2 comes from wider tires, and the turbo's suspension set-up not from all wheel drive...IMHO I believe there are significant advantages and disadvantages to each set-up. For the C4 + improved ability to put down power in foul weather + better power delivery on corner exit + some like the reduced front end lightness feel at high speeds that the extra weight up front provides - more understeer - less power to the wheels (parasitic drivetrain loss) - slower acceleration (drivetrain loss and more weight) - reduced braking performance (more weight) - reduced steering feel (although the C4 steering is still very good IMHO) For the C2 + Less weight (better braking and accel) + More power to the wheels (improved acceleration in the dry) + less understeer - Some feel the front feels light at speed - Can't put the power down as well in foul weather - Can't get on the power as early in corner exit On a dry track I believe the C2 has the edge. In foul weather the C4 clearly has the edge. Then again, if you put the same motor, brakes, and tires on a Cayman it would leave them both in the dust....... Obviously I prefer the C2, but I would concede that the C4S is the best looking NA 996 with the exception of the GT3. Unfortunately it's also the heaviest........the good "Dr. Porsche" giveth and he taketh away.....

Amen brother! Speak the truth!

The C4S is badass, period.

Actually, I thought it was more like fat ***, period.

Hey, I think they prefer the term "full-figure".....

Amen to that. A man from my religion I've a meeting when I leave work. Wine and dine sorta thing. I'm making the disclaimer now, in case I post something stupid when I get home inebriated.

...and if you did that wold be dumb ***! <grin> I'm on form today.

Palting, I'm gonna stay up late for that!

In that case, I am going to open a bottle of wine myself. Hell, who am I trying to kid. I would have opened one anyway

Yup, I can't wait. btw -- C4 is da best

I like big butts myself . . . As I said before . . . love the one you're with.

bbp

You are getting more and more cryptic as the day goes on . . . Does BBP stand for big-butted-poseur?

Cryptic? Yes engineering does that to me. bbp=Big Beautiful Porsche.

OK, I can live with that

No problem Palting....enjoy the meal. When you get home, let 'er rip.....were all friends here and those involved have done a great job keeping it light hearted. You know what they say about opinions...........

BTW did I tell you that I love my C4. hehehehe ... really I just want this day to end. So I can drive home.

I don't blame you. I would too if I were you. I love C4Ss as well. I just don't think that they offer superior performance on a dry TRACK than would a C2. That's all.

Well said.....

hey td in dc if thats the case then why is porsches top 997tt equiped with all wheel huh......yeah thought so c4s blows any c2 away more grip more gain.........have proved it myself in my c4s vs a c2s.....

thought so

You are forgetting about the GT2. They are both great cars with different strengths and weaknesses. If you keep this thread going Palting is going to need to start drinking again.....

hey td you seem like you know alot ... how do you post a question because i have one about wheels for my c4s thanks

1 - Go to the 996 Forum 2 - Locate the link at the top of the page that says "Post Topic" 3 - Click the link

thanks brother... but why not 997 form just for curiosity

I thought you wanted to post about a 996 C4S. If you want to ask about the 997 C4S, then you should post to that forum.

????? This thread alive again? Geez. I'll go get a drink. Maybe in a drunken stupor I'll see a C2 pass a C4S

thanks alot for the info ray your the bizomb

This thread has been one of the most entertaining ways to spend a Friday evening. Palting your C4S does have an understeering cornering attitude in your signature. FWIW I prefer the neutral handling balance of BMW M3s. I drove a student's MY 99 996 C2 at speed at Putnam Park, and the understeer at Turn 7 (very slow right hander) was HUGE (compared with my E36 M3/4-door's handling). But what sold me on the MY 99 996 was the power-to-weight ratio--damn the 996 C2s are fast--and oh--those awesome brakes!

All i hear about is slower responsiveness and less performance....But my 996 C4 cab (heaviest of the bunch) with PSS9's handles like a dream! Its night and day compared to stock and is quite fun, and predictable. On a drive once a guy in a C2 was following me....we were on a high speed sweeper, i was doing about 110...everyone else except a few TTs slowed down....afterward the C2 guy said he felt the back end slipping and was shocked he couldnt do what I was doing..then he saw my car was a C4 and said oh..thats why....I think it probably had more to do with PSS9's but I thought it was interesteing....by the way my car felt like it could do it 20+ mph faster....I like the solid feel of the car at higher speeds....maybe an advatage of extra weight in the front....C2 Guys...stuff someone in your trunk and drive around for a few days and see if you like it....lol...

Unlike Jesus this thread has come back, let's get it going right. C4S is the best Porsche ever built, no wait best car ever built.

I could never get myself to pull the trigger on buying an M3. I always thought it was because the handling was so competent it was boring to me. A 996 going around a sweeper is so much more interesting. Yeah, a M3 (or Cayman or Boxster) might be easier to drive around that corner, but I'll take the 996 any day. It's an imperfect beast, but I love it for its imperfections.

Yeah, we bimmer M car owners can handle only so much excitement--especially in the wet with just two-wheel drive. Thankfully all M cars come with mechanical variable locking diffs as standard!

C2, lighter, faster, takes a real "man" to drive........ '99, the only good year!

Handy if you can turn off the BMW stability control which so often gives you the "what happened to the engine?" experience! Really, I think Bimmers are great. I wish I could get my wife to buy one to have one in the family.

Yes you can completely disable ASC/DSC, leaving only the mechanical locking rear diff operating, but you need to disable ASC/DSC every time you get into the car (stability control is on as the default setting). I leave stability control off in the rain--the E36 M3 is very controllable in the wet with only the locking diff driving the rear wheels. I'd love to add a P-car to my "family"--but I'd still track my E36 M3/4-door--it's more practical as a "track taxicab". With a full-size spare wheel/tire, there's no worry about ditching an entire DE weekend due to a flat. BMW parts are cheap (relative to P-car parts) and it's easier to walk away from a balled-up BMW E36 M3 should a catastrophic failure occur. Nevertheless, we can't deny the Porsche Carrera mystique.

Quotes source post: 3408654

why in the world would anybody put their porsche in that slop, i cringe when i see a picture of a porsche covered in snow, jus settin there helplessly, if you can afford a porsche, can't you buy something to drive when it's 6' of snow outside & 20 below, i know when i'm lookin at a car, thats one of the first questions i ask, wheres its from & has it been driven in those conditions.

Well of course you would, the only weather you have to worry about down there are hurricanes or the casual oil spill (the oil deal really sucks btw and I'm sorry for what it has done to your economy). I think the guys who have the C4's like driving the car year round is because that's what was meant by Porsche. Drive mine rain, shine, sleet and snow! Love the car everyday! But if you drive in 8" and up of snow you are a goner and time to phone a friend!

Have you even seen snow (or is it like capital letters for you)? Spend some time in the snow and you will understand... Most of us can afford a snow car, we choose to drive it in the snow, because these cars are able and fun in those conditions...

When it comes to "Best Handling" cars - a very old copy of Road and Track has Mr. Mario himself testing "the stickiest cars you can buy" - all the hot wheels of 1999. Which was "best" on the track...? the Carrera 4 according to The Master Mario. Yes I know they did not test a C2 - I assume because Porsche wanted Mario to drive their Best Handling Porsche at the time on Track. And now a disclosure: this note is from the new C4 owner who just loves his new TechArt equipped C4 and he admits you are all likely smarter than he but that is my 2 pennies worth.... And apologies if this was mentioned before but I just did not want to read all 400 pages of this post... :-)

I just came back from the track this weekend with my 2001 C2 Cab. One of my friends has a 2001 C4 with headers and an after marker exhaust system. Other than that, he claims same engine as mine and it does say 3.4L. For years people told me that the only thing that would make a performance change would be cats. In the more challenging curves, he is unstoppable and on the straight away he pulls away like a 3.8L and I don't get it. I am standing on the gas pedal. Then, after 3 runs he is almost empty and I have over 1/2 tank. Thinks that make me go hmmm.... I guess we are not that close friends because I know the C4 is nose heave because of the front wheel drive hardware, but I can't see it eating almost twice as much gas or the headers do that. There has to be something more than that. Is there ANY difference in the engine itself (same year)

You have a cab. Isn't it heavier then the C4. He may have 20 more hp and it may also have a ecu flash which may explain the fuel consumption. Usually the aftermarket exhaust system is a lot lighter then stock. I think one stock exhaust weights the same as both of the after market ones.

Jumper, I never looked into the weight, but if what you say is true, then that explains it. But I would not expect that much difference, but it is different. And his exhaust mods which people say that they dont' make a difference...it made a difference on this one. thanks.

Cab will be heavier and less rigid than a C4; all of that will add up to worse performance. His better performance in the turns will result in better speeds on the straights as he will exit with higher speed/rpms than you will. And while I am happy to assume that the driving skill was exactly equal, it is indeed within the range of possible outcomes that that might not be the case.

Here's what I found: Going from C2 to C4 adds just under 121 lbs. Going from coupe to cabriolet adds 165 lbs. (not including hard top). The Tiptronic transmission weighs roughly 99 lbs. more than the 6-speed (not sure if that applies here). I agree with the previous comments - your friend may have something like an ECU flash. He does have he same engine as you, other than the exhaust. Additionally, the AWD system in his car allows him to get onto the accelerator faster coming out of curves and get into the optimal power band faster than you. All these things work together and have a cumulative effect on the track. The C4S is approximately 385 lbs. heavier than a C2 from the same year, but the C4S was 4-seconds faster around the Nurburgring in Porsche's testing. It has exactly the same engine. The differences in suspension, brakes, AWD and wider tires make for a faster car overall.

Thanks, all these years and I thought 'cab' was lighter for some dumb reason....lol. it was bugging me all weekend and i know it was not the "it is not the arrow, but the indian", although his AWD gives him a heck of a lot more confidence entering 1st turn while I am looking for the apex and controlling my rear. I appreciate all the input.

And a note from someone who has the TechArt Headers & Exhaust system ... and... I think also the ECU Flash... (have not verified) my C4 is noticeably quicker than any other 996 I have driven. Throttle responce is quick and it revs to Redline fast. I have read in Excellence Mag, in an answer to a reader question about Exhaust systems - the response was that the TechArt system was one of only two tested upgrades that ever demonstrated real HP improvement. I assume with the ECU and Headers there is close to 20 HP more as advertised by TechArt, and you likely use more Petrol enjoying it.

Thanks Jacks...tempted to do the same thing to mine, but always have liked to keep it stock...need to get another one. thanks guys

This is the first all wheel drive car that I have owned and I really love the handling I take it to the canyons and without tires squeeling, it just smoothly glides through the turns as if it is driving itself. I really love driving this car

I'm still scoping mine out in comparison to my well known 09 CTT, but in real terms no squeal = too slow.

OK....the DMV told me that my VIN states that my car is a C4 (just got it). I was told it was a C2. Being too lazy to take off the under panels to look for a front differential....how can I tell which model I have? Sorry for the bone head question, but, hey...I need to know. Thanks for not laughing too hard!

does our frunk have this BIG bulge? if YES, then you have a C4.

I stuck my head under the front end...I cannot see anything going to the front wheels thet looks like a drive axle. Should I be able to see the Front Drive axels? Thanks

the difference in handling between an AWD vs RWD/FWD is second to none IMO.

I had an '82 SC and what I have now handily out performs it!?! So, C2? or, C4? I may run it up on my ramps and crawl under to see what I can find..........

quickest & easiest visual check is via the FRONT trunk(no need to look under but all up to you). pic below of a C2, note the absence of BULGE/BUMP