sold my M3 getting a 996 help guys

guys please help me out here what kind of performace # does a 2001 C4 pull.. 0-60 and 1/4 mile both standard and Tip... also how much faster is the C2? and how much faster is the 2002 model?.. is that 20HP noticable? worth the money to get a 2002?... also does reliabitly between the 3.4 and 3.6... which one is more trouble free.. i knwo the early model 3.4's have lots of issue.. how is the 2001 model? compare to 2002 3.6? any input and suggestion are greatly appreciated thanks

I have a sweet 2000 aero for sale....

6sp C2s 99 to 2001 0-60 5.0 to 4.8 secs 6sp C2s 02 to 04 0-60 4.9 to 4.6 secs tips are in the mid/high 5 secs 1/4 mile times for 6sp C2s are in the low 13s. For the tips high 13s remember that 911s are not about straight line performance only...

0-60 times for c2 and c4 should be about the same, although some magazines publish .1 sec quicker numbers for the C4. So if anything the C4 should be quicker, i imagine the C2 has a higher top speed, even if its just by 1 mph over a C4 due to the lower weight of the car. But as far as 0-60 they should be identical, and if not then the C2 would be just a shade slower. difference from manual to tiptronic will be .5 sec to 1 full second for 0-60. Auto's are always slower off the line especially.

Flat 6 Cheers,

WOW Car and driver, and Road and track have the 1999 model 996 doing 0-60 in 4.6 seconds! Is this true, I think Porsche lists 0-60 at 5.2. I figured they are good for 5 dead. But 4.6? WOW! thats quick!

The MkII 6 speed C2 is the quickest 996. The C4's are actually a hair slower due to weight and added driveline losses. Additionally, the C2 is quicker than an E46 M3. The quickest magazine times I have seen for the 320 hp C2 are 0-60 in 4.6, 0-100 in 10.1, 1/4 mile in 12.9 @ 112 mph. If someone has better times (from a reputable publication) for a stock e46 M3 post 'em up. (and no Ben, the CSL and the GTR don't count) Finally, the Mk II has a factory power kit available that brings horsepower up to 345. I have not seen a test of a powerkit car, but it would obviously be even quicker.

The '99 C2 has the fastest recorded numbers of all but gt3.

Killa in da house! Now we are only missing Ben.......

Lighter is better!

112 MPH with 320 hp doesnt seem right, that MPH usually requires around 350-375 HP. If a '02 can run that number though, that is impressive and that will be my next car for sure.

Not only did Car and Driver test the 1999 C2 at 4.6 secs, but EVO magazine (one of the big european mags) also tested it at 4.6, and I'm pretty sure another did as well. Throw some light weight weels (and light-weight tires, for that matter), and you'll see 4.5 or quicker. Crazy to think about. Remember that Porsche always lists times that pretty much any driver could achieve - easy-on-the-clutch types of starts and no power-shifting.

99 has less power but also weight less. 02+ has 20 more hp but weight more. They should be very identical in acceleration, but most people say they can feel the additional torque in 02+. Reliability wise, most people agree that the 3.6 is more reliable than the 3.4. But I haven't had any engine problem with my 3.4 and it's already got 80k miles. I think it's more of a financial decision. 99 is MUCH cheaper these days!

99 C2's also were the only ones available with a mechanical LSD.

The Mk II's only weigh 55 lbs more than the Mk I's. Additionally, the changes were more than just power..... - 20 extra hp (24 more than the '99) - more torque at a lower rpm (thanks to VarioCam Plus) - Better aerodynamics (20% less front lift and 40% less rear lift) - 20% stiffer chassis - improved interior - improved oiling (revised pan and baffles for better high g performance) - improved engine cooling (the newer cars run cooler as a result) - better fuel economy (1 mpg, but with $2.50 gas every bit helps) - improved suspension (reinforced strut towers, revised springs, shocks, bushings, and sway bars). - revised exhaust (better sound) - only a 55 lb weight gain over the '99-'01 cars

99 can hold its own... everybody likes to bash the 99's and says the 02 are better cars (arguably they are better in some ways and not in others) BUT lets remember that 02 MY was a complete redesign... so it's in the same boat as a 99! (both are new designs...) to say the 02 is better because it's evolved... is not true... its a NEW design... if you want the best 3.6 get the 04 MY.

A few points. - The '99 was a complete redesign. The Mk II is not. It is simply an improved Mk I (improved motor, chassis, interior, etc). It is not even close to a complete re-design, in fact the 997 is not a complete redesign (there is a lot of the 996 carried forward in the 997). - Where in my post above did I say to get an '02?? Where did I say not to buy a '99?? What I would say in general is buy the latest model you can afford. If pressed for the absolute best 996 (non Turbo or GT3) I would say one should buy the '03 40th anniversary edition (or an '04 C4S if you want AWD).

the MKII 996 was 80% new... to me that IS a complete redesign....

the 02 was just and improvement of an already awesome car.... anyone will be happy with either one..I dont think mkII are 80% new...I dont think even 997s are that much different than mkII 996s

Odoyle rules!

That's always relative. a BMW 3serie Coupe has e.g. 90% different parts than a sedan. Would you therefore say that's a totally different car? No, so even if Porsche changed 80% of the parts for their 996 MK2, it does only mean that the headlights, the MAF, the coolant tank, the bumperettes, ... are different but this doesn't make the car a different one. I'm sure a MY2000 is 25% different from a MY1999. Fact is that the 996 was an almost complete new car over the 993 but the MK2 was a facelift as well as the 997 is only a facelift of the original 996.

- Same chassis (only revised) - Same engine (only revised) - Same sheet metal except for front fenders - Same suspension with slight revisions - Same interior with slight revisions Obviously, Porsche made some major improvements but this falls way short of a complete redesign by industry standards. Wishing it were so, does not make it true.

I have an '03 C2 and I drove my friend's '99 C2 with a '01 reman engine (very tight), the extra hp and torque of the '03 are very noticeable. Having said that, it's as much fun driving the '99 too. I think a '99 is the deal of the century *IF* one can guarantee the engine is not problematic (and obviously the price of the '99's reflect that risk). - Ahsai

My car will outrun any '03 or '04, even the coveted 40th............ Odoyle rules! DB.

If you�re located in the North East I have a sweet 02 Carrera that I may be selling soon. 17K miles, loaded, and has a few extra parts like Bilstein coilovers, short throw, and Fabspeed exhaust that helps it go even quicker!

The reason for disparity in times is due to how much the tester is willing to abuse the car. I saw an insane time cited by C&D for a GT3 that was about .5 sec faster than that claimed by Porsche. C&D got the time by launching the GT3 at 6K RPM. Would you abuse your car like that just to beat some EVO? Actually what is far more telling is the 5-60 MPH times. This gives a far better indication of a car's true performance.

The 40th cars were '04 models, not '03.

Weird, isn't it? The first 911 was introduced in 1963, so 40 years would be 2003. However, I never understood the US way of defining model years anyhow. You call cars 2008 models but sell them as soon as in June 2007.

BTW, your M3 was slow, huh??? I killa da m3's all da time.

My mistake.

True, but almost all car publications test this way. I agree that 5-60 is a better measure, but it really hurts low torque cars like the S2000 the most.

Which would probably mean that modern diesel engine cars like the BMW 335d twin turbo with 286hp would outperform a lot of so called "sport cars"