what is an 'early' 3.4 996? - Page 5 - 911/Carrera GT - PistonHeads UK

Hi guys, Is there a month/year that indicates what an early 3.4 is? And does that engine generally not suffer bore score at all? I gather they have the dual row IMS so relatively safe? My thinking is outside the turbos... An until you get into gen 2 997, the rest have questionable potential to go wrong.... I like the shape of the 997, but really wouldn't take the gamble of a gen 1... Is an early 3.4 The 'safe' option? One of them with a factory aero kit in guards red sod be a nice keeper me thinks.....

Look for a cable throttle and you're good to go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3tCOVujF1M The iffy bits cmoose mentioned came along with the Fly by Wire. Edited by Raymondo2 on Sunday 23 April 19:10

Much appreciated guys..... I know the various issues you read online about the later 996, and gen 1 997 may only be a small % of cars... But given the chunk of change to fix vs. The purchase price.. The gamble doesn't really stack up for me Cable throttle aero knitted guards red 'early' !! 996 please!!

gixermark said: Much appreciated guys..... I know the various issues you read online about the later 996, and gen 1 997 may only be a small % of cars... But given the chunk of change to fix vs. The purchase price.. The gamble doesn't really stack up for me Cable throttle aero knitted guards red 'early' !! 996 please!! That spec's a bit wooly

Anecdotally, the 3.4 996 engines in all their variations are less problematic than the 3.4 Cayman, Boxster and the larger 996 engines. Personally I wouldn't get too hung up over "early" versus "late" on reliability alone. It was the early engines that "d-chunked" and the IMS bearings (yes, dual row as well) in the 2.5 & 3.4 engines that let go and led to Porsche acquiring a bad reputation with the m96. By now any engine that's survived is probably as good as any other, all else being equal (IMHO). IMS bearing seem to be the biggest problem (still only affecting relatively small numbers of cars). Preventative options are available. Replacement of the dual row can be problematic (some owners have reportedly found a replacement equivalent option now, apparently). Premature Bore scoring is not generallly an issue on any 996 3.4. With your spec you'll be waiting a very long time for the right car. Far more later cars (seemingly high specced 'run out' C4s) were specced with aero. But it's good to know what you want- just be realistic when you find a good car with a bit of a compromise on spec. Good luck.

https://drivetribe.com/p/WKW6lwqvQVujooTSvGoBdw?ii...

You don't see many Guards 996's about, an early one with factory aerokit could be like unicorn hunting!

Desert Dragon said: https://drivetribe.com/p/WKW6lwqvQVujooTSvGoBdw?ii...

Fast Bug said: You don't see many Guards 996's about, an early one with factory aerokit could be like unicorn hunting! Beat me to it. If you are set on that spec you may have to compromise on other things eg Tip/C4 etc May be better finding the right car & getting it wrapped if red is that important to you?

LordHaveMurci said: Fast Bug said: You don't see many Guards 996's about, an early one with factory aerokit could be like unicorn hunting! Beat me to it. If you are set on that spec you may have to compromise on other things eg Tip/C4 etc May be better finding the right car & getting it wrapped if red is that important to you? In the couole of years I sold new Porsche I think we sold 1 new Guards Red 911. People just didn't want it, we wouldn't buy used ones either for the same reason. I think we sold more Speed Yellow 911's whilst I was there...

I'm in no panic..... That is certainly my desired spec, should one come along... Lots more guards red gen 1 997s about, but personally I'd rather hoof up the extra cash and buy a gen 2 and be done... I gave saw a well priced gen 2 997, I just really don't want to spend that much ideally

Nearly found your unicorn... www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Red-Porsche-911-Carrera-4-996-/...

Certainly priced like a unicorn

As a long time lurker I thought now would be a good time to contribute as I too am growing increasingly attracted to the prospect of 996 ownership! Fast Bug said: Nearly found your unicorn... www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Red-Porsche-911-Carrera-4-996-/... I saw that one and another ad that was for a red one with GT3 kit, although typically I can't find it now! Have you seen these two? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PORSCHE-911-996-CARRERA-... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PORSCHE-911-996-CARRERA-... Collectively they offer close to what you're after . Not sure what's going on with the price of the red one. Was previously listed around £15-16k from memory. Has anyone had any experience with this trader? He normally has a reasonable stock of cars and the listings read well. I'm near Bedford so relatively local to me too. Edited by Greggy69 on Tuesday 25th April 18:51 Edited by Greggy69 on Tuesday 25th April 18:53

The guards one with twists and orange indicators is f***ing magnificent..

There's one on eBay with awful painted wheels.

£100K LOL. ISTR it said 14 grand the other day.

Not surprised, it looked like the ideal 996 for many people.

anonymous said: [redacted] Couldn't agree more, as an accountant I have looked at this proposition for a few friends and yes the only way to spend money is not to spend much money and just polish. Unfortunately that's why so many traders sell iffy cars, same as private just more expensive. Some very good garages do sort cars out before sale but they are the ones that do charge a premium. I've always thought the best purchase is from private seller that has ocd and maintains the car to a high standard.

That first one looked OK until I saw the interior colour! I couldn't live wth that tan colour... The silver one looks good... If that was the basalt blue I'd nearly compromise!

If this was red..... Would most likely be jumping... Even with this colour it's tempting How does this colour compare to basalt in the flesh? http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2017...

gixermark said: If this was red..... Would most likely be jumping... Even with this colour it's tempting How does this colour compare to basalt in the flesh? http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2017... That looks like a proper genuine car, not that keen on the colour or wheels, but someone will like it.

Basalt is black

Sorry! Meant cobalt blue!! 🙈

gixermark said: Sorry! Meant cobalt blue!! ?? It's like BMW Estoril blue but a touch darker. Nice colour, was a special order metallic

gixermark said: If this was red..... Would most likely be jumping... Even with this colour it's tempting How does this colour compare to basalt in the flesh? http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2017... Never mind red, at least it's a colour. That's my kind of car and a very keen price. As a C4 it won't have any "early" features but as I say above, IMHO, not worth getting hung up over. You're buying the car in front of you, not a list of things someone else tells you you need. Bet it's gone in a week.

griffter said: Never mind red, at least it's a colour. That's my kind of car and a very keen price. As a C4 it won't have any "early" features but as I say above, IMHO, not worth getting hung up over. You're buying the car in front of you, not a list of things someone else tells you you need. Bet it's gone in a week. It is very nice... What do you mean by bring a C4 it won't have any 'early' features?

griffter said: Never mind red, at least it's a colour. That's my kind of car and a very keen price. As a C4 it won't have any "early" features but as I say above, IMHO, not worth getting hung up over. You're buying the car in front of you, not a list of things someone else tells you you need. Bet it's gone in a week. It is very nice... What do you mean by bring a C4 it won't have any 'early' features?

gixermark said: griffter said: Never mind red, at least it's a colour. That's my kind of car and a very keen price. As a C4 it won't have any "early" features but as I say above, IMHO, not worth getting hung up over. You're buying the car in front of you, not a list of things someone else tells you you need. Bet it's gone in a week. It is very nice... What do you mean by bring a C4 it won't have any 'early' features? I'm not keen on Zenith. Early features like cable throttle is not available - maybe - on the C4. I know you could get PSM on the C4 so therefore it might be electronic throttle. All guesses!

As long as it's the 'safer' engine... Which it should be.. Then I'm ok, albeit would prefer a cable throttle, but by no means a deal breaker for me!

As has already been said, don't get too hung up on early vs late, buy the best you can find. I looked at quite a few and even the so called good ones needed at least £3k spending on them. In the end I bought one that had had the most common age related work done (even the youngest 3.4s are 16 years old): suspension refresh + geo (£2k+), clutch + IMS + RMS (£1.5k+), headers and mufflers (£1k+), brake lines (£300+), wheel refurb (£400-£800), brakes (£500), tyres (£600) etc. My car cost far more than I originally planned, but once I started looking I realised that cheap cars are cheap for a reason - the owner knows their are some big bills on the horizon. I would say that really good reasonable mileage manual 3.4s start at £16k (once you factor in the costs above), great low mileage ones are now £20k+. All will need money spending on them to a greater or lesser degree. ATM said: Early features like cable throttle is not available - maybe - on the C4. I know you could get PSM on the C4 so therefore it might be electronic throttle. All guesses! You are right - all C4s had PSM as standard, and drive-by-wire throttle. Unless you drive cable vs dbw throttle back to back, I would imagine most people couldn't tell the difference, especially as virtually all modern cars have dbw. You can buy a little gadget (Sprint Booster) for c.£150 that makes the dbw react faster if you like - people who have them seem to think they make a noticeable difference.

Very balanced & sensible advice - thanks

anonymous said: [redacted] You're right. I did the same. The potential profit in a 996 at least means you might wipe your face if you take a bath on a car, but the margins on 986s just aren't worth it. It is very easy to land a £3k bill just sorting out the snags that a lot of cars serviced on the cheap notch up. Brake discs, condensors, dads, exhausts, tensioners, solenoids, smart repairs to PUs. All add up to a lot of money. As you say, a trader tries to make money on both ends of the deal. Without that he could easily lose a chunk of money, Paul French has been salting decent cars away for the last couple of years now and with the price rises, he ought to be in a good position.

My MOT + minor service has turned into an engine out £4,000+ experience, and that's on top of ~£10k already spent. If you are serious about getting these cars into as good a condition as they can be it's (in my case, at least) proven to be an expensive proposition.

With some bodywork to address the striker plate corrosion etc I think I'll be at (including purchase price of the car) £30,000 for a 60k mile 996, with everything in A1 condition. That's choosing to replace the serviceable roof with a new one to "fix" the cloudy plastic window, so some of this is definitely elective, but the majority of the 4k on the latest trip to the garage is required (engine came out to replace the bust AOS, whilst it was out we split the trans off and found the clutch was about to go etc).

You can "fix" the clouding in the plastic rear window: But sadly it comes back as soon as you drop the roof, thereby folding the window over on itself, which is where the clouding occurs the most.

Dammit said: You can "fix" the clouding in the plastic rear window: But sadly it comes back as soon as you drop the roof, thereby folding the window over on itself, which is where the clouding occurs the most. I polished it with Autosol - you should've seen it when I first bought the car! Got your mail btw and will reply when near a PC Tuesday

Sorry for the delay in replying to you - I'm only at my laptop as we have a blizzard here in Colorado and I'm stuck in the hotel. They say the devil makes work for idle hands, so here it is - projected (with actual to date) costs for the first 12 months ownership of a 1998 996 911 cab (which, despite this, I really do like and intend on keeping until I can't get into it):

Dammit said: Sorry for the delay in replying to you - I'm only at my laptop as we have a blizzard here in Colorado and I'm stuck in the hotel. They say the devil makes work for idle hands, so here it is - projected (with actual to date) costs for the first 12 months ownership of a 1998 996 911 cab (which, despite this, I really do like and intend on keeping until I can't get into it): Is that purchase price correct?...it's not what Bosse told me...

No leaks at all?

Considering the price difference and variation in quality in stitching in a new window I would suggest simply getting a new roof installed is the best way forward. There is also a heated glass option which again is much better than the original plastic item.

rubystone said: Is that purchase price correct?...it's not what Bosse told me... Depends on when you spoke with him - we had agreed on £13,500, then the garage that Bosse took it to for the PPI came back with the projected invoice (which you saw), and I found myself in a difficult situation. I had allowed £15,000 for the purchase of the car and any necessary work, which I was up front about with Bosse, he then changed his offer to accommodate said work - which was such a decent, generous action that I committed to buying the car at once. That the work identified and done by Precision was almost two grand more than BSG had identified was somewhat annoying, but that's life I guess - some of the items were only identified after they'd fixed others for e.g.

ras62 said: Considering the price difference and variation in quality in stitching in a new window I would suggest simply getting a new roof installed is the best way forward. There is also a heated glass option which again is much better than the original plastic item. That's the option I've priced up, and is in the doc I attached.

2k is very expensive? Roof installed is only £800 give or take. Mind they may be southern Porsche prices judging by what you've been charged for other work.

£999+VAT for roof, supply and fit, roof to be dark blue BAS with heated glass screen £165 +VAT remove and cover in matching blue hood material the rear roll bar covers, side flaps and main center trim panel so that it matches the roof (very obvious colour difference on these parts against the roof when roof stowed) £150+VAT strip front seats and remove backs ready for paintwork, delivering and collection of items from paint shop and re-fitting to seats as required Which puts the roof replacement (and seat strip/delivery) at £1,314, which with VAT gives us £1,576.80. I'm guessing that sanding back, filling, priming and painting the hardbacks for the seats in Arctic Silver to match the body would be ~£400. I would of course be happy if it were to be less than that.

Just shows the devil really is always in the detail. Always amazes me how people are so focussed on getting 1k off the asking price but not so bothered about spending £300 to get a good ppi. I think though prices paid for work and parts etcs is directly proportional to the amount of time you have available to do research and some diy yourself.

My 2001 c2, manual coupe has been with me 14 months. Bought privately for 13k, with 88k and a major engine rebuild at Porsche Reading in 2010 at 60k miles it was my ideal spec / no sunroof / extended black leather & basalt black paint. Car graphic exhaust. I have purposely not added up the spend so far, but it has had : 2 services, expansion tank & coolant, gearbox flush and fresh oil, radiator grills, engine mounts, wheel refurb and new michelins, new disks and pads, low temp thermostat, precautionary water pump. Some suspension fettling and alignment at Center Gravity. Total spend is certainly well into the high teens, maybe close to 20k. Definitely more than I could sell it for anyway - and that is fine. I like it a lot.

Friend is having the same done on his Cab but the prices are several hundered less incl the VAT than those prices. BAS hood is 760 in total plus fitting. It sounds like a nice hood and a big improvement with the glass window.

Dammit said: Depends on when you spoke with him - we had agreed on £13,500, then the garage that Bosse took it to for the PPI came back with the projected invoice (which you saw), and I found myself in a difficult situation. I had allowed £15,000 for the purchase of the car and any necessary work, which I was up front about with Bosse, he then changed his offer to accommodate said work - which was such a decent, generous action that I committed to buying the car at once. That the work identified and done by Precision was almost two grand more than BSG had identified was somewhat annoying, but that's life I guess - some of the items were only identified after they'd fixed others for e.g. Yes, he told me about the £13,500 figure. What a decent bloke.

gixermark said: It is very nice... What do you mean by bring a C4 it won't have any 'early' features? It will have the electronic throttle, electronic boot and bonnet release, I'm pretty sure it'll have the three spoke steering wheel and I'm pretty sure the C4 didn't come with amber front indicators. No one can be sure on the IMS bearing. None of these matter in practice IMHO. There's a sort of "flat floor roadster" appeal to having all the early features, but there are advantages to the updates as well. As I say, I would suggest assessing the car in front of you on its merits.

griffter said: It will have the electronic throttle, electronic boot and bonnet release, I'm pretty sure it'll have the three spoke steering wheel and I'm pretty sure the C4 didn't come with amber front indicators. No one can be sure on the IMS bearing. None of these matter in practice IMHO. My '99 C4 had manual boot / bonnet release and 4-spoke steering wheel - I think those were just an early thing rather than C2/C4. I do have the clear indicators tho and the revised rear lights. Edited by skinny on Sunday 30th April 22:20

skinny said: My '99 C4 had manual boot / bonnet release and 4-spoke steering wheel - I think those were just an early thing rather than C2/C4. I do have the clear indicators tho and the revised rear lights. Edited by skinny on Sunday 30th April 22:20 That's interesting. I assumed the updates to other bits coincided with the introduction of the C4. More important than ever to assess the car in front of you on its merits then!

As this is the thread that I'd mentioned my 3.4 cab ownership costs I thought I'd update, I have the invoice from Precision for the latest work (which may change but not by a huge amount as they double check the list of parts) so I've changed my estimate to reflect reality: So I can confirm that so far it's been more expensive to own an 18 year old 996 than it would have been to buy a brand new 991, if I'd financed it. I'm really very hopeful that the spending will tail off now as we've attended to suspension, brakes, engine and I have bodywork and hood planned in. I am still planning on getting a Hartech rebuild, but that'll be in a couple of years (I'd hope!) as I approach 80,000 miles. With that added to the tally we'd be looking at the £40,000 996.

Dammit said: As this is the thread that I'd mentioned my 3.4 cab ownership costs I thought I'd update, I have the invoice from Precision for the latest work (which may change but not by a huge amount as they double check the list of parts) so I've changed my estimate to reflect reality: So I can confirm that so far it's been more expensive to own an 18 year old 996 than it would have been to buy a brand new 991, if I'd financed it. I'm really very hopeful that the spending will tail off now as we've attended to suspension, brakes, engine and I have bodywork and hood planned in. I am still planning on getting a Hartech rebuild, but that'll be in a couple of years (I'd hope!) as I approach 80,000 miles. With that added to the tally we'd be looking at the £40,000 996. Dammit said: So I can confirm that so far it's been more expensive to own an 18 year old 996 than it would have been to buy a brand new 991, if I'd financed it. Might just be me missing something ? (I've not read the whole thread) but that paints rather an "unfair" and pessimistic picture of the 996 running costs. And it sounds like you've gone for an open chequebook, rather than a more pragmatic approach too possibly ? ? I wouldn't term accident damage a "normal" Porsche 996 running expense..... Roof replacement, bodywork and paint/painting seat backs is required because ? the previous owner/s weren't careful/diligent ? or they're a wear item ? Centre console delete and Becker supply/fitting, Well technically that's not a running cost, surely it's more of an upgrade? PPI is an "expense" you'd expect to pay irrespective of the car you buy (and probably the best £250 you'll spend on any car !!) Tyres are a wear item on any car. I'd like to know what you got for your £6k suspension overhaul ..... Ohlins and RSS adjustable toe, camber and caster arms everywhere I'd hope ? I'd go on, but I think you get the point

Its still 13k onto a 10k car tho ignoring the elective stuff. Im probably only 5k required into mine and 5k elective. I suspect over the next year I'll need another 5-7k on suspension and exhaust and service stuff like plugs etc. Highlights the importance of knowing what you're getting into. Try to find something where the previous owner has spent the money. Or at least be aware of what it needs and take that into account in purchase price. However the difference between a fully sorted car and a car that needs refreshing will always be less than the cost of the refresh

I've chucked a grand at mine since I bought it on a big service, MOT, thorough check over and a few little bits here and there. If I was being hypercritical I'd want to paint the passenger door and roof and the steering wheel will be retrimmed in the next few weeks, but nothing that I would count as 'normal' running costs It even scrubs up ok

Dammit said: As this is the thread that I'd mentioned my 3.4 cab ownership costs I thought I'd update, I have the invoice from Precision for the latest work (which may change but not by a huge amount as they double check the list of parts) so I've changed my estimate to reflect reality: So I can confirm that so far it's been more expensive to own an 18 year old 996 than it would have been to buy a brand new 991, if I'd financed it. I'm really very hopeful that the spending will tail off now as we've attended to suspension, brakes, engine and I have bodywork and hood planned in. I am still planning on getting a Hartech rebuild, but that'll be in a couple of years (I'd hope!) as I approach 80,000 miles. With that added to the tally we'd be looking at the £40,000 996. Quite unbelievable I take it the pre-purchase inspection didn't throw up any of this work to be done, but if it did, then surely you would walk away from a possible £20k after purchase spend.

The PPI identified ~£4,500 of it, which was factored into the purchase price of the car. A couple of things to note - this is, as has been observed, not the route that everyone would take with their car. Everything that Precision Porsche have identified as needing changing/fixing has been done - a lot of owners would have left stuff (they said), although to do so would have been to (in my view) compromise the car (a large chunk of the bill I called "suspension etc" was to get the air-conditioning working again, for example, which isn't required for the car to work). Does the roof need changing? No, not really - the rear window is fogged and that's annoying me, it's reached an age when it's gone beyond it's elastic limit I think (warning: wrong terms being used) and therefore whenever it flexes it fogs more. Will painting the seat backs change the way they work? No, it'll get rid of the deep scratches in the backs that resulted from an incident with (I am told) the wind-deflector. The bodywork is required to address corrosion - the dissimilar metal issue under the door striker plates and the boot lid, but the cost of tackling that was two thirds the cost of a complete respray and would mean no blending the front in, no blending half way along the doors etc. Did I have to do everything I've done and will do? No, in the same way that Heathrow Airport Parking crashing my car isn't a typical running expense (one would hope!) that any 996 owner should expect. But these are the costs, honestly recorded, of getting the car to A1 condition, which is why I thought it might be interesting to mention.

I spent a lot more than you on buying my 996 and have spent a lot less on keeping it 100% operational and in excellent condition. I'm not sure buying cheap always works out cheap.

I expect that that is true- however amber indicator/cable throttle/dual row cars are rare- I bought the best available at the time.

Rare? Adding criteria like the colour of the indicator to justify calling a mainstream 911 rare is a bit silly. They are not rare. You are saying you bought the best available and look at how much I've spent on it getting the car to a standard Im happy with. By implication you are saying other cars will not be "the best I could find" standard and will need a fortune spent. That again is nosense.

I drove mine for 2 years every day and in 20k miles I added to it I haven't spent more than 2 grand. For perspective

ras62 said: Rare? Adding criteria like the colour of the indicator to justify calling a mainstream 911 rare is a bit silly. They are not rare. You are saying you bought the best available and look at how much I've spent on it getting the car to a standard Im happy with. By implication you are saying other cars will not be "the best I could find" standard and will need a fortune spent. That again is nosense. Would you prefer me to use another term for "something of which there are few available"? Have a look and let me know how many cars there are, in the UK, currently for sale that meet this criteria: Amber indicator Cable throttle Dual row IMS 3 spoke steering wheel Hard back sports seats LSD Extended leather Door speakers/amp package ~60,000 miles FSH You can pick cab or coupe.

You could have mine for £20k

If it's not currently listed for sale then Ras62 doesn't get to claim it when defending his assertion. The other thing to bear in mind was that I had a limit of 15k to buy the car and get it to A1 condition - which now looks silly, but I thought it possible at the time. So I was looking for all of the above list of attributes in a car for 15k or less.

Ah, I'd forgotten about the heated seats- well done, you can add value to a conversation even if it is clearly inadvertent.

Dammit, I take my hat off to you. You've managed to buy a rare Porsche for £9500. If only it had a salmon pink interior, a body kit or heated seats you would probably say it was unique! Edited by ras62 on Thursday 11th May 12:39

Dammit said: Would you prefer me to use another term for "something of which there are few available"? Have a look and let me know how many cars there are, in the UK, currently for sale that meet this criteria: Amber indicator Cable throttle Dual row IMS 3 spoke steering wheel Hard back sports seats LSD Extended leather Door speakers/amp package ~60,000 miles FSH You can pick cab or coupe. I'd want manual too and definitely not a cab. The one I bought doesn't have - Hard back sports seats LSD Extended leather Door speakers/amp package ~60,000 miles FSH Also the lights have been de-ambered which is a shame. I've decided the LSD is only strictly necessary for - donuts giving it full beans from a standing start with any steering applied to the front wheels relatively large throttle in the wet in 2nd exiting a tight bend

Looks very nice, I think the 996.1 shape is better resolved than the 996.2 that came after, I also really like those wheels - although I would say that as I've just put a set on my car. One of my conditions was indeed that it had to be a manual - I've clearly become forgetful in my old age.

ATM said: I'd want manual too and definitely not a cab. The one I bought doesn't have - Hard back sports seats LSD Extended leather Door speakers/amp package ~60,000 miles FSH Also the lights have been de-ambered which is a shame. I've decided the LSD is only strictly necessary for - donuts giving it full beans from a standing start with any steering applied to the front wheels relatively large throttle in the wet in 2nd exiting a tight bend Mine doesn't have LSD (to my knowledge anyway), in the 8yrs I have owned it & driven it in a spirited fashion I have never missed it. From what I've read they are highly unlikely to work properly at this age anyway.

I asked Precision to check that as I'd (also) read that the plates were likely to have worn out by now, they gave it a clean bill of (fully operational) health though.

Raymondo2 said: Can I play? 1999 3.4 C2 Arctic Silver 6 Sp Manual Cable Throttle M030 Suspension LSD Selectable TC Factory Sunroof delete Hardback Sport Seats Litronic lights Oh and three spoke wheel No get out

Sorry

Raymondo2 said: Sorry Ok come back. But stop telling people you have Selectable TC. This looks nice but not strictly early - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/322511549343 2000 C2 Manual Aerokit M030 FSH 6 stamps! £16,250.00

Also, given the most recent service the car may attempt to drive into multiple Olympic medal winners if it spots one.

Raymondo2 said: Can I play? 1999 3.4 C2 Arctic Silver 6 Sp Manual Cable Throttle M030 Suspension LSD Selectable TC Factory Sunroof delete Hardback Sport Seats Litronic lights Oh and three spoke wheel Nice spec, Raymondo

Fast Bug said: I've chucked a grand at mine since I bought it on a big service, MOT, thorough check over and a few little bits here and there. If I was being hypercritical I'd want to paint the passenger door and roof and the steering wheel will be retrimmed in the next few weeks, but nothing that I would count as 'normal' running costs It even scrubs up ok Was it you who was looking for new rear tyres recently?

ATM said: Was it you who was looking for new rear tyres recently? Might have been me. My summer tyres are narrower than my winters and the rear wheels look a little lost in the arches now. I was going to fit some spacers, but I may wait a few months and change the wheels and have those as a winter set and see what width I can fit under the arches

Here's mine. Owned for a few months now. No bills yet but booked into Hartech for a 'Gold Major' service soon so expecting some costs! 99 C4 with factory X51

Didn't they only do the orange indicators for one year? So it's probably fairly uncommon amongst 996's. As for options, I think I must win the prize for options. I think I have 2, my sticker is pretty much empty!! All I cared about was manual, dark colour, and black interior. Mileage didn't bother me and actually I needed the post 100k price depression to get what I wanted for my budget. Ended up with a completely basic spec but mechanically its solid, and I've added the 3-spoke steering wheel, double din sat nav, and body coloured hard back sports seats to make it feel slightly less poverty Edited by skinny on Thursday 11th May 20:10

I guess 1997 qualifies as an early 996...

'98 C2. Sport Design wheels. As simple and un-cluttered as they come.

That's spot on, and the car I'd have bought if I could have found one at the time. Here's the one I did buy:

Dammit said: I expect that that is true- however amber indicator/cable throttle/dual row cars are rare- I bought the best available at the time. I've read your thread on 911uk and I take my hat off to you. We each started out with very similar criteria although I wasn't fussed on the IMS bearing, the indicators or the cable throttle. But I did want the aero kit! In the end I compromised by buying a C4 with all the options I wanted and none I didn't. Anyway that's off topic because mine is not an "early" 3.4...

Dammit said: That's spot on, and the car I'd have bought if I could have found one at the time. Here's the one I did buy: I like these original 17 wheels. What's going on with the headlight wash - is that an option?

ATM said: I like these original 17 wheels. What's going on with the headlight wash - is that an option? Yep, the car had a lot of options applied by whoever ordered it, the headlight washer (option code 288) on the drivers side was around £270 of the most recent bill as it started leaking, rather unfortunately - now back to factory fresh however. Edited by Dammit on Friday 12th May 09:13

Had mine about two years, Carrera 2, aero cup kit, GT3 wheels, lowered, manual, cable throttle, LSD, 3 spoke wheel and hard back seats with extended leather. I love it!!!! Edited by st165andy on Friday 12th May 10:11 Edited by st165andy on Friday 12th May 10:19

Mine has LSD, extended leather, 3 spoke steering wheel and the BOSE stereo. Are you guys aware there's a Facebook group for 996's? 'The 996 Carrera Owners Page', there are some horror shows on there, but some handy info too Dammit said: That's spot on, and the car I'd have bought if I could have found one at the time. Here's the one I did buy: They're later wheels aren't they?

Gman77 said: I guess 1997 qualifies as an early 996... That looks outstanding - have you any more pictures? I certainly haven't seen another black / amber car! Some 'interesting' comments in this thread. Mine's here, https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... Sport package - sport seats, LSD, M030 suspension Traction control 18" alloy wheels 3 spoke steering wheel Uprated Hi-fi sound system Trip computer I think people are being too fussy with the spec of these cars. The sound system for one is ancient! Suspension is likely past it's best whether standard or M030. Edited by mmcd87 on Friday 12th May 12:17

Mine's just waiting for an amber refit.. (I have established it was ordered with clears from the factory, even though it's a '99 C2). I have sourced the headlights & am now on the lookout for a good set of rear lights.

Fast Bug said: They're later wheels aren't they? Yep, I think they came on the 3.6 Targa's. These are now on the car: Which I believe were available at the right time (but I may be wrong on this).

Dammit said: Fast Bug said: They're later wheels aren't they? Yep, I think they came on the 3.6 Targa's. Which I believe were available at the right time (but I may be wrong on this). That's it, Targa wheels! I've been racking my brain thinking what they were off of. The Carreras you've got on now were optional on the 996.2 As a side note, that 993 looks great in Guards with Carreras!

Fast Bug said: Dammit said: Fast Bug said: They're later wheels aren't they? Yep, I think they came on the 3.6 Targa's. Which I believe were available at the right time (but I may be wrong on this). That's it, Targa wheels! I've been racking my brain thinking what they were off of. The Carreras you've got on now were optional on the 996.2 As a side note, that 993 looks great in Guards with Carreras! Gentlemen If it's detail you need then here it comes: The 5 spoke 'Carreras' were available on the 996.2 - Fast Bug is correct. They were also available on the facelift 986 or 986.2 however they were different sizes. On the 986 Boxster they were 7.5 inch and 9. On the 996.2 they were 8 and 10 inch and came with a 285 30 rear tyre. I dont have these on my car, I have the 997 18 inch wheels which are cheap because no one wants 18 inch wheels on their 997. They came on my car. They are 8 inch and 10 inch. I think they're available wider - perhaps 10.5 - for the wider body and these came with a 295 tyre as per Fast Bug's blue car. Do you have 295 Winters Fast Bug or should that be Fat Bug?

Mine are the 8"/10" pair, with 285/30's on the rear. Not that I've seen them yet - I collect the car tomorrow all being well.

Two good site for wheel info: http://www.wheelenhancement.com/index.php?t=Wheels http://www.944racing.de/felgengewichte.php

Mine had 295 winters on the back which looked a lot better than the 265s it's rocking now. I'm tempted to pop the winter tyres on this set of wheels full time and get a set of these As much as I'd like a set of BBS LM, I can't justify the outlay at the moment

Fast Bug said: Mine had 295 winters on the back which looked a lot better than the 265s it's rocking now. I'm tempted to pop the winter tyres on this set of wheels full time and get a set of these As much as I'd like a set of BBS LM, I can't justify the outlay at the moment These look like 19 inch 9x7 Carrera Classics.

They are indeed. 11" rears, I have seen them on a narrow body 996 before and the guy said he didn't have any issues with clearance.

Fast Bug said: They are indeed. 11" rears, I have seen them on a narrow body 996 before and the guy said he didn't have any issues with clearance. These are available in a smaller 9.5 for the Mid engine cars.

anonymous said: [redacted] Thanks both for your comments. Will bear that in mind when I'm in a position to seriously consider a purchase. Hope to have the necessary funds in a few months .

Fast Bug said: I've a friend with a 991 GT3, when you're in it and he floors, it the most shocking thing is how quickly it drops several gears. The new auto gearboxes are rapid with gear changes. By the time you've put your foot on the clutch they're already in the right gear. If you were in the right gear, in the power band I'm sure you would've failed a lot better. Rest assured though, your cat looks much better than the BMW yeah the gear shifts definitely cost you a lot - especially as while I am shifting fast, I still ensure I did not just get third instead of fifth and blow it up. The BMW did look quite good, was some purple colour on NL plates. They are heavy, I looked it up - something like 1.7 to 1.8 tonnes for a small car - bloody hell. Mine sounded a lot nicer though :-) I do have to exit via the passenger door nowadays as the window drops in a weird way and rips the rear quarter window out when it is closed and you open the door - ah well, the peculiarities of old cars. I did 2.5k km in the last month in it, so it did get some exercise.

MDL111 said: random 996 observation - I had an M2 behind me yesterday and even though I revved 4th and 5th out, he was still on my bumper at 230ish or thereabouts (possibly a little faster) - those things are surprisingly fast (it was the latest model, not sure which version it was, but I think it should have a worse or at best the same power to weight compared to my car). Maybe he gained most on the faster gear changes, not sure (or it was a lighter/more powerful version, did not pay attention to that). Twin turbo 3.0L 460hp, turbo engines allied to an 8 speed ZF 'box do tend to be "quite sprightly" ...

MDL111 said: random 996 observation - I had an M2 behind me yesterday and even though I revved 4th and 5th out, he was still on my bumper at 230ish or thereabouts (possibly a little faster) - those things are surprisingly fast (it was the latest model, not sure which version it was, but I think it should have a worse or at best the same power to weight compared to my car). Maybe he gained most on the faster gear changes, not sure (or it was a lighter/more powerful version, did not pay attention to that). The faster you’re going, the less relevant power to weight is. Overcoming drag becomes the limiting factor and the M2’s power to drag ratio advantage will grow and grow as the speed climbs. It’s also worth noting that a 996 will have a relatively narrow peak power to weight band in the rev range of the engine. On paper a lightened 996 may have comparable power to weight to current model M2. But that’s peak power which only arrives at a specific rpm. You’re only at or very near peak power for a fleeting moment. In a turbo car like the M2, they have these massive torque plateaus that effectively mean they’re nearer peak acceleration over a broader section of the rev range. In other words, your 996’s peak acceleration for a brief moment in each of, say, second and third gear before wind resistance takes over may be similar. But for most of the acceleration run even in those lower gears, the M2 will have far more thrust. And up well above 100mph where it’s all about overcoming drag, I would think you’ll be absolute toast.

And a shed load of torque.

housemouse said: MDL111 said: random 996 observation - I had an M2 behind me yesterday and even though I revved 4th and 5th out, he was still on my bumper at 230ish or thereabouts (possibly a little faster) - those things are surprisingly fast (it was the latest model, not sure which version it was, but I think it should have a worse or at best the same power to weight compared to my car). Maybe he gained most on the faster gear changes, not sure (or it was a lighter/more powerful version, did not pay attention to that). The faster you re going, the less relevant power to weight is. Overcoming drag becomes the limiting factor and the M2 s power to drag ratio advantage will grow and grow as the speed climbs. It s also worth noting that a 996 will have a relatively narrow peak power to weight band in the rev range of the engine. On paper a lightened 996 may have comparable power to weight to current model M2. But that s peak power which only arrives at a specific rpm. You re only at or very near peak power for a fleeting moment. In a turbo car like the M2, they have these massive torque plateaus that effectively mean they re nearer peak acceleration over a broader section of the rev range. In other words, your 996 s peak acceleration for a brief moment in each of, say, second and third gear before wind resistance takes over may be similar. But for most of the acceleration run even in those lower gears, the M2 will have far more thrust. And up well above 100mph where it s all about overcoming drag, I would think you ll be absolute toast. toast describes it quite well :-) angry looking front bumper those M2s

Angry is one way to describe them. Ugly would be another.

I had a 330d keeping me honest on a slip road full-blast acceleration a few weeks ago. At least I hope it was a 330d, and not a 320d!!

My brother has a 330e. I doubt my 996 would keep up with it until well in to 3 figures.

Chris Stott said: Angry is one way to describe them. Ugly would be another. Ugly looking back and front ends. Possibly angry too, but definitely ugly.

Chris Stott said: My brother has a 330e. I doubt my 996 would keep up with it until well in to 3 figures. I've had a couple of 1M Coupes, with their N54 335hp twin turbo six pot 3.0L, and with a time limited factory overboost facility, it had 370 torques (and some say the true hp figure was closer to 355-360hp than 335. Irrespective, it would run rings around my 996.2 in snap overtaking situations.

Slippydiff said: Chris Stott said: Angry is one way to describe them. Ugly would be another. Ugly looking back and front ends. Possibly angry too, but definitely ugly. they are not the prettiest cars (then again, which modern BMW is ....).

996 T with X50 https://collectingcars.com/for-sale/2004-porsche-9...

Apologies if this isn't the right place to ask, but rather than start a new Thread I was wondering if anyone on here has moved from a Honda S2000 to a 996 Carrera? It seems this is where most of the 996 info & enthusiasts reside! I know they are quite different in character, and I did test drive a 996 Carrera 4 around 5 years ago but decided to stick with the S2000 at that time - As I've had the Honda a lot longer now and I'm being tempted away from it into something a bit more of a 'GT' in character with a less peaky powerband and a bit more comfort (but still engaging on a nice quiet road across the countryside). Other than corrosion the S2000 has required minimal outgoings, I know parts will be more on a 996 but what would people say was a reasonable slush-fund to run one and keep on top of preventative maintenance items, suspension bushes and the like to keep it driving well? In terms of model, I'm really just drawn to an early Carrera 2 (wouldn't rule out a 4) - I like the narrow body and simple lines rather than a later car or a 4S.

How much really depends on how good it is when you buy it and how much you use it. I used mine as a daily for many years (10k+ miles a year) and it cost £2k+ a year. Some years I may have got away with just a service, but then it would throw a big bill the year after, like a gearbox rebuild, or the manifolds, or a part suspension refresh. Stuff to look for... You need to check for rust on the early cars... front chassis legs, rear of the cills behind the black plastic trim, rear wheel arches. Brake lines... rust over time. There's one over the top of the engine that's a bit of a bigger to replace. Coolant hoses and fittings... fittings rust and hose go brittle Clutch and RMS... clutch can last well over 100k miles with sympathetic use, but not a cheap job to replace. Exhaust manifolds... the studs rust and it becomes a nightmare job to get them out. Suspension work... the drive is ruined by worn coffin arms, top mounts and toe control arms. They are also quite sensitive to poor alignment. Gearbox and pinion bearing... expensive rebuild. Radiators and AC... last maybe 100k Window regulators, ignition barrel, door locks can also be a pain. 3.4's with a manual 'box are relatively robust. Might get a bit of smoke on cold start up but nothing to worry about (they all do that sir). Rattle from cold start is timing chain tensioners, but shouldn't be an issue until high miles.

Chris Stott said: How much really depends on how good it is when you buy it and how much you use it. I used mine as a daily for many years (10k+ miles a year) and it cost £2k+ a year. Some years I may have got away with just a service, but then it would throw a big bill the year after, like a gearbox rebuild, or the manifolds, or a part suspension refresh. Stuff to look for... You need to check for rust on the early cars... front chassis legs, rear of the cills behind the black plastic trim, rear wheel arches. Brake lines... rust over time. There's one over the top of the engine that's a bit of a bigger to replace. Coolant hoses and fittings... fittings rust and hose go brittle Clutch and RMS... clutch can last well over 100k miles with sympathetic use, but not a cheap job to replace . Exhaust manifolds... the studs rust and it becomes a nightmare job to get them out. Suspension work... the drive is ruined by worn coffin arms, top mounts and toe control arms. They are also quite sensitive to poor alignment. Gearbox and pinion bearing... expensive rebuild. Radiators and AC... last maybe 100k Window regulators, ignition barrel, door locks can also be a pain. 3.4's with a manual 'box are relatively robust. Might get a bit of smoke on cold start up but nothing to worry about (they all do that sir). Rattle from cold start is timing chain tensioners, but shouldn't be an issue until high miles. Can confirm this, having collected my car yesterday. It had a new clutch kit, clutch fork, release bearing and slave cylinder fitted. Not cheap !!

I had the brake line that goes over the box replaced at the same time when I had my clutch and flywheel replaced. It looked okayish, but just made sense to do it at the same time

Fast Bug said: I had the brake line that goes over the box replaced at the same time when I had my clutch and flywheel replaced. It looked okayish, but just made sense to do it at the same time The list of "Whilst you're in there" jobs is a long and expensive one !!

Slippydiff said: Fast Bug said: I had the brake line that goes over the box replaced at the same time when I had my clutch and flywheel replaced. It looked okayish, but just made sense to do it at the same time The list of "Whilst you're in there" jobs is a long and expensive one !! I'm can laugh because I've been there... some of the jobs are 2nd or 3rd time around on mine.

Slippydiff said: The list of "Whilst you're in there" jobs is a long and expensive one !! Tbh the 'whilst you're there jobs' usually save you money in the long run. It just doesn't feel like it at the time

MDL111 said: random 996 observation - I had an M2 behind me yesterday and even though I revved 4th and 5th out, he was still on my bumper at 230ish or thereabouts (possibly a little faster) - those things are surprisingly fast (it was the latest model, not sure which version it was, but I think it should have a worse or at best the same power to weight compared to my car). Maybe he gained most on the faster gear changes, not sure (or it was a lighter/more powerful version, did not pay attention to that). I have both a 1999 manual C2 coupe, and a 2026 M2 which is my daily driver. I m surprised that you are surprised by how fast a modern BMW M car is to compared to an old Porsche. Quite frankly the gap in performance between them is vast, the M2 would leave the 996 for dust in any given situation. But, it s nearly 30 years newer, so by rights it blooming well should do. It s kind of not the point though is it? The 996 is a joy to drive and engage with, it has little in the way of electronic drivers aids, it s a very analogue experience and it s a classic. The M2, quite honestly is a fantastic motor car to drive, how they ve managed to make a heavy car feel so nimble and responsive I will never know. Unfortunately, the 996 does spend a lot more time in the garage now because of this, but it s not completely redundant. And on the looks, well the M2 is an acquired taste I ll admit, but let s not forget, despite our growing appreciation of it now, the 996 wasn’t exactly considered to be a beauty queen for a long time.. Edited by beanoir78 on Saturday 12th September 10:22

I was just surprised how fast it accelerated as the power to weight compared to my car is not dissimilar / if anything I think the 996 has a better power to weight albeit it is close (and at the speeds we were doing, traction was not relevant). I guess it is the turbo punch and the fast transmission

and both of those cars look rather nice :-)

A higher-miles 996 repping hard in E6 of the grand tour, and giving a good account of itself.

MDL111 said: I was just surprised how fast it accelerated as the power to weight compared to my car is not dissimilar / if anything I think the 996 has a better power to weight albeit it is close (and at the speeds we were doing, traction was not relevant). I guess it is the turbo punch and the fast transmission I’m not sure about that…. the M2 has around 50hp per ton advantage, and that’s if you assume the book figures, in reality an LCi M2 probably makes more power than the standard 480 it says on paper, and a 25 year old 996 probably makes less. At speed, absolute power also matters more than how much the car weighs. You only have to look at 0-100mph times of both cars, there is a 2 second difference, and that’s huge.

The LCi M2 has close to 450 torques, that's 996 Turbo X50/996 GT2 levels of torque. That allied to the M2's far superior power to weight ratio would make for a car that would be a lot more accelerative than a 3.4 996, irrespective of it's weight loss program. But when you add an 8 speed ZF transmission into the mix, with ratios finely optimised to the engine's torque and power curves, the M2 would romp away, and effortlessly so. However when it comes to tactility, engagement and actually being part of the analogue driving experience without any interference from electronic nannies, the 996 then romps away from the BMW ...

Slippydiff said: The LCi M2 has close to 450 torques, that's 996 Turbo X50/996 GT2 levels of torque. That allied to the M2's far superior power to weight ratio would make for a car that would be a lot more accelerative than a 3.4 996, irrespective of it's weight loss program. But when you add an 8 speed ZF transmission into the mix, with ratios finely optimised to the engine's torque and power curves, the M2 would romp away, and effortlessly so. However when it comes to tactility, engagement and actually being part of the analogue driving experience without any interference from electronic nannies, the 996 then romps away from the BMW ... A perfect 2 car garage

beanoir78 said: MDL111 said: I was just surprised how fast it accelerated as the power to weight compared to my car is not dissimilar / if anything I think the 996 has a better power to weight albeit it is close (and at the speeds we were doing, traction was not relevant). I guess it is the turbo punch and the fast transmission I m not sure about that . the M2 has around 50hp per ton advantage, and that s if you assume the book figures, in reality an LCi M2 probably makes more power than the standard 480 it says on paper, and a 25 year old 996 probably makes less. At speed, absolute power also matters more than how much the car weighs. You only have to look at 0-100mph times of both cars, there is a 2 second difference, and that s huge. yeah probably correct, but it is call it 1170kg with 330 hp vs 1750 with 480 hp - I think it is the transmission mostly and the fact the BMW makes more power more of the time, while mine probably makes the power only at about 6500 revs or thereabouts and the rest of the time it is a lot less

Slippydiff said: The LCi M2 has close to 450 torques, that's 996 Turbo X50/996 GT2 levels of torque. That allied to the M2's far superior power to weight ratio would make for a car that would be a lot more accelerative than a 3.4 996, irrespective of it's weight loss program. But when you add an 8 speed ZF transmission into the mix, with ratios finely optimised to the engine's torque and power curves, the M2 would romp away, and effortlessly so. However when it comes to tactility, engagement and actually being part of the analogue driving experience without any interference from electronic nannies, the 996 then romps away from the BMW ... I remember being on the Autobahn in my Z3 M Coupe 25 years ago and a 996 GT2 overtook me - that car was just gone, I felt like I was standing still even under full acceleration

MDL111 said: beanoir78 said: MDL111 said: I was just surprised how fast it accelerated as the power to weight compared to my car is not dissimilar / if anything I think the 996 has a better power to weight albeit it is close (and at the speeds we were doing, traction was not relevant). I guess it is the turbo punch and the fast transmission I m not sure about that . the M2 has around 50hp per ton advantage, and that s if you assume the book figures, in reality an LCi M2 probably makes more power than the standard 480 it says on paper, and a 25 year old 996 probably makes less. At speed, absolute power also matters more than how much the car weighs. You only have to look at 0-100mph times of both cars, there is a 2 second difference, and that s huge. yeah probably correct, but it is call it 1170kg with 330 hp vs 1750 with 480 hp - I think it is the transmission mostly and the fact the BMW makes more power more of the time, while mine probably makes the power only at about 6500 revs or thereabouts and the rest of the time it is a lot less 1,170? Have you stripped 200kg out? 996.2 is c. 229bhp/tonne G87 LCI auto is 274bhp/tonne It’s quite a material difference, a 996 isn’t a lightweight machine still. Edited by beanoir78 on Saturday 12th September 23:41

beanoir78 said: MDL111 said: beanoir78 said: MDL111 said: I was just surprised how fast it accelerated as the power to weight compared to my car is not dissimilar / if anything I think the 996 has a better power to weight albeit it is close (and at the speeds we were doing, traction was not relevant). I guess it is the turbo punch and the fast transmission I m not sure about that . the M2 has around 50hp per ton advantage, and that s if you assume the book figures, in reality an LCi M2 probably makes more power than the standard 480 it says on paper, and a 25 year old 996 probably makes less. At speed, absolute power also matters more than how much the car weighs. You only have to look at 0-100mph times of both cars, there is a 2 second difference, and that s huge. yeah probably correct, but it is call it 1170kg with 330 hp vs 1750 with 480 hp - I think it is the transmission mostly and the fact the BMW makes more power more of the time, while mine probably makes the power only at about 6500 revs or thereabouts and the rest of the time it is a lot less 1,170? Have you stripped 200kg out? 996.2 is c. 229bhp/tonne G87 LCI auto is 274bhp/tonne It s quite a material difference, a 996 isn t a lightweight machine still. Edited by beanoir78 on Saturday 12th September 23:41 Richard has, I just drive the thing :-) Not sure about the exact weight, need to weigh it at some point - but it is there or thereabouts

beanoir78 said: 1,170? Have you stripped 200kg out? 996.2 is c. 229bhp/tonne G87 LCI auto is 274bhp/tonne It s quite a material difference, a 996 isn t a lightweight machine still. Just over 250kg at the last count. It was 1086kg when last weighed by its creator.

Slippydiff said: beanoir78 said: 1,170? Have you stripped 200kg out? 996.2 is c. 229bhp/tonne G87 LCI auto is 274bhp/tonne It s quite a material difference, a 996 isn t a lightweight machine still. Just over 250kg at the last count. It was 1086kg when last weighed by its creator. I need to weigh it, I put a normal battery into it again, so that'll add some weight. Carbon bumper probably does not subtract a whole lot. luckily I am smaller than Richard so all in weight probably ok :-)

MDL111 said: I need to weigh it, I put a normal battery into it again, so that'll add some weight. Carbon bumper probably does not subtract a whole lot. luckily I am smaller than Richard so all in weight probably ok :-) Last time I saw Richard two years ago, he was very lean indeed !! A "normal" battery will add 15kg I reckon, but possibly a little more.

Slippydiff said: MDL111 said: I need to weigh it, I put a normal battery into it again, so that'll add some weight. Carbon bumper probably does not subtract a whole lot. luckily I am smaller than Richard so all in weight probably ok :-) Last time I saw Richard two years ago, he was very lean indeed !! A "normal" battery will add 15kg I reckon, but possibly a little more. he is lean, but I am short :-) so still some weight advantage there. yeah probably about 12-15kg difference I think - the gel battery is still in my parents' garage and will probably burn down the house at some point

So you reverted from the lithium battery? Are the latest lithium replacement batteries no really practical / reliable? I mean, do they require any more thought or care than a regular lead acid battery, whether it's a daily / more occasional use car? The weight saving is appealing and the price wasn't that bad last time I looked. But I don't want something that's going to be even slightly a pain in the arse.

Chris Stott said: How much really depends on how good it is when you buy it and how much you use it. I used mine as a daily for many years (10k+ miles a year) and it cost £2k+ a year. Some years I may have got away with just a service, but then it would throw a big bill the year after, like a gearbox rebuild, or the manifolds, or a part suspension refresh. Stuff to look for... That's really helpful, thank you! It'll be a shared daily with a Transporter, but only ~15 mile round trip to work in the spring/summer plus fun trips and then when the weather is rubbish or I need to take anything big then I use the van so probably ~6,000-8,000 miles annually. I'm hopeful that's a nice amount that it doesn't sit and perish/seize up, my experience with the S2000/Elise etc. in the past is that regular use is key! I'd rather spend £2-3k a year keeping on top of things than have to spend it all at once when something REALLY needs doing, there is a local 3.6 manual on 93,000 miles that's caught my eye so I think I'll go and have a nose at that. My only concern at that age/mileage is that depending on the previous owners maintenance it might be at the point where I'm the one that'll be starting on the re-bushing/replacement of a lot of the perishable suspension components and opening that can of worms.

housemouse said: So you reverted from the lithium battery? Are the latest lithium replacement batteries no really practical / reliable? I mean, do they require any more thought or care than a regular lead acid battery, whether it's a daily / more occasional use car? The weight saving is appealing and the price wasn't that bad last time I looked. But I don't want something that's going to be even slightly a pain in the arse. Copy pasting an old post of mine below - i will add that the benefits are super light obviously but also the charging time is a lot less so in an occasional use car you can be assured it is fully charged after only a short drive BUT then it will go flat a lot quicker than a big daft lead acid. I think I got about 3 weeks before it went dead. So bigger LiFePo4 batteries are available and will last longer but then not as light. If you're being super nerdy about weight saving then add the battery tray also because it isnt needed if you go for a tiny battery like mine. Although I'm not sure if that means you lose anything because there is a little seal underneath the battery tray but I'm not sure what purpose it serves. ---‐------------------------------------------------- I have a little LiFePo4 starter battery designed for cars. According to the blurb it weighs 2.1kg so 4.5lbs - link below. Specifically it supports higher amp output which the starter motor needs. I've used it in my 996, my 986 and it even worked in my 2 litre diesel Sprinter van just fine. Generally diesel engines are harder on batteries due to glow plugs eating power then the engine is also higher compression and therefore harder to turn over. With lead acid you need a bigger battery to provide the oomph to start a car with a bigger engine. But because these LiFePo4 batteries just have more oomph already a small one will suffice IF its BMS inside supports the higher amp output. In the cars I mentioned above if I dont use them for maybe 3 weeks this little battery will go flat. And when they go flat they go flat. They don't go weak like a lead acid. The BMS inside will detect the charge is getting low and then just shut down completely to protect the battery cells. If LiFePo4 cells go completely flat they're then useless. So the physically small battery doesn't hold a charge anywhere like as long as a big bulky lead acid, so bear that in mind. But if you want to save a chunk of weight and will use the car more often than every few weeks or can keep it topped up using a charger then sure a little LiFePo4 is ideal if you ask Me. https://www.tegiwa.com/products/mega-life-mr-15-li...

If you were using a 2kg battery, that's tiny and not representative of a practical road car lithium battery and the experience you'd get from one. That's a mini battery for something like a track car. So, yeah, that's not going to behave anything like a conventional battery. Something like this 8kg unit is ostensibly a battery that's practical for a road car and has modern water cooled Pork listed re compatibility: https://www.deadweightindustries.co.uk/products/to... Obviously less weight savings, but still a decent chunk over a regular 25kg (? ish) lead-acid lump. That's the kind of battery that might be practical, but not sure even even a lithium battery that big is fit and forget like a regular battery? Edited by housemouse on Monday 14th September 16:01

housemouse said: If you were using a 2kg battery, that's tiny and not representative of a practical road car lithium battery and the experience you'd get from one. That's a mini battery for something like a track car. So, yeah, that's not going to behave anything like a conventional battery. Not sure what you're trying to say about practicality and representative The tiny battery works exactly as you'd expect from any car battery as long as you don't expect it to maintain charge for longer than around 3 weeks Then you can of course keep it topped up using a charger The problem with a conventional car battery of a smaller size is it might not be powerful enough to start a car with a bigger engine but with these lithium batteries that's not the case because a small battery can still provide more than enough power when required So put simply with this tiny battery installed and if using the car more often than once every 3 weeks it is a fit and forget item I have absolutely no reason to think I need a bigger heavier version in fact that feels like a backwards step for me Unless of course you consider it impractical to have only 3 weeks of charge in your car if it is left unused

Unicorn in white https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202609146...

ATM said: Not sure what you're trying to say about practicality and representative Thought it was pretty clear, but I'm saying 2kg is a very, very small battery and it won't be representative of the performance and user experience from a much larger lithium battery literally four times the size. I wouldn't buy a very small 2kg battery and expect it to be fit and forget / perform in an indistinguishable fashion to a conventional battery. I'm just wondering if the larger lithium batteries can deliver that. Or perhaps even an 8kg lithium battery still needs a bit more care, or whatever? How bad are they when it's cold, are they more prone to discharge when the car is sitting, that kind of thing?

Jones the cat said: Unicorn in white https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202609146... If ever there was an advert that tells you nothing about the car, that's it.

housemouse said: Thought it was pretty clear, but I'm saying 2kg is a very, very small battery and it won't be representative of the performance and user experience from a much larger lithium battery literally four times the size. I wouldn't buy a very small 2kg battery and expect it to be fit and forget / perform in an indistinguishable fashion to a conventional battery. I'm just wondering if the larger lithium batteries can deliver that. Or perhaps even an 8kg lithium battery still needs a bit more care, or whatever? How bad are they when it's cold, are they more prone to discharge when the car is sitting, that kind of thing? As I said the 2kg item is a fit and forget item unless you want to leave your car unused for more than 3 weeks. If it wasn't I just wouldn't use it. I'm not that desperate to save a few kg if it makes my life too complicated. This adds no complications at all. In fact I consider it better than a conventional battery because if you only drive your car for a few miles once every 2 or 3 weeks - which i do not BTW - then a conventional battery will never get fully charged so it will deteriorate rapidly. The difference I immediately notice with the little LiFePo4 battery is the car's eagerness to start. I think that's because it either provides 12.8v or thereabouts or nothing. There is not such a dramatic drop in volts as it loses charge. The only real way to prevent battery anxiety would be to add some form of Bluetooth monitoring but that would increase power consumption. I have another much bigger LiFePo4 battery which has built in Bluetooth to connect a phone App but this isnt designed to start cars and therefore has a much lower maximum output. It is designed to be used as a Leisure battery.

Fast Bug said: Jones the cat said: Unicorn in white https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202609146... If ever there was an advert that tells you nothing about the car, that's it. I've never thought white looks right on a 996.

Chris Stott said: I've never thought white looks right on a 996. Why unicorn? To me it's an overpriced, over prepped, imported slusher. If kind miles in unsalty Japan there could be many original parts long past their sell by date. Agreed white looks wrong on this

In terms of lightweight batteries, Ninemeister seem to be doing the best one on the market, currently. https://www.ninemeistershop.com/product-page/9m-li... 7.5kg, direct swap, has a decent battery management system/ push to jumpstart. They also sell a relatively cheap charger for it as well.

Chris Stott said: Fast Bug said: Jones the cat said: Unicorn in white https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202609146... If ever there was an advert that tells you nothing about the car, that's it. I've never thought white looks right on a 996. In fairness to the hue, the car has been photographed from THE most unflattering angles and in equally unflattering surroundings. The use of 997 18" wheels whilst technically not a crime the style police would prosecute, doesn't help. The OE 996.2 Carrera 2 wheels are far better suited to the 996 shape. But as said, the vendor's sales pitch is quite frankly verbal diarrhoea. Another ex-Japanese car photographed by someone who appreciates the car's best angles and that the choice of background you shoot against is almost as important as the subject itself : Disliking white on a 996 may put you on shaky ground ...

scottos said: In terms of lightweight batteries, Ninemeister seem to be doing the best one on the market, currently. https://www.ninemeistershop.com/product-page/9m-li... 7.5kg, direct swap, has a decent battery management system/ push to jumpstart. They also sell a relatively cheap charger for it as well. I've got a few different LiFePo4 batteries and no specific LiFePo4 enabled battery charger but all my cheapo standard battery chargers work just fine. So I'm saying you don't need a spendy charger. The BMS in the LiFePo4 is built in such a way with all these batteries that it can fool your car or a charger into thinking it is a simple Lead Acid and therefore any charger should work. You just need to get the amps into it. I even use a really old charger which isnt even digital but has an old skool swinging needle type amp meter on the front. Only situation which could get you into trouble I believe is the pulse mode some fancy modern chargers use for very very flat Acid / AGM batteries which I'm assuming only kicks in when it is seeing say 10v or something similarly low. Is it for desulphuring? But again the BMS in your LiFePo4 battery would never present a voltage this low. Worth checking because I read somewhere that this pulse type mode could set fire to your LiFePo4 battery so please bear in mind ... if anyone actually takes notice of my ramblings?

Slippydiff said: In fairness to the hue, the car has been photographed from THE most unflattering angles and in equally unflattering surroundings. The use of 997 18" wheels whilst technically not a crime the style police would prosecute, doesn't help. The OE 996.2 Carrera 2 wheels are far better suited to the 996 shape. But as said, the vendor's sales pitch is quite frankly verbal diarrhoea. Another ex-Japanese car photographed by someone who appreciates the car's best angles and that the choice of background you shoot against is almost as important as the subject itself : Disliking white on a 996 may put you on shaky ground ... For me, certain colours only look right with the aero kit... guards and yellow for example look fantastic on a kitted car... and you can add white to that.

Slippydiff said: The use of 997 18" wheels whilst technically not a crime the style police would prosecute, doesn't help. Not strictly true These 997 18 wheels are an extra 7mm offset front (from memory) and this makes them sit more inboard and can affect steering geo or mechanics a lot more than a wheel which sits more outward. These need spacers front. Rears are more outward - I think 7mm again or thereabouts.

Chris Stott said: I've never thought white looks right on a 996. I like this one that crops up on IG regularly. I think if it had ambers it’d be better still:

dscam said: Chris Stott said: I've never thought white looks right on a 996. I like this one that crops up on IG regularly. I think if it had ambers it d be better still: Lovely that !!

Not for me... I think that's horrible. All it needs is a grey interior and a tip 'box

ATM said: Not strictly true These 997 18 wheels are an extra 7mm offset front (from memory) and this makes them sit more inboard and can affect steering geo or mechanics a lot more than a wheel which sits more outward. These need spacers front. Rears are more outward - I think 7mm again or thereabouts. 'Tis. The style police couldn't give a flying toss about such practicalities as ET numbers and offsets. They're more concerned about aesthetics. (the clue's in their name)

Chris Stott said: Not for me... I think that's horrible. All it needs is a grey interior and a tip 'box Better than black, silver, grey, dark blue etc etc, though But agree, Tip and a grey interior would be the deal breakers ...

I love my arctic, non kitted 3.4... with a metropole interior

housemouse said: So you reverted from the lithium battery? Are the latest lithium replacement batteries no really practical / reliable? I mean, do they require any more thought or care than a regular lead acid battery, whether it's a daily / more occasional use car? The weight saving is appealing and the price wasn't that bad last time I looked. But I don't want something that's going to be even slightly a pain in the arse. I think mine was old and basically not working anymore, so I just got a normal one as an interim solution. Then got distracted and never replaced it, the ones I looked at this summer were about 2.5k from memory, but you could switch them off via your phone - that would clearly help a lot

Fast Bug said: I feel the grey interior comments are a personal attack for those of us either 90's slip on shoe colour seats Busted !!

Chris Stott said: I love my arctic, non kitted 3.4... with a metropole interior And you'd be right to, it's part of the family judging by the miles you've done in it

I feel the grey interior comments are a personal attack for those of us with 90's slip on shoe colour seats Edited by Fast Bug on Tuesday 15th September 19:20

Slippydiff said: ATM said: Not strictly true These 997 18 wheels are an extra 7mm offset front (from memory) and this makes them sit more inboard and can affect steering geo or mechanics a lot more than a wheel which sits more outward. These need spacers front. Rears are more outward - I think 7mm again or thereabouts. 'Tis. The style police couldn't give a flying toss about such practicalities as ET numbers and offsets. They're more concerned about aesthetics. (the clue's in their name) Hey! I quite like my Carrera III wheels. A 15mm front spacer makes up for the inward offset and then some. The less said about the grey interior the better. What was the original buyer thinking?! Still a nice set of 997 sports seats makes it much more inviting.

Nothing wrong with the grey interior, Marky911 over on 911uk.com got his grey interior looking great.

Ed.Neumann said: Nothing wrong with the grey interior, Marky911 over on 911uk.com got his grey interior looking great. By adding lots of black bits...?!

Does look good... but those seats make it... stick a couple of grey 'coffins' in there and it's not quite as inviting

Chris Stott said: Does look good... but those seats make it... stick a couple of grey 'coffins' in there and it's not quite as inviting I know Mark, that interior wasn't a cheap day out ... In fairness, the grey interiors look ok when new, it's when the seat foam collapses, the bolsters are shiny and worn and the drivers footwell carpet is brown, that they look somewhat less inviting.

Ed.Neumann said: Nothing wrong with the grey interior, Marky911 over on 911uk.com got his grey interior looking great. I've got black mats too I think it goes a long way to offsetting the greyness. I'd love to replace the whole carpet with black tbh but it's a long way down the priority list! Those seats also look lovely.

If I was keeping mine I'd go black carpets and headliner. Porsche in this era was just a sea of everything in the same colour, nothing to break it up. Those seats do look good though!

Have some more :

I think with a black / dark grey upper dash and black upper door sections, that would look amazing / even better

I think just dying the carpet black would be enough. That would really set it off and could be done in a morning.

Ed.Neumann said: I think just dying the carpet black would be enough. That would really set it off and could be done in a morning. Can you really dye the carpet and does it actually look good? It's quite a risky move!

Yeah, it will look like it came from the factory black. Make sure you use a decent dye. Clean it really well first with a drill attachment brush and carpet cleaner. Let it dry properly. Do a few coats probably around 4 should do it. Between each coat brush the dye into the fibres band it will come up looking and feeling like new carpet. Loads of videos on Youtube no doubt. Quick search brings up this showing grey to black.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtgqNSo5alg

Seems like a nice example. Non sunroof + X51. https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/21098872

I quite like that

Jones the cat said: Seems like a nice example. Non sunroof + X51. https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/21098872 Not a fan of the wheels (or the pretty boring colour) but otherwise that is peak 996 for me. Looks a steal tbh.

How does the X51 work with the rebuild?

Seems a decent car? https://www.carandclassic.com/l/C2128601

Chris Stott said: How does the X51 work with the rebuild? From what perspective Chris ?

FriedMarsBar said: Seems a decent car? https://www.carandclassic.com/l/C2128601 Yep looks it, a couple of oddities in the service history - timing chain work as part of a relatively cheap service, and it doesn’t look like much has been done to the suspension. It’s relatively local to me if you wanted another pair of eyes when viewing.

Slippydiff said: Chris Stott said: How does the X51 work with the rebuild? From what perspective Chris ? Err... does the rebuild replace any of the X51 parts, or do they just sit on top?

Chris Stott said: Slippydiff said: Chris Stott said: How does the X51 work with the rebuild? From what perspective Chris ? Err... does the rebuild replace any of the X51 parts, or do they just sit on top? Sit on top I believe. The 996 X51 powerkit had High lift cams with associated change in valve springs, different intake manifold, ported head, different exhaust manifold, baffled sump and a change in engine map. None of these bits should be changed when hartech does it's thing. Which is usually bottom end engine modifications (cylinder liners etc)

Crudeoink said: Sit on top I believe. The 996 X51 powerkit had High lift cams with associated change in valve springs, different intake manifold, ported head, different exhaust manifold, baffled sump and a change in engine map. None of these bits should be changed when hartech does it's thing. Which is usually bottom end engine modifications (cylinder liners etc) This ^ You've nailed it But for £18K, "whilst I was in there" I'd have gone the extra mile (£3-4K) and gone 3.9 or 4.1 and had a 385-390hp stunner of an engine.