996 Carrera vs 997 Carrera S. Power!!! - Page 2 - 911/Carrera GT - PistonHeads UK

So, was out on a run a few weeks back with SCD club and Spearsy (also a member on here) was in his early model 996 Carrera behind me. I was in the 997S Cabrio. We got a lovely wide straight carriageway in 2nd gear with fantastic visibility so I put the boot in 2nd and up through some of 3rd gear (only to national speed limit obviously ). I was curious to see just how much faster the 997S was over the standard 996 and Spearsy seemed game. So, boot down and off we both went and crikey what a difference those 400cc's make in the 997! Looking in the mirror, the 996, trying hard as he might was loosing ground and becoming less of a presence and more of a dot with every passing second. The struggling 3.4 engine just couldn't compete with the might of the more modern 3.8 Porsche. 997 = winner! Whoop!! "Really?" I hear you cry! "Did it make that much difference??!" Well, actually, no. That is all a complete lie. The 996 was stuck up my chuff the entire time and try as I might it remained planted exactly where it was until we got to the next roundabout. A 3.4 996 Carrera it would appear, has pretty much exactly the same ingear speeds as a 2005 3.8 Carrera S. hmmmmphh!!

Slipstream effect ?

There wont be much in it. The 996 is either 300 or 320 bhp and the 997S is 355 but heavier, especially the cab!

Coincidentally they both have the exact same power to weight ratio, so an unsurprising result really! 7.1 C2S Cab - 355bhp, 1560kg, 227bhp/tonne 6.1 Carrera - 300bhp, 1320kg, 227bhp/tonne

911p said: Coincidentally they both have the exact same power to weight ratio, so an unsurprising result really! 7.1 C2S Cab - 355bhp, 1560kg, 227bhp/tonne 6.1 Carrera - 300bhp, 1320kg, 227bhp/tonne Exactly, another mystery solved............

911p said: Coincidentally they both have the exact same power to weight ratio, so an unsurprising result really! 7.1 C2S Cab - 355bhp, 1560kg, 227bhp/tonne 6.1 Carrera - 300bhp, 1320kg, 227bhp/tonne Well, I never knew that. 1560kg!!! Wowza, the 7.1 needs a diet!

track and very high speeds is where the main difference is esp with 74S

I had a similarly dissapointing experience racing a Nisan 350Z or 370Z recently in my 997 4S cab, not till about 120+ did I start to pull away. Only the turbos are really fast cars these days, I doubt the 997 4S would pull much away from a Boxster S or BMW 330d/335d etc

I bought a 996 C2 new in 2002 and can confirm that it was as fast or faster than the 997 C2S that I changed it for two or three years later. Seem to remember that the Autocar road test timed it at 10.1 sec 0-100mph.

anonymous said: [redacted] Completely agree - the visual difference can be very slight in a drag race. I was on the Autobahn in my old Z4 3.0 Si, with a friends 997.1 S cab - very little in it up until 90ish - then the 911 would start to pull away, and over 120 it would pull away significantly. However, now I have mine - that small difference in shove feels a lot more from behind the wheel!

anonymous said: [redacted] Spot on - once you get cars doing 0-100mph in around 10 seconds, the ability to blow a car away is very limited. Even on a runway the definition of embarrased appears to be a car length or two - you cannot notice that on the road. I've resigned myself that my next car will have to be 300bhp+ per tonne to feel a step up !!!

peralta said: I bought a 996 C2 new in 2002 and can confirm that it was as fast or faster than the 997 C2S that I changed it for two or three years later. Seem to remember that the Autocar road test timed it at 10.1 sec 0-100mph. IIRC that Autocar 996 C2 was almost certainly a ringer from Porsche. This was in order to compete with the ringer 360 Ferrari which was as fast as the 430 Scuderia.

anonymous said: [redacted] Very likely IMO. Autocar didn't get anywhere near these figures in the facelifted 996, gen1 997 and even gen1 997S. I think only now that latest PDK 991s Carreras are able to beat this time. Even Chris Harris himself on this site was discussing the first GT3 - "it was barely any faster than the admittedly suspiciously fast 996 C2 launch cars".

anonymous said: [redacted] You can disagree and ignore the evidence, but an early 996 Carrera 3.4 achieving a 10.1s 0-100mph is not credible. The 996 turbos at the time were only just dipping under 10 seconds, and the later 996s and 997s with superior p/w ratios were slower. Even Chris Harris who drove the cars at the time stated they were suspiciously fast. Do you have any corroborating evidence showing other recorded times close to 10.1s?

I think all manufacturers play some games to substantiate different claims (economy causes some ridiculous behavior from many). But I think the key point is that once you're into the realm of these reasonably quick cars, it becomes very hard to find really clear differences in performance on the road. It's a reason why I've stopped chasing performance, its kind of irrelevant as long as your car is quick enough to be fun and excite you.

I share the view that once the 0-60 time drops below 10 sec most cars are pretty quick within the legal limits. Apart from a 911 I also own a few other vehicles one of which is a 1.4 Diesel Yaris. It has a 0-60 time of about 10 sec but its mid range between 40 and 70 is outstanding for such a small engine. At these sort of speeds it seems to hold its own very well with much more expensive cars. Obviously not in 911 category, but pretty quick. I also own a Merc 316 Sprinter which is another vehicle with excellent mid range performance and equal to many cars. The same goes for a Renault Traffic van or a Merc Vito with the biggest engine. They are both surprisingly quick once on the move. H

Hilux2400 said: I share the view that once the 0-60 time drops below 10 sec most cars are pretty quick within the legal limits. I'm not sure sub-10 to sixty is a big deal on this part of PH.

At least the OP has the better looking car TX.

Olivera said: anonymous said: [redacted] You can disagree and ignore the evidence, but an early 996 Carrera 3.4 achieving a 10.1s 0-100mph is not credible. The 996 turbos at the time were only just dipping under 10 seconds, and the later 996s and 997s with superior p/w ratios were slower. Even Chris Harris who drove the cars at the time stated they were suspiciously fast . Do you have any corroborating evidence showing other recorded times close to 10.1s? How did Porsche manage that then when t'internet tells us not to bother trying to up the power of them as it's impossible?! TX.

I recently had a straight line race against my mate, me in my Boxster 3.4S, him in his MK6 GTI Edition 35. I stayed in 3rd at about 40mph thinking I was going to tear past him. He must have been in 2nd, and left me out there!!! I know he had the advantage of turbo, but I really struggled to pull back what I lost.

Gmund said: I recently had a straight line race against my mate, me in my Boxster 3.4S, him in his MK6 GTI Edition 35. I stayed in 3rd at about 40mph thinking I was going to tear past him. He must have been in 2nd, and left me out there!!! I know he had the advantage of turbo, but I really struggled to pull back what I lost. Thats not surprising really, you were in the wrong gear! He must have left you for dead!

This link provides an interesting summary of multiple road test between the different 996/997 models. The Autocar 10.5 to 100mph looks a bit anomalous. But some striking numbers in there. Bottom line, the base 3.4 996 was/is a much faster car than Porsche themselves claimed. It would still stay very very close to a 991. And feel a lot nicer doing it. http://www.weissach.net/996-997_RoadTestSummary.ht...

Sine Metu said: This link provides an interesting summary of multiple road test between the different 996/997 models. The Autocar 10.5 to 100mph looks a bit anomalous. But some striking numbers in there. Bottom line, the base 3.4 996 was/is a much faster car than Porsche themselves claimed. It would still stay very very close to a 991. And feel a lot nicer doing it. http://www.weissach.net/996-997_RoadTestSummary.ht... BMW apparently do the same - talk down 0-100mph performance vs. reality. I wonder if it's the marketing department hand in this?

steve singh said: Sine Metu said: This link provides an interesting summary of multiple road test between the different 996/997 models. The Autocar 10.5 to 100mph looks a bit anomalous. But some striking numbers in there. Bottom line, the base 3.4 996 was/is a much faster car than Porsche themselves claimed. It would still stay very very close to a 991. And feel a lot nicer doing it. http://www.weissach.net/996-997_RoadTestSummary.ht... BMW apparently do the same - talk down 0-100mph performance vs. reality. I wonder if it's the marketing department hand in this? I can't really think of a marketing benefit in talking down performance levels. Maybe it is a way of covering ones ass in case one or two cars in any batch don't quite hit the numbers for whatever reason. Maybe it's a worst case scenario performance figure they use so that every one who buys the car will hit the number. Perhaps they actually are a little bit gentle with their cars during testing !! I honestly can't think why. All I do know is that any 996 will comfortably crack 60mph in under five seconds.

mollytherocker said: Thats not surprising really, you were in the wrong gear! He must have left you for dead! I'm well aware that I was in the wrong the gear, my car will do around 80 in 2nd, and well over 100 in 3rd. The point I was trying to make is that I'd completely underestimated how close the 2 cars actually are on a straight stretch of road. Even had I been in 2nd, I would've only slowly pulled away from him. And you are absolutely correct MTR, he was gone!!!

Gmund said: I'm well aware that I was in the wrong the gear, my car will do around 80 in 2nd, and well over 100 in 3rd. The point I was trying to make is that I'd completely underestimated how close the 2 cars actually are on a straight stretch of road. Even had I been in 2nd, I would've only slowly pulled away from him. And you are absolutely correct MTR, he was gone!!! Back to the point from earlier, once you're into this window of performance (I reckon around 6 secs to 60) and you're going to be staying very close to everything except the most exotic. It's fine margins that make the difference and these are harder to expose on the road.

Hungrymc said: Gmund said: I'm well aware that I was in the wrong the gear, my car will do around 80 in 2nd, and well over 100 in 3rd. The point I was trying to make is that I'd completely underestimated how close the 2 cars actually are on a straight stretch of road. Even had I been in 2nd, I would've only slowly pulled away from him. And you are absolutely correct MTR, he was gone!!! Back to the point from earlier, once you're into this window of performance (I reckon around 6 secs to 60) and you're going to be staying very close to everything except the most exotic. It's fine margins that make the difference and these are harder to expose on the road. I agree re exposing the difference on the road, but i'd be more inclined to say c5 secs and c10 secs to 100mph. I do think there is another step change, but for that we're talking 997 turbo or GTR or Noble territory etc.

anonymous said: [redacted] Porsche have been suggested many times by the motoring press as understating 0-60 times - many magazines have been able to comfortably beat the times stated by Porsche

steve singh said: I agree re exposing the difference on the road, but i'd be more inclined to say c5 secs and c10 secs to 100mph. I do think there is another step change, but for that we're talking 997 turbo or GTR or Noble territory etc. I wouldn't disagree. Two friends cars that I regularly play with in my 996 - a 240hp Leon which I can always get away from but not in a way that embarrasses it (I often think this is the moral victor when we play, it being a FWD hatchback).... and a GTR which is always opening yards to me on the power but never enough to actually get away due to the confines of the road (I feel the moral victor against this thing)..... I'm sure that a very hard driven one would sort me out good and proper though and I know I wouldn't get near it on track.