12 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHcarrera 2
Leading reported evidence
Test figures
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Leading evidence: 'Test figures' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Test figures' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
12 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Porsche Club GB: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T222516Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
3.4 Litre (300bhp)
0-60 in 5.2secs
174mph
3.6 Litre (320bhp)
0-60 in 5.0secs
178mph
Both C2 Manual Coupe. Everything else (tip, C4, cab, C4S) is heavier and slower (but not much), until you get to the GT3.
Take a look at the model history for more info:
http://www.porscheclubgbforum.com/fb.asp?m=269468
If you're looking for something faster - coming from an M3, your budget should just stretch to a 996 turbo - especially in the dead of winter when you're intending to buy. Just a thought - it will certainly hold its value better than a C4S imho.
Take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_996
.
Not sure of the accuracy, because they quote 0-62 for the 3.6 C2 as 4.7 secs. Also, they show the Turbo S as being quicker than the 'widowmaker', which I'm not sure is correct, or maybe it is because you can actually get 450bhp onto the tarmac with the Turbo S!
The figures I have for the 360bhp GT3 Mk1 are 0-60 in 4.8 and 189mph top speed.
I don't think its that bad - especially if you go to an indi - obviously its going to depend on miles. I'd be inclined to do a spreadsheet and try and guage costs of services vs. depreciation. In general I think you'll find that depreciation is a bigger factor in the running costs of a car than servicing so - if my predictions are right in that over (say) a 3 year period, the turbo will depreciate much less than the C4S of the same value - then you should be £££ in.
I may be totally wrong on that one - but the turbo is currently looking very good value for money and will surely always command a premium over normally aspirated ones.
