Interesting 996 power to weight compares across all models

I found this interesting power / weight data posted a few years ago in PCGB forum, thought I'd share here. I was especially surprised with the C4S comparison, and how good those stats look for the GT2!

Not surprised re the C4S, with the Turbo wide body I think it looks faster than it really is! I do however, recall there was some Porsche marketing material saying it was a few seconds faster around the Nurburgring (not that it should really matter) than a C2.

Wondered why my car was so slow!

yea no surprise with the 4s to be honest, wonder what the stopping distance differences are? The 4s looses on power to weight but it makes up with the turbo brakes and extra grip around corners maybe?

4S was apparently quicker round the 'ring than a C2... https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2104...4s-choice-no-matter-how-inconsequential-good/

I've driven 996 turbo, then later a.1 C2 and C4S back-to-back and it's quite surprising how different they feel. Can really sense the difference between the extra power, weight & grip. So end of day it's very personal. For me I like lighter weight & more agile cars, but can see why someone else would prioritise power & grip. Something for everyone

I had a C4s and then have the Mk1 C2. C4s felt solid and C2 does feel lighter of its feet however in terms of speed not much in it at all really.

As an idiot who got his 16V Mk1 Golf down to 728Kg, while weighing 125Kg myself, I've always found this interesting. Has anyone ever found their own car to be close to the manufacturers figures? They always seem to be a nonsense. Years ago EVO magazine used to cornerweight all the cars they tested, it was interesting that the only class of cars that were even close were the hot hatches of the time. I wonder if it because it was their most competitive market. I've removed about 80Kg from my C2. Will lose the aircon and stereo in due course, but don't want to make it horrible, even though all my driving consists of early morning blasts. Looking at shorter final drive if possible, I think that would make it much more lively.

The problem is what weight measure to actually use... what is the closest to a car and a full tank of fuel on scales? No idea what all these DIN or Kerb weight etc actually means. My non-sunroof manual 4S and a full tank of fuel was 1553kg on the CG scales of truth. I don't recall if Chris allowed for driver weight. That said I only weigh 67kg!

On the basis of Richard's CLR project : http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=10...&start=0&sid=666c2e965ba8390a556e9837eebde3f1 I'd say that the DIN weights of the early 996's quoted by the factory are reasonably accurate. The list above quotes the C2 at 1320kg, and Richard's car started out at 1336kg (his car was a decent spec with sunroof and the upgraded factory ICE system) Being an engineer, I'm sure Richard would have ensured that any before and after comparisons would have been based on identical fuel and fluid levels. A brief explanation of DIN/Kerb and Dry/Shipping weights explained can be found here : https://www.evo.co.uk/features/21040/what-is-kerb-weight-and-how-much-does-your-car-weigh The Mk1 996 GT3 is listed in the brochure at 1350kg DIN. The DIN states "This is the weight of the car with all the fluids necessary for operation, including a 90 per cent full tank of fuel" No driver. EC standards quote the weight at 1425kg. In accordance with EC standards, the unladen weight of the car is given for standard specification models. special equipment means greater weight. The figure given (1425kg) includes 68kg for the weight of the driver and 7kg for luggage. And we wonder why the process of getting anything ratified by EU/EC is so time consuming and complex ...

Interesting... so if the DIN weight of a 4S according to the list is 1495kg, inc 90% full fuel tank, then why is mine 1553kg? Options differences surely could not account for 58kg, particularly as mine is non sunroof, no Bose, but does have leccy seats and litronics.

TBH I hadn't appreciated the 4S was that much heavier than the C2. Sure I get the transfer box, torque tube, front diff and driveshafts, wider wheels & rear quarters all add to its weight, but 175kgs ?? The additional 58kgs is a bit of mystery, I can imagine 10kg of that is accounted for by the (full) ? electric seats, but the other 48kgs ? Did you per chance leave your wallet in the glove box :?:

I suppose 6 KGs or so in my car is accounted for by the extra fuel over the 90% full. My wallet is very light as I have two teenage daughters! According to the figures in the list, a 4S is 125 kg heavier than a .2 C2 at 1370kg. A C4 is 1430kg, so in theory 60 kgs is accounted for by the 4WD gubbins. The remaining 65kg must be the wider rear arches, the big reds and I suspect the turbo look wheels and wide tyres, which are like boat anchors. The only practical spec difference that I'm aware of is the 4S had sound pack and full power seats as standard, which could only be a few KGs. Its interesting that the .1 is quite a bit lighter than the .2

Perhaps the following were a factor: cd changer, wiring, toolkit, space saver wheel, anything else in the frunk, glove box, cubby holes etc. A non-standard battery might account for a kg or two. Similarly, any non-standard suspension components, wheels or tyres could add a little weight. re: c4s vs c2 offhand I'm not 100% sure, but I think the turbo/c4s had a different fuel tank to the c2. Not sure if the capacity differs, but the weight might.

I suspect the 4S doesn't have a space saver tyre whereas the 2wd usually does. No-one has raised the accuracy of the scales, we can be sure the factory figure is pretty accurate but we're talking about less than 4% difference.