996S vs 900ss

[Dan J]

Gents,
I have a perfect 2500 mile 00 996S that I enjoy tremendously for the 250 miles a year that I allow myself to ride it
I'm thinking of buying a 94 900SS to ride. Will I be disappointed with the performance?
What say yee?

[Noah930]

Not apples to apples, but my experience: My 888 is a lot more exciting to ride. My 900SS is a lot more comfortable to ride; I've taken it from LA to San Fran (and back ). If I could only keep one bike, it would be the 888. It may be more exacting, but it has the feel of a beast. It's rough. It's rorty. And at WOT, it sounds like a 60's-era SCCA Trans-Am racecar. Isn't that why we ride sportbikes?

[HardDrive]

I had a 2000 748S, and a 1998 900SS at the same time. I currently have a 1992 900SS. Very different animals. The superbikes are much more refined. For the street, I find the SS platform more enjoyable. Better body position, lots of low end torque, makes a beautiful sound through the right exhaust (I have carbon Termi's on mine). Super Sports of that era have attitude. You can still feel the raw cafe racer spirit in them.

1994-2000 is only 6 years, but it does matter. In terms of electrical systems, and general fit and finish, the SS will feel rough.

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

... the SS will feel rough.

The 900SS will feel simple. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you're looking for. I sat on a Triumph Thruxton R at a bike show. It's a modern take on a cafe racer type bike. And then I realized that my carby 900SS was already that bike.

[pavulon]

Just don't sell the 996S until you've made up your own mind.

[911boost]

Are you planning on getting a Super Sport to ride, or another garage queen?

They seem to hold their value decently, so if you buy one and don’t like it, you can sell it.

[Chocaholic]

Love my 900SS for its rough-around-the-edges vibe. The sound, dry clutch rattle, chassis and character. A blast to ride but not a track bike. Makes me feel much younger. For longer rides I’ll take the R9T. For groceries and hardware...the Ural.

Different tools for different jobs.

[greglepore]

I liked my 900 ss, but the stock bars killed my wrists after 2 hrs.
It has a terrific sound and ride. The stock gearing sucks, but a rear sprocket fixes that. The steering is a little slow for such a sporty bike, which can catch you out.

[Dan J]

Originally Posted by 911boost

Are you planning on getting a Super Sport to ride, or another garage queen?

They seem to hold their value decently, so if you buy one and don’t like it, you can sell it.

I want to ride it. The 996 is so nice that I can't ride it everyday
I've got a couple of BMW's that I ride but want something a bit more exciting

[Jeff Higgins]

I have been very happy with the performance of my '93 900 SS. Mine is somewhat modified, with "the usual" list of suspects: Full Termi "Spaghetti" exhaust with carbon fiber cans, Keihen flat slide carbs, JE pistons, and ported heads. It's also been lightened considerably, all the way down to about 365 pounds with a half tank of gas. All carbon fiber bodywork and tank, magnesium wheels, etc.

I'm not sure what all of that really gains me, compared to a stock example, but it does feel very light and lively. It has greater capability hiding deep down inside of it somewhere than I'm willing (or able) to exploit on public roads. I very rarely even try to exploit its full potential.

And I think that may be where the status of "real world" motorcycling is stuck today - somewhere at the performance level between these Super Sports and your 996. Everything since has continued to offer improved numbers across the board, but numbers we have no business even trying to exploit on the street. In other words, will you be disappointed? I don't think so - the Super Sport will still offer a level of performance that pushes the boundaries of sanity on public roads. Buy one and have fun. Join the PPOT Super Sport posse - you'll notice a lot of us have them. There's a reason for that...

[gsxrken]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

And I think that may be where the status of "real world" motorcycling is stuck today - somewhere at the performance level between these Super Sports and your 996. Everything since has continued to offer improved numbers across the board, but numbers we have no business even trying to exploit on the street. In other words, will you be disappointed? I don't think so - the Super Sport will still offer a level of performance that pushes the boundaries of sanity on public roads.

Well put. 25 years of technology separate my namesake 1991 GSXR1100 and my current 2016 R1200RS; with very different power delivery, ergonomics, and sound, both would be piloted at my same street pace through a mountain road. Your 996 would flick easier and lift the front wheel easier but a street pace has to take into account many things beyond the bike’s capabilities. Forget the latest liter bikes... since about 2005 they have all been competing on the head of a pin and need pro riders on a track to access the “improvements”. I’m amazed they sell any given they are also competing against every used liter bike made in the last 15 years.

PS- nice seeing you last weekend at the Porsche run, DJ.
Buy whatever bike you want! That’s enough of a reason right there.

[911boost]

Very good points about capabilities on the street.

My other bike is a HD Road Glide, so the SS is a completely different riding experience which is one of the reasons I picked one up. The other is that at 6-4, it is fairly comfortable for riding around town and into the twisties.

While not as custom as Jeff's, mine is at the shop now getting bigger pistons and being tuned.

[Jeff Higgins]

I read somewhere that one of the biggest "crossover" segments in motorcycling are the riders who own both Ducati and Harley. Count me in - my touring bike is a 2013 Road King. And, funny, while by no means "fast" by anyone's standards, it is still capable of being ridden at a completely irresponsible pace in the twisties.

So where are we, really? I remember reading a review of the latest 600 Super Sports in Cycle World a few years ago, wherein several staff riders with road racing backgrounds and a few professional road racers hauled them out to Willow Springs for the day. Yes, some bikes were faster than others, some riders were faster than others, and some were able to make different bikes go faster than the other guys could make them go. As a whole, though, all of the bike/rider combinations managed to lap within about five seconds of one another.

That sounds like a big gap, and it is. If you are racing. Their message, however, was that unless you are a professional road racer, or a very talented amateur racer, you could choose the "fastest" bike of the day and still lap ten seconds slower than their slowest bike/rider combination.

So what do those numbers really mean, to us, as street riders? Not a god damned thing anymore. As Ken eludes to above, those numbers really quit meaning anything to us at least fifteen years ago. That probably depends as much on talent as anything else, though - I think my personal threshold was crossed 30 years ago...

The message from Cycle World at the end of that review was, essentially, "it just doesn't matter". Their advice was to "pick like a girl - the color you like best". Performance is moot.

I think that is the difference between these two Ducatis as well. One might be "faster" on paper, but that's about it. They will feel dramatically different, and that is going to be a matter too taste. Neither one is "better" than the other, for our purposes. Just different.