I love http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/smlove2.gif my older Porsche:cool: because it is a classic:cool: driving machine and not just a classy carhttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/king4.gif with a PorscheSmileWavy nameplate. Its unique :p like me :D. It sounds http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/ear.gif like a Porsche :) and is one of the most recognized cars ever.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/smi3.gif
(I also don't care for a ton of smiley faces)

The 993 was the pinnacle of the 911 evolution IMO. The perfect blend of technology and design. The 996 just seems a bit too refined and very sterile in it's styling. I think Porsche has realized this to some degree, and that is why the new 997 is headed back to a more 911-familiar design. As far as the whole air vs. water cooled thing, it's all about heritage. The 911 had used an air-cooled flat six since it's origin, and that was one of the trademark features that made the car unique. When they went to water-cooling "like everyone else", there was obviously going to be some resentment/backlash by the die-hard P-car fans.

The 996 just does not do "it" in the looks department.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1084131682.jpg

some have "it" and others don't :D

1989 turbo cab

The more 996s I see, the more I like them. I still like the older air cooled Porsches more, however, because they have more edge. The older cars have a rawness to them that seems to be refined out with the newer Porsches.

But I believe one can put a certain amount of "raw" in the 996 by deleting a lot of the weight and some other modern-day anemities. Give it some agressive suspension and alignment, and I think it'd be very close to the old-style 911. Just add water. :D

wrong headlights
wrong rear lights
it carries more water than required to spray the windshield
it has only a bit more 911 in it than a 928 used to have > but not much

it's not a bad car , but it's not a 911
they should have named it 996 and stuck that as a badge on the rear of the car, but they didn't cause 911=easy marketing...

Besides the water cooling thing...

The 993 looks like a logical progression of the 911. It looks awesome, and certainly belongs in the 911 family. Evolution. See link below for a nice one at a good price:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=2478004035&catego ry=10156


The 996 looks like a completely different car.... something not quite a 911.

Yes, the 993 is extremely nice, too. I would take it over a 996.

The 996 is a neat car. Most of the people who "complain" about them have never driven them, so they don't really have a leg to stand on. Next time someone rags on a 996, ask them if they have ever driven one.

As for the traditional thing - yes, the 996 departs from Porsche's traditional role of the 911 in a few ways:
- The car is new right now, and is purchased mostly by people who are not true enthusiasts.

- The car has a wet-sump design, which is not suitable for real heavy-duty track use. Porsches have always been designed so that they could be raced on the track with little or no modifications. This track-ready philosophy seems to have been abandoned in the Boxster and 996. For clarification, the Turbo cars, and the GT3s do not have 996 engines in them - they have dry-sump 993-variants.

- The car is watercooled. It doesn't really matter to me personally, but many people see the 911 as an aircooled car, and a 911 that is not aircooled, is not a 911.

They've made a lot of these 996s, and the values are dropping fast as many of these cars are coming off of leases. Don't get me wrong, the 996 will still out-perform many cars out there (including the older 911s). For the price now, these 996s will be a really good bargain. Just like the Boxsters are becoming a really good buy (seen them for around $15K lately).

-Wayne

i reckon its because most people here can't afford that 996 turbo or that 996 gt3 or that 996 rs/rsr that they really want and/or they refuse to embrace evolution and are hanging on to their first 911 experience's and as a result would rather go on about how much better the early cars are than the late cars. I would personally have a 996rsr over a 73rsr any day of the week but I can't afford one, so untill i can i will continue to put my 73rsr replica together and hope that one day i will be able to buy the latest incarnation of the 911 that money can buy!

This spring I had to check out the new TC. It's not the motor, it's not the performance, it's the appearance. That is all it takes to be turn off to me. And for the kind of bux new TC's are going for I better get that special feeling. Fingers are crossed hoping they get the 997 right.

Despite claims that the 996 is an improvement over the 911/930 models, I think this little competition disproves that little delusion.

http://ruf.kaptur.net/RUFs.mpg

Lets face it, the 996 just doesn't look as good as the 911/930 and its heavy as hell. Would you accept that kind of compromise when choosing a woman to date?

Sonic dB, the car in the auction seems more than a little bit "fishy".
It is represented as a 1996 Carrera S.
-there is no such thing as a '96 Carrera S.
-the lower wide sills of a widebody are not there. ( looks like aerokit side sills on a narrowbody)
-some of the interior "S" cues are missing- "Carrera S" script on tach, pebble grain black leather on dash and door panels.
-although hard to tell definitively, the car appears to have the standard rear fenders.

the other clue is that is the 'buy-it-now price' is more in line with the going price for a decent standard body with 65,000 miles, quite low for a S with similar mileage.

max

For me, it was purpose. If I wanted a daily driver/commuter that could run with modern cars, I might have gone with a 996. I, like many here, have gone with a early car for character, fun, trackability, uniqueness, and legendary driving style. I want a fun, light, realatively affordable, classic to play with on the weekends and nice days in the evening.

If I get a second Porsche, it will likely be a liquid cooled one...996 or 928GT whichever it be.

I think the answer is a composite of most responses here....too bland in styling, less build quality than before, less expensive in execution and design (wet sump....or "semi" dry sump engine not ready for racing..etc).

For me , it goes further. When Porsche ended the 17 year career of the 356 and came out with the 911...it took a big gamble. Larger car, different market, and most importantly...."letting it all ride" on a new...never heard-of before model number (901/911). The last of the true 911's is fuzzy...some say the last of the torsion bar cars on 89...some say the last of air-cooled cars ( 993 series of 911). It doesn't matter..the 996 is such a drastic departure from the past, that it doesn't deserve the 911 moniker. Also, Porsche has lost the "guts" to say so...and is banking on its past to call this car a 911. Is it a Porsche? Sure! However, is it a 911?.... I say, no!

Chris Bennet, I believe hit the philosophical nail on the head. All previous 911's had the design integrity to go straight to the race track. Maybe not with front-line speed...but with ample capability. That was part of its charm ( and part of its high price). The 996 has better car dynamics....but that could have been said about a number of cars, including the C5 Corvette, the 3rd gen RX-7, and the NSX. Those cars are grudgingly capable...but they're not 911's and neither is the cheap-to-produce-with-excellent-handling-and-great-A/C-but-is-too-much-like-a-Japanese-car-riding-on-the-coatails-of-excellence.....

.. 996.

There.

--Wil Ferch

Not the same as the older ones. Different purpose. The girls LOVE to take this one to the mall.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1084143532.jpg

My computer is crapped out and the CPU I am using now is too old to watch videoas. If this is the dark red Ruf, then you are not conveying the full story. It is my undertsnading that the red car with the good looking girl geeting out of it at the end was having mechanical issues and was taken directly back to Ruf right fater that video was shot. So if it the yellow bird car versus the red 996 Ruf, you are comparing a sorted yellow bird against a 996 Ruf with mechanical issues.

Now if you are referring to another Ruf video, your delusion statement may hold some water. I however, think a stock 996TT would fair pretty well against a stock pre-1990 turbo. Heck, throw in the 3.6 turbo and the 993 TT also, and I think the 996TT will still do pretty well.

Looks wise, that is very subjective. I was hailed down by a local in a turbo look cab the other day and when both cars were sitting side by side, I think my 996TT looked pretty sexy comparatively speaking.

This first thought occurred to me after my initial post. People may disapprove of the 996 simply because it's cost prohibitive. But in 10 yrs. time, I don't know if that will exactly be the case if it is now. That aside, my issue would be the weight and power-equipped equipment, etc., and not entirely the engine. I wonder if a lot of that power-equipped equipment could be tossed out entirely? :confused:

As for the wet-sump design Wayne mentions, can the car be converted to a dry-sump design? Is it even worth it? I'm certain there have been some 996s raced with the wet-sump design. Did that design fail at any time during vigorous driving?

You would think that if the new ruf was having so much trouble they would have had a do over before publishing the following results.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1083448193.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1083448225.jpg

Face it, when equipped with the same amount of power a 911/930/993 will whip a 996 any day.

I think this is a mean and sleek looking ride.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1084145073.jpg

Check out 6speedonline. The individual who originally posted that video on 6speedonline was there. I cannot recall specifically what he said, but he did say there was a problem and Ruf sent the car directly back to the factory.