Don't know if the wet sump design actually fails in high 'g' loading, but a motorsports package that has additional scavenge pumps in the heads, etc...has always been available from people like Andial ( this is a "Porsche" kit, btw)...and lo and behold...if you install this $1300 kit to make it act more like a dry sump...you void your warranty even though it's a Porsche part.
How 'bout we look at this factoid....when Porsche is *really* serious with their best street/track cars...like the 996TT, the GT2 and GT3.... ALL of them use the old porsche block as a basis ( 964 part number with proper dry-sump lubrication)..and these engines are essentially the same as the old 911's, as well as the 962 racers of yore. The cam drives are on the same side of the engine for both banks ( in a 911 location...the back of the engine nearest the rear bumper)...not like the "cooking" version of the 996, which, like the 986.. has the cam drive on one end of the engine ( back)on one side....and the opposite ( front) side of the engine for the other bank. Porsche ...even today...wouldn' use it's normal 996 engine for serious car platforms, or use it as the basis for its hottest road cars or race cars. However, older 911's like from the torsion bar era... were still built this way..

---Wil

I found his comments regarding the red car.

"The yellowbird was much faster than the r turbo on the day.

The R turbo was not running well and it could not stay with the yellowbird, even at high speeds where i would have thought that it would do well in.

Mr RUF was so displeased with the performance of the car he sent 2 mechanics and a trailer to pick it up and it was in southern germany within 48hrs, which is simply breath takingly good customer service imho. Next weekend he is hopefully free and will be driving it back to england, cant wait.

The car did 13s 0-100-0, when really it should have been 11s xxx"



One fact you are ignoring is that a stock 930 probably doesn't stand a chance against a stock 996TT. With regard to the two Ruf cars, it may be that none of us actually have all the facts about that test day other than the yellow car was superior and the red car was picked up immediately by a Ruf trailer with 2 Ruf mechanics to take it back to Ruf.

BTW, if you think the Red Ruf was not having issues, how would you rectify that a stock 996 TT with a heck of a lot less horse power did 0 - 100 - 0 in 13.5 seconds in the Road & Track test. As to the do over, this may have been for that recent Autocar Challenge as the result of the runs you pubkished were the ones in the Autocar challenge results. Not sure there was time or an option for a do over.

I guess you could ask the guy that was driving the 996 if the car was going ok in this thread.

Perhaps for the same reason that many 1000 HP supras can only do an 11 second quarter mile.

Being big and heavy is not good for either accelleration or deceleration. I think the weight/HP listed for each car is the main reason why a tweaked 996TT did not beat a tweaked 930.

Even if you claim the car was not running right, how does that explain the non-ABS 930 outbraking the 996?

Were the brakes on the fritz too? :D

I am not claiming anything. Just pointing out what I read. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it looks like the Red out brakes the yellow car 4.89 v. 4.29.

The 2001 Gambella 996 GTR 600 did 0 - 60 in 3.4 seconds and the 2001 Tech Art with around the same hp did a 3.5. It would seem that the Ruf with about the same hp should be in the same mid to high 3 range if it was running right.

Here are the Red Ruf's numbers from that Autocar challenge:

RUF R Turbo:
0-30mph: 1.76mph
0-60mph: 4.19secs
0-100mph: 8.50secs
Reaction time: 0.31secs
100-0mph: 4.29secs
Overall: 13.10secs

These numbers are actually no better than the stock 996TT's numbers. It would be delusional to think that the 996TT cannot better a 4.0 0 - 60 time with close to 600 hp if the car was running correctly. The stock TT has put down better numbers in tests before.

You are basically comparing performance numbers from a car that performed worse or the same as a stock TT to one of the best performing 930s in the world. Tweaks aside, if you are going to compare the 996 to prior 911 models, I think you should be comparing stock figures.

Their is a tweeked Honda Civic in town that can lay down sub 10s in the quarter mile so anything is possible when it comes to tuners.

Actually, Supras with the 1,000 hp have hit and broke the 10 second quarter mile, but traction may always plays a role.

My test drive in a 996 was alot of fun. I was pumped before the drive - I like the looks of the 996, not as much as the old 911's of course, but I like it alot. It all fell apart as soon as I sat down, the interior is, well, bad. Those guages SUCK! Plastic crap everywhere.
The old 911 interior gets alot of flak, but not from me, it just screams "Lets go FAST!" The 996 interior didnt say anything, except the rattles. It really astonished me that this car, only 2 years old with 16k km's rattled when my 27 yr-old 911 doesn't. And the sounds I wanted to hear were'nt there, sure you can get aftermarket exhaust to help that but my god, i can't beleive they would call a design finished when it sounds like that. I know 993's were berated for their exhaust sound but ive heard stock 993's and they sound WAY better than a 996.
It seemed to drive really nice, and other than a lack of feel through the wheel(a problem for me), I liked it. After I gave it back I was fairly impressed, till I got back in my 930. I think the clincher was that my ex loved the 996, and actually wanted me to trade the 930 for it.

It's not so much that I hate the 996...I suppose it's an okay car. It's that I absolutely love my 1972 911S! :D

i have to agree with adomakin

" 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"
or at least if they have tried esp the 02 and on im SURE most would like it...just look at the pics of D Hanson turbo... maybe 10 years from now when these cars are at 74-85 value alot more people would buy them!!! but these cars are great esp for daily use and the DO look good (maybe not pure 911) but still nice good luck and enjoy your porsche what ever is it....

Yes, Bruce Anderson recently reminded me that Porsche tried racing the 996s (I forget the details) but they all broke with mechanical problems, some related to the sump issue.

-Wayne

The video that you posted, while interesting, is not related to this argument, being a competition between two tuner cars. The 996 in the video isn't even a 996 - it's a Turbo car with the dry sump...

-Wayne

One more thing to emphasize - I don't consider the 996 Turbo, the GT2 or the GT3 to be part of the discussion here. The engines in those cars are completely different than those in the stock 996. The Boxster and the 996 fundamentally share the same engine, whereas the Turbo and GT3 cars use a design based on the old 964/993 engine.

-Wayne

While 996's are indeed Porsche, they have fallen into the comparison wars with all of the other high end cush mobiles. Comparing the 996's to SC's, Carreras or even 993's is like comparing a Bic to a Zippo. I'll take the Zippo everytime.

I like them more and more as their prices keep dropping :D . What do they cost to insure?

me too
 

I could not have said how I feel any better. To each his own. If you love it..good for you. Bottom line..it's still a Porsche. Wet or dry.

I drove a 1999 996 a few days ago and was impressed! The clean refined power was amazing. However, I prefer the growl and "personality" my SC offers. I feel more connected in my car. The 996 felt like an old man's sports car.

my mechanic buddy, who is one of those crotchety old dudes that talks of the past passionately feels that porsche changed mission statements. he said in the old days, the factory bragged about building the sportiest and most reliable cars. now the bragging is about being the most profitable car company. he hates the new models. he thinks they have dependabilty issues. he told me, his first mechanic gig was working on the east coast at a foriegn auto dealer. all the new cars that came in with long list for warranty work was the fiats, MG's, etc. he said all the porsches that came in had tiny problems, like the seatbelt didnt "click" in the same, or the turn signal handle made a funny noise. and that was it. he said those days are gone. fun man to share coffee with.

I don't hate 996's, It's what it is a "luxury sports car".
The 911 is a "no nonsense" performance sports car.
If you want to talk on the cell phone and drink your
coffee on the way to the office, get a 996.
If you want a true sports car with the feel and sound
of the real thing, get a 911.
The heavy 4wd 996 TT's pose very little threat to a strong
930!!
"No 996's were harmed in the making of this post"

i saw this guy just yesterday, with a brand new C4S. ( i think that is the model, i dont know much about the new cars) he was parked right next to the dim sum house. he took a parking space right next to a fire hydrant! partially across a crosswalk. he kept going to his car. he had two cell phones! (here is the kicker) he had those earphone things, ONE IN EACH EAR! he kept playing with the mute buttons, back and forth, talking all loud on both phones. what a preeck! his car was nice tho. i wanted him to get towed.

He needed two cell phones to do enough business to make the payments on his 996.

Probably has 3 other cell phones to seperate his girlfriends (or boyfriends).

he definately had a "bookie" type of vibe.

Haha, I should say so. Look at those hp figures you have. I don't think there are many cars period that would pose a threat to you rides.

Okay, I've gotten some email. Let's talk about the dry sump / wet sump design. The 996 engine (let's call it the M96 engine), has what can be called a sort-of semi-dry, semi-wet sump. To save on costs, Porsche eliminated the independent oil tank that is typically characteristic of a dry sump, and replaced it with oil pan scrapers that "scrape" the oil from the bottom of the sump.

So technically, they would probably have an advanced wet-sump. Since they are removing oil from the wet sump, they call it a dry sump. It's really semantics - I consider the dry sump to require an external oil tank capable of supplying the engine during hard cornering, or large oil usage. The 996 engine (M96) doesn't have this. The GT3/GT2/Turbo engine (which is based on the early M64 engine from the 964s) does.

Does this make the 996 any less of a car? Probably not. Does it make the 996 less of a track car? Probably yes. It's very rare to see a 996 (or a Boxster) at club racing events. Does this make the 996 less of a Porsche? Probably not, there are plenty of other Porsches without wet sumps. Is it a departure from Porsche's theme of making street cars that could be driven directly to and raced on the track (Jack's car being the ultimate example). Yes, it is.

Whether you like the car or not, it does (for me) lose some of its heritage when you can't take it on the track. Still a great car though, just different than the old air-cooled days of the 911.

-Wayne

Todd Serota (Traquest) ran his 996 in a lot of track events and represented in my mind at least, evidence that the 996 could survive on the track despite it's "integrated dry sump". Todd's car recently blew it's motor at 80K miles. He didn't know the cause last I knew.
-Chris

D Hanson -- this is either wrong, or has changed with history. The 911, even when first introduced, was a "luxury sports car". It got more luxury tidbits and weight as time went on. But go back and read the magazine reviews as I did recently. They all talk about the high price but note the luxury justifies it (maybe). And they all discuss that it is much more of a GT than was the 356.

Now, maybe the 911 is and was a "no nonsense" performance sports car, but it has always been a luxury one too.

BTW, Todd's new toy -- a GT2 with enough torque to plow all of Kansas in an hour -- has a full leather interior.

nononsense is only in retrospect and comparing apples to tomatos. Power windows started early in the production runs, along with sunroofs, etc. And what about the back seats?

I think one of the attractions of the car is its chameleon/schizo personality. 4 seats, luxury items, but you can (could) run it stock at the track, or set it up to rally, or...

Luxury sports car is cool to me. One of the primary reasons I drive 996s as my daily drivers is because they are comfortable and they have a back seat. Otherwise, I would probably have a Lambo Diablo and a Ferrari 355, maybe a 360 if the wife would let me spring for it.

I have to use my car to pick up clients, experts, witnesses and etc. and I would feel uneasy about picking some of these folks up in a raw sports car, with a weak AC, that was loud, hard to get in and out of, and a tad bit uncomfortable. I shuttled an 60ish year old expert I had in town back and forth to the airport last week and he would have probably gotten stuck in my 964 seats.

The Porsche 996 fits a nice niche for me, but I fully understand it is not for everyone and the 996 perhaps is very compromised as it is expected to fill a lot of roles yet deliver sports car performance. I have owned the SC, Carrera, drove my dad's 86 turbo for about 6 months, a 964 and etc. My wife would actually not drive these cars as she felt it was too much work and uncomfy. My wife likes to jump in the 996 and the TT and tool around. Again, ease of driving around town (clutch and steering) is a positive for my situation, but may be perceived as a negative by some.

I think that's exactly it -- and now the magazines are saying that the C-GT is a usable exotic (unlike the Ferraris and etc.) -- they are noting that as a Porsche characteristic, citing to the 959 and others. So PAG is still filling that niche well.

I personally don't care how much luxo-touches they put in (as long as they stop short of ergonomic stupidity like BMW's i-drive) just as long as it doesn't weigh anything. But generally, it does and weight is inimicla to sports car design. To me, that's the real problem.

I can understand and appreciate that. The thing with my TT though, it is so quick and handles so well, the weight is not really an issue to me. At least I am never concerned about decreasing the weight to make it faster or handle better. It already corners better than my 964 with a Ruf suspension, roll bar and huge wheels and tires.

I did take my 964 cabriolet out for some top down fun in the 70ish weather and I love that car. Great to drive and I love listening to that glorious runble my catless system with a G-Pipe make. I have undertaken some weight measures on this car and it the accelleration is brisk, fun and instantaneous, unlike the little bit of lag I get with my turbos. I also notice the solid thud when shutting the door tonight. I think the 964 is the pinacle car, at least the way mine is set up, but it still will not do for me what I need as a daily driver.

I only hate them cause I can't afford to have one in the garage with the rest of the stuff I own....

I'm not down on 996's. Infact, one of you guys driving one is driving my future car. Please take good care of it.

(And would you shut up D Hanson =) Your going to run the price up on 996's. )

Yeah, 996's are ugly, and umm pinto like, and they smell funney, and not even dog's like them. Boo on 996s. Sell them cheap to who ever whill take them off your hands. Sell your 996, and get a 997, and start depreciating that for m... er someone.

"the weight is not really an issue to me."

- I noticed this in my Boxster S and in Todd's GT-2. I think it may be the degree of rigidity in the chassis. It's bound to be better w/ less wt. tho.

i think this is sort of like saying that the queen of england must hate the big mac because she never goes to mcdonald's...

uncle's GT4 car started out as a $1600 rollover shell. I'd imagine that a LOT of club cars start out this way. you're starting to see more 993's and 964's, but even they are a small fraction of the cars in attendance. many look like them (uncle's= 993 widebody with GT2 flares), but few are underneath. it takes a lot of guts, chutzpah, balls, cajones, dead brain cells, whatever to throw down cash for a race car that won't win a dime for you. 996's are still 30k+ cars, and that's a big hit to take right off the bat. i think that you're going to have to wait a significant period of time, perhaps 15 years, to judge viability like that.

doug

ps those who question the 996's heritage, and think that it doesn't look like a 'real' porsche, have never, ever, ever taken a 914 to a car show. and for some reason, those are more accepted... even by our esteemed host. my 914 won't run right now but i'm going to have at it in another couple weeks... they're a different kind of fun.

I had always heard how bland the 996 was. And personally,I dont like its looks. I think the 997 is great return to form in that regard. But, the 996 is a fast car. It will also swap ends on you just like any other porker, only very very quickly. I had the oppotunity to drive all most all of the current range on a track and on a skid pan. Saw 300kmh on a TT. Cured me of (lusting after) them. My favourite drive was the plain old manual 996 Carrera. Plenty quick, plenty capable. Different from the older cars, but Porshes none the less. Great cars.

stuart 87 carrera
964 c4

No, I think you missed my point. The 996 is every bit a Porsche as the 914 or 944, or 928. My point was that it seems to have departed away from what is traditionally known as a 911.

-Wayne

Wayne- the 'real' porsche comment wasn't directed towards you... i know you understand what's what.

'tradition' for porsche is such a difficult line to tread because porsche had been so stubborn with their designs. the 911 and the beetle were basically the only cars since the model A to remain inchanged forever. it's not air cooled, it's not this, it's not that, but i respectfully disagree that it's not 911 enough. perhaps it's not 901/911 enough, but it's awfully close to 993 enough. those cars are rolling art, but 3000 lb, large displacement, coilover suspended, luxo loaded rolling art.

even 'vette people get new cars every decade or so. it's hard to imagine another car by another manufacturer that can use the same front windshield for over 30 years.

doug

I have a 82 cab with wide body, fresh 3.6 lots and lots of up grades any trade for a 996? Kevin

Cars can't stay the same forever. They must evolve with, or at a minimum, be drug along by the technology. Eventually we may all be driving Jetson or Fifth Element vehicles. Given this, how and at what rate would you have Porsche proceed. Not meant to be contentious, but rather a question about what would be the ideal scenario.

My two cents
 

I parked next to a new C4 convertible the other day. And then looked at my 27 year old 911, and back at the new car.

The new car is big/heavy looking, a nice car but not a little scrambler by any means.

The old car, has a simple charm that old cars have. A VW on steroids, a grown ups Go-Kart? Sure it is, and that's why I love it.

The newer cars are real nice, they just don't say accessiblity.

It's like trying to compare a Miata to a Vette, different strokes for different folks.

Re: My two cents
 

no, it's like comparing a 1967 corvette to the new one coming out. different strokes, sure, but the same concept. it's not a radically different car on a different mission.