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).