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.