Serge944

Most likely the 996 since youll spend half that on rebuilding the 951 before its ready for 400+ hp.

streckfu's

Including the purchase of the vehicle. NOT $20k in mods.

aeronautica86

there are plenty of 951s running 400bhp with factory internals...

Serge944

Apples and oranges. You cannot buy a 996 for 20k.

streckfu's

But if you had $20k to spend and bought a 951 and then modded it.....

For $10k you can get a very clean well maintained 951 leaving the remaining $10k for mods and maintenance. I assure you the 951 will be faster.

Eyal 951

eh, give it a few more months
Eyal
PS 951 is faster with minimal work, but then it needs plenty of maintainance.

Fishey

My comment had nothing to do with its "looks" its the build quality of the car I am questioning.

PorscheDoc

The 944 was a great handling car...in the late 80's. Today there are a LOT of cars that corner better than a 944. There are 2 reasons you see so many 944's at track events. 1: It still corners fairly well. 2: You can spin it into a wall and total the car and not be out much money. On the other hand, money is all relative to what you make. For most 944 owners, $20k is a lot of money. For a lot of guys running around with 996TT's and GT2s, etc, $100k is not a lot of money. We had a customer from Atlanta who spent $50k with us doing a 800hp GT2 engine build and moton suspension. The weekend after he picked it up, he put it on the track, and was extremely happy he shaved 4 seconds off his lap time. He dropped $50k like it was pocket change. It always comes out a of 944 owners mouth......"my car only cost me 10k to build"...like that is something to be proud of.....no...thats probably all you could afford, so you found a car you could make pretty quick, and did it (don't get me wrong...i am in the same boat). We buy the car and maybe every couple of months we can scrape up enough money to toss some mods at it. And over time, we get a pretty decent performing little car out of it, but no different then someone out there modifying ANY other car. I love my 951, but it isn't the greatest car out there by any means, and if i could afford a 996TT, or even an 996 C2 or C4, the 951 would be gone in a split second. I drive it only because that is what i can afford at the moment. The 944 and 996 truely aren't even in the same category....and how often do you track your car.....2-3-4 times a year? So 2-4 times a year you can tell a 996 guy that you can out corner him? One of the techs at the shop has a 305fwhp supercharged VW golf, 1990 or 91, and it weighs 2400lbs. He can kick the living crap out of my car, but you know what I tell him....."It's still a 1990 VW golf." Well....it's just a 944 too. Guess what, he bought his car for about $1500 bucks, dropped a 150k mile VR6 into it and slapped cams and a procharger on it. And it does great on the track. So i guess everyone should buy VW golfs now, because you can make them faster for less money.

Porsche-O-Phile

For the cost of a 996 you could buy three highly modded 951s (I'm talking MAJOR components like a full vitesse stage III, suspension, roll cages, full tuning, etc.) and still have money left over. You could even probably make one of them a 3.0L turbo which WOULD give a modded TT a run for its money - possibly even beat it depending on driver skill and course selection.

Yes a modded 996 might be faster than a modded 951 in general, but "bang-for-the-buck" I don't think there's anything out there that can touch a 951.

A lot of people rave on about how great "new car" feel is. Personally I hate it. Most of the new cars I've driven don't feel like cars - the interface between man and machine is masked by layers of superfluous flowery crap like electronics and new interior styling. I'm not saying the 951 and other "older" cars aren't without their problems (they could use a bit more ergonomic sensibility, for one) but overall I love the more "raw" feel of an "older" car than one of the generic new foo-foo cars any day. They're just. . . boring.

My ideal would be an older AIR-COOLED 911. Preferably a 930. Boo-yah. Now THAT is a raw, seat-of-the-pants machine!

special tool

Karl - I agree with most of what you said.
Its important to remember that not all 944 guys keep them for monetary reasons. Some of them can buy a 996 in every color, but would feel guilty about modding such an expensive car because their businesses were not started with money from their wives or mommies and their values might be a little different.

Also - any monkey can get 600 RWHP from a huge 3.6 liter, water-cooled, 4 valve turbocharged engine wth variable cam timing - there is no challenge in that for anyone wth the most elementary experience. My daughter could probably do it.

TD in DC

I have a 996 and I voluntarily bought a n/a 944 for the track. On the track, I like driving the 944 more. On the street, I like driving the 996 more.

Red1

I can believe that. You can hang it out on the track and not worry so much about the investment. The best of both worlds right there.

I'd love to have a 996 for a daily. I have to buy the wife a new car first though. dammit

Oddjob

I never liked the 996 when they were introduced, looks or concept (the flat 6 should be air-cooled!). But after driving one (and Ive had the opportunity to put quite a few miles on one, including some track laps), I have grown to appreciate them as a very nice, fast car. Everything is very smooth, and new, compared to a 944 or previous 911 versions (including 993s).

And they are not slow. The ’99 3.4 ltr was 296 bhp, the ’00 had 300 bhp, and either in 01 or 02 they went up to 3.6 ltr with 320 bhp. There was also the X51 option for the 3.6 ltr motor bumping it to 345 bhp. I have seen the dyno sheets for a couple track/DE prepped 996s. Both were 3.6 X51 cars that were “tuned” for racing. One was a PCA “stock” C-class car, so nothing overtly modified from the stock factory setup – other than exhaust. Both cars were putting down right around 320 rwhp. For comparison on the same dyno, a chipped 89TS ran around 243 rwhp, my RS America was at 225 rwhp, and a supercharged boxter barely broke 200.

Even the 3.4 ltr has very good low end torque and throttle response compared to any 944/Turbo/S2/968. And when it hits peak torque around mid 4k rpms, its starts pulling hard. And they redline at 7200rpm. I have never done a side by side run with a stock early 996 versus my chipped 89TS, but my guess is that I would have to work hard to stay next to it, unless it was for a short run through just the sweet spot of the turbo’s torque/boost curve.

996s handle pretty well bone stock. Certainly much better than a stock 944 chassis, or M030, or mild upgrade with aftermarket components. I have been on track running with 996s, both stock and race prepped. It takes some effort in my Club Race 944T (full bilstein race suspension, and hoosiers) to get by a very well driven 996 on street tires. A club race prepped stock class 996 is easily 5 seconds a lap faster than a stock class 944T. You need a Turbo Cup car or better to keep up with them.

My advice is to appreciate/respect both cars for what they are, but for the sake of this discussion: yes a modified/upgraded 944T can run with a 996 (stock or close to stock), but it will take a noticeable power increase (more than just a chip set) and some reasonably expensive suspension work to do so. And in the end, the modified 944T will not be as refined or as smooth as the 996. So it depends on what you want out of a 944T. Cheaper go fast toy for the track – yes. Faster, flashier, more refined car for the street – no. The used 996 market is somewhat soft, so you can get a good, clean 996 in the mid $30’s – whats the additional 20-25k worth to you?

porshhhh951

completely agree Oddjob.

that being said my 951 has no problem pulling away from 996's in the twists and in the straights lol.

the 996 is a much better platform plain and simple. You can make a 951 act like a 996 or even better but, you can do the same with any car.

speed is about money...not a badge

Porsche-O-Phile

To respond to some of the rather snooty elitism in an earlier post:

Yes, I do believe there's something to be said about doing more with less. I believe this in my professional life as well as it applies to cars, investments, and virtually anything else in life. Think of it this way - consider the Getty Museum/Center here in Los Angeles. It's a breathtakingly impressive space overlooking the city designed by architect Richard Meier - with a budget of over 1.2 BILLION dollars. Knowing THAT, my perspective has changed considerably from my first impression. No longer do I think, "wow, what an incredible space", I find myself being much more critical and thinking, "you know, the detailing here isn't really all that great" or "geez, for the budget, I'd have done this or that far differently" or "for $1.2B? Hell, I could have done this or better myself!" or "what the hell was he thinking bringing tons of travertine across the Atlantic from ITALY when it would've been more honest and just as beautiful (if not more so) to use something indiginous?!?!"

The point is that simply having money to burn and buying (or making) something "high dollar" does not make it elegant, impressive or infuse it with any intrinsic value. Doing more with less is ALWAYS the hallmark of good design, good engineering, and is the basis of the free market system.

The 996 is an impressive car - as is the Carerra GT or the Ferrari Enzo or a McLaren or a Lamborghini Murcilago. The point is, past a certain point (I believe most of the afforementioned vehicles qualify) the laws of basic economics break down and no longer make sense. It's no longer straight supply-and-demand - it's an attempt to use the pricing ITSELF as a product. Specifically it becomes an "exclusivity" badge and restricts the product (which in reality is worth far less) to a particular market segment. It's exclusional by nature. Consider this: is a Carerra GT REALLY worth $600,000? Could they not have applied more established and budget-driven engineering to the project, gotten a car that was just as good and knocked $100k off the price? Probably. However when one is making something with such a high-dollar price tag, finding equivalent cost-effective solutions tends to get overlooked a lot of times. That's my point. As impressive as the GT is (among others), it lacks a certain "honesty" that's present in the more humble 944s, 928s and Boxsters of the world. I certainly don't think the 996 is as guilty of this as some of the others, but there is a certain amount of it present.

One simply has to laugh at most stuff that's targeted for the uber-rich. . . My wife had the opportunity to buy a nightgown a few years ago that was extremely high-end designer. Price was over $6,000 (she got it for under $100 because of special connections, etc.) At the end of the day, it's really nothing all that special. The design is nice, but certainly not unprecedented, the colors are fairly average and the materials are commonly available. Although I'm a person with an appreciation for the finer things in life and a certain interest in artistic value and such, but this just simply was NOT worth $6,000. There's a certain dishonesty in producing a product that's worth $200 or $300, slapping a $6,000 price tag on it and then waiting for it to sell just because there's a sucker out there that will pay it. Depending on very stupid wealthy people is a way of life for many, but ultimately a dishonest one IMHO.

Considering that point of view, let's revisit the original question - would you rather pay $15,000 for a car with the same performance as a $75,000 one or the $75K? Would you call the person in the seat on the plane next to you that got their ticket for 20% of what you paid frugal, cheap or what? Who's the fool? All I'm saying is don't knock the inherent value of efficiency in design. It's 95% of what's out there (for good reason) and ultimately more honest.

Want to buy a 996 because you like the 996? Fine and dandy. If you're willing to pay the price then it's fair free-market and the product is standing on its own merits. If you're buying it (or talking it up) just because it's more expensive, then you're an elitist snob and such snobbery NEVER creates a motivation for good design - it creates an incentive for sloppy design, cutting corners, poseurism and "sweet talking". Ultimately we as a society benefit more from the lessons of frugality. Some indulgence is fine, but only to a point.