Thinking out loud, opinions appreciated...
06-09-2011, 11:52 AM
#61
I still come back to this simple reality:
My RSA circa 2003--factory stock. Only things changed were the brake pads and fluid, properly valved shocks with 400/600 springs, RS stabilizer bars, Hoosiers on 7.5 + 9" rims, and the necessary safety equipment to race. Still had the catalytic converter. Weight, with me in the car was ~2950 lbs. Best time at Thunderhill (full track) was 2:03.5. And that's when the track was slower, before the repave and cheater extensions in a couple of turns. Total I had tied up in the car was about $20K.
The white GT3 (which I've been told is a .1 model) in the video I posted pages ago--new Yokohama slicks, regeared, aftermarket exhaust, Ohlins shocks with appropriate springs, etc. VanOverbeck was driving the car prior to the day in the video and got a mid 1:57.
6 seconds a lap IS light years. But I'm no pro driver. I still submit that the only fundamental difference between the generations that you'll find with us amateurs is acceleration. And most of that is scrubbed when you're not spot on taking the braking to the deepest limits everywhere. Cornering? I'll compare anyone's GT3 (of any generation) data with mine. (Or with the Spec Miata, which has even higher limits.)
Right now I'm working on a deal to transform a friend's 964 coupe into something track worthy. Maybe a whole 3.8/regeared trans drivetrain is going to fall into my lap to really sweeten the car. It will certainly be cosmetically challenged, but the total build on the car will be $18-19K. I fully expect this car to be just a tick slower than my faux 993RS. Mounting Hoosiers (or even slicks) I know I'll be flirting with cracking 2:00 at Thunderhill. So me in a cobbled together 964 within a couple of seconds of a pro driver in a heavily modified 997GT3 at 20% of the cost. The air cooleds still have life left in them.
My RSA circa 2003--factory stock. Only things changed were the brake pads and fluid, properly valved shocks with 400/600 springs, RS stabilizer bars, Hoosiers on 7.5 + 9" rims, and the necessary safety equipment to race. Still had the catalytic converter. Weight, with me in the car was ~2950 lbs. Best time at Thunderhill (full track) was 2:03.5. And that's when the track was slower, before the repave and cheater extensions in a couple of turns. Total I had tied up in the car was about $20K.
The white GT3 (which I've been told is a .1 model) in the video I posted pages ago--new Yokohama slicks, regeared, aftermarket exhaust, Ohlins shocks with appropriate springs, etc. VanOverbeck was driving the car prior to the day in the video and got a mid 1:57.
6 seconds a lap IS light years. But I'm no pro driver. I still submit that the only fundamental difference between the generations that you'll find with us amateurs is acceleration. And most of that is scrubbed when you're not spot on taking the braking to the deepest limits everywhere. Cornering? I'll compare anyone's GT3 (of any generation) data with mine. (Or with the Spec Miata, which has even higher limits.)
Right now I'm working on a deal to transform a friend's 964 coupe into something track worthy. Maybe a whole 3.8/regeared trans drivetrain is going to fall into my lap to really sweeten the car. It will certainly be cosmetically challenged, but the total build on the car will be $18-19K. I fully expect this car to be just a tick slower than my faux 993RS. Mounting Hoosiers (or even slicks) I know I'll be flirting with cracking 2:00 at Thunderhill. So me in a cobbled together 964 within a couple of seconds of a pro driver in a heavily modified 997GT3 at 20% of the cost. The air cooleds still have life left in them.
If the original question is to ask for opinions from people who've jumped over the fence in one direction or the other, my opinion is less about lap times or line-item practical issues; it's certainly not an assessment of air-cooled versus water-cooled. I don't think the 964 C4 is an important "representative" of the air-cooled cars. Some say the 996 GT3 is a great example of when the "wet" cars finally became interesting (for US drivers, that was 2004 ... a long time between drinks when the 996 3.4 arrived in '99.)
To me, in this "category" of cars -- semi-affordable 911's from the 90's and 2000's with credible track pretensions -- it's a matter of the 996 GT3 being "laugh out loud" hilarious fun, excellent bang-for-the-buck for anyone with that kind of $50K+ budget to take a street car to the track, and a car that has a lot to offer in terms of performance and handling for a skilled driver wanting to sharpen their skills.
If the question was to jump over the fence from say a strong 3.8 in a 993 set up with all the nice go-fast suspension bits of an RS, I'd say "prepare to be underwhelmed." But if this example is a 964 C4 to a half-way decent 996 GT3, I'd say it's going to be a very rewarding time on the track.
06-09-2011, 12:21 PM
#62
Rennlist Member
It's all subjective. I agree with one post that comments that they wouldn't be silly enough to jump over the fence in either direction -- the grass is always greener.
If the original question is to ask for opinions from people who've jumped over the fence in one direction or the other, my opinion is less about lap times or line-item practical issues; it's certainly not an assessment of air-cooled versus water-cooled. I don't think the 964 C4 is an important "representative" of the air-cooled cars. Some say the 996 GT3 is a great example of when the "wet" cars finally became interesting (for US drivers, that was 2004 ... a long time between drinks when the 996 3.4 arrived in '99.)
To me, in this "category" of cars -- semi-affordable 911's from the 90's and 2000's with credible track pretensions -- it's a matter of the 996 GT3 being "laugh out loud" hilarious fun, excellent bang-for-the-buck for anyone with that kind of $50K+ budget to take a street car to the track, and a car that has a lot to offer in terms of performance and handling for a skilled driver wanting to sharpen their skills.
If the question was to jump over the fence from say a strong 3.8 in a 993 set up with all the nice go-fast suspension bits of an RS, I'd say "prepare to be underwhelmed." But if this example is a 964 C4 to a half-way decent 996 GT3, I'd say it's going to be a very rewarding time on the track.
If the original question is to ask for opinions from people who've jumped over the fence in one direction or the other, my opinion is less about lap times or line-item practical issues; it's certainly not an assessment of air-cooled versus water-cooled. I don't think the 964 C4 is an important "representative" of the air-cooled cars. Some say the 996 GT3 is a great example of when the "wet" cars finally became interesting (for US drivers, that was 2004 ... a long time between drinks when the 996 3.4 arrived in '99.)
To me, in this "category" of cars -- semi-affordable 911's from the 90's and 2000's with credible track pretensions -- it's a matter of the 996 GT3 being "laugh out loud" hilarious fun, excellent bang-for-the-buck for anyone with that kind of $50K+ budget to take a street car to the track, and a car that has a lot to offer in terms of performance and handling for a skilled driver wanting to sharpen their skills.
If the question was to jump over the fence from say a strong 3.8 in a 993 set up with all the nice go-fast suspension bits of an RS, I'd say "prepare to be underwhelmed." But if this example is a 964 C4 to a half-way decent 996 GT3, I'd say it's going to be a very rewarding time on the track.
But as you say, if you've got $50K to spend it's a different issue. (Though from what I see, it seldom ends with a used, stock GT3 being left unmodified. So $50K can turn into $60K+ really fast.) I have NO idea what the relative costs are for our original poster in Italy. Cars are cheap and plentiful here, and we seldom seem to appreciate it. What I do know is that the economy hasn't been kind to me personally the past three years, so I continue to fiddle with $20-30K cars and do what I can with them.
06-09-2011, 01:18 PM
#63
06-09-2011, 05:49 PM
#64
Racer
Thread Starter
To me, in this "category" of cars -- semi-affordable 911's from the 90's and 2000's with credible track pretensions -- it's a matter of the 996 GT3 being "laugh out loud" hilarious fun, excellent bang-for-the-buck for anyone with that kind of $50K+ budget to take a street car to the track, and a car that has a lot to offer in terms of performance and handling for a skilled driver wanting to sharpen their skills.
If the question was to jump over the fence from say a strong 3.8 in a 993 set up with all the nice go-fast suspension bits of an RS, I'd say "prepare to be underwhelmed." But if this example is a 964 C4 to a half-way decent 996 GT3, I'd say it's going to be a very rewarding time on the track.
If the question was to jump over the fence from say a strong 3.8 in a 993 set up with all the nice go-fast suspension bits of an RS, I'd say "prepare to be underwhelmed." But if this example is a 964 C4 to a half-way decent 996 GT3, I'd say it's going to be a very rewarding time on the track.
You may not realize since it was before we met, but I ran a '92 C4 extensively from '99-'01. It wasn't anything particularly overwhelming, but it wasn't the quasi-dog it's made out to be. When I was done with it, it actually reminded me of what we'd ultimately gotten out of 944 Turbos in the mid-'80s--slight push, decent acceleration. I ran up against some stiff competition in the form of POC prepped 1st gen 996s that were wannabe Cups or Mk1 GT3s (less engine), and their ~1:31 at Willow compared to my ~1:33-4.
But as you say, if you've got $50K to spend it's a different issue. (Though from what I see, it seldom ends with a used, stock GT3 being left unmodified. So $50K can turn into $60K+ really fast.) I have NO idea what the relative costs are for our original poster in Italy. Cars are cheap and plentiful here, and we seldom seem to appreciate it. What I do know is that the economy hasn't been kind to me personally the past three years, so I continue to fiddle with $20-30K cars and do what I can with them.
But as you say, if you've got $50K to spend it's a different issue. (Though from what I see, it seldom ends with a used, stock GT3 being left unmodified. So $50K can turn into $60K+ really fast.) I have NO idea what the relative costs are for our original poster in Italy. Cars are cheap and plentiful here, and we seldom seem to appreciate it. What I do know is that the economy hasn't been kind to me personally the past three years, so I continue to fiddle with $20-30K cars and do what I can with them.
With regards to cost my track mechanic's '93 964 RSA with a rebuilt engine (bent valve) RS parts (suspension + brakes + rollbar) plus 6spd 'box w/lsd is going for 40K euros. To make it perfect (according to me) would take a few extra g's. So between one thing and another we're looking at close to 45K euros. Even buying a 20K euro C2 and modding it would cost about the same or probably more even without the rebuilt engine. And no unfortunately I can't do the work myself as I don't have the space, tools or time...
I'm sure that with patience I can find a good 996 GT3 at around 45K euros. Obviously the running costs would be different even without considering consumables - insurance and road tax are negligible in Italy on a 20 year old car. But if we really must look at value then in the long run a modded 964 will never be worth as much as an original GT3 (especially mk1) IMHO.
I don't have issues with spending money on mods in the long term as I am looking for a keeper and realize the first mods on a GT3 mk1 will be brakes (unless already modded) and like any car suspension and a good lsd but no hurry there as the stock platform is already very, very good and I'd rather focus on getting to know each other first.
Thanks again for all the great posts!
P.S.- Unfortunately just did in a rod bearing on my miata so am also considering if it's worth building that as a dedicated track car using the P car for the road or the other way around...
