Damian in NJ

I've been to two UK track events, and the GT3's are way faster than the 968's. Most of that is down to hp, I'm sure.

gnosis

It's like comparing apples and oranges until the power difference is taken out of the equation. The only way to have an honest comparison is to throttle a GT3 back to 240HP, or give a 968CS 380HP.

A 380HP 968CS vs a GT3? I know where my money would be.

Clayton

wjk_glynn

I've driven quite a few 968s, some in anger and I have personal experience of seeing what a 996 GT3 can do as follows...

In July of this year, I had the opportunity of both driving, and being driven in a Rothmans Porsche 944 Turbo Cup (from the Canadian series) at Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia.

I don't know how familiar you are with the Turbo Cups, but they were factory-built racecars (predating the Carrera Cup) for series in Germany, France, South Africa and Canada. As fine as the 968 CS is for track days, the Turbo Cup is an order of magnitude better. The particular example I drove was a very good one. It was well setup (Bilstein suspension), very quick (270-bhp and weighed ~2,700-lbs) and with track tires... it had amazing levels of grip.

Now I wouldn't pretend that my driving skills are anything to write home about, but the owner of the car is an experienced instructor. On the day he was going around 964 RS Americas and 993 Carreras like they were stopped dead on the track. In addition, the run groups we were in were for experienced drivers so there wasn't any nervous nellies out there.

But there was one set of cars on the track that day that were going around us in the same way we were going around the air-cooled machines... And that was a bunch of 996 GT3s.

I want to emphasis that it wasn't simply a difference in HP.

There is a series of corners at Summit Point called the Chute, the Carousel and the Esses. If the GT3s were behind us in this section, they simply latched onto our rear bumper and stayed there - no way to shake them. When the opportunity allowed, their HP kicked in and they simply blasted past us. When we were behind them in those corners, there was no way we could stay with them. I was watching them from behind and their ability to transition back and forth was unreal.

Now here's the really amazing thing... They were doing it on street tires!!!

On the same day, there was a rather well-heeled gentlman who owns a racing-supply business (he also had a successful racing history). He previously owned a 944 Turbo Cup and currently owns two 996 GT3 Cup cars (lucky dog!). When I chatted with him, he told me that he loved his old Turbo Cup, but that the GT3 Cup cars were better in every single conceivable way (handling, power, brakes, tunability, etc).


In principal, the car does have a design flaw regarding its mass location (but not the weight bias). And while it does require very sophisticated engineering to counter that problem, the fact is that they succeeded. My evidence for supporting that argument is the 996's success around the Nordschleife at the Nurburgring. A good laptime at the Ring requires the car to be great in all areas. In summary, it needs to be "complete" and the 996 has the best record of any production sports car there - either stock or tuned.

I don't think people give Porsche enough credit for the major leap they achieved with the 996 (styling aside). Here are some examples of contemporary reviews on its handling:


(1) In 1999, R&T conducted a handling test of the following cars:

- Lotus Esprit V8
- Chevrolet Corvette
- Ferrari F355
- Dodge Viper GTS-R
- Acura NSX
- 996 C4

Mario Andretti (Formula One World Champion, Daytona 500 winner, Indy 500 winner, etc.) was on the panel and his opinion was that the best handling car of that bunch was the 996. You can read the article at http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Media/magazines/rt9906.htm Personally, I'd give a lot of weight to his opinion.


(2) Evo Magazine did a comparison review of the following cars, and again the 996 came out on top for handling...

- BMW M Coupe
- Chevrolet Corvette ZO6
- Acura NSX
- 996 C4S
- TVR Tuscan S

You can read the article at http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?domain...y.php?id=25805


Sears Point in Northern California is a very challenging road course with many difficult corners and elevation changes. There's barely a straight and its a course that favours handling over power. I know that testing by Kevin Buckler (owner of the Racer's Group and GT3 class winner at Le Mans) at Sears Point showed that there was only a 3-second difference in laptimes between a GT3 RSR car and a street 996 GT3 on street tires - that's outstanding.

Now I'm a HUGH fan of the 944/968. I own one and I've driven several models - including some rare versions from a genuine factory racecar to a 400-bhp turbocharged 968.

But when you consider all the factors:

(1) A 944 Turbo Cup is a better handling track car than a 968 CS
(2) Street tired 996 GT3s demolished the Turbo Cup at Summit Point
(3) Anecdotes of someone who has owned both Turbo Cups and GT3 Cups give the nod to the GT3
(4) That the 996 has the best record of any production sports car at the Ring
(5) Contemporary reviews of the 996 put it at the top for handling
(6) Mario Andretti says its a great handling car.
(7) The street car is only 3-seconds of a Le Mans GT3 class winning Cup car at Sears Point

I do believe that times have moved on in terms of handling.

That should not be taken as some sort of insult to owners of previous Porsche models. In fact, we should celebrate it as proof that Porsche still has what it takes.

Karl.


PS - Having said all that, I'm wonder if the new Carrera GT will take the crown. But a car that costs as much as my house is real fantasyland stuff...

PorscheG96

Excellent post, Karl.

richard glickel.

Interesting thread. Good job Karl.

I would hope, that after 10+ years and lord knows how much more $$, a GT-3 would indeed out-handle a 968.

From what I've read about the 997, the next GT-3 variant should be an even better handling car.

That said, we can all agree that given present acquisition cost, and the additional investment in suspension components, a 968 offers incomparable handling at a bargain price. And, tweeked to say 300 h.p., the 968 will out perform most cars on the track (excluding factory cup cars, dedicated race cars and some others, like the GT-3).

BTW, these later (996) cup cars are showing up at D.E. events with greater frequency this year. The GT-3 is basically the "civilized" version of the cup car. It is the vehicle that we Porsche enthusiasts dream of - a track car that can be driven on the street!

Ciao!

Richard

RajDatta

Karl, I didn't know Pete was that good! . I was supposed to join you guys but fortunately I was called back to my old assignment.
Hopefully, the next time you are in town we get to meet. Wait till you see Pete's Yellow monster, its coming together very nicely. I can't believe how many people passed it up.
Raj

gnosis

Karl,

Since a failed to prevent a concerted effort to down my good natured 968 loyalist post in a 968 thread, I might as well start quoting statistics too. So here goes...

Methinks the definition of "handling" should be brought into question. Have I caused this fuss by talking about how fast a car can lap a circuit? That's really not all there is to handling.

Sure 996 GT3 Cup cars are very fast. But how much of that is due to a really stiff setup with lots of horsepower pushing lots of downforce on big tyres?

That really has nothing to do with handling and everything to do with track setup. I can name plenty of F1 cars that are faster than a GT3 Cup car specifically because they have huge horsepower and astronomically high levels of downforce, but the drivers will tell you they handle like pigs. F1 history is littered with fast AND terrible cars that drivers simply hated to drive. I'm not saying people hate the GT3. No doubt it's quite the opposite, but is it more love than the 968 generated? You can't tell by lap times alone.

Handling is about how a car feels. How it talks back to you. How it lets you drive it at its limits. How it forgives you and still makes you feel like you're the best driver in the world. Give me a blank cheque and I'll put my 968CS around a circuit just as fast as any GT3. I know that because I know a 968 has no vices that are going to pop up when I ask more if it. But does that mean I've made the car handle better? No, just made it faster.

Until someone shows me how a GT3 can allow itself to be driven closer to its limit, with more confidence, I'm happy to stand behind my claim for the 968. Especially since the only complaint I've ever seen by a motoring journalist with respect to the 968 is due to it's less than generous power output. I've seen the same old tail heavy moaning about the GT3, though. Heavily disguised by the new rear end, but still lurking, ready to bite the hand that feeds. Yes, the GT3's limits are higher than the 968CS's limits. But can you approach them the same way? Can you get as close and get away with it?

But since you want to compare apples to oranges, I'll do that too. Here's a guide to lap times using a roughly 2 minute lap. I will use Sydney's Eastern Creek Raceway as an example because I have access to the lap data for these cars. A 996 GT3 on road tyres (1:42) is roughly 8 seconds faster than a 968CS on road tyres (1:50). A 996 GT3 Cup car (full race setup on slicks) is roughly 17 seconds faster (1:33).

I don't know how fast a GT3 RSR is, so I can't use it in this comparison. But I know one thing. There is absolutely not a snowflake's chance in hell that you can lap Eastern Creek in a road-going 996 GT3 within 3 seconds of a 996 GT3 Cup car. So if that's the comparison Kevin Buckler is making, he's flat out wrong. Perhaps I've mistaken a Le Mans winning GT3 car for a GT3 Cup car, but I can only go on what you claimed in your post.

Now, I know from previous experience with FIA Group N production car racing that a 968CS prepared to FIA Group N spec will lap Eastern Creek in about 1:40. That's about the same as a standard GT3, (by using slicks and changing dampers, springs (AND bars), and fiddling with the exhaust and engine computer, which isn't much at all, really). So only the Cup car is quicker than that, which incidentally never fails to amaze me when I see them race, particularly because the times are coming not from straight line speed, but from maintaining high corner speeds.

So there is no doubt in my mind that even with a little preparation (i.e. Group N plus a little extra horsepower), a 968 will match and surpass a GT3 in terms of lap times. In order to make it catch a GT3 Cup car you'd have to seam weld it, set it up so stiff you can barely drive it around the pits, strip the guts out so it weighs the bare minimum, put ceramic brakes on it, etc. Of course, this is exactly the same preparation the GT3 Cup cars get, so you could hardly call it unfair.

This whole thing is academic, however, because it's not addressing the issue of handling. It's simply showing how fast you can lap a car. The GT3 Cup cars lap really fast, and they crash a lot too. Quite often **** first off the track. That says to me that they're fast, but they don't "handle" as well. Or maybe it says rich people can't drive. Whatever it says, you never see someone "dance" a GT3 Cup car. It's either going fast with minimal fuss, or it's going home very bent (usually with 100% of the coolant left on the circuit for someone else to slide in).

As for Mario Andretti. When he compares a 968 to a GT3, I'll be eager to see the impression both cars leave (comparisons with TVRs prove nothing). Perhaps in 20 years time he can do the comparison. Throw in the other great Porsche - the 1973 911 RS - for good measure. Don't be surprised at all if the biggest smile on his face comes not from driving the GT3. And if it comes from a 2025 model Cayenne, I'll eat a hard copy of this post.

Clayton

wjk_glynn

Hi Clayton,

I really didn't mean to try to put you down, and if my tone implied that - I sincerely apologize. It really wasn't my intent.

In fact, I love a good discussion on topics such as this and its great to be able to hash out differences of opinion with fellow enthuasists.


Anyway, back to the discussion!


I've read through your posts and you make some excellent points (especially about overall-handling -vs- track-performance).

Now, since there hasn't been a direct head-to-head comparison by someone we'd both respect to give an unbiased and qualified opinion, I think you'd agree that we are both are using somewhat indirect means to support our arguments.

I think I can distill our argument down to the following: Multi-link suspension kinematics -vs- Inheriant balance

Or expanded slightly...

968CS
(+) Great balance
(+) High polar momentum
(-) Rear trailing arm suspension has limited kinematic adjustment or tunability during design and development

GT3 Street Car
(+) Rear multi-link suspension of the GT3 has excellent control of camber, caster, toe, etc as the suspension is exercised through its dynamic range
(+) Trick differentials (e.g. 100% lockup on overrun - more of the Space Shuttle engineering )
(-) Rear-engine location (old analogy of throwing a dart backwards)


Now we both have anecdotal evidence to support our arguments. I experienced street tired (tyred) GT3s being all over us in the twisties at Summit Point, and you have indicated the laptimes of a 968CS prepared to FIA Group N spec at Eastern Creek...

Perhaps the jury is still out. Until this summer, the best handling car that I'd ever driven was that 400-bhp 968 and I thought there was no way you could beat it. But I have to admit that those street-GT3s blew me away back in July... Now maybe it was down to driver difference, but the owner of that Turbo Cup was no slouch.


As regards Kevin Buckler, I know the 3-seconds difference was correct, but I think I made a mistake in saying it was an RSR. I'll have to wait until this evening to double check that, but it was likely a GT3 Cup instead of an RSR. I'm thinking of an article in Excellence from a few months back where they compared a '73 RS to a new GT3...

But the reason I mentioned it in the first place is the fact that a GT3 street car was so close to a Cup car at Sears Point (where there's hardly a straight anywhere on the track) shows how well the street version is setup out of the box.

The other articles I mentioned (e.g. Andretti) was to support the general case that the 996 is a great handling car. Its a pity there isn't a head-to-head with a 968CS available yet, hopefully someone will do one.

I also noticed that you've mentioned in a few cases about the potential for the 996 "to bite the hand that feeds." I'd agree that characteristic was definitely there with older 911's (especially 930s). However, from what I've read in contemporary articles and reviews, and what I've heard from folks with experience of both 944/968s and 996s... I think the consensus is that Porsche has finally exorcised that backwards-into-the-hedge trait once and for all.


So if I win the lotto this weekend, I'll give you a report sometime next week!


Karl.

Thom

So it took Porsche some 10 years to beat the handling of a 951 Cup with a rear engined car ? I call that a waste of time.
One can only imagine how even better a modern 968 turbo would handle had they bothered taking the development further, perhaps by adapting the "Weissach" 928 rear axle.

wjk_glynn

Hi Thom,

I think you're right from a technology perspective, but it hasn't been a waste of time for Porsche from a business perspective.

From a branding and marketing perspective, the 911 is one of the very best. It has die-hard loyalists (and bitter opponents), a great image that people will pay a premium for and a racing history which has resulted in Porsche being the most profitable car manufacturer as measured by profit made per car manufactured (not in absolute amounts) in recent years. Porsche has even managed to make a nice book-profit from its Weissach racing division selling Cup and RSRs. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another production car manufacturer that makes a profit selling race cars (though I'd love to hear of others if anyone happens to know). When we had downturns in the economy in the last few years, the Boxster sales took a dive, but 911 sales remained fairly robust (at least in the US).

Now if Porsche didn't have to invest the effort to develop the 911, could they have built even better handling cars? Probably.

But don't forget they haven't completely focused on the 911. The Boxster is another great handling car and the Carrera GT could prove to be on another planet altogether.

Karl.

wjk_glynn

Hi Raj,

Pete is a way better driver than I. It was a pleasure to ride with him and because he's a classic "slow-hands-driver", there was little drama and so you could really observe what was going on.

Karl.

gnosis

For those interested, here's some more comparison times from the Antipodes. The pointy end of each class is reasonably representative of a good lap time. Professional drivers would take around a second off those times again. Forget about the stragglers. Some of their times are embarrassing. How anyone can be 10 seconds a lap off the pace on a 2 minute lap is beyond me.

Anyway, here's your typical Porsche Club of New South Wales supersprint event, at Eastern Creek:

http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/re...9/2004.EAST.S1

Note the 1:43 or thereabouts times of the rather large field of GT3s (including an RS). Ignore the unrepresentative times of the few 968s in the field (which are not Clubsports but are still not being driven fast). I've done 1:50 there on road tyres in my unmodified 968CS. I've also done almost identical times in a Group N prepared normally aspirated 2 litre Toyota MR2. An example is here. Look for the MR2s around mid field and while you're at it take note of the Group N 993 RSCS times at the front of the field: http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/re.../1999.ARDC.P13.

Of course a Group N prepared car can hardly be driven home afterwards since it'd shake your fillings loose if you hit a cat's eye much less a pothole. I do know from the experience with developing the MR2 that the Group N preparation is worth about 6 seconds a lap. So it stands to reason that a Group N prepared 968CS would manage 1:44 easily at Eastern Creek, which is right near the times of the 968CS's arch enemy, the BMW M3R listed in the results (see, the times always add up when you do this sort of relativity exercise!). That's only 2 seconds off a typical GT3 time, with a whole lot less horsepower. I can't say how close the GT3s are to a Group N setup, but I'm certain they're part way there already since they aren't as pleasant to drive on a typical Sydney road (think British C roads). This is all the more obvious if indeed it's true that there's only a few seconds to be gained from a full race setup. In fact, a GT3 can be considered much like a standard 996 given the Group N treatment.

Now, compare those times with the GT3 Cup cars here (note, these are mostly professional drivers, so the times are world class - in fact Alex Davison has raced at the front of Carrera Cup in Europe as well as Australia, and Jim Richards is a multiple Bathurst winner and Australian motorsport icon, and in case you were wondering Fabian Coulthard is related to the famous Coulthard):

http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/re...4/2004.ECIR.Q7

Now, if this friend of yours can do a 1:36 with his road-going GT3, he'd better get into international Cup racing, because he must be the fastest driver on the planet. I figure he'd be signed by an F1 team almost immediately. At the very least he should come to a PCNSW supersprint and blow everyone's doors off by over 7 seconds a lap. That would be something to see.

One other very fair comparison can also be drawn from these results. Jim Richards is shown driving the 996 GT3 Cup car (in stock trim) and the 993 RSCS (in Group N trim). The difference is about 7 seconds a lap.

I haven't done it, but it wouldn't be too hard to sort the supersprint results by horsepower and tyre/brake size. I reckon that would be enough to show these are the only factors affecting lap times. It's no surprise at all that a Boxster 3.2 laps about the same as a 968CS, despite them having different design philosophies and suspension architectures. Why? Because they have similar weight and power. And it's pretty plain to see that if you restricted a GT3 to the same power levels, it would lap about the same. What's even more surprising to me is that I can take a 2 litre 175HP Toyota MR2 and with changes to only springs, dampers, exhaust and engine computer, put it on a par with a 968CS and a Boxster S. Does that mean a Toyota MR2 handles as good as a 968CS? Absolutely not! In fact it's reknowned for its somewhat pendular rear end, and was panned by motoring journalists because most of them spun or crashed them during road tests. Take it from me. MR2s are very touchy little beasts.

This all serve to highlight one simple fact. Lap times are a product of race setup that maximises the use of power and grip. A car's inherent handling has little to do with it.

If a GT3 had less horsepower than a 968 and lapped faster, then maybe you could convince me that there's some other excellent engineering work delivering the results. But when you point to a car with 50% more horsepower, bigger brakes (that cost the same as a whole 944), and a race-biased setup, it doesn't do much to convince me the car's design is inherently superior.

Clayton

richard glickel.

Doesn't the GT3 weigh less than our 968's? More HP + lighter, with near race car suspension is tough to beat, no?

Richard

ljd-924SE

terrific discussion!

i wish more people would do turbo conversions to their 968's, such a potent vehicle. i feel that a turbo 968 with a bilstein escort cup suspension is just about the most car you can get for under $50K.

of course i am quite a sucker for the 996 GT3. i just want to point out two things that the GT3 has on the 968 which were not mentioned. first, porsche blessed the 996 with the dry-sump engine case. but, yes, you can make the 968 dry sump. second, i don't care what you do to a 968, it will never sound as good as the GT3. maybe this point in unimportant in the context of this discussion, but while we're redefining "handling", i figured we might place an emphasis on the role of sound in the overall driving experience of a car.

after reading the above arguements, i must also point out that the capability of the boxster platform. here you have all the modern suspension geometry in place without the engine being located behind the rear axel. and as so many boxster owners express, this car is far more forgiving and comfortable at the limits than with its rear-engine sibling, better fitting the clayton's description of how a good handling car should behave. of course the power desparity with the boxster can easily be solved by swapping in the 3.6L from the 996 (wet-sump; would be nice if the GT3's engine block would swap in as easily).

and as with karl, i also trust the opinion of those who have driven the best. now when alois ruf was asked which porsche platform was the best, he chose the mid-engine boxster, to the surprise of many. now there is a man who is experienced with the best porsche has to offer.

starting with a slightly used boxster S, one could easily add a tweaked 3.6L and a bilstein PSS-9 suspension and have quite a performer on their hands for under $70K.

so here's the break down as i see it:

best car under $50K - 968 turbo
best car under $70K - 3.6L 986 S
best car under $100K - 996 GT3

three amazingly different, yet potent platforms, but notice the relatively similar power-to-weight ratio for this group.

damn, i need to hurry up and finish this degree already.

wjk_glynn

I thing I'll buy my ticket now!

Karl.