Greg, et al.,

I'm sure that some, perhaps all, of the advantage of the C2 on the faster, more open tracks is due to its lighter weight. Of course, if one removes the same stuff/lightens the cars in the same manner, a C4 will always weigh 110 lbs more than a C2. I am fairly sure I recall reading a test in a magazine years ago that compared a 993 C2 and a C4 on two different courses -- one high speed with fast corners, the other lower speed with tighter corners; the C2 was faster on the faster course, and the C4 was quicker on the tighter course.

About the Top Gear article: It was a course that was mostly tight, having "fast corners, slow corners, chicanes, ludicrously tight hairpins and slalom-style cones." This would favor the C4. They also conducted acceleration tests, which highlight the weight and mechanical friction disadvantages of the C4. The acceleration figures are identical from 0-30 through 0-60, but the C2 began to pull ahead significantly above 60:

0-70: C2 7.0 C4 7.3
0-90: C2 10.7 C4 11.3
0-110: C2 15.8 C4 16.9
0-130: C2 23.8 C4 26.8 -- 3 full seconds.
The 1/4 mile times are very close, but the C2 is going 2.6 mph faster: C2 13.9 @ 103.7, C4 14.0 @ 101.1 mph.

It follows that on an open course with some decent straights and fast corners, a C2 would lap faster than a C4, while on a tight course, the C4's superior traction through and out of corners would make it faster.

BTW, the driver was Alister McRae, the then-current British Rally champion. It says in the article that he had NEVER driven a 911 before.

 

Comparing my 95 Carrera and my 96 C4S on track, the 95 was faster in the dry. It would out accelerate the C4S easily pulling away in 3rd gear and had a higher top speed on the straight. I figured it was the extra weight, mechanical losses of the AWD and aero drag from the wider body and tires. Both cars had the same kind of tires and suspension (Euro M030). The extra 10 HP of the '96 engine didn't make up for the difference.

 

When the Audi's dominated the britiish touring car championship with 4wd A4s, the main advantage was over kerbs with two wheels always driving forward no matter how hard you hit the inside curbing. Also they used to make up at least one row off the grid when starting complared to FWD or RWD cars. Weight penalties were introduced as a result.

I'm sure there are circumstances where 4wd is quicker, however it isn't always about speed. I love power oversteer, hate understeer and there's few things more enjoyable than powering my C2 out of a corner with the back out of line

 

It is very clear that people who have C4s will defend the C4 and whoever has the C2 will defend the C2. In an election year,it is deja vu.
BTW that magazine article was testing cars without the variocam. Wonder if the extra power on each car will make a different. I saw an article in Car and Driver testing the 993 C4S and it was faster than the 270 hp version.

 

Unless we can persuade Robert Linton to make us a lightweight version
I remember him posting about a CF transmission shaft he's built, for example.

 

Hmmm. I keep up with most TTs in my C4S. Oh I forgot, I'm supercharged! My C4S just feels more planted on the track.

 

Cloud964, you mean "VarioRam" not "VarioCam".... VarioCam was a feature on later 944s and other water-pumpers.

 

Since I have already done this. I would take the weight and the AWD in a second. I think the most blatant loophole car is the 964 C4 in F. Just my thoughts...

 

After driving one, I agree 100%. I need to find one

 

Cloud,

The quickest NA 993 test results from C&D were for the '95, non-Varioram cars. The '95s are every bit as fast as the '96+ Varioram cars through the gears. The Varioram gives more low- and mid-range torque, however.

 

Eric,
I think the question is a very good one, especially given the decision you are about to make. I've tracked both my 993 and my S4. The way they are set up, they are very close in time at Watkins Glen. I'd bet I am faster in the 993 at Mid Ohio ( I might get to find out in a few weeks with Maumee Valley Region in early November). But that brings me to my main point. We live in a region of the country where 4wd comes into play pretty frequently, and I can't count the times I've been slowed by rain here, while the 4wds fly by. I find 2wd much more challenging to drive, but more rewarding as well. I love the stability and power grip of 4wd in the wet, and the ability of 2wd to rotate in the dry. So, unfortunately, you can't have it all. I'd get a 2wd again because I find it more fun to drive. Why don't you keep the Audi for a daily driver and also for wet days, and get a 2wd track car?

 

The other thing the C4 964 has going for it is that You can legally run the single mass Flywheel as that is what came on the 89 1/2 C4 stock so You can backdate the later 964 C4's to that FW. The 94 with the Turbo body can hold 265 and 305 rubber on it and although it gives up a aero and weight advantage it does have the turbo brakes and can run the wider wheels and tires so it is the ultimate tight track F car while the regular C4 should do a bit better on a faster track. I will still take the widebody for the brakes and rubber amd I will just steal air down the straights and pass under braking or in the corners. Really depend on your driving style. The best 993 to race is the TT as it dominates in C when well driven. The RSCS is nice but the heads on the 3.8 tend to heat soak over time and fatigue but not near as bad as the RSR. many people like the RSCS for its light weight and all around user friendly nature. I enjoyed it but the TT was exponentially faster on the tracks here. the regular 993 is just not competitive in C or D under the current rules but will probably get some relief this winter. Just a few additional thoughts...

 

Just a "few" ? We're (at least I am) very lucky to have people of your calibre here, you really know your stuff.

Thanks.

 

Everyone's knowledge has amazed me yet again. Thanks everyone!

Chuck- Shon and I came to the same conclusion last night- that the tracks around IL/OH/MI do seem to lend themselves more to an AWD car (except Road America). But I've leaned toward 2WD after riding a couple times with you, since I simply can't get my car to rotate like that. The problem is the combination TRG 25mm front sways (huge!) on an AWD car which wants to understeer anyway. Granted I had street alignment, but I just doubt I could get great rotation on a C4 with my gear. As for keeping the S4...it's too temperamental to use as a daily driver but she's put too much work into it to sell for <$30k. Your idea kinda makes sense though.

 

Here is the new 4wd car for the letter races...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...RK%3AMEWN%3AIT