E. J. - 993 Alumni

Sweet Job cutting out the bike Robin. Did you use photoshop and if so what tool? I have heard the rubber stamp tool is the one for jobs like that, but I have not researched it yet.

Pin,

Is the M3 really faster, or does it just feel that way? Just curious.

E. J.

Robin 993DX

EJ,

I like things simple and easy, so only I used Adobe Photo Deluxe (Came with my old Kodak DC260 digital Camera) and Ultimate FX (Free dowload from <a href="http://www.filemine.com)" target="_blank">www.filemine.com)</a>

Suwipin

[quote]Pin,

Is the M3 really faster, or does it just feel that way? Just curious.
<hr></blockquote>

Hi E.J.,

I have never timed the acceleration (0-60 or 1/4 mile) of either car so I can't really give a quantitative comparison (as an engineer, we are always trained to give a quantitative comparison and leave the "qualitative" comparison for the marketing guys )

But from the seat of the pants, the M3 does feel faster and I also can certainly feel that the M3 has more torque (especially low end torque) compared to my 993 C4S.

BMW and some magazines claim that this car can go from 0-60mph in 4.8 seconds. There are some people that I know of who have taken their E46 M3s to the drag race and I think they recorded 13.xx sec on a 1/4 mile drag race.

One thing that I can tell you though, you don't feel that you are going fast on an E46 M3 until you look at the speedometer (same thing happened when I test drove an M5). Some people like this, but I personally don't.

I don't really mind giving up 0.2 or 0.5 sec on a 0-60mph stat as I'm not a drag racer

Maybe Anir can comment more?

E. J. - 993 Alumni

Thanx both Pin and Robin (somehow I knew you were going to send me to <a href="http://www.filemine.com)" target="_blank">www.filemine.com)</a>

E. J.

A.J. - 95 993

1995 Porsche 993 vs 2002 BMW M Roadster

My dad was into Ferrari's when I was a kid, and owned a few. Back when they didn't cost as much as a house. An accident in the garage (which is detailed in one of the product descriptions in the Griot's Garage catalong!) brought the glory days to an end in the 1970's. This fall he finally got up the nerve/financing to enter into the sports car world again, and bought the M Roadster. I have only driven it a few times, the first being during the initial break-in period, so I haven't spent a lot of seat time. These comments are based on "first impressions". But aren't most test drives the same thing??

Acceleration

As with all of BMW's latest offerings, the acceleration is very impressive. Torque is the first thing that I noticed, from way down on the tach. Driving my 993 for a few years now, it's something that is very unexpected and almost foreign. And lovely. The torque of the M reminded me of the Viper that I was lucky enough to drive last spring. Not nearly the same prodigious amount, but early and nice and linear. I didn't drive the cars back to back, so the whole time I was comparing in my mind to the 993, and always came to the same conclusion: the M is faster, no matter how I look at it. The 993 engine is so peaky, it drives like a turbo in comparison. Below 4000 rpm, it's imperative to shift if it's time to scoot. There's a huge surge at about 4500 rpm, and I try to convince myself that in that sweet spot, the 993 FEELS faster than the M. But I don't believe myself.

Handling

The M doesn't have the baja-offroad wheel to fender clearance that the Porsche's have. The M suspension is much more firm. Part of the firmness is enhanced by the rock hard seats in the M. Makes my standard 993 seats feel like a couch in comparison. I haven't been on a long drive in the M, but I wouldn't be surprised if parts of your butt fell asleep. I love the seats, though. I surely wouldn't feel the need to upgrade like I do with my 993 seats. Heck, even my wife wants me to get racing seats!!

I digress - on the Kentucky twisty country roads, the M is a fun car to be in, with the top down. But the suspension just isn't as inspiring. The overall impression I had was the rear end wasn't planted down (Michelin Pilot Sport tires). There was good feel and good feedback, but what that feedback told me was the outside rear tire was starting to slip a little. Almost as if the center tread blocks were starting to squirm. They WERE brand new tires, maybe that's all it was. But it was a lot earlier than what would happen in the 993, and I was reminded that this was an unfamiliar car, I was in the woods with trees right up to the road, and dad was next to me. I didn't push it, because I didn't feel like the car wanted me to.

The 911 has that wonderfully distinct feel to the handling that is like nothing else. Let me try to explain this, a physical visualization: close your eyes, picture yourself driving a normal car standing up straight. Going hard around a left hand turn, your body is pulled to the right, and you go up on the ball of your right foot a little, assuming front engine. In the 911, you are pulled to the right but lean back on your heel. Add some uneven pavement, then start moving your hips in a circular motion. What a feeling!!

Interior

I love the interior of the M. Some hate it. I like the chrome bezels, the simple almost retro look. The materials are top notch. Even the rear view mirror is chrome. The instruments are logical, but nothing exciting. The background is gray, which is baffling. I don't like that part. Dad's car has the two tone black and red leather. We like it, but could see that being a controversial opinion. It might be view as gaudy by some. The 911 interior is classic, but I hear a few too many squeaks for my tastes. And not all from the windshield. There's something up in the headliner right by my left ear that's aggravating. As mentioned before, my seats are extremely comfortable, but not quite sporty enough. Despite my wife's desires, I'm not ready to install racing seats and lose the use of the rear seats. I actually use them. I prefer my instruments. They're they way it should be done. I would prefer to have the white face gages, but I don't like all the black cutouts for the warning lights. Essentially, to get the best of the best 993 interior, you gotta spend some big bucks, or get an "S" so they're standard (aluminum shifter/handbrake, etc).

Styling

The 993 and M Roadster aren't really apples and apples. And I've never been in a 993 Cab. I think the M has a more natural look with the top down. I've never warmed up to the rear boot on the Cab. One of my favorite design cues of the 911 is the rear quarter window and the rear fender area. You lose that with the cab. I never was wild about the styling of the Z3, either. I'm not a fan of the British roadsters, and I think that's who the Z3 is aimed squarely at. The long hood/short rear end is what I have the biggest problem with. The rear end, like the Viper, is an afterthought. Something thrown together to connect the lines of the rear fenders. The design cues of the M do it a lot of good, but it's still not very photogenic. But in person, it's a different story. The front splitters look impressive, and the rear fenders are similar to the 993's. And I LOVE the angel eyes - that's what they call the rings that light up around the headlamps. As for the 993 - it's a modern classic.

Brakes

This is the area that I explored the least. They definitely seemed grippy, but I didn't do any high speed plunges, and I haven't heard of anyone who has tried an M Roadster on the track.

Driving Experience

Over all, the M Roadster came across as a European hot rod. Very fast, if almost a bit brutal. But the biggest thing lacking is the sound. There is a metallic vibration that dad's car has that is the dominant noise at high rpm's. I asked about it, but he didn't notice what I was talking about. I don't know how he could miss it. With the drilled airbox and stock mufflers, the 993 positively roars at high rpm. I did the airbox holes mod last year, and it still brings huges grins to my face.

The M Roadster is a more modern car, and it is stiffer and more...modern. The gearbox is so tight, and so precise, it almost seems fragile. I couldn't make up my mind if I liked it or not. The 993 gearbox feels as if it's begging you into the next gear. Very fast shifting is possible with minimal effort or concentration. On the M, I found myself concentrating more on getting the next gear properly, partly because I had to make sure I did it safely, partly because dad was sitting next to me. The 993 is more like a well-broken in ball glove or leather shoe. Not sparkling new, nor is it as tight and crisp, but it fits my body perfectly, and it seems to know what I want and how I'm going to get it.

Robin 993DX

AJ,

Thank you very much for sharing your experiences with the M Roadster.

<a href="http://p-car.com/reviews/993vsmroadster/" target="_blank">993 VS BMW M Roadster </a>

SkipSauls

Okay, I don't think this one has been done before:

1999 Toyota FJ-100 Land Cruiser vs. 1996 Porsche 993 C4S



Accleration: Obviously the C4S is quicker off the line and at pretty much any speed. The LC might win in top-gear 50-70 as it's an auto, and the LC would definitely win in most low-traction situations.

Handling: The C4S wins again in anything but an off-road contest. The LC is more fun on on/off-ramps if you like that floaty feeling...

Interior: Gotta give this one to the LC. It looks good, the fit and finish are great, and it's got a lot more room than the C4S. Hell, I can't even fit anyone in the back seat of the C4S, much less haul anything!

Styling: The LC is nice enough looking for a land barge, but the C4S is simply beautiful and smacks the LC in this area.

Brakes: Again, the LC stops really well for such a huge beast of a vehicle, but it can't hold a candle to the Big Reds on the C4S.

Driving Experience: I haven't tracked the LC yet, but once I add the Sparco seats, harness, and Hoosier slicsk, I'll let y'all know. The C4S is outstanding in this area, one of the best in the world.



Cheers!

Robin 993DX

Thank you for the interesting review. And thanks for taking on the responsibility to make the cover page graphics.

It is now added to the reviews page.

Thanks

993RS

I am without my 993RS for five weeks, and the replacement car I got from my dealer is an Audi TT with 225 hp. So my comparison is 993RS vs Audi TT (which is unfair, it should be a stock 993 but I can't help it...)

Using supwin's categorization:

I drove the car this morning on a beautiful sunny day in Zurich (very rare this time of the year, normally very foggy).


The car is very solid and good quality. Never drove one, and must say, overall, I was pleasantly surprised (not that I would ever consider it an alternative to my 993RS though).

Acceleration: With 225 turbo hp, not bad. I found response to be quicker than I expected, but the characteristic was as follows: first a quick response, but not much surge in power, then in the mid-rev range, the turbo kick, and finally in the upper range (above 5000 revs) a dying off of the surge. No contest with my 993RS which has a very strong constant linear acceleration from 2500 revs to 7000 revs.

Handling: Very good handling for a stock car. Very little body roll in the curves. Dips a bit when breaking, though. But overall, I'd give it high marks. My 993RS is better, but I feel that the Audi TT's handling is better than the stock 993's.

Interior: The roof is high but the windows are low. At first I felt like getting into a tank. I also keep bumping my head getting out of the car (I am 6' 2" tall), because the high roof/low window combination is deceptive. I was not too pleased with the visibility. Much better in the 993.
I liked the interior. Spartan and sporty:

I liked the round instruments better than the cluttered look in the boxster or 996. Good ergonometrics. I still prefer the 993 dashboard.

Styling: Matter of taste. Certainly different to the usual Euro boxes. A bit too fat for my taste. IMHO: 993's are beautifully styled.

Brakes: Good brakes, but the power-assist is much more noticeable than on my 993RS with turbo brakes. No contest with the turbo brakes.

Robin 993DX

Philip, thank you for your contribution. Your review is now added.

Thanks

SkipSauls

Before I begin, please note that none of the following is intended as material to start a flame-war or otherwise make someone angry. I own both cars and love them, but I've never been one to pull any punches and will quite readily speak my mind. If you're not the type who can read a review objectively, please skip this!

1996 Carrera 4S vs. 2001 Boxster (2.7)



In May 2001 I bought the Boxster, which was my first Porsche after wanting one for a couple of decades. My father nearly bought a 911 in '79, but ended up with a Mercedes 300CD instead. A more practical car for him, but I was perhaps the most disappointed 12 year old on the planet at the time. He finally bought a 964 Cabriolet in '87, which further fueled my desire to own one. I've always wanted/needed a truck or SUV, so that's what I've driven for most of the past 17 years, but I've had Porsche-on-the-brain the whole time. I now have two Porsches and an outstanding SUV, and I'm thankful that I've been fortunate enough to own such nice cars.

The second Porsche, the Carrera 4S, was acquired as the result of a trade about a month ago. I had been driving a '01 BMW X5 for a bit over a year and loved it, but not enough to keep it. I have a '99 Land Cruiser, which is a much better SUV than the X5, and I had the Boxster for a sports car. The X5's attempt at being sporty is noble, but it's not a sports car even if it is the best handling/braking/etc. SUV on the planet. The C4S was at the BMW dealer where I bought the X5, so they were more than happy to make the trade and both parties were happy.

I've been driving both cars on the same roads to compare and contrast them. Each is a fine vehicle, and neither wins hands-down over the other. For those of you who think that the Boxster is not a "real" Porsche, you really need to drive one for a while and make up your own mind. Don't fall into the trap set by those moldy figs.

Acceleration

From 0-60 the C4S is said to take 5.3 or so seconds and the Boxster anywhere from 6.0 to 6.6 seconds, depending on the source. I am not a good drag-racer, which seems to be the case for all but a few people. With these two cars it's a tossup as to which one is going to win, with the driver's skill and luck being more of a factor than a few tenths of a second. A friend of mine has an S2000 that is quicker than the Boxster and a bit less so than the C4S, on paper at least. I can win or lose a 0-60 contest against him in either car, which is evidence to support my claims.

Things are quite different at higher speeds, and from 20-70, 40-80, and so on, the C4S will positively spank the Boxster unless it's in the wrong gear. It can be left in 3rd and will pull very quickly to high speeds (for the US), whereas the Boxster will most likely need to shift a bit. While following a friend driving the Boxster I was easily able to close the distance, even when he was accelerating full out. I can only imagine what a TT or tweaked 993 must be like...

Handling

This one is quite tough, but after a few drives I think I'm getting a handle on the differences. If you were to jump into either car without ever having driven one, the Boxster is better. Anyone can drive one with no prep, and they'll quickly come to realize that its limits are very high. If you hit a corner at high speed and realize that it is sharper than expected, just turn the wheel a bit more. The Boxster is on rails and will not let you down. A driver has to try hard or be very stupid to get into trouble in the Boxster on most roads. If you do push it you can sense the limits well before you hit them.

The C4S handles well, in fact it may have ultimately better handling than the Boxster, but you're not as likely to feel as confident when you first drive one. It's better (arguably) than most 2WD 911's, but it takes a bit getting used to. The 4WD is hard to notice, and so far I've not once been able to feel it pulling in the way that some trucks and SUVs can. But when combined with the huge tires and taut suspension, this thing handles very well. As with the Boxster, just steer and it will do what you want. The front-end is a bit "floatier" than with the Boxster, but it never feels as if it's not gripping as if magnets are being used.

Interior

This is a mixed-bag, and one that I'm sure I'll be trying to figure out for a while. The quality of materials in the C4S is perhaps a bit better than with the Boxster. I don't have the full-leather in either car, but the vinyl, plastic, and leather in each is good, if not up to Audi or BMW standards. I really like the dash material in the C4S better, even if the dash design itself is quite dated. The Boxster suffers from the shiny controls that Porsche made the mistake of using on the pre-2002 cars, and I don't care if the "Bakelite-look" is classic. It's shiny and cheap looking, and would be better left to an econobox.

Both cars suffer from having carpet on the doors. I don' t know if the interior designers at Porsche are stuck in the '70s or something, but this is way too cheezy for cars such as these. The door panels in both are nice enough otherwise, although the huge sections of beige in the 993 drive me nuts. Porsches should have black interiors.

Ergonomically the Boxster is a bit better, although it's not perfect. I'm tall enough that the lower vertical section of the center console is where my knee wants to be. I might "delete" it as some have done, but I've heard that the carpets for the replacement kit don't match well. I have to look at the interior and want it to be nice. Speaking of deletes, I'll probably delete the useless back seats in the C4S, again depending on if I can find something that looks nice.

Styling

The Boxster is without a doubt the best looking open-top Porsche, but the C4S is one of the best looking Porsches ever. At first I thought that the C4S needed a whale-tail (or whatever you choose to call the rear spoiler), but now I'm not so sure. Both cars get the attention of nearly ever other driver and pedestrian, and so far it's a draw as to which one gets more.

Regarding the individual bits, I think that the nose of the Boxster is better, especially with the Litronics in place of the stock units. The '02 996s and the late-model Turbos are even better, although the latter is a bit over the top. The profiles of each are very nice, although the Boxster looks a bit goofy with the top up and should only be driven like that in bad weather. The rear of the C4S is outstanding, and the extra width of the fenders makes a great car look even better. One of my favorite tunes is "Baby Got Back", and that's the theme-song for this car!

Brakes

The Boxster has great brakes, in fact they seem to be better than almost every other car except for some other Porsches, Vettes, and Ferraris. The Boxster S should be even better, but for all but extreme driving or track use, I can't imagine why anyone would need better brakes than the base model offers. That being said, after driving the C4S and experiencing the stopping power of the "Big Reds", I can understand what truly powerful brakes are all bout. It can stop so quickly that I warn my friends about them before they drive, telling them to make sure that no one is behind them if they hit the brakes hard.

Driving Experience

While I don't typically anthropomorphize cars, it helps a bit when comparing these cars. The Boxster is the more feminine of the two, although I would disagree with those who call it a "chick car". It's not a Miata. This is due more to the engine, I think, rather than the styling or anything else. The Boxster's engine sounds great with the top down and over 4000 RPM, but below that you mostly hear a mechanical whine, and it's even worse with the top up. The C4S on the other hand has that "race car" sound from idle to redline, and it sounds great even with the windows up and sunroof closed. Both cars have sounds that vary quite a bit with the RPMs, and anyone who doesn't drive every now and then with the radio off is missing out.

The C4S is a bit "harder" to drive, quite literally when you compare the clutch, shifter, and so on with that of the Boxster. This may have to do with the relative ages of the cars, with the C4S being an updated 60's design vs. the modern design of the Boxster. I guess people are just wimpier than they used to be. For a daily driver the C4S is fine, but if I were in stop-and-go traffic all day long then the lighter controls in the Boxster might be less fatiguing. I would prefer something in-between the two cars, with more feel and effort than the Boxster but less so than the C4S. Each could probably be adjusted a bit to suit, I guess.

In summary, each car is quite nice, and there are only a few other makes and models that I'd rather have. <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />

Cheers!

993RS

Skip,
Don't see why your comparison should start a flame war. IMHO, seems to sum up the situation quite nicely. I agree with everything you stated. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

B-Line C2S

Thanks for the review skip...

I would love to read an updated review after you put both Pcars on the track though..

Also... Have you ever driven an X5?????
I am lucky to drive one as my everyday car and there is no other truck/suv I would rather own.
I have driven the land crusier and it felt slow and wobbely to me. Matter of fact, don't take offense to this, but it's hard for me to take your review serious of the Pcars after your comments on the X5. I also tow with my X5 and it is an amazing tow vehicle..
--I don't mean to start a flame either but I think you really need some more seat time in a 4.4 or 4.6 X5.. There is nothing about that SUV/SAV that isn't light years ahead of any other current truck in it's class.
I've owned Pathfinders, 4runners, Laredo's, and none of them even come close to the design and performance of the X5.
It's not a dressed up sports car.. It's just a mean, fast, great handling, great looking truck.
It's like driving a 540 sedan with the comforts of a SUV..

Just my opinion...

Mark Buka

OK, Robin, since Anir started the car vs. bike theme, I thought I'd compare my 993 C4S vs. my BMW K1200RS! You have the car pics and the bike link
is included.

Acceleration: The bike has a weight/hp ratio of 5.96(with rider), while the C4S' ratio is 11.7(with driver). How do I describe the ability to pass anything at will?
K1200RS 1 - C4S 0

Handling: Riding a bike, you must pick your line and stick with it, the C4S enables me to make turning corrections easier. On track, I think the
bike would lead on the straights, while the C4S would do better in the twisties, because the K1200
is a sport/tourer and is top heavy with 5.5gal of
fuel.
K1200RS 1 - C4S 1

Interior: Bike = what interior?, that's the point.
To me, the C4S feels like a warm embrace.
K1200RS 1 - C4S 2

Styling: The car, what can I say, but, it's the most recognizable automobile shape EVER created.
K1200RS 1 - C4S 3

Brakes: Both outfitted with very competent Brembo brakes, though it's easier to bleed the ones on the K1200RS(credit to Anir). Due to its weight advantage, the bike has better feel.
K1200RS 2 - C4S 3

Driving/Riding Experience: The best of two very different worlds. The 911, in my mind, every sports car fan's fantasy, balanced performance. The bike, on the other hand, is the ultimate open top ride, spiced with a hit of danger. Tie score.
K1200RS 3 - C4S 4

<a href="http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/K1200RS.jpg" target="_blank">K1200RS</a>

SkipSauls

Hi B-Line,

Yes, I owned an X5 for over a year, and as I said I loved it. I had the 3.0, which wasn't as powerful as a 4.4 or 4.6, but it was plenty for anything that I needed. The only time I ever wanted more was when accelerating from 70 MPH or higher, which was pretty rare. <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />

I kept the LC instead of the X5 not because it was a better driver, but because it offered the utility that I needed. Specifically, the cargo room in the X5 left me wanting, and on two specific occasions it really let me down. Once was when picking up several boxes at a UPS depot and the other was when buying an outdoor grill. I managed to get the boxes in by using the front seat and squashing them in, but the grill didn't fit and I had to pay a guy to take it home in his pickup truck. The LC would have swallowed these items and more.

So please don't think I'm bashing the X5, and I truly believe it's the best SUV available so long as you don't need a lot of cargo room. I told the BMW dealer that I'd trade the LC in on an X7 or perhaps an X5L in a heartbeat, and I look forward to seeing what BMW brings to market. They told me that they had many customers who also desired something a bit bigger than the X5, so hopefully BMW is listening.

BTW, the PO of my C4S traded it in for a X5 4.6, which should go nicely with his Z8. Lucky dude with some sweet cars!

Cheers!