Svaha

My post regarding 0-60 times and "take-off" from standstill was in regards to the discussion of the potential drawbacks posited for the C4. I just bought my C4S with a new clutch and flywheel (though not the lightweight) and the PO paid $3600 for the work and parts. That's one drawback to the C4 versus C2. However, I've seen many posts around Rennlist discussing the weight advantage of the C2 versus C4, taking it as a matter of fact that this should result in faster acceleration. My point was that the extra weight of the four wheel drive should result in some performance benefit, especially in real world driving conditions. I didn't buy this car to burn up in 0-60 runs. Of course there are other cars faster 0-60, that's not the point, and not the point of the 911. I'm just putting out there that perhaps the weight gain of the C4 is counterbalanced by its ability to put power to all four wheels.
Happy driving,
Mark

mborkow

exactly (the phyics, and i acutally do know my physics ;-), involved here need to take into account both the weight of the car and the car's ability to transmit and control power...). the following was taken from "911 & Porsche World" (from the ulitmate 993 buyer's guide issue):

torque control give the 993 carrera 4 a 0.1 second advantage over the carrera 2 in the sprint from standstill to 100 kmph (62 mph).

i have seen other similar statements (but i don't have time to dig them out). i know that the 993 is nothing special in 0-60, and that 0-60 is not the end-all-be-all metric of a car's performance, but claims that the c2 is faster than the c4 are really not accurate. if the additional 100+ lbs of the c4 were simply dead weight then it might reasonalby be concluded that the c2 was faster, but those extra 100 lbs are not just dead weight and they influence how power and torque are transmissted out of the car.

:-)

SJB993

Having maybe been the one who first raised the issue that a C4 might be quicker to 60 mph than a C2, I have felt somewhat guilty that my comment has resulted in such a fierce debate - it was getting a little heated for a while there. I have enjoyed it being bounced back and forth though!

Then purely by chance I was reading my copy of the latest edition of Total911 magazine which arrived today, and lo and behold, and I quote (especially for The Other Eric) ......

" ..... [the C4] was 50kg heavier than the standard 993 Carrera (it still managed to out-perform the rear-wheel drive 993 from rest to 60 mph thanks to the extra traction and the top speed was exactly the same too)."

But I guess you'll disagree Eric!

As has been said several times in this thread, they are both great cars. Surely the fact that owners of C2s and C4s are so prepared to sing the praises of their own particular variant says it all.

Having said that, I wonder how many of those that sing the praises of the C2's more hairy handling, would walk away from an AWD 993 Turbo?

Whoops there I go again, fueling the debate!

TheOtherEric

If you really want to debate such a meaningless statistic then look no further than the table Joe S. posted, which includes tons of data including one C4 test:

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

p.s. if I had a TT of course I'd want AWD. I like the AWD system. I did own a C4, after all!

notbostrom

Any of you cabrio owners ever tire of wind noise or have trouble with the heat or a/c. I'm in Florida so a/c will be an issue

mborkow

those time trials were taken at different times; no way is that an apples to apples comparison

InTheAir

Just to stir the pot

The posted trials seem to show the C4 gaining on the C2 at some time along the quarter mile-- from 0-60 the C2 shows a 0.5 second advantage, however by the end of the 1/4 mile it only shows a 0.3 second advantage--it lost time to the C4 at some point.

Dudley

These problems occur with all cabs. If any one of them becomes particularly bothersome, I put the top up.

swmic

notbostrom - You can check the archives but I think you will find both ac and heat are good especially compared to older 911s. As far as wind noise, do you mean with the top up? If so, I think its very reasonable for a cab. Sure you will get more road noise than a coupe but I think you also get more motor noise

For top down driving there is an optional wind deflector behind the rear seats. I don't notice much wind at all in the cockpit with the top down.

TheOtherEric

Bwahahahaha!! So YOU are saying that test conditions affected the times. Priceless! Magazine test times are the GOLD STANDARD unless mborkow doesn't like the results.

Joe S.

What wind noise?? Oh ya, I have supercups.

Seriously with the top up I don't think the wind noise is that bad. With the top down the windscreen option really does keeps the wind down.

mborkow

of course test conditons affect times. i don't believe i ever said otherwise (if i did that was a mistake).

Baggerdude

Screw the 0-60 times, folks. Most 'civilain drivers' can't do what is printed. The drivers for the magazines are "professionals", not dentists, lawyers, moving company owners, etc.

I don't think one buys/drives a 993 (non turbo) car to smoke STis, M3s, Z06s, or SRT/hemis. It's a different deal altewgether. It's the sensation.... and 993s are pretty quick in their own rights as well.

I think you should buy the car that turns you on. Forget the 0-60 times. My 2003 M5 will smoke most non turbo 911s. But, the point of a C4 vs C2 is just what one wants. And, forget the "extra fees for extra moving parts". BS mostly.

I would not buy a car with more than 60k on it. Just my opinion. And, I like WIDE bodies a great deal more than narrow body cars. Just a personal selection.

mkol1248

Here is a picture from a 993 book published by Porsche in April 1996. It has all answers on speed/acceleration of 993's made in 1996.

Three observations for non-turbo manual shift 993 models:

(1) The top speed is 275 for any narrow body, and 270 km/hr for any wide body. This is due to the aerodynamic drag of wide body.

(2) For 0-100km/hr, all 4WD models are 0.1 second faster (5.4 vs 5.3 seconds) than 2WD models. This is due to slipping of rear wheels of 2WD models at low speed.

(3) For acceleration from 80km/hr to 120km/hr in the 5th gear, all 2WD models are 0.2 seconds faster (8.6 vs 8.8 seconds) than 4WD models. This is due to more weight of 4WD models.

Svaha

This begins to sound like the voice of reason, given the facts at hand...