QUestion about 996 vs 993 production
11-06-2007, 02:31 AM
#46
Guru
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
We, at work, have yet to mount pedals anywhere other than on the floor of the racecars we design and build
11-06-2007, 03:03 AM
#47
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The best corner of the USA
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For a thorough assessment of the 993 vs. the 996, read the 996 road test in the August 1998 issue of Excellence magazine. Additional contributions to the article came from Hurley Haywood.
Here are some points in the article that identify some of the major improvements made by Porsche in the new model as well as impressions of the testers.
"The 993 lacks the poise and balance of the new 996. And it's a lot less comfortable to drive. My head feels pressed against the glass of the old upright windshield, and the floor-mounted clutch and brake pedals preclude heel and toeing."
"The longer wheelbase (up 3") and widened track (up 2") of the 996 optimize the rear-engined platform. The quantum improvement from 993 to 996 far exceeds the wampum leap Porsche made from the Carrera 2 to the 993."
"The laden ground clearance of the 996 is 1" less than that of the 993, effectively lowering the new 911's center of gravity."
"The gearchange is so much better than anything Porsche has done before...."
"Significantly, the new 3.4 liter motor is not only 26 hp more powerful than the old one (despite being 200 cc smaller) but it is also 110 pounds lighter than the old lump."
Here are some points in the article that identify some of the major improvements made by Porsche in the new model as well as impressions of the testers.
"The 993 lacks the poise and balance of the new 996. And it's a lot less comfortable to drive. My head feels pressed against the glass of the old upright windshield, and the floor-mounted clutch and brake pedals preclude heel and toeing."
"The longer wheelbase (up 3") and widened track (up 2") of the 996 optimize the rear-engined platform. The quantum improvement from 993 to 996 far exceeds the wampum leap Porsche made from the Carrera 2 to the 993."
"The laden ground clearance of the 996 is 1" less than that of the 993, effectively lowering the new 911's center of gravity."
"The gearchange is so much better than anything Porsche has done before...."
"Significantly, the new 3.4 liter motor is not only 26 hp more powerful than the old one (despite being 200 cc smaller) but it is also 110 pounds lighter than the old lump."
Hurley said all that, and the moment he finished, the first-edition 996 engine block went kaput and it was time to push the engine eject button to pop in another....
11-06-2007, 03:45 AM
#48
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The best corner of the USA
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
To Z O O R O P A:
your question got kinda sidestepped for the last three pages: Why 996 turbos and GTs are better than 996? Their engine blocks are direct descendents of the GT1 block, whereas the plain Jane 99-01 996s used the engine block with the same design as the 986 Boxster that seemed to crack and fail and seem disposable.
I think "disposable" vs "serviceable" would characterize the manufacturing philosophy differences between the 996 and the 993, respectively, with the exception of the GT and turbo 996s, thus the insistence that those are a class above other 996s. Maybe you got that already by now.
your question got kinda sidestepped for the last three pages: Why 996 turbos and GTs are better than 996? Their engine blocks are direct descendents of the GT1 block, whereas the plain Jane 99-01 996s used the engine block with the same design as the 986 Boxster that seemed to crack and fail and seem disposable.
I think "disposable" vs "serviceable" would characterize the manufacturing philosophy differences between the 996 and the 993, respectively, with the exception of the GT and turbo 996s, thus the insistence that those are a class above other 996s. Maybe you got that already by now.
11-06-2007, 08:05 AM
#49
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CURRENT: Audi TT / Audi A3
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
jimshu....
Please expand on your "disposable vs. serviceable" view of Porsche's manufacturing philosophy relative to engine design/construction. I agree that it would help ZOOPORA to know the potential strengths and weakness of both models.
From reading the threads here on Rennlist, the most publicized (and common) 996 engine problem seems to be oil leakage at the rear main seal, causing nominal oil loss. Many owners have waited until the clutch needs replacing and then both items are done at the same time.
The percentage of 996s having this problem is not known by the public, but a number of owners and non-owners alike fear it. Porsche developed a new seal and now once fixed, the problem doesn't generally recur (there are stories of inferior seals and tools used to replace the seals that required replacement more than once several years ago as the problem first surfaced). I believe the cost to repair/replace is somewhere around $1,000.
Chances are, a used 996 on the market that was going to have a rear main seal problem has already had it taken care of. Considering that many 996s can be purchased as pre-owned, certified cars, the financial risk of having to repair drivetrain problems rests with Porsche rather than the new owner.
If I recall correctly, a frequently discussed engine problem on 993s is valve guide wear, resulting in excessive oil consumption and, oftentimes, the check engine light coming on. I have no idea what percentage of 993s have been affected, but the threads seem to suggest that the fix is a top-end engine rebuild. I'd guess that the cost of a top-end rebuild would be in the range of $4,000 to $6,000 (?).
I've introduced these two observations into the discussion of "quality" to help ZOOPORA understand that many Porsche models are less than perfect, with many models having unique problems for which the model has become known (overheating of 2.7 engines, clutches on early 964s, etc.)
Reading Rennlist forums is a good idea, and the sharing of information by the people who respond to you will, I hope, help you come to a good decision. If you have a chance to buy a car with a service history, you'll be ahead of the game in that you can see what problems have already been addressed by the previous owner(s).
Good luck!
Please expand on your "disposable vs. serviceable" view of Porsche's manufacturing philosophy relative to engine design/construction. I agree that it would help ZOOPORA to know the potential strengths and weakness of both models.
From reading the threads here on Rennlist, the most publicized (and common) 996 engine problem seems to be oil leakage at the rear main seal, causing nominal oil loss. Many owners have waited until the clutch needs replacing and then both items are done at the same time.
The percentage of 996s having this problem is not known by the public, but a number of owners and non-owners alike fear it. Porsche developed a new seal and now once fixed, the problem doesn't generally recur (there are stories of inferior seals and tools used to replace the seals that required replacement more than once several years ago as the problem first surfaced). I believe the cost to repair/replace is somewhere around $1,000.
Chances are, a used 996 on the market that was going to have a rear main seal problem has already had it taken care of. Considering that many 996s can be purchased as pre-owned, certified cars, the financial risk of having to repair drivetrain problems rests with Porsche rather than the new owner.
If I recall correctly, a frequently discussed engine problem on 993s is valve guide wear, resulting in excessive oil consumption and, oftentimes, the check engine light coming on. I have no idea what percentage of 993s have been affected, but the threads seem to suggest that the fix is a top-end engine rebuild. I'd guess that the cost of a top-end rebuild would be in the range of $4,000 to $6,000 (?).
I've introduced these two observations into the discussion of "quality" to help ZOOPORA understand that many Porsche models are less than perfect, with many models having unique problems for which the model has become known (overheating of 2.7 engines, clutches on early 964s, etc.)
Reading Rennlist forums is a good idea, and the sharing of information by the people who respond to you will, I hope, help you come to a good decision. If you have a chance to buy a car with a service history, you'll be ahead of the game in that you can see what problems have already been addressed by the previous owner(s).
Good luck!
11-06-2007, 08:59 AM
#50
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The excellence article is misleading and shows just how unreliable car mags can be:
"The longer wheelbase (up 3") and widened track (up 2") of the 996 optimize the rear-engined platform. The quantum improvement from 993 to 996 far exceeds the wampum leap Porsche made from the Carrera 2 to the 993."
True, except that as a result weight went up by 80 kgs (200 lbs). And, notwithstanding the longer wheelbase, the rear seating area is even more cramped.
"Significantly, the new 3.4 liter motor is not only 26 hp more powerful than the old one (despite being 200 cc smaller) but it is also 110 pounds lighter than the old lump."
True, except the weight of the plumbing, pumps, radiators and the cooling water itself go a long way to offset the lighter motor.
"The longer wheelbase (up 3") and widened track (up 2") of the 996 optimize the rear-engined platform. The quantum improvement from 993 to 996 far exceeds the wampum leap Porsche made from the Carrera 2 to the 993."
True, except that as a result weight went up by 80 kgs (200 lbs). And, notwithstanding the longer wheelbase, the rear seating area is even more cramped.
"Significantly, the new 3.4 liter motor is not only 26 hp more powerful than the old one (despite being 200 cc smaller) but it is also 110 pounds lighter than the old lump."
True, except the weight of the plumbing, pumps, radiators and the cooling water itself go a long way to offset the lighter motor.
11-06-2007, 09:09 AM
#52
The excellence article is misleading and shows just how unreliable car mags can be:
"The longer wheelbase (up 3") and widened track (up 2") of the 996 optimize the rear-engined platform. The quantum improvement from 993 to 996 far exceeds the wampum leap Porsche made from the Carrera 2 to the 993."
True, except that as a result weight went up by 80 kgs (200 lbs). And, notwithstanding the longer wheelbase, the rear seating area is even more cramped.
"Significantly, the new 3.4 liter motor is not only 26 hp more powerful than the old one (despite being 200 cc smaller) but it is also 110 pounds lighter than the old lump."
True, except the weight of the plumbing, pumps, radiators and the cooling water itself go a long way to offset the lighter motor.
"The longer wheelbase (up 3") and widened track (up 2") of the 996 optimize the rear-engined platform. The quantum improvement from 993 to 996 far exceeds the wampum leap Porsche made from the Carrera 2 to the 993."
True, except that as a result weight went up by 80 kgs (200 lbs). And, notwithstanding the longer wheelbase, the rear seating area is even more cramped.
"Significantly, the new 3.4 liter motor is not only 26 hp more powerful than the old one (despite being 200 cc smaller) but it is also 110 pounds lighter than the old lump."
True, except the weight of the plumbing, pumps, radiators and the cooling water itself go a long way to offset the lighter motor.
If you want to say that the 993 is the most beautiful 911 variant, the last of the oil-cooled engine, and closer to the heritage of the older 911s . . . fine. True enough (although I think some of the 996 variants are beautiful in their own right, but 993s are certainly beautiful).
But to somehow claim that the 996 is not a quantum leap forward in terms of performance, both at the track and on the street, is delusional. Stock-to-stock, a 996 will kill a 993 with the same driver. No question whatsoever. The 996s are faster, they handle better, and they stop better. Just as the 997s are faster, handle better, and stop better than the 996s.
There is nothing wrong with preferring a 993 over a 996. However, you shouldn't have to lie to yourself about why. Reminds me of certain gay homophobic republicans . . . if you like it, you just like it, but don't go around tapping your foot in the bathrooms and then claim that you "are not gay."
11-06-2007, 09:25 AM
#54
Race Car
But to somehow claim that the 996 is not a quantum leap forward in terms of performance, both at the track and on the street, is delusional. Stock-to-stock, a 996 will kill a 993 with the same driver. No question whatsoever. The 996s are faster, they handle better, and they stop better.
...some people just don't get it and they never will.
11-06-2007, 09:30 AM
#55
I never said that pure performance should be a person's only criteria. Very nice selective quoting on your part.
I am saying that it is ridiculous to suggest that the 996 is not a quantum leap forward in terms of pure performance. Exactly what part of that statement bothers you?
Before suggesting that "I don't get it," maybe you should read a little more closely or look in a mirror. So long as you are getting Porsche snobby on me, I would point out that for many, many of the Porsche elitists, your choice of automobile -- a heavy 993 cab -- would be right around the bottom pick, probably not much higher than 996s if at all. The irony of you getting elitist on me is too rich.
P.S. On that note, what is wrong with the Corvette? I am not one of the people who bash them.
11-06-2007, 09:44 AM
#56
Race Car
As I said, nothing wrong with the Corvette. To each its own.
11-06-2007, 09:46 AM
#57
Come now
If you want to say that the 993 is the most beautiful 911 variant, the last of the oil-cooled engine, and closer to the heritage of the older 911s . . . fine. True enough (although I think some of the 996 variants are beautiful in their own right, but 993s are certainly beautiful).
But to somehow claim that the 996 is not a quantum leap forward in terms of performance, both at the track and on the street, is delusional. Stock-to-stock, a 996 will kill a 993 with the same driver. No question whatsoever. The 996s are faster, they handle better, and they stop better. Just as the 997s are faster, handle better, and stop better than the 996s.
There is nothing wrong with preferring a 993 over a 996. However, you shouldn't have to lie to yourself about why. Reminds me of certain gay homophobic republicans . . . if you like it, you just like it, but don't go around tapping your foot in the bathrooms and then claim that you "are not gay."
If you want to say that the 993 is the most beautiful 911 variant, the last of the oil-cooled engine, and closer to the heritage of the older 911s . . . fine. True enough (although I think some of the 996 variants are beautiful in their own right, but 993s are certainly beautiful).
But to somehow claim that the 996 is not a quantum leap forward in terms of performance, both at the track and on the street, is delusional. Stock-to-stock, a 996 will kill a 993 with the same driver. No question whatsoever. The 996s are faster, they handle better, and they stop better. Just as the 997s are faster, handle better, and stop better than the 996s.
There is nothing wrong with preferring a 993 over a 996. However, you shouldn't have to lie to yourself about why. Reminds me of certain gay homophobic republicans . . . if you like it, you just like it, but don't go around tapping your foot in the bathrooms and then claim that you "are not gay."
I said both before and after the snippet you quoted that "there is nothing wrong with preferring a 993."
So, logic dictates that if (1) there is nothing wrong with preferring a 993 and (2) the 996 outperforms the 993, then PERFORMANCE IS NOT THE ONLY RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR AUTOMOBILE SELECTION.
Is that clear enough for you?
The excellence article is misleading and shows just how unreliable car mags can be:
"The longer wheelbase (up 3") and widened track (up 2") of the 996 optimize the rear-engined platform. The quantum improvement from 993 to 996 far exceeds the wampum leap Porsche made from the Carrera 2 to the 993."
True, except that as a result weight went up by 80 kgs (200 lbs). And, notwithstanding the longer wheelbase, the rear seating area is even more cramped.
"Significantly, the new 3.4 liter motor is not only 26 hp more powerful than the old one (despite being 200 cc smaller) but it is also 110 pounds lighter than the old lump."
True, except the weight of the plumbing, pumps, radiators and the cooling water itself go a long way to offset the lighter motor.
"The longer wheelbase (up 3") and widened track (up 2") of the 996 optimize the rear-engined platform. The quantum improvement from 993 to 996 far exceeds the wampum leap Porsche made from the Carrera 2 to the 993."
True, except that as a result weight went up by 80 kgs (200 lbs). And, notwithstanding the longer wheelbase, the rear seating area is even more cramped.
"Significantly, the new 3.4 liter motor is not only 26 hp more powerful than the old one (despite being 200 cc smaller) but it is also 110 pounds lighter than the old lump."
True, except the weight of the plumbing, pumps, radiators and the cooling water itself go a long way to offset the lighter motor.
11-06-2007, 09:53 AM
#58
Rennlist Member
Wow, I'm surprised it took four pages until an argument broke out about 993 vs 996.
People will tolerate flaws if something is beautiful (witness the 993 valve guide issues), but if something is flawed and plain (ahem), it's a tough sell. Human nature.
People will tolerate flaws if something is beautiful (witness the 993 valve guide issues), but if something is flawed and plain (ahem), it's a tough sell. Human nature.
11-06-2007, 09:59 AM
#59
Rennlist Member
Nicely written post VGM911 .... but ...
You forgot to mention the real reason why a lot of the 996 rear main seals leaked - The end of the crankshaft was no longer centered in the block !!
Do you really think Porsche put replacement engines in thousands of 996s and Boxsters because they didn't feel like doing the repair that you state costs $1k?? I remember snooping around back Rusnak Porsche (Thousand Oaks?) in the 2000-2002 era and seeing defective 996 and Boxster engines literally piled up behind the shop. I asked a mechanic if they had to repair that many engines. He just stated that Porsche wanted all of the problem engines returned to Germany, and they were not allowed to tear them down.
As for it no longer being a problem, just try to trade in a '99 996 at any semi-knowledgable used car lot. If it doesn't have a replacement engine, they either won't touch it, or low-ball you so bad that there is enough money left on the table to buy another motor.
I won't argue about the 996 performance figures. How could anyone??
I may even own one (or a Boxster) someday. It would be hard to find any other car to match the 996 of Boxster's capabilities for the same used car dollar. The slumping US economy and continuing lease returns from later 996s and early 997s will push their prices even lower IMO.
But, as for being a REPLACEMENT for an older 911, any older 911? Not for me, not for a whole lot of aircooled 911 owners.
I can't help letting my eyes and other senses overrule the sensibility of a spec sheet.
Whatever 911you drive, have fun and be safe.
max
The percentage of 996s having this problem is not known by the public, but a number of owners and non-owners alike fear it. Porsche developed a new seal and now once fixed, the problem doesn't generally recur (there are stories of inferior seals and tools used to replace the seals that required replacement more than once several years ago as the problem first surfaced). I believe the cost to repair/replace is somewhere around $1,000.
Chances are, a used 996 on the market that was going to have a rear main seal problem has already had it taken care of. Considering that many 996s can be purchased as pre-owned, certified cars, the financial risk of having to repair drivetrain problems rests with Porsche rather than the new owner.
Chances are, a used 996 on the market that was going to have a rear main seal problem has already had it taken care of. Considering that many 996s can be purchased as pre-owned, certified cars, the financial risk of having to repair drivetrain problems rests with Porsche rather than the new owner.
Do you really think Porsche put replacement engines in thousands of 996s and Boxsters because they didn't feel like doing the repair that you state costs $1k?? I remember snooping around back Rusnak Porsche (Thousand Oaks?) in the 2000-2002 era and seeing defective 996 and Boxster engines literally piled up behind the shop. I asked a mechanic if they had to repair that many engines. He just stated that Porsche wanted all of the problem engines returned to Germany, and they were not allowed to tear them down.
As for it no longer being a problem, just try to trade in a '99 996 at any semi-knowledgable used car lot. If it doesn't have a replacement engine, they either won't touch it, or low-ball you so bad that there is enough money left on the table to buy another motor.
I won't argue about the 996 performance figures. How could anyone??
I may even own one (or a Boxster) someday. It would be hard to find any other car to match the 996 of Boxster's capabilities for the same used car dollar. The slumping US economy and continuing lease returns from later 996s and early 997s will push their prices even lower IMO.
But, as for being a REPLACEMENT for an older 911, any older 911? Not for me, not for a whole lot of aircooled 911 owners.
I can't help letting my eyes and other senses overrule the sensibility of a spec sheet.
Whatever 911you drive, have fun and be safe.
max
11-06-2007, 10:02 AM
#60
Nicely written post VGM911 .... but ...
You forgot to mention the real reason why a lot of the 996 rear main seals leaked - The end of the crankshaft was no longer centered in the block !!
Do you really think Porsche put replacement engines in thousands of 996s and Boxsters because they didn't feel like doing the repair that you state costs $1k?? I remember snooping around back Rusnak Porsche (Thousand Oaks?) in the 2000-2002 era and seeing defective 996 and Boxster engines literally piled up behind the shop. I asked a mechanic if they had to repair that many engines. He just stated that Porsche wanted all of the problem engines returned to Germany, and they were not allowed to tear them down.
As for it no longer being a problem, just try to trade in a '99 996 at any semi-knowledgable used car lot. If it doesn't have a replacement engine, they either won't touch it, or low-ball you so bad that there is enough money left on the table to buy another motor.
I won't argue about the 996 performance figures. How could anyone??
I may even own one (or a Boxster) someday. It would be hard to find any other car to match the 996 of Boxster's capabilities for the same used car dollar. The slumping US economy and continuing lease returns from later 996s and early 997s will push their prices even lower IMO.
But, as for being a REPLACEMENT for an older 911, any older 911? Not for me, not for a whole lot of aircooled 911 owners.
I can't help letting my eyes and other senses overrule the sensibility of a spec sheet.
Whatever 911you drive, have fun and be safe.
max
You forgot to mention the real reason why a lot of the 996 rear main seals leaked - The end of the crankshaft was no longer centered in the block !!
Do you really think Porsche put replacement engines in thousands of 996s and Boxsters because they didn't feel like doing the repair that you state costs $1k?? I remember snooping around back Rusnak Porsche (Thousand Oaks?) in the 2000-2002 era and seeing defective 996 and Boxster engines literally piled up behind the shop. I asked a mechanic if they had to repair that many engines. He just stated that Porsche wanted all of the problem engines returned to Germany, and they were not allowed to tear them down.
As for it no longer being a problem, just try to trade in a '99 996 at any semi-knowledgable used car lot. If it doesn't have a replacement engine, they either won't touch it, or low-ball you so bad that there is enough money left on the table to buy another motor.
I won't argue about the 996 performance figures. How could anyone??
I may even own one (or a Boxster) someday. It would be hard to find any other car to match the 996 of Boxster's capabilities for the same used car dollar. The slumping US economy and continuing lease returns from later 996s and early 997s will push their prices even lower IMO.
But, as for being a REPLACEMENT for an older 911, any older 911? Not for me, not for a whole lot of aircooled 911 owners.
I can't help letting my eyes and other senses overrule the sensibility of a spec sheet.
Whatever 911you drive, have fun and be safe.
max
max, I think the problems you mention were primarily the very early engines (i.e., 99-00). I don't think people are as wary of the newer engines, particularly 02 plus. That said, I can completely understand the rational for your post.
