How much of the 993 is Hand Built ?
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
How much of the 993 is Hand Built ?
I was told a few years back ,that the later 93-95 928 GTS's were not hand built as the early cars were. which leads me to the question about my 993. Since it is a 96 model, was Porsche still hand building cars in that year?
#3
Three Wheelin'
It depends upon your definition of hand built. As I understand it the 993 panels were all stamped but the fit and assembly was by hand. That's as opposed to for example Aston Martins which until recently had panels made one by one on wooden bucks and matched to each individual car - which in my book is truly hand made. I think Rolls still builds cars that way.
#5
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northern IL and SW FL
Posts: 2,192
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the 964 was the last of the hand made 911 series (also the most expensive to build).
Didn't they started the mass production lines with the 993 (last of the air cooled 911 series) or was it the 996 (after Toyota gave them some pointers)?
Didn't they started the mass production lines with the 993 (last of the air cooled 911 series) or was it the 996 (after Toyota gave them some pointers)?
#6
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Lat: 47 Deg 26.848N Lon: 122 Deg 21.341W Seattle
Posts: 2,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey All,
I have an Autoweek article from 1994 about the saving of Porsche. It is about how the cars went from hand built and then reworked because of poor quality incoming component and part QC to hand built with little rework with the 993. The hours per car went way down.
The 996 ushered in the designed to be assembled fast era.
Porsche hired the Toyota quality ninjas...
PM me and I will send the PDF along. I thought I sent it to Mike at pcarwrokshop but maybe not.
Cheers!
I have an Autoweek article from 1994 about the saving of Porsche. It is about how the cars went from hand built and then reworked because of poor quality incoming component and part QC to hand built with little rework with the 993. The hours per car went way down.
The 996 ushered in the designed to be assembled fast era.
Porsche hired the Toyota quality ninjas...
PM me and I will send the PDF along. I thought I sent it to Mike at pcarwrokshop but maybe not.
Cheers!
#7
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Flyoverland - Central, Ohio
Posts: 3,234
Received 257 Likes
on
180 Posts
I'd say more like hand assembled (excluding windshield placement, painting, sub frame welding, and such), but not hand built. I think the current line in Stuttgart and Leipzig are very similar to what went on with the 993 chassis. Was a recent NatGeo show on the factory in Stuttgart.
Trending Topics
#9
Drifting
I was under the impression that the 993's 3.6L was hand built herego the $24,000.00 cost for a 993 crate engine from Porsche and the 1999 and up 996's crate engine costing approx. $9500.00 due to mostly being machine assembled....................ZP44
#10
Addicted Specialist
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I recall reading the same comments as Frandk and Bruce mention above.
Really, the point is academic: you don't truly want "handbuilt" if it means inconsistency. Like trying to fit a body panel from one car (say, for accident repair) and it needs add'l hours of reworking just to make it right?!! That brand of "handbuilt" is, thankfully, replaced by machines that are exacting and tireless.
The reference to handbuilt engines (and like critical components), on the other hand, is a good one since machines cannot make certain decisions like skilled humans can.
But the bottom line is the bottom line. If she can't be built economically and be sturdy, there is precious little point to "handbuilt" or "robotic." When customers lose faith, the build method is moot. Which is why Porsche really had to get that whole early-996 engine debacle sorted out fast (and from what I understood, at least they stepped up to the plate and covered owners who plunked down their 60+ large). It was no secret, (to enthusiasts anyway), that the aircooled engine was a freaking monument to longevity ...then this new grenading engine?!! Clearly the mothership got their sales when they made a cost/build-effective model, but they took it in the shorts when it wasn't so, um, "effective" if you have to replace an entire engine! So does anyone really care how their car was built when your brand new high-tilt wondercar is in the shop for a heart transplant?
As Porsche (and everyone else, to be sure) goes toward further mechanation, the quest always will be to make the final result worth having over the long haul. Witness Honda and Toyota, the running joke of the 70s, carve out a loyal (and global) segment of the industry over the decades. And not because of their mechanical process, but because their mechanical process yielded a machine that left owners with a thing of value over time. This is where the venerable 911 heritage shines, clearly, and without debate as witnessed by the numerous iterations not only still running around but with near-rabid loyalty with cars exchanging hands usually for other variants. Loyalty. And the bottom line.
...BTW, can you tell I've got time this morning
Edward
Really, the point is academic: you don't truly want "handbuilt" if it means inconsistency. Like trying to fit a body panel from one car (say, for accident repair) and it needs add'l hours of reworking just to make it right?!! That brand of "handbuilt" is, thankfully, replaced by machines that are exacting and tireless.
The reference to handbuilt engines (and like critical components), on the other hand, is a good one since machines cannot make certain decisions like skilled humans can.
But the bottom line is the bottom line. If she can't be built economically and be sturdy, there is precious little point to "handbuilt" or "robotic." When customers lose faith, the build method is moot. Which is why Porsche really had to get that whole early-996 engine debacle sorted out fast (and from what I understood, at least they stepped up to the plate and covered owners who plunked down their 60+ large). It was no secret, (to enthusiasts anyway), that the aircooled engine was a freaking monument to longevity ...then this new grenading engine?!! Clearly the mothership got their sales when they made a cost/build-effective model, but they took it in the shorts when it wasn't so, um, "effective" if you have to replace an entire engine! So does anyone really care how their car was built when your brand new high-tilt wondercar is in the shop for a heart transplant?
As Porsche (and everyone else, to be sure) goes toward further mechanation, the quest always will be to make the final result worth having over the long haul. Witness Honda and Toyota, the running joke of the 70s, carve out a loyal (and global) segment of the industry over the decades. And not because of their mechanical process, but because their mechanical process yielded a machine that left owners with a thing of value over time. This is where the venerable 911 heritage shines, clearly, and without debate as witnessed by the numerous iterations not only still running around but with near-rabid loyalty with cars exchanging hands usually for other variants. Loyalty. And the bottom line.
...BTW, can you tell I've got time this morning
Edward
#11
I recall reading the same comments as Frandk and Bruce mention above.
Really, the point is academic: you don't truly want "handbuilt" if it means inconsistency. Like trying to fit a body panel from one car (say, for accident repair) and it needs add'l hours of reworking just to make it right?!! That brand of "handbuilt" is, thankfully, replaced by machines that are exacting and tireless.
The reference to handbuilt engines (and like critical components), on the other hand, is a good one since machines cannot make certain decisions like skilled humans can.
But the bottom line is the bottom line. If she can't be built economically and be sturdy, there is precious little point to "handbuilt" or "robotic." When customers lose faith, the build method is moot. Which is why Porsche really had to get that whole early-996 engine debacle sorted out fast (and from what I understood, at least they stepped up to the plate and covered owners who plunked down their 60+ large). It was no secret, (to enthusiasts anyway), that the aircooled engine was a freaking monument to longevity ...then this new grenading engine?!! Clearly the mothership got their sales when they made a cost/build-effective model, but they took it in the shorts when it wasn't so, um, "effective" if you have to replace an entire engine! So does anyone really care how their car was built when your brand new high-tilt wondercar is in the shop for a heart transplant?
As Porsche (and everyone else, to be sure) goes toward further mechanation, the quest always will be to make the final result worth having over the long haul. Witness Honda and Toyota, the running joke of the 70s, carve out a loyal (and global) segment of the industry over the decades. And not because of their mechanical process, but because their mechanical process yielded a machine that left owners with a thing of value over time. This is where the venerable 911 heritage shines, clearly, and without debate as witnessed by the numerous iterations not only still running around but with near-rabid loyalty with cars exchanging hands usually for other variants. Loyalty. And the bottom line.
...BTW, can you tell I've got time this morning
Edward
Really, the point is academic: you don't truly want "handbuilt" if it means inconsistency. Like trying to fit a body panel from one car (say, for accident repair) and it needs add'l hours of reworking just to make it right?!! That brand of "handbuilt" is, thankfully, replaced by machines that are exacting and tireless.
The reference to handbuilt engines (and like critical components), on the other hand, is a good one since machines cannot make certain decisions like skilled humans can.
But the bottom line is the bottom line. If she can't be built economically and be sturdy, there is precious little point to "handbuilt" or "robotic." When customers lose faith, the build method is moot. Which is why Porsche really had to get that whole early-996 engine debacle sorted out fast (and from what I understood, at least they stepped up to the plate and covered owners who plunked down their 60+ large). It was no secret, (to enthusiasts anyway), that the aircooled engine was a freaking monument to longevity ...then this new grenading engine?!! Clearly the mothership got their sales when they made a cost/build-effective model, but they took it in the shorts when it wasn't so, um, "effective" if you have to replace an entire engine! So does anyone really care how their car was built when your brand new high-tilt wondercar is in the shop for a heart transplant?
As Porsche (and everyone else, to be sure) goes toward further mechanation, the quest always will be to make the final result worth having over the long haul. Witness Honda and Toyota, the running joke of the 70s, carve out a loyal (and global) segment of the industry over the decades. And not because of their mechanical process, but because their mechanical process yielded a machine that left owners with a thing of value over time. This is where the venerable 911 heritage shines, clearly, and without debate as witnessed by the numerous iterations not only still running around but with near-rabid loyalty with cars exchanging hands usually for other variants. Loyalty. And the bottom line.
...BTW, can you tell I've got time this morning
Edward
One thing I might add is that there is no longer an environment present where automakers build things to last. The crucial thing to automakers is that the cars last....until the warranty period expires.
#12
I was lucky enough to go on a factory tour in Stuttgart in '94. The 993's were lined up being "put together by hand" -- meaning that at one spot, the guys fitted the proper calipers to wheel carriers, put the struts on and stuck it to the frame.
We didn't see any engine assembly, but I remember that they were built by a single mechanic, then dynoed and if they didn't meet spec, they were torn down and rebuilt. If they failed again, the were given to one of the senior mechanics and he would see wtf was wrong. hehe.
My wife took detailed notes (she is just that sort of person with a travel diary for each holiday). I'll see if I can dig up her notes and post them. I remember our tour guide said "Are you planning to open your own car factory in America?" on how she kept writing everything down...
My favorite memory was of one employee taking a swig of beer after doing some part of his job.
-reiner
We didn't see any engine assembly, but I remember that they were built by a single mechanic, then dynoed and if they didn't meet spec, they were torn down and rebuilt. If they failed again, the were given to one of the senior mechanics and he would see wtf was wrong. hehe.
My wife took detailed notes (she is just that sort of person with a travel diary for each holiday). I'll see if I can dig up her notes and post them. I remember our tour guide said "Are you planning to open your own car factory in America?" on how she kept writing everything down...
My favorite memory was of one employee taking a swig of beer after doing some part of his job.
-reiner
#14
Addicted Specialist
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
You are, sadly, so correct on this point. What a bummer of a comment as it speaks so much of where we are in manufacturing today. But when one finds the rare business model where quality still is king, and the customer deserves the best, I stick with that company. I am tired of "disposable" wares and am willing to pay more (within reason, of course) if what I get really is of lasting quality. Precious few companies "get it" but those who do I will reward with my hard-earned buck.
Edward
#15