Originally Posted by 911/Q45

At the risk of being blasphemous, have you looked at the Honda S2000 or the Mazda Miata/MX5? May be more like the nimble 356 you remember so fondly.

Originally Posted by phelix

Forget about buying a car in Europe and importing it to the US. You can spend a few $K converting a US car to the euro spec (suspension) or you can spend ten times that converting a European car to meet US reg. To what end?!?!

(The 96 RS is an exception in that it can be imported as a Show and Dispaly car limited to 2500 miles per year but it's a pretty specialised tool.)

In my opinion you're wasting a lot of time re-soliciting opinions that are nothing different that what's been posted here dozens of times. Are we buying this car or are you? Are we going to drive this car or are you? You really need to drive the cars yourself on your roads so that you can find what works for you. We can't tell you what's going to float your boat.

Originally Posted by JohnM

I'm one of the few (maybe very few reading the posts above ) to prefer the lines of the narrow bodied cars, which is why I bought a C4 in preference to a 4S. I recall reading an interview with F.A. Porsche (in the latter days of 993 production) in which he expressed a similar view, so I guess I'm not in such bad company.

In similar vein, I seem to be about the only one to think the tail on the Turbo spoils the lines of the car. Alois Ruf claimed to have modified a 993 with a turbo for a member of the Porsche family, with the intercooler tucked away at the side of the engine, no wing required. No doubt less efficient than the turbo's intercooler installation, but the "S" owners are familiar with making a slight sacrifice in performance for the sake of personal preference in appearance

Originally Posted by Doc Vorce

Owners of 993s have much to appreciate in their cars. However, because of their weight, their dimensions, and particularly their handling characteristics, the wide-bodied, normally aspirated 993s have received regular criticism from automotive journalists. The reviews that I have selected draw direct comparisons between the narrow-bodied and the wide-bodied cars.

The all-wheel-drive system, the Turbo brakes and body work, and the 18 inch solid spoke wheels of the 993 C4S clearly increase the car's weight. (The larger, heavier solid spoke 18 inch wheels and the immemse brakes increase the car's unsprung weight and do little to enhance the car's transient response.) Reviewers from COMPLETE CAR, "A Day with the Famous Five: Carrera RS, Turbo, GT2, Carrera 4S, Carrera," note that the C4S "tips the scales at 1,450 kg [3,190 pounds] instead of 1370 kg [3,014 pounds]" of the narrow-bodied Carrera. "Technically," the reviewers claim, the C4S is "slower all around but you'd never notice it subjectively. There are some differences in feel, though. Turn in isn't quite so crisp; you can sense the extra weight in the nose." In the same review, the narrow-bodied Carrera is characterized as "a little softer: there's a hint of roll, dive, and squat. But just a hint. It communicates its intentions lucidly." The standard Carrera, the reviewers conclude, is "arguably the purest 911 [and is] still the best."

CAR AND DRIVER, in "Porsche 911 Carrera 4S," raises an analogous objection to the C4S: "The 4S's skidpad performance of 0.87 g was 0.03 g lower than our last Carrera 4, and the 4S plowed more because the fat rear tires prevented our achieving the neutral attitude of the base Carrera 4. In fact--and these points are based on remarks made by David Murry, the all-wheel-drive system of the C4S contributes significantly to the C4S's propensity toward understeer. The rear tires of 993s wear much more quickly than the front tires, and the circumference of the rear tires is reduced as the rear tires wear. Consequently, as the diameter of the rear tires decreases, the rear tires spin faster than the front tires. The all-wheel-drive system of the C4S interprets the increased revolution of the rear tires as slip and transfers power to the front tires to stabilize the car. In a corner and under sustained, aggressive acceleration, the C4S will, as a result, understeer.

The Carrera S has faired somewhat better with the automotive press. In MOTOR SPORT's "Last Orders, Please: Carrera S," the narrow-bodied 993 is described as "a little soft and lacking in ultimate body control through tough dips and humps. In the Carrera S, as long as it's dry this feeling of slight unease has been eradicated entirely and replaced by a sense of implacable commitment to the job ahead." The assessment of the Carrera S is different, however, in AUTOCAR's "NSX Marks the Spot: 911 Carrera S vs. Honda NSX vs. Lotus Esprit V8." The journalist asserts very bluntly that the "wide-bodied Carrera S is inferior to the standard car." The "fat rear wheel arches and wide track" of the Carrera S "spoil the handling balance by introducing too much understeer compared with the standard car." Similarly, PERFORMANCE CAR's "Generation NSX: 911 Carrera S vs. Honda NSX vs. Lotus Esprit V8 vs. Maserati Ghibli Cup vs. TVR Cerbera 4.5" criticizes the handling of the Carrera S. The Carrera S "takes the regular 911's wheels and tyres and, with the aid of rear wheel spacers, fits them under the Turbo body. This robs the 911 of some delicacy and apparently some performance too; we couldn't better 5.3 secs to 60 and 157 mph--half a second and 2 mph down on the standard Carrera." CAR AND DRIVER, in "Porsche 911 Carrera S," also comments about the Carrera S's performance. The Carrera S's "huge grippy tires were reluctant to allow the wheelspin required for a quick getaway. Maybe that's why this 911 was only able to approximate the performance of our last Carrera 4, turning 0-60 in 4.9 seconds and blasting through the quarter-mile in 13.6 seconds at 102 mph. (Our long-term '95 was three tenths of a second quicker.) But the fat Turbo body work held the S back while the skinnier, more aerodynamic long-term Carrera pulled away above 100 mph and topped out at 161 mph--6 mph faster that the S's 155."