What is a TT really like on back roads?
#61
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Vic, to answer your PM, yes I sold my C4 cab for a C2 coupe. Why? Because I drive at the track so much that a C2 coupe made much more sense. After driving both cars extensively, I feel the C4 gives a little more safety while the C2 gives a little more speed. If I were so inclined as to drive really aggressively on back roads (which I'm not- see Martin's post for an example of why), then a C4 would be my choice since the AWD gives a margin of safety.
As for cab vs. coupe, there's negligible difference on street drivign, except the cab weighs a bit more (nobody knows how much...). I had PSS9's in my cab and it was great even at the track.
As for cab vs. coupe, there's negligible difference on street drivign, except the cab weighs a bit more (nobody knows how much...). I had PSS9's in my cab and it was great even at the track.
#62
![Cool](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif)
Hi Eric,
Thanks for confirming what I sort of expected, best to know from one who took the high road. So I guess a supercharged C4 cab isn't a bad back road summer ride.
![Cool](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif)
Hi Rassel,
So you're up in Northern Yourope? Norway or Finland or Latvia is it? I'm also up North in the USA near Canada (no NOT Alaska). The mountains here are the oldest on the continent and are like tiny little steep hills everywhere, so the roads wind around them and bob up and down very sharply every few hundred yards. I compared them to roads in Corsica so that you folks in Europe can get a better vision of what they are like. However, in Corsica the roads are either flat (on the coastline) or long uphill or downhill rides - not constantly bobbing up and down like in Vermont.
So you can better understand that I'm looking for a summer road untwister, which is why a cabriolet isn't off the shortlist.
I'm scouting for cars both in the USA and in Europe since I can combine a Porsche trip with an overseas family visit. But the car has to be the right one at a proper price, given that I will need to then pay for shipping, import duties, sales tax and state registration. Not cheap but worthwhile only if it is a "special car" or a decent deal.
Best,
/Vic
Thanks for confirming what I sort of expected, best to know from one who took the high road. So I guess a supercharged C4 cab isn't a bad back road summer ride.
![Cool](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif)
Hi Rassel,
So you're up in Northern Yourope? Norway or Finland or Latvia is it? I'm also up North in the USA near Canada (no NOT Alaska). The mountains here are the oldest on the continent and are like tiny little steep hills everywhere, so the roads wind around them and bob up and down very sharply every few hundred yards. I compared them to roads in Corsica so that you folks in Europe can get a better vision of what they are like. However, in Corsica the roads are either flat (on the coastline) or long uphill or downhill rides - not constantly bobbing up and down like in Vermont.
So you can better understand that I'm looking for a summer road untwister, which is why a cabriolet isn't off the shortlist.
I'm scouting for cars both in the USA and in Europe since I can combine a Porsche trip with an overseas family visit. But the car has to be the right one at a proper price, given that I will need to then pay for shipping, import duties, sales tax and state registration. Not cheap but worthwhile only if it is a "special car" or a decent deal.
Best,
/Vic
#63
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
#64
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif)
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.
Of course these were my first choices by far. They're really in the same philosophy. However, the traffic sure isn't the same and I'd hate to meet an SUV with an old-fashioned lightweight roadster. You can see that I've got more than one passenger, they just fit into our latest toy:
[IMG]Deleted[/IMG]
Problem is, with only a few hundred miles on it and after flashing its ECU it still falls short of providing the kind of driving sensations I was weened on when I was my son's age, and despite its P-Zeros it loses grip fairly soon. You really can't easily forget those early Porsches, at least not with a Stang.
So I'm leaning for a narrow bodied C4, found one with low miles not too far away. But I guess being such a futz and newbie, do you folks think that the narrow body is the way to go for narrow roads? I think they designed the wide body mostly because the TT was a 200mph car which need extra high speed stability in curves. Otherwise, at small road speeds, a narrow body might actually be better?
The C4 convertible I am looking at is unluckily NOT a varioram engine. So I don't know if I would be able to add a supercharger to get extra mid-range torque for better grip out of the turns.
Thanks for letting me know your thoughts, as I wouldn't want to miss it if it is the right car for my purposes...
![thumbup](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/thumbup.gif)
/Vic
Last edited by Crownvic; 01-18-2006 at 08:23 PM.
#66
![Question](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif)
By the way, I've asked another Rennlister how his Supercharged C2 handles respective to a TT. Although he hasn't driven a TT, according to him "the smaller the track the bigger the instant torque advantage is". So much to further encourage my preference for a narrow C4 versus a C4S, but with TT suspension and an SC.
While it will assuredly not have anywhere near the high speed performance pretensions of a TT, it just might happen to have something entirely different to offer, driving experience wise? Have any TT Rennlisters ever owned or driven a supercharged 993? Or for that matter, have others driven a narrow bodied C4?
TIA.
/Vic
While it will assuredly not have anywhere near the high speed performance pretensions of a TT, it just might happen to have something entirely different to offer, driving experience wise? Have any TT Rennlisters ever owned or driven a supercharged 993? Or for that matter, have others driven a narrow bodied C4?
TIA.
/Vic
Last edited by Crownvic; 01-18-2006 at 08:44 PM.
#67
Addict
Rennlist Lifetime Member
Rennlist Lifetime Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'm scouting for cars both in the USA and in Europe since I can combine a Porsche trip with an overseas family visit. But the car has to be the right one at a proper price, given that I will need to then pay for shipping, import duties, sales tax and state registration. Not cheap but worthwhile only if it is a "special car" or a decent deal.
(The 96 RS is an exception in that it can be imported as a Show and Display 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.
Last edited by Felix; 01-19-2006 at 04:31 AM.
#68
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
(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.
#69
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: new york, new york
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i agree with the last 2 sentiments and this thread is WAAAY longer than it should be.. all of these 993's are great. Get whichever makes you happy. On the streeet you will never really push these cars unless you are a pro or are looking for a 'bad-day'
To answer the other questions-
1- ive seen several european mag reviews from the mid 90s saying the NB c2 handled better than the wider c2s, but i have no way to verify this.
2- ive driven a supercharged c2 and it was fast as sh*t. They had a TPC supercharger and it had no lag. Felt faster than a stock TT at the middle and low end. I have no other idea about the long term durability, but my ride was impressive and more fun than the TT for backroads where you would never see the topend of a TT.
To answer the other questions-
1- ive seen several european mag reviews from the mid 90s saying the NB c2 handled better than the wider c2s, but i have no way to verify this.
2- ive driven a supercharged c2 and it was fast as sh*t. They had a TPC supercharger and it had no lag. Felt faster than a stock TT at the middle and low end. I have no other idea about the long term durability, but my ride was impressive and more fun than the TT for backroads where you would never see the topend of a TT.
#71
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yupp I'm in Sweden. I recognize your preferences also ![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Agree, don't get a euro car to the U.S market.
I really suggest you try the cars. It will give you so much more that can't be written in words.
..and oh, don't forget to tell us how you liked it!
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Agree, don't get a euro car to the U.S market.
I really suggest you try the cars. It will give you so much more that can't be written in words.
..and oh, don't forget to tell us how you liked it!
![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#72
![Cool](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif)
Okay guys. I know I don't trailer a 917 to your club meets or race a GT1 for weekend thrills and thus have done nothing to merit your respect.
Instead of letting me uselessly fantasize that Rennlist is a community of spirit where Porsche lovers share their insight, dreams and concerns, somebody should have told me right off the bat - like in post #2 - that I am wasting your time by considering differences between the 993 series cars. Maybe I am not entirely to blame for this thread lasting for pages. After all, it wasn't until post # 69 that a conclusive testimonial gave a verdict (thanks Rob).
I hereby formally take note that all Porsches are all thus far superior to anything which I could ever handle and will perform well beyond any limits imposed by law elsewhere than in Germany.
Thus I must pick whichever flavor I prefer paying hommage to Ben & Ferry, side scoops not included.
But there is nary a production car in the world today which won't go faster than the speed limit, so why limit this logic to Porsches, Consumer Reports can guide us on the really important factual data. Why even a Yugo's excess speed can get you into trouble on the Turnpike. Porsches are obviously disposable consumables designed to flatter our fickle decadent impulses, while Public transportation can do as good a job of getting us from point A to B without wasting anyone's time with senseless diatribe about which model to pick.
So I will keep to myself irrelevant concerns about the "character of a car" in terms of driving pleasure and enjoyable handling. Suffice knowing that there are those with power under there foot, and lesser people who don't realize what they are lacking.
It was nice being in the TT forum while it lasted, if you get my thrust.![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
To comply with public uproar: THIS THREAD IS NOW ENDED
Thanks to any/all for participating.
Cheers,
/Vic
PS. For those still interested, here are some elements which came out of the debate in this thread and related tergiversation, starting with a quote from a Rennlister in another thread:
A Rennlist special Guest, Doc Vorce, adds a bit more perspective to this dilemma:
Much of the following is my own personal speculation.
C4 advantages:
- better aerodynamics (smaller frontal area and rear wing drag only at speed)
- less overall weight (smaller chassis/body)
- less unsprung weight (lighter wheels and brakes)
- better torque transmission (due to narrow track)
- crisper steering dynamics (no wheel spacers)
C4S advantages:
- TT brakes
- some TT suspension components
- Sexy curves
- better stability at high speed
- did I say Sexy curves?
The wide body of the TT is obviously most useful for a supercar => it stays stable at breakneck speeds. This is probably why the GT2 has a wide body but the GT3 is narrow: their vocation isn't the same.
If it was superior - or even equal - in winding small roads, I would go for an extremely sexy TT which awakens any normally constituted person's senses. But I won't pay considerably more for less nimble a car when nimbleness is my main 356 nostalgia quest.
Here is what I dreamt Dr. Ferdinand prescribed:
-narrow bodied C4 fitted with M030 suspension, 285s in the back and no-lag TPC supercharger for grunt.
As a purist, I don't like the idea of heavily modded cars, prefering them in unscathed tasteful original condition. But aesthetically there wouldn't be any visible mods, keepin the wing stock, the supercharger can always be unbolted.
Compared to a TT, you will probably consider it to be a vastly inferior car lacking both the myth of the original and the "king of the road" feel. However, for back road use, I think that a narrow bodied AWD 993 is a better fit for my specific usage.
As far as I can tell from Rennlisters' archived posts, the C2 requires more skill but the C4 can be pushed harder. The narrow bodied C4 will accelerate faster than the narrow C2 due to greater traction. The C2 will have higher top end (not my wish). The complaints I have heard about the C4's steering being heavy are comparing a narroe C2 to a wide bodied C4S and not to the narrow C4. I guess I'll have to suffer through ownership to really find out.
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
/Vic
Instead of letting me uselessly fantasize that Rennlist is a community of spirit where Porsche lovers share their insight, dreams and concerns, somebody should have told me right off the bat - like in post #2 - that I am wasting your time by considering differences between the 993 series cars. Maybe I am not entirely to blame for this thread lasting for pages. After all, it wasn't until post # 69 that a conclusive testimonial gave a verdict (thanks Rob).
I hereby formally take note that all Porsches are all thus far superior to anything which I could ever handle and will perform well beyond any limits imposed by law elsewhere than in Germany.
Thus I must pick whichever flavor I prefer paying hommage to Ben & Ferry, side scoops not included.
But there is nary a production car in the world today which won't go faster than the speed limit, so why limit this logic to Porsches, Consumer Reports can guide us on the really important factual data. Why even a Yugo's excess speed can get you into trouble on the Turnpike. Porsches are obviously disposable consumables designed to flatter our fickle decadent impulses, while Public transportation can do as good a job of getting us from point A to B without wasting anyone's time with senseless diatribe about which model to pick.
So I will keep to myself irrelevant concerns about the "character of a car" in terms of driving pleasure and enjoyable handling. Suffice knowing that there are those with power under there foot, and lesser people who don't realize what they are lacking.
It was nice being in the TT forum while it lasted, if you get my thrust.
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
To comply with public uproar: THIS THREAD IS NOW ENDED
Thanks to any/all for participating.
Cheers,
/Vic
PS. For those still interested, here are some elements which came out of the debate in this thread and related tergiversation, starting with a quote from a Rennlister in another thread:
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![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
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
![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
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."
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."
C4 advantages:
- better aerodynamics (smaller frontal area and rear wing drag only at speed)
- less overall weight (smaller chassis/body)
- less unsprung weight (lighter wheels and brakes)
- better torque transmission (due to narrow track)
- crisper steering dynamics (no wheel spacers)
C4S advantages:
- TT brakes
- some TT suspension components
- Sexy curves
- better stability at high speed
- did I say Sexy curves?
The wide body of the TT is obviously most useful for a supercar => it stays stable at breakneck speeds. This is probably why the GT2 has a wide body but the GT3 is narrow: their vocation isn't the same.
If it was superior - or even equal - in winding small roads, I would go for an extremely sexy TT which awakens any normally constituted person's senses. But I won't pay considerably more for less nimble a car when nimbleness is my main 356 nostalgia quest.
Here is what I dreamt Dr. Ferdinand prescribed:
-narrow bodied C4 fitted with M030 suspension, 285s in the back and no-lag TPC supercharger for grunt.
As a purist, I don't like the idea of heavily modded cars, prefering them in unscathed tasteful original condition. But aesthetically there wouldn't be any visible mods, keepin the wing stock, the supercharger can always be unbolted.
Compared to a TT, you will probably consider it to be a vastly inferior car lacking both the myth of the original and the "king of the road" feel. However, for back road use, I think that a narrow bodied AWD 993 is a better fit for my specific usage.
As far as I can tell from Rennlisters' archived posts, the C2 requires more skill but the C4 can be pushed harder. The narrow bodied C4 will accelerate faster than the narrow C2 due to greater traction. The C2 will have higher top end (not my wish). The complaints I have heard about the C4's steering being heavy are comparing a narroe C2 to a wide bodied C4S and not to the narrow C4. I guess I'll have to suffer through ownership to really find out.
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
/Vic
#73
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: new york, new york
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
thank you for posting the quotes from those articles - its nice to read.
No one was being rude to you, nor shows up in a 917 / gt1, but there is only so much you can write when differentiating between the various permutations on the 993 platform, especially for street use.
Let us know when you find your c4, im sure we'd all like to know how it is.
Dont take our word(s) for it, but drive them ALL and you decide.
No one was being rude to you, nor shows up in a 917 / gt1, but there is only so much you can write when differentiating between the various permutations on the 993 platform, especially for street use.
Let us know when you find your c4, im sure we'd all like to know how it is.
Dont take our word(s) for it, but drive them ALL and you decide.
#74
Instructor
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Crown Vic
Interesting conclusions would be very interested in your views after you have tried a few out to see whether they pan out in reality. Where ever you end up make sure you drive a Turbo towrds the end of the exercise, you will be surprised at the difference.
ps and await on Very Sideways comments based on experience
Interesting conclusions would be very interested in your views after you have tried a few out to see whether they pan out in reality. Where ever you end up make sure you drive a Turbo towrds the end of the exercise, you will be surprised at the difference.
ps and await on Very Sideways comments based on experience
#75
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Thanks Rob for your comforting words. I mistakenly got the impression that folks weren't happy that while the TT may indeed be the king of the road, it may not be the king of the back road? Go figure what goes through my Porsche deprived mind these days. I'd probably prefer a TT, but it would be overkill for quaint backroad relatively "low speed" use. So a C4 it is until I graduate to the big highway.
Off chance, would you know of a good place to run a PPI in New York NY? Thanks for passing the word. There's a narrow C4 which would be a nice testbed for suspension mods, if it passes in flying colors.
![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Best,
/Vic
Off chance, would you know of a good place to run a PPI in New York NY? Thanks for passing the word. There's a narrow C4 which would be a nice testbed for suspension mods, if it passes in flying colors.
![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Best,
/Vic