DerkBarrington

The 996 headlights were modeled after the 911 GT-1 evo race car ... which I think look pretty damn nice.

MBH911

Anestheticg

TonyTwoBags

All I know is that I love my 996. It's loads of fun to chuck around and drive purely for the sake of driving. And I can afford to put miles on it. Nothing else matters.

peterp

I probably missed a few, but here is a list of the "facts" he is dead wrong about in the article. Quotes from the article are in blue italics:

“It was a 914 2.0, the infamous Vanagon-engined misery-mobile that wasn’t even considered worthy of a Porsche badge in its home country ... In a straight line, they were easy meat for a 2.8-liter Chevrolet Citation”

While it is true that the 914’s were slow, he even screwed this up because the 914 2.0 version he is specifically talking about actually had very good performance for its time. The 914 2.0 did 0-60 in 8.8 seconds (https://www.zeroto60times.com/body-style/classic/). The Citation X, though 10 years newer with a 2.8 6-cylinder, did 0-60 in 9.1 or 9.8 seconds depending on the year, so it was slower than the 2.0 914 4-cylinder by 0.3 or 1.0 seconds.

He continues “…in a corner, they (the 914) were prone to behavior that was by turns fascinating and terrifying.”

The 914’s were mid-engine cars and did not have any handling issues. That statement is totally untrue – he is actually confusing air-cooled 911 handling for the 914. 911 handling was always “fascinating and terrifying” because of the rear-engine weight bias. Porsche went to great lengths to cure the handling in the air-cooled 911’s and they didn’t tame it until (ironically) the 996 (when they introduced PSM because only computer assist could overcome Newton’s laws on a rear-engine performance car).

“The smart money bought an old BMW 2002, which could also be had dirt cheap and which would blow the proverbial doors off the VoPo.

The BMW 2002 did 0-60 in 11.2 seconds and even the tii 2002 did it in 9.7 seconds. So it was 2.4 seconds slower than the 2.0 914, and 0.9 seconds slower for the tii.

“The (996) interiors did not wear well and the paint was subject to fading"

The 996 interiors could look cheap, depending on options -- that’s true -- but it doesn’t wear poorly, nor is the paint any worse than any other car. My 18-year-old 996 has original paint and it is perfect except for a rock chip or two.

“so many of the 996es out there look pretty crummy nowadays.”

I rarely see any 996’s that look crummy. In fact, I can't think of one I've see on the road. The 996's are approaching 20 years old and the percentage of 996’s that look crummy in my experience is much less than any other car brand/model I can think of from that same time period.

Talking about IMS failures -> "This is particularly true of the 1999-2001 models."

He is totally wrong about being “particularly true of the 1999-2001 models” – those years had the stronger dual-row IMS with the smaller 3.4 engine. It is the 2002-2004 models that have a smaller IMS even though the engine size was increased to 3.6. This is a pretty important piece of information to have dead wrong.

“The stereo and HVAC systems are nothing but trouble”

Again, he is totally confusing the air-cooled 911 issues for a 996 issue. AC was marginal in all 911 models until the 996 because effective AC and heating on an air-cooled car is difficult. There is a thread about 996 A/C on RL right now where many have said the 996 has the best A/C of any car they've owned. The sound system in 996’s, while not amazing, was much better than the sound system in the air-cooled cars.

"I would suggest buying a 997-generation Porsche instead. Although the pre-facelift 997s continue with the troublesome M96 engine, they are much nicer-looking inside and out. If you squint a bit, a 2005 997 looks quite a bit like the current car. That matters to people regardless of what they say or write on the Internet."

Looking like the new models has nothing to do with long-term value (the point of the article). Also, after going on and on about the 996 IMS issues, it is totally irresponsible to have his facts wrong about the 997.1. The first 997.1's had the same issues as the 996 (which he does mention by talking about continuation of M96), but the second version (mid-2005) of 997.1 had a new issue that the 997.1 IMS can't be proactively replaced without totally disassembling the engine. An IMS that can be replaced as maintenance on a 996 is safer for long-term ownership (the subject of his article on investment) than the 997.1 IMS that can’t be replaced.

“There are worse ways to absolutely blow $15,000, I suppose.”

How does he make the leap from "not being an investment" to equating buying one as "absolutely blowing $15k"??? To describe a car that you can buy, drive for 5 years, and sell for the same price you paid, paying only for maintenance, as “blowing” $15k is insane.

My Point
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. At least to keep to themselves or share with friends. However, anyone who is going to write their opinion in an auto magazine has the responsibility of knowing what they are talking about. He is dead wrong about so much that Road & Track should pull this article. It is irresponsible and embarrassing for the magazine.

I have no issue with a conclusion that the 996 won’t appreciate if the article is based upon facts, but this is just total uninformed slamming a particular model from somebody who, PCA member or not, knows nothing about Porches overall or the 996 in particular. It's totally irresponsible journalism to point out the wrong years for increased IMS focus on the 996. People who assume that the 996.2 are less prone to IMS failures, the inference from this article, might end up paying a heavy price as a result of R&T's shoddy journalism.

Marv

I agree with your arguments, except the one quoted above.

The premise is wrong. It's just too simple and there are many examples that show that to be untrue. The first Chrysler Mini Van looks a whole lot different than today's Mini Vans, but I wouldn't call those old vehicles collectable.

The 996 looks different from the 991, but the 996 is not collectable. At least if the definition of collectable is seen as a growing monetary investment..

Obviously collectability rides on many factors, among them would be the number available and their perceived stigma.

MikeinBloomfield

If you didn't like this article, definitely don't read the letters to the editor in Panorama for May 2018 (available online if you're a PCA member). There's one response to last month's 996 article: hoo boy! The end quote: "The word you couldn't seem to find to accurately describe the 996's headlights? Ugly. They were ugly then, and they are ugly now."

peterp

Good point. I edited the post to delete that comment. I was going to edit it to say it a different way, but there's no short way to make the point I was trying to make. Definitely I agree that anything being different from current model of anything doesn't ensure it becomes collectible, I was just saying that in 30 years, nobody is going to say "I love the 997 because it almost looks like a 991" (the point the author was trying to make). If a "not crazily rare" car becomes collectible, part of that value I think has to come from it having something unique that no other model offers. The me, that "one thing" for the 996 is the uniqueness of its driving character as the only truly lightweight modern 911. To know whether that will actually make it collectible will take probably take a decade or so. I plan to spend that entire decade trying to get my "nothing but trouble" 996 HVAC to try to spit out some cold air .

peterp

I haven't seen them, but those letters wouldn't bother me at all. I'm not offended by any criticism of the 996 and individuals should say what they want in a letter to the editor because they are only representing their own opinion. When somebody is an automotive journalist, however, and writes a detailed article with most of the facts wrong, and when he speaks authoritatively about details when he clearly doesn't even know anything about Porsche, much less the model he is talking about, that is totally irresponsible.

I find the whole thing entertaining, honestly. My post probably sounds like an emotional rant, but I was laughing out loud the whole time I read the article. I'm surprised R&T hasn't pulled it, but I actually hope they don't because the entertainment value is priceless.

Tyler H

Sugar scoop headlights were the ugliest ever to be fitted to a 911, unless 'no headlights' on the slantnose makes it on a technicality. Pulled head studs, ballistic oil temps, Carrera tensioner refits, exploding airbox pop off valve refits, head gasket retrofits, laughable hvac, rust, door stop tearouts....all 911s have their character traits and IMO are representative of the times during which they were produced.

Jack Baruth is an eloquent troll. I'm sure he's hunched over his laptop laughing at all of us right now.

I enjoyed the article for enterainment value alone. He's writing for the People, and the People want their own stereotypes and world views fed back to them by the media. That's what sells.

Don't feed the trolls

Dr_Strangelove

He actually chimed in the first time this article was brought up, right after it was published: https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...m-r-and-t.html

Tyler H

I scanned that thread, but didn't see any posts I would attribute to him? Maybe my hyperbolic combustion chambers are scored?

Dr_Strangelove

He Is user Pzkw993 - See post #45 on Page 3, it's his first in the thread.