Red5

I'm torn between 2 cars. A 2000 C4 with 120k for 14k or a 2003 C2 with 92k for 16k. Neither knows if the IMS has been changed or not. Both run and look great. I drove the C2 yesterday and Loved it. The C4 is a bit of a drive to get to so I would want to make that drive with cash in hand.

Between these two cars which one will be faster in a light to light drag race? The C2 seemed to have plenty of traction. Are they the same motors? Does only the C4 have traction Control?

How about if I wanted to change the clutch? Is the C4 much more involved because it has the awd drive line?

Am I missing anything?

808Bill

3.4 vs 3.6
Make sure to have a PPI done and try and get all the service history you can. Cheap Porsches are never cheap!
Go to Pelican parts and read the technical DIY articles to see what's involved with each.

Jerbartolo

03 C2 will be faster. Bigger motor and less weight than the 2000 C4.

dkraige

No offense but if you're buying a car for drag racing a 911 is a pretty poor choice. There are other cars that will do that job much better and much more cheaply.
I don't think the 2 cars will behave appreciably different that you can feel; you'd need precise timing equipment to measure the difference. The C2 is lighter but has slightly less power. The C4 is heavier but has more power and better traction due to AWD and wider tires. If you're planning on beating the crap out of it I'd get the C2 because it has fewer moving parts, and therefore fewer things to break. Also its tires and brakes will cost less to replace.

strathconaman

Don't buy a 996 if you want "Fast". There are many SUVs and sedans that will show you their taillights for about the same money.

The AWD system in the 996 is shockingly simple: you can pull it out from the car in a couple of hours, and run it 2wd with no ill effects. Both of these cars have "PSM" which is 996 speak for stability and traction control.

I drove both Mk1 (the 2000 C4 is a Mk 1) and a Mk2 (the 2003 C2 is a Mk2) and they are surprisingly different cars. I would recommend driving both of them. But don't make the decision based on speed.

Blue Chip

I think the 2000 was a 3.4. In 2002 it was bumped up to 3.6L.

The 2000C4 will be heavier, has a smaller motor, and tends to feel less nimble. The C2 will be faster - but probably not by enough for you to feel or to be able to realize.

For an all around car - the C4 is pretty nice with the AWD. Rain, snow, etc... handles well too. I've got a student now that has one for track use. It's a good car.

For more dedicated track use - the C2 all day, every day. Actually - I'd pick the C2 for any use... but that's me.

Hal

With all due respect, you should look at a different car. A Mustang or Camaro maybe?

Ahsai

I hate to admit it but in terms of acceleration our 996s are more on par with regular sedans/SUVs/trucks as opposed to the latest sport cars.

dkraige

*while accelerating in a straight line. Introduce some corners and we will pull away.

peterp

I see these comments about 996 performance all the time and I don't really think they are accurate. When Car & Driver tested the 996 mk1, the 0-60 times were something like 4.8 seconds (don't remember exactly). It's true that there are several ultra high performance SUV's that will do it in 4 seconds or under, but I don't think many regular SUV's or even sedans are faster.

The 996s' don't feel that fast because power (in the MK1 at least) doesn't really come on strong until about 6k RPM, but if you keep it in the power band, it's quite fast even by today's standards (and VERY fast for a nearly 20 year-old car).

TexSquirrel

I came to the 2002 996 from a 2009 BMW 135i.
The 996 is about the same from 0-60 as the BMW 135i was from the factory.
Once I added JB4/MHD BEF/Port Injection/E85/Catless DPs/Fuel-it Stage2 LPFP/PR Inlets/etc to the BMW135i it was a LOT faster than a NA 996. (Low 11 second 1/4 mile and 0-60 in the low 3 second range)
You can pick up a BMW 135i for $10K, and have it running 1/4 mile in the 11s (3.x second 0-60) for about $3500 in mods if you do it yourself.
I bought the 996 and kept the BMW for 8 months because I was afraid I'd miss driving it.
I finally sold the BMW a couple of months ago...because I never drove it.
Even though the 996 is slower 0-60 or 1/4 mile, it is a LOT more fun to drive!
Also with Fabspeed exhaust the 996 sounds MUCH better than the 135i with aFe exhaust.

Gptoyz

Have you considered a Cayman manual?

If you don't need to drive your Porsche in in-climate weather, I see no point in a C4. It's only going to handle worse and be slower than a C2 at everything, consume more gas and have a bigger maintenance bill.
That being said, the 911, any 911, is less engaging to drive than a cayman. But the 911 is a practical sports or GT car.

As far as the 1 series vs 996 argument, I would take a 996 any day, it's got way more space in the back seat. The 1 series back seats are absolutely unusable. Turbos, suck, NA all the way.

The only car I can think of in a similar price bracket (excluding an s2000, gt3, 911 turbo, corvette) that I would want to own, take care of and drive more than a 911 (not a c4, c4s) is a Cayman.

professorman

The mk2 look is definitely worth it, and with lower miles, I think you should go with the 03 if you can afford the car + $2-$3k for IMS and possibly clutch.

911Syncro

And then, do you agree, that the reason Porsche put AWD on every 996 Turbo is to ensure that supercar drivers can also do that in the snow?

Gptoyz

Call me crazy but having driven the turbo (997.2) - I was disappointed - don't meet your heroes. The gt3 is a much more rewarding experience