When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
yes that’s why I like my 99. Seeking for a little more power. Anyway i
ran across a jonh Anselmo Motorsports built 3.4 je pistons, balance, ported and polish heads, valve job. 330 to 335 hp. I may buy that car just for the engine. If I get this, then to my mechanic. De jeeper transplant. Will put my engine on this and then we will have a car to track just for 🤩 fun, and I’ll have a little sleeper early 996.
You are correct the engine alone is worth more than the current bid.
If it stays below $25k I might have to pick this up for my kids to use as a HPDE toy.
I don't trust myself either. I already have enough problems being a young guy in a 911. Don't need to exacerbate them by buying a turbo
I’ve got a 99 and an 03 TT x50. Both 6sp. I prefer to drive the 99 as a daily driver. It’s just easier and happier around town. The TT feels like it’s constantly telling me “WTF are you waiting for???” Enjoy your NA!
I too prefer my 3.6 996 over my much more powerful 4.0 997 on most local backroads, somewhat due to the different suspensions, but mostly due to not needing that much power. On an open stretch of road the two aren't in the same league. I seriously wouldn't trust myself if I owned a turbo, but I will scratch the itch and drive one eventually.
A friend of mine has had a string of new Turbos. Last one I rode in was his Turbo S, don't remember what year -- it was a hoot with the launch control start. After his string of the latest turbos, he told me his favorite car to drive was his 2005 997.1. He regrets trading it in. He loves the turbos for the adrenaline rush, but his favorite to drive was his 997 C2/6-speed/coupe because he could just toss it around. I suspect he'd like a 996 c2/6-speed/coupe even more because it's even lighter than his 997.1
He recently picked up a 911r after a long search to find one that wasn't ridiculously overpriced -- at 3000 lbs, 500 hp, and a manual 6-speed, I suspect his 997 itch has largely been scratched, but I'll ask him next time I see him.
17643523[/url]]A friend of mine has had a string of new Turbos. Last one I rode in was his Turbo S, don't remember what year -- it was a hoot with the launch control start. After his string of the latest turbos, he told me his favorite car to drive was his 2005 997.1. He regrets trading it in. He loves the turbos for the adrenaline rush, but his favorite to drive was his 997 C2/6-speed/coupe because he could just toss it around. I suspect he'd like a 996 c2/6-speed/coupe even more because it's even lighter than his 997.1
He recently picked up a 911r…I suspect his 997 itch has largely been scratched, but I'll ask him next time I see him.
I’ve got a 99 and an 03 TT x50. Both 6sp. I prefer to drive the 99 as a daily driver. It’s just easier and happier around town. The TT feels like it’s constantly telling me “WTF are you waiting for???” Enjoy your NA!
i agree with you. When I had the HPA r32 twin turbo, i also had my shark 85 M635CSI. I had more fun in the BMW. Now the pcar is the best, the way that whoever was set up this car is amazing, it’s almost like driving a go cart.
. Anyway I saw this car today and I kicked myself for having sold my shark in 2015, I sold at a profit and the car needed some work but it still would have appreciated.
Well the seller flat refused to provide a DME rev report, so a new motor is competitively factored into that high bid. GT’s (especially 996) are track rats, a DME is as salient to market value as the VIN.
912 guys feel the exact same way vs the 911. Lighter, quicker in turns, freer revving, etc. The wet-sump 912 was lots more fun on roads, and the dry-sump 911 was way more potent (and eminently more durable) on track. That’s the water cooled Carrera vs. Turbo/GT personified.
1978 “unified” these two paradigms into one lesser powerful dry-sumped car: HUGE financial mistake for Porsche.
And then 1999 split them apart, back to the original “horses for courses” dual-engine paradigm: HUGELY profitable for Porsche. In ONE 911 generation Porsche both shattered all previous 911 sales records AND won LeMans in a 911!!
SO, Do you want your 911 tail-happy in the twisties? OR, do you want to win LeMans??
Porsche will gladly sell you both, just one at a time
Originally Posted by Brian_C
I’ve got a 99 and an 03 TT x50. Both 6sp. I prefer to drive the 99 as a daily driver. It’s just easier and happier around town. The TT feels like it’s constantly telling me “WTF are you waiting for???” Enjoy your NA!
I don’t think a 912 is revvier than an early 911. The main advantage is better weight distribution and less weight. And Porsche had long before 1977 given up on the 912, replacing it with the 914, and then the 924. (Yes I know about the short-lived G-model 912 but that was US only.)
So while your argument is interesting, I don’t really buy it. Porsche almost went bankrupt for many reasons, but not having a 912 isn’t among them. They had the 924 and 944.
It remains a fact that the M96/7 isn’t good for track use. Makes you realize how great the aircooled 911s were — suitable for daily use and for the track!
Don’t forget Porsche sold the 912 in the U.S. as late as 1976; whether they gave up on it or not.
Lighter, more nimble?? I’m grasping at straws here I’ve never even seen a 912 in person. Just grabbing adjectives from the 912 forum where they LOVE those little wet-sump cars.
Mostly it seems for the same very same reasons we LOVE the CHEAPER, LIGHTER, WET-SUMP 996 Carrera!
The parallel is striking between the two 911 engines, their two missions: then, and in 1999 (and to this day).
Inarguably similar
PS And we also have other lesser cost models buzzing around this dichotomy today (Boxster, Cayman). I don’t think anyone is comparing a 912 to a 944, or a Cayman, or a GT2. Let’s stick to the rear-engined 91x Types.
Originally Posted by frederik
I don’t think a 912 is revvier than an early 911. The main advantage is better weight distribution and less weight. And Porsche had long before 1977 given up on the 912, replacing it with the 914, and then the 924. (Yes I know about the short-lived G-model 912 but that was US only.)
So while your argument is interesting, I don’t really buy it. Porsche almost went bankrupt for many reasons, but not having a 912 isn’t among them. They had the 924 and 944.
It remains a fact that the M96/7 isn’t good for track use. Makes you realize how great the aircooled 911s were — suitable for daily use and for the track!
True, and lest we forget the 962 flat-6 was water cooled as early as 1984, and the 959 flat-6 used water cooled heads until 1993. So they had lots of “practice” 🤑
Originally Posted by NYPOWR4
Yes without the original 924 we wouldn’t have any water cooled 911’s today they practiced on the 924/944 and still got some of it wrong 15yrs later
Porsche incontrovertibly lost a vast fortune mass producing the dry-sump Mezger for road use in the 80’s & 90’s. It was both overbuilt for its primary use, and underpriced for its intrinsic value. That is the patent formula for bankruptcy. This is precisely why the 996 Carrera reverted back to the wet-sump “economical” paradigm of the much cheaper to manufacture 912.
Thus not aligning the 1978-1998 motor’s manufacturing cost sufficiently below the car’s sales price is the practical equivalent of Porsche “not having a 912” from 1978-1998.
And if Porsche can be this “dumb” with the 911, then they can bleed in other places too. I’ll give you that.
PS it’s interesting to note Hans Mezger owned a patent on the M96 engine design, for the brilliant oil warming (and then cooling) water line that traversed the oil sump. So it’s not as if Porsche “abandoned” Mezger altogether for M96. He was involved; but only to a “price point”. Safe to say Hans was not involved with the IMSB however! 🤣.
Originally Posted by frederik
Porsche almost went bankrupt for many reasons, but not having a 912 isn’t among them
09-01-2021, 10:33 PM
