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.
We know for a fact that the 964 and 993 cost too much to make, but that’s also due to the antiquated chassis and production methods. As far as I know, claiming that the engine was primarily responsible for the cost is pure conjecture.
It’s definitely true that the M96 engine was cheaper to make, but it might also have been possible to make a watercooled Mezger engine for a Carrera 996 at a reasonable cost. One thing is for sure: the M96 cost-cutting led to the IMS saga since they wanted to use a single casting for both cylinder heads.
All true. Mezger has stated that it was Weiderking who insisted on an all-new water cooled motor design. He also said that "was a relief because at least we finally had direction". Apparently Porsche had waffled for years on how to make the dry-sump racing platform "profitable" on the street. I think to a certain extent they finally achieved that with the Mezger 6GT/Turbo; but at a MUCH higher price point obviously. And see where that has taken them! Straight into the stratospheric $500K 992 GT2 (sold out years in advance). So ultimately, after all the wet-sump warranty claims and lawsuits finally settled, Weiderking may have been right after all.
Anyway, with the water cooled Mezgers Weiderking didn't so much redesign the engine, as he did the price. There has always been an intrinsic German "economy" at Porsche that resists raising prices; their advertising even quixotically vaunting this fact through the years. Weiderking introduced the novel concept (for Porsche) of drastically new price points for incrementally revised versions of the same car. That alone didn't save Porsche, but it sure helped saved Porsche.
Originally Posted by frederik
We know for a fact that the 964 and 993 cost too much to make, but that’s also due to the antiquated chassis and production methods. As far as I know, claiming that the engine was primarily responsible for the cost is pure conjecture.
It’s definitely true that the M96 engine was cheaper to make, but it might also have been possible to make a watercooled Mezger engine for a Carrera 996 at a reasonable cost. One thing is for sure: the M96 cost-cutting led to the IMS saga since they wanted to use a single casting for both cylinder heads.
We know for a fact that the 964 and 993 cost too much to make, but that’s also due to the antiquated chassis and production methods. As far as I know, claiming that the engine was primarily responsible for the cost is pure conjecture.
It’s definitely true that the M96 engine was cheaper to make, but it might also have been possible to make a watercooled Mezger engine for a Carrera 996 at a reasonable cost. One thing is for sure: the M96 cost-cutting led to the IMS saga since they wanted to use a single casting for both cylinder heads.
This^^
In opposition to what most people read from "internet wisdom", the 996 never was cheaper as an engineering product, but in how it was produced. As industrial product, the 996 was a car that represented a leap that would have required two generations in other model: faster, safer, bigger but lighter, more efficient, more comfortable, with much more technology integrated, so, in any sense could be considered a "cheaper" product than the previous generations.. when it overpass them in any measurable dimension (again, from an engineering product point of view, romanticism or tastes aside)
Even the so demonized M96... was an engine that brought the "State of the Art" technology of the time to the 911: lightweight materials construction, 4 valves per cylinder, variable distribution in timing and lift, cross flow cooling architecture, etc, where technologies available in any road sport car at the time (like an M3 e36/E46)... but was not yet in the 911, and it had to be to make it to the 21st century.
Was it a less track / racing oriented engine than it predecessors? YES. Was it a more technologically advanced engine? YES. Was what the times were requiring for a sports car more daily usable, even that means to have to diversify the model with more track oriented versions? ... well, seeing where the 911 is today... I would say that definitely also YES.
However, the manufacturing methods at Porsche were clearly not up to the times and, by those years, they started implementing methods that later will become industry standards, based on the Lean (Just in time) methodology, for which implementation they hired the reference on that field (Toyota).
Modern production methods were already in place at Porsche with Boxster years before 996, and would have carried through to the water cooled 911 regardless of which engine platform chosen (wet or dry sump). Indeed the 996 Turbo and GT's utilized the same "modernized" production lines as the 996 Carrera, albeit with the MUCH more expensive Mezger motor.
The wet-sump M96 motor was, and is: the single most expensive part to manufacture in the vehicle. And that only cost a fraction of what it cost Porsche to manufacture the dry-sump Mezger. That hard math is inescapable. IE Manufacturing the motor is the primary cost of manufacturing the vehicle. Reducing that cost primarily reduces the whole cost.
For better or for worse: the wet-sump 996 Carrera was an "economy" 911, in virtually the exact same capacity as the 912. And 992 Carrera is still an economical 911 with a wet-sump DFI today.
I see that for the better. I get a lighter, nimbler, and cheaper 911 for the street. And if I want to pony up for a track toy: the less economical, but more durable dry-sump race cars are still for sale.
You will argue: "But Porsche charged exactly the same for 996 Carrera as 993!!" Aye, there's the rub. And, that was Weiderking's genius. He sold the 912 for exactly the same asking price as the previous year's 911. And he sold it in droves! What a guy.
Originally Posted by parris
This^^
In opposition to what most people read from "internet wisdom", the 996 never was cheaper as an engineering product, but in how it was produced. As industrial product, the 996 was a car that represented a leap that would have required two generations in other model: faster, safer, bigger but lighter, more efficient, more comfortable, with much more technology integrated, so, in any sense could be considered a "cheaper" product than the previous generations.. when it overpass them in any measurable dimension (again, from an engineering product point of view, romanticism or tastes aside)
Even the so demonized M96... was an engine that brought the "State of the Art" technology of the time to the 911: lightweight materials construction, 4 valves per cylinder, variable distribution in timing and lift, cross flow cooling architecture, etc, where technologies available in any road sport car at the time (like an M3 e36/E46)... but was not yet in the 911, and it had to be to make it to the 21st century.
Was it a less track / racing oriented engine than it predecessors? YES. Was it a more technologically advanced engine? YES. Was what the times were requiring for a sports car more daily usable, even that means to have to diversify the model with more track oriented versions? ... well, seeing where the 911 is today... I would say that definitely also YES.
However, the manufacturing methods at Porsche were clearly not up to the times and, by those years, they started implementing methods that later will become industry standards, based on the Lean (Just in time) methodology, for which implementation they hired the reference on that field (Toyota).
As a point of reference, I just paid $30,500 (private party local) for a 2004 AE w 110k Miles. I was happy with the deal, even though it's obviously more than it would have cost me last year. Completed PPI and had great maintenance records. Luggage included.
Modern production methods were already in place at Porsche with Boxster years before 996, and would have carried through to the water cooled 911 regardless of which engine platform chosen (wet or dry sump). Indeed the 996 Turbo and GT's utilized the same "modernized" production lines as the 996 Carrera, albeit with the MUCH more expensive Mezger motor.
Agree partially. The 986 and 996 program were developed together in terms of manufacturing method. When Porsche hired the Toyota consultants to implement Lean, they did it to start it with the production oft he 986/996 program. Selling dates are not so relevant. The 996 Turbo was still much "cheaper" than a 993 Turbo.
Originally Posted by bdronsick
The wet-sump M96 motor was, and is: the single most expensive part to manufacture in the vehicle. And that only cost a fraction of what it cost Porsche to manufacture the dry-sump Mezger. That hard math is inescapable. IE Manufacturing the motor is the primary cost of manufacturing the vehicle. Reducing that cost primarily reduces the whole cost.
Agree... and that is the important fact: "what it cost Porsche to manufacture the dry-sump engine". The M96 was cheap to produce, but not cheaper in terms of design or technology. Actually, was an engine more technologically advanced than the previous aircooled. Stealing your words: an engine with more power (specific and total), more efficient, lighter, with less and easier maintenance, more ecological... than its predecessor, is more advanced than the previous one, and that is another hard math inescapable.
The trade -ff was a less track oriented engine? Yes, but that is why the GT versions were born for and still you have an engine in your Carrera that improves the previous one in everything except that very specific use.
Taking the reasoning to the extreme, a steam engine can be more reliable and more expensive to produce than a diesel engine with the same power...
Originally Posted by bdronsick
For better or for worse: the wet-sump 996 Carrera was an "economy" 911, in virtually the exact same capacity as the 912. And 992 Carrera is still an economical 911 with a wet-sump DFI today.
Again, the 996 was, a better car in each measurable way (technially talking) than its predecessor, so for me was not an economy 911... but all the opposite, a big modernization and improvement in every aspect within an specific project budget (that is engineering to its best)
Originally Posted by bdronsick
I see that for the better. I get a lighter, nimbler, and cheaper 911 for the street. And if I want to pony up for a track toy: the less economical, but more durable dry-sump race cars are still for sale.
You will argue: "But Porsche charged exactly the same for 996 Carrera as 993!!" Aye, there's the rub. And, that was Weiderking's genius. He sold the 912 for exactly the same asking price as the previous year's 911. And he sold it in droves! What a guy.
I see for the better too, but again, I don't think that the 911 can be considered "cheaper" than a 993 Carrera when improves it in every measurable way... except in... track usability?... It is true, but the the sales numbers demonstrated that the objective public of a Carrera valued more the other mentioned characteristics.
As a point of reference, I just paid $30,500 (private party local) for a 2004 AE w 110k Miles. I was happy with the deal, even though it's obviously more than it would have cost me last year. Completed PPI and had great maintenance records. Luggage included.
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 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!
Originally Posted by bdronsick
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.
I was looking for a late 60's/early 70's 911 just after high school when I had scraped together enough just enough cash from cooking in a restaurant and my lawn service to buy one used. I drove about 15 911's and 2 912's during that search (also had a 914 in high school), so I have a ton of relatively period experience with a wide variety of those cars. The huge challenge in humid Florida was to find a 10-ish year old (at that point) 911 that was rust-free.
I ended up buying a 1969 912 mostly because it was totally rust-free (I really wanted a 911), and it also fit my tight budget. The 912 was more docile than the 911 due to decreased weight, the 4-speed transmission was magically smooth, it had just enough power to be entertaining, but I did not like the sound of the engine and I didn't find it as free-reving as the 911's.
Of the 911s, the "t"'s were fairly docile, sounded a million times better than the 912, and faster, but didn't feel that fast even to a young, shallow pocketed kid who couldn't believe he was (almost) buying a 911. All the 911 "s" models I drove were miserable -- they just had zero torque unless you revved it to the limit, but just not fun to drive in normal driving (most of those vintage "s"'s today have likely been retuned to fix that, but that's how they felt in period). I preferred actually the "t" over the "s". The 911e's were the best for me by far, they were very fast and had plenty of power in normal driving. There was a lot of variability from individual car to individual car, but the general t/e/s model characterizations applied to all.
I later owned a '74 911s, which I liked quite a bit, but just didn't feel like the lightweight sports cars the 2.0/2.2/2.4 liter 911's were. I later had a '87 Carrera -- great car, but even less like the lightweight early cars and the steering was very heavy.
My C2/coupe/6-speed 996.1 feels to me almost exactly like the early light 911e's. It's obviously not as light as those early cars, but with double the horsepower and light power assist, it feels even lighter than the early cars. It has all the great characteristics of the early cars, but it has creature comforts and ice-cold AC and can be driven daily in any weather in complete comfort. Even the power (in 996.1) comes on hardest at around 6k like the early cars. That's why I love the 996's (with lightweight option choices) so much -- it brings me back to those early 911e's I loved so much, only better. I consider the naturally aspirated 996, in its purest form, one of Porsche's best driving 911s.
I was looking for a late 60's/early 70's 911 just after high school when I had scraped together enough just enough cash from cooking in a restaurant and my lawn service to buy one used. I drove about 15 911's and 2 912's during that search (also had a 914 in high school), so I have a ton of relatively period experience with a wide variety of those cars. The huge challenge in humid Florida was to find a 10-ish year old (at that point) 911 that was rust-free.
I ended up buying a 1969 912 mostly because it was totally rust-free (I really wanted a 911), and it also fit my tight budget. The 912 was more docile than the 911 due to decreased weight, the 4-speed transmission was magically smooth, it had just enough power to be entertaining, but I did not like the sound of the engine and I didn't find it as free-reving as the 911's.
Of the 911s, the "t"'s were fairly docile, sounded a million times better than the 912, and faster, but didn't feel that fast even to a young, shallow pocketed kid who couldn't believe he was (almost) buying a 911. All the 911 "s" models I drove were miserable -- they just had zero torque unless you revved it to the limit, but just not fun to drive in normal driving (most of those vintage "s"'s today have likely been retuned to fix that, but that's how they felt in period). I preferred actually the "t" over the "s". The 911e's were the best for me by far, they were very fast and had plenty of power in normal driving. There was a lot of variability from individual car to individual car, but the general t/e/s model characterizations applied to all.
I later owned a '74 911s, which I liked quite a bit, but just didn't feel like the lightweight sports cars the 2.0/2.2/2.4 liter 911's were. I later had a '87 Carrera -- great car, but even less like the lightweight early cars and the steering was very heavy.
My C2/coupe/6-speed 996.1 feels to me almost exactly like the early light 911e's. It's obviously not as light as those early cars, but with double the horsepower and light power assist, it feels even lighter than the early cars. It has all the great characteristics of the early cars, but it has creature comforts and ice-cold AC and can be driven daily in any weather in complete comfort. Even the power (in 996.1) comes on hardest at around 6k like the early cars. That's why I love the 996's (with lightweight option choices) so much -- it brings me back to those early 911e's I loved so much, only better. I consider the naturally aspirated 996, in its purest form, one of Porsche's best driving 911s.
To your credit most mechanics (including Jake Raby) agree with you; in fact both my indy’s drive and race standard 996 Carreras exclusively. If labor is at no cost then I agree the wet sump motor is a great bang for the buck. And so was the 912! 🤑🤑
Originally Posted by parris
..the 996 was, a better car in each measurable way (technially talking) than its predecessor., I don't think that the [996] can be considered "cheaper" than a 993 Carrera when improves it in every measurable way... except in... track usability?
09-02-2021, 02:04 PM
There has always been an intrinsic German "economy" at Porsche that resists raising prices; their advertising even quixotically vaunting this fact through the years. Weiderking introduced the novel concept (for Porsche) of drastically new price points for incrementally revised versions of the same car. That alone didn't save Porsche, but it sure helped saved Porsche.
