bdronsick

Whether the Porsche 912 motor was “based” on the VW, or the VW motor was installed in a Porsche 912, I think the goal with all 912’s was to FAIRLY offer a lower price point for consumers by lowering engine cost.

With 996 Carrera however, Weiderking’s tactic was to increase profit by lowering engine cost, while still selling the new 911 at the already established luxury-consumer price point. So-called “Integrated Dry Sump Technology” speciously cloaked this maneuver. And even to this day, very few Porsche customers ever caught onto Weiderking's "bait and switch"; even with their 997.2 (thru 992) Turbo S.

And this has FAR less to do with number of cylinders, than with number of dollars.

peterp

The 912 was developed to lower the entry price, as was the 914 (that took over when the 912 stopped production), followed by the 912E for one-year, as a holdover to the 924, etc. There are a long string of those cars, all under the 911, that served a hugely important purpose of providing an affordable entry point to the brand.

I cannot agree at all that the 996 was in any way a budget car like the 912. The 996 was the only 911 in that era, and the 911 was the top-of-the-line model Porsche offered. How could the 996 be a "budget model" when it is the top-of-the-line? The MSRP on my 2000 996 C2 was something like $86k, which was decidedly not inexpensive for a non-Turbo/non-GT car in 2000 dollars, and isn't even inexpensive in 2021 dollars! The 996 was the best, performance-wise, they could build, that's why it was faster and lighter than the 993 it replaced. The 996 was even lighter and much faster than the 964 model that preceded the 993. The 996 would go 174mph and 0-60 in 5.2 seconds (magazine tests have recorded high 4's). That is serous performance in 1999. In no way was the 996 ever a budget model.

If anything, the Boxster is the parallel for the 912. There is nothing about the 996 that is remotely budget. The only thing unique to the 996 is that they switched completely to modern production methodologies for a decidedly more modern car. The 996 was the first 911 that wouldn't beat you up on a 5-hour drive on a hot day. They did do some cost-cutting to share headlights and parts of the front-end with the Boxster and with the IMS to save on head redesign costs. I think those were poor decisions on Porsche's part for sure, but they weren't creating "budget 911's". The 996's were already ridiculously expensive ($86k is a LOT in 2000 for a non-turbo/non-GT 911) -- imagine what they would have had to sell them for if they hadn't saved money by doing that. I doubt they could have raised the 996 price much more and have been able to sell them in the quantity they needed for profitability.

.

work_truck

there are plastic screws holding the interior together

peterp

All part of the magic in those svelte 2900 lbs!

There is no question some things weren't perfect in their choices, but that had to be a positively massive switch from old production to new production, so not surprising not everything was perfect. Some aspects of the 996 "cheapness" feel is in options -- my first 996 (back when they were new) didn't have full leather or the 3-spoke wheel and I found the interior cheap. The second 996 I bought a decade later has full leather, three-spoke, deviated carpets -- if feels like a different car, quality-wise, from the first one.

The thing is, where they were cheap (**cough ** cough blinker stalk (and plastic screws) ) -- it would have cost almost nothing for them to do better in those areas.

.

bdronsick

The 912 was in no way a “budget car” being virtually identical to the 911 except for the cost to produce the motor. And likewise 996 quality was identical with, and in some ways even exceeded that of the 993 (I’ve owned both).

Where the 996 saved massive amounts of money over its predecessors was in the cost to produce the new wet-sump motor. And, “Modern” production was used throughout the Porsche lineup, from lowly Boxster up to the lofty GT2RS; so that oft-misquoted aspect was ubiquitous. And "water-cooling" had nothing to do with it either, as the entire Porsche engine lineup from the micro 2.5 to the mighty Mezger were now ALL water-cooled!

So how Porsche actually created new revenue with 996 was twofold:

1. Selling the 996 Carrera, with the cheaper motor (just like the 912), at the same price point as the 993 (with the expensive motor).

2. Then Porsche took that (same expensive) 993 motor and installed it into a brand new “category” of 911 called “GT” and added $100K to the 911 price.

Bit of a simplification but the 996 GT/Turbo is essentially the 996 Carrera with a 993/964 motor. Heck the 996 GT/Turbo motor's case even still has the old "964.." part number stamping, if that convinces you. Once you get this you get it. Weiderking was a mastermind.

bdronsick

Maybe I’m jaded but I’m always blown away by 996 quality. 993 had rotting plywood floors, and a disintegrating cardboard glovebox. 993 was the only Porsche that ever left me stranded. I’ll go to my grave insisting 996 vastly improved build quality over previous generations.

997 and later don’t have my vote; others can argue for/against. But Type 996 is solid gold IMO.

peterp

I agree with your comments about calling the 912 a budget car -- just sloppy language on my part. I agree the 912 was a 911 with a lesser engine. I owned a 912 for many years and loved it. The 914 (4-cylinder, not the 6) was actually a bit of a budget car (not meant as a cutdown) -- I owned 2 914's (which gives me license to say it). The 2.0 914 was actually a huge upgrade over the 1.7/1.8, I just couldn't afford a 2.0 back then (buying very used as a teenager). The 924 was a a bit of a budget car -- somewhat intended as a cut down -- but all of those entry level cars were important for Porsche and its customers.

I get what you're saying about the parallels between the 996 and 912 engine-wise, and I don't disagree with you logic, but I still don't see the 996 and 912 engine differences as parallels at all. The 912 motor was much less powerful, and sounded more like a VW than it sounded like Porsche (that was probably the only thing I didn't love about my '69 912). As much as I loved the 912, I never once got in it and forgot that it was a 912 -- you couldn't not hear or feel that it wasn't a 911.

With the 996, the differences in the engine versus the 993 were largely "under the covers" performance-wise (not durability wise though -- which is likely a large part of your point). The 996 was faster and lighter, and it sounded and performed like a 911. While there were some compromises in the 996 engine, they are completely transparent to the driving experience. The 912 engine differences were not transparent at all -- you felt/heard them every time you were in the 912.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I don't see those 996/912 parallels because I'm looking at it from a "driving experience" perspective.

bdronsick

Polar Turbo w/painted hardbacks on build sheet for $44K. AMG Tip-S, but cake and eat it too

http://atcm.co/S2PVDP/23e7412chttp:/...2PVDP/23e7412c

bdronsick

If if I start my Turbo and Carrera after one another the difference in sound is astonishing. My kids ask to stand behind the Turbo while I rev it. It’s terrifying. The Carrera is just loud.

peterp

Never had a 993, but I'm in the same camp versus my prior Carrera 3.2 and 2.7 911s -- great cars, but the 996 is so much better. Much more power and they feel lighter and more tossable than those older cars -- inherent light weight of the 996 + double the HP + power steering makes it feel lighter on it's feet than any post-1972 911. My 69' 912 was as fun to drive as the 996 from a "sports car" perspective -- but the 996 has power, comfort, quietness, AC, etc.

bdronsick

Dawn of the $60K 996 Carrera, flame away

https://www.ebay.com/itm/28444229447...%7C1000%7C2500


Conversely, Speed Yellow for only $35K bit more like it

https://www.ebay.com/itm/19433656607...%7C1000%7C2500

Mike Murphy

Here’s the description:

”2000 Carrera Coupe. There is no other 2000 Carrera Coupe known to be inexistence today with the same characteristics making this gem a truerarity. It was purchased in 2000 for the new millennium to memorialize the latest changes Porsche devised over many decadesthe century before. This classic Porscheis in stunning Arctic Silver Metallic with Leather Sports Seats. It has a Water Cooled, 6 Cylinder Engine 3.4Liters. Before its time, this Coupe has goodgas mileage amongst its many other advanced features- 17 City MPG and 25Highway MPG. This collector’s dream hasextremely low mileage of 16,328 miles and has been garage kept. Extremely rare in today’s world, this classicPorsche has a 6-Speed Manual Transmission for the true aficionado. In addition, this 2000 Carrera has ExclusivePorsche Options such as an Aero kit, Rear Side GT Fins, Aluminum/Chrome X71,X70, X54 and other Porsche options (Arctic Silver Metal, 18” Lt. Allow WheelsTurbo Look, 3 Spoke Leather Steering Wheel, Wheel Caps with Colored Crest,Porsche Stability Management, Hi-Fi Sound Packaged with Speakers, AM/FM Radio withCD Player), totaling approximately $15k before tax back in 2000dollars. This classic beauty has neverbeen in an accident and all parts are original. In short, there is simply “no substitute.”

peterp

Crap, how did he get one that included the latest changes Porsche designed over many decades the century before? And get that great gas mileage that Ernest & Julio Gallo would not approve of? According to the RL poll, only 24% of metallic 996's were Arctic Silver. No full leather, but it has the "extremely rare" 6-speed. Looks like a clean car though -- more power to him if he can get it.

GarrettSR5

That SY with only rear spats is a weird look

GarrettSR5

It sounds like he likes the smell of his own farts.
Does his camera suck or is that a Nephrite green interior ?