plpete84

So how do we explain 911user who is getting close to hitting 500k miles on his original motor and looks like his recent service showed cylinder walls to be in great shape with no scoring. I think I've read somewhere he's been using Mobil 1 0w40 too

I personally like the C4S and spent 3 months with it before buying my 40AE. I get why people like the wider hips and I also like the red stripe across the rear lid. I was quite surprised with how different the steering felt to me compared to a C2. I just preferred it. All said and done I found more value in having an LSD, X51 and the sport seats that my car came with over the wide body. You can read the internet till the cows come home but nothing compares to getting seat time in the car. Can't suggest enough getting a ride or asking someone to let you drive their car. I've done this prior settling on my suspension. Porsche folks are generally pretty open and happy to help so it never hurts to ask!

parris

That is one of the mantras repeated here in RL and that has actually harmed a lot the 996 reputation: that the 996 was bad because it was made cheap. When the reality is totally the opposite.

And that is also, a statement that only shows a lack of knowledge of the history of the brand, during those years and in particular of the development of the 986/996 project

I invite you to read some historic books from that era, and investigate how porsche invested all that they had (and what they didn't) in a all or nothing movement to develop two new cars from scratch, investing 1billion of dollars (of 1994 dollars)

That the M96 engines are not as strong as the old air cooled is obvious, as any high performance modern engine of the era (look at ferrari, bmw, etc) can compete with the robustness of the AC engine and as the AC technology can't compite with the WC in performance (that's why they are not in use anymore). But the 996 was a 911 with such much improvement in all the areas, chassis, performance, security, technology, comfort, aerodynamic, efficiency, economy.

I invite you to read also about what Porsche internally thought about the 964 (specially the Carrera 4) and how that was the main reason that take them to think that the 911 concept was at the end of its development. And also, read about how that actually made that the 993 development was the one really limited in budget, as a "last chance" and thanks to the genius of Bez and his team, made them to rethink that idea, (despite being seriously limited in budget, avoiding their creators to implement things that they wanted to do, as a water cooled engine, change the interior, or the roof). The success of the 993 though (commercial, but mostly in terms of driving performance) was what convinced them to invest all in a totally new 911.

parris

Another old mantra from RL.

No it was not only for the tires. In fact, there is no proof of that. However, the C4S is not just "more weight"... is also more track width, is also more tire section, is also more sport tuned up suspension, is also more brake power and more traction to go sooner on the throttle.
To give some perspective, lets just take a look to the EVO Magazine car of the year. The 996.2 was 6th in 2001 while the C4S was 2nd in 2002 (just 0,3 point behind the radical NSX-R). But more important, the impressions and comments from all the editors regarding what really matter most to understand how the cars were perceived in terms of driving experience and engagement.

brontosaurus

Please explain to me how adding more drivetrain loss and weight makes a car faster. Making a car wider does not make it faster. The base 996 is not traction limited by power -- same reason why putting a LSD in a C2 isn't that big of an upgrade. C4S looks nice from a couple angles, but outside of that it's a worse car than a C2.

mtnroads

Hey brontosaurus. What do you stand to gain by continuing the "better or worse" argument? You're railroading the thread, discouraging the OP, and offending every polite, considerate C4S owner who is trying to offer direct help, or counter your negativity.
You may want the Maris or Mantle post.

ZuffenZeus

Consider it more of a psychoanalysis than a mantra. Hate to break to the news to you, but while the 996 was a step in the right direction, it was made on a budget because Porsche was bleeding funds badly and needed a lifeline.

That statement clearly sums up Porsche in the mid-90s when they were trying to squeeze what little life they had left out of the aircooled engine. They couldn't get anymore power nor could they fulfill the more stringent environmental regulations.

I own and have plenty of historical books on the Porsche 911 and the transition from aircooled to modern water cooled cars that happened with the Boxster and 911 models during the 90s. However, some of the most revealing details have not comes from the books, but from actual interviews of the corporate heads and designers at the time. Let me give you one popular example of a corporate compromise... the notorious "fried egg" headlights. While many would say it's a carry over from the GT1, but the reality is they had to cut costs and so designers like Pinky Lai designed a headlight enclosure that had integral turn signals, fog lamps, markers, and washers in addition to the normal low and high beam lighting. While many people didn't like the non-iconic lights, it saved Porsche millions. As history has told us, with the success of the 996 and 986, Porsche appeased the purists and returned to a more iconic look and design with the 997. Now that's just one example of many more including the rear retractable wing. The bean counters wanted it removed because of costs, but Lai found a way to design it within budget but it required some compromises, but history has shown those wings held up unlike other things.

We could talk about the engine compromises on the Carrera M96 engines all day long....

When they moved to Lokasil from Nikasil - that was compromise!
When they moved from oil-fed plain bearings that supported both ends of the IMS to a cheap $20 wheel bearing to support one end of the intermediate shaft - that was a compromise!
When they designed a "intergraded dry sump" instead of a true dry sump oiling system - that was a compromise!
When they used the same piston offset for all pistons - that was a compromise!
When they used cheaper, less durable components (e.g. rod bolts) - that was a compromise!
When Porsche moved to integral cylinders instead of removable cylinders - that was a compromise!
When Porsche moved to Ferraprint from Ferrostan - that was a mistake and possible compromise

D-chunk, intermix, AOS failures, RMS leaks, IMS failures, bore scoring, etc.etc.

on and on it goes... There are a lot more, but I must get ready for work.

With all due respect, you need to re-read your history books or find new ones. There are actually TWO BIG reasons for moving away from aircooled engines to watercooled in Porsche - 1. environmental Fed/EURO compliance 2. power threshold of aircooled technology

I'll add another one IMHO - 3. THEY WERE LOSING FREAKING MONEY!!! They had to make a major change or it would mean they'd end up like lot of smaller car manufacturers... possible take over OR dead in the water. What was the result? Watercooled engines - new sports cars - Boxster and new 911... and SUVs (i.e. Cayenne) on the horizon. Yep... the SUVs were a big part of the equation that saved them in the long run.


Definitely agree there was a lot of notable improvements.

I've read all that thank you. I have the book on the subject.

I also encourage you to watch actual interviews to hear first hand what was really going on at the ground level. Read about the possible take over of the company and them hiring Toyota engineers to help change the factory production system.

I stand by my comment, while harsh, does sum up what going on at the time. You may think I hate the 996, but NO... it's still my favorite in spite of all the crap that came with it. I've owned two of them and plan to own another.

GC996

Not certain how everyone reads the tea leaves, but I see a car (996) that is in hot demand because every issue has been identified and affordable preventative procedures and solutions have been developed to address everything.

Be glad you don't own a 20 year old Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, McLaren, etc. They are quite a bit more expensive to maintain.

What's not to like?

brontosaurus

I'm sorry if making a reasonable case as to why someone might rather buy a C2 is offensive to you.

pulpo

It actually can. Not saying it does in this case. But this statement is false.

HK G36C

Thank you Gents for all your input! This is what I know so far, it need a new front differential, IMSB must be done, likely needs a clutch, engine and transmission mount must be done! Walking away from this one, unless the price is reduce for the work I mentioned.

pdxmotorhead

So,, just to toss a thought out there,, if AWD is no advantage, why is it illegal in nearly every upper end road racing venue.. ??

IMHO the viscous coupling Porsche chose was a compromise, the diff should have been bigger in the front and it needed more durability and more front bias to handle inclement weather.Basically a wet and dry mode..

In the rain in the curves my C4 is amazing, way easier to push limits in than my buddies C2.

I also like the feel of the power coming on in the front out of a turn..

I would not kick the c2 out of bed but either of them are variations on a theme..

amargari

On this site newbies always ask "How can I make more power". The answer always is you don't need more power. Get a better suspension, wider tires, and bigger brakes to go faster. That's what the C4S does.

More weight isn't always bad. It matters where the weight is. Drag racers have known this for years. They add weight to the rear of the cars because they need traction to the rear tires. Well, the weight added with AWD is in the front which adds more traction to the front wheels on a rear-heavy car.

What people also forget is that the body is stiffer. That allows the suspension to do its job better. That is why the GT3 used the AWD body.

The C4S is about traction and using the available power.
Here are 1/4 mile times from this site https://accelerationtimes.com/makes/porsche. A tenth of a second is negligible. So it's basically a dead heat. So the C4S is as fast as the RWD with 200 extra pounds. The difference is traction.
C4S 13.9 s @ 114 mph
C2 14.0 s @ 114 mph

I am not posting this to argue over what someone likes the best. That is a matter of preference. But to say that the C4S doesn't handle as well or isn't as fast as a RWD 911 is utter BS.

zbomb

The chassis rigidity was not the only reason for choosing the AWD chassis for the GT3 variants, I’d also argue, with the modifications done to the racing car's (and I think the GT bodies had selective additional welds from factory) it was also the less significant to performance when compared to the other reason.

The AWD chassis allowed for the space to get a larger fuel cell through homologation. My uneducated opinion is this was the principle driver of the chassis choice.

KrazyK

I enjoyed driving my C4S and the handleing was great. I think I recall the C4s being descibed as a "sheep in wolfs clothing" by the Top Gear guys.

imhighlander

I'm one of the legion of souls who will likely never be a good enough driver to NEED more power from my C4S. (Just as I will never be fast enough or fit enough to NEED more bike!) My journey with my 996 is to make her truly "mine" and to enjoy the experience along the way. Communities like RL are great to enhance the learning process and the overall experience.