How much "better" is a 2002-2004 996 compared to a 1999-2000?
#106
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Lee, I hate to break it to you, but unless I am mistaken, PSM was standard on all '04 996s . . .
You are mistaken. It's not in the equipment codes, I don't have a switch, I've never seen an indicator.. I've had it sideways at the track... If I have PSM, it certainly is discreet...
#107
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by leedav
TD,
You are mistaken. It's not in the equipment codes, I don't have a switch, I've never seen an indicator.. I've had it sideways at the track... If I have PSM, it certainly is discreet...
You are mistaken. It's not in the equipment codes, I don't have a switch, I've never seen an indicator.. I've had it sideways at the track... If I have PSM, it certainly is discreet...
I wonder why people talk about the option to not have PSM as being an advantage for the early cars. If you always had the option to not buy PSM, what is the advantage for the '99? Oh well, you learn something every day.
#109
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by leedav
Maybe the person who ordered it (I bought it off the lot) had it deleted...
![Confused](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif)
Here is what the ordering guide says:
P82 Technic Package
Includes options: 342 Heated Seats, 446 P83 $6,085
Wheels Caps w/Color Crest, 476 PSM, 680
Bose Sound Package, P15 Power Seats, P74 Bi-
Xenon w/Washers
P83 Advanced Technic Package
Includes options: 342 Heated Seats, 446 P82 $10,185
Wheels Caps w/Color Crest, 476 PSM, 680
Bose Sound Package, 692 Remote CD
Changer, P11 Rain Sensor/Dimming Mirror P15
Power Seats, P16 PCM, P74 Bi-Xenon
w/Washers
My car has the advanced technic package so it was included . . .
#110
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I don't think so. I have US M030, Bose, Thick Steering Wheel, leather seats, 18' alloys, Wheel Caps (I sold them to ekename after upgrading to Boothe).
No mention of PSM in the standard equipment column. I'm sure it would be there, and there would be a switch to turn it off. They even list stuff like OBDII and power steering.
No mention of PSM in the standard equipment column. I'm sure it would be there, and there would be a switch to turn it off. They even list stuff like OBDII and power steering.
#111
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by leedav
I don't think so. I have US M030, Bose, Thick Steering Wheel, leather seats, 18' alloys, Wheel Caps (I sold them to ekename after upgrading to Boothe).
No mention of PSM in the standard equipment column. I'm sure it would be there, and there would be a switch to turn it off. They even list stuff like OBDII and power steering.
No mention of PSM in the standard equipment column. I'm sure it would be there, and there would be a switch to turn it off. They even list stuff like OBDII and power steering.
If you had the choice whether to order PSM or not, why do so many people bitch about PSM on the 996? If you don't want it, don't order it.
![order](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/order.gif)
#112
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
If you had the choice whether to order PSM or not, why do so many people bitch about PSM on the 996? If you don't want it, don't order it.
#114
Cap'n Insane the Engorged
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by TD in DC
I wonder why people talk about the option to not have PSM as being an advantage for the early cars. If you always had the option to not buy PSM, what is the advantage for the '99? Oh well, you learn something every day.
#115
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Sids911
Read again, he wanted to know the differences. Performance difference (or rather lack of that difference) was where this all started off. Well he got that information (and some drama too!). Also keep in mind we're talking very specifically talking about the 1999 3.4L engine which I've researched to be a very sweet spot.
That's quite an assumption. I had started off my purchase with the intention of buying an 2003/02 model since I "didn't want a car older than 2 years". You know the usual buying-a-used-car syndrome - where its possible a lot of people would "play safe" simply out of ignorance.
Then as I researched more it wasn't making any sense with the performance stats available to spend the additional money ($13k+) on the same kind of machine !! I couldn't bring myself to pay that extra money I had saved up just for the car once I learnt more detail about the cars !! All I had to do was pick one with low miles and well maintained.
Its not about affordability - its more about using your brains. If I hadn't researched I would have ended spending $13K more for virtually the same stuff. Of course, its EASIER to find a 2002+ in good condition and low miles than a 1999.
Finally I don't see why everyone is getting so defensive about comparing the 1999 3.4 to the 2002 3.6. I'm just trying to tell the original poster that the peformance is so identical (yes Ray, 0-60 included - I'm sorry !) that it pretty much boils down to the 10-13K he saves. To me that $13K can buy a lot of happiness if put towards entertainment (club cover charges are rising in san diego!), vacation, gifts etc. I guess at 25 those factor in too.
For those who are still convinced that the 3.6L is a "much better" performer than the 3.4L 996 - sorry - I think you guys bought the wrong car !! There are a ton of cars better than our faithful 996 - some springing right from our Porsche factory themselves (GT3, turbo).
Anyway, enuff said on this thread. RIP. And remember, its a car - not a religion.
And so as Adrian says in Switzerland, gentlemen, please - don't get your knickers in a knot !!!! LOL !!
That's quite an assumption. I had started off my purchase with the intention of buying an 2003/02 model since I "didn't want a car older than 2 years". You know the usual buying-a-used-car syndrome - where its possible a lot of people would "play safe" simply out of ignorance.
Then as I researched more it wasn't making any sense with the performance stats available to spend the additional money ($13k+) on the same kind of machine !! I couldn't bring myself to pay that extra money I had saved up just for the car once I learnt more detail about the cars !! All I had to do was pick one with low miles and well maintained.
Its not about affordability - its more about using your brains. If I hadn't researched I would have ended spending $13K more for virtually the same stuff. Of course, its EASIER to find a 2002+ in good condition and low miles than a 1999.
Finally I don't see why everyone is getting so defensive about comparing the 1999 3.4 to the 2002 3.6. I'm just trying to tell the original poster that the peformance is so identical (yes Ray, 0-60 included - I'm sorry !) that it pretty much boils down to the 10-13K he saves. To me that $13K can buy a lot of happiness if put towards entertainment (club cover charges are rising in san diego!), vacation, gifts etc. I guess at 25 those factor in too.
For those who are still convinced that the 3.6L is a "much better" performer than the 3.4L 996 - sorry - I think you guys bought the wrong car !! There are a ton of cars better than our faithful 996 - some springing right from our Porsche factory themselves (GT3, turbo).
Anyway, enuff said on this thread. RIP. And remember, its a car - not a religion.
And so as Adrian says in Switzerland, gentlemen, please - don't get your knickers in a knot !!!! LOL !!
![rockon](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/rockon.gif)
Weight is only a single factor. Having less unsprung weight matters more than less chassis weight. Power to weight taking into account the "area under the curve" along aerodynamics (coefficient of drag and frontal area) determine acceleration. Aerodynamic forces increase at a cubed rate with speed meaning weight matters less the faster you go. A reduction in weight can't counteract aerdynamic forces, but an increase in HP can. Chassis improvements and braking can also make significant improvements in track times. The C6 Z06 weighs almost 200 lbs less, has almost 50 more hp, a wider wheel/tire combination and bigger brakes than an 02' GT2; yet only matches track times at the Nurburgring. On paper it is better in every area, in execution it is only equal. It is the same reason why a 300 lb lighter 3.4l Carrera Coupe is only able to match a 3.6l Targa at the Nurburgring. Porsche didn't add weight just to add weight; they did it to improve chassis and steering response. Why would you ever add a strut tower brace, roll bar or subframe connectors if they just added weight?
I went through the same decision myself as being asked here. Rather than read or ask opinions, I drove at over a dozen cars to make up my mind. I never put a post on a board for input. I recommend anyone else trying to make the decision, do the same. I drove a couple 3.4l's. I almost bought a low mileage 00' Coupe. I drove a 3.6l just to see the comparison and the difference is extremely noticeable, substantually more than I would have expected. If I had kept my limit at 35K, I would have bought the 3.4l and been very happy with it. I also drive a very low mileage 01' Turbo that was about $15K more than the range of an 02' Carrera (almost twice the price of the 00' Carrera). To be honest, I noticed less of a difference between the Turbo and NA 3.6l than I did between the 3.4l and the 3.6l, but the Turbo is a very different car. My compromise was to get a 3.6l Carrera, that does not mean it is better or equal to a Turbo in performance. If I had gone the Turbo route, it would have quickly gone Stage 4 within the first couple of months. I don't regret not buying the turbo, but I am currently considering moving up to a GT3 in the fall.
If you believe the performance is the same for a 3.4l and a 3.6l, I have a simple challenge. Keep in mind that Porsche always under rates their performance figures. Porsche rates the 0-60 as 4.9 for the 3.6l C4S and 4.8 for the 276lb lighter 3.6l Carrera and the new 997 Carrera. I am going to spot this challenge 276 lbs to start with by only using the C4S numbers. Both Car & Driver and Motor Trend both did long term tests of production US 3.6l Carrera 4S models. For 0-60, Car & Driver got a 4.5 and Motor Trend got a 4.6. At the 1/4 mile Car & Driver passed the traps in 13.0 @ 108 while Motor Trend was able to do a 12.9 @ 108.7. Porsche quotes the acceleration figures for the new 997 Carrera the same as the 996 due to an increase of 5 hp offset by 55 lbs of increased mass, so for reference Car & Driver was able to achieve a 0-60 of 4.3 and a 1/4 mile of 12.8 @ 109 for a non-S 997 Carrera. My challenge is for you to prove the performance is the same by simply finding a single independent article of a production US 3.4l Carrera from ANY source were it shows it was able match the numbers the either of these C4S cars. Good luck.
#116
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 02 Carrera
If you believe the performance is the same for a 3.4l and a 3.6l, I have a simple challenge. For 0-60, Car & Driver got a 4.5 and Motor Trend got a 4.6. At the 1/4 mile Car & Driver passed the traps in 13.0 @ 108 while Motor Trend was able to do a 12.9 @ 108.7. My challenge is for you to prove the performance is the same by simply finding a single independent article of a production US 3.4l Carrera from ANY source were it shows it was able match the numbers the either of these C4S cars. Good luck.
Autobahn Site
Or click here to select from different models and specs. Comparisons match your previously posted numbers.
I know this isn't definitive, but does this count as "ANY source"? Is there a prize for meeting the Challenge? I'll take a RUF Turbo Upgrade
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Oh, while I'm at it, here is another source with *slightly* different numbers: 4.9 and 13.4 for a 99 911. And don't forget MSN autos: . (anything Microsoft puts its seal on MUST be true!) -> 4.73 and 13.28 and that's TWO decimal places of accuracy - sweet.
And, this is clearly bootstrapping, but it has numbers:
"And that's all I have to say about that" (Gumpism)
-td
Last edited by himself; 05-20-2006 at 01:12 PM.
#117
Three Wheelin'
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 02 Carrera
Weight is only a single factor. Having less unsprung weight matters more than less chassis weight. Power to weight taking into account the "area under the curve" along aerodynamics (coefficient of drag and frontal area) determine acceleration. Aerodynamic forces increase at a cubed rate with speed meaning weight matters less the faster you go. A reduction in weight can't counteract aerdynamic forces, but an increase in HP can.
Originally Posted by 02 Carrera
Chassis improvements and braking can also make significant improvements in track times. The C6 Z06 weighs almost 200 lbs less, has almost 50 more hp, a wider wheel/tire combination and bigger brakes than an 02' GT2; yet only matches track times at the Nurburgring. On paper it is better in every area, in execution it is only equal. It is the same reason why a 300 lb lighter 3.4l Carrera Coupe is only able to match a 3.6l Targa at the Nurburgring.
Originally Posted by 02 Carrera
I drove a couple 3.4l's. I almost bought a low mileage 00' Coupe. I drove a 3.6l just to see the comparison and the difference is extremely noticeable,
Originally Posted by 02 Carrera
To be honest, I noticed less of a difference between the Turbo and NA 3.6l than I did between the 3.4l and the 3.6l, but the Turbo is a very different car.
Originally Posted by 02 Carrera
If you believe the performance is the same for a 3.4l and a 3.6l, I have a simple challenge. Keep in mind that Porsche always under rates their performance figures. Porsche rates the 0-60 as 4.9 for the 3.6l C4S and 4.8 for the 276lb lighter 3.6l Carrera and the new 997 Carrera. I am going to spot this challenge 276 lbs to start with by only using the C4S numbers. Both Car & Driver and Motor Trend both did long term tests of production US 3.6l Carrera 4S models. For 0-60, Car & Driver got a 4.5 and Motor Trend got a 4.6. At the 1/4 mile Car & Driver passed the traps in 13.0 @ 108 while Motor Trend was able to do a 12.9 @ 108.7. Porsche quotes the acceleration figures for the new 997 Carrera the same as the 996 due to an increase of 5 hp offset by 55 lbs of increased mass, so for reference Car & Driver was able to achieve a 0-60 of 4.3 and a 1/4 mile of 12.8 @ 109 for a non-S 997 Carrera. My challenge is for you to prove the performance is the same by simply finding a single independent article of a production US 3.4l Carrera from ANY source were it shows it was able match the numbers the either of these C4S cars. Good luck.
#118
Instructor
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I have a 1998 3.4 model and love it, but I have no basis for comparison with an 02 but I really doubt you will notice the difference. The real plus is that you can spend all the money you saved on mods like sports exhaust, SSK, improved audio (a must on earlier models), improved suspension and control arms etc. etc etc. Each little mod makes you like it even more and so my recommendation is find a really good car (one thats been cared for) and dont worry too much about the year. A good 99 beats a crappy 02 IMO.
#119
Cap'n Insane the Engorged
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 02 Carrera
I noticed less of a difference between the Turbo and NA 3.6l than I did between the 3.4l and the 3.6l
This statement makes you lose all credibility.
#120
Instructor
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Great thread. A little ironic that Adrian from Switzerland doesn't want to talk about watches but please lets not start the thread about underwear. I worry we may get photos.