newport996

I have seen this a few times and its an absurd question...They would not build a CGT with any other configuration because of the design and its use. The 911 is a 2+2 sports car....name ANY mid engined 2+2 car.....you cant....there isnt one, nor will there ever be one. It must be front, or rear engined. So the choice is to follow the Porsche engineers of the 70's and 80's and get a 944/928 type car...or continued development of the 911 car. The 944/928 was more of a way of making a more PROFITABLE performance car. Cheaper to build water cooled, front engined cars than air cooled, rear engined cars. PERIOD. The performance advantages of the 911 has been the exact reason Porsche has not been able to make other cars....the user base has driven them and has decided that other configurations do not drive like them. Its amazing that a 1960's chassis remained relatively inchanged until the 90's. And all this time on racetrack after ractrack, this "outdated" chassis outperformed EVERY car in its class, and sometimes cars in faster classes. In American LeMans racing this season the mid engined Ferrari with a V8 was hard pressed to beat the flat six rear engined Porsche....The "better handling" Ferrari had MANY MANY catastrophic crashes that completely destroyed a number of cars, and LOTS of bodywork....so much for the mid engined superiority...All this to lose the championship to the Porsche in its final year of running the 996 series car....next year the 997 series GT3RSR will race and its faster, by far than the 996...the competition will spend years again catching up to the "inferior" rear engine design.

DreamCarrera

^ Yeah, what he said!!!

nycebo

newport, that's some well worded prose.

newport996

Thx guys...I was just getting a little miffed reading the posts....I guess the grass is always greener on the other side...I speak from experience...i had a Boxster that was a GREAT car...I never would have sold it except my wife thought it was small, cramped, loud, bumpy, rough, unrefined, noisy, yadda yadda yadda....i didnt mind...it was a sports car right? She hated it and told me to go to the dealer and look at Carreras....so I did, and wow the difference was amazing....night and day. i was happy with the 986 power, it was adequate and worked well with the car. The 996 was just soooo much smoother, more comfortable, faster, etc...I read sooo much about how I would be giving up the mid engined handling....so I took my 996 C4 up to the mountains and thought ok...here comes the performance hit....and before I knew it the car was scaring me....not because it was not handling, but because on my favorite twisty roads, I have never been faster, and it wanted to go faster!!! Driving a rear engined car is an advantage in some areas...TRACTION....you can get the 300+hp to the wheels without loss of grip, so you can power out of the corners towards the next...my exit speeds were higher...the fun I am having in this car is amazing...the 986/987 is a great platform, no doubt, but its not the "ultimate" platform....I think a GT2/GT3 will outperform just about any Porsche...isnt the GT2 just a hair slower than a CGT? Amazing considering the GT2 is giving up HP and is based on that "inferior" design...lol....

Nurburgring times.....

7:36 - 162.631 km/h - Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, factory test driver Walther Röhrl (02)
7.39* - 161.575 km/h - Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06)

So the inferior rear engined 997 with 200 less HP is only 3 seconds slower around the ring.....I bet if you added 200 hp to the GT3 it would be faster than the CGT.....

tdub

She hated it and told me to go to the dealer and look at Carreras




The perfect wife!!

tw

newport996

lol....i am sure she thinks so....

TD in DC

I had a Boxster S. Then we had a daughter so I installed the airbag deactivation kit and bought a Porsche child seat.

Then my wife got preganant with identical twins. So, she told me the Porsche had to go. She calmly explained that if I were home with the twins, I would not be able to take them to the hospital in the event of an emergency.

I sold the car. Then I came home with an '02 Targa with two baby seats in the back and the airbag deactivation kit installed in the front. My wife freaked, but I showed her all of the baby seats (3 in total). Now we fondly refer to the Targa as the "family car"

MirageMetallic

Do you guys realize the weight dist. on a CGT is 42/58? That on the 996 it is 38/62?

Do we really think 4% makes that much difference? Having riden in the CGT with tail out, I can say, ummm, not as much as you might like.

Can you imagine what the weight dist. would be with that 600+ HP motor BEHIND the rear axle on the CGT? We'd be talking 20/80! That might be almost as bad as the stories I hear about the 911... hehe

mooty

some use ring time as a way to compare, well, most of us cannot duplicate that time.
some say cayman/box are better than 911, some say otherwise.
you have to drive them ALL and see what fits YOU.
if you need rear seats, cayman, box or even CGT would suck.
if you are on street, 911 is better due to torque.
if you are on track, cayman s is faster than 997 (non s), there's no question in my mind.
compared to 997S, the hp delta is too big, so 997 wins.
as far as traction goes, yes rear engine has SOME advantage, but that isn't enough to make it a winner.
on twisty tracks, like infineon, even a 997s would have tough time agasint cayman or boxster S (the 3.4L new boxter s of next year).

anyways, they are all good. pick what you like.

perfectlap

after a few key revisions the Boxster has been the benchmark for the roadster category for at least 7 years now(as long as value is not a factor). And the latest iteration is one step better. You'll find very few examples of a roadster so good that they made a coupe of it. Its the other way around 99% of the time.

When I first test drove both the 996 (just about every one but the TT/GT3/Gt2) and the Boxster/S I quiet frankly found all to be 'underpowered' for non-track/autox driving. That much dough for that power left me
I also found all to be "over engineered" and boringly predictable. The interiors of all were basically identical. A look at part numbers reveals that the Boxster interior parts mostly start with 996 = same parts from the 911. From the seats to the fron license plate the years you drove 99 C2 and 02 BoxsterS have the same fenders,hood, aero front bumper, 18" front wheels?, Headlights, windshiled, etc. this is continued with the Caymans as a look at part numbers contain 997 and 987 everywhere.


But I didn't just test drive Boxsters and 996's, I drove S2000s, Z4, M3's, S4s, SLK , STI, EVO, Mazdaspeed Miata, Mini CooperS.
I didn't compare all against each other because Roadsters are roadsters and Coupes are Coupes. I'm always amazed at how few people in sports car world have a grasp of this. Kinda like comparing an X5 vs 645. Different cars for different purposes.

At the end of the day I just came to the realization that being out on a gorgeous sunny day in a tin top was just not my thing. No matter what you think of each car you have to decide am I coupe person or roadster person or compromise with something in between=convertible. The realization that I'm a roadster guy narrowed the choices considerably, the intent of the ocassional autocross/DE made the choice crystal clear. Much to the chagrin of the bank as I gave them back half their loan money!
I can say the car has met every expectation, obviously since its a benchmark car.
Would I like less cowl shake and more rigidity? Sure but its a roadster what are you going to do? Would I like more power? sure but that can be said of all pcars under $100K
p.s.
If it were up to me I would make the Boxster with a manualy retractable Carbon Fiber hardtop (no motor), AWD with ZERO understeer for us snow bunnies, a 'rebadged' S2000 gear box, an engine good enough for 350 HP/torque, GT3 seats, 2002-2004 911 headlights, C4S fenders and 1st gear that wasn't deliberately tall and no extra fee for silver gauge rings.

p.s.s
911's long history of competitive victories is mostly limited to endurance racing. its record in shorter stints where engine longevity is not as big a factor is a different matter altogether for the rear engined Pcar. as far as mid engined Ferraris in ALMS those teams and drivers seemed to be beating themselves, not really the fault of the red car.

newport996

Hmmmm.....in the history of the 911 racing, what sprint races did it not dominate? I remember 935's kicking BMW and Vette butt all day long in every venue....back when Infineon was Sears Point, I was at the hairpin watching them out brake and out accelerate them all....And Ferrari's in ALMS...if the car seems to be getting wrecked by different drivers, and teams EVERY weekend, you hve to start thinking MAYBE the car has something to do with it....

Ray S

I currently own both cars ('00 986 and a '02 996). No question that the 996 "owns" the 986 with power. Additionally, the 996 does have truly great handling (in spite of what many believe about the engine placement)

However, the 986 "owns" the 996 when it comes down to handling. In my opinion you just can't push these cars enough on the street to really understand the handling differences. Once you drive them at the track the differences become clear. The 986 is just a little more balanced in this regard. It transitions more quickly, is more neutral on long sweepers and is more forgiving of driver errors. It just accomplishes everything with less drama (just a little, but the difference is there).

My 996 is currently in the shop (getting a GT3 front spoiler and a Misha GT2M rear wing installed). My dealer gave me a Cayman S loaner and let me tell you this car is the "real deal". Unfortunately, the loaner is a "tip" but the hard top endows this car with even more chassis stiffness than a 911. Additionally, the metal roof brings the interior noise and refinement levels way up. I obviously have not taken the Cayman S to the track but I bet this thing would really shine there.

rroobbcc

One thing I have yet to read in this thread is the need to spend enough time behind the wheel to learn how to extract the most out of each car.

My first Porsche was a '99 Boxster, i.e. 2.5l engine and 5 speed trans. I loved this car, and it was quick. BUT... to be quick you couldn't drive it lazily. You had to constantly work those 5 gears to keep it in the engines sweet spot. Today in the 996, I find myself sometimes getting lazy because I have enough power on tap to at least partially cover up for it.

My next Porsche was my '91 Carrera 2. I still vividly remember the first corner that I punched it hard through. IT JUST KEPT GOING IN A STRAIGHT LINE!!!. I nearly ended up in the median. However, after spending some time learning the dynamics of the car, I have no issues with understeer and can kickout the tail and catch it again almost at will in a corner (GREAT FUN!).

Having driven the '91, the adjustment to the '03 Carrera was much easier. The main thing I struggle with in the 996 (and the Boxster) is the brakes. I could brake much later and harder in the '91 C2, where in the 996 I get much earlier lockup and ABS activation (NOTE: Both the '91 and '03 have PZero Asy. N3 spec. 225/40-18). I am not sure why this is, but it has twice almost gotten me into trouble. Nevertheless, once the dynamics of the car are understood it too is a great drive.

My point in saying all of this is that you MUST drive the car as its design dictates. If you try to drive a rear-engined car like a front-engined car you will think its handling is horrible. The same applies to trying to drive a mid-engined car like either a front- or mid-engined car. Drive it as its design and inherent dynamics dictate and any Porsche can be a rewarding experience.

TD in DC

I agree with your points.

This MUST be due to a tire issue. If you are locking up the tires, then the brakes are plenty strong (e.g., your problem is not caused by fading). The only other issue could be a lack of feel in the brake system, but the 996/986 brakes are renowned as being outstanding in that regard. So, the only thing that could possibly explain your experience is your choice of tires and the relative weights of the vehicles . . . it is not a car issue.

perfectlap

the Ferraris may have had many incidents (which cost Salo the title thanks to his team mates wrecking) but as fro FIA GT, after Dubai this weekend the Italians will be celebrating. The Ferrari was a new design but still quicker than most. and the Ferraris will only get better in 2007.
http://www.fiagt.com/points.php?seas...=manuf&event=1
we shall see next year how the 911 stacks up against the red cars as FIA GT with the exception of Spa 24H's is going to an all sprint race schedule.