Wow, my first time impressions of 996 vs Boxster
#46
Burning Brakes
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#47
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Ray S
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.
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
#48
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by newport996
Ray you are correct the difference in the cars is the 986 has the feel of more agility
If this thread were about braking I'd give the edge to the 911, however on handling I'd give it to the Boxster.
#50
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by perfectlap
^ BoxsterS has the same brakes as the 996 (best of both worlds).
![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#51
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
true as well but the average non-pro 911 driver needs that greater brake efficiency as its easier to make a mistake in the 911 than the Boxster...Unless you've mastered that rear engine thing and rarely make a mistake
I reckon even on a relatively similar lap time the pendulus standard 911 puts more work on the rear brakes than the more neutral BoxsterS by a good bit.
![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#52
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yeh, under braking, weight transfer in the 911 is going to load both axles, whereas in the Boxster or front engined cars, the rear axle will be unloading, and front axle loading. (Or something like that.
)
One of the rear-engine design characteristics that contributes to the 911's performance, re: excellent stability under braking.
![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
One of the rear-engine design characteristics that contributes to the 911's performance, re: excellent stability under braking.
#53
Instructor
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Sigh. Blind 996 bravado. Behind the rear axel is the wrong place for an engine. The carrera's doing so well primarily because of all the engineering $$$ put into refining that configuration. Plus they've done a pretty good job of keeping the weight distribution JUST about acceptable inspite of the rear engine configuration.
I've done a "pendulum" swing on the 996 and almost on the 986. The 986 was pushed a lot more than the 996 but the 996 suddenly loses it while the 986 (boxster) loses control very gently. You can pump out macho statements like "that's how a true carrera handles / real drivers cannot swing a carrera etc" but the bottom line is the physics are fundamentally messed up (resulting in such sudden loss of control). Reengineering the rest of the car (over a lot of years and with a lot of money) to compensate for this fundamental flaw is good but its not the optimal solution. I'd love to see a mid engined porsche with a better motor than the 911 and at the price point of the 911.
Can any one name the engine configuration of F1 cars - the undesputed epitome of cutting edge automobile engineering ? Rear engined ? Front engined ? Mid engined?
Now sit back and think.
I've done a "pendulum" swing on the 996 and almost on the 986. The 986 was pushed a lot more than the 996 but the 996 suddenly loses it while the 986 (boxster) loses control very gently. You can pump out macho statements like "that's how a true carrera handles / real drivers cannot swing a carrera etc" but the bottom line is the physics are fundamentally messed up (resulting in such sudden loss of control). Reengineering the rest of the car (over a lot of years and with a lot of money) to compensate for this fundamental flaw is good but its not the optimal solution. I'd love to see a mid engined porsche with a better motor than the 911 and at the price point of the 911.
Can any one name the engine configuration of F1 cars - the undesputed epitome of cutting edge automobile engineering ? Rear engined ? Front engined ? Mid engined?
Now sit back and think.
#54
Drifting
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Sids911
Sigh. Blind 996 bravado. Behind the rear axel is the wrong place for an engine. The carrera's doing so well primarily because of all the engineering $$$ put into refining that configuration. Plus they've done a pretty good job of keeping the weight distribution JUST about acceptable inspite of the rear engine configuration.
I've done a "pendulum" swing on the 996 and almost on the 986. The 986 was pushed a lot more than the 996 but the 996 suddenly loses it while the 986 (boxster) loses control very gently. You can pump out macho statements like "that's how a true carrera handles / real drivers cannot swing a carrera etc" but the bottom line is the physics are fundamentally messed up (resulting in such sudden loss of control). Reengineering the rest of the car (over a lot of years and with a lot of money) to compensate for this fundamental flaw is good but its not the optimal solution. I'd love to see a mid engined porsche with a better motor than the 911 and at the price point of the 911.
Can any one name the engine configuration of F1 cars - the undesputed epitome of cutting edge automobile engineering ? Rear engined ? Front engined ? Mid engined?
Now sit back and think.
I've done a "pendulum" swing on the 996 and almost on the 986. The 986 was pushed a lot more than the 996 but the 996 suddenly loses it while the 986 (boxster) loses control very gently. You can pump out macho statements like "that's how a true carrera handles / real drivers cannot swing a carrera etc" but the bottom line is the physics are fundamentally messed up (resulting in such sudden loss of control). Reengineering the rest of the car (over a lot of years and with a lot of money) to compensate for this fundamental flaw is good but its not the optimal solution. I'd love to see a mid engined porsche with a better motor than the 911 and at the price point of the 911.
Can any one name the engine configuration of F1 cars - the undesputed epitome of cutting edge automobile engineering ? Rear engined ? Front engined ? Mid engined?
Now sit back and think.
![ducking](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/icon107.gif)
#55
Burning Brakes
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Sids911
Can any one name the engine configuration of F1 cars - the undesputed epitome of cutting edge automobile engineering ? Rear engined ? Front engined ? Mid engined?
Now sit back and think.
Now sit back and think.
#56
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Sids911
Sigh. Blind 996 bravado. Behind the rear axel is the wrong place for an engine. The carrera's doing so well primarily because of all the engineering $$$ put into refining that configuration. Plus they've done a pretty good job of keeping the weight distribution JUST about acceptable inspite of the rear engine configuration.
I've done a "pendulum" swing on the 996 and almost on the 986. The 986 was pushed a lot more than the 996 but the 996 suddenly loses it while the 986 (boxster) loses control very gently .
I've done a "pendulum" swing on the 996 and almost on the 986. The 986 was pushed a lot more than the 996 but the 996 suddenly loses it while the 986 (boxster) loses control very gently .
Furthermore, the same characteristics that allow the Boxster to transition so quickly (lower polar moment) also make it more difficult to "catch" in a spin. The 911 has a higher polar moment, I find it is a little easier to catch than my 986.
Both great cars, but they each have their advantages and disadvantages.
Last edited by Ray S; 11-16-2006 at 02:55 PM.
#57
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by newport996
The best design for an open wheeled high ground effects vehicle may be a mid engine design.....but its may be a HORRIBLE design for a 2+2 street car...funny for 40 years the 911 has been the epitome of street car and race car handling and the benchmark for all sports cars. Like others have mentioned the braking is amazing, the traction, etc....if it were such a BAD design, then why is it such an amazing handling car....even when it was introduced it ran circles around more HP cars...and always has.....Now the thread is about the handling of a 2+2 coupe vs a 2 seat roadster....well the roadster should KILL the coupe...but it doesnt....its basically a toss up with the edge POSSIBLY going to the 2+2....why is that? Well maybe the rear engine design has something to do with it....Just like I said before...a 600hp mid engined roadster (Carrera GT) is basically equalled in times around Nurbergring by a 400 HP rear engined coupe (997 GT3)....hmmmm....
![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
I would like to add that the f/r weight distribution on an F1 car is probably closer to that of a 911 (40/60) than a Boxster/Cayman (47/53).
And, IIRC, the weight distribution of mid-engine "supercars" such as Ferrari F360, Lambo Gallardo, Murcielago, Carrera GT, Enzo, are all ~40/60, (and the Lotus Elise/Exige as well). Yes, the 911's engine being behind the rear axle may not be optimal when running a slalom course, but it does provide for a larger cockpit while producing weight distribution ratios similar to those of mid-engined supercars.
Recently, R&T did a feature story with Patrick Long driving a GT3 RSR and a Carrera GT around a track. The intent of the story was to show how well a road car can compete with a race car. The GT3 RSR was significantly faster (9sec/lap), but the CGT acquitted itself very well. There are a few comments that apply to the discussion in this thread regarding the 911's performance capability vs mid-engine designs.
It all boils down to the ultimate total configuration of the vehicle. Simply using the mid-engine placement does not necessarily create a fast car (MR2, Fiero), and conversely, just because a car has a rear-engine placement does not mean it cannot handle just as well or be even faster than a mid-engine car. Some simply explain away the modern 911's exceptional handling as 40 years of engineering refinement, but I credit: 1. rear-engine weight distribution advantages, 2. modern multi-link rear suspension, and 3. (and most importantly), modern tire technology.
A few excerpts from the R&T story:
Re: GT3 RSR:
"An exceptionally planted, race-tuned chassis means there's neither understeer nor oversteer at turn-in, just plenty of grip from the Michelin racing slicks. Changing the RSR's mid-turn attitude is done with steering rather than throttle inputs. According to Long, "With this car, you're definitely driving it more with your hands (as opposed to your feet) because you've got a more stable platform to work with." Start to lean on it and the RSR leaps out of corners with the pavement-tearing traction only a 911 can deliver."
"With its sticky racing slicks, less pitch-sensitive chassis and rear-engine layout, the RSR allows the driver to carry more speed entering turns and to get back on the throttle earlier exiting them. This produces higher corner speeds, a better launch out of turns and higher terminal velocities on the straights. Multiply that by 10 turns on a tight 1.5-mile course and there's your 9 seconds."
Re: CGT:
"Give the GT more mechanical grip and the story could have turned out quite differently. Throughout the day, many wondered how it would have fared with some slight suspension tweaks and a set of racing slicks. Long was confident the Carrera GT could give the RSR a run for its money. "You lower that thing down, put some slicks on it and set it [the chassis] for more of a race trim — no material replacements other than the tires — and on a little bigger track, you're going to have a pretty serious fight." "
![thumbup](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/thumbup.gif)
Link to story with video and narration:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
![](https://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/2006/Q1/032320061537047008.jpg)
#60
Intermediate
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"Furthermore, the same characteristics that allow the Boxster to transision so quickly (lower polar moment) also make it more difficult to "catch" in a spin. The 911 has a higher polar moment, I find it is a little easier to catch than my 986.
Ray "
AGREE. I drive both cars and the boxster is a pleasure but because of the low polar moment when it loses it, it is GONE! With the 911 you get a lot more feedback that you might lose it.
Frank
Ray "
AGREE. I drive both cars and the boxster is a pleasure but because of the low polar moment when it loses it, it is GONE! With the 911 you get a lot more feedback that you might lose it.
Frank