Notices
996 Forum 1999-2005
Sponsored by:

99 C2 vs other years, re: performance

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-11-2006, 01:17 AM
  #1  
Molly
Instructor
Thread Starter
 
Molly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default 99 C2 vs other years, re: performance

I drove a 99 C2 all stock cab 6-spd and thought it felt remarkable fast to me. (and I know fast cars). I see some people state that the 99 is lighter, some benefit to having a real throttle cable, some benefit to no PSM, while I hear others state that the 3.6 is faster, more power, etc. Then back to the other side, people say the 3.6 is heavier, has e-gas, slower throttle response, etc so is no faster. I've seen remarks like the 99 is < 3,000 lbs - is that true and how much more does a later one weight. What is the consensus - is any year C2 coupe faster in the real world or is it really just negligible? Also, is the cab lighter or heavier than a coupe; I hear conflicting facts on that too.

Thanks
Old 11-11-2006, 01:20 AM
  #2  
tmc
Racer
 
tmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

The cab is definitely heavier than the coupe.

I've driven both e-gas and non-e-gas 996's and can't tell the difference. In fact, I (subjectively) feel the e-gas car responded more quickly.
Old 11-11-2006, 01:31 AM
  #3  
nick49
Drifting
 
nick49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Out West
Posts: 2,006
Received 24 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

I own a '99 Cab and drove an '01 and '02 before making my decision to purchase the car I have. I did not drive these back to back but the '99 has always felt very good to me as far as throttle response and handling aside from pushing at times when entering corners too fast.

According to my manual the weights stated for an empty car are as follows, varying according to equipment options:

Coupe 2909.9 to 3042.2
Cab 3075.4 to 3240.8

The '99s also were available with limited slip diff as an option which is greatly appreciated by some.
Old 11-11-2006, 01:50 AM
  #4  
dallasboats
Pro
 
dallasboats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

99's are the lightest and IMO quicker, especially some of the first cars tested by magazines...........
Old 11-11-2006, 11:18 AM
  #5  
Ray S
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
 
Ray S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 13,794
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

I've driven multiple examples (some back to back) and the 3.6 cars are noticeably quicker than the 3.4's that I have driven.

However opinions do vary (just look in this thread). My advice....head out to a dealership and see for yourself.
Old 11-11-2006, 02:01 PM
  #6  
Truble10
Rennlist Member
 
Truble10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 846
Received 135 Likes on 92 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Ray S]I've driven multiple examples (some back to back) and the 3.6 cars are noticeably quicker than the 3.4's that I have driven.

Not sure I agree with this but do what feels right to you. I had a 99 for a bit and could not tell any real world difference between the 3.4 & 3.6. The small difference in HP should be offset by the small weight difference. One might 'feel' faster but many people think the 99's are the fastest of the NA 996 models. GT3 excluded. Any difference should be very small between the two.
Old 11-11-2006, 02:29 PM
  #7  
nick49
Drifting
 
nick49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Out West
Posts: 2,006
Received 24 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Bottom Line:

I've been reading these posts for years and have concluded that no one, regardless of the year of car purchased, feels that they made the wrong decision. Everyone seems to be extremely happy with their purchase. Every year has subtile features that make it better 'um some, worse'n others. All owners seem to boast about the good features and downplay the negative ones for their year, myself included. You will most likely immensely enjoy your purchase regardless of your decision as to the year. I don't feel you will make a mistake.
Old 11-11-2006, 03:10 PM
  #8  
P-Car fanatic
Pro
 
P-Car fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Truble10
Not sure I agree with this but do what feels right to you. I had a 99 for a bit and could not tell any real world difference between the 3.4 & 3.6. The small difference in HP should be offset by the small weight difference. One might 'feel' faster but many people think the 99's are the fastest of the NA 996 models. GT3 excluded. Any difference should be very small between the two.

I agree. Maybe it was one of the factors that influenced me when I got into a 997s with a lot of expectation and was a bit underwhelmed - when I was really excited
Old 11-11-2006, 03:14 PM
  #9  
lanny
Racer
 
lanny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: denver,co
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

how true
Old 11-11-2006, 04:36 PM
  #10  
99firehawk
Drifting
 
99firehawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MIAMI
Posts: 3,105
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Truble10]
Originally Posted by Ray S
I've driven multiple examples (some back to back) and the 3.6 cars are noticeably quicker than the 3.4's that I have driven.

Not sure I agree with this but do what feels right to you. I had a 99 for a bit and could not tell any real world difference between the 3.4 & 3.6. The small difference in HP should be offset by the small weight difference. One might 'feel' faster but many people think the 99's are the fastest of the NA 996 models. GT3 excluded. Any difference should be very small between the two.

the 3.6 is no heaver then the 3.4
Old 11-11-2006, 05:08 PM
  #11  
washington dc porsche
Drifting
 
washington dc porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Prince George's County, MD
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Race another MY 996 doing so will definitely answer your question.

Originally Posted by Molly
I drove a 99 C2 all stock cab 6-spd and thought it felt remarkable fast to me. (and I know fast cars). I see some people state that the 99 is lighter, some benefit to having a real throttle cable, some benefit to no PSM, while I hear others state that the 3.6 is faster, more power, etc. Then back to the other side, people say the 3.6 is heavier, has e-gas, slower throttle response, etc so is no faster. I've seen remarks like the 99 is < 3,000 lbs - is that true and how much more does a later one weight. What is the consensus - is any year C2 coupe faster in the real world or is it really just negligible? Also, is the cab lighter or heavier than a coupe; I hear conflicting facts on that too.

Thanks
Old 11-11-2006, 05:24 PM
  #12  
10 GT3
Drifting
 
10 GT3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Molly
I drove a 99 C2 all stock cab 6-spd and thought it felt remarkable fast to me. (and I know fast cars). I see some people state that the 99 is lighter, some benefit to having a real throttle cable, some benefit to no PSM, while I hear others state that the 3.6 is faster, more power, etc. Then back to the other side, people say the 3.6 is heavier, has e-gas, slower throttle response, etc so is no faster. I've seen remarks like the 99 is < 3,000 lbs - is that true and how much more does a later one weight. What is the consensus - is any year C2 coupe faster in the real world or is it really just negligible? Also, is the cab lighter or heavier than a coupe; I hear conflicting facts on that too.

Thanks
First, you have to look at when the car was produced. The 99' model year lasted almost 2 years with the first cars being built in late 97'. There were a lot of production changes across the first model year to fix a lot of issues. By 00', these changes added 10kg (22 lbs) more weight. The 99' is definitely not below 3000 lbs. Car and Driver's long term test 99' coupe (production car high optioned with the 18" wheels) weighed 3149 lbs w/o driver. Although the first pre-production Euro car they tested was 2900 lbs, none of the US production cars they tested weighed less than 3100 lbs.

The weight difference between a 99' and an 00' are negligable when considering the additional improvements. In 02' when the engine was enlarged from 3.4l to 3.6l there were a lot of changes made to the suspension, chassis, body and drivetrain. These changes added 25 kg (about 55 lbs), but were more than made up in their benefits in all performance areas. The 3.6l models are rated faster in all areas of acceleration and top speed over 3.4l models regardless of year.

Tiptronics add 122 lbs over comparably equiped Manuals. Cabrio and Targa models add almost 200 lbs over coupes. A C4 is 122 lbs heavier than a C2. A C4S (Turbo wide-body chassis) is 276 lbs over the same year C2. If you want the lightest car, buy a low option manual C2 coupe. If you want the heaviest then its a high option Tip C4S Cab with a hardtop (about 4000 lbs).
Old 11-11-2006, 05:55 PM
  #13  
dallasboats
Pro
 
dallasboats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

nope, mine is still the best.....................
Old 11-11-2006, 06:37 PM
  #14  
Rob in WA
Cap'n Insane the Engorged
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
Rob in WA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Where Mountains Meet the Sea
Posts: 10,449
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Porsche lists the 3.4l C2 @ 2,910 lbs.

Porsche lists the C4S cab w/tip @ 3,362 lbs, the hardtop weighs 74 lbs.

A targa is 154 lbs heavier then the coupe, and the cab is 176 lbs heavier.

The performance difference is negligible, less then two tenths of a second 0-62, and will come down to the driver. The biggest thing that will affect performance is a tip ( ~ .5 seconds 0-62 ), because of the slush box not the extra weight. The C4S has the same top speed, 174 mph, as the 3.4l. The 3.6l is rated at 177 mph, I really wish I had those extra 3 miles an hour.

The 3.4ls don't have the variocam plus surge at 3200 rpms. Another plus of a MY99 with cable throttle is that LSD was an option, look for one w/LSD.

Do some reading about the RMS, not a big deal, but something you should know about. The thing I'd be more concerned w/in an early M96 motor is the porous block problem. Your coolant mixes w/the oil and if enough coolant ends up in the oil, the bearings, rings and valves are damaged and it can be catastrophic. I'd look at getting a late '99 if you're set on the cable throttle vs. e-gas.

Last edited by Rob in WA; 11-11-2006 at 07:20 PM.
Old 11-11-2006, 08:10 PM
  #15  
Graygoose997
.org
Rennlist Member
 
Graygoose997's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 7,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

<The thing I'd be more concerned w/in an early M96 motor is the porous block problem>

you need to check your facts.
there has never been a porous block problem on a 996..you are confusing this with a known _boxster engine_ problem on 98 and 99 cars


Quick Reply: 99 C2 vs other years, re: performance



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 05:39 PM.