MKI 996 Compared to MKII
05-09-2010, 12:41 PM
#77
10 GT3, your history isn't quite right, AFAIK. The two cars were developed on very close to parallel tracks. In fact, there are supposedly even a few 996s registered as 97's somewhere in the world. Since both cars would be water cooled and use the same basic engine, it only makes sense and I doubt Toyota had much to do with it. My understanding of Toyota's role is that they advised on production engineering (which is their superpower). Porsche had never dealt with so much automation before, and Toyota was paid to shorten the learning curve.
The fact that the 996 and 986 shared front suspensions isn't that strange, either. The same was true of the 914 and its contemporary 911. It's always been a core attribute of Porsche's corporate culture that "nothing goes to waste."
The fact that the 996 and 986 shared front suspensions isn't that strange, either. The same was true of the 914 and its contemporary 911. It's always been a core attribute of Porsche's corporate culture that "nothing goes to waste."
05-09-2010, 02:21 PM
#78
996 Carrera has a drag coefficient of .30, 997 Carrera is .29. Keep in mind that the 997 is wider and has a larger frontal area, hence why the 997 Carrera had the same top speed as the 996 MKII. Both have a 3 mph higher top speed than a 996 MKI (MKI was only 3 mph faster than the 993 Varioram).
dont know how the 993 subject came about, but the 996 performance to a 993 was all around better than a 993
Those headlights appeared on the Boxster all they way back in 1996 (97' model year). The 96' GT1 had 993 style headlights. They switched to the Boxster headlights for the 97' GT1, just as the first official pics of the 996 were being released. Porsche never designed those headlights for a 911. After bringing in the former Toyota execs into the factory to improve factory operations in the early 90's, making more commonality between models was one of the recommendations. The re-used the Boxster front end as a cost savings to get the 996 to market quicker. Remember that Porsche almost went bankrupt in the early 90's. Had the 996 been before the Boxster, it would have been known as the 996 front end. Instead, it is the Boxster front end on a 911.
I always like the 996 MKII front end better than the MKI. It has larger front openings and a deeper front lip that looks more aggressive than the Boxster front end. They did a lot to flatten the appearance, versus the more egg looking shaped MKI. The front bumper is flatter, but a lot thinner at the tip. The "fried egg headlights" are larger with a flatter profile. The fenders have interesting 45 degree angles at the arches shaped into them. The front on the MKII is also far better functionally: better cooling and 40% less front end lift. Same thing goes for the rear ends. I like the MKII rear end a lot more for the same reasons: lower with more lip and going away from the round egg shape of the earlier MKI rear bumper. It also reduced rear end lift by 25%.
The fried egg headlights are not flat at all... if you look closely, from the side, it has the same profile as the 993, really!. Its an illusion that it looks flat cause of the one piece design.
As for the rear bumper... you are right on this, the mk1 has a weaker design.... that is why the designers came out with the gt trim.... this makes the rear more square, wider agressive.... they are from the 951 design.
When the 997 came out, I really liked the front end. They kept the low lip appearance from the 996 MKII with a lower profile and went back to the more traditional round headlights. The front end just looked right the first time you saw it. The one disappointment I had with the 997 was the back end. They went to a more rounded bumper and with the taillights no longer lined up with the trunk and bumper lines, it just didn't look as integrated.
As for the 997 tailights no longer lined up to the trunk.... Porsche engineers had no choice. If you look at the 996T... the wing covered part of the tailights. If you want to put on a wing back there and see all of the tail lights on a WB... you need to offset the lights... offsetting the wing would be a no no from an aero stand point of view. Another focused group dilemma work around the Porsche engineer had to face.... Porsche has been trying to make everyone happy, that their designed concept has turned to a cash cow... so sad.
996 guys always wondered if Porsche just designed something in their eyes (like the 996).... they are more becoming focused group orientated.... hence the round headlights, fluffy interior, bland exhaust note, soft suspension. It almost seems that they are now stuck with round headlights forever.... thats to bad. Imagine Porsche if they would of kept the focus of the 996 design. IMHO... I think they would of made one bad *** cars like their race cars back at their prime...so radicaly different.... dont get me wrong, I love what they do today, but I think their engineers have a lot to face in the future.
05-10-2010, 02:54 AM
#80
Three Wheelin'
Phew! What a lot of chatter.
My first 996 was a seal grey 2002 with full leather, Bose, no PSM. Great car but I had to sell it because I was leaving town.
Then I came back and I was determined to get a 1999 car for the light weight, the throttle cable, the LSD, the better looking headlights and the smoother bodywork. I even had an arctic silver one with a brand new motor lined up for $21K...no LSD mind you.
In the end an arctic silver 2002 with a new-ish motor and PSM dropped in my lap for $26.5 and I couldn't say no because the MkII cars are just better.
I installed PSS9 and removed the centre console and only *sometimes* regret not buying the 1999..because the headlights look better.
My first 996 was a seal grey 2002 with full leather, Bose, no PSM. Great car but I had to sell it because I was leaving town.
Then I came back and I was determined to get a 1999 car for the light weight, the throttle cable, the LSD, the better looking headlights and the smoother bodywork. I even had an arctic silver one with a brand new motor lined up for $21K...no LSD mind you.
In the end an arctic silver 2002 with a new-ish motor and PSM dropped in my lap for $26.5 and I couldn't say no because the MkII cars are just better.
I installed PSS9 and removed the centre console and only *sometimes* regret not buying the 1999..because the headlights look better.
Last edited by jasper; 09-16-2013 at 02:06 PM.
05-10-2010, 09:47 AM
#81
Three Wheelin'
there are lots of good deals out there right now... personally I'd pay extra for something with a new motor whether its a 99 or an 02... new motor goes a long way in my books given the history of 996 motors (3.4 and 3.6)
05-10-2010, 09:57 AM
#82
Three Wheelin'
I think GIAC has an upgrade for the 2002+ cars that greatly increases throttle response and makes it feel like a throttle cable car.... a worthwhile upgrade...
05-10-2010, 12:14 PM
#86
I was more worried that they'd get their frilly knickers in knots about the whole "997 is a focus group car" thing. I thought maybe it would be their therapists that had the field day...
05-10-2010, 12:23 PM
#87
Parts Specialist
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
05-10-2010, 12:36 PM
#88
Three Wheelin'
hahaha I like this Bruce
That video from best motoring Ferd posted was great though, I didn't realize that aside from the cup style wheel carrier, the suspension components are common. That video makes me want a 997S again, but I am resisting temptation.
- Hans
That video from best motoring Ferd posted was great though, I didn't realize that aside from the cup style wheel carrier, the suspension components are common. That video makes me want a 997S again, but I am resisting temptation.
- Hans
05-10-2010, 12:44 PM
#89
Rocky Mountain High
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I remember the first time I ever saw a 996 MK II in my rearview mirror, before I knew some people had an issue with 996 headlights. It was actually in Indianapolis leaving an F1 race. I saw the turn signal come on underneath the headlight and I thought to myself: "wow... that looks cool".
05-10-2010, 04:08 PM
#90
Three Wheelin'
"People" don't have issues with headlights, older self described Purists and the magazine/bench racing nerds who aspire to said purity have issues. If surveyed, average sports car guy and gal can't tell the difference between any Porsche 911 made since about 1990, the same way average rich guy can't tell the difference between any standard Rolex model made since 1970. The commercial success of the 986 & 996 is hardly debatable. The success on the track of the 996 is hardly debatable, and many 996 cup cars are still doing pretty nicely out there.
The debate really breaks along three lines, styling, performance, and quality/reliability.
Styling is wholly subjective, but as mentioned, only Porsche nerds can spot the differences. The endless oh I love the 996 oh the 993, 6C4S / anniversary insert-your-favorite stuff is pure Porsche nerdery, which we love to split hairs on here but is just that, hairsplitting. As they are unlikely to significantly change the outward appearance of the 911 from the current 997 look, it's probably the safest bet long term if you like the look and want to have a car which will with paint care continue to appear pretty new for many years.
Performance & quality have seen incremental improvements with each successive iteration, however no huge leap has been made in performance in the standard 3.6L cars. If you already own a Mk1 996, there's little reason to go to a 996 Mk2, and a 3.6L 996 Mk2 owner won't see a lot going to a 3.6L 997 Mk1, but if you don't already own one then you might want to consider how long you're going to own it and how much you're going to drive it, and decide where you want to enter the performance/depreciation curve.
The 996 Mk2 feels better built than the Mk1 in terms of rigidity, and the 997 much more so than the 996 Mk2, especially when considering materials and little things like door pulls and switches. I personally prefer the interior of the 996 Mk2 to the 997 but I'm sure I could be swayed in the other direction if I were a few years older and more concerned with creature comforts and the appearance of higher quality materials.
Reliability information is anecdotal at best, and often confounded by personal experience (e.g. I know more guys who have had 997 engines replaced than 996, but I also know more 997 owners personally). While I believe it is safe to assume that a newer car with more updated designs will have a better chance of being reliable, every used car has a unique history and I wouldn't buy one of these cars without a warranty unless it was purely a toy.
As for a personal recommendation, if I were buying a 996 today without a doubt it would be an 02-04 turbo if daily driver, GT3 or even an 04 anniversary if street/track/toy. The 997 Carrera S is definitely a step up in performance and perceived build quality from the 996 C2, and I really like the way the 997 C4 & C4S widebody cars look, enough to lure me in if I was buying again today in the ~$40s to $50s but not enough to sell my car. I'd be far better off budgeting for more driver education, as would most current owners. My next 911 will be purchased when this one gives up the ghost, and I have a feeling it will be a Mk1 997 Turbo (saw a gt3RS in Alpine yesterday btw, new new LED taillights)
The debate really breaks along three lines, styling, performance, and quality/reliability.
Styling is wholly subjective, but as mentioned, only Porsche nerds can spot the differences. The endless oh I love the 996 oh the 993, 6C4S / anniversary insert-your-favorite stuff is pure Porsche nerdery, which we love to split hairs on here but is just that, hairsplitting. As they are unlikely to significantly change the outward appearance of the 911 from the current 997 look, it's probably the safest bet long term if you like the look and want to have a car which will with paint care continue to appear pretty new for many years.
Performance & quality have seen incremental improvements with each successive iteration, however no huge leap has been made in performance in the standard 3.6L cars. If you already own a Mk1 996, there's little reason to go to a 996 Mk2, and a 3.6L 996 Mk2 owner won't see a lot going to a 3.6L 997 Mk1, but if you don't already own one then you might want to consider how long you're going to own it and how much you're going to drive it, and decide where you want to enter the performance/depreciation curve.
The 996 Mk2 feels better built than the Mk1 in terms of rigidity, and the 997 much more so than the 996 Mk2, especially when considering materials and little things like door pulls and switches. I personally prefer the interior of the 996 Mk2 to the 997 but I'm sure I could be swayed in the other direction if I were a few years older and more concerned with creature comforts and the appearance of higher quality materials.
Reliability information is anecdotal at best, and often confounded by personal experience (e.g. I know more guys who have had 997 engines replaced than 996, but I also know more 997 owners personally). While I believe it is safe to assume that a newer car with more updated designs will have a better chance of being reliable, every used car has a unique history and I wouldn't buy one of these cars without a warranty unless it was purely a toy.
As for a personal recommendation, if I were buying a 996 today without a doubt it would be an 02-04 turbo if daily driver, GT3 or even an 04 anniversary if street/track/toy. The 997 Carrera S is definitely a step up in performance and perceived build quality from the 996 C2, and I really like the way the 997 C4 & C4S widebody cars look, enough to lure me in if I was buying again today in the ~$40s to $50s but not enough to sell my car. I'd be far better off budgeting for more driver education, as would most current owners. My next 911 will be purchased when this one gives up the ghost, and I have a feeling it will be a Mk1 997 Turbo (saw a gt3RS in Alpine yesterday btw, new new LED taillights)