The 996 is like the ugliest...
12-13-2014, 01:35 AM
#47
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am one of those that likes the look of the 996 too... Like the adaptation of the GT1 headlights and love how my '02 C4 handles...
Would buy a 996 GT3 before any other model if I wanted to (or could afford to) upgrade!
but then again my other favorite Porsche is my 928 and I buy cars and motorcyles to drive like they are supposed to be driven! 125k+ miles on both of them and will have far many more before they are through!
maybe I am just crazy!
Would buy a 996 GT3 before any other model if I wanted to (or could afford to) upgrade!
but then again my other favorite Porsche is my 928 and I buy cars and motorcyles to drive like they are supposed to be driven! 125k+ miles on both of them and will have far many more before they are through!
maybe I am just crazy!
12-13-2014, 02:42 AM
#48
Another comment for the headlight insecure therapy group. It seems to me there are two types of car groupies. The posers and the drivers. If you conversation ends at "the headlights aren't round so..." then we can't even have a discussion. I have yet to hear anyone say but my air cooled car handles, drives, and accelerates better.
12-13-2014, 01:18 PM
#49
I went to design school, and work with a number of architects and designers.
996 headlights (Mk 1 and 2) are better, from a holistic design perspective, than the 997. The 996 was a pure form that needed to be broken up to create tension/interest, which is why many prefer the aero/GT3 versions. The lights themselves do a great job of this by simultaneously breaking up the round form and defining its contours by connecting the front lid line through the indicators to the valence-fender break in the Mk 1, or by creating the lower edge of the light on the Mk 2. Also, note how nicely the bottom edge of the radiator air intakes echo the bottom edge of the Mk 1 lights, especially as emphasized by the aero/GT3 bumper.
The 997 headlights and separate indicators appear tacked on in comparison: pure pandering to a market that wasn't ready for how great the 996 is/was.
Tony Lapine was correct in redefining Porsche's design language in this way, and now that enthusiasts have had a solid decade+ to get used to it, I think they are coming around. Much as Chris Bangle was demonized for disrupting BMW's staid styling roots and later recognized as genius, I think Lapine will be similarly recognized.
996 headlights (Mk 1 and 2) are better, from a holistic design perspective, than the 997. The 996 was a pure form that needed to be broken up to create tension/interest, which is why many prefer the aero/GT3 versions. The lights themselves do a great job of this by simultaneously breaking up the round form and defining its contours by connecting the front lid line through the indicators to the valence-fender break in the Mk 1, or by creating the lower edge of the light on the Mk 2. Also, note how nicely the bottom edge of the radiator air intakes echo the bottom edge of the Mk 1 lights, especially as emphasized by the aero/GT3 bumper.
The 997 headlights and separate indicators appear tacked on in comparison: pure pandering to a market that wasn't ready for how great the 996 is/was.
Tony Lapine was correct in redefining Porsche's design language in this way, and now that enthusiasts have had a solid decade+ to get used to it, I think they are coming around. Much as Chris Bangle was demonized for disrupting BMW's staid styling roots and later recognized as genius, I think Lapine will be similarly recognized.
12-14-2014, 04:33 PM
#51
I recently traded in a 2002 C4 Cab for a 2012 TT. I had more comments about the looks of the 996 than I do on the TT. But I must admit when people talk about the performance the TT has its place.
Both cars are awesome of course ... They're Porsche 911s for gods sake.
Both cars are awesome of course ... They're Porsche 911s for gods sake.
