I believe it is a fixed wing.

 

It's not an obvious answer. For many years on this board, they were considered the worst 996. In fact, I remember when I was shopping for my first 996 and I spoke with Porsche dealers. It was very common for them to advise potential customers to avoid the 1999 model.

Many people seem to like them now because they have a double-row IMSB, although all the MK I cars have that. There were reports of engine failure in early 996 cars due to engine block porosity and other issues. The cars that are still on the road seem to be mostly free of these early issues.

I think people also tend to like them because there are a few other things that make them more of a "simple" car, like fewer electronics.

If I was in the market for a MK I 996, I would be looking for a 2001 model. I'm not saying I wouldn't buy a 1999 or 2000 model, but I wouldn't actively seek it.

 

'99 C2 LSD

No electronic driving aids when traction control is turned off. Lots of grip in corners. Lighter than predecessors and followers. Great steering feel. There are faster ones but these have a special driver focus.

Aero isn't needed.

 

The true aerokit wings are fixed, though both tacos and Aerokit 2 wing blades are manually adjustable.

I agree that aero isn't NEEDED, but it really makes a car stand out from the rest of the 996 fleet.

 

You are in Cali where there is a fleet of 996's. I live in central Mass. People have nice cars and houses here and some own Porsches but I never see another 996 on the road. Last week I saw 3 Lambo's and one was a Diablo, no 996's though. Don't know why. The cars may be broke, the owners may be broke or the garage door may be broke. The cars are parked which is a shame.

 

A fleet is probably an understatement - between 996's - and 986's, which are pretty much indistinguishable for 99% of the population until they read the trunk, you can't throw a rock in any direction without nailing an arctic silver Porsche; I enjoy having a car that looks significantly different (and better, but I realize that's subjective).

 

How about a C4S with the X51 engine!

 

I have a '99 C2 w/ LSD coupe and I like the drive better than my neighbors '01 convertible. I think the '99 has more of a 'tactile' feel than later 996's, but ones I've driven have all been great. I have not driven a Turbo, but I assume its fantastic.

 

"Ditto"...
Have road tripped to Southern California. And NYC. Never skipped a beat.

This may sound like a very elementary question, but could someone please instruct me on how to add a photo to my profile?

Thank you.

 

It's the optics of the car. The taco wing, with the swervy rocker covers just give it a elegant but stout look to the standard 996. I doubt the taco wing or the front air dam mod do anything for the car under ~120MPH, but it looks goooooood.

 

4S- but I am biased. I have never driven anything else but love the back end of the wide body.

 

As a 4S owner I'm a bit biased as well. Although, I do absolutely love the MK1 aero cars.

I'm surprised, has nobody brought up the 40th anniversary cars yet? I believe they're the fastest NA 996s and had some very nice features/options standard.

 

LUV the looks of the 4S! Were both of you looking specifically for 4S's? 40th Anniversary editions are quite rare as we know. Only 1963 made. Don't think I've ever seen one on the street?

 

Not exactly.

 

Best of both worlds 99/ C4 Mk 2 - HKS wheels