View Poll Results: If your track budget had you limited to the following options, what would you do?
Track a street 996 GT3 10 weekends/year
79
74.53%
Track a 996 C2 with a few suspension upgrades 15 weekends/year
12
11.32%
Track a race prepped 1st gen Boxster 20 weekends/year
11
10.38%
Other (please ellaborate)
4
3.77%
Voters: 106. You may not vote on this poll
996 C2 vs. 996 GT3
12-13-2007, 12:31 AM
#47
Race Director
I have a friend with a '99 996 no sunroof car (think it has LSD too) which has 200,000 km (about 120,000 miles) - most of it track. It has had no major failures and will be back at it next spring.
I have a 997S and tracked it. After getting hooked I labored with the decision about what to do. Mod my car? But it would then be a butchered Carrera S. Trade it in on a 997 GT3? Had a deposit in.
Then I drove a 996 GT3 at speed on the track at Mt. Tremblant. I knew I HAD to have one. The turn-in! The redline! The rawness! No sunroof (i need the headroom)! So after a long time looking I bought one.
In my case I kept the 997 but I'll sell it if I don't use it, although it went to Daytona and back for Rennsport Reunion III.
Get the GT3. IMO it is the modern equivalent of the '73 RS. It's not perfect but it is a great car.
I have a 997S and tracked it. After getting hooked I labored with the decision about what to do. Mod my car? But it would then be a butchered Carrera S. Trade it in on a 997 GT3? Had a deposit in.
Then I drove a 996 GT3 at speed on the track at Mt. Tremblant. I knew I HAD to have one. The turn-in! The redline! The rawness! No sunroof (i need the headroom)! So after a long time looking I bought one.
In my case I kept the 997 but I'll sell it if I don't use it, although it went to Daytona and back for Rennsport Reunion III.
Get the GT3. IMO it is the modern equivalent of the '73 RS. It's not perfect but it is a great car.
12-13-2007, 03:02 AM
#48
GT3 player par excellence
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
given a choice and adequate funds, i believe everyone will take GT3 over C2. that said, C2 isn't a bad track car. jimB had one and he beat the living day light out of it and not a prob. i had a c2 with 5000 track miles in one year. never had a single prob. much better than my POS E36M3 that i begged to give away.
12-13-2007, 11:28 PM
#49
Three Wheelin'
Sorry, been busy with work. 120k mi (mostly track).. that sounds like someone with way to much money and free time or a little out of line. Maybe I am luck with my car, but it has held up great. Yes, I have driven a GT3, actually every version of them 6,7 and 7RS. I was in a 997 GT3 this summer where the driver missed and downshifted, the motor lasted not even two seconds. I wish I could say I have never done it, I have, my ECU shows quite a few level 2 over revs, and I found out the ECU can count over 65535 on level 1 (16 bits), but my motor is still in one piece.If you dawdle your GT3 around the track it will last forever, if you push it to the limit constantly, it will not. There is a reason cup car engines (the almight GT1 block with dry sump) still get rebuilt every 100 hours or so. Have there been problems with the M96... absolutely. The 3.4l's are definitely a lot weaker than the 3.6's and 3.8's. They have a few BIG advantages over the GT3 engines... first they rev lower, great that your GT3 screams to 8300, but that puts significantly more stress on it. There are also issues with the cam drive system, where the newer M96 design has an advantage. The biggest advantage is price. If you blow (no warranty) a 997 GT3 engine, it will sel you back something like $30k. A 996 X51 is about $10k. The biggest cause of problems at the track (in either car) is lack of maintenance and stupidity. My bottom line is that you can build a full out M96 based race car for $50k, where a GT3 based car will cost double that and the long term cost of ownership will be higher. Remember this is not about the which car is better (the GT3 is hands down), its about which is better taking into account the situation, which, based on the question, obviously included cost as a factor. Thats my .2 cents!
12-14-2007, 09:47 AM
#52
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
my .02 cents. have the gt3 and love it on the track, but..... i would like to try the wheel to wheel thing and so that's why i'm building a spec boxster. i missed the december racers clinic, so i'll have to wait till april. in the mean time i'll drive both. you're already fast in the tt's. so i think you should also venture into the race groups.
12-14-2007, 09:52 AM
#53
Nordschleife Master
Can't you just shift LOWER in the rpm band in the GT3 to avoid this "stress"?
12-14-2007, 10:44 AM
#54
Three Wheelin'
What do you guys think about the Mazada Miata? Based on your logic it must be a horrible track car. It's not that fast, not a dry sump and does not come with a lot of factory mods Why would anyone want to drive one?
12-14-2007, 11:43 AM
#56
Ed, some of what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but your comment about the GT3 motor and M96 similar durability based on a driver's mistake doesn't. How is missing a shift and grenading a motor indicative of anything other than user error?
12-14-2007, 12:12 PM
#57
Nordschleife Master
A Mazada Miata is a great track car. With Mazda supporting the program with $40 rotors and such it is a very affordable program. The spec series is a blast and the cars corners well. The 996 is a great car for all the reasons you have been stating. Niether are GT3s. Nothing wrong with that. The car does not make the driver. There is a guy out here that is faster in his Ford Focus SVT then a novice in a 997 S.
12-14-2007, 01:26 PM
#59
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Q: What do Mazda spec racing and Porshce racing have in common??
A: It's impossible to do $10,000 worth of damage
A: It's impossible to do $10,000 worth of damage
Last edited by LiveNupe; 12-14-2007 at 05:55 PM.
12-14-2007, 02:18 PM
#60
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
QUOTE=Ed Newman;4878882] a GT3 based car will cost double that and the long term cost of ownership will be higher. [/QUOTE]
You really think the long term cost of ownership is higher??? Is your opinion based on your depreciation assumptions or operating cost estimates???