Agree there , but he claims to speak for the developers as well .

Both great cars and neither is way better than the other i would
Venture

 

As ever, it boils down to what constitutes "better".

Agreed.
Plenty read the jottings of Mr Harris and consider them gospel. They're not.
Mr Harris has consistently tried to denigrate the Mk1 over the years, here's one of his former attempts :

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1177232

Mr Harris maybe an able driver, but he's mechanically inept. On several occasions over the years he states "I've been told". But strangely we're never party to the individuals who've "told him" the propaganda he peddles .......

The Mk1 makes for a nicer road car, it's spring and damper rates are slightly softer than those of the Mk2, and that extra compliance makes the car far more biddable on give and take, bumpy British roads.

Plenty cite the Mk2's gearbox as being superior, those alleged improvements being courtesy of steel baulk rings and improved cooling. The steel baulk rings maybe of benefit to a ham fisted, neanderthal who's incapable of changing gear with any degree of mechanical sympathy, but to anyone with a modicum of skill and manual dexterity, the brass baulk rings in Mk1 'box aren't an issue, and unless you're planning on tracking the car and doing massively long stints, the additional cooling is of no benefit on the road cars.

The Mk2 engine does have stronger punch at the top end, but the fitment of either a Manthey K400 engine conversion or indeed any decent exhaust system with some high quality 100 cell cats and a remap will give the older car parity and make the car sound way better than the newer car.
But if outright performance is the criteria you judge a car on, the Mk1 probably isn't the car for you, it's subtle nuances will be lost on the Datsun GTR, 991 Turbo S driver.

The Mk1 engine has a wonderfully characterful tickover once warmed through, it chunters away and when it's really hot, can actually shake the rear end of the car.

Many criticise the Mk1 brakes, but some chap by the name of Rohrl didn't have an issue with them when he set the fastest production car 'Ring time at 7 mins 56 seconds back in 1999 ..........

As for comments about the interior of the Mk1 being inferior, well any iteration of the 996 interior is hardly the most stylish or best built place, but as the "control room" for a superb drivers car, it matters not one jot, it fulfills that brief perfectly. I have to admit I actually prefer the more intimate feel of the 996 interior over the 997. What I would say is the earlier car really needs the extended leather option to improve its ambience.

The Mk2 bodyshell is constructed using some higher quality steel in specific places, this was done to improve side impact resistance. Accordingly the Mk2 shell is stiffer, however that combined with the stiffer springs and dampers makes it less forgiving/compliant over bumpy roads.

But consider this too, the Mk1 996 GT3 was the closest (mechanically) a watercooled Porsche GT road car has ever been to its race car partner (the 1999-2000 996 Cup car) all subsequent Cup car iterations have become further and further divorced from the roadgoing base car.

The Mk1 is THE seminal watercooled GT car, the fact you guys in The States didn't get it, only adds to its rarity and mystique.

It is without a doubt one of the most tactile, engaging and visceral watercooled cars Porsche have ever built. No, it may not be the fastest, most powerful, best braked or practical of cars, but it's a gem and a true drivers car.

I'll leave you with these words (not mine) but they sum up the why the Mk1 is such a wonderful car even when compared with all the later iterations :

"To me, as an averagely talented road car driver it's that very 'analogue', unfiltered feedback from the controls that gives me the warm glow of satisfaction that comes with handling something so obviously mechanical, a machine rather than a slick consumer product.

Like all the nuances in the soundtrack of a truly great engine and the way you can almost feel the cogs separating and engaging in a good manual shift gearbox, all the tiny movements of the steering wheel in your hands, telegraphing what's going on between tyres and road surface beyond a simple message of 'grip/no grip' that enrichen and enliven the experience.

It's why classics and some low-volume specials can get under ones skin so much more easily than arguably vastly superior machinery.

It doesn't make me any faster. It doesn't make me any more confident (given the constraints of road driving, either is probably A Good Thing). But it does make me happier"

Amen to that.

 

No doubt the mk2 is a technically better car, but finally someone sums up some of the points that describes why the mk1 is such a wonderful driving experience. I'll see if i can put some more points on the board as well, but for now I'll just add this for the people that rely on the driving experience of reviewers:

http://www.evo.co.uk/features/featur...vers_cars.html

 

And? Mike

 

Another thing with mk1 I believe which all cupcar don't have as well is rear seat area at angle where if u seat yourself in the back with knees angling down is mk1 has no rear strut type bar built in by b-pillar area. Mike

 

Lets not have sibling rivalry
Car girls are needed . Of course air cooled are the best ..

 

That should be your avatar turbo jonny...................

 

More pics please : ). Can have never enough of rear ends : ). Mike

 

One thin thing I will confess to is ......no matter what model of GT3 you have ,,,I personally always want a new,r model.........

 

This watercooled Bavarian is also properly air cooled as well

 

You might want to read this... this is the best article avaiable

http://www.gt3resource.com/page2/fil...orsche0029.pdf

 

probably best to have one of each

 

OMG I wasn,t aware BMW offered that type of Air bag ..........

 

Excellent article ... Thanks!