Tested Carerra 2S vs. 2002 Turbo X50 vs. 1996 M3 LTW
07-24-2006, 05:25 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tested Carerra 2S vs. 2002 Turbo X50 vs. 1996 M3 LTW
Had a chance to do 3 back-to-back comparisons between my 2002 X50, an 2006 C2S aerokit, and a highly modified 1996 M3 coupe (built to LTW specs).
Tests were performed at 5400 ft. here in Denver, and along a combination of wide open (I-70) and twisty roads.
A lot of guys seem to ask the question about 996TT vs. 997 C2S. Of course rarely do they inquire about the old E36 M3, which sells at around $15,000 for a nice one.
First we took out the 997 C2S. Feels like bigger car than 996 inside, more elbow room, bigger back seats. Click to sport mode. Suspension feels taught. Very tight feel to car. No exhaust sound at all...can't hear anything...Flat out roll ons in 3rd and 4th, not that impressive. Gearing too tall? Car goes fast, but can't actually feel the speed. Feels like a well engineered GT car. Sits high, but still wants to scrape aerokit front spoiler on small dips. Lateral movement from rear bushings in hard cornering upset the stance a little. Very competent moving through traffic....overall impression....a very refined sports GT, with adequate, but not killer power. Love the variable suspension settings. Solid build quality. Very slick box, door shuts with a solid clunk. Lousy wimpy motor sound.
Turbo X50...My car, immediatley, this car feels smaller and more sporty. The burble coming from the Fabspeed is fantastic. One dip into the throttle, and you have just been sold. What C2S? C2S for 100k? Hah, I'll take the 996Turbo all day long at whatever they are selling for. Handling with the PSS9's feels like the C2S in sport mode but with a soft edge. In terms of passing, lane manuvering, steering feel, throttle sharpness....the 996 TT takes it. Power is not in a different league, it is on another planet entirely. GT3 seats feel great and make the supposed sport seats of the C2S feel wholly unusable, and downright unsafe.
Now the shocker,
I have a very modified 1996 M3...My friend and I both came away with the same feeling. M3 accelerates harder in gear than the C2S. Handles way better, more confidence inspiring at the adhesion limit, and is a more fun car to drive hard. Just as comfortable, more usable room, better engine sound, better brakes. Stronger mid-high range pull through the gears...and faster off the line.....amazing. Granted, the M3 has been built to the hilt, but it still retains the 3.2 L motor, and no forced induction. We came away amazed at how good a 10 year old M car w/126,000 miles can be, when properly set up. I can honestly say, that there is no move the C2S could make on the M3 that it could not counter, and perhaps a few moves the M3 COULD make on the C2S that it would not be able to counter.!!!
All 3 cars are great....There is no doubt....The C2S was bone stock....If it were treated to the level of mods that the M3 had, it would be a trained killer....
Tests were performed at 5400 ft. here in Denver, and along a combination of wide open (I-70) and twisty roads.
A lot of guys seem to ask the question about 996TT vs. 997 C2S. Of course rarely do they inquire about the old E36 M3, which sells at around $15,000 for a nice one.
First we took out the 997 C2S. Feels like bigger car than 996 inside, more elbow room, bigger back seats. Click to sport mode. Suspension feels taught. Very tight feel to car. No exhaust sound at all...can't hear anything...Flat out roll ons in 3rd and 4th, not that impressive. Gearing too tall? Car goes fast, but can't actually feel the speed. Feels like a well engineered GT car. Sits high, but still wants to scrape aerokit front spoiler on small dips. Lateral movement from rear bushings in hard cornering upset the stance a little. Very competent moving through traffic....overall impression....a very refined sports GT, with adequate, but not killer power. Love the variable suspension settings. Solid build quality. Very slick box, door shuts with a solid clunk. Lousy wimpy motor sound.
Turbo X50...My car, immediatley, this car feels smaller and more sporty. The burble coming from the Fabspeed is fantastic. One dip into the throttle, and you have just been sold. What C2S? C2S for 100k? Hah, I'll take the 996Turbo all day long at whatever they are selling for. Handling with the PSS9's feels like the C2S in sport mode but with a soft edge. In terms of passing, lane manuvering, steering feel, throttle sharpness....the 996 TT takes it. Power is not in a different league, it is on another planet entirely. GT3 seats feel great and make the supposed sport seats of the C2S feel wholly unusable, and downright unsafe.
Now the shocker,
I have a very modified 1996 M3...My friend and I both came away with the same feeling. M3 accelerates harder in gear than the C2S. Handles way better, more confidence inspiring at the adhesion limit, and is a more fun car to drive hard. Just as comfortable, more usable room, better engine sound, better brakes. Stronger mid-high range pull through the gears...and faster off the line.....amazing. Granted, the M3 has been built to the hilt, but it still retains the 3.2 L motor, and no forced induction. We came away amazed at how good a 10 year old M car w/126,000 miles can be, when properly set up. I can honestly say, that there is no move the C2S could make on the M3 that it could not counter, and perhaps a few moves the M3 COULD make on the C2S that it would not be able to counter.!!!
All 3 cars are great....There is no doubt....The C2S was bone stock....If it were treated to the level of mods that the M3 had, it would be a trained killer....
07-24-2006, 06:40 PM
#2
Race Car
Hmmm, I am facing the x50 vs. 997C2S delimna now. You are not making it any easier! I have almost decided on the 997S because of the desire to make it a daily driver. But the x50 can be had for less money ... and 450 hp is hard to overlook!
Decisions, decisions.
Decisions, decisions.
07-24-2006, 07:30 PM
#3
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
pj,
i had the same questions a few months ago. decided on the x50. yes older but what a car. i am not smitten with the 997 (interior, big nav screen). this is my third 996 but i like the interior, i actually like the lights. we generally play in the 50-100 range and the torque will allow for rapid acceleration. for a little money you can really add to the car. also you are getting the better more reliable engine. no RMS that i had in my c4s at 10,000 miles. i would try to go drive one if you have a chance.
the prices for the used turbos are great. if your like me and keep a car for a year you will lose more on the 997 than the used turbo.
good luck.
roy
i had the same questions a few months ago. decided on the x50. yes older but what a car. i am not smitten with the 997 (interior, big nav screen). this is my third 996 but i like the interior, i actually like the lights. we generally play in the 50-100 range and the torque will allow for rapid acceleration. for a little money you can really add to the car. also you are getting the better more reliable engine. no RMS that i had in my c4s at 10,000 miles. i would try to go drive one if you have a chance.
the prices for the used turbos are great. if your like me and keep a car for a year you will lose more on the 997 than the used turbo.
good luck.
roy
07-24-2006, 08:06 PM
#4
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is just absolutely zero question in my mind, and i was validated on this by my pal when we went out and tested these cars back to back. We are both veterans of german sports cars and driven loads of really nice stuff on street and track. For less money than a C2S! you can get an X50! Please! I mean, I would still pay 30-40k more to buy the X50!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I had to. With some well choosen mods, exhaust, GIAC chip, coilovers....You have a car that is totally ridiculous....C2S is nice, but it would just feel like a big volkswagon compared. No question at all...case closed.
07-24-2006, 08:45 PM
#5
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by pjconner
I have almost decided on the 997S because of the desire to make it a daily driver.
BTW, The X50 has 444 hp SAE.
07-24-2006, 08:54 PM
#6
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see a E36 having better brakes then a C2S. Porsche brakes are at the highest standard of automotive braking, and BMW is often criticzed for their brakes. I had a E36/8 M Coupe and the brakes while not horrible were nothing to write home about.
I will agree the E36 sounds great and does indeed pull hard for "only" 240 HP, but a C2S is the quicker car no doubt. Even if the E36 is modded out, the C2S should take a dragrace.
I will agree the E36 sounds great and does indeed pull hard for "only" 240 HP, but a C2S is the quicker car no doubt. Even if the E36 is modded out, the C2S should take a dragrace.
Trending Topics
07-24-2006, 11:06 PM
#8
Rennlist Member
funny how many of us when through the mental exercise of gee a brand new 997S....maybe a 997S4...oh I am in the price range of a used TT now what should I do? I dont know many once they tried the TT and compared performance and price still went with a 997, me included.
Great write up JP, always enjoy your posts.
Great write up JP, always enjoy your posts.
07-24-2006, 11:30 PM
#9
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kem,
My e36 has the Stoptech package running Pagids. Stoptech makes world class brakes. I agree about BMW braking systems in that they tend not to be the highlight of the car. My car only weighs about 2750lbs (lots of weight has been taken out of the car)....I know it is hard to believe but, the fact is that the M3 really did feel better! I have my motor modded with cams/intake/ headers/exhaust/chip/flywheel, etc. plus re-geared with a 3.46 Diff. At that weight, and with the gearing and motor mods, I am telling you that the M3 pulls harder. The M3 just plain outperformed the car on all fronts...In a drag race it would probably be close...On the track, it would be similarly close....on the street, the M3 felt like it had higher limits, and the suspension was more settled and glued down. The real amazing thing here is that these cars can even be compared! One is 10 years old and lists for $15,000 the other for $100,000...cost of mods, not included.
My e36 has the Stoptech package running Pagids. Stoptech makes world class brakes. I agree about BMW braking systems in that they tend not to be the highlight of the car. My car only weighs about 2750lbs (lots of weight has been taken out of the car)....I know it is hard to believe but, the fact is that the M3 really did feel better! I have my motor modded with cams/intake/ headers/exhaust/chip/flywheel, etc. plus re-geared with a 3.46 Diff. At that weight, and with the gearing and motor mods, I am telling you that the M3 pulls harder. The M3 just plain outperformed the car on all fronts...In a drag race it would probably be close...On the track, it would be similarly close....on the street, the M3 felt like it had higher limits, and the suspension was more settled and glued down. The real amazing thing here is that these cars can even be compared! One is 10 years old and lists for $15,000 the other for $100,000...cost of mods, not included.
08-03-2006, 04:01 PM
#10
Intermediate
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what kind of suspension do you have jp schnitzer? your m3 sounds like a well prepped killer! i had a 99 e36 m3 before but not really modded. the 3.46 diff does make a huge visceral difference though in acceleration, plus the torque band is impressive for a small-ish motor. with some monoball linkage, ground controls, sways, camber plates, lightweight wheels and brakes, weight reduction, and about 300 crank hp, e36 m3 can be a very very fun car.
08-03-2006, 05:08 PM
#12
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suspension I use is a TC Kline sourced Koni coilover kit, spec-ed out by Jim Lighthauser of Bimmerhaus Performance in CO. Springs are TC Kline, camber plates TC Kline, Sways are H&R. Kit works well for street and track, and everything is adjustable, so at the track you can dial in lots of camber, and watch the car lift up on 3 wheels. This car still puts a major smile on my face....after driving it 120,000 miles!!!!!! That's right, I have driven this car THAT much! And I fully expect another 120k at least. 
08-03-2006, 07:49 PM
#13
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by Dock
I personally believe the Turbo is the better daily driver...because of it's torque.
BTW, The X50 has 444 hp SAE.
BTW, The X50 has 444 hp SAE.
08-03-2006, 07:57 PM
#14
Rennlist Member
A. Never argue with Dock
B. X50 is excellent daily driver (4 seasons)
C. Any comparison to a modded car becomes invalid- you modded it to your liking, and are providing a subjective assesment. Perhaps not wrong, just not unbiased.
D. I'd probably agree with you.
E. Isn't "sitting high" but scraping aerokit somehow wrong?
AS
B. X50 is excellent daily driver (4 seasons)
C. Any comparison to a modded car becomes invalid- you modded it to your liking, and are providing a subjective assesment. Perhaps not wrong, just not unbiased.
D. I'd probably agree with you.
E. Isn't "sitting high" but scraping aerokit somehow wrong?
AS
