Chaos

2003 40Kmi? thet silver purple tint color. Wicked fast X50. Owner kept it.

NMSTT

I too have been looking at the 996TT vs. the 997.1TT. I love the look of the 997 but love the price of the 996. IMO the timeless good looks of either of these cars make both a safe bet, but I feel as if the 997 is a better put together car, hence the higher price tag considering the miles being similar.

SimonK

I don't think so. I think the price difference is more to do with newer car and for some (not for me) a better looking car.

Hoosier_Daddy

Whenever I'm in a quandary about which Porsche (driver) to buy I usually default to Bruce Anderson's advice about buying the newest Porsche one can afford comfortably. (Aside from something like buying an antique or collector car)

This advice has never let me down.

jumper5836

I prefer the look of the 996TT. I also prefer to have the VC AWD system since it tends to stay 95% rwd and not feel like your driving an Audi like the new 997TT AWD system feels like.

SimonK

I second that.

SimonK

I think in today's day and age newer is not necessarily better. Marketing pressures play their part. I find 997tt more of a gt car than 996tt. Considering OP's question; 996tt x50 is only 10bhp per ton down on 997tt stock for stock. (1570 kg versus 1530 kg). So there is sod all in it. They are comparable performance wise. The rest is personal choice. Some like hard rock some like disco.

darth g-f

Thanks everyone. I think the 996TT is right up there with the 997TT in term of performance. I really thought about it, and even though I can afford a used 997.1, I end up paying about 30k$ more to get one. That's a lot of money for better looks and nicer interior. In the end, I'm more interested in performance than looks. Waiting for the PPI on a X50 996 as I type...

dntlvet

996 TT is fine, but I'd prefer the 997.2 and it comes with significant cost as well

grayman

SimonK, Chaos took my 996TT X50 for a spin, so it is my car that he is refering to when he said the 997TT is a better looking car. I was just ribbing him a bit. I to think the 997TT is better looking.

Since I am not as "well heeled" as some of our Porsche owning brothers and sisters, I have to purchase my cars second hand. My choices were 997.1TT, or keep the 944 Turbo S, Boxster S and buy a 996TT. I chose three P cars over just one, and I must say, the X50 (completely stock) still thrills the crap out of me every time I drive it. I still love the other two cars though. They are each so different, and give a different type of enjoyment.

I only drove one other (base) 996tt years ago, and cant say how it compared to the X50. I know my car was a smoking good deal, and it was less money than all of the non-X50 cars I was looking at. I may or may not have the ECU tuned in the future, and dont really see a need for any additional mods (maybe some cosmetics). When I started my search, I knew I wanted an X50 as I did not plan to mod it mechanically. I lucked out as this car was exactly what I was looking for (I compromised on sport seats with painted seatbacks) in that it was a shade of silver (Meridian) with a gray interior, X50 tiptronic.

As far as turbo lag goes, it has some off the line, but once you start moving, you dont notice it. If you are on the highway and floor it, you feel like you've been shot out of a cannon (maybe the tip helps mitigate some of the effects of turbo lag). I currently own two other turbo cars (944 Turbo S, Volvo S60R) and have owned two other turbo cars (86 mustang SVO and AWD Eagle Talon), so I have a good idea of what turbo lag is. With my X50 tip, it just isnt an issue. and again, power wise, it still scares the crap out of me. I dont street race, and I will do an occasional DE, so I dont care if a 997TT is faster.

Hope this helps

Y65MPH

Having owned all variants of the 996tt (k16 and k24) and the 996 GT2 as well as 997TT I can tell you that the 997tt is quicker in every regard. The K24's come on late and run out of power early. I find a chipped K16 car to be more fun to drive than a stock X50. K16's spool up much faster making the car feel more alive. The 997tt spools up fast and stays in the boost much longer. Its not about faster it is about drivability.

When you compare basic numbers on the 993tt,996tt, and 997tt they look very similar. But drivability of the three can not be compared.

CodeRed

^ good post

Kevinmacd

Actually due to the variable vane tech of the 997, it's quicker 0-60 compared to the 996 X50.

SimonK

Bold statement which is simply untrue. My xp50 flashed with exhaust leaves any stock 997tt for dead. I also have pss10's fitted and I run rings round any 997tt stock or suspension modified on the track. 997 tt is too heavy and if 996tt understeered I have no idea what you call 997tt; super-mega understeer? Therefore I am really puzzled as to what do you mean drivability can not be compared? I seriously doubt you had all variants otherwise you would not talk such nonsense. They are very similar drive, 996tt being sharper and 997tt softer out of the box. Period. I mean 996 is heavy but 997 takes that even further - disaster. The only thing 997tt has over 996tt is looks (for some) and 60 bhp on stock and 30 bhp on xp50 which is easily sorted with a flash. Max tune on 996 versus 997 ends up the same. This 997tt so much better than 996tt debates really **** me off. Usually talked about by people who are really cluless. In the real world beyond pub theory debates by people without any know-how cars are near identical in performance. If you take it to the track 996tt is a better platform and anyone who has a clue will know this by default. So to the OP yes xp50 is right up there with 997tt plus you won't be changing variable turbines at 100k like three of my friends already did.

darth g-f

Thanks.

I looked into it some more and don't understand the point I often read against the X50 (K24) taking longer to spool AND running out of puff sooner. This doesn't make one second of sense.

I can accept the fact that larger turbos take longer to spool up. But if one of the two turbo has to run out of puff sooner it's the k16. Smaller turbo tend to do just that, spool sooner, run out of breath sooner. The variable turbos of the 997 cure that tendency by both spooling quickly and being able to keep their breath long in the rev range.

With that said I tried to compare dyno from both non-X50 vs X50 on otherwise stock cars, same dyno and same day. I couldn't find anything. I'm really curious to see how the K24 could be so much worse by being a bit larger. Again, makes no sense to me. If anyone has this info I'd be curious to look at the graphs and see for myself.

Anyhow, I just sold my Elise, and even though it had a SC and 300hp, it needed to be revved over 6000rpm to really make power. So even if the K24 take a bit more time to spool, it's not like it needs 6000rpm to get moving. I should be alright and if need be, I can downshift a gear or two to get in the powerband. That's what I've been doing for the last 5 years...