COMPARISON: PORSCHE 996 VS VETTE
06-03-2014, 07:50 PM
#76
Rennlist Member
These engines are far from bulletproof. Most of them sound like they are going to eat a timing chain at any moment. They may be bulletproof as compared to a NA 996 or boxster, but that certainly isn't saying much. One of the reasons that many think these engines are bulletproof is the fact that many don't drive their cars many miles, and the other fact is the low production number of the cars, leading to lower failure rates than other production cars.
Within the specific type (996 turbo) I would guess the failure rate to be much higher. There are specific examples of high mileage 996 turbos, but after 100,000 miles most people are petrified of purchasing them, if they were so bulletproof, why does that scare everybody?
Within the specific type (996 turbo) I would guess the failure rate to be much higher. There are specific examples of high mileage 996 turbos, but after 100,000 miles most people are petrified of purchasing them, if they were so bulletproof, why does that scare everybody?
06-03-2014, 08:09 PM
#77
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Here's my take. I don't think there are very many Turbo or Vette owners who regularly track their cars. Of those that do regularly track their cars, I'd guess that the majority are not capable of max performing their cars lap after lap; few to none would ever match the Ring time of a professional driver driving their particular car. Additionally, of the low percentage of owners who do track their cars, way fewer of them do so for money or trophies. This leaves what I guess to be the vast majority of Vette and/or Turbo owners driving the vast majority of their time on public roads. If the majority of these owners do not regularly street race and/or drive at 10/10ths in the curves, then the result is that the vast majority of owners drive their cars relatively reasonably on public roads while not racing the other car (Vette owner not racing a Turbo owner or a Turbo not racing a Vette owner). So who the hell cares which car can "beat" the other car at the track or on the street??
Once I've determined that a car meets my minimum objective performance thresholds (and these are not hard for a car to meet), the most important personal assessments I make are subjective. I do not ever consider which car I'm assessing turns lower lap times, or wins a minimum number of professional races, has better commercials, or can do the quarter in less time. The vast majority of my time behind the wheel is going to be at something other than full throttle, and at something less than 10/10ths cornering ability. It will be used zero percent of the time on the track, and zero percent of the time street racing. So how the car delivers the overall driving experience outside these areas is what is paramount for me.
Once I've determined that a car meets my minimum objective performance thresholds (and these are not hard for a car to meet), the most important personal assessments I make are subjective. I do not ever consider which car I'm assessing turns lower lap times, or wins a minimum number of professional races, has better commercials, or can do the quarter in less time. The vast majority of my time behind the wheel is going to be at something other than full throttle, and at something less than 10/10ths cornering ability. It will be used zero percent of the time on the track, and zero percent of the time street racing. So how the car delivers the overall driving experience outside these areas is what is paramount for me.
06-03-2014, 08:48 PM
#78
Instructor
Thread Starter
Dock, very well said. You hit the nail on the head. It really boils down to driving satisfaction ON THE STREET. Seating position, seating comfort, confidence of handling, features that make driving more enjoyable other than performance, perceived reliability of the product, satisfaction of transportation needs and other non-track issues play a real and vital factor to all of us. I consider performance as well but I am a rare exception by being involved in SCCA racing. Since I own both a Z06 (C6) and a 996TT, I see the differences in both cars and appreciate both cars. They are both great. The Vette provides a better value considering the cost and the 996TT has a higher level of engineering as well as fit and finish. Owning both is a delight, I consider it a win-win situation.
06-03-2014, 10:37 PM
#79
Most of these cars are babied, and due to that fact and the low production numbers of 996 turbos ( under 20,000 in 6 model years) the actual number of failures is low, but the percentage rate high. That still doesn't answer the question of if these cars are so "bulletproof" why won't anyone touch a higher mileage one with a 10 ft pole? A rhetorical question, yes, but please logically explain why a bulletproof design has very little value after 90,000 miles or so? Seems like bulletproof would lend itself to much more reliability than that.
06-03-2014, 11:21 PM
#81
Race Car
Most of these cars are babied, and due to that fact and the low production numbers of 996 turbos ( under 20,000 in 6 model years) the actual number of failures is low, but the percentage rate high. That still doesn't answer the question of if these cars are so "bulletproof" why won't anyone touch a higher mileage one with a 10 ft pole? A rhetorical question, yes, but please logically explain why a bulletproof design has very little value after 90,000 miles or so? Seems like bulletproof would lend itself to much more reliability than that.
Dan
06-04-2014, 12:26 AM
#82
Nordschleife Master
Most of these cars are babied, and due to that fact and the low production numbers of 996 turbos ( under 20,000 in 6 model years) the actual number of failures is low, but the percentage rate high. That still doesn't answer the question of if these cars are so "bulletproof" why won't anyone touch a higher mileage one with a 10 ft pole? A rhetorical question, yes, but please logically explain why a bulletproof design has very little value after 90,000 miles or so? Seems like bulletproof would lend itself to much more reliability than that.
06-04-2014, 12:37 AM
#83
Nordschleife Master
Dock, very well said. You hit the nail on the head. It really boils down to driving satisfaction ON THE STREET. Seating position, seating comfort, confidence of handling, features that make driving more enjoyable other than performance, perceived reliability of the product, satisfaction of transportation needs and other non-track issues play a real and vital factor to all of us. I consider performance as well but I am a rare exception by being involved in SCCA racing. Since I own both a Z06 (C6) and a 996TT, I see the differences in both cars and appreciate both cars. They are both great. The Vette provides a better value considering the cost and the 996TT has a higher level of engineering as well as fit and finish. Owning both is a delight, I consider it a win-win situation.
06-04-2014, 01:15 AM
#84
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
If "bang for the buck" were the only factor affecting the buying decision, then maybe assigning "best" is appropriate. But given how much "bang" the average owner uses over the course of ownership (as I opined in my post above), bang for the buck might be better viewed in a new (and not so important) perspective.
Last edited by Dock; 06-04-2014 at 01:23 PM.
06-04-2014, 03:06 AM
#85
If "bang for the buck" were the only factor affecting the buying decision, then maybe assigning "best" is appropriate. But given how much "bang" the average owner uses over uses over the course of ownership (as I opined in my post above), bang for the buck might be better viewed in a new (and not so important) perspective.
Again it just what you want to do with your car but I see a lot of people tracking their cars last event we even had 2 991 turbos out there driving them hard great to see IMO.
06-04-2014, 03:09 AM
#86
As to pure track speed, I can't agree with you more. My C6Z06 lapped GT3's at Roebling with ease, and 996TT's weren't even in the ball game. A Porsche club from Tennessee came over for the day with some of the nicest and most expensive toter homes, double stacker trailers and nothing less than 996TT's with some full race cup cars. My buddy and I went over to talk to them but since they knew we were both driving Vettes never gave us the time of day. I have always been in awe of Porsche cars so to me this was like Disney World coming to town. Granted my buddy and I have a lot of track experience running Sebring, Daytona, Homestead, PBIR and Barber to name just a few but these guys weren't exactly green either.
TTU<2013 012 Jim Avery Dodge Viper 1:55.264 05/27/2012
TT1 012 Jim Avery Dodge Viper ACR 1:55.877 07/13/2013
HPR is not a very high speed track (top speed mid 140s) but is rather turn intensive and thus favors light nimble cars. I have run the same track recently at 1:55:17 verified by HLT in a fully street legal car, on DOT tires, with a complete interior, A/C, Nav, the works. At the end of the day I could drive the car home as opposed to loading it onto a trailer. Don't underestimate a well sorted TT...
One other interesting observation running with various Corvettes in 100+ degree heat at our 5200'+ elevations is the simple fact that a lot of the Corvettes have cooling issues and can't go a full 30 minutes full out without overheating. I've talked to a number of Corvette guys who have to back off early as the temps start going through the roof. Must be the thinner air up here as density altitude in the summer can be closer to 10000'. None of the Mezger powered car have any issues however even though you'd think a rear engine would be harder to keep cool... The TTs are not cheap to run but are extremely durable and reliable and if maintained properly will not disappoint. I certainly wouldn't trade my car for a Vette even though I love the look of the C06 ZR1 (well except the interior).
Last edited by powdrhound; 06-04-2014 at 01:06 PM.
06-04-2014, 09:27 AM
#88
Most of these cars are babied, and due to that fact and the low production numbers of 996 turbos ( under 20,000 in 6 model years) the actual number of failures is low, but the percentage rate high. That still doesn't answer the question of if these cars are so "bulletproof" why won't anyone touch a higher mileage one with a 10 ft pole? A rhetorical question, yes, but please logically explain why a bulletproof design has very little value after 90,000 miles or so? Seems like bulletproof would lend itself to much more reliability than that.
These are daily drivable supercars, but most who aren't in the know confuse them with high maintenance Ferraris or Lambos where mileage really matters a lot more.
Many potential buyers don't realise that with little more than just the reasonable regular scheduled maintenance (plus occasional coolant pipe fixes - grrrrr) these things are designed to run beyond 300,000 miles while doing up to half a dozen track days a year. The admittedly less reliable base 996 engine in the Carreras and C4s also rubs off a bit on perceptions of the Mezger engined cars for the uninitiated.
In contrast, most of those in the know (and who can afford them) already have Mezger (GT1 block) cars and generally aren't still shopping for them.
If these were Honda Accords, low mileage 10-15 year-old examples would be very rare, but stir in the fact that most 996/997 Turbo/GT2/GT3 owners have other cars too and you can see why there is a fair sized pool of lowish mileage Mezger engined 996/997s for sale at any time. This is why the rarer high mileage ones on the market often sell fairly cheaply, despite still having great reliability and most of their lives still ahead of them. That and having performance - in the case of the 996 Turbo and GT2 especially - that still shames most of today's sportscars (and even some recent supercars) 15 years after being released.
Drive them hard, maintain them well and there are few cars more rewarding.
06-04-2014, 10:02 AM
#89
Nordschleife Master
If "bang for the buck" were the only factor affecting the buying decision, then maybe assigning "best" is appropriate. But given how much "bang" the average owner uses over uses over the course of ownership (as I opined in my post above), bang for the buck might be better viewed in a new (and not so important) perspective.
06-04-2014, 10:28 AM
#90
Rennlist Member
As others have pointed out, GT1 block based Mezger engine failures are rare - unless you count the stupid glued in coolant fittings coming out of the block every now and then and needing to be be glued, glued and pinned or welded back in - either afterwards or preventatively.
These are daily drivable supercars, but most who aren't in the know confuse them with high maintenance Ferraris or Lambos where mileage really matters a lot more.
Many potential buyers don't realise that with little more than just the reasonable regular scheduled maintenance (plus occasional coolant pipe fixes - grrrrr) these things are designed to run beyond 300,000 miles while doing up to half a dozen track days a year. The admittedly less reliable base 996 engine in the Carreras and C4s also rubs off a bit on perceptions of the Mezger engined cars for the uninitiated.
In contrast, most of those in the know (and who can afford them) already have Mezger (GT1 block) cars and generally aren't still shopping for them.
If these were Honda Accords, low mileage 10-15 year-old examples would be very rare, but stir in the fact that most 996/997 Turbo/GT2/GT3 owners have other cars too and you can see why there is a fair sized pool of lowish mileage Mezger engined 996/997s for sale at any time. This is why the rarer high mileage ones on the market often sell fairly cheaply, despite still having great reliability and most of their lives still ahead of them. That and having performance - in the case of the 996 Turbo and GT2 especially - that still shames most of today's sportscars (and even some recent supercars) 15 years after being released.
Drive them hard, maintain them well and there are few cars more rewarding.
These are daily drivable supercars, but most who aren't in the know confuse them with high maintenance Ferraris or Lambos where mileage really matters a lot more.
Many potential buyers don't realise that with little more than just the reasonable regular scheduled maintenance (plus occasional coolant pipe fixes - grrrrr) these things are designed to run beyond 300,000 miles while doing up to half a dozen track days a year. The admittedly less reliable base 996 engine in the Carreras and C4s also rubs off a bit on perceptions of the Mezger engined cars for the uninitiated.
In contrast, most of those in the know (and who can afford them) already have Mezger (GT1 block) cars and generally aren't still shopping for them.
If these were Honda Accords, low mileage 10-15 year-old examples would be very rare, but stir in the fact that most 996/997 Turbo/GT2/GT3 owners have other cars too and you can see why there is a fair sized pool of lowish mileage Mezger engined 996/997s for sale at any time. This is why the rarer high mileage ones on the market often sell fairly cheaply, despite still having great reliability and most of their lives still ahead of them. That and having performance - in the case of the 996 Turbo and GT2 especially - that still shames most of today's sportscars (and even some recent supercars) 15 years after being released.
Drive them hard, maintain them well and there are few cars more rewarding.