Notices

2002 Turbo changes from 2001 model

 
Old 02-05-2015, 03:57 PM
  #1  
turtleracing
User
Thread Starter
 
turtleracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Massachusetts and Idaho
Posts: 24
Default 2002 Turbo changes from 2001 model

Excellence Magazine's current Buyers' Guide states that the 2002 model Turbo incorporates chassis changes that increase the stiffness as compared to the 2001 model. Is this true ? What other series changes are there for the 996 Turbo ?
turtleracing is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 04:07 PM
  #2  
rmc1148
Super User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster Pa
Posts: 3,448
Default

Its been discussed many times with some saying there is no proof of increased structural supports and others saying opposite. No glove box in 2001 I personally think it looks better and have no need for extra storage. Mine has cup holders others say theirs do not. Some 2001s have warts on front bumper others not, mine does not. Solid wheels on older 2001s hollow on later=mine hollow. The buttons on dash etc have glossy finish doesn't bother me but prefer matte finish. Others will add more believe me lol.
rmc1148 is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 04:48 PM
  #3  
"02996ttx50
Super User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,305
Default

there is indeed added structural rigidity. iirc 20/25% whatever that means. its in porsches own literature but dock will tell you his source at pcna has told him its nothing more than an ugly internet rumor lol.

cant think of anything else rmc hasn't just mentioned, but cup holders are glove boxes are nice. but those early first edition MY 01's with the bumper warts are downright hideous. much more suited to the front of a warthog! seriously lol
"02996ttx50 is online now  
Old 02-05-2015, 05:02 PM
  #4  
Chris996
User
 
Chris996's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 762
Default

2002 has metal seat pan, not found on the 2001 turbo.
Chris996 is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 05:15 PM
  #5  
rmc1148
Super User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster Pa
Posts: 3,448
Default

I still am not convinced about a structural difference and have heard from many that know more then I its not true. That said I honestly could care less and am sure it would never be noticed unless track drive hard by a professional. I never eat or drink in my good cars just my truck and wifes car lol.
rmc1148 is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 06:33 PM
  #6  
jumper5836
Super User
 
jumper5836's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: great white north
Posts: 8,130
Default

My conclusion when I was looking into it, was that the structural reinforcement was to provide more support for the seat belt, may have been crash testing changes they had to adhere to or for upcoming cab model as well as they modified the seat pan area to fit in the m96 motor and tranny for the C4S model. The 2001 turbo body was structurally reinforced vs the narrow body 996.1 though marketing only came out in 2002 for new new 996.2 which may be confusing the issue but the 01 was also renforced minus the b piller and seat pan change that came in 2002.
I personally like my 2002 C4S interior with glove box and flat buttons but my 2001 turbo really doesn't look that bad, very minor detail and you get used to using the side pockets instead of the glove box.

01, 02, 03 owner's manual lists the weight as 3394.9 lbs
02 brochure states curb weight at 3395lb,s the 04 brochure states curb weight at 3505 lbs for the coupe (so something here added some wieght to it)



2002 added

Lockable glove box (Map pocket below steering wheel deleted)

Cup holders & larger AC vents
"Together with the integration of a new cup holder, the centre vent has also been re-designed.
The cross-sectional area has been increased by 20%, which improves interior ventilation."

Bose (analog) sound system standard

Flat non-glossy buttons, light switch

Redesign instrument cluster with on-board computer (former 259) standard

Hollow wheels (lighter then solid wheels -15 lbs)

Different seat and memory functions, changes to the alarm system, and PCM differences

Optional X50 package added
jumper5836 is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 07:23 PM
  #7  
993GT
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
993GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: not the GTA, Southern Ontario, CAN.
Posts: 5,232
Default

there is additional reinforcement/tube running longitudinally in the roof in 2002+, +seat well as said above.
993GT is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 08:12 PM
  #8  
Carlo_Carrera
2011 Rennlist F1 Champion
Rennlist Member
 
Carlo_Carrera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nearby
Posts: 4,466
Default

Originally Posted by 993GT View Post
there is additional reinforcement/tube running longitudinally in the roof in 2002+, +seat well as said above.
My 2001 has this reinforcement in the roof. So I don't think there is much of difference in the bodies pre/post 2002 other than the seat pan, glove box and a slight change in the B pillar for the new style seat belt in which steel was removed to fit it.

If the 2001 body was different and less stiff then all the suspension development done for it would have to be thrown out the window and redone for 2002. That is not how Porsche, or any other car manufacture, does business. Wasting all that development for for one model year. Also all 996 Turbos are listed as being the same weight. How it this possible if 2002+ have more steel in their bodies?

I have talked at length with several Porsche employees about this subject and they all say the 2001 chassis is the same as 2002+. One even checked the part numbers for me, the chassis part numbers other than the B pillar are exactly the same 2001 to 2002. In fact the inproved stiffer chassis made for 2001 turbo was spread to the rest of the 996 normally aspirated line in 2002. You can see it in the part numbers. That is where the misunderstanding comes from. Some magazines at the time reported this correctly but for some reason the continued Essence misreport is the one some take as gospel.
Carlo_Carrera is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 08:16 PM
  #9  
Carlo_Carrera
2011 Rennlist F1 Champion
Rennlist Member
 
Carlo_Carrera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nearby
Posts: 4,466
Default

Originally Posted by jumper5836 View Post
My conclusion when I was looking into it, was that the structural reinforcement was to provide more support for the seat belt, may have been crash testing changes they had to adhere to or for upcoming cab model as well as they modified the seat pan area to fit in the m96 motor and tranny for the C4S model. The 2001 turbo body was structurally reinforced vs the narrow body 996.1 though marketing only came out in 2002 for new new 996.2 which may be confusing the issue but the 01 was also renforced minus the b piller and seat pan change that came in 2002.
I personally like my 2002 C4S interior with glove box and flat buttons but my 2001 turbo really doesn't look that bad, very minor detail and you get used to using the side pockets instead of the glove box.

01, 02, 03 owner's manual lists the weight as 3394.9 lbs
02 brochure states curb weight at 3395lb,s the 04 brochure states curb weight at 3505 lbs for the coupe (so something here added some wieght to it)



2002 added

Lockable glove box (Map pocket below steering wheel deleted)

Cup holders & larger AC vents
"Together with the integration of a new cup holder, the centre vent has also been re-designed.
The cross-sectional area has been increased by 20%, which improves interior ventilation."

Bose (analog) sound system standard

Flat non-glossy buttons, light switch

Redesign instrument cluster with on-board computer (former 259) standard

Hollow wheels (lighter then solid wheels -15 lbs)

Different seat and memory functions, changes to the alarm system, and PCM differences

Optional X50 package added
My 2001 came with hollow spoke wheels so I think this was a mid-2001 change. My car was a late 2001 MY build.
Carlo_Carrera is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 09:05 PM
  #10  
993GT
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
993GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: not the GTA, Southern Ontario, CAN.
Posts: 5,232
Default

Porsche says differently
weight added in bodyshell,but removed in hollow spoke's..?
Porsche has always been a bit 'loose' with weight numbers


Originally Posted by Carlo_Carrera View Post
My 2001 has this reinforcement in the roof. So I don't think there is much of difference in the bodies pre/post 2002 other than the seat pan, glove box and a slight change in the B pillar for the new style seat belt in which steel was removed to fit it.

If the 2001 body was different and less stiff then all the suspension development done for it would have to be thrown out the window and redone for 2002. That is not how Porsche, or any other car manufacture, does business. Wasting all that development for for one model year. Also all 996 Turbos are listed as being the same weight. How it this possible if 2002+ have more steel in their bodies?

I have talked at length with several Porsche employees about this subject and they all say the 2001 chassis is the same as 2002+. One even checked the part numbers for me, the chassis part numbers other than the B pillar are exactly the same 2001 to 2002. In fact the inproved stiffer chassis made for 2001 turbo was spread to the rest of the 996 normally aspirated line in 2002. You can see it in the part numbers. That is where the misunderstanding comes from. Some magazines at the time reported this correctly but for some reason the continued Essence misreport is the one some take as gospel.
Attached Images   
993GT is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 09:49 PM
  #11  
"02996ttx50
Super User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,305
Default

i haven't yet found the old porsche issued docs but i remember reading them. hard to find, as they're as old as this "( non ) debate but quickly found this:

http://www.evo.co.uk/buying/buyinggu...996_turbo.html

As standard the Turbo had 420bhp at 6000rpm. In 2002 you could order the X50 upgrade package, which pushed the output up to 450bhp with different turbos, intercoolers, ECU tune and a reinforced gearbox. The 2002 model, sometimes known as the mk2, also saw body revisions which increased stiffness, improving handling and crash safety.

In 2003 the flop-top arrived, its reinforced B-pillars and other mods raising the weight by 70kg though it still posted near identical performance figures.
The swansong was the 2005 Turbo S model, which had the X50 set-up as standard and also had ceramic composite brakes (PCCB) which work best when hot, making it ideal for trackdays. The six-speed manual is a typically good Porsche box but many Turbos were sold with the Tiptronic semi-auto. Fuel economy is good for such a rapid car – high-20s on a gentle run is not unheard of, but most owners average around 20mpg. So that’s the 996 Turbo, the sensible supercar!
"02996ttx50 is online now  
Old 02-05-2015, 10:02 PM
  #12  
Carlo_Carrera
2011 Rennlist F1 Champion
Rennlist Member
 
Carlo_Carrera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nearby
Posts: 4,466
Default

Originally Posted by "02996ttx50 View Post
i haven't yet found the old porsche issued docs but i remember reading them. hard to find, as they're as old as this "( non ) debate but quickly found this:

http://www.evo.co.uk/buying/buyinggu...996_turbo.html

As standard the Turbo had 420bhp at 6000rpm. In 2002 you could order the X50 upgrade package, which pushed the output up to 450bhp with different turbos, intercoolers, ECU tune and a reinforced gearbox. The 2002 model, sometimes known as the mk2, also saw body revisions which increased stiffness, improving handling and crash safety.

In 2003 the flop-top arrived, its reinforced B-pillars and other mods raising the weight by 70kg though it still posted near identical performance figures.
The swansong was the 2005 Turbo S model, which had the X50 set-up as standard and also had ceramic composite brakes (PCCB) which work best when hot, making it ideal for trackdays. The six-speed manual is a typically good Porsche box but many Turbos were sold with the Tiptronic semi-auto. Fuel economy is good for such a rapid car ľ high-20s on a gentle run is not unheard of, but most owners average around 20mpg. So thatĺs the 996 Turbo, the sensible supercar!
The 2001 turbo chassis in the first of mk2 996 chassis. Evo is just repeating the same mistake Essence made. I have done the homework.
Carlo_Carrera is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 10:03 PM
  #13  
jumper5836
Super User
 
jumper5836's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: great white north
Posts: 8,130
Default

Originally Posted by Carlo_Carrera View Post
The 2001 turbo chassis in the first of mk2 996 chassis. Evo is just repeating the same mistake Essence made. I have done the homework.
I agree, just market hooha about the 996.2 from 996.1, the 2001 was a 996.2
jumper5836 is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 10:06 PM
  #14  
Carlo_Carrera
2011 Rennlist F1 Champion
Rennlist Member
 
Carlo_Carrera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nearby
Posts: 4,466
Default

Originally Posted by 993GT View Post
Porsche says differently
weight added in bodyshell,but removed in hollow spoke's..?
Porsche has always been a bit 'loose' with weight numbers
As I wrote my 2001 came from the factiry with, and still has, hollow spoke wheels so that is one myth dismissed.

As for loose with the weights the MY 2001-2003 are all the same weight but the 2004 is heavier. Why is that? And what does it prove?

I do not understand what these part sheets for 2005 are suppose to prove. We are talking about a 2001 to 2002 change.

Last edited by Carlo_Carrera; 02-05-2015 at 10:30 PM.
Carlo_Carrera is offline  
Old 02-05-2015, 10:07 PM
  #15  
Carlo_Carrera
2011 Rennlist F1 Champion
Rennlist Member
 
Carlo_Carrera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nearby
Posts: 4,466
Default

Originally Posted by jumper5836 View Post
I agree, just market hooha about the 996.2 from 996.1, the 2001 was a 996.2
Exactly.
Carlo_Carrera is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 2002 Turbo changes from 2001 model


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: