year and differences
!["02996ttx50's Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%23759d7b' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>"</text></svg>)
08-05-2015, 01:54 PM
#32
Nordschleife Master
Taken from link
1998 Porsche 911
The 2001 Turbo exceeds the 25% stated in 2002 marketing with a 49 percent torsional stiffness, 82 bending stiffness
rigidity history
'88 911 7k nm/deg (measurement by burgermeister)
964 11.5k nm/deg (993 was 20% stiffer)
993 13.9k nm/deg (996 was 45% stiffer)
996 20.1k nm/deg (Excellence was Expected p.1381)
996.2 25.1k nm/deg (996.2 was 25% stiffer)
Porsche 911 Turbo 996: 27k Nm/deg
997 33k nm/deg (8 percent increase in torsional rigidity and a 40 percent increase in overall chassis stiffness.)
991 40k nm/deg (porsche used 20% torsionally stiffer as a design target, has claimed "up to 25% stiffer")
also
Porsche 959 12.9k Nm/deg
Porsche Carrera GT - 26k Nm/deg
987 Boxster 16.5k NM/deg
981 Boxster 23k NM/deg (40% more)
987 Cayman 30k NM/deg
981 Cayman 40k NM/deg
The 996.1 was 45% stronger over the 993 which had a 993 13.9k nm/deg strength, the 996.2 was 25% strengthened over the 996.1.
The 2001 Turbo Shell was increased by 4% torsionally and 32% bending stiffness over a 996.1, I believe this 4%+32% equate to the 25% stated in 2002 marking info. Which if you try look at the rigidity history seems the 27k Nm/deg for the 996 Turbo fits is place vs the 996.2 non turbo shells. If the 02 Turbo was 25% more then the 01 that would make it very close to the 997 shell which doesn't seem reasonable.
Porsche has achieved significant gains in body stiffness over the previous-generation Porsche 911 Turbo, increasing torsional stiffness in the 2001 model by 49 percent and bending stiffness by 82 percent.
1998 Porsche 911
1998 Porsche 911
Despite larger dimensions, Porsche engineers were able to built Porsche 911 996, 110lb lighter than its predecessor while torsional stiffness increased 45 percent and bending stiffness increased 50 percent.
Despite larger dimensions, Porsche engineers were able to built Porsche 911 996, 110lb lighter than its predecessor while torsional stiffness increased 45 percent and bending stiffness increased 50 percent.
The 1998 Porsche 996 coupe has a torsional rigidity of 20,120 N-m deg^-1 (Ludvigson, Carl, Excellence was Expected, page 1381). This is 45% greater than 993 (Becker, Clauspeter, Porsche 911 -- The Evolution, page 121).
rigidity history
'88 911 7k nm/deg (measurement by burgermeister)
964 11.5k nm/deg (993 was 20% stiffer)
993 13.9k nm/deg (996 was 45% stiffer)
996 20.1k nm/deg (Excellence was Expected p.1381)
996.2 25.1k nm/deg (996.2 was 25% stiffer)
Porsche 911 Turbo 996: 27k Nm/deg
997 33k nm/deg (8 percent increase in torsional rigidity and a 40 percent increase in overall chassis stiffness.)
991 40k nm/deg (porsche used 20% torsionally stiffer as a design target, has claimed "up to 25% stiffer")
also
Porsche 959 12.9k Nm/deg
Porsche Carrera GT - 26k Nm/deg
987 Boxster 16.5k NM/deg
981 Boxster 23k NM/deg (40% more)
987 Cayman 30k NM/deg
981 Cayman 40k NM/deg
The 996.1 was 45% stronger over the 993 which had a 993 13.9k nm/deg strength, the 996.2 was 25% strengthened over the 996.1.
The 2001 Turbo Shell was increased by 4% torsionally and 32% bending stiffness over a 996.1, I believe this 4%+32% equate to the 25% stated in 2002 marking info. Which if you try look at the rigidity history seems the 27k Nm/deg for the 996 Turbo fits is place vs the 996.2 non turbo shells. If the 02 Turbo was 25% more then the 01 that would make it very close to the 997 shell which doesn't seem reasonable.
Last edited by jumper5836; 08-05-2015 at 02:41 PM.
08-05-2015, 02:02 PM
#33
Nordschleife Master
given you cannot produce any documents showing it was a literary mistake(!?) and many here and elsewhere have proffered porsche's own documents showing the 996 turbo was indeed torsionally stiffened for the model years 02 onward, i'm going to stay with PORSCHE'S DOCUMENTS ( absent DOCKuments ) as statements of fact, rather than your continual fall back position and argument and the highly controvertible and contrarian "evidence" that posits that because "well my "friend" at pag says,.. and i know their literature to be wrong" etc ad nauseum and all to no avail.
LOL
PS urban LEGEND. Roman LEGION lol
LOL
PS urban LEGEND. Roman LEGION lol
Also, the 2002 uses magical metal that makes everything work better given that the only difference is as I stated.
08-05-2015, 02:45 PM
#34
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-turb...1-model-5.html
08-05-2015, 02:56 PM
#35
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Even if there wasn't an informal admission by my friend at PCNA confirming Porsche's mistake in the literature, the idea that Porsche would design the 996 Turbo and one model year later make the car 25% stiffer makes no sense at all.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
P.S. I'd rather have a missed word in spellcheck than to not understand capitalization, and not be able to write in complete English words.
08-05-2015, 03:34 PM
#36
what makes "sense" is indeed the notion ( supported by their own technical data ) that there were indeed "improvements" made with the structural rigidity increase being paramount among them. it's called an "improvement" and one generation or iteration to the next (mk1 to mk2) would quite reasonably see "improvements" as stated in their white papers, if one allows any "sense" to enter this debate?
I like my glove box! I understand you do not use yours. you should try it! only the handle breaks occasionally. love it though,.. got all kinds of stuff in there.
so in conclusion, the idea that an improvement over the mk1 to the mk2 would have "improvements" makes more sense than the dissemination of erroneous or false data from a manufacturer with as much prestige and history ( in addition one known for being as "conservative" with their numbers and assertions ) as Porsche.
so that's what occurs to me regarding your ability to make sense of any of this. your continuing argumentative drivel is legion and well established here. so there ya go. back on "ignore". xoxo
08-05-2015, 03:42 PM
#37
Drifting
They are the same but if it makes someone feel as if they have a benefit by owning a 2002 plus let them enjoy it. The bottom line is 95% plus of the people that own these cars drive them on the street where arguably it would never be noticed one way or the other. For the biggest part watching the 996tt forum turning into the rice-a-roni gang is sad but take solace that with prices rebounding somewhat= hopefully someday it will be a bad memory lol.
08-05-2015, 03:46 PM
#38
They are the same but if it makes someone feel as if they have a benefit by owning a 2002 plus let them enjoy it. The bottom line is 95% plus of the people that own these cars drive them on the street where arguably it would never be noticed one way or the other. For the biggest part watching the 996tt forum turning into the rice-a-roni gang is sad but take solace that with prices rebounding somewhat= hopefully someday it will be a bad memory lol.
08-05-2015, 04:12 PM
#39
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I have nothing I want/need to put in my 996 Turbo glove box.
08-05-2015, 04:22 PM
#42
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
i know we're nitpicking at this point, but please explain this.
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-turb...l#post12017736
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-turb...l#post12017736
08-05-2015, 04:30 PM
#43
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Carlo_Carrera nails it in this post he made in a different thread.
As evidenced by Carlo's information from Porsche employees, it's not just my friend at PCNA that knows the truth.
As evidenced by Carlo's information from Porsche employees, it's not just my friend at PCNA that knows the truth.
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.
08-05-2015, 06:31 PM
#44
i know we're nitpicking at this point, but please explain this.
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-turb...l#post12017736
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-turb...l#post12017736
though some will surely try 
08-05-2015, 10:28 PM
#45
it doesnt help that the purple pieced items in the graphic's part numbers show 02 onwards in the notes of the parts catalog and actually have an updated part number for when they were reused in the 997