If Cayennes are only 20% Porsche and 80% VW
05-10-2003, 01:53 AM
#46
I had a guy tell me recently that the 993 TT was not a real Porsche. He "doesn't look at anything later than 1989." Of course, this same guy was driving a 1973 Carrera RS....REPLICA.
It's amusing how owners of the Porsche marque carry on these debates. They seem to be unique in the automotive world. As someone once said, the only "real Porsche" is the one parked in your garage.
It's amusing how owners of the Porsche marque carry on these debates. They seem to be unique in the automotive world. As someone once said, the only "real Porsche" is the one parked in your garage.
05-10-2003, 09:24 AM
#47
Cap'n Insane the Engorged
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Todd I hate to burst your bubble, but the "rear-engined Boxster" is vastly superior to your 993 in every category. (significantly lighter, has a far lower drag coefficient, much more torque in a wider flatter band, better gearing, higher redline, more horsepower, better suspension, PSM, better climate control, more room -front and rear, stops faster, handles better, accelerates faster....) Your car has something "intangible" because that's all there is left. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />
05-10-2003, 11:15 AM
#48
Three Wheelin'
<img border="0" alt="[offtopic]" title="" src="graemlins/offtopic.gif" />
Rob,
First, I hope you realize that my "rear-engined Boxster" comment was in jest.
Don't worry, my bubble remains intact.
The various merits of the 996 and 993 have been debated thoroughly, to say the least. Nevertheless, do you honestly believe the 996 is better than the 993 in every category, as you claim?
The weight difference has become very small. The '99 996 was approx. 150 lbs lighter than the 993, but that advantage has been virtually eliminated in the newer 996s. According to PCNA, my 993 Carrera Coupe weighs 3064 lbs, while an '03 996 Carrera Coupe weighs 3025 lbs -- 39 lbs is hardly a significant difference. Of course, your car, being both a C4 and a Cab, is a real porker <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Personally, I don't care that the 996 has a "better" climate control or more interior room -- it's a sports car, not a sedan. The 993's climate control keeps me plenty warm in the winter (and almost certainly produces heat faster than a 996 thanks to air-cooling) and cools me sufficiently on 95 degree days. I don't need excess capacity. Also, I have enough room in the 993, so again, why do I need more? I honestly prefer the smaller size of the 993 -- it's part of what contributes to the more intimate and involving driving experience, IMO.
The 996, being a newer development, should outperform the earlier 993. For the most part it does, but the differences are quite small unless you're on a track. C&D did 0-60 in 4.7, 0-100 in 12.1, and the 1/4 mile in 13.3 at 104 in their '95 test car. The skidpad and slalom figures are also comparable to the 996. I acknowledge that the 996 is quicker around a track -- you must get something in return for the bland exterior appearance and the overstyled, plasticky interior with those miniscule instruments
On a somewhat more objective notion, however, the build quality of the 993 is simply leagues above that of the 996. The late 996s have improved, but they are still not even close to the level of the 993. This is VERY tangible -- all one has to do is close the doors of the cars, look at the fit and finish of the interior, etc. The 996 Turbo, GT2 and GT3 use a different engine, based on the old air-cooled engine, than the other 996s because the standard 996 engine is not strong enough! There have been and continue to be many 996 engine failures. Porsche never had to warn 993 owners against taking their cars to the track. The 996 is much cheaper to build, and it shows, unfortunately. These are all very tangible issues. Even staunch 996 supporters who have owned both readily acknowledge that 996 build quality is markedly inferior to that of the 993. My 8 year old, 51,000 mile 993 feels more solid and free of squeaks/rattles than any of the several 996s I've driven.
One question: why do you claim that the 996 has better gearing?
<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />
Rob,
First, I hope you realize that my "rear-engined Boxster" comment was in jest.
Don't worry, my bubble remains intact.
The various merits of the 996 and 993 have been debated thoroughly, to say the least. Nevertheless, do you honestly believe the 996 is better than the 993 in every category, as you claim?
The weight difference has become very small. The '99 996 was approx. 150 lbs lighter than the 993, but that advantage has been virtually eliminated in the newer 996s. According to PCNA, my 993 Carrera Coupe weighs 3064 lbs, while an '03 996 Carrera Coupe weighs 3025 lbs -- 39 lbs is hardly a significant difference. Of course, your car, being both a C4 and a Cab, is a real porker <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Personally, I don't care that the 996 has a "better" climate control or more interior room -- it's a sports car, not a sedan. The 993's climate control keeps me plenty warm in the winter (and almost certainly produces heat faster than a 996 thanks to air-cooling) and cools me sufficiently on 95 degree days. I don't need excess capacity. Also, I have enough room in the 993, so again, why do I need more? I honestly prefer the smaller size of the 993 -- it's part of what contributes to the more intimate and involving driving experience, IMO.
The 996, being a newer development, should outperform the earlier 993. For the most part it does, but the differences are quite small unless you're on a track. C&D did 0-60 in 4.7, 0-100 in 12.1, and the 1/4 mile in 13.3 at 104 in their '95 test car. The skidpad and slalom figures are also comparable to the 996. I acknowledge that the 996 is quicker around a track -- you must get something in return for the bland exterior appearance and the overstyled, plasticky interior with those miniscule instruments
On a somewhat more objective notion, however, the build quality of the 993 is simply leagues above that of the 996. The late 996s have improved, but they are still not even close to the level of the 993. This is VERY tangible -- all one has to do is close the doors of the cars, look at the fit and finish of the interior, etc. The 996 Turbo, GT2 and GT3 use a different engine, based on the old air-cooled engine, than the other 996s because the standard 996 engine is not strong enough! There have been and continue to be many 996 engine failures. Porsche never had to warn 993 owners against taking their cars to the track. The 996 is much cheaper to build, and it shows, unfortunately. These are all very tangible issues. Even staunch 996 supporters who have owned both readily acknowledge that 996 build quality is markedly inferior to that of the 993. My 8 year old, 51,000 mile 993 feels more solid and free of squeaks/rattles than any of the several 996s I've driven.
One question: why do you claim that the 996 has better gearing?
<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />
05-10-2003, 11:41 AM
#49
Addict
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chevy Chase, MD
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this thread begins to morph and ape those countless numbers of threads debating the relative merits and "Porscheness" of various Porsche models, I'll try to sum up a couple of things that seem to be indisputable, and we can all agree to disagree from there.
1. Porsche contributed the lion's share of R&D to the creation of the Cayenne and Touareg.
2. The Cayenne is assembled by Porsche.
3. For a number of reasons, the Cayenne has the greatest portion of non-Porsche parts of any Porsche in history. That is noteworthy, though not per se damning (for the following reason).
3. The Cayenne has an unparalleled collection of performance and sporting characteristics in one SUV.
4. Porsche has not been involved in top flight racing for a number of years, in part (of debatable size) due to the Cayenne. However, the 996 GT3 has been kicking a_s in motorsport with factory assistance all over the world for four years (but for a brief knockdown after BMW's V8 M3 with GTS specs "impermissibly" dropped down to box in a lighter class and ignoring the Ferrari 360's that have a greater winning percentage in FIA N-GT over the last two years )
4. There are fundamental differences in the materials, manufacturing, and assembly processes for each Porsche model, though the greatest differences exist between pre-993 models, the 993 model series, and 986/996 models. These differences produced cars of different build characteristics (note I didn't say build quality, which can be reasonably debated) and resale values.
5. At its introduction, for a host of reasons, the 996 shared its front end with the Boxster.
6. The 996 performs incrementally better than the 993 in most performance areas, although the 993 was more track ready than the 996 (and 986) out of the box due to its superior dry sump oiling system and highly evolved air cooled engine. However, the 996/986 engine series is relatively "early" in its development and no doubt, if it sticks with it, Porsche will evolve it to a perfected state.
7. The 996 GT3 and Turbo engines are derived from the 964/993/GT1 engines, not the 996/986 engine.
8. In the latest sales snapshot, Porsche's overall sales are 40% up over the same period last year because Cayenne sales have not only offset sharp drops in 996 and Boxster sales but also added 40% more vehicle sales.
9. Passionate debates about the relative merits among all Porsche models will always occur, are indeed fun, and do not occur with the INTENT to molest, assault, or otherwise discourage new Porsche owners from visiting this or any Rennlst forum. They have their times, places, and appropriate forums.
What other INDISPUTABLE facts have I left out?
1. Porsche contributed the lion's share of R&D to the creation of the Cayenne and Touareg.
2. The Cayenne is assembled by Porsche.
3. For a number of reasons, the Cayenne has the greatest portion of non-Porsche parts of any Porsche in history. That is noteworthy, though not per se damning (for the following reason).
3. The Cayenne has an unparalleled collection of performance and sporting characteristics in one SUV.
4. Porsche has not been involved in top flight racing for a number of years, in part (of debatable size) due to the Cayenne. However, the 996 GT3 has been kicking a_s in motorsport with factory assistance all over the world for four years (but for a brief knockdown after BMW's V8 M3 with GTS specs "impermissibly" dropped down to box in a lighter class and ignoring the Ferrari 360's that have a greater winning percentage in FIA N-GT over the last two years
) 4. There are fundamental differences in the materials, manufacturing, and assembly processes for each Porsche model, though the greatest differences exist between pre-993 models, the 993 model series, and 986/996 models. These differences produced cars of different build characteristics (note I didn't say build quality, which can be reasonably debated) and resale values.
5. At its introduction, for a host of reasons, the 996 shared its front end with the Boxster.
6. The 996 performs incrementally better than the 993 in most performance areas, although the 993 was more track ready than the 996 (and 986) out of the box due to its superior dry sump oiling system and highly evolved air cooled engine. However, the 996/986 engine series is relatively "early" in its development and no doubt, if it sticks with it, Porsche will evolve it to a perfected state.
7. The 996 GT3 and Turbo engines are derived from the 964/993/GT1 engines, not the 996/986 engine.
8. In the latest sales snapshot, Porsche's overall sales are 40% up over the same period last year because Cayenne sales have not only offset sharp drops in 996 and Boxster sales but also added 40% more vehicle sales.
9. Passionate debates about the relative merits among all Porsche models will always occur, are indeed fun, and do not occur with the INTENT to molest, assault, or otherwise discourage new Porsche owners from visiting this or any Rennlst forum. They have their times, places, and appropriate forums.
What other INDISPUTABLE facts have I left out?
05-10-2003, 12:15 PM
#50
Addict
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Maybe I did not spell it out enough. I will explain. Ferry Porsche was behind the SUV. It was his idea an dproject. He wanted what is now known as the Cayenne. He personally approached Mercedes with the intent of getting into a partnership with them and building a SUV in the USA. These negotiations officially started in 1986. It was throwqn back and forth until in 1996 Mercedes finally said no. Porsche then approached VW and asked them. The Cayenne is the result.
Now how do I know this. It is simple it is all in the archives at Mercedes. It was also on the internet just after Al Gore invented it. The minutes from these meetings, the media reports etc etc. This was many years ago. I agree I have a couple of advantages over most on this forum.
I live but three hours from Stuttgart, I speak and read German and I love to research.
Whether people like it or not Ferry Porsches' dream was to be an automobile manufacturing firma of the same scale of production as BMW and Audi. He was never truly happy being a niche manufacturer. He says this in many interviews including in print. It is all on the public record if you want to go looking.
The Cayenne is part of that dream. He tried mass production before. Ala 914, 924 and 944.
I also wish to point out that there is no connection between Ferry Porsche and the WWII tractor business that his father was involved in via VW. Well apart from the fact that Ferry may hav eactually lifted the designs from dad. The Porsche tractor program started after WWII and after the death of Ferdinand Porsche Snr. The founders of Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG are Louise and Ferry Porsche.
I also failed to answer a question of Christians.
Yes Gail and I will be attending Le Mans this year. If our hotel is booked for us. Hello Debra.
Ciao,
Adrian
911C4
PS: I also learned something else today. The American electric autombile manufacturer Columbia manufactured a car in 1900 using the electric wheel and hub design of F. Porsche Snr. The car was not a success because of the batteries required but it shows how even way back then technology was shared.
Now how do I know this. It is simple it is all in the archives at Mercedes. It was also on the internet just after Al Gore invented it. The minutes from these meetings, the media reports etc etc. This was many years ago. I agree I have a couple of advantages over most on this forum.
I live but three hours from Stuttgart, I speak and read German and I love to research.
Whether people like it or not Ferry Porsches' dream was to be an automobile manufacturing firma of the same scale of production as BMW and Audi. He was never truly happy being a niche manufacturer. He says this in many interviews including in print. It is all on the public record if you want to go looking.
The Cayenne is part of that dream. He tried mass production before. Ala 914, 924 and 944.
I also wish to point out that there is no connection between Ferry Porsche and the WWII tractor business that his father was involved in via VW. Well apart from the fact that Ferry may hav eactually lifted the designs from dad. The Porsche tractor program started after WWII and after the death of Ferdinand Porsche Snr. The founders of Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG are Louise and Ferry Porsche.
I also failed to answer a question of Christians.
Yes Gail and I will be attending Le Mans this year. If our hotel is booked for us. Hello Debra.
Ciao,
Adrian
911C4
PS: I also learned something else today. The American electric autombile manufacturer Columbia manufactured a car in 1900 using the electric wheel and hub design of F. Porsche Snr. The car was not a success because of the batteries required but it shows how even way back then technology was shared.
05-10-2003, 01:24 PM
#51
Addict
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chevy Chase, MD
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adrian, do you know the source of the earlier marketing tag line of Porsche's that went something like ... "We aim to build cars that are everything to someone, rather than something for everyone." ? Was it a pure creation of the marketing folks or was that a sentiment harbored by Ferry?
Also, the notion of "mass production" is used to mean different things in different contexts. On the one hand, it's often used to mean production in high volume numbers. On the other hand, it is used to mean producing something for a wide variety of consumers. Which mass production do you think Ferry was after? Of course, the easiest way to achieve the former is to do the latter, but that may change the essential nature of the automobile.
For the record, I'm pleased that the Cayenne (especially the Turbo) sales are initially strong.
Also, the notion of "mass production" is used to mean different things in different contexts. On the one hand, it's often used to mean production in high volume numbers. On the other hand, it is used to mean producing something for a wide variety of consumers. Which mass production do you think Ferry was after? Of course, the easiest way to achieve the former is to do the latter, but that may change the essential nature of the automobile.
For the record, I'm pleased that the Cayenne (especially the Turbo) sales are initially strong.
05-10-2003, 04:09 PM
#52
Cap'n Insane the Engorged
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Yes it's off topic, the "rear engined boxster" comment may have struck a nerve. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Not much going on in this forum anyway though.
Yesterday I was reading about the difference between the M96 oil sump and other 911s. The M96 is considered to be a "semi" dry-sump, a hybrid of the two styles with the "tank" incorporated with the engine and not mounted to the chassis with external rubber oil lines like the earlier 911s. This design not only yields a manufacturing efficiency, it also eliminates another source of oil leakage which plagued earlier 911s.
In reading, I came across several 993 v. 996 threads and I couldn't help but notice the elitism some 993 owners exhibit. Then I come over to the Cayenne forum and see it here too; hence, my initial comment.
I really like the way 993s look without the U.S. required front bumperettes, but that's subjective. I prefer the 996 interior, also subjective, mine's hardly "plasticky." I did need to add several options to get it that way though. Yes, full leather should be standard in an $85k base priced car.
When the 996 came out I hated it. Over time I've come to appreciate the lines of the 996, now the 993s look "old" to me. When I was in the market for a newer 911, I drove both a lot and I couldn't deny the superiority of the 996. The very first thing I did to mine was put headlight covers on it so it looked more like an older 911.
A lot of guys go through great expense to eliminate 39 lbs, which you feel is insignifigant. My MY01 C4 cab weighs a mere 11 lbs more then your 993 C2 Coupe. The driver weighs 165 lbs.
I know plenty of NA 996 owners who track their cars regularly and have never heard of anyone being warned not to. Some have even had warranty work done!! Look in the 996 section. What cars are at the PDE? Porsche still promotes how track ready the car is in it's brochure.
As far as build quality goes we've both owned '80s SCs, so you must be aware that build quality has been slipping for last 20 years. 993s have certainly had their fair share of problems. There are several 996 rennlisters who are pushing 100k miles on their 996s with no major problems. Just an FYI, Porsche is number 2 in the recent J.D Power and Associates initial quality study. <a href="http://members.rennlist.com/robinwa/2003028afull.gif" target="_blank">SOURCE</a>
In reference to gearing, in my reading I came across several U.S. 993 owners who complained that first gear is too long, some had it switched out to RoW standards.
Back on topic. If you do a search of my previous posts in this forum you'll see I've hardly been a big time Pepper supporter. I still think the front end is very fugly. After driving it I was quite impressed, but still disappointed with the quality of the interior for the price. I've come to the conclusion that the Pepper in no way takes the enjoyment away I receive from my P-car, nor do the the newer Porsches take away from the enjoyment you get from yours. It's a new era and the company is doing what it needs to do to remain independent. I'm also happy that the initial Pepper sales are strong.
<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />
Yesterday I was reading about the difference between the M96 oil sump and other 911s. The M96 is considered to be a "semi" dry-sump, a hybrid of the two styles with the "tank" incorporated with the engine and not mounted to the chassis with external rubber oil lines like the earlier 911s. This design not only yields a manufacturing efficiency, it also eliminates another source of oil leakage which plagued earlier 911s.
In reading, I came across several 993 v. 996 threads and I couldn't help but notice the elitism some 993 owners exhibit. Then I come over to the Cayenne forum and see it here too; hence, my initial comment.
I really like the way 993s look without the U.S. required front bumperettes, but that's subjective. I prefer the 996 interior, also subjective, mine's hardly "plasticky." I did need to add several options to get it that way though. Yes, full leather should be standard in an $85k base priced car.
When the 996 came out I hated it. Over time I've come to appreciate the lines of the 996, now the 993s look "old" to me. When I was in the market for a newer 911, I drove both a lot and I couldn't deny the superiority of the 996. The very first thing I did to mine was put headlight covers on it so it looked more like an older 911.
A lot of guys go through great expense to eliminate 39 lbs, which you feel is insignifigant. My MY01 C4 cab weighs a mere 11 lbs more then your 993 C2 Coupe. The driver weighs 165 lbs.
I know plenty of NA 996 owners who track their cars regularly and have never heard of anyone being warned not to. Some have even had warranty work done!! Look in the 996 section. What cars are at the PDE? Porsche still promotes how track ready the car is in it's brochure.
As far as build quality goes we've both owned '80s SCs, so you must be aware that build quality has been slipping for last 20 years. 993s have certainly had their fair share of problems. There are several 996 rennlisters who are pushing 100k miles on their 996s with no major problems. Just an FYI, Porsche is number 2 in the recent J.D Power and Associates initial quality study. <a href="http://members.rennlist.com/robinwa/2003028afull.gif" target="_blank">SOURCE</a>
In reference to gearing, in my reading I came across several U.S. 993 owners who complained that first gear is too long, some had it switched out to RoW standards.
Back on topic. If you do a search of my previous posts in this forum you'll see I've hardly been a big time Pepper supporter. I still think the front end is very fugly. After driving it I was quite impressed, but still disappointed with the quality of the interior for the price. I've come to the conclusion that the Pepper in no way takes the enjoyment away I receive from my P-car, nor do the the newer Porsches take away from the enjoyment you get from yours. It's a new era and the company is doing what it needs to do to remain independent. I'm also happy that the initial Pepper sales are strong.
<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />
05-10-2003, 07:29 PM
#53
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the build quality was noticeably better in the 993 era is because the same basic platform had been built for 35 consecutive years. More than enough time to get it right!
If any of the current platforms is around even half that long, it too will be thought of as dated but of exquisite assembly quality.
In the case of the 996 and 986 cars you can definitely see improvement in the recent body panels and especially paint relative to the early cars.
If any of the current platforms is around even half that long, it too will be thought of as dated but of exquisite assembly quality.
In the case of the 996 and 986 cars you can definitely see improvement in the recent body panels and especially paint relative to the early cars.
05-11-2003, 11:10 AM
#54
Addict
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Lead Rennlist
Technical Advisor
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Dear John,
I really cannot comment on what Ferry Porsche thought or wanted. Remember he did not run the company from 1972 and the various CEOs from this time onwards were the real bosses. Marketing departments do their own thing. If you read the US owners manual about Porsche owners being a special breed is evidence of this.
Ferry Porsches opinions on mass production are on the record. He dreamed of producing lots of Porsches at all levels of affordability. Like BMW do.
It is a good job that Cayenne sales are reasonably strong because 911 and Boxster sales are badly down. Clear evidence that the Cayenne has broken into a different market.
Ciao,
Adrian
911C4
I really cannot comment on what Ferry Porsche thought or wanted. Remember he did not run the company from 1972 and the various CEOs from this time onwards were the real bosses. Marketing departments do their own thing. If you read the US owners manual about Porsche owners being a special breed is evidence of this.
Ferry Porsches opinions on mass production are on the record. He dreamed of producing lots of Porsches at all levels of affordability. Like BMW do.
It is a good job that Cayenne sales are reasonably strong because 911 and Boxster sales are badly down. Clear evidence that the Cayenne has broken into a different market.
Ciao,
Adrian
911C4
05-11-2003, 05:42 PM
#55
Three Wheelin'
John H,
Excellent posts. The "everything to someone rather than something for everyone" ads were among my favorites. I fear that this is changing.
Adrian,
You may well have access to more information regarding Ferry's ambitions than I, but I have read too many conflicting versions of his feelings towards entering non-sports car markets to be comfortable accepting any of those accounts. Many say he is "spinning in his grave" over the Cayenne, others say he would have approved of it. I simply don't have enough information to draw a conclusion I'm comfortable with.
Rob,
I hope your struck nerve has relaxed. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
The semi-dry sump of the 996 engine, at least in its early form, had some oil starvation problems while undergoing sustained cornering on the track. It simply did not work as well in track conditions as the true dry-sump system that the air-cooled engines utilized. Porsche warned owners of these cars to avoid sustained high-G situations -- track days. Porsche developed a modification that could be installed to alleviate this failing, but at considerable cost to the owner (well over $1,000, if memory serves), and advised owners to avoid the track without this mod. That is hard to swallow to someone who took pleasure in his 911 being track-ready from the factory -- among the things that made Porsches special to me. The later 996s are better in this regard.
The SC's build quality is superb. Mine simply refuses to acknowledge its age. I saw one with 486,000 miles several years ago. There was an article in a French magazine about a 993 owner who had done roughly 286,000 miles with no major mechanical work.
It's good to see the JD Power results. The materials and build quality issues are not addressed in that study, however. I was happy to see the JD Power report a few years ago on the "most reliable 5 year old cars." The 993 was at the top of the list.
The US and Swiss market 993s used slightly taller gearing than RoW cars, I believe for drive-by noise standards. All '97-on 993s used the taller gears.
Nick,
The 964 and 993 really don't share platforms with the earlier 911s. Under the skin, the 964 and 993 are very different from the earlier cars. The different build quality "characteristics" (thanks, John H <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) are primarily due to changes of design, manufacturing techniques, and IMO, philosophy.
Excellent posts. The "everything to someone rather than something for everyone" ads were among my favorites. I fear that this is changing.
Adrian,
You may well have access to more information regarding Ferry's ambitions than I, but I have read too many conflicting versions of his feelings towards entering non-sports car markets to be comfortable accepting any of those accounts. Many say he is "spinning in his grave" over the Cayenne, others say he would have approved of it. I simply don't have enough information to draw a conclusion I'm comfortable with.
Rob,
I hope your struck nerve has relaxed. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
The semi-dry sump of the 996 engine, at least in its early form, had some oil starvation problems while undergoing sustained cornering on the track. It simply did not work as well in track conditions as the true dry-sump system that the air-cooled engines utilized. Porsche warned owners of these cars to avoid sustained high-G situations -- track days. Porsche developed a modification that could be installed to alleviate this failing, but at considerable cost to the owner (well over $1,000, if memory serves), and advised owners to avoid the track without this mod. That is hard to swallow to someone who took pleasure in his 911 being track-ready from the factory -- among the things that made Porsches special to me. The later 996s are better in this regard.
The SC's build quality is superb. Mine simply refuses to acknowledge its age. I saw one with 486,000 miles several years ago. There was an article in a French magazine about a 993 owner who had done roughly 286,000 miles with no major mechanical work.
It's good to see the JD Power results. The materials and build quality issues are not addressed in that study, however. I was happy to see the JD Power report a few years ago on the "most reliable 5 year old cars." The 993 was at the top of the list.
The US and Swiss market 993s used slightly taller gearing than RoW cars, I believe for drive-by noise standards. All '97-on 993s used the taller gears.
Nick,
The 964 and 993 really don't share platforms with the earlier 911s. Under the skin, the 964 and 993 are very different from the earlier cars. The different build quality "characteristics" (thanks, John H <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) are primarily due to changes of design, manufacturing techniques, and IMO, philosophy.
05-11-2003, 11:39 PM
#56
Nordschleife Master
Just my $.02 but I really hate all the cheap plastic that Porsche is using in the interiors of the 996’s and hate how the doors don’t close like the classic Porsche’s do (that solid sound). It also worries me how the CEO of Porsche is so worried about making a bigger profit per vehicle when they are already ranked #1. This tells me this company is definitely cutting corners somewhere, and as an avid Porsche enthusiast it's starting to show in the build quality of these cars. When it comes time for me to lay down my hard earned buck I will definitely be picking up a 993 era 911, most likely the turbocharged variety.
05-12-2003, 11:28 AM
#57
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Agoura Hills
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the Record.
I have a 74 Carrera with 531,000 miles on the chassis and engine plus 5 years of POC, PCA time trials on it.
I also have a 85 911 Turbo with 176,000 miles on it as well as a 69 911S with 65,000 miles on it. Most of it is wheel to wheel racing miliage. Oh yeah, I cant forget the 2000 Boxster S with only 16,000 Miles on it with about 1,000 miels of track usage. Priveous Prosche were a 356 SC, 2000 996 Millenium and a Porsche junior Tractor.Even though I love my Boxster and it performs better than any other porsche Ive ever had. Quality-wise, its just not there interms of having allthe parts firmly "stuck together" as my older 911s. There must be something said for using a slide rule over a cad cam. From what Ive seen in the Pepper. Quality appears to be slightly less than my Boxster in the interior department.
I have a 74 Carrera with 531,000 miles on the chassis and engine plus 5 years of POC, PCA time trials on it.
I also have a 85 911 Turbo with 176,000 miles on it as well as a 69 911S with 65,000 miles on it. Most of it is wheel to wheel racing miliage. Oh yeah, I cant forget the 2000 Boxster S with only 16,000 Miles on it with about 1,000 miels of track usage. Priveous Prosche were a 356 SC, 2000 996 Millenium and a Porsche junior Tractor.Even though I love my Boxster and it performs better than any other porsche Ive ever had. Quality-wise, its just not there interms of having allthe parts firmly "stuck together" as my older 911s. There must be something said for using a slide rule over a cad cam. From what Ive seen in the Pepper. Quality appears to be slightly less than my Boxster in the interior department.
05-12-2003, 04:16 PM
#58
Three Wheelin'
Robert,
WOW!!! I love hearing about high-mileage cars, and rarely do I hear about over one-half million. What kind of mechanical work has the '74 required over its life? Is it a US car? What about the 930?
WOW!!! I love hearing about high-mileage cars, and rarely do I hear about over one-half million. What kind of mechanical work has the '74 required over its life? Is it a US car? What about the 930?
05-12-2003, 04:33 PM
#59
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Agoura Hills
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its gone thru 2 pistons in its life (up around the 350K mile mark,,,while on the track). Its been torn down once(near the 500,000 mark) over the years to see if everything was "OK". Presently the car is being restored to its original Purple (aubergine) glory. ITs a US car. over year its gone thru countless syncros and suspension bushings.
I inherited the car. Im the youngest of 5. Everyone in my family learned to drive stick in that car as well as learn how to drive on the race track in that car. Its a family heirloom.
The turbo has needed a new waste gate, and I replaced the turbo 7,000 miles ago. Also, my plans are to freshen up the interior and repaint the car to its original arctic blue color......In time, I would like to drop in a 3.6L twin turbo engine.
I inherited the car. Im the youngest of 5. Everyone in my family learned to drive stick in that car as well as learn how to drive on the race track in that car. Its a family heirloom.
The turbo has needed a new waste gate, and I replaced the turbo 7,000 miles ago. Also, my plans are to freshen up the interior and repaint the car to its original arctic blue color......In time, I would like to drop in a 3.6L twin turbo engine.