Discussion
Yes they're very good (just read the contemporary reviews), but many sandal-wearing beards just cannot cope with the looks (their loss....). They prefer sitting inside a rusting pillbox from the 60s.
Early ones have cable-throttle and stronger IMS bearing, so they are the least likely to suffer bore-score or IMS failure. However, they don't have PSM.
There are many buying guides on 996s, but basically it's a good idea to get the car checked over by a respected specialist.
Early ones have cable-throttle and stronger IMS bearing, so they are the least likely to suffer bore-score or IMS failure. However, they don't have PSM.
There are many buying guides on 996s, but basically it's a good idea to get the car checked over by a respected specialist.
If you ask me, the basic 1998 C2 996 is the best 911 platform to date. As crazy as it may sound, I am not a lone voice here.
Limited nannying systems, cable throttle, good corrosion resistance, wonderful engine (not the horror stories that are often made out), sublime steering and handling, reliable...
Most haters are not keen on Porsche straying from all the previous generations looks but looks are subjective. I don't mind the fact that it shares the headlights with the GT1 oh and the Boxster. Try one you might be pleasantly surprised
Limited nannying systems, cable throttle, good corrosion resistance, wonderful engine (not the horror stories that are often made out), sublime steering and handling, reliable...
Most haters are not keen on Porsche straying from all the previous generations looks but looks are subjective. I don't mind the fact that it shares the headlights with the GT1 oh and the Boxster. Try one you might be pleasantly surprised
I have a '99 996 on 128k miles, had it a few years.
As mentioned they have the most resilient of 996 IMS bearings, and ferrous coated pistons which doesn't break up and result in bore score like later M96 with plastic piston coating.
However the early cars were known for faulty castings - early reports of "D-Chunked" cylinders and cracked heads. Most of these showed them selves early on, so unless you get an ultra low miles cars you should be safe.
Bear in mind these are now fairly old, and anything can go wrong on an old engine!
They are the last of the 911s with a mechanical connection between right foot and throttle, and the "lack" of PSM is never a problem in the real world. Perhaps when pushing hard on track it might save an inexperienced driver, but on the road these cars have massive grip.
Parts are cheap as much is shared with the ubiquitous boxster. They are dead easy to work on due to the use of quality fasteners.
They are the best looking 996 - history is getting kinder as the people who turned their noses up at shared headlights move on to pricier cars.
Any contemporary road test (tiff needel on topgear, evo magazine) will tell you how brilliant they are and how much better to drive than the predecessors.
Whats not to like?
As mentioned they have the most resilient of 996 IMS bearings, and ferrous coated pistons which doesn't break up and result in bore score like later M96 with plastic piston coating.
However the early cars were known for faulty castings - early reports of "D-Chunked" cylinders and cracked heads. Most of these showed them selves early on, so unless you get an ultra low miles cars you should be safe.
Bear in mind these are now fairly old, and anything can go wrong on an old engine!
They are the last of the 911s with a mechanical connection between right foot and throttle, and the "lack" of PSM is never a problem in the real world. Perhaps when pushing hard on track it might save an inexperienced driver, but on the road these cars have massive grip.
Parts are cheap as much is shared with the ubiquitous boxster. They are dead easy to work on due to the use of quality fasteners.
They are the best looking 996 - history is getting kinder as the people who turned their noses up at shared headlights move on to pricier cars.
Any contemporary road test (tiff needel on topgear, evo magazine) will tell you how brilliant they are and how much better to drive than the predecessors.
Whats not to like?
Edited by was8v on Monday 14th November 20:43
At the present price point they are a no brainer. The water-cooled 3.4 in its basic form provides total immersive driving experience. I have the C4 manual with M030 and Milltek mufflers - grip is phenomenal with added confidence in poor conditions. If I am being picky, then it would be interior finish, door bin and center console lids - pretty minor. Exterior styling is unmistakably a 911!
I have a '99 C4. Probably still the cheapest 911 available especially as mine had near on 110k miles now. Im in the minority that I love the looks too! Still 911 but also unique. And a very clean coherent design too.
Still doesn't use a drop of oil between services, pulls well and sounds great when opened up. But still happy just to cruise around too.
Get one!
Still doesn't use a drop of oil between services, pulls well and sounds great when opened up. But still happy just to cruise around too.
Get one!
Agree with the above.
1998 C2 here. 137k and I use it for the daily commute c400 miles per week.
I love it. It's the perfect antidote to the tech filled modern stuff; no seat belt warning bongs, too bright nav screens, or annoying warning messages.
Just me, a 6 speed manual box, factory LSD, and 300 bhp through big wide rear tyres
It's finally made my daily commute pleasurable again.
It does have an unhealthy appetite for super unleaded and rear Michelin PS2's, but I forgive it!
1998 C2 here. 137k and I use it for the daily commute c400 miles per week.
I love it. It's the perfect antidote to the tech filled modern stuff; no seat belt warning bongs, too bright nav screens, or annoying warning messages.
Just me, a 6 speed manual box, factory LSD, and 300 bhp through big wide rear tyres
It's finally made my daily commute pleasurable again.
It does have an unhealthy appetite for super unleaded and rear Michelin PS2's, but I forgive it!
was8v said:
I have a '99 996 on 128k miles, had it a few years.
As mentioned they have the most resilient of 996 IMS bearings, and ferrous coated pistons which doesn't break up and result in bore score like later M96 with plastic piston coating.
However the early cars were known for faulty castings - early reports of "D-Chunked" cylinders and cracked heads. Most of these showed them selves early on, so unless you get an ultra low miles cars you should be safe.
Bear in mind these are now fairly old, and anything can go wrong on an old engine!
They are the last of the 911s with a mechanical connection between right foot and throttle, and the "lack" of PSM is never a problem in the real world. Perhaps when pushing hard on track it might save an inexperienced driver, but on the road these cars have massive grip.
Parts are cheap as much is shared with the ubiquitous boxster. They are dead easy to work on due to the use of quality fasteners.
They are the best looking 996 - history is getting kinder as the people who turned their noses up at shared headlights move on to pricier cars.
Any contemporary road test (tiff needel on topgear, evo magazine) will tell you how brilliant they are and how much better to drive than the predecessors.
Whats not to like?
Having owned a 99 model for ten years and 80k I would agree with most of your comments. However "due to the use of quality fasteners " doesn't ring true in my experience. Disintegrating rads and AC condensers , corroding brake and hydraulic lines , silencers splitting to name but a few bits of poor quality material. My other car at the time of 996 ownership was a VW ,same drivers , same mileage ,same roads and the corresponding parts on that car were fine. Ask any tech who's done suspension work on a used ten year old 996 and watch them grimace. Steel bolts and alloy components seize together so viciously you'd swear they were welded. Yes a fantastic car, looking better with age, I actually preferred its drive ( apart from the speed )to my gen2 997 . Get a good one that's had some money spent refreshing the bits I've mentioned and you will have something that will give years of driving pleasure. As mentioned they have the most resilient of 996 IMS bearings, and ferrous coated pistons which doesn't break up and result in bore score like later M96 with plastic piston coating.
However the early cars were known for faulty castings - early reports of "D-Chunked" cylinders and cracked heads. Most of these showed them selves early on, so unless you get an ultra low miles cars you should be safe.
Bear in mind these are now fairly old, and anything can go wrong on an old engine!
They are the last of the 911s with a mechanical connection between right foot and throttle, and the "lack" of PSM is never a problem in the real world. Perhaps when pushing hard on track it might save an inexperienced driver, but on the road these cars have massive grip.
Parts are cheap as much is shared with the ubiquitous boxster. They are dead easy to work on due to the use of quality fasteners.
They are the best looking 996 - history is getting kinder as the people who turned their noses up at shared headlights move on to pricier cars.
Any contemporary road test (tiff needel on topgear, evo magazine) will tell you how brilliant they are and how much better to drive than the predecessors.
Whats not to like?
Edited by was8v on Monday 14th November 20:43
Edited by Polome on Monday 14th November 22:54
was8v said:
I have a '99 996 on 128k miles, had it a few years.
As mentioned they have the most resilient of 996 IMS bearings, and ferrous coated pistons which doesn't break up and result in bore score like later M96 with plastic piston coating.
However the early cars were known for faulty castings - early reports of "D-Chunked" cylinders and cracked heads. Most of these showed them selves early on, so unless you get an ultra low miles cars you should be safe.
Bear in mind these are now fairly old, and anything can go wrong on an old engine!
They are the last of the 911s with a mechanical connection between right foot and throttle, and the "lack" of PSM is never a problem in the real world. Perhaps when pushing hard on track it might save an inexperienced driver, but on the road these cars have massive grip.
Parts are cheap as much is shared with the ubiquitous boxster. They are dead easy to work on due to the use of quality fasteners.
They are the best looking 996 - history is getting kinder as the people who turned their noses up at shared headlights move on to pricier cars.
Any contemporary road test (tiff needel on topgear, evo magazine) will tell you how brilliant they are and how much better to drive than the predecessors.
Whats not to like?
Having owned a 99 model for ten years and 80k I would agree with most of your comments. However "due to the use of quality fasteners" doesn't ring true in my experience. Disintegrating rads and AC condensers , corroding brake and hydraulic lines , silencers splitting to name but a few bits of poor quality material. My other car at the time of 996 ownership was a VW ,same drivers , same mileage ,same roads and the corresponding parts on that car were fine. Ask any tech who's done suspension work on a used ten year old 996 and watch them grimace. Steel bolts and alloy components seize together so viciously you'd swear they were welded. Yes a fantastic car, looking better with age, I actually preferred its drive ( apart from the speed )to my gen2 997 . Get a good one that's had some money spent refreshing the bits I've mentioned and you will have something that will give years of driving pleasure. As mentioned they have the most resilient of 996 IMS bearings, and ferrous coated pistons which doesn't break up and result in bore score like later M96 with plastic piston coating.
However the early cars were known for faulty castings - early reports of "D-Chunked" cylinders and cracked heads. Most of these showed them selves early on, so unless you get an ultra low miles cars you should be safe.
Bear in mind these are now fairly old, and anything can go wrong on an old engine!
They are the last of the 911s with a mechanical connection between right foot and throttle, and the "lack" of PSM is never a problem in the real world. Perhaps when pushing hard on track it might save an inexperienced driver, but on the road these cars have massive grip.
Parts are cheap as much is shared with the ubiquitous boxster. They are dead easy to work on due to the use of quality fasteners.
They are the best looking 996 - history is getting kinder as the people who turned their noses up at shared headlights move on to pricier cars.
Any contemporary road test (tiff needel on topgear, evo magazine) will tell you how brilliant they are and how much better to drive than the predecessors.
Whats not to like?
Edited by was8v on Monday 14th November 20:43
Edited by Polome on Monday 14th November 22:59
Polome said:
Having owned a 99 model for ten years and 80k I would agree with most of your comments. However "due to the use of quality fasteners" doesn't ring true in my experience. Disintegrating rads and AC condensers , corroding brake and hydraulic lines , silencers splitting to name but a few bits of poor quality material. My other car at the time of 996 ownership was a VW ,same drivers , same mileage ,same roads and the corresponding parts on that car were fine. Ask any tech who's done suspension work on a used ten year old 996 and watch them grimace. Steel bolts and alloy components seize together so viciously you'd swear they were welded. Yes a fantastic car, looking better with age, I actually preferred its drive ( apart from the speed )to my gen2 997 . Get a good one that's had some money spent refreshing the bits I've mentioned and you will have something that will give years of driving pleasure.
I replaced the rad on my wifes golf at 7 years old and 70k miles.Edited by Polome on Monday 14th November 22:59
My 996 got a rads and condensers over 100k and 15 years (they may have been replaced before?).
The golf had an exhaust mid section at 9 years and 90k miles.
New silencers at 120k and 16 years on the 996.
Pretty comparable.
Brake lines? Steel brake pipes are par for the course these days and last similar across cars. Steel is replaced with cunifer, should last forever and you can thread it through without dropping engines or steering racks unlike OE steel lines.
Yes some of the suspension bolts are steel in alloy. Par for the course on a performance car with lightweight suspension arms, ask any S2000 owner about stuck suspension bolts! They (prime culprits are coffin arm and rear track arm eccentrics) are accessible and easy to cut them off on the 996. If your mechanic grimaces then get another mechanic!
The thing I would not be looking forward to is the manifold to head studs on a 996.
Edited by was8v on Tuesday 15th November 11:51
'99 C4 owner here,currently on 96K miles, had it for 2 years. Been a genuine pleasure to own and drive. As others have said Radiators, brake lines,silencers can fail, all mine have been replaced by previous owners so i guess preventative maintenance is key.
Look great with the GT3 body kit and wheels (personal opinion), i have MO30 suspension but the GT3 type suspension looks better as it's lower still but makes any slope or speed hump a bit of a challenge for the front splitter.
Interior is holding up well, engine on mine has been excellent, the only remedial attention from me outside of servicing is replacing all the spark plug tubes and seals.
Engine strengths and weaknesses have been well documented on this forum, general consensus seems to be - earlier 3.4 the better.
Sadly i will be selling mine in the next month or so to make way for a new Mustang, i will miss it.
Look great with the GT3 body kit and wheels (personal opinion), i have MO30 suspension but the GT3 type suspension looks better as it's lower still but makes any slope or speed hump a bit of a challenge for the front splitter.
Interior is holding up well, engine on mine has been excellent, the only remedial attention from me outside of servicing is replacing all the spark plug tubes and seals.
Engine strengths and weaknesses have been well documented on this forum, general consensus seems to be - earlier 3.4 the better.
Sadly i will be selling mine in the next month or so to make way for a new Mustang, i will miss it.
The point about the fasteners might be a comparison with the 997 which apparently has push fit coolant pipes?
In general the 996 seems well made and put together. I have a 2001 C4 and it's tight and rattle free. Issues with the 3.4 seem to be less common than bore scoring on the later 3.6 & 3.8. Apparently there's some US data which shows the early dual row bearing is more reliable, but these days, anecdotally, I'm not sure there's much in it.
IMO the best thing to do is a buy a car on its merits and enjoy it. If it goes bang it'll be expensive, but still fantastic value.
In general the 996 seems well made and put together. I have a 2001 C4 and it's tight and rattle free. Issues with the 3.4 seem to be less common than bore scoring on the later 3.6 & 3.8. Apparently there's some US data which shows the early dual row bearing is more reliable, but these days, anecdotally, I'm not sure there's much in it.
IMO the best thing to do is a buy a car on its merits and enjoy it. If it goes bang it'll be expensive, but still fantastic value.
Wayne Dempsey, who wrote the 101 Projects book, said he had both cable throttle and e-throttle cars and couldn't tell any difference in engine response. Yes, mine is e-throttle. :-)
https://www.amazon.com/Projects-Porsche-1998-2008-...
https://www.amazon.com/Projects-Porsche-1998-2008-...
nsa said:
Wayne Dempsey, who wrote the 101 Projects book, said he had both cable throttle and e-throttle cars and couldn't tell any difference in engine response. Yes, mine is e-throttle. :-)
https://www.amazon.com/Projects-Porsche-1998-2008-...
Me too (although I've never written a book). A cable throttle car still has an ecu controlling fuelling, so I can see how the two would feel different, but harder to understand a significant difference in responsiveness that wasn't down to the map. https://www.amazon.com/Projects-Porsche-1998-2008-...
I owned a 986, 2.7 with e gas (as Porsche call it), and now have an early 996 and the difference in responsiveness is quite marked - there's a distinct lag, on heel and toe you really have to stab the throttle whereas I find I revved the 996 a bit much initially on downshifts until I got used to it.
pat_y said:
'99 C4 owner here,
Look great with the GT3 body kit and wheels (personal opinion), i have MO30 suspension but the GT3 type suspension looks better as it's lower still but makes any slope or speed hump a bit of a challenge for the front splitter.
Pics?Look great with the GT3 body kit and wheels (personal opinion), i have MO30 suspension but the GT3 type suspension looks better as it's lower still but makes any slope or speed hump a bit of a challenge for the front splitter.
Sounds like the perfect spec.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff