The 996 back in the limelight @ 911 & Porsche World
Discussion
M@1975 said:
They may have 996s on the cover but I suspect they will still have written an article along the lines of blah, blah, blah, timebomb, yadda, yadd, rear main seal, blah blah, not aircooled, yadda, yadda, mass produced.
They will have to go a long way to win me back as a reader.
Same here, I don't suppose it'll make any difference and it's not like they, and that fool Chris Horton, will notice but they'll not be getting any more of my hard earned!They will have to go a long way to win me back as a reader.
Ive bought it and read the article. Both cars get a good write up and actually not too much on the dreaded issues that surround the 996.
At the end of the article the author gives both cars equal praise and doesnt go down the route of choosing one of them.
I never considered the Anniversary edition on my search of a 996, the ones i saw didnt really swing it for me. So a C4s it was, which is one of the reasons i have a urge to get in it now and drive through the Hindhead tunnel......3 letters, PSE!
At the end of the article the author gives both cars equal praise and doesnt go down the route of choosing one of them.
I never considered the Anniversary edition on my search of a 996, the ones i saw didnt really swing it for me. So a C4s it was, which is one of the reasons i have a urge to get in it now and drive through the Hindhead tunnel......3 letters, PSE!
Chrisp5782 said:
Same here, I don't suppose it'll make any difference and it's not like they, and that fool Chris Horton, will notice but they'll not be getting any more of my hard earned!
You mean that fool that would buy any 944 other than the one he has, or the fool that recommended a VERY expensive 944 from a dealer, despite the fact that the dealer hadn't replaced the £11 centre console hinge or the fool that constantly seems to bodge his cars back on the road?You could actually be forgiven for thinking that he doesn't actually like Porsches!
The article was written by Adam Towler (who tested our 3 litre 944 turbo) and who I found to be a very capable driver and critical analyst able to reproduce the sort of feedback in an article most people are interested in reading (you are not all engine experts and we all know about the failings of a very small number of the M96/97 range of engines).
I thought it was well balanced and informative - cannot see a problem with it at all.
Regarding Chris Horton, he is by far the most knowlegable of all the technical journalists I have spoken to. He takes the trouble to understand the problems from an engineering level, then tries to interpet that into something the general reader can follow and understand and goes to the trouble of checking the results before they are published. In my view he is a top technical motoring journalist and I cannot see why this criticism is being vented at him either.
It is not the journalists fault if they create an editorial covering problems with some models (which some readers want to find out more about) nor if they decide to concentrate more on the driving experience (as this article did).
I think there are some hidden agendas spilling out into this critique which there is no place for if it is responding to a specific article which seems perfectly OK to me and nothing (as far as I can see) to do with Chris anyway.
You all know me by now and know that I do not shrink away from standing my corner and having a go at anyone that deserves it but equally when it is unfair (as this has been) I will express my positive supportive and opinion too.
Baz
I thought it was well balanced and informative - cannot see a problem with it at all.
Regarding Chris Horton, he is by far the most knowlegable of all the technical journalists I have spoken to. He takes the trouble to understand the problems from an engineering level, then tries to interpet that into something the general reader can follow and understand and goes to the trouble of checking the results before they are published. In my view he is a top technical motoring journalist and I cannot see why this criticism is being vented at him either.
It is not the journalists fault if they create an editorial covering problems with some models (which some readers want to find out more about) nor if they decide to concentrate more on the driving experience (as this article did).
I think there are some hidden agendas spilling out into this critique which there is no place for if it is responding to a specific article which seems perfectly OK to me and nothing (as far as I can see) to do with Chris anyway.
You all know me by now and know that I do not shrink away from standing my corner and having a go at anyone that deserves it but equally when it is unfair (as this has been) I will express my positive supportive and opinion too.
Baz
I have no comment on this article as my subscription hasn't popped through the letter box yet!
I have no hidden agenda, and respect your opinions Barry, but I find I just can't agree with many of things the Chris writes. He seems to have increasingly odd opinions, like his haterd of targas and most of the 944 range.
To be honest I find a lot of the output of 911 & PW increasingly lazy especially in their proof reading. Recently they stated that the 993 was the first 911 to have ABS or Power Steering (I can't remember which) and in one article last month one car had 3.0 engine, then a 3.2 and then a 3.0.
I have no hidden agenda, and respect your opinions Barry, but I find I just can't agree with many of things the Chris writes. He seems to have increasingly odd opinions, like his haterd of targas and most of the 944 range.
To be honest I find a lot of the output of 911 & PW increasingly lazy especially in their proof reading. Recently they stated that the 993 was the first 911 to have ABS or Power Steering (I can't remember which) and in one article last month one car had 3.0 engine, then a 3.2 and then a 3.0.
hartech said:
The article was written by Adam Towler (who tested our 3 litre 944 turbo) and who I found to be a very capable driver and critical analyst able to reproduce the sort of feedback in an article most people are interested in reading (you are not all engine experts and we all know about the failings of a very small number of the M96/97 range of engines).
I thought it was well balanced and informative - cannot see a problem with it at all.
Regarding Chris Horton, he is by far the most knowlegable of all the technical journalists I have spoken to. He takes the trouble to understand the problems from an engineering level, then tries to interpet that into something the general reader can follow and understand and goes to the trouble of checking the results before they are published. In my view he is a top technical motoring journalist and I cannot see why this criticism is being vented at him either.
It is not the journalists fault if they create an editorial covering problems with some models (which some readers want to find out more about) nor if they decide to concentrate more on the driving experience (as this article did).
I think there are some hidden agendas spilling out into this critique which there is no place for if it is responding to a specific article which seems perfectly OK to me and nothing (as far as I can see) to do with Chris anyway.
You all know me by now and know that I do not shrink away from standing my corner and having a go at anyone that deserves it but equally when it is unfair (as this has been) I will express my positive supportive and opinion too.
Baz
Kinda sums it up Baz. The 996 is relatively unloved because a significant number of people prefer other things. Its just life. If you've got a 996 well that's your choice, some people like brunettes, other blondes..... it's choice but dont shout somebody down for their opinions. I thought it was well balanced and informative - cannot see a problem with it at all.
Regarding Chris Horton, he is by far the most knowlegable of all the technical journalists I have spoken to. He takes the trouble to understand the problems from an engineering level, then tries to interpet that into something the general reader can follow and understand and goes to the trouble of checking the results before they are published. In my view he is a top technical motoring journalist and I cannot see why this criticism is being vented at him either.
It is not the journalists fault if they create an editorial covering problems with some models (which some readers want to find out more about) nor if they decide to concentrate more on the driving experience (as this article did).
I think there are some hidden agendas spilling out into this critique which there is no place for if it is responding to a specific article which seems perfectly OK to me and nothing (as far as I can see) to do with Chris anyway.
You all know me by now and know that I do not shrink away from standing my corner and having a go at anyone that deserves it but equally when it is unfair (as this has been) I will express my positive supportive and opinion too.
Baz
Moreover opinions change, years ago I really couldn't stand the 996. I thought it was a really dull drive. Now I think its ok, but I still wouldn't not buy one.
Come on chaps - the article was not written by Chris Horton and most of the criticism came from posters who have not read it - and there is no connection or reason to use this post to call someone a "fool" when that is certainly not what they are.
People call for freedom to express opinions but the same people feel it is OK to publicly run down a journalist who had nothing to do with the article.
Yes it was not the usual warts and all expose of 996 foes - and by the way we always state that we think they are great cars and that very few go wrong.
It feels like someone has an axe to grind and has junped on the bandwagon stirring up opinion against someone that it seems to me had nothing to do with the subject.
If you like freedom of speech you need to apply some fairness to make your point valuable and not make it so obvious it is biased and intended just to be damaging to someone innocent of the accusations leveled at them.
Baz
People call for freedom to express opinions but the same people feel it is OK to publicly run down a journalist who had nothing to do with the article.
Yes it was not the usual warts and all expose of 996 foes - and by the way we always state that we think they are great cars and that very few go wrong.
It feels like someone has an axe to grind and has junped on the bandwagon stirring up opinion against someone that it seems to me had nothing to do with the subject.
If you like freedom of speech you need to apply some fairness to make your point valuable and not make it so obvious it is biased and intended just to be damaging to someone innocent of the accusations leveled at them.
Baz
petop said:
Ive bought it and read the article. Both cars get a good write up and actually not too much on the dreaded issues that surround the 996.
At the end of the article the author gives both cars equal praise and doesnt go down the route of choosing one of them.
Suprise suprise. Cant bear the eternal gloating and rose tints you get in single marque magazines. No owner can be ostracised or have his feelings hurt so every model ends up being a 5 star model from a 924 to a 991. The complete absence of critique gives a very distorted picture.At the end of the article the author gives both cars equal praise and doesnt go down the route of choosing one of them.
hartech said:
The article was written by Adam Towler (who tested our 3 litre 944 turbo) and who I found to be a very capable driver and critical analyst able to reproduce the sort of feedback in an article most people are interested in reading (you are not all engine experts and we all know about the failings of a very small number of the M96/97 range of engines).
I thought it was well balanced and informative - cannot see a problem with it at all.
Regarding Chris Horton, he is by far the most knowlegable of all the technical journalists I have spoken to. He takes the trouble to understand the problems from an engineering level, then tries to interpet that into something the general reader can follow and understand and goes to the trouble of checking the results before they are published. In my view he is a top technical motoring journalist and I cannot see why this criticism is being vented at him either.
It is not the journalists fault if they create an editorial covering problems with some models (which some readers want to find out more about) nor if they decide to concentrate more on the driving experience (as this article did).
I think there are some hidden agendas spilling out into this critique which there is no place for if it is responding to a specific article which seems perfectly OK to me and nothing (as far as I can see) to do with Chris anyway.
You all know me by now and know that I do not shrink away from standing my corner and having a go at anyone that deserves it but equally when it is unfair (as this has been) I will express my positive supportive and opinion too.
Baz
The article that really got everyone's back up was a couple of months back and written by Horton. I thought it was well balanced and informative - cannot see a problem with it at all.
Regarding Chris Horton, he is by far the most knowlegable of all the technical journalists I have spoken to. He takes the trouble to understand the problems from an engineering level, then tries to interpet that into something the general reader can follow and understand and goes to the trouble of checking the results before they are published. In my view he is a top technical motoring journalist and I cannot see why this criticism is being vented at him either.
It is not the journalists fault if they create an editorial covering problems with some models (which some readers want to find out more about) nor if they decide to concentrate more on the driving experience (as this article did).
I think there are some hidden agendas spilling out into this critique which there is no place for if it is responding to a specific article which seems perfectly OK to me and nothing (as far as I can see) to do with Chris anyway.
You all know me by now and know that I do not shrink away from standing my corner and having a go at anyone that deserves it but equally when it is unfair (as this has been) I will express my positive supportive and opinion too.
Baz
The piece was well written and full of fact but it was also alarmist and unbalanced with Horton following the "when not if" school of thought.
We all know and respect your work Baz and I wouldn't for one second presume to question your technical knowledge but the way Horton tackled the issues, despite understanding them, was cack-handed to say the least.
A month or so later he then went on to do a bit more M96/97 bashing in a dull piece about his ancient 924.
His technical knowledge may be good but that of his publications readership clearly isn't.
Edited by Chrisp5782 on Saturday 9th February 02:31
Edited by Chrisp5782 on Saturday 9th February 02:32
I probably see things from a different angle. Owners have both product and model loyalty and seem to get particularly upset if someone reports anything critical about the car they own or have owned before - as if it is pointing out the error they made in buying it - but the media and rubbished rightly for only ever publishing a glossy article and ignoring problems - yet everything that he writes is (as you acknowledge) factual and informative - it seems then where he is going wrong (according to a lot of you) is doing exactly what the press are usually accused of not doing - telling the truth and he is wrong if it is about a model you are in some way linked to or involved in.
I admit we only see engines that have failed and need rebuilds - so our role is helping those with problems to overcome them and enjoy Porsche motoring again - we obviously see less of the happy and satisfied owners.
The article is then criticised for being too glossy while Chris is criticised for telling it how it is - me thinks the poor guy cannot win whatever he does.
In life - my personal opinion is that it is better to know the worst possible and try and avoid it, expect it, make arrangements to avoid it (like you can with our Maintenance PLan) or with a Porsche Warranty and that this is a better approach to enjoying life than trying to live in a naive glass house of hope over reality - but everyone has a right to their own opinion and philosophy - am all I have done is express mine. There are always those that disagree and that's what makes life so colourfull.
Baz
I admit we only see engines that have failed and need rebuilds - so our role is helping those with problems to overcome them and enjoy Porsche motoring again - we obviously see less of the happy and satisfied owners.
The article is then criticised for being too glossy while Chris is criticised for telling it how it is - me thinks the poor guy cannot win whatever he does.
In life - my personal opinion is that it is better to know the worst possible and try and avoid it, expect it, make arrangements to avoid it (like you can with our Maintenance PLan) or with a Porsche Warranty and that this is a better approach to enjoying life than trying to live in a naive glass house of hope over reality - but everyone has a right to their own opinion and philosophy - am all I have done is express mine. There are always those that disagree and that's what makes life so colourfull.
Baz
this might sound harsh but from my angle (punter) 911&PW appears to exist more for the benefit of it's advertisers. The road tests are shallow, with lazy cliched observations. Most of the magazine's energy seems to be focussed upon showcasing traders cars or aftermarket specialists. There's always at least 2-3 stories regarding "improvements for your 9**", during which a supplier or trader gets a name check. Of course this sort of agenda is normal for any specialist car magazine, however 911&PW journalist standards are far below average, the features come across as poorly researched and hastily assembled prior to deadline. A poor magazine that isn't improving - especially with the current crop of staffers. Shame.
wfarrell said:
this might sound harsh but from my angle (punter) 911&PW appears to exist more for the benefit of it's advertisers. The road tests are shallow, with lazy cliched observations. Most of the magazine's energy seems to be focussed upon showcasing traders cars or aftermarket specialists. There's always at least 2-3 stories regarding "improvements for your 9**", during which a supplier or trader gets a name check. Of course this sort of agenda is normal for any specialist car magazine, however 911&PW journalist standards are far below average, the features come across as poorly researched and hastily assembled prior to deadline. A poor magazine that isn't improving - especially with the current crop of staffers. Shame.
I guess that this is the commercial reality of running a magazine? But, it does seem to be getting worse. I read that times are difficult for magazines, so it may be that they are having to run more of these revenue generating pieces?
Maybe some people just like to have a "Black sheep"... Just because it is the first watercooled 911...I think I got first 911 in as a new trendsetter from Porsche;-))
(With a new engine from last year ;-))
(Sorry my english)
(With a new engine from last year ;-))
(Sorry my english)
Edited by Stefandk on Sunday 10th February 20:43
Edited by Stefandk on Sunday 10th February 22:32
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff