On Topic (26) | Off Topic (1) | All (27)
Comments: 1-15, 16-26
Nothing.
The car is a 2002 Carrera (996). Quality, fit and finish, both interior and exterior, are superb.
It will run to 60 miles per hour in less than five seconds, yet we see twenty two plus miles per gallon in city/highway driving, and over twenty six on the highway alone.
I'm six foot two inches tall and have more than adequate head and leg room.
We optioned the car rather heavily (full leather interior, Bose sound system, heated full power seats, Bi-Xenon headlamps, eighteen inch wheels) so she's really more of a GT than a sports car in the traditional sense.
What you don't say is that the new 911 is excessively noisy, common, not that involving to drive, and like the Boxster is assembled from low-grade plastics. The drivers door goes clang rather than clunk. The indicator stalk goes snap and not click. Now, don't get me wrong, the 911 has always been a specialist car, but the latest (996) incarnation is an emasculated version of its predecessors. It lacks that wonderful air-cooled whirr, it's no longer built like Grandpa's toolshed, and unless you go for the insanely priced Turbo it really doesn't feel that fast. It's a grand tourer -- a sort of "PC Porsche" for the nineties -- and not a lot more. You're welcome to it...
So what you're saying is your opinion is different than the reviewer's? Different strokes for differetn folks, ya know? He seems to like it well enough. I always wonder what it is that makes people slam other people for their choice in vehicles...
But that's the whole point of comments? Anyone can come here to add their views, good and bad, whether owners or not. The original entry was a little dilute -- "I think it's just great and that's all you need to know" -- and the comment above tries to be informative, even if it is a little biting. But what you many people may not understand is that the 996 is _just_ as described, a toned down version of its fantastic forebears. It's a car for everyone and has lost its exclusivity. It is not the hard-as-nails sports car of yesteryear, neither sounding nor behaving as it once did. Whether all that is a good thing or a bad thing is down to the driver and right now right here we have two opposite views -- that's what makes sites like this so great! You're not presented with a one-sided view of the marque, written by a dreamer who's just spent upwards of $90K on a toy and wouldn't dream of slamming it while he's still justifying the purchase to his wife.
In all honesty, the fact you've added nothing to the debate by choosing to write about the reviews rather than about the cars is a little hypocritical. If anyone needs to think before they press the "Add Comment" button, it's you. --Jamie.
OK, OK, you're right. I added nothing at all to the discussion. Basically, that was me venting at all the comments that really are slamming someone personal choice in autos. And the original comment wasn't even a good example of that. My fault, sorry! Was having a grumpy day, I suppose.
You do raise a very good point -- there are way too many short reviews on here, ones that say basically nothing at all. I've written 5 or 6, and I think I've done a pretty decent job of it. They're all 700 words or so, and at least touch on all the important aspects. This is a great site, and it would be a lot better if more people wrote more thoughtful reviews.
Ramble, ramble, ramble. FWIW, I think all the current Porsches are way too civilized and toned down. But to each their own, right?
996 Toned down?
It accelerates and corners faster. It brakes harder. It has a higher top speed. It also laps Nurburgring much quicker than any previous normally aspirated model.
My perspective: smoother is not necessarily toned down. Actually, for racing, smoother is faster.
The dictionary says that "tone down" means to "deaden", "quieten" or even "silence". I think that is an appropriate term to describe the 996 when alongside its predecessor! That's not to say the latest model is a bad car, simply that it's not the car it once was. Porsche profits and the sheer number of 911s on roads all around the world shows just how the company has managed to turn what was once regarded as an untamable beast into an everyday GT. By doing that they've lost the raw edge, the snarl of the air-cooled six, and the dodgy rear-engine handling, but whether that's a bad thing or not depends on how long term a 911 fan you are. I for one would not say "no", but considering the cost am disappointed by the quality of materials and decibel level inside the cabin. The standard fit stereo is also verging on lousy.
Why revert to the "snarl" of an aircooled flat six when they could revert to the lovely, deafening, obnoxious noise an Abarth 356 makes?
I think a lot of Porcshe people are a little disappointed in the loss of personality in the new water cooled line. Porcshe have to stay in business somehow and raw wasn't making enough money a few years back.
Myself, I own a plain 993 and my beautiful obnoxious montser (64 356SC w/Abarth exhaust). I have no interest in the new refined 911 but my dad bought one and he doesn't like to ride in my cars because of the reason I like them.
Like they say different strokes...
Porsche 911 is a race car. Race cars go fast. The new Type 996 in its various variants is the fastest of all previous 911 models.
If you are buying the car to play tunes, or tones, well that's not why Porsche is building them. Porsche music is wonderful, and each car's is different, but complaining about the sound just misses the point: it's the racing.
Sound is for the kids jacking their bargain imports, who need *something* to make people look, 'cause it isn't going to be their lap times.
I agree with the previous guy, I ended up buying an 84 911 Carrera, not because I could'nt afford a 996 or 997, but because Porsche I believe have gone away from there roots.
Throughout there history Porsche was always known for there build quality and engineering evolution. Knowadays there just mass producing vehicles, like every other manufacturer. Its not uncommon to hear 911's barely 12 months old with engine and transmission leaks, not to mention blown engines. I love the new style of the 997 and 997 911, but come on! water cooled!, no thanks.
When the 996 was introduced, it was widely criticised in the manner of the first respondent to this post. The gentleman who originally posted owned a car that had benefited from five years of development - anybody who knows Porsches will know what that means. Is it too much to accept that his post reflected his genuine feelings??
Recent literature I have read seems to suggest that the 993 model, while great in its day, is now best observed through rose-tinted glasses. One article suggested that in going from the 993 to the 996, the improvements were so great that it was as though they had skipped an entire intermediate series. Another reviewer was disappointed by the uninspiring noise made by a standard 993. Another could not believe that a car built in 1998 (a very late model 993 presumably) could have such an antiquated dash.
The so-called 'Porsche purists' seem to exist only to bemoan every change that is made, without realising that it is this progress that makes Porsche the marque that it is.
I submit that a 997 or late-series 996 are so far ahead of any 993 or earlier Porsche that the only plausible reason for preferring the older model is for 'rawness' or nostalgia. These are valid reasons, for some people, but please don't pretend that they were better cars. The game has moved on, my friends.
Great sum up above!
It's called evolution that the 996 is an advancement over the 993 and I believe it was noise restrictions that killed the air cooled engine (what's wrong with a water jacket anyhow?).
If you want to get upset about Porsche diluting its history, moan about the Cayenne...
It's my understanding that the reason why the 911 was air cooled in the first place was because the Porsche family did not have the money to tool up a new engine after the war---their bank accounts had been seized by the Allies. When they got their first infusion of cash after the war, it was from an Italian company, and then, in order to save money, they borrowed the already designed air cooled engine from the VW which was designed to be air cooled for one reason alone: the common man in Germany, for whom the VW was designed by Porsche at Hitler's suggestion, did not have a garage and the water cooled systems would thus freeze in the German winters. So, the VW, the car for the common man, was born with air cooling so it could be parked on the street. And then, later, after the war, the Porsche family, solely due to financial reasons, had to use the already made VW engine to make their initial line of cars, e.g. the 356 in the 1950's. From then on, the air cooled engine remained as a matter of branding design and we had the 911 born in the 1960's. It's easier and much less costly to keep a design and slowly improve it than to constantly re-tool, especially if you have found a selling niche in the world of sports cars.
A few years ago, I saw a TV show that had the top 100 most popular cars. First place was the Porsche 911, and it was that instant, that I fell in love with germany's great sports car. It's an Icon; Nothing can compare to the 911 from what I have seen. In about four years time, I will be able to buy my first car. I am considering a 996 Carrera. drove some on play-station, but I am sure the real thing will be a delight to own. It will make a big changes from the japanese 5 door hatchbacks my dad always buys.
Hmmmm.. here's my comments on the comments...
1. To the comment last above, yep the 911 is definately more special than a japanese hatch. Unfortunately 911s have bigger price tags too. I have actually found that some Japanese performance cars (Evo, WRX) have almost as much performance and arguably even more reliability than a 911, at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, they don't have THAT badge...
2. I couldn't care less whether a 911 is water or air cooled. Personally, the later the model the better. I care about reliability and my pocket more than some tradition which is now out of date.
3. Agree that some of these reviews are a little on the light side. I am actually contemplating buying a 911 myself (ahem upgrading from a hot japanese car) but am scared to bits at possible reliability issues (eg the 3.4L motor in the older 911s going "boom". But these reviews don't really tell me whether this is fact or fiction.
I think reliability is relative here. The "911" will be significantly more reliable than a Ferrari or Lamborghini, but a lot less reliable than a WRX STI or Evo, and maintenance will be more. But it all depends on what you're after. The WRX (to be replaced in 2008 I believe) and the Evo (replaced soon) both have very cheap interiors that clearly point out their ecocar roots. That said, Porsches have cheap interiors compared to, say, a similarly priced BMW M5 or Aston Martin (if you're comparing the Turbo).
But WRX/Evo buyers aren't looking for luxury and Porsche buyers really shouldn't be either (although you know a lot of posers are).