Autocrossed a 993 and a 996.

[John V]

Cliff notes - huge disappointment.

I was an instructor at an autocross school today. One student brought out his 1996 993 Cabriolet on good street tires, another guy showed up with his 2000 C2 Convertible on Pirelli PZ Corsas (R-comps, I think). There was a Boxster S as well, on RA-1s. This particular school uses an reasonably fast course, with some low speed sweepers, a seriously fast slalom, and some high-speed decreasing radius sweepers for major pucker factor.

I was expecting more of the 993. What I got were grabby brakes that were hard to modulate and underboosted steering with essentially no feel. I couldn't believe how underpowered the thing was. The floor-hinged pedals sucked. The damned thing understeered on corner entry unless you trail-braked the shit out of it, at which point the tail would reluctantly slide - and this was the only way you could get the thing to turn at ALL. It had some lift-throttle oversteer, but the chassis and springs were so soft and squishy that it was completely unpredictable. It would wallow between oversteer and understeer. Overall, a completely uninspiring car, other than the fact that it sounded .. really nice. But the handling? A nightmare. The power? A joke.

The 996 was better. It had a RoW 030 suspension, and seemed reasonably well set up. I can see how this would be a good street car, and it was a decent autocrosser. It mostly felt like a heavy Boxster. Didn't really have any character to speak of, though. The back end was resolutely planted to the pavement unless you were to lift sharply while in a corner, at which point it would snap, about the same as the Boxster. Nice sounding engine, with about the same amount of acceleration as my car. Great steering. Great brakes. Great turn-in. Just kind of ... bland.

I drove an '88 M5, too... not much to say about that one. Just kind of felt like a big E30 325... and not a whole lot faster. I was kind of disappointed. Typical BMW: Slow steering, but painfully easy to drive, and fun to slide around. :D

[Nick M3]

FWIW, the 993 turbo is a hell of a lot nicer to drive than the NA version. :eeps:

[rumatt]

Cliff notes

Thanks :D

[equ]

I kind of expected that of the 993 (except I have never driven one), I disliked playing with the antiquated hinged pedals as well. Just imagine that for the price of a well kept 993, you can get a new 987S. You can get a nice 986S for much cheaper. I love branding and how it lowers prices for rational people.

Agreed on almost everything about the 996... BUT the power is the same as your 986S? Is yours heavily heavily modded?

I had an 01 996 coupe and it was MUCH faster than 986S's that I've driven. While about the same 296hp as my CayS on paper (and it has been 3 years), I daresay it's faster than that as well.

I reread before I sent in the reply. Perhaps because it's a cab?

[Sharp11]

Hmmmm "hinged pedals", just like the old VW Beetle I knocked around in high school.

I wonder why that is....:lol:

Ed

[John V]

I kind of expected that of the 993 (except I have never driven one), I disliked playing with the antiquated hinged pedals as well. Just imagine that for the price of a well kept 993, you can get a new 987S. You can get a nice 986S for much cheaper. I love branding and how it lowers prices for rational people.

Agreed on almost everything about the 996... BUT the power is the same as your 986S? Is yours heavily heavily modded?

I had an 01 996 coupe and it was MUCH faster than 986S's that I've driven. While about the same 296hp as my CayS on paper (and it has been 3 years), I daresay it's faster than that as well.

I reread before I sent in the reply. Perhaps because it's a cab?


I didn't say the power was the same, I said the acceleration was the same. And "the same" was based on back to back evaluation, but ... butt dyno.

I'm guessing it was a weight thing.

[lemming]

I didn't say the power was the same, I said the acceleration was the same. And "the same" was based on back to back evaluation, but ... butt dyno.

I'm guessing it was a weight thing.


nice!

my impressions of the 993 mirror your own but i was dumb to own one for awhile.

i've never, ever said the 996 was inferior dynamically to the 993. quite the opposite, as Maki boy could attest toy. i ought to call him google-maki (a new sushi).

so.....in the end.....you'd push people to the boxster time and time again, right?

[JST]

I didn't say the power was the same, I said the acceleration was the same. And "the same" was based on back to back evaluation, but ... butt dyno.

I'm guessing it was a weight thing.

Interesting observations. Could some of the overall nastiness of the 993's suspension be attributable to age and wear? Regardless, you are right--the only reason to buy a 993 or older 911 is because you want to go on a nostalgia trip. As far as power goes, these cars are a joke compared to almost any reasonably priced sports car for sale today, and their chassis were...uh, let's just say "compromises."

I love the bottom hinged pedals, though, just because if you can drive a car with those, you can drive damn near anything.

I know the 996s got a big jolt of power and torque in 02, and I've never driven an 00. FWIW, my back to back butt dyno comparo of an 03 911 to an 01 986S was that the 986S was way down on acceleration compared to the 911. A good reason to get the newer 996, I suppose.

If you don't need the kid seats, the Boxster is the better car. Cheaper, too. And the 987S actually has enough power to be interesting, unlike the 986.

[lemming]

the MY1999-2001 996s had the 3.4litre engine which didn't have any trick breathing and the (meager) torque of 258ft#'s didn't come on until about 4000rpms.

if you did a high rpm clutch engagement, you could get a 5.0 second 0-60mph time, but realistically, i those cars are pretty darn peaky.

i'd agree with you, too, JST, about the 993 suspension. if the owner (esp. a cabrio owner) didn't get new strut dampers and keep up with date with the bushings, it'll feel a lot worse than it actually was/is.

[John V]

The 996 was OK, just not what I expected. I thought it would be noticably more powerful. I also thought the handling would be more entertaining. Maybe on the track it is better. Definitely a coupe would have been better (lighter). And definitely definitely a later model 996 (with more power) would have been more entertaining. In terms of raw times around the course, the other instructor and I ran essentially identical times - both 47.1 seconds for our best laps (incidentally I ran two laps, a 47.142 and a 47.146. LOL). and while I'm handing out caveats, with a day spent tweaking the suspension, we probably could have improved that 996 a bit.

On admittedly superior tires, I had a 44.3 in my Boxster. The other instructor ran a 44.7 in my car. But dynamically, it's no contest. The Boxster just does exactly what you tell it (good or bad), is much better in slaloms, and easier to rotate when you need it.

The "best" 993 is probably a very good car when it's set up just right and once you learn to muscle it around. It seems to me that it's a car that needs to be driven hard to be enjoyed at all... and even then it's really really crude and not that much fun. If I'm driving something crude, it at least should have some power.

edit: this particular 993 had around 40k on it, but I don't know its maintenance history. It was in great shape visually, but you're correct in that it coulda been a wreck underneath. Who knows.

[stuka]

Hmmmm "hinged pedals", just like the old VW Beetle I knocked around in high school.

I wonder why that is....:lol:

Ed

Yep.

Hinged pedal is stupid.

Although, I think you will find that a properly kept up 993 to be at least as nice as the pre engine power bump non US sport suspension (still not M030) 996.

From my experiences with bushings, I think when I get an older car, I will automatically replace all bushings with polyurthane (just for Clyde:lol:).

[kenkamm]

I generally agree... except with a 996 that would about the worst thing you could do. Unless you want the suspension to bind.

[FC]

Interesting observations. Could some of the overall nastiness of the 993's suspension be attributable to age and wear? Regardless, you are right--the only reason to buy a 993 or older 911 is because you want to go on a nostalgia trip. As far as power goes, these cars are a joke compared to almost any reasonably priced sports car for sale today, and their chassis were...uh, let's just say "compromises."

I love the bottom hinged pedals, though, just because if you can drive a car with those, you can drive damn near anything.

I know the 996s got a big jolt of power and torque in 02, and I've never driven an 00. FWIW, my back to back butt dyno comparo of an 03 911 to an 01 986S was that the 986S was way down on acceleration compared to the 911. A good reason to get the newer 996, I suppose.

If you don't need the kid seats, the Boxster is the better car. Cheaper, too. And the 987S actually has enough power to be interesting, unlike the 986.


:+1

[equ]

I've spent another beautiful day driving around in the Cayman. At various levels of aggressiveness, I still have so much fun in this car. I'm very lucky...

[Rob]

I have a friend with a low mileage cabrio 993. He was offered $50k for it the other day. I think he paid $55k for it 5 or 6 years ago. Considering he's not into auto crossing, the 993 is a WAY better car than the 996.

The fact that it is the last model with floor hinged pedals and air cooling is what keeps the value high I am sure.

Having said all of that, the few times I have driven it hard, I ended up being terrified at how difficult it was to get the front tires to bite. It's certainly not for the unskilled or faint of heart. It's set up for throttle steering, but . . . it doesn't have the power. I just assumed that all 911s handled more or less like this. The weight is in the back after all.

[stuka]

Having said all of that, the few times I have driven it hard, I ended up being terrified at how difficult it was to get the front tires to bite. It's certainly not for the unskilled or faint of heart. It's set up for throttle steering, but . . . it doesn't have the power. I just assumed that all 911s handled more or less like this. The weight is in the back after all.

GT2 is like that, only with lots of power, which is why many ended up totalled.

And while many don't think it matters, the 993, for the price, is the cheapest dry sump car that you can buy.

[lemming]

GT2 is like that, only with lots of power, which is why many ended up totalled.

And while many don't think it matters, the 993, for the price, is the cheapest dry sump car that you can buy.

yeah, but short of the 964 RS America (3.8litre M64 engine) or the 993TT, the 964/993 class of car is pretty underwhelming matched up with today's metrics for speed. like the 964, it's a momentum car where you get penalized really badly for taking a bad line on a course where the "cars of today" (not the NASCAR COT) can be more forgiving because of much better power to weight ratios.

it's still a gorgeous car to look at, it rattles and vibrates and talks to you when you drive it. but over 8/10ths, it's a lot of work for not much return except the need to be masochistic.

that said, i don't think it was optimized at all for autocross........

[John V]

. . . the 993 is a WAY better car than the 996.

I can't for the life of me understand why anybody would think this. :dunno: