View Full Version : Quick Poll: (3.2L) 987S or Elise?
Remeber, this would be a weekend car (maybe a few autox's or a track day here or there).
Assume they would both cost the same.
John V
02-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Have you driven both of them for a reasonable amount of time?
I don't think you'd be asking this question if you had. Not because one is clearly better than the other, but because I believe one will appeal to you more than the other.
I've never driven the Elise, so it's hard to comment, but the improved livability of the 986 would be a big deal for me even in a summer weekend car...because eventually I'd want to take the summer weekend car on a trip, and probably I'd end up driving it to work every day, and eventually I'd sell my other car, so I'd need a summer weekend car that can be a daily driver.
clyde
02-12-2008, 02:27 PM
I see two possibilities...
1. You buy the Boxster and spend a lot of time kvetching (internally, maybe a little externally) about whether you would have been happier with an Elise. But you stick it out in the Boxster for however long you have planned...just never fully enjoying it as you imagined.
2. You buy an Elise, work extra hard on convincing yourself that it's better than the Boxster...eventually succumbing to some kind of "practical" rationalization where you give yourself permission to sell it before end of plan and replace with a Boxster. Within a day or two, you know that you're happier with the Boxster and kick yourself for a while for having done the Elise thing first...but not too hard. Or too long. Until someone reminds you.
Conclusion:
Buy a Z06 instead.
rautox
02-12-2008, 02:33 PM
Buy a Z06 instead.
Can I change my vote to this?
Buy a Z06 instead.
I predict this to be the only rational thought in this entire thread.
Conclusion:
Buy a Z06 instead.
LOL
rumatt
02-12-2008, 02:56 PM
Quick Poll: (3.2L) 987S or Elise?
Answer 1: Drive them and buy the one you love.
Answer 2: If I had to guess, I'd say you'd be happier with the Porsche.
Buy a Z06 instead.
Did you not pay attention to who is asking the question?
You know, clyde may be right. But I really have no plans beyond this car purchase. Sure, I may waffle. But I can't imagine ever being upset with owning either car.
JV is also right. I have to drive the Elise (I have driven the 987S). I may find the Elise for all its coolness/uniqueness/etc is just a bit much. My wife is not on board with it either becasue she says while she may rarely drive the 987S, she will never drive the Elise - and she thinks it's retarded. But I know I can convince her IF I decide I want the Elise. But driving the Elise may make the choice very easy.
On JST's point about eventually it becoming the DD, I dunno, but I would guess whatever car I wind up with I'd like to trade for a CPO 997 once my kid(s) can climb in the back seats themselves - or at least are foward-facing. After all, I rather drive a heavier and less fun 911 everyday than a more fun 2-seater just on weekends.
Definitely 987S (even with the 3.2) as long as this is not a majority track application.. The hwy/everyday comfort of 2005+ porsches is substantial. And don't nix the 986S either if price is right.
Read the comments on that link I posted before (America's best handling car). How much "sharpness" do you give up when you go from elise to porsche? How important is that to you? Drive them back to back, on the same day.
Answer 1: Drive them and buy the one you love.
Answer 2: If I had to guess, I'd say you'd be happier with the Porsche.
Did you not pay attention to who is asking the question?
Let's just say my wife would rather have me driving an Elise than a Corvette. And I drove lemming's Z06. It was fun in a rent an exotic for the weekend sort of way.
clyde
02-12-2008, 03:17 PM
You know, clyde is right.
:cool:
(and, yes, I knew)
clyde
02-12-2008, 03:18 PM
Let's just say my wife would rather have me driving an Elise than a Corvette.
http://www.worldclothing.net/vintage/pants/CHINO%20PANTS-b.jpg
:dunno:
rumatt
02-12-2008, 03:22 PM
http://www.yorkblog.com/explorer/img/skirt.jpg
http://www.worldclothing.net/vintage/pants/CHINO%20PANTS-b.jpg
:dunno:
Did his wife get approval to buy those $100 pants?
Did his wife get approval to buy those $100 pants?
No, she is only allowed to shop at Walmart and maybe Target.
You know, clyde may be right. But I really have no plans beyond this car purchase. Sure, I may waffle. But I can't imagine ever being upset with owning either car.
JV is also right. I have to drive the Elise (I have driven the 987S). I may find the Elise for all its coolness/uniqueness/etc is just a bit much. My wife is not on board with it either becasue she says while she may rarely drive the 987S, she will never drive the Elise - and she thinks it's retarded. But I know I can convince her IF I decide I want the Elise. But driving the Elise may make the choice very easy.
On JST's point about eventually it becoming the DD, I dunno, but I would guess whatever car I wind up with I'd like to trade for a CPO 997 once my kid(s) can climb in the back seats themselves - or at least are foward-facing. After all, I rather drive a heavier and less fun 911 everyday than a more fun 2-seater just on weekends.
Your premise (that the Boxster is more fun to drive than the 911) is flawed. On the street, where you aren't accessing 10/10s performance, the 911 is, IMHO, the better car by quite a bit, simply because it has SO MUCH MORE power.
My point is that a car like a Boxster is going to become your DD (over, e.g., your ZHP) because when you wake up and reach for a set of keys, you will always want to take the Boxster keys. You'll look for excuses (oh, the Porsche has been sitting and needs exercise) and justifications (I can fit a baby seat in the front if I turn the airbag off), but the end result is the same--the more fun car gets driven. The less fun car sits unless you have no other choice.
With that in mind, perhaps you should just buy a 911 now and get rid of the ZHP entirely. Why isn't that one of your options?
Your premise (that the Boxster is more fun to drive than the 911) is flawed. On the street, where you aren't accessing 10/10s performance, the 911 is, IMHO, the better car by quite a bit, simply because it has SO MUCH MORE power.
My point is that a car like a Boxster is going to become your DD (over, e.g., your ZHP) because when you wake up and reach for a set of keys, you will always want to take the Boxster keys. You'll look for excuses (oh, the Porsche has been sitting and needs exercise) and justifications (I can fit a baby seat in the front if I turn the airbag off), but the end result is the same--the more fun car gets driven. The less fun car sits unless you have no other choice.
With that in mind, perhaps you should just buy a 911 now and get rid of the ZHP entirely. Why isn't that one of your options?
It is. And it has started growing on me. The annoyance of reaching in the back seat to get the kid every morning may well be outweighed by consolidating to 2 cars and having a really fun car I can drive all the time. Nevermind that my wife loves 911's. By next year, Nicolas will be forward-facing.
...Until and if we have a 2nd kid.At that point:
1) Nicolas goes FF behind me, and infant goes RF behind passenger seat.
2) We get an MCS or other 3rd car.
3) I suck it up and drive V70R for a few months (weekdays).
If I consolidate to a 911, a 996TT would likely be in the cards.
lemming
02-12-2008, 05:40 PM
It is. And it has started growing on me. The annoyance of reaching in the back seat to get the kid every morning may well be outweighed by consolidating to 2 cars and having a really fun car I can drive all the time. Nevermind that my wife loves 911's. By next year, Nicolas will be forward-facing.
...Until and if we have a 2nd kid.At that point:
1) Nicolas goes FF behind me, and infant goes RF behind passenger seat.
2) We get an MCS or other 3rd car.
3) I suck it up and drive V70R for a few months (weekdays).
If I consolidate to a 911, a 996TT would likely be in the cards.
i'd opt for the Porsche mainly because of a much stronger dealer network with much better customer support (i.e. you'd likely get a loaner, can you say that about a Lotus dealer, esp. the swarmy one in New England?).
with the caveat that the mid-engined car will physically drive "better", i'd concur that for you the 911 has allure and arguably more practicality.
My bet is that you will not regret purchasing the porsche, either the MR 986S/987S/987 or the RR 996/997. They are all very good. Go for the config that you like (two little seats, 'vert, or the smallest coupe ;)). Adjust for budget.
The thing with the zhp is that it will soon be not worth selling, at which point you should just keep it.
My bet is that you will not regret purchasing the porsche, either the MR 986S/987S/987 or the RR 996/997. They are all very good. Go for the config that you like (two little seats, 'vert, or the smallest coupe ;)). Adjust for budget.
The thing with the zhp is that it will soon be not worth selling, at which point you should just keep it.
Well, the wife now (perhaps from all the incessant Elise lobbying) is very pumped about the 911 idea.
Sadly, a 911 would mean the ZHP has to go. I'd imagine even at this time next year my ZHP should fetch ~$15K. That is still too much money too have tied up in a car that would be used little. Some of that money would be better used getting a beater Cherokee (perhaps my brother's?), or an old Yukon, or even a wrangler (to get some of that open air feeling I would no longer have in a roadster) and use it as a crappy weather 2nd car, blizzard-mobile, family loaner, random tow duty, HD runs, mild trail/dirt road drives, and other random duty. We're talking like $5K here. This goign full circle to when I (naively) thought a roadster would replace the ZHP, which of course makes no sense given the kid(s).
Back to the 911. Selling the ZHP bumps my budget to ~$50K. For the right car, it could be bumped higher.
Options are:
-'02+ 996 C2
-996 C4S (AWD and better looks/brakes+other goodies)
-early 997
-early 997S
-'02+ 996TT
The 997S would stretch the budget a tad if I want a good sample. There already are a few nice TT's and base 997's for mid 50K. I'd have to test drive all of these and see.
lemming
02-12-2008, 07:31 PM
Well, the wife now (perhaps from all the incessant Elise lobbying) is very pumped about the 911 idea.
Sadly, a 911 would mean the ZHP has to go. I'd imagine even at this time next year my ZHP should fetch ~$15K. That is still too much money too have tied up in a car that would be used little. Some of that money would be better used getting a beater Cherokee (perhaps my brother's?), or an old Yukon, or even a wrangler (to get some of that open air feeling I would no longer have in a roadster) and use it as a crappy weather 2nd car, blizzard-mobile, family loaner, random tow duty, HD runs, mild trail/dirt road drives, and other random duty. We're talking like $5K here. This goign full circle to when I (naively) thought a roadster would replace the ZHP, which of course makes no sense given the kid(s).
Back to the 911. Selling the ZHP bumps my budget to ~$50K. For the right car, it could be bumped higher.
Options are:
-'02+ 996 C2
-996 C4S (AWD and better looks/brakes+other goodies)
-early 997
-early 997S
-'02+ 996TT
The 997S would stretch the budget a tad if I want a good sample. There already are a few nice TT's and base 997's for mid 50K. I'd have to test drive all of these and see.
if you can wait, i'd hold out for the 997, either in standard or S guise because the rear suspension pieces are supposed to be a nice improvement over the 996 --plus you get the bonus of a more differentiated bodystyle.
i'm not really feeling the awd on the 911 because with snow tires, you'd not really need it with the rear engine hanging way out back.
if you can wait, i'd hold out for the 997, either in standard or S guise because the rear suspension pieces are supposed to be a nice improvement over the 996 --plus you get the bonus of a more differentiated bodystyle.
i'm not really feeling the awd on the 911 because with snow tires, you'd not really need it with the rear engine hanging way out back.
Well, yeah. The 997S is very nice. But it would be pricey. The 996TT has all that torque though - that could be fun too.
The problem with the 996TT is that it would be older (~7yo when I get it) and like you said, already a generation old. I know I would be looking forward to upgrading to a used 997TT after a couple of years (not that it would happen 2 years later). The "weaker" 997S would likely keep me happy much longer and with luck I may still get 2 years of CPO warranty.
I'm resistant to get the base 997 because for the difference in the used car market you get a lot of stuff (motor, brakes, xenons, 19" wheels, steering wheel, PASM, etc).
if you can wait, i'd hold out for the 997, either in standard or S guise because the rear suspension pieces are supposed to be a nice improvement over the 996 --plus you get the bonus of a more differentiated bodystyle.
i'm not really feeling the awd on the 911 because with snow tires, you'd not really need it with the rear engine hanging way out back.
+1 on all.
Negative on awd 911, prefer 997 (base or S) to 996 even if TT.
I still miss my zhp (and I sold it in the high 20's). Not really getting the $5k wrangler whatever idea, seems like more of a waste (and likely more upkeep) than keeping the $15k zhp as a beater.
Well, yeah. The 997S is very nice. But it would be pricey. The 996TT has all that torque though - that could be fun too.
Try driving the possible porsches back to back. I was very close to getting a used 997 when a cayman test drive changed everything. Not saying that's the right answer for you, but good drives will point you in the direction. If possible, drive at a few dealers. You notice different things about the same car in different settings.
I found the base 997 surprisingly torquey (I doubt you'll need more, especially coming from bmw). It's faster, larger, quieter & more GT than the 987S (my meek opinion) - so potentially yes, it's a better one car car than the 2-seaters. The handling didn't really do it for me but I didn't drive an S. I personally didn't need more power (and was on a budget as well, S's were not below 70k in 06 summer). Perhaps PASM gives it the tightness I was looking for, I'm not sure. There are rare PASM failures though and I just feel better having one simple, *right* suspension instead of a somewhat soft everyday one and a glassy, jiggly track one. YMMV on all.
Also I only drove one, sometimes tire pressures and what not really affect the car.
Yup. I'll have to test-drive them. First I need to make sure I'll be able to fit an rear-facing child seat in the back of a 996/997.
fyi, you can't fit a rear-facing child seat in the back of an elise
lupinsea
02-12-2008, 08:37 PM
or even a wrangler (to get some of that open air feeling I would no longer have in a roadster) and use it as a crappy weather 2nd car, blizzard-mobile, family loaner, random tow duty, HD runs, mild trail/dirt road drives, and other random duty. We're talking like $5K here.
:D :thumbup:
But, uh, quickly looking on Autotrader.com asking prices for even 1997-1999 Wranglers w/ 4.0L I-6 engine and either manual or automatic were in the $8-9k range.
Edmunds is listing them at $6-7k on their TMV thingy.
Step down to the 2.5L 4 cyl and you can knock that down to around $5k but you really don't want to do this. The 4 cyl is a dog. But if you're going to keep it stock . . . . might be fine. Fuel economy difference between the two is not significant, they both suck. Never knew why they offered a 4 cyl.
They're great small utility/crappy weather vehicles you can beat on and not worry about. Plus they last a long time.
I can guarantee you won't get a more unique experience scooting around town with the top down AND the doors OFF. It's just awesome.
Have you driven one or two yet?
lupinsea
02-12-2008, 08:42 PM
Oh, and the 986's / 987's have a big front cargo well if you take out the spare. . . one might describe it as small child size even. Much easer to access than the back seats of the 911.
For cargo.
Just for comparison.
Cuz, y',know . . . um, I'm not suggesting anything.
:eeps:
.
Well, yeah. The 997S is very nice. But it would be pricey. The 996TT has all that torque though - that could be fun too.
The problem with the 996TT is that it would be older (~7yo when I get it) and like you said, already a generation old. I know I would be looking forward to upgrading to a used 997TT after a couple of years (not that it would happen 2 years later). The "weaker" 997S would likely keep me happy much longer and with luck I may still get 2 years of CPO warranty.
I'm resistant to get the base 997 because for the difference in the used car market you get a lot of stuff (motor, brakes, xenons, 19" wheels, steering wheel, PASM, etc).
I don't know dude. I think you are nuts to go straight to a 911TT. A base 996 is plenty fast. People who claim that the only worthwhile 911s are 997Ss and TTs have drunk the Porsche marketing KoolAid.
clyde
02-12-2008, 09:18 PM
Well, the wife now (perhaps from all the incessant Elise lobbying) is very pumped about the 911 idea.
Sadly, a 911 would mean the ZHP has to go. I'd imagine even at this time next year my ZHP should fetch ~$15K. That is still too much money too have tied up in a car that would be used little. Some of that money would be better used getting a beater Cherokee (perhaps my brother's?), or an old Yukon, or even a wrangler (to get some of that open air feeling I would no longer have in a roadster) and use it as a crappy weather 2nd car, blizzard-mobile, family loaner, random tow duty, HD runs, mild trail/dirt road drives, and other random duty. We're talking like $5K here. This goign full circle to when I (naively) thought a roadster would replace the ZHP, which of course makes no sense given the kid(s).
Back to the 911. Selling the ZHP bumps my budget to ~$50K. For the right car, it could be bumped higher.
Options are:
-'02+ 996 C2
-996 C4S (AWD and better looks/brakes+other goodies)
-early 997
-early 997S
-'02+ 996TT
The 997S would stretch the budget a tad if I want a good sample. There already are a few nice TT's and base 997's for mid 50K. I'd have to test drive all of these and see.
I have the answer. Imagine all of the possible options, combos, whatever. Write them all out on scraps of paper. Put scraps in a hat. Have your wife pick one. If she approves, she hands slip to you. If she disapproves, she picks again. And again. Until she's happy. Anyway, then, you do the buying and selling as needed.
Trust me, you'll be just as happy as anything you think out. But it'll be a lot easier. And faster.
:D :thumbup:
But, uh, quickly looking on Autotrader.com asking prices for even 1997-1999 Wranglers w/ 4.0L I-6 engine and either manual or automatic were in the $8-9k range.
Edmunds is listing them at $6-7k on their TMV thingy.
Step down to the 2.5L 4 cyl and you can knock that down to around $5k but you really don't want to do this. The 4 cyl is a dog. But if you're going to keep it stock . . . . might be fine. Fuel economy difference between the two is not significant, they both suck. Never knew why they offered a 4 cyl.
They're great small utility/crappy weather vehicles you can beat on and not worry about. Plus they last a long time.
I can guarantee you won't get a more unique experience scooting around town with the top down AND the doors OFF. It's just awesome.
Have you driven one or two yet?
What's up with that?:? Yeah no. Definitely talking 4.0L I-6 here. We'll ideally a 4-door wrangler buit it will be a WHILE before they get down to 3rd car money.
Maybe I should buy a JC and cut away most of the roof and remove all the windows.;)
I don't know dude. I think you are nuts to go straight to a 911TT. A base 996 is plenty fast. People who claim that the only worthwhile 911s are 997Ss and TTs have drunk the Porsche marketing KoolAid.
You may be right. I've never driven ANY 911, so admitedly I am talking out of my ass. If a 996 C2 is nice enough and the 997 doesn't feel noticeably nicer/better, I may just go with the 996 C2. I haven't looked but I'd think in a year I ought to be able to find one for 35K. I'd hope a 997 could be had for under 50K.
lemming
02-12-2008, 09:33 PM
the 911 in its purest form is (arguably) so NOT the turbo, esp. the ones with AWD.
anyone who can extract 9/10ths from a 996 c2 has mad skillz and any one of us would be happy to drive that car any day of the week. it's just how it looks..........
I don't know dude. I think you are nuts to go straight to a 911TT. A base 996 is plenty fast. People who claim that the only worthwhile 911s are 997Ss and TTs have drunk the Porsche marketing KoolAid.
It doesn't take KoolAid to appreciate the vast interior improvement in the 997. I don't know if I could look at a 996 interior day after day.
Then again, it is a weekend car we're talking about.
Hmm... after doing a few searches I'm questioning this 911 thing. there nearly no solutions to the rear-facing stage (which could last many months), and access is a PITA (but we knew this). I'll have to see in person.
It doesn't take KoolAid to appreciate the vast interior improvement in the 997. I don't know if I could look at a 996 interior day after day.
Then again, it is a weekend car we're talking about.
Not if we are talking 911.
I actually found my 996 very sporty & fun when I had it (in my pre-mudgeon days). It just didn't work as an only car solution for me so I had to go to the zhp. I'm not sure how I'd find one now but the 997 while capable *seemed* smoother, quieter, less fun. This may be distorted, of course, as I haven't driven a 996 since I sold mine.
A clean 996c2 is an awesome car. I loved my lapis blue one (if only it weren't for the pukey savannah beige interior). I don't normally like posting self-pics, nor do I like on-car pics, but I miss this car, my first fast car. (I also miss my younger days).
I like the '02+ 996 C2. An execute at my former job used to park his silver '03 996 right outside my window everyday. I could definitely live with a black on black car. And I just saw a couple of nice oneson ebay with "Buy it Now"'s of 40K, which does mean in a year 35K is not out of the question. Heck it oculd even be the weekend car, but as a weekend car I rather have a roadster.
I dunno. This is getting sort of annoying.Maybe there is no way around needing at leasta roomy coupe when dropping kids off at daycare everyday. And to do that, I might as well have a sedan. And no sedan turns me on for the premium over my ZHP. So I'd keep it - and add a weekend car. We're back to square one.
I'll try to stop by the P-car dealer tomorrow at lunch (it's a mile from work). If carryign kids in the back of a 911 seems stupid just looing at it, then the daily 911 will have to wait a few years (assuming we get pregnant again - with just one toddler, Id tolerate it).
You may be right. I've never driven ANY 911, so admitedly I am talking out of my ass. If a 996 C2 is nice enough and the 997 doesn't feel noticeably nicer/better, I may just go with the 996 C2. I haven't looked but I'd think in a year I ought to be able to find one for 35K. I'd hope a 997 could be had for under 50K.
Plaz has a good point about the interior. A 996 interior is barely tolerable in black. In any other color it looks like dried barf. The 997 is a lot better.
But, dynamically? Coming from a ZHP, even a base 996 911 is going to handle like an octopus dipped in superglue, and (if you don't mind me mixing metaphors) it's going to go like a Clydesdale with a rocket up its ass. Steering feel is going to blow your mind, throttle response will make you weep a little, and the noise from the engine could make you rip out the stereo just because you are enraged at its insolence for trying to compete.
So, what I'm saying is that even the lowliest (post 02) 996 is going to be a HUGE change from what you are driving now.
Coming from a ZHP, even a base 996 911 is going to handle like an octopus dipped in superglue, and (if you don't mind me mixing metaphors) it's going to go like a Clydesdale with a rocket up its ass. Steering feel is going to blow your mind, throttle response will make you weep a little, and the noise from the engine could make you rip out the stereo just because you are enraged at its insolence for trying to compete.
:lol:
That was awesome.
rautox
02-12-2008, 11:08 PM
Coming from a ZHP, even a base 996 911 is going to handle like an octopus dipped in superglue, and (if you don't mind me mixing metaphors) it's going to go like a Clydesdale with a rocket up its ass. Steering feel is going to blow your mind, throttle response will make you weep a little, and the noise from the engine could make you rip out the stereo just because you are enraged at its insolence for trying to compete.
*misty-eyed golf claps*
That was beautiful, man...
Plaz has a good point about the interior. A 996 interior is barely tolerable in black. In any other color it looks like dried barf. The 997 is a lot better.
But, dynamically? Coming from a ZHP, even a base 996 911 is going to handle like an octopus dipped in superglue, and (if you don't mind me mixing metaphors) it's going to go like a Clydesdale with a rocket up its ass. Steering feel is going to blow your mind, throttle response will make you weep a little, and the noise from the engine could make you rip out the stereo just because you are enraged at its insolence for trying to compete.
So, what I'm saying is that even the lowliest (post 02) 996 is going to be a HUGE change from what you are driving now.
You truly have a way with words, sir.
But, dynamically? Coming from a ZHP, even a base 996 911 is going to handle like an octopus dipped in superglue, and (if you don't mind me mixing metaphors) it's going to go like a Clydesdale with a rocket up its ass. Steering feel is going to blow your mind, throttle response will make you weep a little, and the noise from the engine could make you rip out the stereo just because you are enraged at its insolence for trying to compete.
Wow, JST, have you even owned this car? Spot on.
I'd take three adults (medium to small sized) on trips and people would willingly squish in. I'd go through lincoln tunnel in the middle of the night with my windows down and near the top of 2nd gear (modified intake, stock exhaust). Kids smiled when I passed by, motorcyclists thumbed up, old porsches hooted, people asked me about the aerokit.
But, but, I actually felt toothaches on bumps. (Perhaps I shouldn't have kept to the 36f/44r psi ridiculousness) When my brother visited, I had to borrow a car to go to the airport (one large suitcase). The pukey interior, and also not that nice to drive in the rain, in the dark (randomly strewn unlit switches). The wiper adjustment is through a stalk and some other knob on the dash, e.g.
If you're going to have another car available for space, winter, the suburban reality and such things, it's a great car.
John V
02-13-2008, 06:41 AM
Your premise (that the Boxster is more fun to drive than the 911) is flawed. On the street, where you aren't accessing 10/10s performance, the 911 is, IMHO, the better car by quite a bit, simply because it has SO MUCH MORE power.
Depends on the 911. The early 996s aren't any faster than a Boxster S. If you're comparing an early 996 to a 987S, they're slower.
And compared to a Boxster, they feel dimwitted and understeery.
Plaz has a good point about the interior. A 996 interior is barely tolerable in black. In any other color it looks like dried barf. The 997 is a lot better.
But, dynamically? Coming from a ZHP, even a base 996 911 is going to handle like an octopus dipped in superglue, and (if you don't mind me mixing metaphors) it's going to go like a Clydesdale with a rocket up its ass. Steering feel is going to blow your mind, throttle response will make you weep a little, and the noise from the engine could make you rip out the stereo just because you are enraged at its insolence for trying to compete.
So, what I'm saying is that even the lowliest (post 02) 996 is going to be a HUGE change from what you are driving now.
ROTFL
Oh, and yeah. Black interior-only for any pre-'05 P-car. And on a C2, I'd prefer double-black.
This is encouraging...
http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=6353&hl=infant
This is encouraging...
http://www.renntech.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=6353&hl=infant
ROFL, *this* just looks like cruel and unusual punishment...
http://www.renntech.org/forums/uploads/monthly_04_2007/post-8562-1177623250_thumb.jpg
BahnBaum
02-13-2008, 08:55 AM
ROFL, *this* just looks like cruel and unusual punishment...
Looks like fun if you're one of the little ones.
Alex
Can one of the mods split this thread and name it something like "Kids in a 911" or something like that? We changed subjects a while ago. Thanks.
Anyhow. I think it looks like fun. Of course, I'd have a coupe, but what you lose in fresh air (and access to kids with the top down) you gain in safety and room since it seems the cab takes up some of the precious rear seat area.
So let's say we have a 2nd child while I own the 911....
1) I could just stop driving it for the 6-9 months he/she would be rear-facing.
2) Deactivate airbag and use infant seat on front passenger seat.
This of course calls into question the whole notion of routinely driving small children in a 911. But I feel the drive would only be 10 minutes and never on highways. Plus, the whole safety question really only comes into play in a major accident. And a 911 is probably no less safe than a MCS.
ROFL, *this* just looks like cruel and unusual punishment...
http://www.renntech.org/forums/uploads/monthly_04_2007/post-8562-1177623250_thumb.jpg
Those Porsche seats are ridiculous. Not sure about your kids, but my daughter would simply not stand for having that giant piece of foam belted around her middle. The 5 point harness is a big enough struggle as it is.
FC, trust me, I looked into this *extensively.* A forward facing Roundabout fits in the back without a problem. A rear facing Roundabout fits, but probably not behind the driver's seat and forces the passenger seat into an uncomfortable position. A rear facing Graco, from what I can tell, does not fit in the back.
So, if you are going to get a 911, you need to get one before you have a second kid. That way, when you have a second kid, you can persuade your wife to just get a beater to drive around for the year or so before you can go to a front-facing Roundabout for the second kid.
Otherwise, you need to wait to get a 911 until your brood is entirely out of Graco infant seats. Sorry.
Those Porsche seats are ridiculous. Not sure about your kids, but my daughter would simply not stand for having that giant piece of foam belted around her middle. The 5 point harness is a big enough struggle as it is.
FC, trust me, I looked into this *extensively.* A forward facing Roundabout fits in the back without a problem. A rear facing Roundabout fits, but probably not behind the driver's seat and forces the passenger seat into an uncomfortable position. A rear facing Graco, from what I can tell, does not fit in the back.
So, if you are going to get a 911, you need to get one before you have a second kid. That way, when you have a second kid, you can persuade your wife to just get a beater to drive around for the year or so before you can go to a front-facing Roundabout for the second kid.
Otherwise, you need to wait to get a 911 until your brood is entirely out of Graco infant seats. Sorry.
My kids would not have tolerated that either. They also would not have tolerated that little leg room.
Now they are both in boosters, with our eldest about to not need any type of seat.
So I'm clear for two-door with smallish back seats.
Depends on the 911. The early 996s aren't any faster than a Boxster S. If you're comparing an early 996 to a 987S, they're slower.
And compared to a Boxster, they feel dimwitted and understeery.
True. I limit my comments to the 02 and above 996. The prior years were not worth it. And you are right about the 987S (even the the 3.2), which feels torquey and quick in a way that the 986s do not.
rumatt
02-13-2008, 09:47 AM
I this potential purchase even in the near future?
I found my 01 996 much faster than 986S's. BTW, there is sth very wrong with a 911 cab, rear-seatlet headroom be damned. A major attraction of the 911 design is the roof line.
I this potential purchase even in the near future?
10-14 months or so.
Those Porsche seats are ridiculous. Not sure about your kids, but my daughter would simply not stand for having that giant piece of foam belted around her middle. The 5 point harness is a big enough struggle as it is.
FC, trust me, I looked into this *extensively.* A forward facing Roundabout fits in the back without a problem. A rear facing Roundabout fits, but probably not behind the driver's seat and forces the passenger seat into an uncomfortable position. A rear facing Graco, from what I can tell, does not fit in the back.
So, if you are going to get a 911, you need to get one before you have a second kid. That way, when you have a second kid, you can persuade your wife to just get a beater to drive around for the year or so before you can go to a front-facing Roundabout for the second kid.
Otherwise, you need to wait to get a 911 until your brood is entirely out of Graco infant seats. Sorry.
Well, my wife was ok with figuring out what happens if we have a 2nd kid.
By then, picking up a 3rd car should not be an issue, but I think I could live with the V70R for a few months. Good to know a Roundabout fits. My kid will be old enough by the tmie we get a 911 to know how he feels abotu car seats. Though for such a short ride, he'll have to learn to suck it up.
ROFL, *this* just looks like cruel and unusual punishment...
http://www.renntech.org/forums/uploads/monthly_04_2007/post-8562-1177623250_thumb.jpg
that's nothin'... try squeezing in a couple adult males into that space -- with the top up for an hour plus drive back into London from the Goodwood Festival of Speed...
No pictures exist, but I was one of the unlucky guys in back... We had to put the top down in order to get out, and then it took a couple minutes for me to be able to stand upright again.
Edit: The real torture was having to get back in the car after dinner for the drive back to our hotel...
Is this potential purchase even in the near future?
10-14 months or so.
:lol:
To ZBB's point, I dunno if I mentioned this here before, but one of the funniest sights from our trip to Paris was seeing 4 adults in a 996 cab with the top up. Poor bastards. They were all men too.
clyde
02-13-2008, 11:15 AM
I remember sitting in the back of my dad's 356B Coupe with my brother. I don't remember if there were actually seats there, though.
To ZBB's point, I dunno if I mentioned this here before, but one of the funniest sights from our trip to Paris was seeing 4 adults in a 996 cab with the top up. Poor bastards. They were all men too.
4 French men in a cute little cabriolet? Are you sure they were actually "men"?
I remember sitting in the back of my dad's 356B Coupe with my brother. I don't remember if there were actually seats there, though.
My dad had a '56 356 Speedster and an '62 356 Roadster, and his sister had a '62 or '63 356 Coupe (she received it as a 16th birthday present -- and it was her daily driver for 15+ years).
The Speedster did not have a back seat, the Coupe did, and the Roadster had some padding that technically passed as a back seat...
That picture of the kids in the back brings back a lot of memories - the king that make me realize why I really don't like convertibles. I hated being in the back on the highway with the top down. It happened twice a weekend on the way to the boat, too. It's amazing I don't hate boats.
John V
02-13-2008, 02:05 PM
True. I limit my comments to the 02 and above 996. The prior years were not worth it. And you are right about the 987S (even the the 3.2), which feels torquey and quick in a way that the 986s do not.
The magic of aggressive throttle curves...
Dude, just go drive a 996 Turbo.
And while it might be an older car, as long as it has no type 2 or type 3 over revs, it will last forever, and it will cost no more than your typical BMW service. I mean, I paid something dumb like 600 dollars for their equivalent of inspection 1.
I will drive all the 911's that are in the price range. I've always liked the 996TT, but it may be a bit much. I dunno. I do think that one way or the other, It would be cool to someday have a 997TT. Too bad they are far too new.
FWIW, 997TT's are slightly more exciting because they dialed out the PSM safety meter, so it will go slightly more sideways.
Still can't do what one can do in 996 GT2, but it's more "exciting."
Not sure this is what most of our spousal unit would want. The mrs drove the 996TT a lot to work, she hardly drove the GT2. The 996TT is very liveable.
Does your wife drive to work sideways too? :lol:
I mean, I paid something dumb like 600 dollars for their equivalent of inspection 1.
That is dumb. I can't fathom paying $600 to have my tire pressure checked, my nutz lubed, and oil changed.
That is dumb. I can't fathom paying $600 to have my tire pressure checked, my nutz lubed, and oil changed.
Fortunately for me, I don't drive much anymore, so upkeep would not be so pricey on a per-year basis.
lupinsea
02-13-2008, 05:14 PM
To ZBB's point, I dunno if I mentioned this here before, but one of the funniest sights from our trip to Paris was seeing 4 adults in a 996 cab with the top up. Poor bastards. They were all men too.
4 French men in a cute little cabriolet? Are you sure they were actually "men"?
Maybe they all four were siting in the front two seats? :eeps:
4 French men in a cute little cabriolet? Are you sure they were actually "men"?
Well, he did say they were French.
lupinsea
02-14-2008, 03:44 PM
This is bad . . . and mean. But :stickpoke: :D
French Military History in a Nutshell
Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."
Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War: Tied.
War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.
War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.
American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".
French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.
War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
I know it's all in good fun and everything but you do know that just in WWI 1.4M Frenchmen died trying to defend their country. That's more casualties than the US ever had in any war.
lupinsea
02-14-2008, 05:34 PM
Ok, kidding aside . . .
I didn't know it was exactly 1.4m but I'm not surprised. There is much made of the cost in lives of U.S. troops in WWII for instance (shifting to a different war) in all our various documentaries and history books but we had it pretty good compared to other involved nations in WWII. Apart from Pearl Harbor and I think some of the Aleutian Island in Alaska and a lone firebomb strike in the Oregon Forest by a single Japanese aircraft The War never struck our homeland. Our cities survived. Our factories weren't touched. And we had no invading forces on our home soil.
For WWII, total death's (civilian / military) as percentage of population:
US. = 0.32% (0.4 million)
UK = 0.94% (0.5 million)
France = 1.35% (0.5 million)
Germany = 10.47% (7.3 million)
Poland = 16.07% (5.6 million)
Soviet Union = 13.71% (23.1 million)
Think also of the impact of the civilian vs. military deaths for each nation. Nearly all the U.S. deaths were military, we only lost 1700 civilians out of our country's population of 130 million at the time. France lost 267,000 civilians out of a national population of 42 million. And these civilian deaths occurred not because civilians were accidentally stumbling into battle fields but because the war came to them in their cities and towns. Other losses:
US = 1700 civilians (130 mil total population)
UK = 67,000 civilians (48 mil " " )
France = 267,000 civilians (42 mil " " )
Germany = 1,600,000 civilians (69 mil " " )
Poland = 2,440,000 civilians (35 mil " " )
Soviet Union = 11,400,000 civilians (168 mil " " )
lemming
02-14-2008, 05:46 PM
I know it's all in good fun and everything but you do know that just in WWI 1.4M Frenchmen died trying to defend their country. That's more casualties than the US ever had in any war.
that's because we're such a nation of whiners you'd never hear the end of it.
plus that whole having two oceans to keep most people away gig --with the exception of when we annex Canada to North Dakota, i don't really see casualties of that sort of scale ever happening for the US; hockey can only be so violent, after all.
lupinsea
02-14-2008, 08:04 PM
that's because we're such a nation of whiners you'd never hear the end of it.
plus that whole having two oceans to keep most people away gig --with the exception of when we annex Canada to North Dakota, i don't really see casualties of that sort of scale ever happening for the US; hockey can only be so violent, after all.
Yup. The 2 ocean's thing has been a big obstacle.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.