07-01-2020, 09:22 PM | #961 |
Hello.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Carmudgeonly Ride: '09 X3, '11 328xiT, '11 135i C, '17 c2, '19 X5
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 5,531
|
Looks great. Did you get a challenger?
How's it compare to the e30s?
__________________
Josh (PA) - '19 X5 '17 991.2 C2 Cab '11 135i Convertible '11 328xiT '09 X3 |
07-01-2020, 09:35 PM | #962 |
Carmudgeon
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,669
|
|
07-01-2020, 10:15 PM | #963 | |
Relic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 12,458
|
Quote:
As for the E30s, it's a very different car. The M3 (which is hugely modified, and is on the path to getting more so - I've pretty much decided that the S54 is going to replace the S50) has sharper steering and is more agile. 993 steering is, IMO, pretty bad. It's both a geometry issue (bump steer - and to be clear, while the car is lower than US stock, it's sitting on stock non-US springs) and a mechanical issue (why the fuck is the steering rack mounted in rubber, and why do the tie rods have rubber in them????). The E30 has none of that and it's better for it. It also has significant aftermarket bump steer correction, but also starts with better geometry. I'm starting with the cheapest thing to improve (stiff steering rack mount bushings), but will also put bump steer correcting tie rods into the queue as well. Net-net, I like them both a lot. The stockish 325is and 325iX are totally different cars. They are easy to drive, charming, and very slow. I chased Kobi in the turbo while driving the puppy in the iX, and I had to work that sewing machine pretty hard to keep up while she loafed along lazily. They are great city cars, though, because the are compact, visible, and people like nice looking E30s nowadays.
__________________
2011 M3 2006 Sierra 2500HD 4WD LBZ/Allison 2004 X5 3.0i 6MT 1995 M3 S50B32 1990 325is 1989 M3 S54B32 Hers: 1989 325iX 1996 911 Turbo |
|
07-01-2020, 10:33 PM | #964 |
Alphanumeric
Join Date: Aug 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: 981S, 340i
Posts: 9,584
|
A few years back, I drove a fairly low mileage, well-kept 993 3.6L NA back to back with a 981 *base* 2.7L 981. The doors and locks felt expensive, heavy and special. Handmade almost. But after a moderately hard drive... The 981 wiped the floor with it. Even my e46 m3 (driven to that test drive) wiped the floor with it. The 993 was smooth and vaguely torquey as in - could keep up with fast suburban traffic but could not trounce it -felt ancient, smooth, soft, not precise at all. And those pedals coming off the floor... I thought maybe something was wrong underneath with the handling, like some unseen bushings had perished. I remember my 996 feeling sharp though that was also ages ago and my reference point for that car was my long-term b5 a4. So maybe they really are not that sharp. The interior beats the 996/986 in my view, narrow, sharp, not as busy.
I've driven a 964 C4 once and that 993 C2, both coupes, both manual.. Air-cooled is not for me, though they are a pleasant sight and sound. |
07-01-2020, 11:49 PM | #965 | |
Western Anomaly
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: White Orca
Posts: 16,614
|
Quote:
The NA 993 is a high strung fat kid. It’s bloated and more looks than go. Terribly peaky and not a fluid car. At all. The 3.2’s that pre date the 964 are my favorite because they are lighter and the engine feels, by comparison, more spry. The 993TT is a different beast though. Best looker and enough power to keep it timeless. Porsche power is pretty different. I felt like my 996TT was overrated. But the 3.4L in the Boxster is really underrated. I also feel like the 3.8L motor in the 997 S is overrated. It feels underwhelming even though it is a fast car. It’s gotten to the point where I find most 911s to be underwhelming. GTS models make a lot of noise in the 997 and 991.1 guise. But it’s like Try-Hard noise with forced crackles and the flat six sounds okay just okay. But not as nice as a proper Merc or Ford V8. More like a Tacoma V6 with a loud exhaust than V8 goodness. Net net, to me the 993TT is a rare 911 because it’s not overrated. It’s timeless. Most of the other cars are seriously underwhelming. And I think this hives with equ’s point.
__________________
|
|
07-02-2020, 07:54 AM | #966 | |
Alphanumeric
Join Date: Aug 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: 981S, 340i
Posts: 9,584
|
Quote:
And the 993TT never entered my discussion, I completely agree, its power and hips elevate it above the norm. The numbers mean it will always remain valuable. I'm pretty sure a dollop of torque would change the drive for the better, especially on the street. I didn't want to get into the GTS discussion.. I'm interested (not as a buyer but positive on) the 718 GTS. I haven't driven a 991 GTS, so no comment on that but not a fan of center-lock wheels. As for the 981, I drove several before I bought my S. The main advantage was being able to find several performance options bundled on the same car. The +10hp is not noticeable, the torque number is about the same. I preferred the cleaner sound of the S over the 981 GTS which on top of the crackles you mention, actually had a boomy sound symposer somewhere in the cabin... Probably deletable. Having had 987.1, 987.2 and 981, I can comfortably say that on exhaust sound the 981 is better than the other two... The 987.1 was quite all right. The 987.2 was too quiet, I needed a slip-on and I'm not a harley guy. The 981 is great without PSE. Mine happens to have PSE, I generally don't put it on. If I go into or 'sport' or 'sport plus', I have to press the PSE button to turn it off and avoid the fake gunshots. - Normal (all buttons off - not much wrong with this, car still sounds good) - Normal & PSE (this adds a nice tone if top is down, boomy with it up) - Sport or Sport+ & PSE (machine gun fire - unusable) - For hard driving, best is Sport+ and then PSE off. Sport and Sport+ sharpen throttle, add steering weight, increase idle, do something with engine mounts, change exhaust tone - even with PSE off. Sport+ adds the firmer damping. |
|
07-02-2020, 08:50 AM | #967 |
195
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24,614
|
I haven't driven a G body 911 in a loooong time, but I remember the last time I drove one (in the 90s...?) thinking that even then it felt archaic and of a totally different age. Not bad, mind you, just...old.
The 964/993 layered some new tech on the oldness to try and disguise it. It worked, kind of, but I don't think there's a moment that goes by when you're driving those cars that you don't notice it. I've driven a 964 and 993 a lot more recently than a G body. The 964, by modern standards, does not feel terribly fast, mostly because the engine (by modern standards) is really peaky. The 993 I think is better in that regard, but I agree with Equ--a modern variable valve engine, even the 3.2 in my Boxster, feels a lot more powerful than those engines did. I've never driven a 911 Turbo of any generation, much to my chagrin. |
07-02-2020, 09:49 AM | #968 |
Relic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 12,458
|
Power wise, the 993TT is my kind of turbo engine. The turbos don't get in the way of slow driving like they do in all of the modern "let's try and fail to have boost off idle turbos." But unlike most of the modern turbo engines, the NA side of things hasn't been badly hamstrung. It has a decent amount of power, but not so much that I can't wring it out. And, here's the key - it pulls hard to redline in all the gears I've tried it in. For better or worse, it really comes on song at speed.
It's worth noting that Kobi stopped tracking this car after she found herself cracking 160MPH down the back straight at VIR on street tires and started having bad thoughts about needing more downforce. The power is plenty. (See attached for the time this car visited the salt flats - note that that was when she ran out of courage, not power.)
__________________
2011 M3 2006 Sierra 2500HD 4WD LBZ/Allison 2004 X5 3.0i 6MT 1995 M3 S50B32 1990 325is 1989 M3 S54B32 Hers: 1989 325iX 1996 911 Turbo |
07-02-2020, 10:06 AM | #969 |
Relic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 12,458
|
I will note that having directly compared an NA 993 C4 to a '95 M3 on track, the 993 was definitely noticeably faster.
I am very confident that I could turn a faster lap time in the E90 vs. the 993TT, but I stopped caring about objective measures a long time ago.
__________________
2011 M3 2006 Sierra 2500HD 4WD LBZ/Allison 2004 X5 3.0i 6MT 1995 M3 S50B32 1990 325is 1989 M3 S54B32 Hers: 1989 325iX 1996 911 Turbo |
07-02-2020, 10:41 AM | #970 |
Solving problems
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: M5 / 718 GTS / Cooper S / GTI / LR4
Location: Metro Boston
Posts: 25,266
|
911's just seem to do more for a given amount of power. I recall test driving a late 996 C2 that was maybe 4 years old back when the ZHP was my DD and I had the V70R and the 996 felt a whole lot faster. Far more than the numbers would indicate.
OT, but this video is pretty amazing even if the other drivers seem to suck a lot. Damn that GT2 RS is fast. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Washed the Saab today... (not dial-up friendly) | TD | Car Talk | 21 | 03-22-2004 01:47 PM |