996 GT3 vs. 997S
#18
04-05-2010 | 05:12 PM
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 764
From: California
Rep Power: 65
So you are forming an opinion on based on what? 0-60 numbers? A 996 GT3 has a seam welded body, better suspension for track, LSD, more HP, higher rev limiter, GT1 Block, bigger brakes.
The 997.1 C2S is a very fast car, and really nice on the road, but stock to stock is not quite at the GT3 level. I use to think the same way you did, but it is the little things make the difference.
The 997.1 C2S is a very fast car, and really nice on the road, but stock to stock is not quite at the GT3 level. I use to think the same way you did, but it is the little things make the difference.
Let me tell you why my intuition says I could take you [in the classic style of such discussions]. First, I said a current C2S, not a 997.1. And I don't look much to 0-60 times. They're meaningless on a track because you can adjust them up and down almost at will by changing gear ratios and your expectations for the future of the drive train. Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't expect to get down to sixty mph after we leave pit lane. Runs to 100 are slightly more meaningful, but that's only because you're getting up into the gears you'll actually use on track. Well, one of them anyway. So let's agree to ignore the faster times of the current C2S. I had to look them up to even write this paragraph. That wasn't the basis for my comment. The current engine is more powerful and has more torque of course, and the close ratio box lets me get a balanced shift point within the stock red line, so the higher rev-limiter of the older car is moot. With rare exceptions, I have no reason to go above the rpm where the torque falls off enough that the torque to the rear wheels in the higher gear will be more than the lower gear. (That's what I mean by a balanced shift point.)
My personal 997.2S, in the sluggish overfed touring configuration an old man favors, still weighs only 150 lb more than your 2004 GT3 with ceramics. For the contender, I'd choose a more serious C2S configuration, starting with the sports PASM chassis, the one with the mechanical limited slip diff. I don't feel like looking up the weight effect of that choice so I'll assume subject to correction that I"m still 150 lb heavier than your candidate. I would take out at least 100 lb of that before we met. Almost half of it by changing my brakes to the carbon ceramics and the rest in the usual lightening measures. When I say 'lightening', I don't mean stripping out the amenities as we would for a track. Just the obvious things we do for a weekend autocross or the like. Take out the trivia, like the canvas divider compartment in the trunk and getting the hefty owners manual out of the car. (What is that package, five pounds? More?) Then I'd change the wheels to lighter forged alloys and that should do it.
Carbon wheels would be cheating I suppose, since they weren't available for road cars in 2004 and they still aren't factory options, so I'll stick with the sort we can buy from Porsche. That saves at least another fifty pounds. Figure fifteen pounds in trivia, forty for the brakes, fifty for the wheels. I'll settle for calling it a hundred pounds improvement from the weight of my personal car's showroom configuration. Obviously if this were a serious match race, I'd do a lot more, while you'd be pretty limited since the essence of a GT3 is the factory have done this sort of thing before they ship it. But I don't consider that would be in the spirit of our bet. All I've done so far is vanilla C2S options. (if you can call anything as exotic as ceramic brakes vanilla, but these are Porsches and those are stock touring car options I've mentioned.) This 'contender' I'm describing is a car I could have ordered as my daily driver.
When I'm done, my C2S is a car with ten more horsepower than the 2004 GT3 and only fifty pounds heavier. That's a net gain in power to weight ratio and a lovely flat torque curve in the useful rpm ranges. All without going beyond things I can do without ordering my C2S as some sort of spartan wannabe GT3. For track work, I really should have a roll cage installed, but then we're getting out of the spirit of the bet again, because I'd do a few other things to save the weight of that new structure, and that would increase the body stiffness and generally we're muddying the debate. So none of that.
Next, my tires are slightly wider on their 19" wheels than the GT3's 18/19 mix. Even in six years, the choices have grown wider. Actually, if you looked away for ten minutes, I'd be running the 18" package that we know is better for track work, and I could argue it is so common as to still consider my C2S stock, but I won't do that. I'll just run my wider tires in the Cup version and settle for calling the wheel/tire package a push with the earlier car. (I assume we're not allowing racing rubber. If we were, we'd certainly end up equal.)
Now we get to the chassis unless I've overlooked something. I consider everything that went before a push between the two cars. This is where it becomes a race, and where my intuition kicked in to cause me to offer that high-roller bet.
I would ask you to consider something racers know: a stiffer suspension is either a bandaid for bad geometry or a trade-off of mechanical grip for aerodynamic benefits. You think the GT3 from 2004 has better suspension for the track. I don't believe it until you show me at the flag.
I won't insist that you're wrong, just that we have a fair test on our hands. You certainly have the advantage with solid bushings instead of my wimpy compliant ones. I'll give you that, but I believe the geometry of the current C2S is better than the older GT3, allowing it to benefit from more supple settings. I also think the sport PASM suspension is more effective than the pure mechanical set-up of the GT3 in 2004. I think your welded-up body is nice, but only needed if you have to stiffen the suspension to such extremes. The chassis of the current C2S is gratifyingly stiff already. I'd be interested to hear some figures if the factory publishes them, but I'm just going by buttock meter and lots of experience in other cars. I get no chassis flex that I can detect on roads I've tried so far. Would that continue while pulling 1.05 g on the Carousel at Willow? We'll have to see.
With a Sports PASM chassis and the new geometry, I think the C2S will be much more effective in the transitions than a GT3. And races are won there. If I can come out of turn seven at Sears Point or turn six at Willow pulling 300 rpm more than your GT3, I'll whup your *** in a few laps. Okay, let's say five mph, since I suspect the 2004 GT3 is geared differently than a current C2S. I think my contender can do that consistently.
Betcha dollar?
Gary
#19
04-05-2010 | 06:53 PM
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 764
From: California
Rep Power: 65
I certainly agree on those terms, Luis. I'm not sure I'd suggest any GT3 as a daily driver, but I agree they are much more competent cars than their contemporaries. As for the 997.1 S, I'm not experienced enough to judge. When we drove a couple, they clearly were less capable than the 997.2 that caught our attention, but that's the best I could say. I'm sure you're right.
Gary
#20
04-05-2010 | 08:15 PM
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,013
From: San Diego
Rep Power: 122
Now this is a fun topic. That's what makes racing, innit?
Let me tell you why my intuition says I could take you [in the classic style of such discussions]. First, I said a current C2S, not a 997.1. And I don't look much to 0-60 times. They're meaningless on a track because you can adjust them up and down almost at will by changing gear ratios and your expectations for the future of the drive train. Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't expect to get down to sixty mph after we leave pit lane. Runs to 100 are slightly more meaningful, but that's only because you're getting up into the gears you'll actually use on track. Well, one of them anyway. So let's agree to ignore the faster times of the current C2S. I had to look them up to even write this paragraph. That wasn't the basis for my comment. The current engine is more powerful and has more torque of course, and the close ratio box lets me get a balanced shift point within the stock red line, so the higher rev-limiter of the older car is moot. With rare exceptions, I have no reason to go above the rpm where the torque falls off enough that the torque to the rear wheels in the higher gear will be more than the lower gear. (That's what I mean by a balanced shift point.)
My personal 997.2S, in the sluggish overfed touring configuration an old man favors, still weighs only 150 lb more than your 2004 GT3 with ceramics. For the contender, I'd choose a more serious C2S configuration, starting with the sports PASM chassis, the one with the mechanical limited slip diff. I don't feel like looking up the weight effect of that choice so I'll assume subject to correction that I"m still 150 lb heavier than your candidate. I would take out at least 100 lb of that before we met. Almost half of it by changing my brakes to the carbon ceramics and the rest in the usual lightening measures. When I say 'lightening', I don't mean stripping out the amenities as we would for a track. Just the obvious things we do for a weekend autocross or the like. Take out the trivia, like the canvas divider compartment in the trunk and getting the hefty owners manual out of the car. (What is that package, five pounds? More?) Then I'd change the wheels to lighter forged alloys and that should do it.
Carbon wheels would be cheating I suppose, since they weren't available for road cars in 2004 and they still aren't factory options, so I'll stick with the sort we can buy from Porsche. That saves at least another fifty pounds. Figure fifteen pounds in trivia, forty for the brakes, fifty for the wheels. I'll settle for calling it a hundred pounds improvement from the weight of my personal car's showroom configuration. Obviously if this were a serious match race, I'd do a lot more, while you'd be pretty limited since the essence of a GT3 is the factory have done this sort of thing before they ship it. But I don't consider that would be in the spirit of our bet. All I've done so far is vanilla C2S options. (if you can call anything as exotic as ceramic brakes vanilla, but these are Porsches and those are stock touring car options I've mentioned.) This 'contender' I'm describing is a car I could have ordered as my daily driver.
When I'm done, my C2S is a car with ten more horsepower than the 2004 GT3 and only fifty pounds heavier. That's a net gain in power to weight ratio and a lovely flat torque curve in the useful rpm ranges. All without going beyond things I can do without ordering my C2S as some sort of spartan wannabe GT3. For track work, I really should have a roll cage installed, but then we're getting out of the spirit of the bet again, because I'd do a few other things to save the weight of that new structure, and that would increase the body stiffness and generally we're muddying the debate. So none of that.
Next, my tires are slightly wider on their 19" wheels than the GT3's 18/19 mix. Even in six years, the choices have grown wider. Actually, if you looked away for ten minutes, I'd be running the 18" package that we know is better for track work, and I could argue it is so common as to still consider my C2S stock, but I won't do that. I'll just run my wider tires in the Cup version and settle for calling the wheel/tire package a push with the earlier car. (I assume we're not allowing racing rubber. If we were, we'd certainly end up equal.)
Now we get to the chassis unless I've overlooked something. I consider everything that went before a push between the two cars. This is where it becomes a race, and where my intuition kicked in to cause me to offer that high-roller bet.
I would ask you to consider something racers know: a stiffer suspension is either a bandaid for bad geometry or a trade-off of mechanical grip for aerodynamic benefits. You think the GT3 from 2004 has better suspension for the track. I don't believe it until you show me at the flag.
I won't insist that you're wrong, just that we have a fair test on our hands. You certainly have the advantage with solid bushings instead of my wimpy compliant ones. I'll give you that, but I believe the geometry of the current C2S is better than the older GT3, allowing it to benefit from more supple settings. I also think the sport PASM suspension is more effective than the pure mechanical set-up of the GT3 in 2004. I think your welded-up body is nice, but only needed if you have to stiffen the suspension to such extremes. The chassis of the current C2S is gratifyingly stiff already. I'd be interested to hear some figures if the factory publishes them, but I'm just going by buttock meter and lots of experience in other cars. I get no chassis flex that I can detect on roads I've tried so far. Would that continue while pulling 1.05 g on the Carousel at Willow? We'll have to see.
With a Sports PASM chassis and the new geometry, I think the C2S will be much more effective in the transitions than a GT3. And races are won there. If I can come out of turn seven at Sears Point or turn six at Willow pulling 300 rpm more than your GT3, I'll whup your *** in a few laps. Okay, let's say five mph, since I suspect the 2004 GT3 is geared differently than a current C2S. I think my contender can do that consistently.
Betcha dollar?
Gary
Let me tell you why my intuition says I could take you [in the classic style of such discussions]. First, I said a current C2S, not a 997.1. And I don't look much to 0-60 times. They're meaningless on a track because you can adjust them up and down almost at will by changing gear ratios and your expectations for the future of the drive train. Besides, I don't know about you, but I don't expect to get down to sixty mph after we leave pit lane. Runs to 100 are slightly more meaningful, but that's only because you're getting up into the gears you'll actually use on track. Well, one of them anyway. So let's agree to ignore the faster times of the current C2S. I had to look them up to even write this paragraph. That wasn't the basis for my comment. The current engine is more powerful and has more torque of course, and the close ratio box lets me get a balanced shift point within the stock red line, so the higher rev-limiter of the older car is moot. With rare exceptions, I have no reason to go above the rpm where the torque falls off enough that the torque to the rear wheels in the higher gear will be more than the lower gear. (That's what I mean by a balanced shift point.)
My personal 997.2S, in the sluggish overfed touring configuration an old man favors, still weighs only 150 lb more than your 2004 GT3 with ceramics. For the contender, I'd choose a more serious C2S configuration, starting with the sports PASM chassis, the one with the mechanical limited slip diff. I don't feel like looking up the weight effect of that choice so I'll assume subject to correction that I"m still 150 lb heavier than your candidate. I would take out at least 100 lb of that before we met. Almost half of it by changing my brakes to the carbon ceramics and the rest in the usual lightening measures. When I say 'lightening', I don't mean stripping out the amenities as we would for a track. Just the obvious things we do for a weekend autocross or the like. Take out the trivia, like the canvas divider compartment in the trunk and getting the hefty owners manual out of the car. (What is that package, five pounds? More?) Then I'd change the wheels to lighter forged alloys and that should do it.
Carbon wheels would be cheating I suppose, since they weren't available for road cars in 2004 and they still aren't factory options, so I'll stick with the sort we can buy from Porsche. That saves at least another fifty pounds. Figure fifteen pounds in trivia, forty for the brakes, fifty for the wheels. I'll settle for calling it a hundred pounds improvement from the weight of my personal car's showroom configuration. Obviously if this were a serious match race, I'd do a lot more, while you'd be pretty limited since the essence of a GT3 is the factory have done this sort of thing before they ship it. But I don't consider that would be in the spirit of our bet. All I've done so far is vanilla C2S options. (if you can call anything as exotic as ceramic brakes vanilla, but these are Porsches and those are stock touring car options I've mentioned.) This 'contender' I'm describing is a car I could have ordered as my daily driver.
When I'm done, my C2S is a car with ten more horsepower than the 2004 GT3 and only fifty pounds heavier. That's a net gain in power to weight ratio and a lovely flat torque curve in the useful rpm ranges. All without going beyond things I can do without ordering my C2S as some sort of spartan wannabe GT3. For track work, I really should have a roll cage installed, but then we're getting out of the spirit of the bet again, because I'd do a few other things to save the weight of that new structure, and that would increase the body stiffness and generally we're muddying the debate. So none of that.
Next, my tires are slightly wider on their 19" wheels than the GT3's 18/19 mix. Even in six years, the choices have grown wider. Actually, if you looked away for ten minutes, I'd be running the 18" package that we know is better for track work, and I could argue it is so common as to still consider my C2S stock, but I won't do that. I'll just run my wider tires in the Cup version and settle for calling the wheel/tire package a push with the earlier car. (I assume we're not allowing racing rubber. If we were, we'd certainly end up equal.)
Now we get to the chassis unless I've overlooked something. I consider everything that went before a push between the two cars. This is where it becomes a race, and where my intuition kicked in to cause me to offer that high-roller bet.
I would ask you to consider something racers know: a stiffer suspension is either a bandaid for bad geometry or a trade-off of mechanical grip for aerodynamic benefits. You think the GT3 from 2004 has better suspension for the track. I don't believe it until you show me at the flag.
I won't insist that you're wrong, just that we have a fair test on our hands. You certainly have the advantage with solid bushings instead of my wimpy compliant ones. I'll give you that, but I believe the geometry of the current C2S is better than the older GT3, allowing it to benefit from more supple settings. I also think the sport PASM suspension is more effective than the pure mechanical set-up of the GT3 in 2004. I think your welded-up body is nice, but only needed if you have to stiffen the suspension to such extremes. The chassis of the current C2S is gratifyingly stiff already. I'd be interested to hear some figures if the factory publishes them, but I'm just going by buttock meter and lots of experience in other cars. I get no chassis flex that I can detect on roads I've tried so far. Would that continue while pulling 1.05 g on the Carousel at Willow? We'll have to see.
With a Sports PASM chassis and the new geometry, I think the C2S will be much more effective in the transitions than a GT3. And races are won there. If I can come out of turn seven at Sears Point or turn six at Willow pulling 300 rpm more than your GT3, I'll whup your *** in a few laps. Okay, let's say five mph, since I suspect the 2004 GT3 is geared differently than a current C2S. I think my contender can do that consistently.
Betcha dollar?
Gary
I would take your bet.
Having spent some time on the track myself, the 6GT3 is very capable in capable hands. I imagine the 6GT3 will go down as one of the best Porsche "drivers" cars.....
Jason
#21
04-05-2010 | 09:15 PM
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 162
From: Chicago
Rep Power: 27
As a weekend car, the GT3 is flat out ridiculous. Although I've never had the privilege of driving the 996 GT3- I've been told the ride and drive are quite similar to the 997.1 GT3- taking my '07 GT3 out for 5 or 50 miles on weekends in the Chicagoland area is just so much fun. The acceleration, handling, steering, and glorious soundtrack greatly outweigh any niggles about the (somewhat) flinty ride. I agree with most that it's not ideal as a daily driver but as a weekend (and occasional track) car- if you're interested in a pure sporting, immediate driving experience- the GT3 is awesome- but you'd have to drive it to see if it's right for you. It's kind of like merging the best characteristics of the 997S + Lotus Elise SC + more power- what's not to like?
Last edited by fang911; 04-05-2010 at 09:17 PM.
#22
04-05-2010 | 09:27 PM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 226
From: Montreal
Rep Power: 30
but can a modified 997s approach that feeling ?
#23
04-05-2010 | 09:51 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 289
From: Ottawa, CANADA
Rep Power: 38
Simsgw,
Not sure how much effect it will have but you might want to add some bits to get more front neg camber from your c2s aswell. I think the gt3 is a lower car too.
I know of many guys who went back to a 996 gt3 after buying the early 997 gt3 because they felt Porsche has dialed down the car too much.
I'd probably take the 996 gt3 in your shoes. C2S too cushy.
Not sure how much effect it will have but you might want to add some bits to get more front neg camber from your c2s aswell. I think the gt3 is a lower car too.
I know of many guys who went back to a 996 gt3 after buying the early 997 gt3 because they felt Porsche has dialed down the car too much.
I'd probably take the 996 gt3 in your shoes. C2S too cushy.
#24
04-05-2010 | 11:01 PM
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 764
From: California
Rep Power: 65
Not sure how much effect it will have but you might want to add some bits to get more front neg camber from your c2s aswell. I think the gt3 is a lower car too.
I know of many guys who went back to a 996 gt3 after buying the early 997 gt3 because they felt Porsche has dialed down the car too much.
I'd probably take the 996 gt3 in your shoes. C2S too cushy.
I know of many guys who went back to a 996 gt3 after buying the early 997 gt3 because they felt Porsche has dialed down the car too much.
I'd probably take the 996 gt3 in your shoes. C2S too cushy.
I actually have no idea, not having driven the GT3 or the sport chassis version of the dot two. But it's fun to discuss. A lot more fun than some of the topics we've been dragging across the table lately.
Incidentally, how much lower is the GT3? The sport chassis with PASM is already lowered by... what is it, 20 mm below the base car?
That cushy part... I'm just guessing here, but I'll bet putting the C2S into double sport mode would deal with that. Simple sport mode on mine is already nearly as stiff as Formula Ford. Not to mention the problem that stiffer is not intrinsically better. After the initial differences between a boulevard boat and a serious sports car, further stiffness is just a way to deal with flaws in the suspension geometry.
I'd love to see a same-day same-course run-off, wouldn't you?
Gary
#25
04-05-2010 | 11:04 PM
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 764
From: California
Rep Power: 65
Gary
#26
04-05-2010 | 11:19 PM
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,122
From: Ridgcrest Ca
Rep Power: 95
I have had a Manthey 996 GT3 and a 997.1 GT3 and now the C2S 997.2 PDK
If you were going to get the 997.2 PDK I would advise you to do that.
BUt since your limited budget requires otherwise I would look at these two
cars based on your budget:
996 Twin Turbo Just a phenomenal car and can be modded to be faster than GOD!
996 GT3-> probably the purest example of a 911 since the 73 RS. Its just so pure of a normally aspirated 911 that even the 997 version is a bit less involved. The only drawback to the 996 GT3 is purely aesthetic. And the prices while not as good as the TT, are getting very good.
The only thing the 997.1 C2S has over those two is just and aesthetic interior and exterior.
If you could get the 09 C2S or later PDK then the game changes.
If you were going to get the 997.2 PDK I would advise you to do that.
BUt since your limited budget requires otherwise I would look at these two
cars based on your budget:
996 Twin Turbo Just a phenomenal car and can be modded to be faster than GOD!
996 GT3-> probably the purest example of a 911 since the 73 RS. Its just so pure of a normally aspirated 911 that even the 997 version is a bit less involved. The only drawback to the 996 GT3 is purely aesthetic. And the prices while not as good as the TT, are getting very good.
The only thing the 997.1 C2S has over those two is just and aesthetic interior and exterior.
If you could get the 09 C2S or later PDK then the game changes.
#27
04-05-2010 | 11:24 PM
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 764
From: California
Rep Power: 65
I may some dollars here and there... or maybe not
It occurred to me to google for Nordschleife runs of the 2004 996 GT3 and the Carrera S with PASM. I found results for Walter Rohrl driving, though I can't tell yet whether it was the same day and therefore possibly the same conditions:
First we have: "Porsche's official test-driver Walter Röhrl completed the Nürburgring Nordschleife with the 996 GT3 in 7 minutes 56 seconds, a feat which was used by Porsche to promote the car. Later, with the 996 GT3 RS, he managed 7 minutes 43 seconds."
Then I found a time he set with "Porsche 911 Carrera S" that was published by Wheels Magazine with "PASM set to performance". That was 7:59 or three seconds slower.
That would seem to cost me a dollar or two. Except... Well, that was in 2004, so it may not have been a 997 at all and it certainly wasn't a 997.2.
Now with the new suspension of the dot two, and the stronger DFI engine? Those might be worth three seconds out of 479. Might well be. Maybe I'll hold onto my dollar bills until we find something closer to the terms of our bet.
I'm telling you guys, this dot two is one impressive combination of suspension and engine. Wish I had a chance to compare a GT3.
Gary
First we have: "Porsche's official test-driver Walter Röhrl completed the Nürburgring Nordschleife with the 996 GT3 in 7 minutes 56 seconds, a feat which was used by Porsche to promote the car. Later, with the 996 GT3 RS, he managed 7 minutes 43 seconds."
Then I found a time he set with "Porsche 911 Carrera S" that was published by Wheels Magazine with "PASM set to performance". That was 7:59 or three seconds slower.
That would seem to cost me a dollar or two. Except... Well, that was in 2004, so it may not have been a 997 at all and it certainly wasn't a 997.2.
Now with the new suspension of the dot two, and the stronger DFI engine? Those might be worth three seconds out of 479. Might well be. Maybe I'll hold onto my dollar bills until we find something closer to the terms of our bet.
I'm telling you guys, this dot two is one impressive combination of suspension and engine. Wish I had a chance to compare a GT3.
Gary
#28
04-05-2010 | 11:29 PM
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 764
From: California
Rep Power: 65
Gary
#29
04-05-2010 | 11:31 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 118
From: palo alto
Rep Power: 20
I have had a Manthey 996 GT3 and a 997.1 GT3 and now the C2S 997.2 PDK
If you were going to get the 997.2 PDK I would advise you to do that.
BUt since your limited budget requires otherwise I would look at these two
cars based on your budget:
996 Twin Turbo Just a phenomenal car and can be modded to be faster than GOD!
996 GT3-> probably the purest example of a 911 since the 73 RS. Its just so pure of a normally aspirated 911 that even the 997 version is a bit less involved. The only drawback to the 996 GT3 is purely aesthetic. And the prices while not as good as the TT, are getting very good.
The only thing the 997.1 C2S has over those two is just and aesthetic interior and exterior.
If you could get the 09 C2S or later PDK then the game changes.
If you were going to get the 997.2 PDK I would advise you to do that.
BUt since your limited budget requires otherwise I would look at these two
cars based on your budget:
996 Twin Turbo Just a phenomenal car and can be modded to be faster than GOD!
996 GT3-> probably the purest example of a 911 since the 73 RS. Its just so pure of a normally aspirated 911 that even the 997 version is a bit less involved. The only drawback to the 996 GT3 is purely aesthetic. And the prices while not as good as the TT, are getting very good.
The only thing the 997.1 C2S has over those two is just and aesthetic interior and exterior.
If you could get the 09 C2S or later PDK then the game changes.
If we're going to expand the pot and complicate things a bit, I'd also look at a 993TT, but a good one in the original price bracket may take a while to find. Add a $30K RUF Turbo R package and you've got something really unique you won't regret taking on those weekend drives. Not as track capable, and as with any 993 harder to live on day to day basis, but it's a timeless design...
#30
04-05-2010 | 11:42 PM
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,122
From: Ridgcrest Ca
Rep Power: 95
Before my GT3s thats what I had was the 993TT, but I was so focused on getting the thing track oriented I just bought the GT3.
Simgsw wrote:
Yea I think so. I can still remember the differences between the 997.1 GT3 and the 996 GT3. But the differences are in the 997.2 with sport Chrono, in normal mode its a Mercedes like drive, very compliant and easy to enjoy. Going to Sport mode stiffens up the suspension and sharpens the shifts. That was more akin to the 993TT with all the suspension setup I had (PSS9s etc etc)
BUT put it in Sports PLUS mode and LOOK OUT. Its very GT3 like minus the wonderful sound. It gets really stiff -the motor wont shift till redline so you better know what your doing. Just like the 996 GT3. I remember the first time on the track with the GT3 after lots of laps at the same track with the 993TT. I NEVER spun in the TT, but the first time I got out of sorts on a quick right hand, left hand, right hand, off camber I spun. Not only that I spun again in the next lap sequence, it only takes a split second and the GT3 doesnt suffer fools. Its a great car, maybe better over all for the track than the 997.1 GT3.
The 997.2 in Sports plus is VERY aggressive. It so reminds me of the 996 GT3.
Simgsw wrote:
Now there's a man with the experience I was talking about. Has your GT3 been recent enough you can compare it to your dot two? Or does the relative harshness of the GT3 make it tough to mentally compare them without back to back track time?
BUT put it in Sports PLUS mode and LOOK OUT. Its very GT3 like minus the wonderful sound. It gets really stiff -the motor wont shift till redline so you better know what your doing. Just like the 996 GT3. I remember the first time on the track with the GT3 after lots of laps at the same track with the 993TT. I NEVER spun in the TT, but the first time I got out of sorts on a quick right hand, left hand, right hand, off camber I spun. Not only that I spun again in the next lap sequence, it only takes a split second and the GT3 doesnt suffer fools. Its a great car, maybe better over all for the track than the 997.1 GT3.
The 997.2 in Sports plus is VERY aggressive. It so reminds me of the 996 GT3.