Hey guys,

Recently I test drove a '97 993 C2S.

And I gotta say that I was actually a little underwhelmed. I was potentially considering upgrading my DD from the 968 Coupe (which I love, but could use a wee bit more power) to a 993 C2S.

But I wanted to drive one first, obviously.

My first impression taking it off the dealer's lot was that I LOVE the sound of the air-cooled engine. The 993 sounds even meaner than the 3.2 I drove a few months back - and it's in a different league altogether from my 996TT (which sounds more like a fighter jet than a sports car... but that's a whole other conversation).

Steering was heavy, but no heavier than my 968. Responsiveness and feedback was good. Not as responsive as a 996TT, but still has a very solid "feel" about it.

I puttered around until the oil-temp was at operating levels and the engine was nicely warmed up.

And then I hit the backroads, expecting to have a great time country-cruising in a car with as much power and throttle response as an E46 M3 with better handling and cornering.

The handling was there for the most part... but "where did the power go?" (A question I kept asking myself).

The car literally seemed only slightly - by the smallest increment - faster than my 4 cylinder 968. I went back and forth on my favorite stretch of twisties, again and again trying to squeeze some punch out of the car.

I experimented with running up full RPM-band pulls (from 2.5K), to going from "alert mode" (3.5 - 4K) to staying the top end (4.5K+), but no matter the driving style... it was underwhelming.

Then I realized that after the peak torque area (which seems to be 2.9 - 3.5 or so), there's no "second wind" so to speak that you can usually feel in a variable-valve engine.

In the M3 it was progressive, but you could tell the engine was scaling back timing for crisper response as one scaled up the tach.

The 996TT has two very pronounced "shifts" in the rev-range (one around 3 and another right around 5).

Even the 968 has a nice, noticable "thrust jump" at about 3.8 and 5.5.

But in the 993... nothing noticable.

Is this normal?

I'm trying not to be biased, as obviously a tuned 996tt is hardly something to use as a comparison, but my measuring stick with this one was my 968.

And honestly I wouldn't consider the 993 I drove to be an upgrade at a $20K price-differential to the 968...

Aside from looks, sound and a more buttoned-down handling feel, there's very little performance difference from a 968 to the 993 I drove.

My guess is that I drove a bad apple.

Can someone confirm this (especially re: noticeable valve-timing vs. engine responsiveness)?

I'd like to eventually look at getting a 993 C2S with the tea-tray as a DD option, but frankly right now I'm a little turned off...

Thanks

-Chris

 

1234

 

Turbo. That'll fix it.

The '96 on 993s had Varioram. It didn't add much HP. In fact, you can apparently chip a '95 & get the same HP.

993 is heavier than the 3.2, and feels less 'raw'. That is normal.

 

Hi Paul

Thanks for the insight, that explains a lot...

I think I'll be leaning towards a 3.2 instead of a 993TT, even though they look awesome.

Although if I find one to test drive maybe I can convince myself otherwise.

As it stands now though, I can't justify replacing the 968 with a NA 993 when considering the differential in price.

Thanks for all the help.

-Chris

 

Chris:

When I drove an '89 targa, I used to tell people; This car feels like it's doing 80 when it's actually doing 40. The new ones feel like they're doing 40 when they're actually doing 80'.

I think that's what happens with the 993. I noticed the same thing- didn't feel as powerful as I had expected- then I used my GPS to record top speed on some sprints.

I was going fast. Very fast. But it didn't feel like it.

The 992 is a way better car than the 3.2, IMHO.

Hope this helps!

Paul.

 

For me, that's exactly the appeal of the 3.2. I like the go-kart dynamics and feeling like the car is on the edge at half the speed.

I already have a tuned 996TT so for the DD I was either looking for a power upgrade from my 968, preferably in naturally aspirated form (hence my test drive of the 993 C2S), as one turbo car is enough for me - OR - a raw, go-kart style classic porsche like the 3.2

While the 3.2 is definitely not a power upgrade compared to the 968 (if anything they're about par), what I love about the 3.2 is the compact feel of the car, the looks and how it feels in the corners.

It's raw and involving.

If the 993 I drove had a bit more (noticeable) grunt, I'd jump on it. And for the record, I'd like to test-drive another model as I have suspicions about the maintenance history of the one I drove. It could just be a bad apple, who knows.

So I'll continue in my search for the ultimate DD.

Thanks for the insights - it's much appreciated.

Chris

 

There is not variable valve timing on any 993, the 96+ models have "Varioram" that is a 3 stage resonance intake. It works off of vacuum lines.

That being said, the peak torque in a 993 is over 4000RPM's, you got to work the engine to get the most out of it. From 4000-redline, it should pull, & fell like it is gaining more power, & rev very freely.

My guess is the car you drove did not have the Varioram working, or has some other problem. The cars are not rocket ships, but they are fast! Way faster then a stock 968.

Handeling is also very, very good, but if the car has stock shocks, chances are they are blown, & you are not getting the most from the car.

95's with a chip will have around the same peak HP, but have a totally different power delivery, with a lot more low range torque, & really pulls hard @ the top. Trades on free revving, & midrange also isn't as smooth.


You can't compare the 993 to a 996 TT, their just not in the same league when talking 0-60, 0-110. But they are soulless, & lack the "feel" of the 993. If you "get it" you will understand.

A stock 993 has over 50hp less then a E46 M3 & weigh about the same. I can tell you on most tracks the 993 will be faster, & brakes much better.

 

My goal wasn't to compare the 993 to my Turbo; it was to see if I considered the 993 to be a $20K upgrade over the 968. A 996TT is only soul-less on slow public roads.

Get it on a track and it's got a lot of personality. Rapid-fire rev-matching, awesome, instantaneous acceleration, etc. Not to mention better handling, steering, etc.

And yes, I "get it", hence my appreciation for the raw little 3.2's.

I will try to find a better 993 to test drive. (And yes, I do know how to drive them.)

The one I drove only sounded like it had "soul". As soon as you took it for a spirited run in the twisties or wound up the engine it just felt flat.

I would summarize my impression of the whole thing as "uninspiring".

Hence my confusion, followed by this forum post.

What I don't need is the "you don't 'get it', you're a 996 guy" types of responses.

I don't camp myself into any particular breed of car. I think they all have something to offer.

-Chris

 

You are missing the point of what I was saying. My point is the Aircooled 911's are not for everyone. Most waterpumper guys do not want a "old" car, & think they are all just show & outdated. Some people "get it" & like/love the older cars.

The 993 is the most advanced & fastest N/A aircooled 911 ever made. While the steering is much slower then most "modern" cars, it has awesome feel & feedback. The car really lets you know what's it's doing & how to control it. Don't forget, that there are no nanny controls in the 993. The best you can do is ABD, & that does nothing unless you are on ice/snow.

A E46 will feel faster, & more nimble, in fact it isn't in most areas. I'm a long time BMW guy, & love all the ///M cars.

 

Not missing the point at all.

Why would I be test-driving a 993 if I wasn't interested in the air-cooled Porsche?

If all I am is a "water-pumper" I'd be out modding the 996TT to within an inch of grenading and spending $10K on diamond studded rims.

And if I wanted another M3, I'd buy one. Been there done that.

My only question here is whether the 993 had a noticeable jump in power as the revs climbed.

I think the bottom-line here is that I probably drove a bad apple.

Telling me that I "don't get it" is making an assumption based on very little fact.

Remember, I've driven (and loved) the earlier 3.2's, not to mention a ton of other classic/older sports cars.

I appreciate the insight and so on, but I don't appreciate being profiled.

Thanks

-Chris

 

I may able to throw in some thought since I have a turned 996TT, 96 993 C4S and 06 987 Boxster S. When you compare NA 993 with modern air cooled Porsche. Engine responds, power and toque may not impress you. It really feel driving a classic car. Most of the power are come out after 4K rpm and I really enjoy the way of power deliver and sound of air cool engine. Driving with some twisty roads, I have most fun in the 987, it was the most easy to drive plate from all. For 993, you're much more involving in the corners and you will be reward if you get it right. Turned 996TT is totally different animal with speed. For me, I will pick 987 over 993 as daily drive due to more low end toque in city driving. Since you're at Victoria, you're welcome to check on my P-cars when ever you come over to Vancouver!

 

Hi Ray - thanks so much for chiming in and providing some advice.

It's great to get your perspective as you also own a 996TT.

I am looking at another 993 shortly (it seems to be in better shape than the previous car I drove) and I'll report back!

Thanks again

-Chris

PS Likewise, if you ever jump across to the Island, don't be a stranger, send me a PM and I'll buy you a beer.

 

I have a 95 993 and have owned a 3.2 (86). I have also owned a 1980 with a 3.6 in it. The 95 is heavier but also faster than the 86 and almost as fast as the conversion SC. The 96 has a variable length intake tract to boost torque. The 95 seems to come "on the cam" more when running up through the gears than a 96 but the 96 is probably as fast or faster on the street. Also if you were driving a C2 or C4 there is about a 200 lb weight penalty for 4WD. Although C4s have bigger brakes( same as turbo 993s). I personally like the 95 993 best of all but many people prefer the earlier torsion bar chassis and 3.2 cars can be lightened easier than the 993.

 

Hi John, thanks for the input on how the 3.2 stacks up to the 993.

I've got another test drive in a 993 coming up soon so I'll post back after that...

Cheers

-Chris

 

I have a 993 C2S... It should feel like it has gobs of natually aspirated power once you hit 3500 RPM's and the varioram kicks in... The sweet spot for these cars is between 4000-6000... it just sings