Car was/is in great shape..zero paint work (I paint metered); only thing it needed was rear tires. The prior owner paid $64k w/32k miles for it back in Jan 2007 said it was a mid-life crisis purchase. He originally had it listed for $43k and it was listed for over 9 months, just because he didn't want to deal w/out of state buyers cause of the line of work he is in (Pilot for Delta).

He had a committed buyer out of NYC after I looked at it in July 2010, the guy apparently was in the process of having a ppi done at AtSpeed and found out he was being laid off from his job, so he had to back out of the deal....since I had looked at it prior the seller called me on my cell and said he was tired of showing it and that I had shown the most interest; he said I could have it if I made him a serious offer, so I did what any person would do and low-balled him.... at the time I didn't even think about checking under the hood at the options list to verify if it was/wasn't a x50. We agreed at $37k in Dec 2010 and met at the bank where I took delivery. I just couldn't believe how this guy could take a "hit" of this big as far as depreciation. He was in his 50s and told me when we went on the test drive that he had never taken the car over 60mph, obviously he was quite suprised when I hit triple digits on our somewhat of a "joy" ride.

I def made out like a bandit. I looked at so many 996 911TT prior to purchasing mine and they were either over priced or just were in very "rough" shape & also I was pretty **** about what color it had to be (seal grey or arctic silver & had to have black interior). Funny thing is the cars I did look at and seriously considered were purchased by members on here, which I see at C&C events I attend....(coincidence)

This car def puts a smile on my face everytime I drive it, I've so far put 4k miles on her.... (now it's time for some serious mods....)

 

I looked at that car when it was at $43K. He was in AA County, right? His driveway was a big hill? If it's the same guy, he didn't advertise it as an X50, I think I'd remember that and I didn't check the option codes. I probably would have bought it had I known

 

There is no difference between the 01 and 02 Turbo chassis; that is only the non-turbos. The turbo chassis was developed after the non-turbo and was stiffer by design. That design was applied to the non-turbo's in 02. Look it up in the Porsche technical docs, the part number for the chassis is the same for both years.

 

^^ ah ok...thanks for the clarification...

I know the GT2 chassis is different slightly stiffer without sunroof, at least I have been told so by some reputable sources.

Val bud you got a lucky deal, 'ole juju she's a beautiful car!

 

This guy kept his car at him mother's home in Queen Anne County; might be a different car. This guy didn't know it was a x50, nor did he advertise it as one. Happy I got it.

 

Maybe. The guy I met with told me he flew either 747's or 777's I can't remember which. He also owned a high performance acrobatic plane. Ring a bell?

 

Sounds like the same guy to me.

 

I'm not saying who's right or wrong, because I don't know myself, but this is routinely debated back and forth. FWIW, Excellence Magazine, in their buyer's guide description of Porsche Turbos, mentions the same thing as sunir:

"For 2002, a number of changes were made in the sill, roof frame, seat pans, and tunnel to improve the flexural and torsional strength by 25 percent."

-Excellence Magazine, Oct 2011, p. 118, section "2001-present: The water-cooled Turbos"

 

I've seen that as well. The source for my comments is Porsche's own tech docs, specifically the parts catalog used in ever dealership. It shows no difference between the 01 and 02 chassis (in terms of part number). By contrast it clearly shows that for the non-turbos.

 

I'm surprised one can find P/Ns for things like "seat pans" or "roof frame" at a dealership. Regardless, since Excellence doesn't elaborate, there's no way of knowing what the "number of changes" they refer to consists of, or if P/Ns would've actually changed with the (alleged) newly implemented design considerations. Who knows, it could be something as simple as weld placements, increased gauge metal, and/or optimizing bends/creases in the metal to gain the rigidity they sought.

I wouldn't expect Excellence to just make up information out of thin air, but nevertheless they're not infallible either. And so, this debate rages on in perpetuity...

 

Ill buy IT!!.....wait i have one already.

 

Actually, I might be wrong...first time of course... I read the service manual today and it appears that there are additional bits installed in the chassis starting in 2002. These bits look like they may be the reinforcements to the chassis, the chassis itself is the same. This would also explain why the 02 cars are heavier than the 01s. I've never understood why Bose and a glovebox would add so much weight. I'll keep reading and post an update...

 

I've often thought about this myself, so welcome all of the additional information you guys are sharing (as I've read the Excellence published materials before). Another thing to keep in mind is that the 2001 TT models have the heavier front bumperettes and the solid spoke wheels, so if the 2002s are heavier we must also account for the weight loss that comes from ditching the bumperettes and going to the hollow spoke factory wheels.

 

Let me know if you want to sell your car. I have been looking for a low mile 996tt. let me know.

Chris

 

If you decide to sell privately there would be many interested buyers. Including me!