996C2 to NSX?

[coanda]

Hello Guys,

I asked this question over on Pistonheads, and one of the replies sent me in this direction, so I'll put it here too!

Ok, I have a 996C2, and have been interested in the NSX for a while. I've been a Porsche fan for some time, and I had a Cayman before the 911. The corporate arrogance is starting to make me reconsider my choice.

I'm thinking along the lines of sell the 996C2, and move to an NSX, after having paid off the NSX I would then buy an old school 911 of some kind aswell as the NSX.

I'm wondering if there's anyone here who has driven both and can offer opinions on the NSX in comparison to the 996C2. It would be my main car, I have an AW11SC but that's for weekend drives, and won't be going anywhere anytime soon!

All comments welcomed!

Cheers!

coanda

[Silver Surfer]

I think the members Papalazarou, Hagasan and a few more owners has owned a 911 although I am not sure which exact model.

They all came back to the NSX.

More recently Marky who owns several 911 have bought an NSX...by all means search his postings.

HTH

All I can say......you won't regret having a chance to own a NSX.

SS

[havoc]

A friend drove my (old, leggy 3.0) NSX last year and said it was the best car he'd ever driven. His current steed was an S8, prior to that he had a 996 - C2 I think, but possibly C4.

I can't comment directly though - would love to drive a 996 or 997 back-to-back "just to be sure" ;)


What I would say is that NSXs are only getting older now, whereas there'll always be some sort of 911 to go back to - so if you fancy scratching this particular itch, I'd suggest sooner rather than later.

[Papalazarou]

I owned a 997 C2S, but only for a few months so I'm no expert. However, I can tell you why I sold it so quickly. First of all, I thought it was a great car. It does a number of things extremely well and I can see why people are attracted to them. The steering, the brakes, the ergonomics; highlight being the adaptive sports seats, the smooth road handling, the noise and the presence are all great.
On the downside it wasn't really suited to the roads that I like to drive. The Exmoor coastal road is like a mini Isle of Man section and shows up any weakness or bias in a cars design. Because of the layout/suspension of the Porsche, it didn't cope well with bumpy off camber corners. sometimes I'd go to turn-in and for a moment think I might end up in a field. It's also nice to know where you're going to point when the car's pitching around.

It's quite possible that I didn't give the car the chance it deserved, but here is my shortlist for changing back to an NSX; (not necessarily in order).

1. I like cleaning cars (sad) and going from Long Beach Blue to Seal grey was an anti-climax.
2. The NSX is so well balanced it's super confident on all roads types. In my eyes this allows you to concentrate your efforts on perfecting your driving rather than having to worry about any unsettling handling quirks the car may have. I know, it's character.
3. The NSX is very exclusive, you never see them and they do not have the ego attachment other marques can suffer from. Being endlessly asked about Ayrton Senna at petrol stations is pretty annoying though.
4. Zero depreciation. 996/7's are still free falling. I guess this has a lot to do with the numbers produced and the numerous engine threads on forums.
5. No nasty engine issues. I bought my 997 from a BMW dealer and as such I couldn't apply for a Porsche warranty for 3 months. This pissed me off for two reasons; 1. I've read extensively about RMS, IMS, Ovaised and scored bores and without a warranty that was a worry, even if statistically it's 'reasonably' unlikely. 2. That porsche put up that hurdle in the first place. very clinical. I do however understand their reasons.
6. Forum; Although most of you guys are a PITA, I've come to think of this forum fondly;-) If you search around, there aren't many forums like this. I think the small regular membership is the key. If it was a heavily mass produced car, it would have a completely different feel and owner throughput would be higher. The site would feel less personal.

In the end, I guess cars are like relationships; if you really want to be with that girl, you'll put up with her quirks, even if she's completely mental. The NSX doesn't have many quirks really. Some will complain about the dated interior, which IMO was the opinion of a couple of journalist which has followed the NSX around for the last fifteen years. Didn't hear the same guys talking about 964/993 interiors in the same way.
Another is the 'slow' steering. I actually like this feature, it tells you how much you are committing! You can see this in the Senna videos (damn, I've said it).

Cheers,

James.

[TheSebringOne]

Great informative write up James. Helpful since never driven a 911, but only a Boxster S.

[Nick Graves]

I've driven both and much prefer the Boxster.

It's a very, very good...poor man's NSX!

Main problem with the 911 was I found it was just a German car, until you're going very fast indeed, when it all becomes very good and you can see how the unfortunate engine position works to your advantage.

The NSX has that odd Honda thing of feeling special and "alive" at any speed. That might be the lumpy incorrect-angle V6 or inadequate NVH but it has that intangible - "character" thing.

[Lowndes]

In 1999 I went from a 993C2 to a 996C4 which I had for 4 years. Although it proved utterly reliable I was always a little disappointed in it in comparison to the 993. There is no doubt that the accountants had a say in the 996 design development and the result was the worst model of the entire 911 series. This is not just the well documented RMS issues but also down to quality of interior fittings, seats,switches etc..all the tactile elements that are the things which lift a car out of the ordinary.



Interestingly my NSX was built during the time I owned the 996C4 so to that extent a direct comparison might be relevant. Unfortunately my recollection of the 996C4 is pretty hazy now but purely subjectively I think of it as less special, a bit dull and with nothing particular to commend it. However if I were looking for a daily driver, all weathers, all situations vehicle I would chose it ahead of the Honda. In my view the 996’s crudeness and lack of sophistication make it better suited tothe cut and thrust of daily motoring in the UK. I am being careful here in specifically differentiating my comments from any observations on the 996GT3 which I do still own. That is an entirely different animal and undoubtedly a special car, albeit my conclusion would be to take the NSX ahead of the GT3 as a daily drive, use them alternately for pleasure motoring and take the GT3 to the track every time.

[Nick Graves]

...or an NSX-R!

These comparos rapidly spiral in complexity.

I drove a 997; the interior could've been anything. The 996's interior was parts-binned with the 986's, which I thought was the closest the Swabians get to 'great fun & not being too earnest'. I liked the swirly retroness of the 986, but the 996 is far too self-important than that.

What I would say though is the neither Arthur-nor-Martha 993 was cheap and unloved once; you got a new one or a G-series. Maybe in the fullness of time the 996's good qualities will be appreciated too.

[Papalazarou]

...or an NSX-R!

These comparos rapidly spiral in complexity.

I drove a 997; the interior could've been anything. The 996's interior was parts-binned with the 986's, which I thought was the closest the Swabians get to 'great fun & not being too earnest'. I liked the swirly retroness of the 986, but the 996 is far too self-important than that.

What I would say though is the neither Arthur-nor-Martha 993 was cheap and unloved once; you got a new one or a G-series. Maybe in the fullness of time the 996's good qualities will be appreciated too.


I was with you until 986. Is this some kind of shorthand language, or was it the English lesson I was absent for?


Cheers,

James.

[Nick Graves]

I was with you until 986. Is this some kind of shorthand language, or was it the English lesson I was absent for?


Cheers,

James.

Sorry; 986 is the Boxster equivalent of the 996, as the 987 is to the 997.

I posted a much less terse reply, but hit that ****ing "reply to thread" button in error again!

[Papalazarou]

Sorry; 986 is the Boxster equivalent of the 996, as the 987 is to the 997.

I posted a much less terse reply, but hit that ****ing "reply to thread" button in error again!
Hey Nick,

It wasn't the prefixes, it was the rest;-)
I do commiserate with the 'reply to thread' button. Some of my best messages have fallen victim to this.

Cheers,

James.

[havoc]

There is no doubt that the accountants had a say in the 996 design development and the result was the worst model of the entire 911 series. This is not just the well documented RMS issues but also down to quality of interior fittings, seats,switches etc..all the tactile elements that are the things which lift a car out of the ordinary.

PLEASE stop blaming accountants. We measure and report, we don't make decisions.

The real people to blame are Board Directors and Shareholders, both of whom want to make as much out of the company as possible. Less directly, it's marketeers and customers, who both put things like engineering integrity (and often ergonomics) right at the bottom of the list. We accountants don't have any say, we just get asked to report on what different options will cost. Directors then decide the car can't cost that much, as otherwise the company won't make any money and the Shareholders will replace the Directors with different ones.


Porsche and Honda are both victims of this in recent times - both were renowned for the utmost engineering purity and detail but weren't the most profitable. Cue leadership by engineers falling away and leadership by salesmen/businessmen coming to the fore, and cue a deterioration in the substance of the product in favour of the style of the product...



Edit: Nick, interesting you prefer the Boxster. Sat in (note: not drove) the Boxster Spider and 997 C2 at PH SS yesterday, and the 997 had the better driving position, better visibility and felt the better product...I'm assuming that on the road the balance of the Boxster really does shine through?

[coanda]

Thanks for all the replies,

It's good to here about direct comparisons between recent Porsches and the NSX. I have driven a couple of hundred miles in a Boxster, and it is lighter on its feet than the Cayman was (same engines), but, overall, I preferred the Cayman. Hard to say why, but the extra stiffness, better view, and the hard top (in particular) are appealing to me. The 996 is a bit of a brute in comparison. I originally disliked the interior, having come directly from the Cayman, but it has grown on me over time, and I think finding one in good nick is essential. As has been said, they don't age very well.

It seems, from whats been said here, that the NSX is a more engaging drive than the 996, which is something I'm looking for. I'm looking forward to having a go in one now. I should think I'll be looking at early Spring for a swap, as the market for these cars slows for Winter. Actually, what I've got to try and do is figure out a way to keep both the AW11 and the 996!

Thanks again everyone.

coanda

[Lowndes]

[QUOTE=havoc;87953]PLEASE stop blaming accountants. We measure and report, we don't make decisions.

QUOTE]

Though I wouldn't disagree that what you say is often the case, at Porsche a fundamental restructuring took place in August 1992 when the 4 Production Directors who had overseen the whole manufacturing process were replaced by 7 Cost Center (sic) Managers..source Womak and Jones Chapter 9 Lean Thinking versus German Technik.

[Nick Graves]

There is a correlation between too many directors from finance & boring yet profitable products - look at the cynical crap Ford used to turn out. Ultimately, it leads fo brand destruction, which is why you need 'product' guys.

However, too many product guys can end up endlessly buggering about & never produce anything for sale; that was very much Porsche for a long period before the 986/996.

So there IS an elephant of truth in the beancounter thang. I know; I'm boring, tedious, dull, dull; so deadly dull.

Anyway, I found the seat seems to go back a tad further on the Boxster, making it easier to heel & toe. That's something which is rarely good on German cars - their ergonomics seem to be designed for the ham of fist and clodden of foot.

It has also been widely reported as admitted tacitly by Weissach engineers that the mid-engined layout is dynamically far superior; the 98x cars are deliberately crapped-down (for years they had no LSD available, etc) by product planners (the true enemy of beancounters and engineers!) in order to justify the more expensive car's existence. That I can easily believe.

I suppose if you can only have one car, the 911 has to be a convincing choice. It is like a (cramped) taxi-saloon when driving gently and is really pretty good when you get used to it. It's wonderfully compact due to that 1930s packaging in a way no other mechanical layout can be. However, being brought up on the depressing descendants of that layout, I find the rear-engined pitching & nose lightness (far less noticeable in a 911; the damping is very good) still slightly nauseating. Mid-engined it has to be.

Indeed; if I needed the rear seats, I'd have an Evora, thanks. It has far more of that 'aliveness' thing (deadly dull engine apart; Toyota is definitely overflowing with accountants!) and really is the car to go for if you cannot find a good NSX. It still feels slightly as if I made it and doesn't have that production-engineered feel the Honda & Porsche have. These cars are however slightly on the edge of rationality, so don't let that entirely put you off.

As you can probably tell, this was kind of the test drive/rationalisation process that led to me buying an NSX in the end; its 'specialness' is an intangible asset (sorry!) that is difficult to over-value.