996 or 997 Turbo?

May

by Phil Raby

_l5i0744

A 997 Turbo is an expensive car. Let’s face it, £100,000 is a lot of money in anyone’s books – especially mine – and, if the 996 Turbo is anything to go by, you’ll have to cope with depreciation as fast as the car’s impressive performance. Indeed, a quick look at the classifieds shows that early (2006) 997 Turbos can be had for as little as £60,000, so you’d be taking quite a hit if you’d bought new.

Buying used, £60,000 is still a lot of money, when you realise that you can pick up an example of the previous generation 996 Turbo for under £30,000. Yes, it’s true – the cheapest I’ve seen was a 2000 Tiptronic with 70,000 miles for just £26,000. The 996 Turbo is the supercar bargain of the year.

On the face of it, the 997 version is little more than an evolution of the 996 Turbo – the engine and chassis have stayed fundamentally unchanged – so do you really need to spend over £60,000 more on a new Turbo? What will it give you, apart from a hefty overdraught? To find out, I’ve brought the 997 to Castello Cars in Warwickshire (www.castellocars.co.uk), where’s there’s a 2003 996 Turbo for sale for £38,995. OK, that’s ten grand more than the baseline figure but I’ve always figured that it’s best not to go for the cheapest example of any 911 and, besides, the basics of any 996 Turbo will be the same.

This car, like many others, has been updated with the later 997 19-inch Turbo wheels, which do look good (they should– they cost around £3500 a set) and an improvement on the original 18-inch items. It’s covered a modest 43,000 miles and has been beautifully looked after – there’s not a mark on its Seal Grey Metallic paintwork which, in that respect, puts the car on an even keel with the 997 in our photographs.

Placing the two cars side by side is an interesting exercise. To a disinterested passer-by, they’d look pretty much identical – they’re both 911s, in other words. To you and me, though, the differences are very apparent – the 997 is not merely a facelifted 996, every body panel is different; even the edge of the roofline has changed.

Many of the updates – such as the lights – are common to the whole of the 997 range, although it’s interesting to note that this 2009 Turbo still has the ‘old’ 997 rear lamps, not the LED items now found on the rest of the range. It would be disappointing to fork out your £100,000 only to find your neighbour’s £70,000 Carrera looks more modern (at least the Turbo now has PCM3, though).

The 996 Turbo looks understated next to the more blingy 997. It would be unfair to say it is dull but it is certainly not as eye-catching as it’s younger brother which, in this day and age, is perhaps not a bad thing. I prefer the 993-inspired headlamps of the 997, but am less convinced by its LED indicators and projector-style driving lamps. Both cars have three large front air intakes, but those of the 997’s work better as a whole (no pun intended), whereas the 996’s look more disjointed from one another. The 997’s rear wings are 22mm wider than those of the 996, which makes the car more shapely and less slab-sided, while the side intakes are slashed by a single strake which gives a more aggressive look.

6 Comments »

Diana said:

I enjoyed your article. I have a 2002 996 Turbo. I have looked long and hard at both body styles. The interesting thing is that people think my car is newer then the 997. The old style headlights on the 997 look like an older Porsche. I do agree with you about the LED indicatiors in the front. They look like they were added on the car after production. The rear end lines on the 997 are not as beautiful, the line swings up and on the 996 the lines are straight across. I can tell you though, I have had 4 other Porsches and I have never had so much fun driving a car, the turbo is the best car on the planet for sheer fun, dependability, saftey (4wd) and beauty. It would be hard to drive anything else but a turbo now. I hate coming home putting it in the garage and waiting until tomorrow to drive it. I wish that they had done some thing less old school with the headlights of the 997. I just could not spend all that money for a car that looks like a 993. I think mine is prettier. I bet when they change the lights again they will be like the Porsche GT or Panamera. That look. More in between the round and the shark lights. Diana.

# 8 February 2010 at 2:28 pm

Dior said:

Dear Diana: I have a 996 turbo and I have to say, you said it so well. I am in love with this car, the way it handles, the speed, but the way it looks puts it over the top. It is simply stunning. People do think mine is the new model and the 997 is the old one. The 997 does look like a 993. the rear end is just not good looking at all. I also agree with you about the headlights, when they restyle them I bet it will be like the Porshe GT or the Panamera. The 996 Turbo is the most beautiful, fast, reliable car on the planet.

# 17 April 2010 at 1:28 pm

Bentley said:

Dear Diana/ Dior,
I totally disagree with our comments on looks. I had a 996 C4S for many years and frankly I found the front end ugly. There is no argument with the way it drives. Porsche went wayward with the headlights on the 996 series. When I owned the 996, I long for the 993 look. Fortunately, they had come to their senses with the 997 design. The change is subtle and effective as a whole. The new car drives better in all respects. I am now a proud owner of a 997 turbo.

Different folks, different strokes!

# 21 June 2010 at 8:09 am

Russell said:

I am faced now with the dilema of purchasing a 996 turbo here in Australia or a 997 S. Both are hot but I’m scared to make a mistake. Many are saying the 997 is a better car overall even though it is slower – with new technology etc. The turbo was much more expensive brand new however and in Austrlia there are not many here. My heart loves the 997 shape and newer design but my ego tells me that the turbo is the king and will have more street cred. I cant afford a 997 turbo so its either the 996 turbo or 997 S.

If I could see the two cars side by side it would make all the difference. Its not the same on picture.
Rus

# 6 July 2010 at 4:31 am

David said:

Russell –

Go for the 997. The 996 (regardless of what “Diana” and “Dior” said) will always be the ugly duckling of the Porsche lineup. While it is possible that their friends mistook the 996 for being newer than the 997, nobody on the planet that knows anything about cars ever would. The 996 is famous for being a flop, hence the ridiculously low prices. No way Porsche will go for CGT/Panamera style lights in the next revision, they learned their lesson with the 996 fiasco. The 911 is the 911, iconic (except for the 996). A good condition 993 with similar miles, many years older, currently costs as much or more than an equivalent 996. That should tell you something.

As for speed, although the 996 turbo will be faster in a drag race, the ‘lowly’ C2S (post 1998) is faster around a track. If you really need the ‘turbo’ badge, save up for a 997 or get a 993 in good condition (+10 on the street cred you were talking about). 997 C2S might be your best bet though, it’s modern, sexy and as I said, faster around a track than the 996 turbo. If you always drive in a straight line and want a car to pass slow soccer moms on the motorway, maybe the 996 turbo is better though.

Myself, I am a GT3 kinda guy, although that may be a bit over your budget as they hold their value extremely well (even older high mileage examples).

# 12 July 2010 at 9:15 am