View Single Post
GroovieGhoulie GroovieGhoulie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by slow&rusty View Post
I am having a tough time understanding the "purist" state of mind, especially when they restrict the performance of a "performance car".

Your car has the potential to be so much more modern and driveable with terrific throttle response with a few choice parts that will compliment the car, I am not talking about tacking neons to the undercarriage I am talking aftermarket items that will bring the car to 2009 and on levels.

The stock exhaust, the stock muffler, the stock turbo and intercooler are all rubbish by todays standards and are rather dated. They were all designed in the'70s when turbo technology was in its infancy, technology has come a LONG way since then, and you have an opportunity to really transform your car.

I was totally disappointed when I bought my stock '89 930 a few years ago, I was thinking "This is a $90,000 Porsche 911 turbo???huh???..."...my gosh give me a bucket to throw-up in. My little Turbo Toyota Corolla would run circles around it. The car had an idle like a Cadillac DeVille, it was that muted and quiet, I like my cars with some bark to their bite, my car was lacking both!

So there and then I decided to upgrade and remove the stock parts, install well chosen parts and have not looked back. My car is now awesome, it will outrun a Ferrari F355 with ease and is reliable and still has more to go, if I decide I want continue along the slippery slope.

Your car your choice.

Yasin
I understand your point of view. I will try to explain mine, and PLEASE don't think I am trying to denigrate or bring down people that modify the cars to be more modern. My brother is one of them, he and I banter back and forth, (friendly), all the time about this.

Mine is a minority opinion, I'm sure. If I wanted a car with the performance and feeling of a 2009 car, I would buy a 2009 car. I wanted a performance car from the 1980s, with that level of performance, so that's what I bought. I enjoy the car for its flaws. I love the lightswitch effect of the turbo coming on, (50hp from idle to 3500RPM, then, within 500RPM, you have 300hp all the way to redline), the bags of lag, the vicious handling. I LIKE the fact that it's a 1960s chassis mated to 1970s suspension design and 1970s brakes, with a powerful, yet hard-to-drive engine. On paper, the car should not be a success, but yet it was a champion, worldbeating machine, and I like that.

I like the fact that the handling is vicious and takes a real master to get everything out of it. I like that the car will kill you if you're dumb and over-drive it. I'm no master driver, but I like that the car will force me to get better, or I'll bend the car or hurt myself.

I like the 1960s ergonomics and quirky switchgear location. Almost as if Porsche loaded all the ancillary switches into a shotgun, just blew them into the dashboard, and wherever they landed, that's where they were placed.

In a similar vein, I ride motorcycles also and my daily ride is a 1976 Honda CB750. By today's standards, it's got a aluminum lump of an engine, a frame that flexes as if made of spaghetti, woolly handling, primitive suspension and marginal brakes. But I love it for what it is and will never change it. It's a time machine to 1976. Sure, I know people that hot-rod the old bikes into firebreathing Cafe Racers, but they'll still get blown away by a modern 600RR, and with the money they put into the bike, they could have a more modern machine.

Which brings up the question of value. I see myself as a caretaker of the past. How many stock 930s are around? Probably not many and dwindling by the day. In the future, if someone wants to see a glimpse of turbo technology and the "Zeitgeist" of supercars from the '70s and '80s, they'll need to see a stock car. Plus, which cars hold the most value and are sought after? The stock ones, with all their flaws.

I guess it comes down to if I wanted more performance, I could spend $35,000 on a nice clean 930, then spend another $30,000 modifying the engine, suspension and brakes and have a car than can run with, or outrun, a 997TT. Or I could take that same $65,000 and buy, (or put a down payment on), a later Turbo with the engine performance already there, better handling, better braking, better chassis, better ergonomics, more comfort, etc.

And in the end, the market seems to bear out that a unmolested, stock 930, if maintained and cared for, will be worth at least the purchase price, undoubtedly more in the coming years. The $35,000 930 that has $35,000 in mods might break even on the purchase price, maybe a little more, but it has to be the right buyer. The owner will never get the money out of it that he put in it. It has to be a labor of love.

Mine will not be a track car. I've got a GP replica motorcycle for track days. For Auto-X, I have a 2001 Boxster S. I don't tear-ass around on the streets either. I got nothing to prove on public roads. I've driven and ridden in modified 930s and I just prefer the characteristics of the stock cars, as flawed as they are.

I'm not sure if this makes my position clear, but I hope it sheds some light on why I don't wanna modify it, except for perhaps, as p930t said, "period upgrades". To forestall possible accusations, I'm not a "speculator", trying to flip the car for a profit later. To be honest, I don't plan to ever sell it, but life has taught me to never say never, and I buy all big-buck items with an eye toward their value in the future, just in case.

I really hope I didn't offend any hot-rodders here. There are some AWESOME cars on this site, and I wouldn't kick any of 'em outta my garage, but for me and my tastes, I like 'em stock. In 10 years, who knows, but for now, I like 'em "as delivered".
Old 01-15-2009, 08:16 AM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #15 (permalink)