Am I missing something....,

[totle]

AS most of us, we're looking for 930's.
I know prices are raising, but this 930 on ebay is now way higher than I would have guessed.
It's a project car, but now at 47.100

http://www.ebay.com/itm/131110093743?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

It this a spesial color combo or anything?

To me this is way to high for this Car, but I'm really happy for the seller :-)

[spitz]

You and me the same bud. Lol, but happy about it for sure!

[Tippy]

Like I said in another thread, 5 years ago people were trying to unload their "unwanted" 100k mile drivers in PM's to me for sub-$20k when I mentioned I wanted a 930.

Something has changed since then for sure.

[zaman fu]

I'm surprised too. I guess it has to do with the low mileage and '78 being a desirable year (1st year with intercooler and supposedly less bloated than the more common 1986-1988 cars).

[klefroid]

Originally Posted by zaman fu

I'm surprised too. I guess it has to do with the low mileage and '78 being a desirable year (1st year with intercooler and supposedly less bloated than the more common 1986-1988 cars).

That was 1977 ;-) like mine build number 104

[aschen]

We talked about this in the other thread, but Im with you seems high to me as well.

Do you guys think this car could be put to mint concours like condition for less than 40k?

[mark houghton]

Any 930 with a "7" in it seems to be commanding huge prices. Well, except for 1987, which is fine by me since I hope to lay my hands on one again someday.

[JMGaston]

wow. I guess I need to renegotiate my agreed value insurance with Hagerty soon.

[Noah930]

Who lists a Porsche motor displacement in cubic inches?

Issues with the car:
Being sold by non-Porsche enthusiast, possibly a flipper.
It's being sold at a price that would seem close to double what I would be willing to pay.
Hasn't run in 18 years.
It's from Florida.

I wouldn't place a bid unless I could lay eyes on it (or have a trusted agent do so).

[tonypeoni]

Originally Posted by klefroid

That was 1977 ;-) like mine build number 104

Any 1970s 930 has drastically different power delivery from the 1980 and up cars. Simply due to the fact that the engines are less refined and more raw. Lower compression, higher boost and a slightly lighter car made for a much more dramatic on/off boost experience. At the end of the day what is the fun of driving any early 930? -The kick in the pants and tail sliding sideways! 1975/79 930s are the cars that earned the 930 its widow maker reputation. That is what I believe collectors value in these cars. They are a handful to drive especially compared to the 1986/89 cars that used revised higher compression ratios, lower boost settings, different ignition setup and fuel head settings.

[Cobalt]

The market is going nuts and people seem to be spending crazy money for any air cooled Porsche. A lot of speculation and people asking crazy prices. A unique color is all it takes sometimes. The sister to my 964 turbo sold recently for $169k and I don't see it slowing down. Assuming the market pulls everything with it I don't think we will see the prices we are used to any longer.

Buy the good deals now or regret missing the boat. Crazy...yes but supply is thin and demand growing every day.

[shlobeck]

Owning and following the 930 market for many years I have to say this car leaves me completely speechless. I hope the bidders understand how much it takes to restore a vintage Porsche these days. $50K for a neglected, abused and unknown 35 year old car is asinine. There was a 1987 that sold for $75K in excellent shape earlier this week on Ebay. I understand the fact the car is a “70’s 930” but under the circumstances value will always be in original unmolested cars. Keeping this original will be very difficult at this point. The new owner will be in a considerable “hole” financially if they consider a full restoration.

On another topic the motors for 78-89 cars are the same in boost pressure, power delivery and compression ratios. The later cars are just as challenging to drive and in some cases more challenging. The biggest difference is weight, period. All 930s are difficult to drive fast. The motors, suspension, and overall car are very similar. If anything the 3.0 litre cars with the shorter stroke motor and boost delivery (no intercool) lends itself to a different driving experience. I agreed the boost on later cars is more progressive but the acceleration is equally aggressive due to the higher torque. The production numbers will always be in the favor of the early cars. Rarity and exclusivity is important to collectors. I find virtues in both for different reasons.

The proverbial cat is out of the bag, for there are few “good deals” left for 930s in general.

[krasuskyp]

Originally Posted by shlobeck

On another topic the motors for 78-89 cars are the same in boost pressure, power delivery and compression ratios. The later cars are just as challenging to drive and in some cases more challenging. The biggest difference is weight, period. All 930s are difficult to drive fast. The motors, suspension, and overall car are very similar. If anything the 3.0 litre cars with the shorter stroke motor and boost delivery (no intercool) lends itself to a different driving experience. I agreed the boost on later cars is more progressive but the acceleration is equally aggressive due to the higher torque. The production numbers will always be in the favor of the early cars. Rarity and exclusivity is important to collectors. I find virtues in both for different reasons.

_THANK_YOU_

Hearing that 'other drum' being constantly beaten (just forgot to mention having a 930 VIN or not) has worn tiresome. Enough already.

Well said on all accounts.

Geesh

[tonypeoni]

Originally Posted by shlobeck

Owning and following the 930 market for many years I have to say this car leaves me completely speechless. I hope the bidders understand how much it takes to restore a vintage Porsche these days. $50K for a neglected, abused and unknown 35 year old car is asinine. There was a 1987 that sold for $75K in excellent shape earlier this week on Ebay. I understand the fact the car is a “70’s 930” but under the circumstances value will always be in original unmolested cars. Keeping this original will be very difficult at this point. The new owner will be in a considerable “hole” financially if they consider a full restoration.

On another topic the motors for 78-89 cars are the same in boost pressure, power delivery and compression ratios. The later cars are just as challenging to drive and in some cases more challenging. The biggest difference is weight, period. All 930s are difficult to drive fast. The motors, suspension, and overall car are very similar. If anything the 3.0 litre cars with the shorter stroke motor and boost delivery (no intercool) lends itself to a different driving experience. I agreed the boost on later cars is more progressive but the acceleration is equally aggressive due to the higher torque. The production numbers will always be in the favor of the early cars. Rarity and exclusivity is important to collectors. I find virtues in both for different reasons.

The proverbial cat is out of the bag, for there are few “good deals” left for 930s in general.

I want to be as respectful as possible but there is a HUGE difference in on/off boost performance between the 70s cars (3.0/3.3) and the 86,87,89 cars. There is a Road&Track article back in 86 that speaks of this. We must not forget that the 78/79 also use the 917 floating rotors and only these two years have this.


Road & Track 1986
“In its latest state, the 911 Turbo has had most of its rough edges smoothed. The engine, Porsche’s venerable, air-cooled flat-6 has been “smogged”, as we say, meaning that it meets emission requirements in all 50 states. A bit of diddling with the electronic control module and the fitting of a catalytic converter took care of that technicality without much loss in horsepower and performance. Intercooled, the 3299-cc, KKK turbocharged, Bosch fuel injected boxer motor develops 282 bhp at 5500 rpm, even in U.S. trim. And while it doesn’t have the same punch-in-the-stomach throttle response of its predecessors, it’s brawny enough to send the present-day Turbo scrambling from 0-60 mph in 5.0 seconds and to the quarter mile in just 13.4 seconds.”

“At the test track, we discovered that the 911 Turbo will still give any car a run for its money, hustling to 60 mph from rest in 5.0 seconds. The time is the same for the 1978 Turbo, but the manner of getting to speed is noticeably different: Gone is the slow movement off the line that was followed by the punch-in-the-back turbo effect. The 1986 car moves off smartly and the speed just continues to build-quickly-with an only slightly detectable boost from the turbo. The means are different, the end is the same.”


Car&Driver 1986
“Nevertheless, if 1979 was a great year for turbochared 911s, 1986 ought to be even better, right? Twenty-nine more horses, fatter tires, and six years of chassis development could only make things positively dreamy.”

“With a searing 0-to-60 mph of 4.6 seconds and clocking of 13.1 seconds at 105-mph through the quarter-mile, the 911 Turbo is most assuredly this season’s acceleration ace-providing you’re willing to resort to rough, wheel-spinning, drag-race starts. On the road though, these numbers pale next to the Turbo’s boost-lag arthritis. Even the healthier of our two test cars took forever to spin its turbo to liftoff speed. Once it was up and running, it was plenty strong, but it just didn’t awe us the way the old 930 used to.”

Still looking, but I have yet to find a period article (R&T, C&D, etc.) that refers to post-1986, 911 Turbos as 930’s. Anyone?

[tonypeoni]

Road & Track, Car & Driver

[jfort]

thank you, tonypeoni. the exploded picture of the floating rotors is helpful.

[krasuskyp]

Originally Posted by tonypeoni

I want to be as respectful as possible but there is a HUGE difference in on/off boost performance between the 70s cars (3.0/3.3) and the 86,87,89 cars. There is a Road&Track article back in 86 that speaks of this.

no one denies they 2 cars drive similar but different - one spools great and has no brakes, the other not quite as light / nimble but can actually stop w/o fade

it's the one is better than the other, and the misinformation that grows tiresome - also trying to be as respectful as possible 8-)

Originally Posted by tonypeoni

We must not forget that the 78/79 also use the 917 floating rotors and only these two years have this.

Oh, don't worry... no one forgets that as 'thankfully' there are those that won't let us . Many don't really care all that much honestly.

Originally Posted by tonypeoni

Road & Track 1986
“In its latest state, the 911 Turbo has had most of its rough edges smoothed. The engine, Porsche’s venerable, air-cooled flat-6 has been “smogged”, as we say, meaning that it meets emission requirements in all 50 states. A bit of diddling with the electronic control module and the fitting of a catalytic converter took care of that technicality without much loss in horsepower and performance. Intercooled, the 3299-cc, KKK turbocharged, Bosch fuel injected boxer motor develops 282 bhp at 5500 rpm, even in U.S. trim. And while it doesn’t have the same punch-in-the-stomach throttle response of its predecessors, it’s brawny enough to send the present-day Turbo scrambling from 0-60 mph in 5.0 seconds and to the quarter mile in just 13.4 seconds.”

“At the test track, we discovered that the 911 Turbo will still give any car a run for its money, hustling to 60 mph from rest in 5.0 seconds. The time is the same for the 1978 Turbo, but the manner of getting to speed is noticeably different: Gone is the slow movement off the line that was followed by the punch-in-the-back turbo effect. The 1986 car moves off smartly and the speed just continues to build-quickly-with an only slightly detectable boost from the turbo. The means are different, the end is the same.”

Car&Driver 1986
“Nevertheless, if 1979 was a great year for turbochared 911s, 1986 ought to be even better, right? Twenty-nine more horses, fatter tires, and six years of chassis development could only make things positively dreamy.”

“With a searing 0-to-60 mph of 4.6 seconds and clocking of 13.1 seconds at 105-mph through the quarter-mile, the 911 Turbo is most assuredly this season’s acceleration ace-providing you’re willing to resort to rough, wheel-spinning, drag-race starts. On the road though, these numbers pale next to the Turbo’s boost-lag arthritis. Even the healthier of our two test cars took forever to spin its turbo to liftoff speed. Once it was up and running, it was plenty strong, but it just didn’t awe us the way the old 930 used to.”

Well if it's in a magazine then it must be true!

I cannot tell you how much misinfo makes press - heck I've published some myself lol 8-)...

All 930s are amazing, no matter the flavor - 'nuff said.

[ELZ's930]

Great pictures. Thanks for posting.

Let's face it...they are all great cars, some just older than others and it seems older generally equates to slightly more rare and thus a higher price. This follows more or less in line with the early 911.

Regardless, the 930 is THE ICON!

[TT Gasman]

Car rags are the last thing I would cite as a reference. Just take em with a grain of salt. The floating rotors are nice, if they still have them , by now many have been changed out over the years by the superceded design.
Having owned a 1983 RoW 930 and my current 1986 US car , they do drive a little differently but the improvements in the later cars are notable. Maybe it's s function of having a grey market car, but what a relief that everything works and nothing is cobbled. I'm loving the auto door locks vs having to use a key on each side... the little things .
All 930s are great cars !

[zaman fu]

Aren't any boost response differences between the earlier 3.3's and the later ones rendered moot by the K-27's and free-flowing exhausts that almost everyone seems to be running?

Anyway, I'll be having my mechanic eliminate my 3rd brake light and central locking as soon as possible so that my '87 can be as light and nimble as a 70's 930. Any other mods I should consider? Did those come with lighter stereos or center consoles?