I disagree about the image and status thing. It's about having something that will never be made ever again that is iconic. That's not image and that's not status. That's just plain COOL AS HELL and regardless if anyone EVER knows about it....YOU do!

Those long hoods are VERY special - especially the non-molested examples.

PURITY!

Not to argue about the current market values but there is no comparison between this car and the OP in either condition, (from photos at least), options, etc. If your example here is worth $150k, the OP car is worth $260K.

Neither are, though, in today's market. Maybe 2 years ago. :cool:

Yes, but the point I have been trying to make here is that a 911S often goes for way, way more than a 912. Yet there's not much of a difference between them. What you say can be applied to a 912 as well. So the the stratospheric difference between the two can only be attributed to status and image.

I had a very fast 911E but was rarely able to use the power. I've still never driven a 912, as mine is under a complete restoration. But I have a feeling that I'll enjoy the 912 as a driver just as much. Maybe not off the line, but everywhere else.

No you won't...

The early 911's were dogs off the line...even I could run faster...and that is SLOW. the 2.0L and 2.2L engines were meant for running at high speed on the autobahn. They had handling and braking which was unheard of in any American car of the time..(I had a 66 427/450hp Vette).

From what I understand the 72/73 E and S were a bit quicker at the get go...with the 2.4L,

The 912 just does not have the effortless OMMPH of the 911...those 2 cylinders make a whole lot of dif. I drove a 912 as a dd for a long time, and a 68 wt a 70 S motor. The S was wicked.

The long hoods were a lithe no frills straight to the point, no BS sports car... After 73 that all changed.. they became luxo slugs. With all the amenities that fat Americans want.

If you wan some performance put Big Bore cylinders in your 912..it won't be as anemic.

I like the 356 body, and would suffer being a slug while driving one of those...they are just kool. Especially a Cab or Speedster.

It is about the experience of sitting behind the wheel and cruising along..

That ^^^ is what it all about driving 50 some odd year old cars...it is not about performance or amenities it is about the experience of driving something kool..

So BAZ is nutz on in his comments....most people looking at an old 911 can't tell the dif anyway...

BINGO...You got it tight...

You clearly lack the most basic understanding of what drives collectible investing.
It has nothing to do with tangible features, benefits, or utility.
Want a fast car? Get a Camaro.

Do you understand why people pay $80,000,000 for a painting?
It's not because of the $5 worth of paint.

Anyone paying $200k for a car will not be driving it. Ever.
It will be trailed into a storage facility and then trailered to the next auction 5 years from now to be sold.

And I never will. I'm too logical. When I see a collectible that's ridiculously over-priced, in my view, I'm like this:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1531687097.jpg

And doesn't THAT just sound like gangs of fun???

Ouuuuudles of fun.

You are right on till the last sentence, Which I believe is total nonsense.
Many care makers Ferrari, Lamborghini, Mercedes, even Porsche sell new cars for over $200,000 every day, 1,000's of them. People buy them to use as fun, unique, exotic transportation.

There are also many used cars that sell for over $200,000 that are used the same way. Dynamic art.

As for other comments in this thread that expensive cars or bought to flaunt wealth?
Silly narrow minded concept, maybe some people do that.
Most people I know who made real money, are very self confident people. Self made people usually do not feel a need to try to impress strangers with flashy objects they bought to feel good about themselves, it is actually the opposite they buy things they want and like and try to keep a low profile in public.
So 911S is kind of the right tool for the job, it looks like a cheap car to 99% of the public even to people here as the OP pointed out comparing it to a 912.
So if you already have a selection of new Porsches, in the garage why not add an old 911S to bop around in, it certainly will draw less attention than the Carrera GT or Ferrari 458.

I noticed that too...so was the engine "new" or was the original numbers matching engine rebuilt?

I guess guys who ask questions like us are not their target market. :rolleyes:

Wrong on all counts.

Car collectors generally put tangible things ahead of investment potential. "Fast" is one attribute, but that's not a consideration for a sizable chunk of the car collecting hobby. There are many other factors that define the driving experience. Don't get me wrong, people with wealth that have gotten into the car collecting hobby do appreciate the investment potential but anyone getting in today going to be disappointed. Largely, that ship has sailed.

The upper end of the fine art collecting hobby has a track record for far longer than cars and a much more solid base. Investing in fine art is like investing in high end real estate. There will always be an art market and it's always going to be headed in one direction. Collectible cars have had their ups and downs and will continue to do so.

I know a number of car collectors and every last one of them drives their cars. It makes no difference how rare, or how expensive, but the vast majority of the people in the hobby do use them to some extent. There are exceptions to any rule but I think you would be surprised. The ones that are grounded drive the cars they like the best, the most, and they couldn't give two ****s about the value. That's what insurance is for...

"Collecting" a '68 Camaro and driving it to C&C is a lot different than investing in an $18mm 250GTO. The latter does not get driven. Investing is a business, it's not a hobby that's supposed to be fun. There are hedge funds that invest in vintage cars. They probably don't even know how to drive stick.

I've personally witnessed a race where about half of the surviving 250 GTOs were raced. Those rich guys that chose not to drive hired others to drive their cars for them.

Not every car gets driven much but few never get driven.

Here's a guy (hired gun Andy Newell) crashing a '64 GTO, one of three ever built, less than a year ago. Not his car...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p--8DXM123E" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

FWIW, the car he was trying to pass was a 250 LM, one of 32 and rarer than a GTO. The guy in the LM was aother hired gun, Chris Harris.

http://www.weathertechraceway.com/sites/main/files/file-attachments/website_listing_rmmr_26_june_2018.pdf

Izzat so? ^Better tell all these folks running at Monterey Historics in August that they are doing it wrong.

Exactly, beat me to it. I have lots of photos from Monterey Historics races where Ferrari GTOs and other super valuable vintage cars are getting the wheels driven off of them. My Sugarwood doesn't know what he's talking about.

You can't swing a dead cat w/o hitting a $200k car in parts of L.A., there are hundreds if not thousands of them. An old 911S is somewhat precious compared to when they were $20k cars but in the world of collectible cars, they are a door prize. I can think of two guys right off the top of my head who daily drove '73 Carrera RSes when they were ~$1M. Maybe not daily, but drove them to work and whenever they felt like it.

Lastly, when a car is worth several million, like the crashed GTO in the video, it willet fixed every time. And the Silicon Valley zillionaire who owns it doesn't give a rat's ass, he found the whole thing entertaining. :cool:

That particular 64 GTO that was crashed in the above video belongs to a UK gazillionaire by the name of Anthony Bamford. As I recall, he's owned it since the late 1960s and it has probably covered more track miles, just for fun, under his ownership than it ever did when it was a frontline race car.

One of the best Ferrari collections in the world was owned for many years by a guy by the name of Pierre Bardinon. He built his own race track on his estate in France, so he could run any of his cars whenever he felt like it.

I've personally watched races at Laguna Seca where the total value of the cars in a particular race probably approached a quarter of $1 billion. They used to have a featured marque every year and when that was Ferrari, the big dogs in the collecting world came out in droves.

Count the GTO's in this race from 2004, if you can:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qETqQFKwgbw&feature=youtu.be

Some of the reasons that I see cars as valuable

(from lowest to highest with lowest and most temporary at the top, and the ones in the middle, the order could be changed)

1) high school car. I always wanted one
2) Price of admission to the club. (buy a first generation McLaren and you get exclusive access to their track events around the world, and they'll take care of and bring your car there for you, or an old race car with pedigree lets you run lemans historics.
3)Collectible value - its a rembrandt (250gto obviously now is fitting into this and other categories, but a 356 speedster is also moving form high school car to rembrandt. I wasn't born when you could buy a new rembrandt, but Im told I need one in my collection)

limited production 1973 911 cars sort out like this from most desirable to least
1) A significant race winning RSR
2) any other RSR
3) a lightweight RS
4) all of the other 73 RS cars
5) All of the S cars
6) more recently the E car are seen as better than the T but they used to be lumped together
7) A "T" with S options
8) a run of the mill T
9 ) A 911 with a 356 motor

Obviously this simple list needs to be 3 dimensional to account for various factors such as condition and pedigree and fame etc. The question is what has the market determined make a car special, and in the Porsche collector world, low production number is certainly one of them.