Hmmm... as 996 prices drop they keep looking better and better. This is ok for $17K

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by Christien

I've driven many 996s and owned a 986-gen boxster for a couple years. I much prefer the older 911s over them, for 2 reasons. One, driving fun: the older cars are simply more fun all around, IMO. I feel more connected to the road, I'm more engaged, it takes more effort, concentration and work, and, like anything else in life, rewards that. If I want to go fast, I'll buy a corvette, which will blow the doors off a base model 996, and give a turbo a run for its money. Two, cosmetics: the 996 just doesn't do it for me, unless it's a widebody, and even then, those god-awful headlights are a deal-breaker for me. I still can't figure out who at PAG gave the go-ahead on those. Now, the 997, on the other hand...

Interesting, I've come to find the 996 to be better looking of the two cars, especially a '99 with the aero package in red. The 997 is right on the edge of completely losing the "upside down bathtub" look of the original 356's. Their used to be a near continuous curve from the front of the car to the rear when viewed from the side. Now the 911 is losing that shape, and might be gone altogether with the next generation. If I want a car that flares up behind the rear doors, I'll get a Camaro...

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Christien

I much prefer the older 911s over them, for 2 reasons. One, driving fun: the older cars are simply more fun all around, IMO. I feel more connected to the road, I'm more engaged, it takes more effort, concentration and work, and, like anything else in life, rewards that. If I want to go fast, I'll buy a corvette, which will blow the doors off a base model 996, and give a turbo a run for its money. Two, cosmetics: the 996 just doesn't do it for me, unless it's a widebody, and even then, those god-awful headlights are a deal-breaker for me. I still can't figure out who at PAG gave the go-ahead on those. Now, the 997, on the other hand...

My sentiments exactly. I've been in a few 996's and Boxsters and they just don't make the hair on my arms stand up. Once in a great while I come across a 996 that makes me think about it, like a seal gray C4S with all the mods or a TT. But none look or sound remotely as sexy as my 993. Sure, they'll trounce any older 911 in performance. But I'm not driving on the track every day. And would you believe my 993's a/c still blows ice cold after 14 yrs. and never once been serviced?

[speeder]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I believe Denis had over 200k hard miles on his original motor and transmission with no major repairs. They are more reliable than yours.

My 996 was a spectacular car, personally I think anyone that would prefer a Carrera over one is a fool. Great A/C, decent ride makes for a good DD, performance that will destroy any previous N/A 911. My guess is that most 996 detractors simply haven't driven one.

Mine actually had the engine replaced and trans rebuilt along the way. We had no records and no idea when the engine was replaced and how many miles it had, could have been 150k(??). It was hands-down the most trouble-free DD I've ever owned, if not for a simple/common emissions part failing, it would have had close to a 100% reliability rating. No comparison to an early 911. From the clutch to the seat leather, it was 10x tougher.

Mine had a full H&R coil-over suspension that totally transformed the car. I've driven stock 996s and they were pretty sloppy in comparison plus seemed like they were way too high off the ground. Like all 911s before them, they really respond well to certain performance mods.

[onlycafe]

a reasonably priced cayman would be a real temptation.

[aigel]

The issue is that the engines may leak or grenade. Not highly likely but those are both catastrophic failures - i.e. your $15k 996 will then be worth $5k. Nobody wants to take that risk. The older cars do not blow up. They wear out slowly and predictably.

I would only buy a newer Porsche with the old case / bottom end (turbo, GT3).

George

[gtc]

LN Engineering has addressed the IMS issue. If you schedule the fix (along with replacing the RMS) with a clutch job, the expense isn't terribly great.

[Tim Hancock]

I find it interesting how many cheap 996's there are for sale in California on-line.... A bunch can be found for under 20k while in the rest of the country most 996's are advertised for mid to upper 20's.

Pardon the sidetrack, but does anyone know of a good place online to find wrecked/salvage Porsches for sale (preferably directly from insurance companies)? I would not mind buying a couple totaled (one wrecked in rear, one wrecked in front) 996's or 997's to weld together. It would be a fun project to build a really nice daily driver.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Tim, keep an eye on the Oklahoma Foreign website.

[audiman08]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

Interesting, I've come to find the 996 to be better looking of the two cars, especially a '99 with the aero package in red. The 997 is right on the edge of completely losing the "upside down bathtub" look of the original 356's. Their used to be a near continuous curve from the front of the car to the rear when viewed from the side. Now the 911 is losing that shape, and might be gone altogether with the next generation. If I want a car that flares up behind the rear doors, I'll get a Camaro...

I agree, the headlights on the 996 may be odd but I like the body shape better.

[jpachard]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

My sentiments exactly. I've been in a few 996's and Boxsters and they just don't make the hair on my arms stand up. Once in a great while I come across a 996 that makes me think about it, like a seal gray C4S with all the mods or a TT. But none look or sound remotely as sexy as my 993. Sure, they'll trounce any older 911 in performance. But I'm not driving on the track every day. And would you believe my 993's a/c still blows ice cold after 14 yrs. and never once been serviced?

Actually, my 964 is classed in PCA Club Racing with early 996 cars so with a good driver it's a fair fight. I just came back from Watkins Glen and had no problem keeping up with the 996's on the track, and that is a horsepower track, granted, my car is almost 600lbs lighter :-)

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by speeder

Like all 911s before them, they really respond well to certain performance mods.

That's it.

[450knotOffice]

Originally Posted by aigel

The issue is that the engines may leak or grenade. Not highly likely but those are both catastrophic failures - i.e. your $15k 996 will then be worth $5k. Nobody wants to take that risk. The older cars do not blow up. They wear out slowly and predictably.

I would only buy a newer Porsche with the old case / bottom end (turbo, GT3).

George

George, the older engines DO, for all intents and purposes, blow up on occasion. Ask PatrickB about the $25,000 he just spent on a full rebuild of his dead 3.2. Granted, it was a complete tear down and rebuild, but no performance mods were done. He had the bottom end strengthened, however, with the usual hardware.

[Dottore]

I moved on to a 997 S a few months ago, and have put 11,000 kms on the car since then in very "spirited" touring. The car has performed flawlessly and feels absolutely bullet-proof.

It's not a 996 — but I have also driven 996's — and absolutely do not understand the comments about the air-cooled cars somehow giving a "purer" Porsche driving experience. The air-cooled cars are rougher and don't handle as well and are slower. If that is the purer driving experience you are looking for—I would encourage you to consider a TR3. You'll find that really pure.

I enjoyed my air-cooled Porsches over the years. I've owned 14 of them. They are lovely cars. But they are dated. Porsches evolve, and the new 997s IMO have every bit of the design purity and the famous "Porsche feeling" of the earlier iterations — the ultra communicative steering, the powerful engine behind you, the beautiful engineering, the rail-like handling, those colossal brakes — its all there in spades. If you haven't driven one in anger—you owe it to yourself to try one. It will convince you that the newer cars do represent progress.

As for durability—the water-cooled cars have been around for over 10 years, and there are some very high mileage examples out there. There is no evidence of which I am aware that these cars are any less durable than previous generations. None. If anything the opposite appears to be true. (The RMS problem can be avoided—and if not, there certainly is a fix.)

Gratuitous pic of my mount:

[rnln]

no one answer my previous question above. umm... I'll try another question see if anyone still own both for a while and can give an honest comment.
Regarding maintenance cost, let say DIY on 911 and 50% DIY on 996. Why 50%? because it's not been around as long as the 911, and 996 board is not as active on DIY as the 911 board(?)
Thanks.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by 450knotOffice

George, the older engines DO, for all intents and purposes, blow up on occasion. Ask PatrickB about the $25,000 he just spent on a full rebuild of his dead 3.2. Granted, it was a complete tear down and rebuild, but no performance mods were done. He had the bottom end strengthened, however, with the usual hardware.

How do you spend $25k on a 3.2 rebuild with no mods? Did he overnight it to Stuttgart? You could drop in a 3.8 RSR for far less than that or buy a few spare 3.2's.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

How do you spend $25k on a 3.2 rebuild with no mods? .

Maybe depends on where you are. It would cost close to that where I live. It would cost north of that in, say, Germany—if we are talking full (top and bottom) rebuild.

[onewhippedpuppy]

It's easy to gloss over the repairs required to the older air cooled cars because they're old, but how many air cooled 911s make it beyond 150k without a reseal, valve stem seals, head studs, etc? There's a reason why you upgrade valve covers, chain tensioners, or add a pop-valve to the airbox, and it's not a superior initial design. Methinks this is more unfair bias against the new cars than it is truth.

Do the old cars have more character? Probably. But character is also a nice way of calling your car a pain in the ass. I tried to DD a 1970 911T, I know all about "character".

[slow&rusty]

Wow...I had no idea that the 996 were dipping into the teens...the wheels in my head are turning...

So what you prefer:
1) 996

2) A really nice 928 GT

for the same price?

Going on eBay right now to check some out right now!

[slow&rusty]

Wow...spot on...

Example 1: $19K (no reserve) 98,000 miles 6spd - Open to offers!
Porsche : 911: eBay Motors (item 160499694700 end time Nov-08-10 08:16:01 PST)

This car a few miles from my home here in Houston:
1999 62kmiles, 6 spd and $17,800
http://houston.craigslist.org/cto/1977238194.html



lots of others out there...for that kind of money I could learn to love the headlights and willing to take on the IMS fix at home...!

[Schumi]

Soon they will be cheap enough so that you can buy one without worrying about your investment too much. If you get 5K miles out of it, oh well, you're out 10K$. People spend that much in one weekend in Vegas.

But there's a good chance it will go 40, 50, even 100K miles after purchase with minimum upkeep expense (the typical service is quite cheap- it's the unplanned service that is costly, remember). . And at that point the car becomes a great investment.