Your asking this quesion on a Porsche Board. Exactly what answer do ya expect from this biased crowd?

I like the 356 idea personally...

I came very close to buying a 67 330 GTC for around 20K...that is one that got away...

Actually, both statements are wrong. The "flat 12" Ferrari motors are technically 180 degree v-12's. They are not "boxer" motors, like the 911 motors. It's a popular misconception, no doubt helped by Ferrari's (mis)use of the term "boxer".

Several reasons why this is so... but it boils down to the fact that the Ferrari motors have two cylinders that share each crankshaft journal.

Carry on,
JR

930 for sure, It maybe cheaper to maintain if thats possible.

+100..this^

besides, i have misplaced my white linen suit, and baby blue dress shirt.

I don't know about this. Ferrari built too many cars in that era and that trend is continuing. You might say that all Ferrari's eventually go up in value but I think the jury is still out on the cars built after the '70's. The TR values are still flat, while the 930 values have been starting to creep upward.

Time will tell, but I wouldn't pick either car based on "upside" potential.

JR

funny! i answered the question given the two choices. but if i had the cash, my next car project would be a 4x4 restoration.

FJ40, early bronco, or a defender..(maybe not in any particular order)

IF I sneezed (oh, wait just did ;-) money then I would opt for BOTH!

However, since we are only in the theoretical that I have $50K to spend on something other than a tractor or a truck or more land then: 930 hands down!

Reliability, I can do some of the work myself, reliability over the Italian, cheaper to run in the long run, reliability, parts availability, reliable enough to be a daily driver, fits in current stable better, OH and reliability would be another factor in my mind.

I might be wrong on the reliability part but it seems to me 5K miles between full services and 10+K miles is a big difference.

Vash,

Cannot help withe linen suit, could help if you had needed silk....:eek:

930 hands down! Talked with a guy at a car show here and he has a Testarossa. he said it cost him close to 15k for the 30k mile maintenance. Hence the high maintenance cost that everyone is referring to. And the fact that the 930 is timeless!

I think its 2 very different cars for 2 very different people, I think the 930 favors a driver who likes to push his cars to the limit, track day, performance mods, that sort of thing. where are the TR favors more of a touring style driver for nice days and weekends.

I've always thought the TR was kinda ugly. JMHO.

The pic posted of the 930 is awesome. Great angle and what timeless lines.

Well said. Agreed

Since you mention a Ferrari I assume you mean for a weekend toy and not a daily driver. I'd get the Testarossa without a doubt, assuming it has a documented history, is a desirable year and stock without any major issues. Contrary to popular belief, I think that it will be much cheaper in the long run.

I love all 911's (obviously) but 930's are a dime a dozen. History shows that a twelve cylinder Italian sports car as iconic as the Testarossa will inevitably appreciate. Look at the early Countach, it bottomed out around $50K not long ago and now a good example of a desirable year is $250K or more. Maybe it's just me but being paid ~$200K for driving an Italian sports car around for 10 years seems like a pretty good deal.

For The Same Money (+/-) $45K-$50K..Testarossa or 930? Which Would You Choose?

Filling in for Paul: Green Mustang GT

It won't unless it appreciates a bunch. Not something I'd bet on in the short term... The running costs will always be much higher and parts will become harder and harder to find.

You're talking about the LP400. They made all of 157 of those... the later cars haven't gone up much, if at all.

Compare that with 5000+ Ferraris and probably 4 times that number of 930's.

JR

Ferrari made too many Testarossas!? You're a smart guy and I respect your opinion. But Ferrari made about 7200 Testarossas from 1984 to 1991....less than 1,000 per year, worldwide. They also made about 2300 512TRs (no cheesegrater) from 1991 to 1994, so 500ish per year. Total of less than 10K cars in eleven years.

How many 930s were built with the same basic shape (answer is more than twice as many)? And how many non-turbos with the same basic shape? From, what, 1967 to 1989...argueably later? How many people know the difference between a turbo and regular 911 at a glance?

Even "high volume" Ferraris like the 308/328 have appreciated significantly. Have you seen Dino prices lately!?

Testarossas will be $150K cars soon enough, and $200K cars within a reasonable timeframe. How much is a NEW twelve cylinder Ferrari? How much is a NEW 911 Turbo? There's some of your answer....

The 930 is "timeless"?

Ah, no it's not. It screams late '70s to early '80s styling and is extremely dated at this point. It, and its racing variants, look like they were designed by plumbers and carpenters compared to the sleek cup cars of modern times. Everything added-on to a skinny car instead of designed to be wide in the first place.

I like them for what they are and I lusted for one when they were new, (and their performance numbers were impressive), but time has passed them by in styling and performance. They are as dated as a Buick GNX to me.

The photo of the 930 in the first post is as much of a glamour shot as you could get, (lowered, much wider wheels, etc.), and shot from an angle that would make a minivan look sexy. Also, even by air-cooled 911 standards, which are low, it is not a durable long-lasting car w/o expensive rebuilds at low mileage. Nearly every 930 that I've ever seen for sale has had a top end at least with much less than 100k miles. Between fuel, checkbook maintenance and upgrades to make them faster than a stock Miata at the track, they are like small yacht in terms of ownership costs.

I don't know much about Ferraris. :cool:

The relative rarity definitely means a lot, it's one of the factors that make a car valuable. But not all rare cars are collectible and not all collectible cars are rare. Ultimately, the cars that eventually appreciate in value are the ones that made a permanent impact on someone as a kid, and then later in life when they have money they finally buy one. At that point it's supply and demand with the rarest ones the most expensive but they all ride the tide on the way up. The Countach blew a lot of minds in the 70's and the Testarossa was right there with it in my faint little-kid memory.

That's why '57 Chevy's became so expensive when the guys that grew up lusting for one in '50's could finally afford a nice one. And then the '60's muscle cars and long hood 911's for all the 60 year old guys out there now. IMO we'll see the same for 70's and 80's and 90's iconic cars as those generations start getting old enough to raid their nest eggs.

Yes. If you compare the production numbers of Ferrari cars prior to the modern era (say, starting with the 308) and since, you'll see what I mean.

Anybody with reasonable eyesight? Seriously, if a person can't immediately tell them apart, they have no business buying either car.

A Dino and a 308 are two different animals. While Dino prices have gone up (and they are in the pre-modern Ferrari era) the later v-8 cars have not done much. There's a litttle upside in the very nicest examples of the 328 but the rest are flat, at best. My 328 appreciated $5k in the 15 years I owned it, while I spent $50k on maintenance and repairs. I'll let someone else do the math.


That's always been the case. Nothing new there.

I still say I wouldn't buy either car with the expectation of making money on them. I'd buy the car that fits my needs the best. Right now, neither one appeals to me, for different reasons, although I've owned both.

Cheers,
JR

As a single guy, I'd take the Ferrari, as a married guy, I'd take the 930.