Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   Considering a 911 - need advice (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/699564-considering-911-need-advice.html)

Steve Carlton 08-27-2012 07:35 PM

Considering a 911 - need advice
 
Always liked the 911, and now seriously considering owning one. Let's say a budget of $20-30K. I'm no expert on this, so asking for some insight...

I get a car at work, so this would be a car used sparingly. I don't like the headlights of the 996, so I'm left with 993s and what, mid-80s Carreras? I like the coupe roofline, no cabrio, maybe a targa with a couple roofline? I want to get a low mile example that still has the near new feel to it. Questions:

- I like the look of the mid-80s Carreras. I suppose there are some super low mile examples out there (like that Guards Red turbo that was on What's My Car Worth. Is there any advantage to that generation 911 vs the 993. More visceral?

- what years did the 993 span? Any years to seek out or avoid? How about the predecessor?

Anybody know of a car that would fit my criteria? I still need to think of what other toy I could get... maybe an NSX, maybe a Lotus, maybe a first-class 2002tii, I dunno.

island911 08-27-2012 07:46 PM

On the older 911's I'll say this, mileage is not something to consider. Condition is.

The older you go in the 911's the more visceral the responsiveness. --Even if the big power isn't there, the throttle response is there. (missing in the stock EFI) Also, no power steering in the older cars.

Steve Carlton 08-27-2012 08:00 PM

Just poking around craigslist, I'm thinking the 993 is barely within reach. I like the looks of the '84-88s better than the 964s. So, I guess my priority would be a super nice '84-88 coupe...

Shuie 08-27-2012 08:06 PM

Do it. I wish I could do it again. Maybe I'd do it a little differently than I did, but either way, I still wish I could drive one. Go for it.

Evans, Marv 08-27-2012 08:16 PM

I like the 993's, but they are going for a premium. A second choice for me would be an '87 or '88 with the G50 tranny. The long noses like my '69 are getting to the point where they probably will be driven less and less as time goes on as the available number of them lessens and parts become harder to get.

mikester 08-27-2012 08:58 PM

In California smog checks will not be your friend. I know with the pre-84 models - the SCs that smog checks suck. Expect regular tune-ups to meet emissions requirements.

Mine was an '81 and to be fair a previous owner (by my understanding at least) has swapped out the US CIS components with some European versions and so the car had great power but was smog check challenged. Always a 'gross polluter' always needed to be tuned through smog and ultimately that is the reason I let it go - got tired of that.

Now - in CA I would look at a 996, Boxster or Cayman without hesitation and I'm in the same price range as you and considering coming back into the fold myself in the next year or two. I would be interested in hearing about the smogability of the 84-88 models as I do like the look but I like the round-eyed water coolers too plus I like the modern stuff in them and the fact that they are quite good on emissions standards with some models even being PZEV. Makes selling my green minded wife easier.

993s are the pinnacle in my eyes though - lots of other folks too based on the price.

speeder 08-27-2012 09:07 PM

I've seen a couple of Carreras and SCs that looked enticing recently when I poke around the listings. Not too many, but a few. Good cars are getting less common in the marketplace as time goes on, IMO, and only the good ones are worth owning.

That said, 911s in general give back a lot of pleasure in terms of driving and all of the other sensory rewards. They are perfectly useable as an everyday car if you don't need a lot of room for hauling people and junk.

911boost 08-27-2012 10:00 PM

The car from "What's My Car Worth" is a 1994 911 Turbo 3.6, they are pretty pricey right now..

Don't overlook the 1990-1994 911's, they can be a good value and a bit more refined than the 80's Carreras but still maintain a lot of the same air cooled goodness...

aigel 08-27-2012 11:24 PM

The 993 is out of question if you want low miles and 'new car smell'. Those still go for $40k plus.

The G50 carerra is nice, but IMHO it is a lot of $ for what you get. I would start looking at 964 pictures a little more. Maybe it will grow on you. You can now get a 964 in better shape than a G50 carerra for the same price.

Or just forget about the new car smell and buy a well maintained and upgraded 993 for $30k - those are definitely out there. Buy a can of 'new car smell' if you need to.

G

JJ 911SC 08-28-2012 01:21 AM

From my experience, unless you buy something that has absolutely everything that you want and more... Plan a few $$$$ for next year up-grades (SSI, Dansk Sport 2/2, 17" Euromeister, CE Wires, AT Intake... Going PMO EFI + TECgt soon to name a few... :)

As per aigel recomendation, here is your cheapest upgrade :D


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1346145455.jpg

Rick V 08-28-2012 01:48 AM

Don't rule out the little SC's. When I went through this a few years ago it was the SC/Carrera thing and the more of them I drove the more the SC called to me.
Having said that, it took me two years of looking to find the one I wanted.
Go drive as many as you can and when you hop behind the wheel of the right one, you will know.

masraum 08-28-2012 02:21 AM

'84-89 - 3.2L Carrera
'90-94 - 964 (3.6L)
'95-97 - 993 (3.6L)

I'd go for the '87-89 3.2L carrera. They have the G-50 transmission which should be bulletproof. The fuel injection on the 3.2L carreras is a better, more modern system than on the previous years. I wouldn't expect to have any problems getting them past the smog folks. I know that mine always passed with flying colors, but I guess Cali could be different. The 3.2L cars were still pretty old school. They did have power brakes, but they weren't over boosted. They did not have power steering. I loved the way they sounded and felt and drove.

The 964 is a much more modern car. Porsche redesigned the 911 for this series and from what I understand, 85% of the parts for the 964 were different than from the previous model. These had power brakes and power steering. Also, instead of Fuchs wheels, they used larger cast wheels, instead of torsion bars they used coil springs and they had a 3.6 L engine with dual plugs. They should have more power and get better mileage as well as handling better with a better ride. They are also much more aerodynamic. I'd suggest driving a few of both to get a feel.

The 993 was another step forward for the traditional air cooled 911. They are an even more modern update over the 964. Many consider them the pinnacle of the "traditional" 911 being the last of the air cooled line.

911s are actually fairly easy to work on if you are comfortable with a wrench. Parts aren't cheap, but with Pelican Parts at your disposal, most things are reasonable. Still, some repairs can be quite expensive compared to your average Honda or Toyota.

As always, get the best model you can afford, meaning, get the car that has is in the best shape and can be proven to be better cared for than all of the rest of the cars that you look at. Be prepared to spend some money, or time on the regular maintenance to ensure that it's a long lived, reliable vehicle and it will be reliable and long lived.

Be prepared for the search to take a while. 911s weren't high volume cars like a toyota corolla. Don't get excited and buy the 1st or even the 5th one that you drive (unless its perfect). Plan for the search for the right car to take a while, 6 months isn't a bad starting point. Fortunately, they say, that half of the Porsches sold in the US were sold in Cali, so you are in the right place to be searching.

Halm 08-28-2012 02:40 AM

I am a huge SC advocate, I simply love them. But as Mikester points out, CA Smog can be problematic.

So maybe take a step back and think again about the 996. In particular think about a 2003/2004 C4S. They can be had in your price range. Find a nice one with solid maintenance, budget $2,000 for a new IMS and whatever else it needs, then go enjoy. This is probably the most bang for the buck you can get in the 911 world these days.

onewhippedpuppy 08-28-2012 04:03 AM

For your price range, might as well remove the 993 from your list. Nice ones, even with high mileage, are nearly always $30k+.

For a water pumper, take a good hard look at a G50 Carrera and 964. The G50 gearbox is a huge upgrade over the 915, and the 964 improves the entire package in a big way. Have you looked at a 964 in person? In my opinion they don't photograph well and look good in person.

Also take a good look at the 996, they are fantastic cars and easy to live with daily. Simply the most Porsche bang for the buck right now. You can get a 2002+ for your budget which brings a bigger 3.6l motor, better interior, and a host of other improvements.

id10t 08-28-2012 04:16 AM

Of the 911s, I think the "best" is the 3.2L engined '84 to '89 cars, the best of which are the '88 and '89 with the G50 transmission. If you want a rarer one, the M491 cars were made from '84 to '89, just over 1000 made, factory turbo look cars.

VaSteve 08-28-2012 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evans, Marv (Post 6939427)
I like the 993's, but they are going for a premium. A second choice for me would be an '87 or '88 with the G50 tranny. The long noses like my '69 are getting to the point where they probably will be driven less and less as time goes on as the available number of them lessens and parts become harder to get.

Marv,

Why a G50 tranny?

It has been my experience in the G50 cars that the clutch is way too stiff. I find it way stiffer than a newly rebuilt 915 clutch. I know some folks love them but in a Carerra I find it not to my liking.

VincentVega 08-28-2012 04:32 AM

Quote:

As always, get the best model you can afford, meaning, get the car that has is in the best shape
Cant stress that enough.

Nothing wrong with a 915 trans, assuming it's working properly. Great deals can be had on 84-86 911's. Good motor and injection but less $$ compared to a g50 car.

Jim Richards 08-28-2012 04:37 AM

Steve C., I bought my 964 garage queen about a year and a half ago for $28.5k. It was (is) super clean with 32k miles at the time of purchase. I've owned a 993 C2 and a 73E/2.7RS-spec, and I've driven SCs and 3.2 Carreras. The 964 and the 73E hot rod are my favorites, with the 964 edging out the 73E for non-track use. Good luck with your search for the right 911 for you. :)

javadog 08-28-2012 04:48 AM

I'd sugest that you start by driving a few examples of these cars. They drive so differently from one another, that you might find one of them that you enjoy more than the others.

A few things I'd suggest, in contradiction to the above advice:

Mileage does matter. Condition is the first thing I'd look at but if you have a budget of $30k, that will buy you a really low mileage example of an SC or a Carrera 3.2.

An SC is not hard to smog. People that have problems getting one past the smog testing have a car that isn't running right. That's either becuase something needs to be fixed or an idiot has worked on it.

Each of the cars has a problem or two that can bite you in the ass. I'd suggest buying a few books on the 911 and learning more about each version. Bruce Anderson's book is a good place to start. Excellence has a buyer's guide out right now on the newstands.

A 915 isn't an inherently bad transmission, nor is a G50 bulletproof. They both have issues, they both can be killed in under 40,000 miles by an idiot, and they both shift fine if they are in good condition and shifted properly. People that ***** about a 915 have a worn transmission. New, they shifted great.

Each year, Porsche added content to the cars. They got more plush, and fatter. I prefer the feel of a '78-79 SC. You might prefer something different. Actually, I take it a step further than that and prefer a Carrera 3.0 over an SC. Similar money in this country (although much harder to find and a low mileage one probably doesn't exist) but it's worth a lot more on the world market and has more appreciation potential. Also, it drives better... for me.

Stick to a coupe. If you can find one without A/C, so much the better, given where you live.

Buy a stock car if you can, not one that has been heavily modified.

Get it checked out before you buy it.

JR

onewhippedpuppy 08-28-2012 05:22 AM

You might consider hooking up with your local PCA to drive a few different examples. When I was considering a 951 I appealed to the Kansas City Wrenching Society, a subset of the KC PCA that has frequent wrenching parties and owns a good number of 951s. I had several offers to come to KC and drive member's cars, which I took advantage of. Eventually I bought an '87 that belonged to one of their members.

You have to be a little creative to check these cars out in person, the local Carmax doesn't exactly have a lot full of SCs, Carreras, and 964s.

masraum 08-28-2012 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by javadog (Post 6939913)

A 915 isn't an inherently bad transmission, nor is a G50 bulletproof. They both have issues, they both can be killed in under 40,000 miles by an idiot, and they both shift fine if they are in good condition and shifted properly. People that ***** about a 915 have a worn transmission. New, they shifted great.

I have driven a 915 that was rebuilt and shifted EXTREMELY well, but the 915 transmissions in most of the 911s that I test drove were in horrible shape needing a rebuild.

The G50 is a very strong transmission getting put in front of much larger engines and turbos and run on racecars that run slicks. Porsche replaced the 915 with the G50 because the 915 wasn't as robust as they wanted behind the more powerful 3.2L engine. The main weak point of the G50 is the clutch fork bearing which is usually replaced by bushings. If not repaired correctly, it can cause the ears to break off of the transmission.

The 915 is a weaker transmission than the G50.

javadog 08-28-2012 07:42 AM

A 915 is fine for either a 3.0 or a 3.2. It will last forever, if you take care of it. The issue people have with the gearboxes isn't the torque capacity, it's worn synchromesh. In that respect, neither one of them will last in the hands of an idiot. The Borg Warner synchros used in the G50 gearboxes will wear prematurely if they are shifted too fast, especially when cold. I've seen damage in as little as 10,000 miles. As far as I'm concerned, the later design promotes faster shifting, "because you can". It doesn't mean it's a good idea.

My point was, you shouldn't automatically assume that a G50 is in any better shape than a 915, just because it's a so-called "better" design.

And, the G50 gearbox is heavier. As is the 3.2 engine, and just about every change Porsche made to the cars, year by year. That's why I like the early ones...

JR

Head416 08-28-2012 10:03 AM

Some food for though, others will disagree:

I love 80's 911s, but I hate dealing with CA smog. My next 911 will be relatively new, or pre-75, or it will be in another state. Just food for thought.

I like my 915.

I don't freak out over "low mileage" cars. I'd rather have a high-mileage, well-serviced car than a car that's been parked and ignored for most of its life.

Head416 08-28-2012 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by javadog (Post 6939913)
An SC is not hard to smog. People that have problems getting one past the smog testing have a car that isn't running right. That's either becuase something needs to be fixed or an idiot has worked on it.

Or because you want better performance than the stock configuration. SmileWavy

DonDavis 08-28-2012 10:25 AM

In that price range, you really should look long and hard at 964s. I know I certainly would. I had a 72 with a 3.2 and it was a blast. But early hot rods can be tricky for road use. Have to get really specific on the setup to fit the driver's needs and wants. A tight 964 shouldn't be too hard to find, imho. You get 3.6 power, somewhat modern amenities, and there's tons of tweaking that can be done.

Zeke 08-28-2012 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by javadog (Post 6939913)
I'd sugest that you start by driving a few examples of these cars. They drive so differently from one another, that you might find one of them that you enjoy more than the others.

JR

This ^^^^ The newer the 911, the heavier. You can't beat a well sorted SC or even a mid year narrow body car. Of course the long hood models should not be left out. With a budget of up to 30K, a long hood is not out of the question.

If you buy an SC or middie, you should have plenty of money left over for repairs. Don't get buried in a car. The absolutely needed repairs discovered by a PPI should be at least split over the sales price. Don't fall for anything that needs motor work.

What they say about 911s being 20K cars one way or another is true, but the numbers may have shifted.

I have a friend who bought an SC Targa for 6K that needed an interior. The rest was good to excellent with the paint being fair to good. 88K miles and solid. He will spend about 4K on a complete interior with over a grand going into the dash alone. If the car had only serious damage to the seats, he would have gotten off for considerably less than 2K for full leather. However, the purchase price may have been higher.

So, know what things cost. A good car with some interior work is a good deal. Paint work not so much and engine work will throw you upside down in a hurry.

My personal opinion: if I'm going to drive a heavier 911 like a G50 Carrera, I'll go for the 964 with PB, PS and decent A/C (knowing that a 993 is out of $ range). Otherwise, I want the oldest I can find in the best condition I can find. YMMV.

A wildcard: a 993 Targa. Rare but with a coupe roof line. You'll want a 993 that has been upgraded and documented. See details about 993s elsewhere.

Jrboulder 08-28-2012 11:11 AM

30k will put you in a 6-speed Cayman S with 50k miles or a 5-speed Cayman with 30k miles.

25k will put you in a Cayman with 70k miles

Just sayin'

spuggy 08-28-2012 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by masraum (Post 6940208)
I have driven a 915 that was rebuilt and shifted EXTREMELY well, but the 915 transmissions in most of the 911s that I test drove were in horrible shape needing a rebuild.

Porsche replaced the 915 with the G50 because the 915 wasn't as robust as they wanted behind the more powerful 3.2L engine. <deletia>

The 915 is a weaker transmission than the G50.

Yes, the 915 is certainly a weaker box. Which was the reason the 930 box existed in the early 70's; the 915 couldn't be made to last for a 24 hour race with a 600+HP turbo RSR bolted on it and driven at full chat for that long.

The G50 is surely a better, more modern, stronger (and heavier) box - and 915's in good shape do drive very nicely. And impart a period charm...

Many folks run a 3.6 or a 930 with a 915, myself included. Service life doesn't even seem to be much of an issue, with some care. I don't think a stock 3.2 makes too much power for a 915, nowhere close.

Rather, I think that the 915 was a dinosoar by the mid-70's, it was just obviously badly overdue for replacement by the 80's - the 924 and 944's (which, with the 928, were supposed to have replaced the 911 by then) got transaxles with modern gates/synchros/shift lever ergonomics beginning 11 years earlier.

Once the 911 was no longer slated for retirement, it needed an update - yuppies were probably complaining loudly :) - and the future obviously held bigger, more powerful engines, homologation for production-based classes meant the road cars needed something capable of scaling to racing outputs.

Head416 08-28-2012 11:19 AM

I can't help but enjoy the "art" of driving a 915. I saw somebody post years ago that if mere mortals were supposed to drive 911's, they'd all have G50's. (Or something to that effect.)

HardDrive 08-28-2012 11:29 AM

As others have said, you might want to reconsider your 'no 996' position. The 03-04 models have the turbo headlights. They are a lot of car of car for the money.

If thats a no go, I would get a mid 80s carrera.

speeder 08-28-2012 12:05 PM

I vastly prefer the 915 3.2 Carreras to the G50 cars. I was working at the dealer when the 1987 models arrived and I thought that they just absolutely ruined the car. And that was before I even knew how much they weighed and that they pushed the engine further rearward.

It was a case of diluting the experience for average drivers. And it worked, to this day there are many who believe that the G50 Carreras represent the pinacle of that series. The G50 is a lot stronger and will handle more power, but it's irrelevant in the 3.2 Carrera. The latest 915 was good for 400 hp all day long, exactly double the output of a 3.2 Carrera.

Javadog is correct, as usual, about user error being the problem with any transmission. I've seen Toyota PU trucks with eff'ed-up manual gearboxes. A lot of them. The 915 was a great shifting box if not damaged and with a properly adjusted shifter w/o worn parts. The last 915 shifters, in '85 and '86, were shortened 10% from factory and shifted exceptionally well. But older ones were fine if tight. I never liked the factory short-shift, it sacrificed all feel for a shorter throw. The '85/'86 regular shifter was a perfect compromise.

An '86 ROW car was the pinacle of the Carrera series.

McLovin 08-28-2012 12:14 PM

You just have to look at em, drive them, etc. and see what appeals to you.

Having owned over a dozen, from early cars, to SCs to 915 Carreras and G50 Carreras, my current choice (actually, my last 3) have all been G50 Carreras. My current is an '88.

They are all good cars, but IMO the 87-89 are the best of the big bumper cars (the 78-89 range), at least for the use I do, which is pretty much daily.

I never had a problem with the 915 trans, other than blowing one up by running too much hp/torque through it.

The biggest difference, IMO, is that the G50 has an automatically adjusting hydraulic clutch setup. There's on adjustment or maintenance on it, other than occasionally bleeding the slave cylinder (every few years).

The 915 is the exact opposite. It has a bunch of things that go out of adjustment, wear out, etc. The cable, a bunch of springs, countersprings, etc. All need to be in tip top shape, AND kept in proper adjustment.

The G50 cars weigh a little more, but IMO that is more often than not overstated. I could tell no difference in weight from my 85, to my 87s or 88.

In a perfect world, though, I'd have a nicely set up, unmodified MFI 72 or 73, and drive that sucker every day. Unfortunately, I've been priced out of that market, probably forever.

The price of all the 89 and earlier 911s have really gone through the roof in the last year. It's weird. I've never seen 911 prices jump like this in the 25 years I've been buying, selling and owning Porsches.

I bought my perfect condition '88 for $16K a few years ago. It looks like it's a 25K car now. It doesn't look like you can get an under 90K, original, no stories G50 car for less than mid/low 20s anymore (or, at least, it would be a lot harder than it was even a year ago).

And the prices of early cars (pre-74), wow. I just can't believe the asking price on so many that I see advertised these days, for just "ordinary" stuff (halfazzed modified '70 T, etc.) It seems like asking prices (it's hard to verify actual selling) have pretty much doubled in the last 2-3 years.

javadog 08-28-2012 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spuggy (Post 6940645)
the 915 couldn't be made to last for a 24 hour race

Well, they ran two cars in one 24 hr race. One threw a rod through the case, the other finished second. Not bad. And remember, they were putting out almost twice the torque the 915 was designed for...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spuggy (Post 6940645)
the 924 and 944's (which, with the 928, were supposed to have replaced the 911 by then) got transaxles with modern gates/synchros/shift lever ergonomics beginning 11 years earlier.

The 924 got a gearbox with VW-style cone synchromesh, largely beacuse that's what VW wanted. It was originally supposed to be their car...

The 944 borrowed a gearbox from Audi. Not their best one, either...

The 928 got B-W synchros 2 years before the 911, largely because they quit developing the 911 at all, thinking they'd kill it off. When Schutz decreed otherwise, they took a little while to get back up to speed. The 928 just had a head start.

All of which is irrelevant, as he needs to drive all of these cars to see which ones he likes. Which transmission it has doesn't matter much.

JR

DonDavis 08-28-2012 12:44 PM

Single family car. Dad bought new and gave to son in 2010. It's black and tan, too!
Maybe get for a touch under 20k, do a few personal tweaks and drive the snot out of it.

Cars for Sale: 1993 Porsche 911 Carrera in Tucson, AZ 85704: Coupe Details - 322485679 - AutoTrader.com


Uh, wait a sec...

Cars for Sale: 2007 Porsche Cayman in Albuquerque, NM 87114: Coupe Details - 321283795 - AutoTrader.com

Seahawk 08-28-2012 12:59 PM

That would be a great car if it checks out.

Since this is a subjective thread, I can say I much prefer the look of the 964 over the accordion style bumpers, always have and I've owed a few.

The other thing with the 964 is that you can take it on long trips without your passenger getting assaulted by heat and noise.

If I was in the market I would seriously consider the car in Don's link.

Have fun in your search! Not a bad conundrum to have :cool:



Quote:

Originally Posted by DonDavis (Post 6940839)
Single family car. Dad bought new and gave to son in 2010. It's black and tan, too!
Maybe get for a touch under 20k, do a few personal tweaks and drive the snot out of it.

Cars for Sale: 1993 Porsche 911 Carrera in Tucson, AZ 85704: Coupe Details - 322485679 - AutoTrader.com


Halm 08-28-2012 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seahawk (Post 6940861)
. . .Since this is a subjective thread, I can say I much prefer the look of the 964 over the accordion style bumpers, always have and I've owed a few.

The other thing with the 964 is that you can take it on long trips without your passenger getting assaulted by heat and noise. Not a bad conundrum to have :cool:

All valid points. Except maybe the "looks" comment. :)

However, the a/c in the 964 is essentially the same as G50 cars. On the other hand you can hang meat on a hot summer's day in my 996, and darn close to that in my (former) 993.

And if you want a relaxed cruiser, again, the 993 or 996 is a much better choice. One reason for that is the 6 speed transmission, versus 5 speed.

I guess I am saying that of the air cooled models, the 964 would not be a top 3 pick for me.

notfarnow 08-28-2012 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton (Post 6939325)
Always liked the 911, and now seriously considering owning one. Let's say a budget of $20-30K. I'm no expert on this, so asking for some insight...

I get a car at work, so this would be a car used sparingly.

I put a lot of thought into what 911 to buy before I took the plunge, and drove mid-years, SCs, 3.2 carreras and 964s before making a decision.

In my case, I wanted a DD that I could do 25-30k/yr in, and drive in the snow. That made the 964 c4 a no-brainer. Comfortable, quiet, good AC, power brakes & steering... it is an easy car to drive (although it's rue about the g50 having a stiffer clutch than a 915) but is still VERY rewarding. Tons of fun in the snow too.

If I was buying a car for occasional use, a 915 3.2 would have been my choice... I think it is almost the best, most useable "driver" 911 that maintains the mechanical purity. A *good* 915 is a great feeling MACHINE to use, and I think it better suits the car's personality.

If, however, you want something a bit more refined and modern feeling, a 964 c2 is a wonderful car. I wouldn't take on the added complexity of a c4 unless you had a need for it.

nostatic 08-28-2012 02:04 PM

I'm in the "915 is just fine" camp. I tracked the crap out of my '79 until 3rd gear finally gave up. I would look at anything from '78 to '89 with a roughly equal eye - pick the one that is best maintained. The difference between feel and hp those years isn't significant imho.

A Caymen for $25K? hmm..

McLovin 08-28-2012 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nostatic (Post 6940959)

A Caymen for $25K? hmm..

Hmm is right!

That means they're well on the way to the $15-$18K range, where they'll become interesting.

mreid 08-28-2012 03:32 PM

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the 930? Powerful looking and performing, practically bulletproof after '83, and they sound wonderful.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.