'89 911 carrera 3.2...

atlporsche · 01-05-2004, 11:36 AM

going prices??? anyone know???

I found one for 17k...not sure if I can afford it, but don't really care right now.

sjd

masraum · 01-05-2004, 11:38 AM

'89 depending upon condition and miles probably $15-23K with 15-17 being for rough, high miles cars.

stlrj · 01-05-2004, 11:44 AM

Considered a 964? Same money, more power and comfort...

Joe

atlporsche · 11:48 AM

good to know..thanks...

yep...suspicions confirmed...144k...1 quart every 500 miles....I'll skip thanks...

sjd

masraum · 01-05-2004, 11:47 AM

Only a 964 if it's all wheel drive, otherwise it's basically the same as an '87 or 88.

trader220 · 01-05-2004, 11:52 AM

Mas, a carrera 2 (964) is no where near the same as an 87 or 88

masraum · 01-05-2004, 01:23 PM

Yes, but they didn't start making the 964 Carrera 2 until 1990. The Carrera 4 came out in '89, but the 2 wheel drive that was sold that year was still the same 3.2L G50 car as an '87 or '88.

Paulbav · 01-05-2004, 01:36 PM

Hmmmmmmmmm 964's much more exspensive to maintain when things go wrong (which they do) particualy on an early 964, not the best Porsche ever built!!! I say stick to a late 3.2 IMHO

Please don't hate me 964 owners

geof33 · 01-05-2004, 01:52 PM

MAS,

But the 89 was the old body style look and still a 911, not a 964. (big bumps, stripe rocker) In 90 the C2 was a totally different animal. New sus, body styling etc. The 89 was just a Carrera with the red (clear), not black, porsche lettering on the rear center piece.

ChrisL · 01-05-2004, 01:56 PM

Um, both the two-wheel-drive 3.2 Carrera and C4 964 were 1989 model years. The C2 964 started in 1990.

Chris.

89911 · 01-05-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geof33
MAS,

But the 89 was the old body style look and still a 911, not a 964. (big bumps, stripe rocker) In 90 the C2 was a totally different animal. New sus, body styling etc. The 89 was just a Carrera with the red (clear), not black, porsche lettering on the rear center piece.

You seem to have skipped the new G50 transmission! In my book you either like the early style or you prefer the later. No sense trying to convice an early car lover on going for the 964. They each have their advantages. The "old body style" was around for 25 years. The "totally different animal" lasted 4 years. The people spoke.

masraum · 01-05-2004, 02:14 PM

I misunderstood stlrj's post. When he said "Considered a 964?" I thought he was asking if the '89 was considered a 964. After rereading it I realize he was asking if atlporsche had considered looking at a 964. I'm sure you all thought I was as crazy as I thought you were. Oops.

Yes, I would also consider a 964 if I was in the market. I haven't driven one, so I don't know if I would like the feel as well as the 3.2, but I would certainly give it a shot.

buttjoint · 01-05-2004, 02:17 PM

Ya got to love the (old style)

masraum · 01-05-2004, 02:27 PM

Yep, I love the look of the bellows bumpers cars. They were imprinted on me at an early age, but it's hard to argue with the superior aerodynamics (around .40-.45 Cd down to close to .30 Cd or really close), that 3.6L power, and the new brakes/wheel sizes. I'd have to drive one though to see if the feel is there.

stlrj · 01-05-2004, 03:14 PM

I tested a 964 some time ago while trying to make up my mind if I should make the move up from a 3.2. My impression was that it did not feel very different from what I was already driving as far as handling and the difference in power was...well, there didn't seem much of a difference, although you could always argue the fact that a 964 is a much heavier car, there did not seem to be such a great power advantage that would make me want to switch.

Joe

geof33 · 01-05-2004, 07:22 PM

I drove a friends 91 C4. Great car, but I have to say I like my 84 better. While his feels like it's on rails, it's just a little too "refined" for my taste. The power add is offset by the weight and you can feel the difference in how the car "feels". Like I said I like my "lightweight"!!!

JonSeigel · 01-05-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 89911
The "totally different animal" lasted 4 years. The people spoke.

A ridiculous comment. It's not like "the people spoke" and then Porsche *returned* to the 80s Carrera. They moved even *more* in the 964 direction with the 993 (kept the power steering, ABS, airbags, etc.) in a car that was slightly heavier than the 964. When "the people spoke" during the early '90s they said "we're in a world-wide recession (Clinton '92: "it's the economy, stupid") will hold off on $65,000.00 stock 964 coupes until things get better."

BTW, Porsche sold more '86s than any year from '87-'89. Were "the people" saying they'd rather have a 915 Carrera than a G50 Carrera? If not, what were the people saying?

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

hmmm...if it was '86 the people were likely saying, "did you hear the new Duran Duran album? It's so rad. You got any blow left?"

expat · 01-05-2004, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paulbav
Hmmmmmmmmm 964's much more exspensive to maintain when things go wrong (which they do)

Specifics please for those who don't know what the 'things' are that 'do' go wrong. And please remember I'm looking for specific things that would be going wrong with a 964 THESE DAYS, as most will have done the oil leaks and DMF issues by now. All models have their own specific problems so what actaully are the things that 'do' go wrong that are above and beyond the earlier models.

If you can quote prices for the additional expenses that would be useful too.

Thanks,
Mark

89911 · 04:21 AM

You know they built a car later that had more power, better handling, bigger brakes. It was called the 996 and it was "superior" to the 993. Check out prices of early 996 vs 993's.