Why are "E" values so far below "S"?

jkarolyi · 02-29-2004, 10:03 PM

When looking for '69-73 911s, I quickly realized that S models were out of range, and I was relegated to T and E models. I bought an E for about the same price comparable Ts were going for.

I looked up the specs, and E models outperform S models from 0-100 (!), and they are even rarer than the S! Yet the S sells for twice the price of the E, which is about the same price as a T.

Am I missing something, or is the advantage of the S only apparent at extremely flat-out race tracks? For this they cost twice as much? What is your explanation for today's values? S owners...why did you pass on the E?

aigel · aigel's Garage

I think you are talking collectors pricing. What is rare and was top of the line in it's day usually fetches a higher price. Not being an expert on these cars, I would guess the S was the top of the line and it is less common than the E also.

Cheers, George

Aussie · Aussie's Garage

The S is a quicker car, was more expensive new and are just more sort after.

People with lots of money who desire a pre 73 and don’t care how much it will cost probably want an 'S' as they will also know that its going to appreciate alot in price over they years, more than a T or E. They are collectors cars, the best (apart from RS) of a great era of models.

layzee · layzee's Garage

No aigel, I think the E sold less than the S. To me, it is a better buy for all the reasons stated. You aren't paying for the cache of an 'S' but getting 95% of the performance.

jkarolyi - have you got your car on www.911eregistry.org ?

ESP 911 · 03-01-2004, 01:33 AM

I was under the impression that the E was far more common than the S but going back over my library, it appears that there were more S cars made than Es. I'm note sure however if that balance has been maintained as I'm sure there were more S's raced and thus crashed and written off than the lower powered E and T's.
S's are the faster car but their power band is quite high in the rev range and so need to be rowed thru the gears to keep on their cam. This is why an E will beat them in the 0-100 drag.
I think the high prices for S is because they were the most expensive from brand new. A well sorted E or T is a better car to live with on our traffic congested and speed restricted roads

sundaypunch · 03-01-2004, 02:45 AM

I think the price difference is overhyped. A no-issues early S might go for say $30,000 while an identical E would still be in the mid 20's. You sure can't buy an E in beautiful condition for $15k. When it comes down to it the E's are very expensive as well for a nice car. They don't have the mystique the S does but most people realize the everyday performance is as good or better as an S. I see the more siginificant drop with the T's.

Jim Richards · 03-01-2004, 03:25 AM

Early 911E's are a great value. If you don't have deep enough pockets for an S, an E will still put a big smile on your face.

oldE · 03-01-2004, 04:25 AM

Amen to that. ;-)
Les

cegerer · cegerer's Garage

"Why are "E" values so far below "S"? "

The simple answer is because it's not an S.

I think you could look at many cars from other marques and see the same type of thing. Why is a 67 Shelby Mustang worth $80K, but a GT with similar performance is worth less than 1/2 that? Because it's not a Shelby. I guess it depends on how much the 'mystique' is worth to you, if anything.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 03-01-2004, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Early 911E's are a great value. If you don't have deep enough pockets for an S, an E will still put a big smile on your face.

I second that! Solid, cosmetically restorable E's are a true bargain.

jkarolyi · 03-01-2004, 08:13 AM

>jkarolyi - have you got your car on www.911eregistry.org ?

I submitted it, but it hasn't appeared yet. The registry appears to be updated manually by an individual. I love my E and agree they're the best value out there for longhood 911s.

jkarolyi · 03-01-2004, 03:42 PM

Did the S come standard with the awesome sport seats? That alone would make them another $2k more valuable.

cegerer · cegerer's Garage

I'm going to climb out on a limb here and go from memory - I think 1971 was the ONLY year when sport seats were standard equipment on the S.

Jim Richards · 03-01-2004, 04:29 PM

Curt's right that sport seats were std. equipment on 71S's.

When I bought my 73E, it had factory sport seats installed in it. Very nice as compared to the std. seats of the day.

pwd72s · 05:47 PM

I agree, the "E" is a great bargain these days. The price difference? The "S" was the top of it's line, the highest horsepower, the BEST. I'm not trying to denigrate the E or the T here. It's just that the model considered the BEST demands the higher price premium, and since early 911 cars are now being looked at as "collectables", the "S" demands, and perhaps deserves, a price premium. "Sundaypunch" may be a little low on his $30K price estimate for a "no issues" early S...depends on the year and condition, of course..but I have been offered more than that for mine. Quite a bit more...

Jim? Perhaps it's a difference in body types thing...(Viva la difference!)...but my wife HATES the sports seats in my car. She wishes it had the standard seats of the car before that, a '70T. She claims the sports seats give her back pain while the standard seats didn't. Not that I'm about to sell the sports seats and exchange them for standard...

sundaypunch · 03-01-2004, 05:58 PM

I'll stick by my $30K estimate for a no issues early S (depending on how you define "issues"). Something along the lines of what curtisaa sold for $28k over at the early911S registry recently. If you have $30k to spend you can get a very desirable vehicle.

Now if you want to talk nicely optioned, low mileage, unrestored, desirable color, fully documented, and so on, that's another story.

I'm sure we could easily get into the $50's.

FWIW, I still don't know where all these cheap "E's" are? They are definitely less than an "S" but I just don't see a huge price difference when you are dealing with a creampuff.

pwd72s · 03-01-2004, 06:00 PM

I agree with all of that...

Jim Richards · 03-02-2004, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Perhaps it's a difference in body types thing...(Viva la difference!)...but my wife HATES the sports seats in my car. She wishes it had the standard seats of the car before that, a '70T. She claims the sports seats give her back pain while the standard seats didn't. Not that I'm about to sell the sports seats and exchange them for standard...

Ditto for my wife and the sport seats. The problem is a lack of lumbar support. When I get around to reupholstering the sport seats, I'll try to get the shop to add a little extra support to make my wife happy.

Quote:

FWIW, I still don't know where all these cheap "E's" are?

I've rarely seen an expensive E, but I've seen "drivers" priced in the teens. There was a guy in Atlanta selling a no issues 72 or 73E a year or so ago, with an asking price in the 30's. I'm guessing that not as many of them see the resto investments that are lavished on the S cars. Mine is a driver / rolling restoration / part-time DE track car. Over the next two years I hope to finish restoring the interior (replace/repair dash, reupholster sport seats, install a new headliner). The exterior is in good shape. This coming winter the engine's coming out for a rebuild. New tires are going on next month. I love that E.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 03-02-2004, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sundaypunch
FWIW, I still don't know where all these cheap "E's" are? They are definitely less than an "S" but I just don't see a huge price difference when you are dealing with a creampuff.

They are definitely out there. I randomly found this car in the Bay Area while out on business last summer for $6400 and drove it across country in 54 hours flat. 99,000 original miles, S calipers. Never abused, no rust. Needed a new interior. So far I've got new windshield, dash, leather seats, headliner, all glass seals in it and used good condition panels. With all that I am well under $10K into the car.