sacrilegious question........engine size reduction???

[galwaytt]

OK, maybe in US$2.00/gallon-land, this may seem sacrilegious, but in US$4.94/gallon-land and in high-tax-land (car currently costs US$1750/yr in tax due to it's engine size - we're taxed on a per-cc basis)......... I am fleshing out my options.

Oh, and add all the usual motoring expenses, insurance, car payment etc etc

btw...........car is an 87 3.2 Carrera Sport, did 1400mls last year.

The car needs a top-end overhaul - probably needs guides/rings, etc. It also developed a leak recently, so that's for the high-jump now, too.

Some choices on the table:

1. Sell it as-is, at a huge loss, and get into a 70's car (cars 30+yrs old qualify for a flat US$72/year tax.....), which'd cost me more....but I'd still have a 911, but lose all the modern stuff I like - reliability/elec windows/seats/cruise etc etc

2. Buy a so-so 70's car, and transfer all my 87 stuff into it, and have a really good 87 chassis + 70's parts to sell on..........I don't even know if this is feasible/possible..........

3. Keep the '87, and rebuild the 3.2 as a ..................2.0/2.2 - whaddya think? Do-able? This option is my current favourite....it leaves the rest of the car intact.

What do you think?

[Wil Ferch]

Just like in business, do a cost analysis.

Just how much cheaper is a 2.0 or 2.2 engine?...in terms of taxes and other costs? Then factor-in the cost of such an engine or a rebuild. Then calculate the "pay-back period". 1 year?.....3 years?....never?

- Wil

[galwaytt]

OK, on a simple level, it goes like this:

To qualify for the cheaper tax (+30yr old cars), I've got 12 years to go, which at current rates would mean forking out US$21000 in tax in the intervening period.........That's before I even sit in the car and start it......... this is as a std 3.2

As a 2.1, say, I'd fork out US$10583 over the same period. Leaving me with a round-about US$10k saving.

Seeing as my car would benefit from a rebuild anyway, that's a huge difference.

What I don't know is how practical it is to rebuild - whether there's too many components to change. P&C's, cams, crank (?)maybe.............

[Jim Richards]

Your Carrera is heavy for a 2.0/2.2L, which are low torque, not-so-high HP, hi-rev engines. I'm guessing it'll make a lot on noise but feel like a pig. I would sell out and get an early (-73) or mid-year (74-77) 911. Not that I'm biased or anything.

Best wishes with whatever you end up doing.

[Wil Ferch]

The cost analysis should include all the other options you're considering...doing this will help you to "see" what's going on....

- need to establish the loss you'd take in selling your car,etc...and do all the calcs for this, too..

On the surface, maybe find a small-bore engine and do a swap. Then, if you wish, sell your 87 3.2 engine, and compare where you'll be out-of-pocket....net.

Wil

[RallyJon]

Gas mileage has nothing to do with the decision. Your EFI Carrera gets same or better mileage than an early car, despite the displacement difference. It's not like you'll be putting a modern 2.0 four in there that gets 30mpg.

But if the tax savings really is $20k, get an early car and add power windows and whatever luxo mods you feel you can't live without.

You didn't specifically mention, but will a 3.0/3.2 swap in an early chassis still get the tax break?

[jwerion]

I think your resale value on the 87 would drop significantly if you rebuilt the motor in to a 2.0 or 2.2. If I understand your situation correctly I would buy a clean titled rust free 30 yr. old tub and transfer all the modern things from your 87. This saves you the tax, gives you a lighter wt. car(better gas mileage & performance), and gives you all the modern technology you enjoy on your 87 currently, and your resale value should be fairly stable because every one else would have the same problem you are having and should see this as a creative solution. Making your car more desirable due to lower running costs.

[galwaytt]

Thanks guys....


Rallyjon........yep, it would qualify. All that counts is date of first registration of chassis. Hey, don't laugh at the 4-pot idea.......I have a TT with 'only' 1781cc and it's 180bhp, also avail as a 225, and chipped, as..........anything you'd like........apart from all the butchery involved, it'd be a great idea..........
You're right, it's not the petrol price............but it really grates having to fork out so much for nothing. It's only when you write it down and look at it (US$21k) that you get sickened at the sheer waste of it......21k in other circumstances would go a long way if you were to invest it in the car itself.

jwerion........would all the stuff actually swap over, or would I end up with a bunch of re-welding/bracketry etc etc.....?

John

[Wil Ferch]

I don't get it..

....of all the options cited here, why wouldn't finding a decent 2.2 to use in the 87 tub, and selling the 3.2 *motor*.....be a much less stressfull and less involved swap ? And perhaps not be bad on the economic front, too? There's a lot of work involved in moving all the major ( comfort and such) subsystems back into a 70's car.

Wil

[ChrisBennet]

A 3.6 would get better gas mileage...
-Chris

[Wil Ferch]

Chris:

I think his main issue, as I understand it... is the taxation / year, based on displacement....


I don't think incremental gas mileage is the problem, certainly not at the 1400 miles / year he drove last year. On gas mileage alone, any option would seem to have a bad pay-back period, if at all.

Wil

[Jim2]

QUOTE]You didn't specifically mention, but will a 3.0/3.2 swap in an early chassis still get the tax break?[/QUOTE]

and

Rallyjon........yep, it would qualify. All that counts is date of first registration of chassis.

Question, does the above also apply to your situation with the 87 only in the reverse? Since it's registered with a "3.2" would a tax concession actually be available if you were to decrease the displacement?

[galwaytt]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
If you can swap engines and claim lower displacement - how do they know the displacement of the engine?!?

Jim 2 - the only concession to a smaller engine (say 2.1) in the 87 shell would be a-lower-than 3.2 per-annum tax, currently US$880 per annum instead of the nutball US$1750.............that's still a 10k+ saving over the coming 12 years................


And as Wil rightly points out........it's not about petrol economy, because even if it only drove to the corner and back, there's a 10k saving to be had here by picking the right option.

sidebar....I read recently that CA types were bemoaning the export of a lot of cars to this side of the pond: just be glad that you drive on the r.h.s., if you drove as we did, i.e. on the l.h.s., we'd have bought them all years ago !! LHD is one reason I'd stall on a US import, although 2 neighbours bought 914-6's in CA last year. One has been left as LHD, the other is converted already.............hmmmmm..........

[dickster]

thats alot of tax but for the sake of £500 per year i would keep the 3.2.

[ubiquity0]

How many miles do you drive per year? At $5 per gallon the increase in fuel use you are going to see with a 2.0 or 2.2 carbed or MFI engine is going to eat into the tax savings.

Do you have any type of emmissions testing?

[galwaytt]

Originally posted by dickster
thats alot of tax but for the sake of £500 per year i would keep the 3.2.

....but your tax is only £200 p.a. or something isn't it? £500/yr x 12 yrs = £6k. Autofarm would build my whole engine for less than that (already have the quote). That's a huge difference.

[Wil Ferch]

John M:
It seems you now have all the cost pieces ( jig-saw puzzle pieces) together to do a proper "rack sheet" on the total cost of ownership one way (....exisiting car, engine rebuild, assumption of 10 years use, etc)...against any other option ( other ways) for the next 10 years.

Only you can do the math, combined with factoring-in the intangible things that make car ownership pleasurable.....

- Wil

[911mot]

Buy a wrecked/rotten/roller from the right era, bury it and swap the parts over to the 87. The paper parts.

[jwerion]

Most of the parts will bolt on suspension, engine, etc. you will need to make a little room in the tunnel for the trans if it is a 915 unless you buy a 72-75 tub. If it is a G50 it takes alot more work and would be cost prohibitive. The doors may need some aleration to allow for the power windows and locks. This is alot of work and a pain in the a$$ but I think it would be a great car.