911 classic vs 964

[ketchum951]

ok Here is my question I had own 1981 911 150kmiles, a 1986 targa 125k, and 951 88, now I have 22k to spend in my dream car!oil cool 911 still looks classic
my target are carrera 1988-1989 or 964 c2 1990or up
I now some issues with the c2 leaks, clutch, but is a modem car, a/c works, nicer brakes, and suspension, and the interior is 98% newer!
so why the carrera 1987-1989 are same price tag, tha the c2 , is the 3.6 a bad engine,cheaper quality parts like the one used in 3.2?
I like the idea of c2 because as newer car is less used, less problems with rust in body, better technologie in injectin, and engine components, maybe price will hold better over 5 year of my used!!!what will be better option?

Car will be just used for sundays,maybe 3-4 miles a year, basic hobby car where I will like to invest 5-6 in upgrades, like exhaust, cams, headers, flywheel, little things to get a goal of 250-275hp car..

[RideShoot&Drink]

I'm pretty sure you can get to your hp goals with cup bypass, cat bypass and good chip. I've had Carrera, Turbo and now I'm a very happy owner of 964. I decided to spent some pessos on suspension upgrade (Bilstein/H&R reds) instead of hp, even though I have cat bypass and cup bypass, but no chip yet. IMHO, 964 is better platform: stiffer body, coilovers, G50, 3.6 (which is a wonderful engine), better brakes. Those cars are getting older and seen some miles and hopefully some issues like cylinder head gasket and DMF been addressed. For example, my car is 1990 and doesn't drip oil at all. One thing I must say, that 964's are heavier, but with upgraded suspension it runs great. On the other hand, it's easier and cheaper to loose some weight than spend money on engine in search of extra hp. 964's most desirable years are 92-94, because of upgraded head gasket, supposedly better intake (plastic black), better rear brakes and aero mirrors. Anyways, do your reaserch (Rennlist has much more active 964 forum), and get the cleanest car you can afford. Good luck!

[ToddM]

Here we go again....

The reason why the 78-89s are attractive is that they are the classic Porsche, have stellar reliability and longevity, the right blanance of comfort yet maintain SIMPLICITY. It is the simplicity aspect that you start to drift away from when going to 1990-on; maintenance is more expensive, parts are far more expensive.

I like the 964 more than the 993, but still, these care are heavy, have complicated systems, and have a higher ownership cost.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by ToddM

Here we go again....

The reason why the 78-89s are attractive is that they are the classic Porsche, have stellar reliability and longevity, the right blanance of comfort yet maintain SIMPLICITY. It is the simplicity aspect that you start to drift away from when going to 1990-on; maintenance is more expensive, parts are far more expensive.

I like the 964 more than the 993, but still, these care are heavy, have complicated systems, and have a higher ownership cost.

Where Todd typed 78-89 replace it with 65-73. Where he typed 1990-on replace it with 1974.

Porsches get heavier and more complex as they get newer. That is not necessarily a bad thing and absolutely does not indicate a higher ownership cost. A reliable 964 costs far less to own and drive than an unreliable earlier car (been there). A newer car is likely to be more reliable than an older car typically. My 92 has proven quite cost effective to own and is faster around the track than a comparable earlier car so who cares if it weighs a bit more than a Carrera?

To say a 87 is classic Porsche and a 90 is not doesn't make sense to me, but I guess we all draw the line at different years. My opinion is that the 94s are the last of the classic 911s because they are the last cars to have the classic 911 body. The bumpers have been changing since the 911s inception, but the basic body has remained unchanged until 1995. 964s are a bargain right now but not for long.

[RideShoot&Drink]

So, what makes 964 not classic porsche?

[ToddM]

Originally Posted by SLO-BOB

Where Todd typed 78-89 replace it with 65-73. Where he typed 1990-on replace it with 1974.

I agree, but there are a lot of BUTs too long for me to summarize here and stay on topic.

Where do you want to draw the line on classic? The 911 was the 911 and the chassis designation wasn't changed until 1990 with the 964. The chassis designation by Porsche is the determining factor. They still call the 996/997 the 911 and you know as well as I do that it is pure wool pulling by Porsche AG marketing.

This is another personal preference and to each his own topic. Once you drive and/or own everything, which I basically have, you develop preferences and those preferences dictate which 911 is right for you in addition to what you plan to do with the car.

My own personal example of why I have what I have now:

Since I daily drive my 911 over 100 miles per day, every day, my #1 consideration is reliability and durability, #2 cost of parts and parts availability, #3 ease of maintenance. This is why I always lean towards the pre 89s.

Somebody else, in the exact same daily driving situation, might choose their #1 priority to be comfort or even gas mileage... or maybe they drive in the ice a lot and would need the AWD.

Again, I've owned 964s, I think they are good cars and are more solid feeling than the 993, but the cost of the parts and difficulty in maintenance are just huge turn offs to me. The 964 is just so much more complicated a car than the classic 911.

And its not just that... price a windshield for an 1983 911 vs a 1990 911. Price a 915 gear set vs. a G50. It's everything.