911 Question Regarding 1999-2001 years

[rugbysecondrow]

I am a newbie to this forum and, frankly, Porsches in general. I have always admired their lines, curves and performance reputation, the 911 and Corvette have always been two cars I would love to indulge in someday. Since I have two kids, the Porsche 911 will be first since it has a back seat. That day might be coming in the next year or two and so I am trying to learn, read and absorb bits and pieces so I can be more informed when I actually pull the trigger and also so I have honed in on what I actually want to purchase.

One of the questions I have is about the 911 year 1999-2001, it seems the resale on those years is much less that 2002+ and even some 1998 and down. Am I seeing things? I think 1999 was the first year of a new model release, so maybe there were quirks, issues to be worked out. Is there something to be aware of in these model years or is there good value to be had? These cars are not as sexy as some of the older ones or even newer ones, but if the product is still good, it might be a good value.


I have loads more questions, but I will keep this thread to just these specific years, and bore/bother you all with my other inquires later.

Thanks for indulging on my first post.

Paul

[algs911]

Welcome to the forum Paul!

I have found that most folks on this board love and drive the air-cooled cars (pre-1999). However, there's still a boat-load of info. on the 996 (the internal model designation for the 1999-2004 model 911s).

The only item I've heard that can cause issues is the RMS (rear main seal). Use the search button on this forum and you'll find a lot of info. on it.

Regarding the price, they're very attractive right now. I have a friend who went from an air-cooled car to a 996 a few years ago. He's totally in love with the 996. It's a darn fast car, handles great, is reliable, and is comfortable.

I think the main reasons some don't like the 996 is that it's (1) not air cooled, and (2) is ugly (I don't think they're ugly, but some do).

I hope that helps a little.

Alan

P.S. Corvettes (the C5s) are darn fast too, and handle great (dare I say maybe a little faster than the 996). However, drive both of them. The Vette's fall apart and are cheap (IMHO), while the 996s are still solid.

P.S.S. ALWAYS get a PPI (Pre-Purchase Inspection). It'll cost a couple of hundred dollars, but would be money WELL spent if you turn down a hidden "can of worms."

[KNS]

In 2002 the front end changed slightly (I'm not a fan of the 02-04 headlights and front end). The engine got bumped up from 3.4 to 3.6 ltrs and 20 more HP. There are supposed to be some other engine improvements as well. Of all the engine problems you hear about with the 3.4 cars, the 3.6 cars seem to still get them as well. While real, a lot of it is blown out of proportion on the internet.

I'd like to pick up a 996 one day (but keep the 84).

[rugbysecondrow]

Thanks guys, appreciate the welcome and advice. I like the corvettes, but I think I would go classic (late 1970-82 stingray), those cars just tickle me.


Yes, the prices are very attractive and hard to ignore on these model years.


Is there is maintenance advantage to air-cooled vs the 996? Are the 1999-2001 years old enough to have maintenance issues, but new enough to be expensive to fix?

Thanks!

Paul

[Tippy]

'02 got turbo headlights, more airflow through the radiators, bigger 3.6L, stiffer chassis, better interior materials, more digital instrumentation, etc.

The early ones were plagued with the fear of porous blocks causing oil/coolant intermix, slipped cylinder sleeves, failed Intermediate Shaft bearings, and running hot in summer temps.

[Tippy]

With that said, I'd love to have a '99 for a daily driver as it is the least hp BUT the quickest of the 996 lineup.