Why buy C2 964

Hladun · 09:02 AM

Why would I sell my 1978 SC and buy a 1991 C2? I use my SC as a daily driver and put on about 10,000 miles per year. I don't race my cars. I'm 6'4" so headroom is an issue.
Any comments about heating/cooling?
Any specfic comments about reliablity or maintenance costs?

Thanks.

Scooter · 02-24-2005, 10:51 AM

I would not think the C2 is any more reliable than an SC. I would think the main reason would be for more power. The 3.6 really is a huge difference from the 3.0 SC engine. Some refinements in the cabin and exterior bumpers/deck lid also may be a reason. Don't get me wrong, there are some vast improvements all in all, but the SC is a wonderful car as well.

Pete000 · 02-24-2005, 11:00 AM

the 3.6 and coil over suspension was a good reason for me. Wife like the airbags. Makes her feel safer.

joey bagadonuts · 02-24-2005, 01:18 PM

You might want to drive one and see if it appeals to you. I think it really is a matter of taste.

Vapors · 02-24-2005, 05:01 PM

I have owned a couple of 911 cars over the last 30 years. 69, 73, 74, 80, 83, 89C-4, and now have a 93 C-2. I enjoyed them all, but each time I got a newer model each one was more fun than the last car. A better car also, meaning everyday use and comfort got better. Now I don't need really need comfort, but it does come in handy on the longer trips. As far as the SC goes, I did not think a car could get any better, untill I got my 89C-4. I got spoiled instantly. Then I bought A 93 C-2. I can only say get a C-2 if you can. I still wish I had my SC, I loved it but, for all round use get the C-2, yes they are a bit harder to work on but not impossible. Remember, any Porsche is better than no Porsche. Even a Porsche part.

plain fan · 02-24-2005, 05:14 PM

Well I've got a 78 and recently bought a 90 C2. The engine and handling difference is awesome. It doesn't have the sometimes finicky CIS system and the G50 transmission shifts much smoother than the 915. It isn't hot yet but I've been told that the a/c is very good (important when you wear a suit to work especially in Ok during the summer). The heater is very good as well. It has 2 additional fans with 4 speeds in the dash area. You can cruise along at 80 in 4 with about 3k on the tach. The engine/transmission is that tractable. Of course the only downside is the easy speed. At 100 in the 78 you know you're doing that speed. At 100 in the C2 it doesn't even feel like it, but in a good way.

02-24-2005, 09:33 PM

Lets not forget about the aero factor under the car and ABS Brakes. Chip and exhaust gives guys something in the range of about 290 HP on pump gas. Gas tank behind the front wheels....... Its a great car!

plain fan · 02-25-2005, 07:59 AM

There is a reason why 3.6 engines wind up in people's RS clones!

My C2 started life as a narrow bodied cab, but the guy I bought it from had the turbo body and 993 top put on the car. The car just plain sticks through corners and feels much more "glued" to the road compared to my 78 at the same speed through the same corners.
The 78 has enough torque to pull from a stop in 2nd gear but the C2 has enough torque to pull from a stop in 3rd gear but neither are recommended.

lvc2 · 02-25-2005, 05:03 PM

Having sold my 84 carrera 3.2 last year, I find my 91 C2 cab a huge improvement in terms of comfort and every day useability. The heater/ac work better, quieter,p.s., better ride (3.2 had sport package). C2 not a raw as 3.2.
Having had a 2.0L 911, two 3.2s, 2 912E's, two 912's and five 356s over 30 years, this is the best by far.
my 2 cents

coldstart · 04-08-2005, 11:05 AM

I recently test drove both a 1990 C2 964 and a 1985 SC (both targas, a requirement for me). I really liked the rawness of the SC. I also prefer the look but I'm a little scared buying a 20+ year old car. There is only a few grand difference in price though so it shows (at least in Canada) that SC's are in demand.

I agree though if I needed an everyday car, I would prefer the 964.