Quote:
Originally Posted by notfarnow
Are you serious or kinda kidding? I really like the narrow body mid-years, but I think the market will skip them and go for SCs... people are still spooked by 2.7s.
The SCs have a reputation of being bulletproof, plus their styling is a bit more modern. Being in 25 year old SC, you don't feel like you're in an "old" car, whereas a mid-year looks and feels just a bit more dated.
but what do I know, I don't even own one. Heck, I'd trade my nanny for a 912e with a 1500cc VW single port
|
Somewhat serious. . .
It's precisely the "older" aspects of the mid-years (particularly the '74) that appeal to me. The '74 car is a very important "bridge" year because it describes the transition from the early cars to the later 911s very well. Honestly a lot of the late 70s cars through the late 80s all kinda' look the same. Especially the SCs. It's nice to know how they came to look/evolve that way starting with an early 911 which is remarkably different from an SC or other 80s-era 911.
The chrome bits (headlight surrounds, door handles, trim, etc.) are throwbacks to the more classic/early models but the styling is more forward towards what would become the "classic" 911.
I dunno. The longer I have my 911 the more I like the fact it's a mid-year and not an SC. I realize the 3.0 and 3.2 engines are perhaps more noted for longevity, but when you get right down to it, a 2.7 that's well-kept with case-savers and other amenities is a pretty damn good engine too. They rev quickly, are light and produce a pretty nice amount of power. I'm not a 2.7 hater, much as some are put off by them. You just have to know/understand their limits and operate within them. And figure that an original one will probably need a rebuild if it hasn't had one already (but the same could be said of pretty much any 3.0 or 3.2 out there at this point. . .)
The smog-check exemption is pretty nice too.
