Which car would you buy ?

[jbdave]

I'm not intending to turn this into a SC vs Carrera thread, but I am looking at buying my first 911 and have come across two nice examples.

Both cars are Guards Red, both have done approx the same mileage (about 125k miles). Both have impeccable interiors, and good exteriors. Both are ROW cars. Both sellers want around the same price.

The two cars are a 1979 SC and a 1986 Carrera. I took them for a nice drive and both drove very well. The SC felt more "raw" whereas the 3.2 felt more "refined" if that makes any sense. The SC actually also felt quicker when driving around the suburban streets.

Basic rundown:

Car 1 - 1979 SC
Recent top end rebuilt
Recent tranny rebuild with new clutch
Shocks, engine mounts and suspension overhauled
WEVO short shifter
Stainless Steel SSI Sports exhaust.
Full serviced with receipts for all work done

Car 2 - 1986 Carrera
Weltmeister Anti Sway Bar and Turbo tie rods added to car
Wheels aren't original, but still look good.
Full maintenance records, but no receipts kept by previous owner for work completed.

I'm not sure if the engine or tranny has been rebuilt in the '86, but the transmission is smooth (probably the smoothest 915 I've driven) so I can only assume it has had work done. The engine also sounds and feels great and the car handles well. Again, only an assumption but I can only guess this car has had work done during it's regular maintenance cycle for it to still be running this good after 125k miles.
The one query I have, and the owner is sending me the numbers again (as I forgot to write them down), but the engine no starts with "64G" and according to the red book, this is a Japanese engine, but it's an Australian delivered car.

Providing PPI's check out ok on both cars, which one would you buy ?
I like both cars and making a decision is difficult

[porschenut]

The Carrera, no question. With a sportier exhaust system, or at least a muffler, and a performance chip, it will be quicker than the SC. And being 7 years newer and essentially stock, it will be worth more now and in the future.

[SCWDP911]

With the upgrades and recent top end, I think you would be foolish not to go with the SC. Of course, depends on the price as well. What are you looking at?

[AZAirCooled]

"The Used 911 Story" by Peter Zimmerman is a good book that might help you decide.

The SC is lighter and according to the book above will go 200-300 thousand miles between engine rebuilds. SC's are often called built proof. The 3.0 SC engine is aurguably the most reliable engine Porsche ever built.

The Carrera is heavier, quieter, smooter, and more refined. Beautiful.

To me, "feeling quicker" equals more fun to drive. I like a more tactile, "raw", driving experience.

That they are about the same price now, 32 years after the SC was built, certainly opens debate as to which will be worth more later.

My choice would be the SC. Where did you say it was for sale?

[aigel]

Hands down the SC. The Carrera being at 125k without a rebuild / receipts for a rebuild for a top end, you are likely less than 30k miles away from taking the engine out for a top end / valve guide job. Now the SC is $5k cheaper than the Carrera suddenly.

My SC with SSI and 964 cams outran stock Carreras. The cars are pretty close in performance. You want to buy the best car your money can buy. IMHO from 78-86 there is little difference in performance and the car with the best maintenance and repair history wins.

George

[jwetering]

Between the two I'd choose the SC because of the rebuild, the WEVO and the SSI. You say the 3.2 has non original wheels...that alone would kill the deal for me. Very few aftermarket wheels look good on a 911 in my opinion.

You say the 915 shifts better on the 3.2, and that's aconsideration. Does that mean the 915 in the SC isn't good, or just not as good as the 3.2?

I'm assuming the condition of the interiors is the same, and the paint, and the steel...I can see how this might be a tough choice.

You don't say what kind of money you're paying either. If the price is good, then there would presuambly be some money left over to sort the deficiencies in either car....like putting Fuchs on the 3.2. In a way this could be a blessing because you would stretch for some 8's or 9's right.

Anyway - with the details available I voted SC. They're the same car at the end of the day though so condition and maintenace win the day.

[jbdave]

You say the 915 shifts better on the 3.2, and that's aconsideration. Does that mean the 915 in the SC isn't good, or just not as good as the 3.2?

I'm assuming the condition of the interiors is the same, and the paint, and the steel...I can see how this might be a tough choice.

You don't say what kind of money you're paying either. If the price is good, then there would presuambly be some money left over to sort the deficiencies in either car....like putting Fuchs on the 3.2. In a way this could be a blessing because you would stretch for some 8's or 9's right.

The 915 in the SC was also good, but the 3.2 stood out as the owner was unaware of any rebuild taking place but it still shifted like new (mind you he has owned the car for 7 years, done little km's and has no receipts from the previous owner so it may have been rebuilt).

The 3.2 interior looks new, and the SC interior has been re-done so it's immaculate also. The paint on the SC is a little better, with the 3.2 having a slightly scratched front panel (which is hard to tell without looking for it). Other than that, the paint is pretty even on both. Condition wise it's hard to tell the cars apart.

Money wise, we're talking around $45k, but keep in mind I'm in Australia. I can get a non import car for $35k, but I'll be spending big $ on it in the short term.

[jbdave]

I did a bit more research into the engine numbers and the reason the SC felt quicker than the 3.2 is because
the 3.2 engine is the 204hp version, not the 231hp version, and the SC is 180hp plus the SSI's so it's probably not that far away in terms of hp. Add to that the SC being a lighter car, and it would explain it. The 79 SC also felt quicker than the 1981 204hp SC I drove a few days earlier.
Now I can always do some work to that 3.2.......

[naparsei]

SSI's aren't going to give you hp, but it's a great upgrade, and another reason the SC is interesting. 90% of the time, assuming parity in condition, I would go with the standard Porsche mantra "newer is better"; in this case, the rebuilds (or lack), etc., makes me say "SC". Given the weight difference, 15% more hp isn't enough.

[DanielDudley]

I have a very fond spot in my heart for a good running SC. I prefer them to 204 HP Carreras, and that one has had a recent top end, which is a Big Plus. In many ways I prefer the Ljet to CIS, but a good running SC is a car to cherish.

If it were a 231 HP Carrera, it would absolutely be the faster car.

[roadhog]

The carrera being 7 years newer wouldn't mean much to me. If the cars were built in the last decade or so but at 25+ years I don't think it matters.

[screenwriter-X]

I've owned a 1979 SC and now own a 1989 Carrera 3.2. Between those two cars, the last of the 3.2 is by far the choice and worth the premium. The 3.2 is a lot faster and the G50 transmission seriously enhances the driving experience, while the ventilation is dramatically improved. Even bigger/better brakes. I certainly enjoyed the SC, though.

A Carrera with the 915 transmission, lower horsepower, aftermarket wheels, no receipts -- I don't know. In this case, I think the SC wins out simply because it has receipts and you know what's going on. This is worth perhaps 5 to 10 thousand dollars in "insurance".

Odd comments on the thread about an SC being lighter than a Carrera. Porsche quotes both at US spec as weighing the same. Old Road & Track figures say 2740 for an SC and 2756 for a Carrera 3.2 (with 915 transmission). If you're driving an SC and somehow it feels faster and more lively on its feet than a 3.2, then there's something not right with the 3.2.

[bgyglfr]

The old rule of thumb was always to buy the newest 911 you could afford. I think it might be the opposite now. At least for the air cooled cars with all things being equal. The older it is, the harder it is to find a clean car, the better the value.
Just my $.02.
Kirk

[AZAirCooled]

911 SC vehicle weight increased by 200 lbs in 1980 (see the 911 Buyers Guide on this website).

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by naparsei

SSI's aren't going to give you hp

I respectfully disagree. You should get up to 10 hp by switching out old exhaust to SSI's.

[Tom F2]

The injection system in the 1986 is far superior. The 915 transmission had some important improvements during 1985 or 1986 (search here for information). You don't mention whether either car has air conditioning. This can make a difference in how the cars feel, because it adds a lot of weight.

As far as the engine work is concerned, I would prefer buying a car with a factory assembled engine.

Plus, the 1986 is newer. My vote is for the 3.2.

[TonyFlaco]

Originally Posted by AZAirCooled

911 SC vehicle weight increased by 200 lbs in 1980 (see the 911 Buyers Guide on this website).

Isn't some if not most of that weight from the AC, which most owners had taken out since purchasing anyway being that having it installed wasn't worth the weight?

[Horrido]

Given your description of these specific two cars I would say pick the SC hands down.

[AZAirCooled]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZAirCooled
911 SC vehicle weight increased by 200 lbs in 1980 (see the 911 Buyers Guide on this website).

Isn't some if not most of that weight from the AC, which most owners had taken out since purchasing anyway being that having it installed wasn't worth the weight?

I don't know the breakdown of the weight increase. I think I read most of it was sound deadening material. I also read 76 was the last year for manual brakes so there could be some. I do know I removed my AC compressor, AC condensor, smog pump, auxillary heater blower motor, and bumperettes and that all only weighed 60 lbs.

[kidrock]

I've heard many times here that the 3.0 experience is more "raw" and just seems quicker and more lively. If true, it sure sounds like it would be worth the price of admission.

However, the CIS systems in the 3.0 seem kinda finicky to me, having read many discussions about them here over the last 2 years....what with fuel pressure and vacuum playing crucial parts to keep them running tip-top. Also, throw in other factors like the WUR as well as other valves and regulators, and it seems like you have to be really on top of it to keep them going good.

I'm sure a lot of hardcore CIS guys will call BS on what I say, and they're probably right. These guys really like CIS and will tell you that once you get used to it, the CIS is a really fun and reliable setup.

But I'm a "plug and play" kind of guy. That's why I prefer the DME in the 3.2. There's reference sensors and CHT sensors and a couple of switches and such, but the system just seems simpler and more reliable IMHO.

So, I guess it really all depends on how "raw" you want your experience to be. After all, when it really comes down to it all, the cars are essentially very similar from it's earliest roots.

just my .02 cents.