INPUT WANTED: SC vs Carrera / 3.0 vs 3.2 / 915 vs G50

[Rodsrsr]

Everyone seems so focused on what seems to be "better" which is really a moot point. I think many are forgetting that this is probably just going to be a fun weekend type car, and part of the charm of these would be things like, a somewhat antiquated gearbox, air cooled engine, a sub par a/c system, ect. If I want a smooth ride, excellent handling, brakes, a/c, heat, I'll just drive my CTS coupe. I want my Porsche to give me the exact opposite driving experience that my DD delivers. Its kind of like someone with an old Corvette or ac Cobra complaining that the heater isn't that good. Using this logic, why not just get a 964 and be done with it? The 964 is far superior in every way, yet it still has the classic 911 looks and is air cooled, plus it has a modern suspension, G50 coupled with a 3.6. Now you have the best of both worlds until you drive it and realize that its missing the unadulterated, engaging, driving experience of the early cars, which is what made you want one in the first place.

[porschenut]

Originally Posted by rgoodrich

Each has a distinct set of advantages. The big one is that SC motors don't break. The Carrera needs a full engine rebuild at less than 150000 miles.

Blanket statements like this have no merit. The 3.0 engines certainly do break, and they have their weaknesses, just like every other air cooled engine does. And there are plenty of Carrera engines that go beyond 150k miles without needing even a top end, much less a full rebuild. Top ends are common for both 3.0 and 3.2 before 150k, but the bottom end of the 911 engine is so good that it is not commonly needed.

How soon any engine needs a top or full rebuild depends mainly on how well it was maintained, how it was driven, and the conditions in which it was driven. It's just like clutch wear...how long it lasts depends mainly non the skill of the driver who drove it. Some last well over 100k miles, others are worn out by 30k.

[PabloX]

Originally Posted by Rodsrsr

Everyone seems so focused on what seems to be "better" which is really a moot point. I think many are forgetting that this is probably just going to be a fun weekend type car, and part of the charm of these would be things like, a somewhat antiquated gearbox, air cooled engine, a sub par a/c system, ect. If I want a smooth ride, excellent handling, brakes, a/c, heat, I'll just drive my CTS coupe. I want my Porsche to give me the exact opposite driving experience that my DD delivers. Its kind of like someone with an old Corvette or ac Cobra complaining that the heater isn't that good. Using this logic, why not just get a 964 and be done with it? The 964 is far superior in every way, yet it still has the classic 911 looks and is air cooled, plus it has a modern suspension, G50 coupled with a 3.6. Now you have the best of both worlds until you drive it and realize that its missing the unadulterated, engaging, driving experience of the early cars, which is what made you want one in the first place.

This is a great point. Couple this with the way the market is right now and it adds up to buy the one in the best shape you can afford, period.

My daily driver is a cheapish hatchback that will annihilate my 911. It doesn't matter because in a lot of ways, I'd still rather drive the 911 (but can't always).