Current Values for 911 Carerra with M491 wide body?

[craig.wilson1]

Does anyone have any current information on values of the 1984-1989 model years with the M491 "turbo look" option?

[NYNick]

Contact this guy Frank. He seems to be an expert.
https://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-marketplace-discussion/1086203-fs-1988-porsche-911-cabrio-m491-m470-bat.html

[ted]

https://www.hagerty.com/apps/valuationtools/1986-Porsche-911-Carrera

[Mocker]

The fact that these trade close to the price of a real turbo is akin to a six-banger Mustang selling for an amount close to that of a Shelby.

It's mystifying to me.

[RarlyL8]

Actually the M491 vs 930 would be more akin to a Shelby with a 6 banger selling near an actual Shelby V8 price. Mystifies me as well.

[Tremelune]

Closer to 930 money than Carrera money.

The reason is because they look great and they're the better engine to drive with despite the lack of top-end horsepower. Around town? Give me the torque of the 3.2. In the mountains? Give me an NA motor.

[Mocker]

Originally Posted by RarlyL8

Actually the M491 vs 930 would be more akin to a Shelby with a 6 banger selling near an actual Shelby V8 price. Mystifies me as well.

Fair point, well taken.

[RarlyL8]

930's are a set of headers away from the same drivability you get from an SC or Carrera, and who doesn't mod their cars? I've owned many of each, stock and modified, and I live in the mountains. With headers you get the same drivability until the turbo kicks in, then the torque doubles. Yes normally aspirated engines are simpler with less parts to fail, so that makes them more valuable? There is a favorite ultra curvy very steep road I like to blast on with the turbo, it eats that road like a rabid dog. My Carrera had to be constantly down shifting to wheeze out the power needed to climb it while negotiating corners. Widebodies are just cool looking but without the power you're just left with the looks. That's fine but I don't understand paying a premium that brings it within striking distance of a 930. Maybe the 930 is undervalued ...

[ted]

The factory turbo flares just look great.
Every 911 should have been in the shape of a 930 with or without a turbo.

I also like the turbo look with a 915 because it reminds me of the IROC race cars.
What's the cycle life of a 930 engine stock or modified?
The 3.2 normally asperated cycle life might be double a turbo engine.

It's a gift when you catch a turbo car lagging off boost.
https://youtu.be/FWHQnvijZf4?t=128

[Mocker]

The reasons for rebuilding a turbo engine and an NA aircooled engine are mostly the same. True, the turbo itself can wear out and need replacement/rebuilding/upgrading, but otherwise, the engines are roughly equal. Broken head studs and worn valves and other top-end items are the weak spots on these engines. The bottom ends are rock solid, turbo or not, and will last 200,000+ miles with normal maintenance.

So again, why do you want a Shelby-look with 100 fewer HP if you're not saving a ton of $$$?

[ted]

Originally Posted by Mocker

So again, why do you want a Shelby-look with 100 fewer HP if you're not saving a ton of $$$?

In my mind the turbo problems and service cost do not justify a paltry 100 more hp.
Improve it 200hp and it would be worth it.

Air cooled turbo lag, cruising in town bogging off boost around in 2nd gear,
3.2 (325k mile motor) is the most reliable engine ever in any 911, saving $1,500 every service because no turbo or intercooler in the way.

Aircooled turbo power is expensive if you don't think so fine.
For my race car I choose a built 350hp 3.6 n/a over a stressed turbo.
When considering a turbo for my 911 race car the engine budget alone would of been the same as my cost to run the car all year with the aspirated engine.

I like a 935 but could never afford to run it and most than can run them detuned.
The turbo 911 are just not as good of a package as some seem to believe.
https://youtu.be/XAc4KVQJunY?t=778

[Mocker]

You keep talking about and posting track videos of purpose-built racecars, which really has SFA to do with whether somebody should spend nearly-equal money on a 930 or a M491.

If 100 HP isn't enough, as many Turbo owners (like me) will tell you, a few simple bolt-on mods will give you 50-75HP additional HP over a stock Turbo. As equipped from the factory, any 930 is severely hamstrung, but that's an easy problem to solve and easily reversible (again, why you'd want to do so is another question).

[ted]

Originally Posted by Mocker

You keep talking about and posting track videos of purpose-built racecars, which really has SFA to do with whether somebody should spend nearly-equal money on a 930 or a M491.

If 100 HP isn't enough, as many Turbo owners (like me) will tell you, a few simple bolt-on mods will give you 50-75HP additional HP over a stock Turbo.

imho the brakes are my favorite thing about the 930 and the turbo look.

80s 930 was lame around town with a 4 speed unless shifting at redline.
A turbo look 5 speed and perfect Motronic fuel injection 3.2 was a better combo.

Late 80s 5 speed 930 and a G50 turbo look gives the 930 more power but the turbo look is more nimble to drive.

Turbo lag just makes a car feel heavy, keeping it out of lag is a fun driver challenge.
Too reduce the turbo lag on track I'd left foot brake it to keep the boost up often.
The speeds for that style of driving in the turbo would be illegal on public roads.

Turbo look is a momentum car so I still left foot brake and gas same time but its more to keep momentum.

A turbo wins on the straight, the turbo look in the tight corner does well too.

Another sfa turbo powered video.
Here is a well driven good running Turbo 964 sandwiched between two 993 3.6 n/a Porsches.
We're all having a great time, turbo or n/a.
https://youtu.be/vuQospkNKB4?t=216

[RarlyL8]

Track cars are apples vs potatoes, nothing to do with an M491 vs 930.
200chp increase over stock is easy with the 930.
Engine longevity has nothing to do with market value, if so a Camry would be worth more than a Ferrari.
The stock 930 is a tuned set of headers away from being equal to a Carrera in the drivability department. The 4spd gearing becomes perfect once you do that mod. The '87 Carrera I use for a test mule is modded to 200whp with an active exhaust and feels no different than the test mule 930 off boost. The only mod to the 930 (currently) is tuned headers. There is no off-boost bogging turbo lag with this 930, you should not need boost to drive around town. The Carrera on the other hand is in terminal turbo lag.
I guess it comes down to the '87-'89 M491 Carrera being the summit of Carrera-dom and the ultimate normally aspirated G-body, having the Turbo look. Got to question the Turbo wing on an M491 though, that's going a bit far. Love the look with no tail.

[Matt Monson]

What's a turbo look with no turbo tail? That's silly

[ted]

2nd owner, have had my TL for 21 years.
Stock except for seats. Stock chairs in storage.
It needs nothing, drives great factory stock specs.

[Macroni]

The T/L has great upgrades.... Brakes, Fenders and Suspension....It was a $12,000 option at the time..... my turbo brake upgrade cost $7500.

[DWBOX2000]

Looks count. The M491 or turbo body is just such a beautiful car. Put a M491 against a base Carrera and the majority are going to take the M491. No knock on the base, that is a beautiful car as well. If it is a little slower 0-60 or top speed, so be it. It's a piece of Porsche art IMO.

[drauz]

Aside from the aero-functionality (not to be overlooked) appearance is a matter of taste. I happen to like the widebody w/o tail... has a presence while evoking the original design.

[Macroni]

Good looking........