Sure you do.

This car doesnt have the overall appearance of a 75k miles car to me. But who knows. Books and documentation are missing so milage is probabably not verifiable. No way I would pay 33K for this car. Original price seemed right.

I dont think that it will sell fast.

The white targa that Eric posted looks much better, imo....at 17k USD. One more to flip.......

They made a ton of 911s of all years. As for the "beauty and purity of form," that sounds like a bunch of personal preference horse crap. If you're going to point out the relevance of performance of the short hoods, I think it's safe to point out that longhoods tend to have all the driving dynamics of a farm tractor coupled with performance that almost rivals today's finest minivans.

But certainly, increasing scarcity has to be accounted for in their rise in value and I still have yet to see a single reason why the current 911 market is a bubble.

[QUOTE=speeder;7991970]They are not making anymore of any previous model of car. That alone means nothing, though it's the most frequently cited reason why some old car will rise in value.

Accordion bumper 911s are driver cars, period. They made a ton of them, "]

Really?
well I disagree, they did not make a ton of these. Per year they were still relatively a smaller production car than most other cars on the market of the same years that appeal to enthusiasts alike.
While a few years ago the middies were real cheap, at the same time people were paying stupid prices for similar year collector cars that they made 100,000's of each.
Also the price of entry when new was significantly lower than cars of the Porsche marque.

Seriously...$30-40 50K for Mustangs, Camaros, Cudas ect.. of which a ton of those were made each production year.

Let's face it these cars were overlooked and underpriced for years. I saw this coming in 2002, auction houses rarely had Pcars on the block...it didnt make any sense $70K for a Chevelle SS ragtop? while a restored or pristine 73S could be bought for much less?

the middies are in a class of their own and will continue to draw people to discover them and will righteously gain more respect year after year. only logical.
I remember being ribbed to death about the impact bumpers when I bought my 74 Carrera GP white., that it was just a regular overhyped 911S. well the market prove them wrong. Who would've thunk? well I had..

far from a ton made the middies are still a fraction of most other productions


from Aug 73 to July 74 (G series)
911: 4,014
911 Targa: 3,110
911S: 1,359
911S Targa: 898
Carrera: 1,036
Carrera Targa: 433
Carrera US: 528
Carrera Targa US: 246
Carrera RS: 109

from Aug 74 to July 75 (H series)
911: 1,238
911 Targa: 998
911S: 385
911S Targa: 266
911S US: 2,310
911S Targa US: 1,517
Carrera: 518
Carrera Targa: 197
Carrera US: 395
Carrera Targa US: 174
Turbo: 284

from Aug 75 to July 76 (J series)
911: 1,868
911 Targa & Sportomatic: 1,576
911 Japan: 130
911S Targa: 266
911S US : 2,079
911S Targa US & Sportomatic: 2,175
Carrera: 1,093
Carrera Targa & Sportomatic: 479
Turbo US: 530
Turbo: 644

from Aug 76 to July 77 (K series)
911: 2,449
911 Targa: 1,724
911S US : 3,388
911S Targa US, Japan & Sportomatics: 2,747
Carrera: 1,473
Carrera Targa & Sportomatic: 646
Turbo US: 727
Turbo: 695

We beat this topic pretty good in another thread.

Ford made more Mustangs in 1965 than all the 911s ever made -- to include the water cooled cars. They made more convertibles in 1965 than all the 3.2 Carreras.

Impact bumper car production numbers are small enough to be considered "rare" in the collector car market. Not AC Aceca, or Ferrari Daytona rare -- but rare enough that demand exceeds supply.

And demand is the key -- there are a lot of low production sports cars that are cheap because nobody wants them. Jensen-Healeys come to mind.

Performance is almost irrelevant. Even supercars from the 1970s are pedestrian performers in modern terms. Can any stock, U.S.-imported Ferrari produced in the 70s outrun a 2014 VW GTI? At least not 0-60 or in the 1/4 mile. Nostalgia, classic feel & driving dynamics make old cars attractive, not how fast they are.

Even impact bumper 911s are beautiful cars that have aged very gracefully -- they were always classic looking, and avoided trendiness in trim, interior, and gauges -- and that makes them timeless.

It may not be an E-type Jag, but they are the icons of 70s and 80s sports cars -- and that is not going to change. Add in the relative low cost of ownership (compared to Ferraris) and it is a recipe for long term appreciation.

When 3.2 Carreras are trading for 80-100,000 like Mopar cars were in 2005, then I will call it a bubble. Until then, I consider it overdue market appreciation.

I agree performance is irrelevant. The tired cliche of "experience" is what draws people in with these cars. They feel and smell right, even if they are dogs compared to even most mid-sized sedans today.

You seriously don't know the cars, my friend. The performance of the last "long hood" 2.4 cars wasn't matched by later models until 10 years and almost a liter of increased engine size occurred, and even then it was achieved by a much less sporting power plant in a much heavier car.

I would say that the resale market, not my opinion, determines which is the better sports car and more attractive to look at. Are you aware that a 1973 911S was worth a lot more than a 1974 911S in the early '80s? Like double? You can't fool car guys. Well maybe in your case, but generally people can read HP and performance figures plus curb weight.

This is a very strange sub-forum with some interesting characters.

Somehow, you have managed to turn this discussion into a strawman where you're representing the discussion as a comparison of the 2.4 to the mid-years which we all recognize as the low point of the entire air-cooled production.

Value is not driven by appearance and performance alone and that is a silly assertion given the sports car market (and certainly not the classic sports car market) does not operate alone in a Porsche vacuum, as better performance and arguably better aesthetics can be purchased for far, far less than almost any variant of air-cooled 911.

I do believe the longhoods are the more attractive breed and believe that is a commonly echoed sentiment. They're certainly rarer, being older, produced in fewer numbers, and many had to survive the gas crisis of the 70s and many of their cost is reflected in their restoration or originality.

No. You're characterization of the handling of "longhood" cars is completely ignorant. You should really spend some time on the 911 tech forum, maybe go to some track events and read some books by the great Porsche gurus.

The only substantial differences between the last "longhoods", (a stupid term, Porsche people call them early cars), and your beloved 1980s bumper cars is a schit load of weight, uglier styling and much duller power plants that struggle to make the same HP with 1/3 more displacement.

I've owned an '80s 911 and I made it the best car possible with a lot of weight-loss and performance enhancing mods but I never ignorantly thought that I had a better car than a 2.4 911E or S. You'd have to be an idiot to think that. The market has ALWAYS reflected the greater desirability of those cars and now it's gone postal.

I know the '80s cars plenty well having worked at a famous Porsche dealer when they were new. I've been an enthusiast since the 2.4 cars were new, actually before but wasn't old enough to drive. I've owned them all and driven dozens if not hundreds of 911s. I also know that there are people who know the cars better than me and can drive them better, I've met them. But you need some serious schooling, my friend.

I've been doing track events for over a decade. I have a whole library of Porsche books, have owned 3 different 911s in my short life, and pop over to the tech forum whenever I need an answer to a common problem. Certainly, I do not consider myself an oracle of Porsche knowledge and I fully appreciate the longhoods (early cars, pre '74, "expensive ones," whatever) but I'm not going to sit here and pretend they're a pinnacle of performance within the brand as they are sometimes represented.

Ah, the fabled "Porsche people" arrogance that makes me proud to not count myself within your ranks.

That's quite a verbose fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

But to be fair, I'd gladly take a 2.4 over my car.

When I say, "Porsche people", I mean Porsche enthusiasts who actually know the cars. You should want to be among our ranks.

Not sure what other weird connotation the term means to you(?).

Knowing the cars well figures into valuation/collector equations and usually, (but not always), explains their relative value in the market. I don't know if a good early S is really worth 10 times more than a good 911SC, but it's somewhere in there. They were special.

Are you in SoCal? I could introduce you to some guys who race early cars and would consider a 400hp 930 to be a really slow car on the track. :)

I push loud pedal and it go forward. Why key hole on wrong side?

Unfortunately, no, I'm in Delaware, the tiny jewel of the East Coast but if I'm ever out there, I would gladly buy you a beer in exchange for a ride in a well-sorted 2.4. There just aren't enough of them left with owners who are willing to drive them anymore.

I certainly have gripes about the 3.2's relative weight. The G50's smooth shifting may be a plus but the sheer weight of the steering on these nearly 3000 pound cars is certainly a detractor when compared to my experience with the earlier cars, even SCs.

http://i.imgur.com/WVKSYI0.jpg

"G50 smooth shifting".....my ass!

P.S. this is coming from a 915 owner who thinks that the clutch fork is gone....no spring driving for me.......

Unfortunately, I do not have an early car in the garage at the moment but I'm working on it. :)

Feel free to contact me anytime you're out here. I'm sort of a cranky bastard but I'd also load up the tools in one of my schit box cars and drive a ways to help someone work on their car who I only know from the internet. So I'm not all bad. :)

I'm just another gear head but I caught the Porsche disease real bad a long time ago. The current state of the hobby leaves me bummed-out but I guess it's people in England and Germany's turn to be happy. :(

All good points. I could be completely wrong. However, I see it as a bubble the same way the muscle cars were a bubble. Most of the muscle cars are now trending downward in price. Why? because the middle aged guys that wanted them are moving on and the next generation is not interested in them. I think 911's are the same thing. The kids/teenagers that lusted after them in the '80's are now middle age and can afford a toy. Unfortunately, the generation coming up has little interest in them. And like muscle cars, there are just too many of them around. And any time you have people buying cars as an investment, it is only a matter of time before they want to cash in and move on.

Personally I think the short hoods will continue to appreciate in value over the next 5-10 years. Then we will all be old guys selling them off to get the kids through college, buy that condo down in Florida, etc.

Don't buy a 911 as an investment. Buy it because you want to own one to drive.

All good points.

I often wonder with the lack of interest by millenials in cars altogether coupled with a shift to electric cars that we won't see a pullback in values across the board with respect to classic cars.

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...

I hear you. Each successive Porsche I've bought has been older but I'm kicking myself for not considering a few of the early cars when I had the opportunity and now so many seem out of reach.