912. In genera. Discuss.
 

Anyone have a bead on the 912 market in general? I've owned non-Porsche cars from the era and realize rust is king as far as individual cars go. My instinct from the Alfa world is that condition, history and colors are more important than model variations but maybe I'm wrong. Are these early 3 gauge cars far and away more valuable than the later ones? I'm not really interested in Targas but have a feeling the soft window cars are a hot ticket as well?

Problem is I believe the 912 has been the dark horse brother of 911s for too long. They were always the bottom feeder car that people bought instead of a 911, because they were half the price.

Truth is they are amazing cars, handle just as well, are all-Porsche, and give you that feeling. But to me they are a different animal.

From recent auction results people don't seem to care that it has a four under the rear deck (maybe people are smartening up and realizing that the four is just as legit as a Porsche motor as there ever was). $82K for a 1967 proves this at Scottsdale. But this is an awesome example. It would cost the same money to restore one as a longhood 911. Maybe more if you wanted all the correct pieces.

I always though early 5-guage 912s were more sought-after and desirable. I drove a '67 a couple times. It was my bosses and it was the first 912 I ever drove. It was (and I think still is) mint. He brought his daughter home from the hospital in it in '68. I hope he still has it - I am sure he does. He never drove it. I think I drove it more around the parking lot.

I used to toy with the idea that a 912 would take the place of a 911 in my life. I could have gotten some sweet deals 5 years ago. I never bought them. In hindsight I wish I did as do most people. A women had a '66 down the road from me in SoCal and she sold it for $5K. It took weeks to sell. In some ways they are a pure descendant of a true Porsche. If you know of some 912s I would buy them without hesitation.

I am very interested to see where drola's spectacular Porsche 912 find goes. Karmann #1 - it is a perfectly legit piece of history. But the excitement is not being generated as lets say an old '64 911 that was hidden under hideous bodywork. Time will tell.

I'd be willing to pony up for a really nice 912 but its hard for me to know what is strong current market money (ie 30-40k for a very pretty driver G50) and what is silly money (ie 50-70 for the same car, or 30-40 for one with needs).

Is the price of 912 backstopped by that of the condition equivalent 911T? It would seem that all things being equal the vast majority (not all, but enough to influence the market) would go for the 911.

This car at $45k? TheSamba.com :: VW Classifieds - 1968 Porsche 912 Coupe - Golden Green !!
This one at $62k? 1969 Porsche 912 Coupe for sale | Hemmings Motor News

Owned 2 in my day. Loved the cars, but they were clearly bought because the 911's were too expensive for me at the time. Of course, I lusted after the 911's, which is actually WHY I bought the 912's. I knew what the Count said was true, so for that I give myself credit. But I still wanted a 911 more.

I find it difficult to swallow the reality of the prices these cars a drawing these days. It's not that I regret selling mine; hell, one of the best days of my life was watching one of those 912 rust buckets go down my driveway for the last time. It's just that I always considered the 911 to be a better car...period, end of story.

Some people are saying in other threads they can't justify the prices of the current batch of SC's and 3.2's, in their heads or in the marketplace. I don't agree with them regarding those 911's, but for the life of me, I feel the same way about the 912.

Good cars, solid drivers, but not for me at the current price point, especially when you can get a nice air cooled 911 (or maybe even two?) for the same amount of dough.

I have seen 912s bringing $60/70K.

I know they have advocates. I am not one. My first Porsche was a 912 - mainly because I feared the complexity of the 911 engine at that time. 50+ 911s later, I haven't looked back once.

At the time I paid 70-71 911t money for my '67 912. And I would do it again. I wanted a SWB car.

The current rise in 912 values is not enthusiast based. It is collector driven. If I didn't own a Carrera I don't know that I would have settled for a 12. But as an other Porsche it is perfect for me.

I realize everything that looks at all like a 1965-1998 911 is experiencing some degree of speculative driven investment and I'm not trying to participate/profit from that - I got curious about the 912 when I did the mental exercise of evaluating it based on its merits alone. A drop dead beautiful, pure, well made sports car that came in great colors, is well supported by the aftermarket and has a still very sporty (ie - not british tractor) motor even though its tempting to compare it to the six.

I know more about Alfa than Porsche. Compare 912 to the 'stepnose' Giulia Sprint GT - the 912's equal in looks, displacement, sophistication, beauty of interior etc. There is relatively little froth in the Alfa market. The same forces that are effecting every old car still apply, but there is not a feeding frenzy. The Alfa sells for 40-60k (more for #1 at auction but let's leave that out) easily based on their merits. Therefore why isn't the 912 worth the same?

And BTW if you're selling one, holler at me.

I happen to own 1 and some 911's. It's a different car altho 99% of the parts are the same. SWB with a small light engine in the back. Make the right noises, looks killer and drives well. What's not to like?

Prices are shooting up as they should on 45-50 year old cars. Mine is a 66 with 42K miles.

The 911 is what made Porsche famous. Many people consider the 356/912 engine a VW engine, which isn't really true.

But perception is changing. For decades a 912 was 50-60% of the price of a 911. That's tightening up quite a bit. I don't think they will ever be equal. But a lot of people appreciate a 912 for what it is.

Are 5sp/4sp and SWB/LWB big price and desirability differentiators?

I'm presuming the 5sp was available as an option on any year 912 but 4sp was standard? 4 speeds still enjoyable but nice to have the extra gear? Does one or the other shift better / last longer?

I owned a 1963 356B for 10 years. I loved that car. But it was a dog. I bought it years ago because I could not afford a 911. The 912 is wonderful. But it is also a dog. 75 H.P. That is it. 911, 207 H.P.

How much HP is needed to go the speed limit? 100hp in the 912 is plenty to cruise slightly above legal and have a blast. 200hp is overkill except on the track. IMHO of course. I don't need speed to have fun.

912: 75 hp
911: 207 hp
Really? What year/vintage are you comparing here?
If that's the logic then I guess my Honda Odyssey at 240 hp trumps them all then.

This sums the 912 up well for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNfmcIHpsH8

Dont forget about the high tech 912E - Great balance and tons of power! Plus women and children love it!

Yeah, someone has their facts confused. Lets compare apples to apples.

1969 Porsche 912 = 102 hp
1969 Porsche 911T = 125 hp

912 is a fantastic car sharing deep Porsche heritage with both the 356 and early 911 cars. I can't afford a longhood 911 these days, so I have a 912 and happily so.

The 912 is a better handling car! feels alot more nimble and lighter through the turns. For 1/2 the price get the same fun factor!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1426337706.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1426337750.jpg

Really? Try going up a long steep hill at 60MPH.

1/2 the price? Find me one and I'll buy it.

I din't think it's a stretch to say that equivalent condition '69 cars, 912 and 911, that the 912 would be half price. Maybe that gap is narrowing. Perhaps 60% is more in line with the market these days?

.

It's not a maybe, it is factually.

See you guys proved my point with regards to the shadow of the 911! Find me a single post anywhere complaining about the 100 or so horsepower in a Duetto, Sprint, Giulia... Its taken on faith that these are old cars and will behave as such with all the charms and frustrations that implies. Not to mention that its possible to so a period sympathetic engine hop up on any of the above which preserves value and eeks a couple two three more ponies out.

Im still not sure if 30-40 is the new normal for excellent cars or if its the bleeding edge. Comparable ads are rarely helpful given the degree to which asks are ahead of buys.

Whenever a 911 vs 912 discussion pops up, it always, without fail, turns into a HP debate. A 912 was never about HP. It's unfortunate that many 912s were bought ONLY because a 911 could not be afforded and so most 912 buyers fail to see the car as what it truly is: a simpler 911 with a 200 lbs weight reduction in the most crucial area. When you compare a 67 912 (1.6 L, 90 hp) to a 67 911 (non S, 2.0 L, 110 hp) with 200 lbs extra weight in the rear, you can see that the 912 definitely has a balance/nimbleness advantage. That's why they always beat 911s at autoX events. When people say "I won't buy a 912 because a 911 has more power" (again, compared to the same year/vintage), they just don't understand what the 912 is all about. My 67 912 with its meager 90 hp was just more fun to drive than my 85 3.2. I don't know how to explain it but I'm sure those who have had a 912 will understand.

Although HP is big on my 'fun component' list, there's some truth hiere. ^^^

A bit of history for you young pups: 912s outsold 911s by as much as 2:1 in the first years of the 911 -- and it was partly because "Porsches" had been 4 cylinder cars from day one. The idea of a 6 was weird and over-complex to people attracted by the "giant killer" simplicity of the 4 cylinder cars.

^^^This.

Plus, the 911's were a lot more expensive than the previous 356's. I'm also betting the 912 was a result of a lot of leftover 4 cylinder engines lying about, besides the customer resistance.

And someone mentioned the 911 is what made Porsche famous. I totally disagree. The 356, AND IT'S 4 CYLINDER ENGINE, is what made Porsche famous.

Power to weight ratio is what really matters and the 912 wins hands down. I have a few 911's but the 912 is by far my favorite Porsche to drive. I hope no one agrees and prices stay low :)

"Endless power" out of a 2L 110hp motor? Really? Have you ever driven a 912 and 911 (same year) back to back?

What are the common paths to slightly more power from the 912's 1.6? Is there a high comp P&C set, cam, carb upgrade that is popular?

Take a look at euro pricing of the 912.....yeah asking aint getting but still.



Porsche 912 Angebote bei mobile.de

A Shasta 1720cc P&C conversion with a Web cam and without or with Webers.

I owned a 110hp '68 911t before my 912. The 912 feels faster and I wouldn't be surprised if it is. I live out in the country and it is plenty of fun ripping through the turns in 2nd and 3rd gear. I've got other cars for the track.

$1500 for hi comp overbore P&C set with rings etc? Sounds like a good deal compared to 911 parts. What are the truly frightening (cost wise) parts to have to replace on a 912 motor? From what I gather hairline cracked heads are common and a relatively easy weld-up fix.

My first Porsche drive was a 912. I really loved that car, the way it felt and smelled - but I did want a car with the snarl and kick of the flat six. But I still think about that 912.

I agree that the collector segment of the market is driving 912 pricing. If it looks longhood, buy it.

This observation goes to the core of increased interest.....and add it's old. All the other technical stuff suggesting people finally recognize balance and value are bull.

I can add my $.2 here since I've owned both a 912 and 930 simultaneously. While that's hardly a great comparison, at the same time my very good friend owned a '71 911T that I drove on a regular basis. When I wasn't driving the 930 I much preferred the "feel" of the 912 over the 911. The 911 just felt tail heavy to me and not as balanced as the 912. I guess the H.P. thing didn't mean so much when compared to the 930. Even the T felt low on power in comparison.

Different occasions called for a different car. I have to admit to feeling a bit superior anytime I was out in the 930. You really don't have to drive that car in anger to enjoy it's potential and the impression it makes on folks in the know.
And for steep canyon cruising the 930 won hands down, but for everyday driving and carving the flat twisties, the 912 is wonderfully balanced and can be kept on the revs for lots of fun without dangerous speeds.

What really impressed me about the two cars was when I stared into the engine bays. To imagine that Porsche could stuff so much engine in the same compartment on the 930 was simply amazing. I sold the 930 and kept the 912 based quite a bit on that engine compartment. As I got older I knew that I would much prefer maintaining a cavernous engine compartment as opposed to working on a car with mirrors and special tools at every turn.

I miss the power of the 930, but as has been pointed out here, you can only really enjoy a 930 at the limit. That's what it was built for and that's how it's meant to be driven. Of course it can be a daily driver, but why.
I would have to compare the 911T as being very similar to the 912 although the 912 is better balanced. If you compare the power of the two I just never felt that the 911 gave me enough to make up for the balance and feel of the 912.

As for the original question, of course the 912 is rising in value in an almost linear curve as the 911. I would have to say that the return on investment may be a little higher on the 912 right now, simply because they started lower and have, and continue to rise at almost the same pace. As has been pointed out, I don't think there is a particular 912 buyer, but folks who just want to jump on the rising Porsche values, and that's their entry point.

I will never regret keeping the 912. I may not get the same smile when I fire her up as I did with the rumble of the 930, but I still smile just as much when driving and I don't have to keep my eyes glued to the temp gauge whenever I sit in traffic.

Complete and utter nonsense!

Agreed 100% - the whole balance and value jibber jabber is remarkably silly.

Are you seriously implying that a 3.2 shopper would consider a 912 just because the price was similar? Really? Sorry but I have to disagree. If I were shopping for a 3.2 , I’m obviously looking for a certain level of performance/power; I may consider an SC or perhaps even a midyear because they are somewhat similar in looks and feel, but I would NEVER consider a 912 just because it is priced similarly. It just doesn’t make sense to me. . Let’s say you were looking to spend $35k on a 84 911. WHY ON EARTH would you even consider a 69 912? Just because it’s priced the same? This tells me you just want to buy a 911-looking thingy for X dollars and don’t care how it drives; might as well go buy one of those 911 V8 conversions and then you’ll be a lot closer to that “endless power” you seem to be looking for…

My bad and I deserve to be called out on it. I certainly could have worded that better.

What I was trying to point out is the difference between a 912, 911, and 930, in my experience. You can certainly enjoy driving any of the three at different levels. I also enjoy driving my wifes FX35 Sport. In every day driving, stop and go, around town, leisurely driving I just don't find any of them better than the other. They are all capable of putting a smile on my face whenever I get a chance to open them up a bit and any vintage car will always be an attraction on the streets. Maybe after 50 yrs of owning everything under the sun with wheels, my "enjoy" button is a little harder to press. If I had to pick my favorite Porsche under those conditions it would probably be my 928S back in the 80's.

The giant, and I mean GIANT difference, is driving a 930 at it's limit. Maybe it's the turbo lag, maybe the brakes, maybe it's the absolute attention you have to give the car. Whatever it is, it is the full enjoyment of the car, and in my humble opinion that's why you own a 930. I certainly don't want to step on the toes of any 911 owners. They are great cars and I'm sure there are many as capable as a 930. But they are certainly different beasts and until you've driven both hard it's difficult to understand just how much difference there is. Once again, only my opinions being expressed.

I never had the need to change my shorts after driving a 911 at full tilt. While I owned the 930 I could have been Hanes best customer. A 930 is always itching to bite you. I can't even imagine what it must have been like to try to tame one back in '76 on 205/225 tires. Now that's a scary thought.

IPorsche912, I agree with you, I have a 930 and on boost is where it shines and is in its element and that can not happen legally in city driving, maybe for a fraction of a moment once in a long while. The suspension does not even start to work or the car feels right till you get over 75MPH, so idling around town is a game of testing my patience and ability to resist temptation, admittedly I am not good at that. So I do 90% of my city driven in my 68 911 and that has issues with temptation also. So I am actively looking for a 912 to balance the fleet out with and flog in the city.
I like how 912's feel, lite and balanced, you can do stupid stuff and not get bit as easily in them and they are real casual. Rice burners do not feel as threatened by them as they are by the Turbo, so you get less of the stupid drivers around you stuff.
I also grew up when many believed the four cylinder Porsche engine was considered a true Porsche engine and the 911 6 was looked at by the Porschfile, like many do water cooled today, as not a true Porsche engine.
Porsche's were considered the little cars that could, they were the giant killers. Doing more with less and the 912 really sums up that early Porsche greatness, lite and simple refined to the point it does more than the sum of its parts.