Mark Salvetti

Wow, that's beautiful work. And no oil leaks (given that it's stored above that gorgeous Turbo)!

Mark

TerrySmith

As a data point, my '88 is at 150 kmiles with no top-end rebuild and still shows great compression and leak-down results. Runs great and seems have plenty of power. However, I have had a lot of work done on it.

mk85911

tcsracing1

fastdiablo

Great contribution from TCS. Well said!

oldskewel

Here's my similar data point:

'85 at 133k miles, no engine work at all (just maintenance like valve adjustments and leaking oil return tubes replacement). Runs great, all the power it ever had. I think it consumes about 1qt of oil every 2-3k miles, no leaks that reach the ground.

I love fixing things, but luckily for that hobby I have 5 other cars to work on, since this one has really had not much at all go wrong with it in the ~22 years and ~50k miles I've owned it for. Things like: ignition switch, oil pressure sender, alternator, turn signal switch, wipers switch, windshield wiper inserts (OK, you get the picture - nothing significant).

I think the general attitude toward engine rebuilding etc. that I notice has understandably changed over the years as the car values have increased. Lots of unnecessary rebuilds, if you ask me, which may or may not make financial sense. When it's a $20k car, you rebuild it if it needs it. When it's a $50k car, you might rebuild it to make it an $80k car if it is exceptional (e.g., see above photos).

I don't pay too much attention to it, but back when I did, about 20 years ago, I think the word on the potential valve guide problems with the 3.2 heads was that some cars would have them, and if so, the problem would present itself before 100k, giving significant oil consumption. If you made it to 100k without the oil consumption, you did not have whatever defect the unlucky ones did, and there is nothing to worry about.

If you're considering an SC, 3.2, or 993, congrats on your great taste in cars. Pick a good one and you'll be happy.

Terry T.

I have owned six air-cooled 911s--a 76 targa, 88 coupe, 95 coupe, another 88 coupe, 87 coupe, and the 1985 coupe I now own. So it's fair to say I've sampled widely, and the current car (owned a little over a year) is likely my last aircooled car as prices continue to go out of sight. My take is that the "raw" experience you seek is much more pronounced in the 3.2s than the 993s. The 993 has power steering that, in my opinion, removes some of the tactile feel of the 911. And it is much a heavier feeling car than a 3.2. I never bonded with my 993, and sold it after a little more than a year.

I would also seriously consider a 915 car over a G50 if cost is any sort of object. All of my 3.2s except the current one had G50 transmissions, and due to budget constraints I bought my current car with its 915 expecting not to like it as well. After about 6000 miles of driving, plus adding a WEVO shifter and coupler, I must say I am a convert and really like the feel of the 915. But the biggest plus is that the clutch and flywheel assembly are significantly lighter (as is the gearbox itself), which allows the engine to spin up quicker. My current car, with 108K on the clock, is the least sluggish of any 3.2 I have owned, and I think a good part of that is the lighter weight of the 915.

golfnutintib

i would echo bill v:

in stock form none of the 993, 964 or 3.2 carrera are connected nor raw - in fact they are cushy and wobbly - especially the usa versions with tall springs

you intelligently mod them to make them raw - the recipe is well known (suspension, lwfw, muffler delete, chip), then you put them on a diet to make the most of the engine power - done right, each become highly engaging, connected, fast feeling, lively road machines, all attributes varying by model in only in fairly small degrees and in relation to each other

when any of the air cooled engines lose compression or start to leak badly it is safely into the five figures to fix them right - really doesn't matter which model
(note also that a 95my 993 avoids secondary air/obd 2 nonsense for smog testing)

915's may have charm, but i just don't like it when you can't get the gear you want, and even when you do you're not sure you are really in it -- i guess some call that charm -- i drove mooty's 73 with 915/wevo - throw is short but to me it is quite vague... maybe if i owned it i would learn to love it - car overall definitely has its charm, esp its sound on throttle, but the tranny to me is serious real weak point

my 2 cents, no right or wrong answer, just an opinion

ksluna

Looks like I really need to test drive a 915 and a g50. Seems like it’s very polarizing and you either love it or hate it lol

myflat6

^yes, true

Starbuckslova1

I personally love the 993 but see good cars in the mid 60s

Drive both

I also really like the sc

The first 911sc I had 281,000 before a head stud broke lol.

The one I have now the 915 granny was upgraded changed gear ratio .Rebuilt swepco cleaned and put a rennshift shifter and changed the coupling.
honestly love it 10x more then a g50 tranny its more of a mechanical feel

Starbuckslova1

The 993 will be the most modern and if your gonna daily drive it get that.

Weekly drive it have fun pick somethihg to play with

ksluna

Starbuckslova1

I personally have not, no issues but maybe others can chime in

shing911500e

I have owned an 84 3.2 Carrera for over 10 years and think it hits an absolute sweet spot in the 911 range. My car needed a lot of work when I got it. I did the work and then some and it's been trouble free for 8 years. I wouldn't hesitate to drive it coast to coast and back. Transmission is a personal choice. If you want to understand where Porsche came from, get a 915. If you want that older feeling and want a view in to where Porsche was going, get a G50. Lastly, if $55k is your budget, you should be able to find a 3.2 that needs nothing. Prices have softened recently.....try the PCA classifieds. It's loaded with cars that need little to no work for $45-60k.