H2OJazz

Hi folks:

I'm a fairly longtime 944 driver who is looking to move to another Porsche next year. I have strongly considered a 968 or Boxster but also notice that many mid and late 80s 911s are in the same price range (15-20K). I have had fairly carefree time with the 944 (all needed belts, maintenance, clutch at 100K, etc.) and hope to continue so with my next car. I put about 10K miles a year on my current car and do DE 5-8 times per summer.

I would be very interested in opinions re the 80's and early 90's 911 re ownership experience, things to look out for etc.

911 are beautiful classic cars, just always been a little unsure if they are more of a headache and wallet drain than the water breathers.

Thanks for all input.

Barry A. Waters

H20Jazz,

My family has both cars - an '88 NA 944 and an '86 911 coupe. They are indeed different animals. Your intended use, expectations and budget will really make the decision for you.

I see you do DEs. The 944 is one of the best handling cars around but is lacking in power (unless you have a turbo). You really have to work at getting in trouble handling wise on these cars as they are so damn balanced. That said, even the NA cars are a hoot to drive if you can keep the engine within its power band. More work for you but the end result is shear bliss.

As daily, dependable drivers these cars do very well. Creature comforts (especially year models '85.5+) are far superior to 3.2 Carreras. If you're not really sure about changing cars, your 944 can go a long ways with beefing up - plenty of options for you out there.

With that said, the '84 - '89 Carreras are great cars. The '87+ cars seem to be preferred as the clutch and trans are more in line with your 'snick-snick' gear change experience of the 944. The '86- cars have a different setup that is less tolerant of rushed/imprecise gear changes.

Creature comfort (especially AC) is much, much less than the 944. Long trips in a 911 can be trying. In general they are significantly more powerful than the 944 and have great handling up to the limit but watch out after that!

The car has really great rear wheel traction as the engine sits over the rear wheels. They really stick in good conditions. The problem is that you really have to be ahead of the car in order to catch it when the rear breaks loose (especially in the wet!). Once the rear starts to swing around the pendulum nature of the rear weight bias will require that you already be on the phone when it starts in order to control it. These cars also have a nasty tendency for the rear wheels to toe out under deceleration during fast cornering which steers the car into an oversteer condition.

This later point can actually be considered as a 'feature' as, in good traction conditions, you can invoke it at will to tighten your conering radius. Just don't use the 'feature' in bad conditions or when you don't need it. These cars will truely go through corners like nobody's business once you get the hang of it.

You also still get the honest to God 'race car' feel with these cars (albeit not to the degree of the older, lighter 911s) in a somewhat 'civilized' car. Your mileage may vary on the civilized part ;-).

These cars, in my experience, demand more that your 944 does as far as maintenance and $ go. I would suggest you gain some mechanical skills (if you don't already have them) in order to make ownership more affordable. There are many good books out there that cover the 3.2 Carrera series and that makes things easier. They are also one of the most produced cars Porsche ever made so there are plenty of parts & stuff available for them.

Can't comment on the Boxster from ownership experience but they seem to be great cars as I have several friends who swear by them.

As always information is your best friend. There is much out there on 3.2s so take advantage of it, take your time and find a good one if a 911 ends up in your sights. They really are fun to drive but, like a teenage daughter, they will stick their hand out for money more often than not!

Good luck!

Barry

Doug&Julie

Late 80s 3.2 Carreras are probably the cheapest Porsche to maintain (if we're talking about cars from the 80s). If you buy well (and that is very key), plan on spending $1k-$2k a year on service and maintenance. You shouldn't have any major blow-ups with a 3.2 Carrera.

As an example, in five years of ownership, I spent around $15k on my '88 944 n/a in service and maintenance. I've never had to spend more than $1200 a year on either of my 3.2 Carreras. If I had known about this board (and Pelican), I would have cut that in half. For the record, I never did autoX or DE in any of them. (..I know...for shame..)

First year 964s had some problems, but are fundamentally solid cars. Check the 964 board for some of the early problems and how to fix them.

Boxsters are great cars, too. Again, the key is to buy well.

ChemMan

I looked at a boxster as well. I was pretty set on buying one until I started to hear terms like "RMS Failure" and "Engine Failure". I test drove a few and then tried a 911SC. No contest, the 911 was more "muscular" for the lack of a better word. Since the carreras were pretty close in price range to the older boxsters, I picked one of those up. I still plan on a boxster (2005, 2006 model) in a few years. Having a convertible would be pretty nice.

Marc Shaw

Yes, like any new model year, the early 964's did have some issues. Most have been tended to by now.

Early ones were built wihout head gaskets (relying instead on close tolerances of machining) - some (not many) leaked. Later ones did have the gasket.

1989 had a single mass flywheel, after that the went to a dual-mass flywheel (DMF) but the rubber damper tended to breakdown making for a noisy idle (not harmful). Again, most have had the original DMF swapped for a Luk type when the clutch was replaced from normal wear.

The 964 3.6 engine has two spark plugs per cylinder and timing is co-ordinated by a rubber belt between the dual distributors. Ozone caused breakdown of the belt but later cars were fitted with a vent kit. Most cars without have had one fitted (or it is a 20 minute job to fit the $15 kit).

Overall the 964's are more refined and modern than the 3.2's - not better, just different so it depends if you want the rawness of a 3.2 or a bit of a more refined ride (with a HVAC that works ).

Marc
p.s. Flame suit not on as I love 3.2's too and DON'T think either is "better" - just different for different people.

Doug&Julie

FWIW 964s are on my short list for "the next Porsche".

r911

964 is more of a GT car than the earlier 911s - even the relatively portly 3.2L cars with G50 trannies.

another factor is the bulbous lloks of the 964 - tho ugly, they are getting pretty cheap.... you can always buy one, put the eninge in a nice '72 body and throw away the ugly parts...

Doug&Julie

My next Porsche will have ABS and at least a decent climate control system. That's why the 964 is on the short list over the 3.2 cars. For daily driving, I just don't see the need to go without these items (..especially ABS. I mean, have you ever driven a 3.2 on a greasy road?!?!? ). There are plenty of good Porsches to suit those needs. Many still in the $20k price range.

Of course, if I weren't keeping the early 911, I may have a different opinion...

slingshot C2

you hurt my feelings
not all 964's have G50's in em
nor 3.2's

Marc Shaw

Interesting how one can insult almost every generation of 911 in a single paragraph.

Marc

KobaltBlau

I like the looks of the 964.

I have owned a 911SC and a 968, and have some experience with the boxster. I really think you need to drive all of them, one will probably speak to you. For me, it's the original chassis 911.