90-93 964 vs. late 80's 3.0 or 3.2
09-24-2002, 01:00 AM
#1
8th Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
90-93 964 vs. late 80's 3.0 or 3.2
I was seriously thinking about buying a early 90's 964 but they may be just outside my financial grasp right now. I have heard some rumors about the late 80's 911 3.0 and 3.2 engine and bodies, in regards to reliability and maintainence problems. Are they true and what are the advantages and disadvantages between the two models, the 964 and the late 80's 911's?
09-24-2002, 01:47 AM
#2
You need to drive the two cars, and maybe different samples of each.
The 964 is the more modern car, abs brakes, airbags, power steering. It is faster and quieter.
The late model carreras (87-89) are a more "raw" car, not quiet, no power steering, etc. I think these cars feel even older than they are. I had a 1986 MR2 that was a blast to drive. It had this great shifter and handled well. It was comfortable inside, with cool (for the time) backlit guages.
My 1988 911 feels much older then the MR2. It does not have backlit guages, the shifter requires effort to move, as does the clutch.
The dealer I bought it from described it this way "The 964 is a blast to drive. The 911, on the other hand, is work. A job you could love, but work..."
It is really a personal decision. I like the visceral feel of the older car, but I would never use it as a daily driver.
The late 80's 911s might not be much cheaper then the early 90's. The cars before 1987 had a 915 type transmission as opposed to the G50. The 915 is supposedly more vague and easier to miss shifts. I have not driven one however.
FWIW,
David
The 964 is the more modern car, abs brakes, airbags, power steering. It is faster and quieter.
The late model carreras (87-89) are a more "raw" car, not quiet, no power steering, etc. I think these cars feel even older than they are. I had a 1986 MR2 that was a blast to drive. It had this great shifter and handled well. It was comfortable inside, with cool (for the time) backlit guages.
My 1988 911 feels much older then the MR2. It does not have backlit guages, the shifter requires effort to move, as does the clutch.
The dealer I bought it from described it this way "The 964 is a blast to drive. The 911, on the other hand, is work. A job you could love, but work..."
It is really a personal decision. I like the visceral feel of the older car, but I would never use it as a daily driver.
The late 80's 911s might not be much cheaper then the early 90's. The cars before 1987 had a 915 type transmission as opposed to the G50. The 915 is supposedly more vague and easier to miss shifts. I have not driven one however.
FWIW,
David
The following users liked this post:
Superdave312 (08-21-2020)
09-24-2002, 02:09 AM
#3
Instructor
Drive both and make your decision from there. I liked the 911 better than the 964 when I bought mine. I don't drive mine everyday so the quirks of the transmission (915) and lack of safety features (read: air bags) doesn't bother me. The incredible amounts of feedback from the car are the reason I bought it. That and it is the car of my childhood dreams.
For a more objective view, check out the <a href="http://www.enthusiastcars.com/main/faq.htm" target="_blank">FAQ</a> on the EnthusiastCars.Com site. There is an article on <a href="http://www.enthusiastcars.com/main/generalinfo/911.txt" target="_blank">911 model diferentiation and mechanical issues by model</a> and an excellent piece by <a href="http://www.enthusiastcars.com/main/generalinfo/bruce911.htm" target="_blank">Bruce Anderson</a>.
For a more objective view, check out the <a href="http://www.enthusiastcars.com/main/faq.htm" target="_blank">FAQ</a> on the EnthusiastCars.Com site. There is an article on <a href="http://www.enthusiastcars.com/main/generalinfo/911.txt" target="_blank">911 model diferentiation and mechanical issues by model</a> and an excellent piece by <a href="http://www.enthusiastcars.com/main/generalinfo/bruce911.htm" target="_blank">Bruce Anderson</a>.
