Chris M.

I have also owned both (OK an SC not a 3.2) and IMHO it depends on what you're going to do with the car. Is this going to be a daily driver, weekend fun car, track car, race car, etc.? I think the more often you're going to use it, the more the 964 would suit you better. It's easier to drive, quieter, has better HVAC, is more comfortable...all reasons I moved to an SC! I wanted it louder, lighter, more involving to drive, don't care about A/C, and take it to the track at every opportunity. My 964 was also too nice to mod and track seriously for my budget. I wouldn't worry about which car is 0.2 seconds faster to 60mph. But if I wanted a daily driver 911 I would choose the 964 over the 3.2.
The power shifting you mention is a deal-breaker for a 915 car. Unless you plan on spending a small fortune on a fancy shifter, the 915 is best shifted very carefully.

Mike Murphy

Well it seems you have some experience with these cars, and you've driven both a 964 and 3.2 Carrera. You didn't specify if your significant other is a man or woman , but if she's a she, then chances are, she like air conditioning. If you want to appease both yourself and your 'other,' a 964 has the better chance, and you won't be sacrificing anything.

Now you have the problem of deciding which 964 to get, the C4 or the C2!

ked

"...chances are, she like air conditioning. If you want to appease both yourself and your 'other..."
I categorically reject the concept of appeasement when it comes to religous matters.

ChuckG

Here's a period review of the 964 (just saw it posted on the 964 board) which also highlights some of the differences and similarities between the two models you are considering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAfLzUDGiw&NR=1

Streetfighter

Murphy, lol, its a female!

Streetfighter

Chris, thanks for the reply, I plan using it as a daily driver. I was afraid the 915 gearbox might be a deal breaker. It seems as though it would be best to shift very carefully. Which is pretty much how I was feeling after stepping out of the car. I agree I don't really care about the speed all that much.

Streetfighter

Lol, you guys are on point today! Its a difficult balance right now, but I figure its now or never for jumping out and buying the dream. For me I am okay without AC, but her, not so much.

Streetfighter

Murphy, it would have to be a C2. Which is really become hard to find. Even though a C4 would be better suited for Chi-town. In the winter I am going to probably just store the car. No salt would be a good thing.

Streetfighter

Chuck, thanks I will take a look.

Mike Murphy

For the record, a C2 in Chicago, even with snow is not a big problem. Lots of weight over the rear wheels. Also, 1976 was the first year of corrosion proofing the body panels of these 911s, so they do not rust easily, even in salt.

Dan in Florida

[QUOTE= [B]When comparing 911s to see which one you want, it really comes down to only a few things:

1.) Rawness
2.) Features
3.) Speed

The older the 911, the more raw it's going to feel, the greater the driving pleasure. The newer the 911, the faster it is and the more features it has, such as airbags, air-conditioning, horsepower. The early 911s are very fast in the twisties, even approaching the newest 911s, but the newer 911s will outrun the old cars on the straights.[/[/B]QUOTE]

Well said. The 911 was the last of the best.

Streetfighter

I know, but I guess its still a little scary, Porsches don't have the best reputation when it comes to the rust bug. Murphy, did you drive your Porsche in the winter? If you did how was it?

blake

Streetfighter - you are getting A++ info on this thread from these guys. Now with regard to Porsches and rust, I must admit that I have not heard about any "reputation". As Murphy points out, 911s beginning in 1976 were galvanized. This reduced much of the rust problems associated with the previous 911s.

From my sig, you can see that I have owned three generations of 911, and also have extensive wheel-time with a friend's 89 3.2. Comparing them head-to-head, the 964's AC is better, the ride is more forgiving, and the steering more "assisted" than in the 3.2. I also find the 964 to be much faster than the 3.2 off the line. Despite the similar looks, the 964 was almost a complete redesign of parts and systems. This could be viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing due to the added complexity (electronics, etc.). From what I have seen, maintenance is more expensive in the 964 than the 3.2.

In short, I believe that the 3.2 is the last of the old school "visceral" 911s, and the 964 is the first "new school" attempt by Porsche to make the 911 more appealing to the masses. As a DD, I would have to go with the 964 because of the creature comforts. It still has plenty of 911 soul, but has lost a little bit in the transition...

And this is why I want to have an SC in the garage as my "throwback" 911 weekend car... It was just so raw!

My $0.02,
-Blake

ked

here's a current thread on Pelican about 911 AC...
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?t=396201
mine is the original '87 system except for the use of "duracool" HC-12a style refrigerant. I add about a can every year or 2. my ac is fine even in AL summer, but I don't leave it in the sun cooking all day. For a coupla years ('02-04) it was my daily driver (& I wore a suit to work). I do know that it is possible to get excellent ac in a Carrera, but it takes a systems approach as noted in the Pelican post. No Porsche I am aware of has AC quite as good as my folks '69 Sedan deVille. Porsche was one of the world auto industry leaders in minimizing rust, working w/ Krupp when they jointly developed galvanized steel for chassis & body panels. Ferry's challenge to design & engineering was to create a Porsche that would last forever when properly serviced. With the last of the hand-assembled 911s ('89 3.2 Carreras) they came pretty close - this standard was one contributor to Porsche almost going out of business at the time. Since then, all manufacturers have had to cost-engineer world cars for price-competitive & regulatory reasons. Modern hi-perf cars are great, but they will not be easy to own past 250K+ miles. I think the GT3 comes close, but that engine is derived from our old-school air/oil cooled design.

Streetfighter

Blake,
What can I say I love the 911 crowd, these guys have been more than helpful with answering my questions and following up with me. In terms of rust I am thinking of earlier 911's that I have seen and that is what has been flanking my thought pattern. I agree with you the 3.2 is the last of the old school. Still there is something about an old 911 that stirs the soul.
Ked,
Man you are a bucket full of information, thanks for the link I will look into it.