Streetfighter

As some of you know I have been on the search for a 3.2 while also keeping an eye on the 964. I have been reading that a 3.2 is capable of going a 100,000 miles plus without a top end rebuild. Why is a 964 not capable of this? Second many members have mentioned that you can defer maintenance on the 3.2 more so than other 911 models? As some of you know. Currently, I am still on the fence. I really enjoy the 964, a little bit more modern and a touch faster, but I also had a lot of fun in the 3.2. Which leaves one last question. With the 915 gearbox and G50 which is more capable of power shifting? I know this is not something to be done on a regular basis, but on spirited drives once in a while.

meek

May be worth posting this on the 964 forum, or better still doing a good search of it. There are plenty of 964s out there with mileage well in excess of 100k and no engine work. Personally, I feel that Porsche specialist garages do far to much self interest promoting of the idea that 964s need a rebuild at 100k; all 911s for that matter.

Auto_Werks 3.6

sounds like you really want the g-50...

whalebird

a good 964 will go for hundreds of thousands miles. No differance in maintenance IMHO. All 911 are finicky and have their issues, but a 964 is a lot faster than any 3.2. Airbags and ABS is nice.

Streetfighter

Actually I really do enjoy both cars. I guess my question is if you were in my shoes which one would you pick? In terms of daily driving, limited track days, and a car that you can work on?

ked

"...a 964 is a lot faster than any 3.2."
can't concur, but your definitions of "a lot faster" & "any" may differ from mine. Frere lists the top speed of 3.2s @ 151-157, the 964 161-164.

meek

Streetfighter, I don't think any of us can be in your shoes. The decision really comes down to what you fancy. If you don't mind having either, you should just go with the very best example of either model you can find within your budget.

There really is very little difference in performance from a 3.2 right up to to the latest standard 997. Yes, the 997 is bar-room faster, but would you really notice through the seat of you pants? The 964 is slightly more civilized than the 3.2 but, not THAT much. I preferred the looks of the 964 over the 3.2 or even the 993, so that is what I went for. Which model floats your boat looks wise? You are the one that will be looking at it everyday.

Mike Murphy

The 3.2 was more susceptible to valve guide issues than the 964, but that doesn't mean it can't happen to a 964. It can and does happen to the 993s as well. In any case, there isn't a 911 that is more reliable than another, aside from some very specific years and very specific issues. For example, the SC is considered bullet-proof if only you change the chain tensioners to Carrera-type and have the head studs checked. The 3.2 is bullet-proof if only you don't have a valve guide issue.

Deferring maintenance on any of these cars will have the same effect: reduced longevity & potentially high repair costs. Change the fluids and adjust the valves regularly.

The stock G50 can be shifted faster than a 915 and is easier to drive. But you can get the 915 to that level by some simple upgrades.

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.

Streetfighter

Murphyslaw, thanks for the reply that was exactly what I was looking for. In terms of the transmission. My experience with the 915 transmission at least so far doesn't warrant any speed shifting. I understand that any Porsche that is not taken care of is going to have issues. Well I will have to continue doing my research and asking questions here and there. Thanks for all the replies I appreciate it.

Streetfighter

I mean more in the torque range and bringing the car up to speed on highway ramp. Not top speed, really very rarely are you going to reach 150 mph speeds.

Mike Murphy

I see that you're also in Chicago. Where abouts? I can recommend a few places to test drive Porsches if that interests you. It's fun to do, costs no money, and can help in finding the right car.

Streetfighter

Really? I am in Palatine, I would be very interested if you don't mind?

GothingNC

I know of two ex-964 owners that went back to pre-87 911's, they felt "dis-connected" driving the newer model

John

kusee pee

I've had the luck of owning both. The 964 first. In terms of driving enjoyment the 3.2 gets the nod but only just - the only real benefit is the lack of power steering which makes cornering an awesome experience. However, to live with as a daily driver (and to thrash the crap out of without worrying about missing a gear) the 964 was much better. I'm glad I've owned both (and the 964 turbo - another story altogether). IMO it's better to own the 964 first if it's your first porsche then move back to the 3.2 or earlier once you're convinced that 911 world really is for you. The earlier cars (particularly with the 915) are more difficult to live with IMO. Don't fret too much though - both are truly awesome.

g-50cab

I started with a 964 targa and now have a g-50 3.2 (actually a 3.4)
3.2 and 964's and 993's all suffer from valve guide wear. As far as 3.2's being more susceptible to valve guide wear - that's bunk - they are all susceptible - the 3.2's are older - so they are showing it first.
The 964’s are a lot of bang for the buck - twin plug, more torque, g-50, power steering, power brakes, coil overs, ABS, bigger brakes, etc. But for pure go-kart feel - it’s tough to beat a Carrera.
90 feels like 130 in a 3.2 130 feels like 90 mph in a 964.
Drive both and see what suits you -