cal44

Funny about this conversation. In one of my Porsche magazines it stated that the SC was next. The SC guys were all excited, now I guess it's our turn. In my quest to find the best (in my opinion) all around car I decided on the Carrera. Lets see, can buy a fairly nice coupe for 18K +/-, that is comfy, air conditioned and will go 145mph and gets 23 miles to a gallon.
Oh' I forgot, sounds really neat.
I cannot believe how cheap these cars are selling for now. One thing I have noticed about ads for othe years of 911. Alot of times in the ad it states, Carrera updates such as bla, bla, bla. So I figure why not just buy a Carrera? Just an opinion

Brett San Diego

Looks like you have lived by your word... twice. LOL

That article naming the SC was in the most recent Excellence. I made it a point to read it to my wife. So whenever she complains about the cars, I have some backing when I tell her that that garage is a gold mine with a 78 SC in rare color combination (and Parade Concours winner) and a 356. The only problem right now, is that both of them are only good for paperweights. LOL That's a tough one to argue my way around.

Brett

Peter Zimmermann

This thread reminded me of a post that I responded to a few years ago. That thread involved someone who was advised by a shop to not purchase an SC, and encouraged to buy a 3.2 Carrera instead. I can’t find my post, but it was largely a cost/benefit study of the two cars, and went something like this based on hand-written scribbles in my file.

The newest SC is a 1983, the oldest 3.2 is an ’84, and a nice ’81 is only five years older than a good ’86. Needless to say, we’re not talking Model As and Mustangs. The first thing we do is throw out the comparables of the two models. The SC and Carrera, through ’86, all use the same clutch, and engine removal is no more difficult on one as the other. The ’87-89 3.2 cars use a different, more expensive, clutch. It is no more reliable, requires additional labor, and the flywheel, if worn, can’t be machined. I think that it’s safe to say that the clutch is a wash.

Starter motors, shock absorbers, tires, suspension components, brakes, etc., are pretty much the same on both models. SCs and ’84-86 Carreras use a clutch cable; ’87-89 Carreras use a slave cylinder and related hydraulics. Those items can be considered a wash because replacement frequency is similar. Minor and major services on both models are fairly equal in both labor times, parts, and mileage periods; and life expectancy of alternators, motor mounts and oxygen sensors aren’t different enough to mention.

Let’s look at the “replace once in a blue moon” items. They are reference sensors (3.2), oxygen sensor relay (SC), auxiliary air valve (SC), injectors (both), decal valve (SC), idle control valve (3.2), and throttle switch (3.2). Another pretty equal category, I would have to say.

The biggie repairs are ones that a super-sized wallet can make easier. Each model has a glitch in this category; SCs (some more than others) suffer from broken cylinder head studs, and 3.2 cars (some) suffer from high oil consumption. Cost-wise those two jobs are comparable, certainly close enough to not weigh one model against the other.

All SCs and the first three years of 3.2 cars use the same transmission, the 915, so that’s a wash. Enter the G 50, used in ’87-89 Carreras, that’s a bullet-proof unit that should last at least 250,000 miles. So, the ’87-89 cars edge ahead in our “race.” But wait a minute! The typical SC synchro repair will cost between $1500 and $2500 (more for a “rebuild”), while the typical 3.2 car with a G 50 will cost $5,000 - $8,000 more than a comparable condition SC to buy. Of course, you get power seats and improved A/C along with the great trans. But that, in my mind, is not sufficient cause to eliminate an SC (or ’84-86 Carrera) from consideration.

Let’s explore other typical repairs that SCs and 3.2 cars require over time. I’ll mention here that this is pretty consistent through 200K miles, beyond that many “repairs” become “restorations.” We’ll start with the famous SC airbox; replacement will set the SC owner back $1200 - $1400. On the flip side, the 3.2 Carrera’s air flow meter will fail in a way that the car will still run, but fail its annual/bi-annual smog inspection. Replacement is necessary; and the cost will be $800 - $900. CIS fuel injection (SCs) use a part called a Control Pressure Regulator, aka Warm-Up Regulator. The part is rarely replaced, most often when moisture has entered the car’s fuel system. With moisture present all bets are off for both models! The part is available for about $600, and labor/setup adds another $200. On the other side, 3.2 Carreras have a pair of engine compartment fuel lines that require replacement, which, including intake manifold R&I, will remove about $1,000 from your wallet. Back to the SCs, and a part called an accumulator which will cost about $350 (diagnosis and labor replacement is minimal). 3.2 Carreras have two relatively small issues, one can leave you stranded (DME relay); the other will make the car exhibit unusual symptoms (cylinder head temp sensor). The relay will cost you about $50, the sensor about $350 installed. So, at this point, repair costs are $2350 (SCs) and $2150 (3.2s). Have we got evidence yet that SCs should be avoided, or even be reduced to a second-tier car? I think not.

Upgrades. OK, Carrera tensioners. That’s about it, and so many SCs have had this done it’s almost like they were original equipment anyway. Yes, we can mention anti-roll bars with increased diameters, but don’t forget, if you “must do” them to an SC, you also must “upgrade” ‘84/85 Carreras with them also.
I think that this post clearly shows that either car (SC or Carrera) is worth consideration, and that for every potential purchase, condition should be the overwhelming factor. I've been quoted saying that, "I've never met an '89 that I didn't like." The same can be said for an '83. Like I said earlier, we’re not talking Model As and Mustangs here.

red89

All things equal, it's easier to find the later cars in excellent condition. I've tended to buy the last year of manufacture. A '73 squareback, 03' BMW 5 series, '04 Tacoma, '97 TT, and my '89 3.2. The last year of a car will be more appreciated and have better care.

Peter Zimmermann

Actually I don't agree. I've maintained '78 SCs that were perfect, and '83 SCs that had three wheels in a wrecking yard and the fourth in an oil leak. I've taken care of '89s that had cigar butts ground out on the carpet, and '84s that were well kept enough to proudly show at a concours, or win a trophy at Streets of Willow. I will say that the last year of a run; the '59 A model, the '65 SC, the '71 T or S, the '83 SC, or the '89 Carrera, all have favorable engineering improvements implemented during that particular model's run. But to say that they "will be more appreciated and have better care" might be your experience, it certainly isn't mine.

KC911

A 3.2 as a "future classic"? Total rubbish imo...mine already is !

Keith
'88 CE coupe

Amber Gramps

When I got to the point that I knew I would have a 911 I knew exactly what I wanted. I knew down to the exact color, year, options. As I started shopping I opened up to other priorities like condition and what my wife liked. We saw 911's that loked like Pintos and would have needed total restoration. Mine came up for sale and It was so perfect compared to the junkers we were seeing that it was a no brainer.
Now that I have spent a couple years looking at them, thinking about them, and dreaming about them I like them all. Let me qualify that...I like the older ones. It's not just a case of envy as you may think. They have an appeal that isn't easy to explain. Now that I have an '88 that isn't sure if it is blue, green, or purple, I love it. It isn't white like the other three cars in my driveway, but it is exactly the perfect color for a 911. I don't think I have seen an undesirable 911. They are all classics. They all deserve to be pampered and treated as the best car in the stable.


EDIT: Let me add that my car is nowhere near perfect, it needs paint, carpet, A/C and some other stuff, but will it all be worth it and will I get my money out of it if I ever need to sell. Who knows? Who cares?

Peter Zimmermann

The perfect attitude for a paranoia-free driving experience in a car designed for driving! I have owned cars that I took over the top, making them so nice I didn't want to drive them anymore. In each case I quickly tired of the car and sold it. I had great difficulty wearing out an almost perfect car, including valve guides and exposure to door dings - certainly a sickness opposite to that of a concours guy, who lives to keep his car at the 99 point level. I drive my 911s; they get a little road rash, a little dirt under the fenders, the rear seats accumulate dust, but, like douglas, I use it for what it was intended.

g-50cab

Amen - drive it - don't just polish it!

rnln

Have you ever posted picture of your car Doug?

rnln

well, don't just drive it. Best is to polish and drive, drive and polish. If you keep driving it, you won't like it much since it's dirty. If you keep polishing it, you won't want to make it dirty by driving it and you will want to sell it.

Amber Gramps

NO! IT'S MY CAR!

This is way too many for one post.

Peter Zimmermann

My favorite is the discombomberated (is that a word?) engine compartment/fuel system picture - that needs a special place in this forum!

Amber Gramps

That was a dark day Pete, but a cake walk compared to my first valve adjustment. Half the value of my car, to me, is the mental challenge of disassembly and the triumph of a succesful re-assembly.

cal44

Damn Mr. Z, I just passed on a '83 911 coupe with 75K miles and champagne in color, it was lovely for 16K. After reading you comparison post I am now kicking myself. When will I learn? When......