The 3.2 Carrera as a future classic?
#46
Advanced
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland, Yemen, Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the word is, 'Discombobulated' Pete; of course I'd dare not correct you on anything else : )
These cars were made for driving. If you really want to have a garage queen, then as said previously, have two.
To own and not to drive and use as a regular part of your day to day life would be a shame and unnecessary...............especially with the build quality and level of interest that most people have here, it's a lot less likely to fall apart than your other vehicle.
My 0.2c
These cars were made for driving. If you really want to have a garage queen, then as said previously, have two.
To own and not to drive and use as a regular part of your day to day life would be a shame and unnecessary...............especially with the build quality and level of interest that most people have here, it's a lot less likely to fall apart than your other vehicle.
My 0.2c
#47
Rennlist Member
These cars were made for driving. If you really want to have a garage queen, then as said previously, have two.
To own and not to drive and use as a regular part of your day to day life would be a shame and unnecessary...............especially with the build quality and level of interest that most people have here, it's a lot less likely to fall apart than your other vehicle.
My 0.2c
To own and not to drive and use as a regular part of your day to day life would be a shame and unnecessary...............especially with the build quality and level of interest that most people have here, it's a lot less likely to fall apart than your other vehicle.
My 0.2c
With all that said, I still miss my 79 SC Targa. It needed more work than it was worth, so I decided to part ways a few years back. In hindsight, I should have kept it and made it a restoration project. I will always love SCs, and hope to own another someday.... To me, it already is a classic.
Great thread, btw... Thanks for posting.
-Blake
Last edited by blake; 07-11-2008 at 03:16 AM.
#48
Burning Brakes
Pete,
Could an argument be made for a 3.2 liter Carrera over a SC in an area where ethanol fuel is forced upon an owner? I've been led to believe that the SC CIS fuel injected motor has more metal fuel components coming in contact with the fuel than on a 3.2 liter motor. I also assume there is more water content in fuel with ethanol. If a car is used regularly, I don't see much of a problem since the fuel won't sit all that long in a fuel line or fuel component. However, for seldom used cars, would the 3.2 be better if you have to run high ethanol content fuel?
I'm also aware that Porsche designed the 3.2 Carrera to accept 10% ethanol fuel. Is that the same for SC's?
Thanks,
Jay
Could an argument be made for a 3.2 liter Carrera over a SC in an area where ethanol fuel is forced upon an owner? I've been led to believe that the SC CIS fuel injected motor has more metal fuel components coming in contact with the fuel than on a 3.2 liter motor. I also assume there is more water content in fuel with ethanol. If a car is used regularly, I don't see much of a problem since the fuel won't sit all that long in a fuel line or fuel component. However, for seldom used cars, would the 3.2 be better if you have to run high ethanol content fuel?
I'm also aware that Porsche designed the 3.2 Carrera to accept 10% ethanol fuel. Is that the same for SC's?
Thanks,
Jay
Keith
'88 CE coupe
edit: ps: Looking forward to what Pete Z. comes up with...interesting subject.
#49
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I have always found Pete’s advice, both here and in his book, top-notch. That comparison of SC and 3.2 Carrera’s really spells it out well and reinforces the idea that condition is the most important factor.
I think it is fair to say that if you have an SC and 3.2 in equally good condition, with similar miles etc, the 3.2 should eek out a small bit of a premium based on the engine, which is a of course a little more powerful and the numerous small improvements Porsche made year-to-year. (This is true even comparing different year SCs to each other as well as different year Carreras.)
Age may be a small factor (even given equal condition) as certain rubber parts etc. do perish over time. So, for a ’78 SC and ’86 Carrera, though both 915 cars, the Carrera in this case is almost a decade newer.
Of course, it’s a moot point if we are talking, let’s say, an ’83 SC and ‘85 Carrera.
As for that article, I found in interesting. Most often, people dismiss the collectability of these cars based on the (relatively) high volume and their build quality (i.e. they last well, so remain fairly numerous). I tend to suspect that there is real classic potential in these cars. The values may take a LONG time to get noticeably high, but I think these cars do have the “icon” status and will always be intrinsically desirable. It is fascinating to hear people tell of the Speedsters or early 911s that they sold very cheap years ago. At that time, no one thought those cars would ever be classics either!
I don’t let any of that get in the way of enjoying the car though! Although the low-mileage, super-original cars will always be the most valuable, I think a very-well looked after, high-mileage example will have value in the future as well.
I think it is fair to say that if you have an SC and 3.2 in equally good condition, with similar miles etc, the 3.2 should eek out a small bit of a premium based on the engine, which is a of course a little more powerful and the numerous small improvements Porsche made year-to-year. (This is true even comparing different year SCs to each other as well as different year Carreras.)
Age may be a small factor (even given equal condition) as certain rubber parts etc. do perish over time. So, for a ’78 SC and ’86 Carrera, though both 915 cars, the Carrera in this case is almost a decade newer.
Of course, it’s a moot point if we are talking, let’s say, an ’83 SC and ‘85 Carrera.
As for that article, I found in interesting. Most often, people dismiss the collectability of these cars based on the (relatively) high volume and their build quality (i.e. they last well, so remain fairly numerous). I tend to suspect that there is real classic potential in these cars. The values may take a LONG time to get noticeably high, but I think these cars do have the “icon” status and will always be intrinsically desirable. It is fascinating to hear people tell of the Speedsters or early 911s that they sold very cheap years ago. At that time, no one thought those cars would ever be classics either!
I don’t let any of that get in the way of enjoying the car though! Although the low-mileage, super-original cars will always be the most valuable, I think a very-well looked after, high-mileage example will have value in the future as well.
#50
Rennlist Member
I think it is fair to say that if you have an SC and 3.2 in equally good condition, with similar miles etc, the 3.2 should eek out a small bit of a premium based on the engine, which is a of course a little more powerful and the numerous small improvements Porsche made year-to-year. (This is true even comparing different year SCs to each other as well as different year Carreras.)
As for that article, I found in interesting. Most often, people dismiss the collectability of these cars based on the (relatively) high volume and their build quality (i.e. they last well, so remain fairly numerous). I tend to suspect that there is real classic potential in these cars. The values may take a LONG time to get noticeably high, but I think these cars do have the “icon” status and will always be intrinsically desirable. It is fascinating to hear people tell of the Speedsters or early 911s that they sold very cheap years ago. At that time, no one thought those cars would ever be classics either!
I agree with this also, but there are some pretty powerful voices out there that don't agree with your high-mileage example component. I've always believed that a non-deteriorating chassis (such as our cars have) will always have value equal to condition and level of deferred maintenance. Parts cars aside (from rust, accidents, abuse, whatever) 911s that were built between '78 and 89 are all worth saving, and all have value. For a buyer to ignore a good one might be a costly mistake.
#51
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Louisville, Kentucky.
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always liked the M coupe, but always thought of it as modern Volvo 1800ES on steroids. A true love it or leave it. Kinda obscure, maybe a bit too obscure.
Douglas, funny, the pic of the AMC. Did you know the designer of the 928 actually used the Pacer as inspiration for the 928's roof? Swear.
Douglas, funny, the pic of the AMC. Did you know the designer of the 928 actually used the Pacer as inspiration for the 928's roof? Swear.
#57
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The first time I seriously looked at buying a 3.2 Carrera I met up with a very nice gentleman who was selling his ’87, having recently purchased a 993. He had used his 3.2 for track days and was looking for something a little more modern and faster (i.e. 993).
Although I did not end up purchasing his car, we stayed a little in touch and after a couple of months (with his ’87 now gone to a new home) I asked him how he was enjoying his 993. His response was that the 993 was great and he loved it, but there was a special feel to the 3.2 which he missed too. His high-school-aged daughter had remarked that the new car was a lot “softer” – which I assume meant less raw.
I can certainly see why it would nice to have both!
As for the price trend, I agree, the cars are not getting cheaper. Although the economic slowdown in North America is definitely real, the influx of European interest is offsetting this.
Although I did not end up purchasing his car, we stayed a little in touch and after a couple of months (with his ’87 now gone to a new home) I asked him how he was enjoying his 993. His response was that the 993 was great and he loved it, but there was a special feel to the 3.2 which he missed too. His high-school-aged daughter had remarked that the new car was a lot “softer” – which I assume meant less raw.
I can certainly see why it would nice to have both!
As for the price trend, I agree, the cars are not getting cheaper. Although the economic slowdown in North America is definitely real, the influx of European interest is offsetting this.
#58
Rennlist Member
I think that's true, but I also think that the "window" in which cars are still selling has grown much tighter. The buyer who has $10K, and only $10K, will no longer buy a $10K car and worry about all the things that car might need "next week." With that segment of the market on life support only the very best cars (that very small window) are going to sell, either when word of mouth is strong, or marketing the car is done very well.
#59
hell of a deal
In this context the fact that my '86 3.2 might be a classic only means that the cost/mile of ownership might be a little lower.
If I got 20k for my coupe the cost per mile would be under 80 cents, our about what it costs to operate your standard driving appliance.
My 'vette cost about $1.25 aound nd my wife's Honda CRV will probably come in around 50 cents.
For the fun I've had,the experiences and the people I've met, 80 cts a mile is a hell of a deal.
If I got 20k for my coupe the cost per mile would be under 80 cents, our about what it costs to operate your standard driving appliance.
My 'vette cost about $1.25 aound nd my wife's Honda CRV will probably come in around 50 cents.
For the fun I've had,the experiences and the people I've met, 80 cts a mile is a hell of a deal.
#60
Peter,
I recently purchased your book, and it is invaluable - good stuff and great info.
I am currently looking at an '88 3.2 Targa - are there any specific issues associated with a low mileage car of 21k miles? Thanks for your help.
Gerry
I recently purchased your book, and it is invaluable - good stuff and great info.
I am currently looking at an '88 3.2 Targa - are there any specific issues associated with a low mileage car of 21k miles? Thanks for your help.
Gerry