Help me decide:
Is it better to buy a 83 911 SC w/100K in good shape or wait and save for a 87-89 Carrera. Is there a big preformance gain, less problems, more reliable?

Please help, I am going to decide soon.

 

I am also interested in this question. I have a 1983 SC which I am slowly nurturing back to health (subject to my cash flow), as the previous owner did not take good care of it. I always wonder if I should trade up to a 87-89. Thanks.

 

Well...I guess it all depends.

The 911 SC has a 3.0 liter engine with CIS injection and the 915 transmission.

The '87-'89 Carrera has a 3.2 liter engine with DME and a G50 transmission.

Most prefer the G50 transmission over the 915. However, you might want to drive cars with both and see which appeals to you.

The DME improves the engine efficiency (gas mileage), and it also allows for it to be modified with performance chips.

I don't have performance specs in front of me, so I can't quote 0-60 times or horsepower figures for the 3.0 vs. the 3.2.

The 911 SC is known as one of the most reliable 911's. The 3.2's are also known for reliability, but premature valve guide wear has affected some of the '87 - '89 cars.

I wish I had the typical market values of the two cars, so you could get an idea of *how much more* the '87 - '89 would run. Then you could make an educated decision as to whether it's worth it to you.

Hope this helps!

-- Melissa

 

To follow up a little to Melissa's post, the August 2001 issue of Excellence lists the following values:

Excellent condition 1983 911SC: $20,550
Good condition 1983 911SC: $15,351

Excellent condition 1987 911: $26,688
Good condition 1987 911: $19,936

These values are for coupes only.

1988 and 1989 coupes increase by about $2000 per year in the values.

I'd take a mint '83 SC over an abused '87. It's up to what you like, your budget and what you plan to use the 911 for.

My books show the USA '83 SC motor rated at 176 hp and 175 ft lbs. and factory quoted times ran about 6.7 sec from 0-60.

The US '87-'89 Carrera were rated at 214 hp and 195 ft. lbs. Factory quoted 0-60 times were about 6.1 seconds.

Don't forget about the '84-'86 Carreras. Those were great cars too and are not much more than a nice SC.

My brother owns a '83 SC and I used to own a '86 Carrera. I feel the Carrera motor had more torque at lower revs than the SC and seemed to be a little more flexible around town. But, the 3.0 SC motor is a fantastic, reliable motor as well.

If your budget allows for a nice, late Carrera (i.e. '88 or '89), you may want to check out the early 964 models as well. Prices seem to be quite low for the early 964 cars and there seems to be some deals out there on those cars. More power and conveniences (but more maintenance costs) come with the 964.

Again, it's up to you on what you will use the 911 for and what your budget allows.

Hope this helps,
Jay
90 964

 

While many consider the later trans a bonus, do factor in the amazing cost of a clutch replacement on the later units.

I like the 915: don't avoid this trans, but try them both and see.

Jw

 

Jay sums up the cost vs. value factors quite nicely in his post.

But one other thing to think about is D-I-Y friendliness. It's a rule of thumb, that the earlier the car, the easier it is to work on (by ones self). If you like to take control of this aspect of car ownership, consider this as well.

 

Thank you all very much for your replies, I will let you how it goes.

 

This more a gut response to your question, than technical one. As it turns out we (my wide and I) own both a 1983 SC and 1987 Carrera. The Carrera as 125K miles on it and the SC 75K. The Carrera is my wife's work car (very long story) and the SC is our Sunday car. The following is a summary of our experience.
Carrera:
Showing some signs of valve guide wear,
(only real negative I can think of)
In our Carrera is not as in as good as the SC, but still looks great
I really like the transmission in the Carrera much better than the SC
(much smother)
It gets better gas mileage (22 miles per and better when I can keep my foot out of it, that doesn't happen often)
The ride seems to be little softer, a little isolated for the feel of the road.
SC
Transmission is not as smooth
Gas mileage is not as road
Ride is stiffer
Why do we still have the SC??
I love to drive it.
I really do have problem, when I go the garage on Sunday I have to pick which one of the two cars I will drive. The SC is the one wife and I most often take out if we are just looking for a good ride.
This may not be much help, but here are my suggestions:
Drive both
Get them inspected by a trusted professional
Evaluate the value
In the end if they both are in good condition it not an issue of right and wrong they are simple different.

 

This more a gut response to your question, than technical one. As it turns out we (my wide and I) own both a 1983 SC and 1987 Carrera. The Carrera as 125K miles on it and the SC 75K. The Carrera is my wife's work car (very long story) and the SC is our Sunday car. The following is a summary of our experience.
Carrera:
Showing some signs of valve guide wear,
(only real negative I can think of)
In our Carrera is not as in as good as the SC, but still looks great
I really like the transmission in the Carrera much better than the SC
(much smother)
It gets better gas mileage (22 miles per and better when I can keep my foot out of it, that doesn't happen often)
The ride seems to be little softer, a little isolated for the feel of the road.
SC
Transmission is not as smooth
Gas mileage is not as road
Ride is stiffer
Why do we still have the SC??
I love to drive it.
I really do have problem, when I go the garage on Sunday I have to pick which one of the two cars I will drive. The SC is the one wife and I most often take out if we are just looking for a good ride.
This may not be much help, but here are my suggestions:
Drive both
Get them inspected by a trusted professional
Evaluate the value
In the end if they both are in good condition it not an issue of right and wrong they are simple different.