I wouldn't rule out a 964 without at least taking one for a test drive. Assuming you have the non-S Boxster, you'll find that a 964 C2 with 250 HP (compared to the Boxster's ~220) is noticeably quicker than the Boxster, and the brakes are IMO quite a bit better (easier to modulate and stronger). The Boxster does handle better though.

Also, if you're worried about heat, the 964's have a fan cooled external oil cooler in the front fender well, and I've NEVER heard of a 964 owner complaining of their car overheating, even in stop and go summer traffic. Some 964 owners have actually tried to heat up their engine to test the oil cooler fan (which turns on automatically at a certain temperature), and still can't get it to overheat.

The 964 A/C works well here in the Houston summers if parked in a garage. If sitting in the sun all day, it takes about 5 minutes to cool the car down, and it needs to be moving to cool well. Not sure how it compares to the 3.2L A/C. Also, the 964 A/C can be converted to R134 which is much less expensive than R12 ($5 per pound compared to $60 per pound).

As far as wrenching on the car yourself, what do you anticipate doing? If it's oil changes, brake pads, brake bleeding, valve adjustments, and other routine maintenance, I don't think the 964 is much more difficult, if at all, than a 3.2L except for the valve adjustment, which requires removal of part of the exhaust.

An early 90's 964 is about the same price as a 3.2L 911, although you will spend more in maintenance and on parts. The 3.2L will also hold its value better and, long term, will be a more desireable car to Porsche enthusiasts.

Drew
92 C2

 

[quote]Originally posted by Drew_K:
<strong> The 3.2L will also hold its value better and, long term, will be a more desireable car to Porsche enthusiasts.

Drew
92 C2</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wondering what this assumption is based on?

Dave Flaherty

 

Dave, value retention and long term desireability are based on a general impression I get from this board, Pelican Parts, classifieds, and market reports from Excellence.

According to Excellence, the values of the 3.2L's have been pretty steady for the past few years and have even ticked upward a little. Also according to Excellence, 964's values leveled off for the first time in 2001. For 2002, 964 prices have really taken a dive based on following local PCA and newspaper classifieds. A recent issue of 911 & Porsche World also recognized that the 964's have taken the biggest depreciation hit of any Porsche for the past year. I've seen the same 964 ad (84K miles) in the paper for the past month, and the price has dropped from $32K, to $29K, to $27K. Early 964's can be found from the low to mid $20K's.

Certainly not scientific, but I think it's pretty accurate. Excellence seems to be a good source; their values are on the high side, IMO, but their trends seem to be accurate.

As far as long term desireability, the 964's have a reputation as unreliable, expensive to fix and maintain, and for expensive oil leaks. I believe most Porsche enthusiasts would recommend the 87-89 3.2L's with the G50 gearbox as the starting point for 911 shopping, or perhaps an SC.

I don't want to malign the 964, and I certainly don't want to see its value drop since I currently own a 92 C2, which I love. But I think they'll always be viewed as the red headed step child between the classic 3.2L and pinnacle of the 993.

Anyone else agree/disagree?

 

[quote]Originally posted by Drew_K:
[QB/]
But I think they'll always be viewed as the red headed step child between the classic 3.2L and pinnacle of the 993.

[QB]<hr></blockquote>

I've been trying to figure this out lately. A 964 will be my next Porsche. Let me break this down and then please comment and correct me where I'm wrong.

Engine: same basic engine as previous 3.0L and 3.2L cars but with bigger bores and two distributors.
Suspension: similar design to 993 and 996?
Transmission: Same 5-speed as '87+ 3.2L cars?

I can see where it gets the red-headed step child moniker, but I would certainly say that if you want a classic 911 body style with the most modern running gear the 964 is the obvious choice. And they are cheap too, as you mentioned. Shhhhh, it's our little secret.

Thanks,
Dave Flaherty

 

Thanks to so many of you for the replies. I live in AZ and that is why my concerns over the A/C surfaced (I think it has been over 105 degrees all week here).

Anyone with a 3.0 or 3.2 911 in AZ that drives her in the summer?

What can be done in the aftermarket to improve the A/C to the 3.0/3.2L's? (better compressors, etc...)

Thanks!

 

Hey Dave,

As you noted, the 964's have the same basic engine design (air cooled flat 6) as the earlier 911's but use two spark plugs per cylinder.

The 964's use coil springs at all wheels instead of the torsion bars used in earlier 911's. The 964 and 993 have the same basic front suspension- MacPherson struts- but the 964 has a semitrailing arm rear suspension whereas the 993 has a multilink rear suspension.

The 964's and 87+ 3.2L's have the G50 gearbox, but supposedly the 964 version of the G50 shifts better. That's according to magazine reviews from that time. I've never done a back to back comparison myself, so I can't verify one way or the other. The 964's have a hydraulic clutch as opposed to being cable operated.

The 964's also have 4 piston caliper brakes in front. The 92-94 models also have them in the rear. Regardless of the mechanicals, the 964 brakes are tremendous. Not sure how they compare to the 3.2L cars.

Drew
92 C2

 

I was able to compare the G50 in an '88 cab vs. my 90 C2 G50 recently.

As we all know, the G50 in the '87-'89 cars is a huge improvement over the 915 in the ease of shifting department. The 964 G50 seems to shift a bit crisper and more precise. The throws also seem to be shorter on the 964 shifter. Porsche definitely worked on making the 964 shift more smoothly than the previous models.

Though, I'm still a fan of the 915 tranny too...

Jay
90 964

 

An older 911 can hold its own quite well against the newer, heavier Porsches. My friends and I with sc's all drive faster lap times than the boxsters. The only Porsches we have some trouble with are the pre-74's when set up right. And 911fan, if you live in Phoenix and are unsure about the performance of an sc or carrera 3.2, you might want to see my 80sc run at the track. Of course, there is nothing going on righ now since it is too hot, but come fall, I will be out there every other weekend. You can come and check it and my friend's cars out. We all have a few mods done. Mostly suspension. Only one of us has done an engine swap. But in the end, we all lap about the same speeds, regardless of displacement. We also have a couple of 964's that run with us. One is an rs america. Again, we all lap together. So again, hp is not king. I drive my car year round with no problems. I have no ac in mine, but my sister has a carrera 3.2 targa and the ac in her car is pretty good. But could be better. The weakness in the 911 ac is lack of condenser area. That can be rectified. Go ahead and contact me so maybe we can get together and talk Porsches. Since I live over in Scottsdale, it should be pretty easy.