112344

I am in the market for a used 911. Have narrowed choice to 1989 3.2 liter 911 or 3.6 liter model 964 911. Friends are split. Some advocate 1989 car as more traditional -- what a Porsche should be, but later model also has advantages: larger engine and other mechanical improvements, along with comfort, safety and simply a newer automobile. Would appreciate any comments, advise or opinions.

I am new to this forum, but the postings I have read are excellent and I can't wait to get my Porsche and become a regular participant. Thanks for responding.

HJM

JackOlsen

In my opinion, if you get the Carrera, you're always going to be wondering what the extra 30 horses would have felt like.

Not to mention the torque...

Jeff Curtis

HJM, I gotta say there's no comparison when talking performance. The 3.6 continues to amaze both my friends and I.

I have a moderately modified suspension, big sway bars and big sticky tires...just like I had on my SC - but the 964 could run cirles around my SC!

I've driven several 3.2 Carreras, yes, they can be made faster...but it's tough to match the performance of a completely stock 3.6 powerplant. The torque is unbelievable to the butt-dyno when compared to the 3.2 and 3.0 SC. ...and that, coupled with a G-50 gearbox is just a world of difference.

I'm not trying to advocate the 964 whatsoever, just relaying my experiences with the MANY 911s I've driven over the years, on the track and on the streets.

Ed Bighi

I don't know, but my buddies and I run sc's, carreras and 964's on the track, and none of us have ever run rings around each other and pretty much keep the same pace. Including an sc with a 3.6. Not to mention we are all driving ***** out hard since we all get a few black flags per session for overagressiveness. Sure there are plenty of times we run rings around much less experienced guys in sc's, carreras, 964's, boxster s's and 996's, but not each other. Some days on some tracks some of us are faster than others, but nothing a little late braking can't help. My buddies with the 964's wish they could run rings around the carrera guys as the carrera guys wish they could rin rings around the 964 guys. Having spent plenty of time swapping our cars, we have found the performance envelopes too close for that kind of domination. The only 911 I have driven in the last year that was lapping the field every few laps was a 964 turbo S 3.6 with a lot of modifications and somewhere in the neighborhood of over 500hp. This thing made a 996 turbo seem like a ***** cat. The handling was a little too forgiving for my tastes, but nonetheless, very fast. And that was with me taking it easy since it is one of only less than 60 in the US. To me the single area that weakens the performance of an sc or carrera 3.2 is the suspension being too soft. On bigger torsion bars these cars change like night to day.

DaveS

I went through the same decision process and got a 92 C2 for a number of reasons.

The pricing for the late 80s Carreras is still pretty strong. Testimony to the car, demand for it and the bad rap the 964s have to some out there. I got a good 92 C2 for the same price if not cheaper than the 88s or 89s. I also felt that the better safety features such as ABS and air bags (I use the car as a daily driver) were a plus.

I think it is pretty easy to find a 964 that has been sorted out with the distributor venting taken care of and the dual mass flywheel swapped out during a normal clutch repair. As for the perceived cylinder head gasket leakage problem, I have not heard or read about anyone actually with the problem and engine rebuilds happen to both models under the wrong circumstances. The 964 board guys think this problem is way overblown and Porsche did offer to repair engines with
visible oil leaking. On the negative side, more electronics and features mean more expensive maintenance and repairs on the 964s.

As for appearance differences, I'm not a purist. 99.99% of the people in the world think that the 964 has the classic 911 look, whether or not the bumpers are color-matched.

At the end of the day, I looked at the math. My 1992 is 5 years newer than a 1987. It is now 10 years old as opposed to 15. In five years, the 87 will be 20 years old and will qualify for an antique license plate in most states. I know everyone says it's condition not year or mileage that matter. Yet try selling a 20 year old car. It is simply not that easy.

Either way, 911 or 964, you'll have a heck of a ride. Enjoy.

Jeff Curtis

Sorry that sounded so biased towards the 3.6 cars - but figured someone asked my opinion...and I have a strong one!

Ed, I agree with you, drivers play an important role in "who's kickin' who's tail". I wasn't very aggressive in my SC, but my SC had tighter suspension and swaybars.

My C2's suspension is moderate when compared to the setup my SC had with 22mm/28mm torsion bars and 22mm swaybars front and rear.

I think I took out a whole new lease on life when I got my C2 on track last year...and 14 events later I wouldn't take my SC back! I love the power/torque the 3.6 powerplant delivers...but have learned to use the car beyond that - as I toss that puppy into turn after turn. <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />

NOW, the main think I enjoy is recovering from a slow turn with the torque of the 3.6 or any uphill esses like the Glen or VIR where you can "feather" the throttle to save your butt. In the SC, the gas was to the floor.

I have had a 3.2 Carrera catch me, but it was a lightened track car...and even the driver admitted he had to drive the **** out of the car to catchup, then he couldn't hang for long. He said the acceleration of my car was KILLING him, but on the twisty parts of the track, his car really shined.

Just relating what's happened on the track in the past year with me. I have seen guys that drive the hell out of an older 911 to where it's very impressive...but it was an RS clone with a 3.2 - so I didn't have any issues with him zinging by me in his 2000lb rocket.

Troy Matz

Given the rule of thumb of 10hp for every 100lbs then it's about a wash on the late 80s 911s vs the 964 as the latter sports an additional 350lbs of curb weight. My ROW 911 routinely trounces Camaro/Fireberd all makes due to their bloated 3500+ lbs they have to push around.

So . . . daily driver? A/C really works in 964.
Track or sportier driving? Much more in the aftermarket for the earlier 911.

and if you care about the overall auto market - it thought enough of the 964 to almost put Porsche out of business. FWIW.

DaveS

How about that other rule of thumb: $100 - $200 in necessary mods for every 1 HP increase? Makes the 964 a veritable bargain.

In addition, if the 964 almost put Porsche out of business because they couldn't make any money selling the car at $70-90K new, so be it. I tend to look at that (provided they didn't scrimp on quality, hand-made, etc.) as a good thing for the buyer.

Ed Bighi

Actually the hard times Porsche had were due to a lot of factors. One a Deutsch Mark at a very high value. I know because during that time I used that to my advantage selling used Porsches to Germans. Then you had a recession in the US, their strongest foreign market. And to top it off, Porsche had massively incresed their investments in facilities and the likes based on growth of sales in America in the late eighties expecting it to roll into the 90's. Little did they understand how financially overextended the average upper middle class American is in comparison to the European. As a result of that, vulnerable to even the slightest glith in the economy. Even the guy with the 80K car. That is what hurt the 964, even though it was the best sports car product of the early 90s.

Troy Matz

[quote]Originally posted by DaveS:
<strong>How about that other rule of thumb: $100 - $200 in necessary mods for every 1 HP increase? Makes the 964 a veritable bargain.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Troy Matz

[quote]Originally posted by DaveS:
<strong>How about that other rule of thumb: $100 - $200 in necessary mods for every 1 HP increase? Makes the 964 a veritable bargain.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry about the quote without reply above - still getting used to the system, here.

Guess I don't follow the conclusion above. A 3100 lb. 245hp 90-94 C2 less 10hp/100lbs gives us about 210hp when compared to a 2750lb 217hp 87-89 Carrera. Just don't get a C4 from this era for they are truly slugs by comparison.

However while we're on this rule-of-thumb pearls-of-wisdom and in agreement with some of the previous posters it's the torque and use of it that wins in the long run. Nod there to the C2.

Jim Michaels

I concur; C2, no contest in my mind. Yes, the late '80s Carreras were the end of the line for the "traditional" 911s. I had one and it was antiquated compared to the C2. Even my '84 944 was a more modern sports car. But enough people like antiquated to keep the prices of the later Carreras way up, and overlapping the prices of 964s. But if you drive both, you should know which feel you like more. I like the feel of more power, more comfort, more safety, more bla bla bla.

Jeff Curtis

Troy, a factory C2 (964) comes with 246BHP, not 210 as you stated...unless you were speaking of RWHP...but when compared to your 217HP for a late Carrera, I assumed you were talking BHP??

You can make all the aftermarket "bolt on" mods you want to a 3.2, be it a chip, exhaust, larger throttle body, ignition upgrades...you name it - it's just not going to catch a 3.6 out of the hole...or at the end of a straight - and that's what I meant by my previous posts.

I haven't made any modifications to my '91 964 drivetrain except for a LSD and a Fabiani sport muffler and "European Premuffler"...which replaces the catalytic converter. The latter has actually left me in a quandry as to whether it improved on HP or not. Oh yeah, I DID drill the holes in my airbox lid as well - as for a HP improvement?? ...could anyone tell if they've gained 6HP?? ...I think NOT!

I hate to put it in bare bones relative terms, I run the tracks of the East Coast and once a year, the Midwest...I don't want to start a "******** shootout" or anything...but I'm convinced that my 964 was the best decision I've made in years when concerned with track performance.

The other "stellar" decision was to get a little more aggressive in driving...of course, comensurate with the skills that I've gained throughout the events I've attended.

SO, I don't mean to sound like I'm claiming BIG unsubstantiated differences in performance, handling, you name it. I've just experienced it.

Some may ask, is it the driving skills I've gained in the process...or the 50BHP?? ...or the 300+ lbs?

I dunno...I think a fair answer would be BOTH!

I had to make some considerable suspension mods to feel comfortable in the 964, when compared to my SC...but I didn't make them in comparison as I think my SC was a bit "tighter".

I could only imagine the fun I'd have if I coupled the 3.6/G-50 drivetrain to my old SC...MY GOD!

Again, I don't mean to start any argument...I guess I'm just happy with my change of venue in the last year or so.

JackOlsen

[quote]I could only imagine the fun I'd have if I coupled the 3.6/G-50 drivetrain to my old SC...MY GOD! <hr></blockquote>

Don't stop there. Put the 3.6 in an early, 2370-pound car, and (in California, at least) you get the additional bonus of being able to kiss all smog worries goodbye. This allows you to strap on B&B headers, which cuts more weight and (along with a lightweight flywheel) increases throttle response and top end power even more.

It's the best of both worlds.

Alan Herod

Jeff, Troy is correct in his math - he subtracted the weight diference (3100 - 2750) divided by 10 to arrive at his 210 BHP answer. However, this formula does not seem to account for the torque associated with the larger engine or the realities of the track.