Jordan_4WS

I am getting ready to sell my Honda Prelude, and am looking to buy an early 911. i am looking at 911sc's and late 70's 911S's. My only concern is that I have been told by EVERYONE that these cars are extremely unreliable and will cost me a fortune in maintanence. Is this true, or is this an overexageration? For a nicely maintained late70's 911, am I looking at poor reliability, or will it be somewhat reliable? About what I am looking at a year in maintanence, and how often do they usually need work?

This will be my only car, but I will likely only be driving it once or twice a week; so reliability is important but not crucial. Does anyonehave any input?

Also for looking at 911s, what kind of mileage should I be considering? I have read about the main issues with the corresponding years, but want to be extra careful. Anything particularly importnatn to consider, or is it primarily a matter of how it looks at the PPI?

Thanks, Jordan

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

Hi Jordan:

First, I must say that IMHO, reliability IS important; a car that is unreliable is a liability, not an asset,....

That said, I'd suggest an SC for a pretty "bulletproof" car that needs very little special maintenance. These are among THE most durable cars Porsche ever produced.

Choose one based on physical condition and a very thorough PPI carried out by an honest & competant Porsche specialist. Having all the maintenance records from new is also very important. As long as you are not picky about color, you'll be able to find a good example.

Don't focus as much on price, as on condition.

JackOlsen

You're putting two different 911 models in the same pool, when in fact they couldn't be more different, in terms of reliability. The 78-83 911SC's 3-liter motor is famous for its durability. The SC's occasionally snap head studs, but a good pre-purchase inspection and thorough look at the car's repair documentation can minimize the risk of this costing you a top-end rebuild.

The 74-77 cars are notorious for being just the opposite. Their magnesium engine cases tended to leak, and also to allow head studs to pull out. The US-mandated emissions control equipment the cars were saddled with between 1975 and 1977 served to overcook the already-vulnerable engines even more.

There are great examples of the 74-77 cars out there, with upgrade work that will insure as long a life as most other 911's, but they are far less common than the ones with shadier histories. Not surprisingly, the 74-77 cars are a typical 'first-911' purchase. They look just like most other 911's, and can be had pretty cheaply. But if they haven't been properly maintained and updated, the first-time owners end up broke, angry, or both.

Oh, and based on my own 911 shopping experience, every seller will tell you that the car they're selling has been properly maintained and updataded. Then, they'll either have the receipts and documentation to back it up, or they won't.

And even some of the ones with documentation will be lying through their teeth.

Caveat Emptor.

Sonic dB

Have you looked into buying an 80s Carerra? More friendly as a daily driver and still a kick *** car.

Mine is the daily driver and I love it. Runs like a top and handles like a good woman. I did have to replace the clutch immediately after I purchased it, (I knew this going in) and did some misc. repairs...but I am set now.

Borrowing any catastrophes (knock on wood) I dont expect to be pouring much more cash into this car for a long time.

Are 911s unrelable? Hardly...if you purchase a good one with a PPI (pre purchase inspection). Are they money pits? They can be, if you buy one with problems + take it to the mechanic to get it worked on.

Its all relative, you get out what you put in.

Sonic dB

Since you are in SoCal...there are a couple of sweet looking Carerra Targas down here in Hermosa on PCH. They are in lots side by side from each other. One brown, the other red. The brown one has a price tag of $12900 in the window...could be a nice buy.

Jordan_4WS

All reasonable points. Any thoughts on buying a 911 with a rebuilt motor/tranny? Is this a bad idea cause a possibly incompotent mechanic, or with a successful PPI might it be a good idea? I found a clean '75 911 with a 6000mile 3.0 motor, and the tranny having been rebuilt about 1000 miles ago. It looks pretty clean from the phots and appears to have a nice body/paint. Any opinions?

Sonic: where is the place you are reffering to, and do you have any information about the car?

Jordan

Sonic dB

Some will say that a properly rebuilt 911 engine will last as long as a new one...emphais on the word 'properly'.

The cars are in lots that are back to back right on PCH in Hermosa Beach. I dont know the name of the dealers though. One of them may be Caseys Classics. They are on the corner of PCH and Artesia/Pier Ave.. The brown Targa is right out there, it has a tail on it and looks pretty nice from the road. The red Cab is down at the next lot. It has gold rims that probably look a little dated to most. If you are in the area, just cruise down PCH and you cant miss them.

If you are interested, I can stop by there tomorrow and get the basic details on the cars + the names of the dealers. The Brown Targa really looks sharp, and could be a good buy at $12.9, but there are a lot of variables on it to be found out first.

CDiercks

I think Porsches are one of the most reliable cars ever built (with the exception of the mag case ones). What you have to remember is that you are buying a car that is over 20 years old. It is hard to compare reliability of a twenty year old car with that of a Honda less than half that age. Seals wear with age, rubber rots and cracks. Most of my maintenance is due to the age of my car. It tends to nickle and dime me for things like brake lines, light bulbs... On the other hand, I don't mind a bit spending a little extra each month to keep it in tip top condition. My car has NEVER not started. The PO of my car used it as a DD, and he also said that it never failed to start and get him to work. I would also say stay 78 or newer. A rebuilt 915 tranny is deffinately a plus. Good luck!

ps: Porsche started galvanizing in 76 I think. So rust can be an issue for the older ones. Since your in CA, probably not as big of an issue as here in the midwest.

geo.aigel

A 74-77 can be a good buy if the engine is rebuilt properly. What you want is receipts that show a reputable shop did the work. I think there is hardly any cars left from 74-77 that haven't been gone through. Some came apart as early as 50k miles. Not only the case was trouble, I think there were problems with the valve guides too and the thermal reactors did the rest.

So, that 3.0 conversion for example can be a very good buy. The earlier cars are a bit lighter which is nice. On the other hand, the pre 78 also has narrower rear fenders which makes it look a bit starved next to an SC. You are in California, so if you look at something old with a newer engine, consider a 73 or even 74 which will be smog excempt.

If you do have time, get Randy Leffingwell: Porsche 911 buyer's guide. It is an excellent book that will give you every years problems etc.

For stock reliability, you can't beat the SC (78-83). I have an 81 with 150k miles that hasn't had anything done to the engine. Get ready to spend money on suspension (shocks, bushings) and some rubber part you may think of (windshield and back window tend to leak for example because the rubber cracks). This is true especially on cars with higher mileage but also the low mileage examples will have their troubles in the rubber department.

You are buying a classic car, so get ready to spend some money. Maybe you can do some of the minor stuff yourself to save some money and get to know the car better.

I'd buy one again any day. It sure beats having a car payment!

Cheers, George

MAS

"I think there is hardly any cars left from 74-77 that haven't been gone through"

I agree. With all due respect to other opinions here, I see the 2.7 head stud issue raised in all of the forums almost daily. However, this serious problem plagued the 99% of the 2.7 engines within their first 50,000 miles. In other words, unhappy owners would have had this engine problem within the first few years of ownership... 20 (or more years) ago.

You may want to do a "Search" on this forum (and Pelican Parts) to see:

1) How many times this 2.7 issue gets raised by prospective buyers... but more importantly...

2) How many current 2.7 liter owners are having pulled head stud problems. I haven't seen any... probably because all (or most) of these engines were rebuilt/upgraded long ago.

-MAS

geo.aigel

"This will be my only car, but I will likely only be driving it once or twice a week; so reliability is important but not crucial. Does anyonehave any input? "

I forgot to add this: You want to make sure you drive your CIS system equipped car once a week. And you want ot make sure your drive gives it plenty of room to breathe (rpm) and spans more than 30 minutes. The CIS does *not* like to sit. Once you own a 911, this will be easy to accomplish. I have a 10 minute drive to work but tend to take the 2.5 hour detour home, at least once a week, driving a nice scenic loop through the hills.

When I got my car, it drove okay, but i truly could feel a performance increase after starting to drive it on a regular basis. You want to make sure there isn't a chance for cobwebs to grow on your injectors, the fuel system and the piston tops. No car likes to sit, but I think it especially is true for the flat 6 with CIS.

Cheers, George

RG5

Just to digress slightly, how does the duarability or bulletproofness of the SC compare to the subsequent early 80s Carrera? Are the Carreras equally or more so 'bulletproof' compared to the SC (with their superior chain tensioners etc), or is there something particular about the SC engine that makes it better than the Carreras.

Richie

waybrig

Richie,

From everything I've seen/read the mid to late 80's Carrera's are as durable (if not more) than the SC's. The Carrera's also come with a number of updates as well as more power. I think the focus of this discussion has been on the SC's since the original poster seems to be in that price range more than the Carrera range. I think most would agree that if the price difference is not an issue, the 84-89 Carrera's are the more desirable years.

Sonic dB

MAS....your argument seems worthy on the surface.

But go to Pelican board...and find the thread on "How Many Miles does your Car have?"

They put together a chart of all of the forum members who have had major work done on the cars...... by FAR the 2.7s had WAY more rebuilds done to them than any other.

The SCs were first for reliability, with a narrow lead over the Carerras (it was close), then the Pre-74s and then way behind were the 2.7s.

So, what you are saying makes sense...however many of the 2.7 owners had had major work done on the car, most likely recently and not 20 years ago. That is why there is still some concern...unless you buy a car that you KNOW had the work done already and properly of course.

Sonic dB

Here is the thread on Pelican. Check it out:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showt...how+many+miles