When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Hi all, I just joined this forum and am currently looking at getting a 930 Turbo as my first Porsche. I was wondering whether I can get some advice on what price I should be looking for. These cars have such a wide price range and I'm curious what's making some of them so expensive. I currently spotted a 1982 930 turbo with 90,000 miles and the dealer wants 68000 for it. Is this a good deal or over-priced? Any advice would be appreciated, thanks in advance!
In short, that actually sounds like a pretty good price. Of course condition and mileage are what matter in determining cost, but $68K sounds like the low end of 930 valuations. 90K miles is on the higher end. Not in a bad, unexpected way; the car is almost 40 years old. But rather from the stuff wearing out way. It seems that most 930s have an engine rebuild by the time they've got that much mileage. Whether that's to take care of oil leaks or because of turbo owners' love for more power is debatable. But if the car actually needs its motor rebuilt, that can easily run $20K, depending on the while-you're-in-there factor .
The 930 came in a couple different flavors. The early cars from '76 and '77 were 3.0 liter, non-intercooled cars. They had "turbo Carrera" badging on the back (as opposed to later cars, which just had "turbo"). You can tell the early cars from a distance because the rear whale tails were different, as they didn't have to house the intercooler. The later cars ('78 - '89) had 3.3 liter, intercooled motors. The tea tray (sushi tray) tails were boxier to accomodate the intercooler. But from '80 to '85 they were not officially imported into America, so an '82 car would have been a "black market" car. There used to be some stigma to Euro cars, but I think most of that has gone away and they're not any less desirable today.
The 3.0 cars seem to command more money, as they were the first of the breed and have a more raw driving experience. Odd, as for the longest time they were rather undesirable because of the smaller motors, lack of intercooler, and more difficult handling characteristics. But now they're more desirable. Go figure.
The '89 model year is also more desirable as they were the last of the line, and they offered a 5-speed transmission with a hydraulic clutch.
There are some detail differences in brakes and wheels for early vs later cars, but for the most part the 930 (other than the larger motor/intercooler part) was pretty similar for its model run.
Slant nose cars are also more desirable, though the dollar value can depend on whether or not it was a factory slant vs aftermarket.
What are you looking for in a 911? I think that matters as to whether or not you'd be happy with a 930.
In short, that actually sounds like a pretty good price. Of course condition and mileage are what matter in determining cost, but $68K sounds like the low end of 930 valuations. 90K miles is on the higher end. Not in a bad, unexpected way; the car is almost 40 years old. But rather from the stuff wearing out way. It seems that most 930s have an engine rebuild by the time they've got that much mileage. Whether that's to take care of oil leaks or because of turbo owners' love for more power is debatable. But if the car actually needs its motor rebuilt, that can easily run $20K, depending on the while-you're-in-there factor .
The 930 came in a couple different flavors. The early cars from '76 and '77 were 3.0 liter, non-intercooled cars. They had "turbo Carrera" badging on the back (as opposed to later cars, which just had "turbo"). You can tell the early cars from a distance because the rear whale tails were different, as they didn't have to house the intercooler. The later cars ('78 - '89) had 3.3 liter, intercooled motors. The tea tray (sushi tray) tails were boxier to accomodate the intercooler. But from '80 to '85 they were not officially imported into America, so an '82 car would have been a "black market" car. There used to be some stigma to Euro cars, but I think most of that has gone away and they're not any less desirable today.
The 3.0 cars seem to command more money, as they were the first of the breed and have a more raw driving experience. Odd, as for the longest time they were rather undesirable because of the smaller motors, lack of intercooler, and more difficult handling characteristics. But now they're more desirable. Go figure.
The '89 model year is also more desirable as they were the last of the line, and they offered a 5-speed transmission with a hydraulic clutch.
There are some detail differences in brakes and wheels for early vs later cars, but for the most part the 930 (other than the larger motor/intercooler part) was pretty similar for its model run.
Slant nose cars are also more desirable, though the dollar value can depend on whether or not it was a factory slant vs aftermarket.
What are you looking for in a 911? I think that matters as to whether or not you'd be happy with a 930.
Thank you for your detailed response Noah! I'm looking for a turbo as well as a classic look in a 911, so I've been looking at 964 and 993s, what are some down sides in a 930 that may affect the experience? Also from what I can tell the 930 the dealership has is a RoW version, would that affect the resale value at all?
I have a 930 as well as a 964. And I have some seat time in a 993TT.
The 930 is the most rudimentary of the three, obviously. You can fix just about anything on the car with a basic set of Craftsman hand tools, duct tape, and some bits of jumper wire. It feels the most basic and least refined. I think that comes through in the quality of the ride, the heft of the controls (steering/shifter/pedals), the feel of the steering, etc. The AC/heating sucks. The fuel injection is via 70s-era CIS. The first time you sit in the car the windshield feels bolt upright and about 4 inches in front of your face. The ergonomics and dash button layout make no sense. Everything is simpler in the 930. And I love it. Because it's so different than a modern daily driver, yet at the same time an intrepid car guy could daily drive a 930 if that was the goal. Stock turbo lag sucks. Minivans beat you across intersections. The 4-speed has long throws. The clutch is leg-press heavy (moreso if you're stuck in rush hour traffic). The steering and brakes are not power-assisted. But the steering wheel also feels directly connected to the two front wheels. The turbo rush is, well, intoxicating. The turbo burble on decel (especially when you've got a highway K-rail to your left) is childishly fun. And the 930 may be the best-looking 911 from Stuttgart of all-time.
The 964 is much more refined. There's power everything: steering, brakes, clutch--everything's lighter. The 3.6 has much better torque than the 930, but less of a top-end HP rush. I think a 964 feels like it's almost as fast as a 930, despite having 35 fewer HP. In stock form, the 964 suspension is too light, floaty, and soft. Better for a commuter, but less raw and special. Fuel injection is more modern. But there are also 20 more idiot lights on the dash to go wrong. While the 964 is pretty, it's not voluptuously sexy like a 930.
The 993 is even more creature comfortable than the 964. It's Camry-smooth. That's both good and bad, you know? The 993TT I've had the fortune to sample--with its 400 HP, twin turbos, and AWD--makes me feel like Superman. You're never in a wrong gear. You can always rocket out of whatever corner you're in. It's a hero-car. I'm guessing somewhere between the 964 and 993TT lies the driving experience of a normally-aspirated 993.
In the end, 911s may be pretty, but they're drivers' cars. They're not for sitting as garage queens, or for drag racing in a straight line (though there are certainly lots of owners who do so). I think they're most at home thrashing around corners, in canyons and on racetracks. Or you can hop in one and go for a 1000-mile roadtrip. It's the driving experience that makes a 911 special and unlike most other cars IMO.
You also asked about RoW vs US cars. I don't think that makes much of a difference anymore. I think it did in the past, and I think it was a combination of snobbery as well as the wide range of workmanship that went into federalizing Euro cars for the US market. Then there may have been issues with insurance coverage of Euro cars. But I think time has muted a lot of those prejudices. If I were looking to buy a 930, condition of the particular car would trump its country of origin. Some people prefer the Euro cars, even. An '82 would have to be a RoW car, as none were imported into America by Porsche between '80 and '85. I don't think that affects resale value, but then again I didn't buy my car with that ever as a consideration. I bought it because it was the car I wanted when I was a kid.
Noah, considering you have both, do you feel like the 930 contrasts well with the 964 or does it feel a little redundant?
I may have an opportunity to pick up a pretty stock ‘78 930 to go with my 964, and I’m debating if it would be worth it. I used to have a turbo-clone ‘79 SC and I enjoyed the feeling of the shifter and cable clutch and manual steering, and I think the 930 would be similar enjoyment, plus more power. However, when I owned both the SC and 964 at the same time, it felt a little repetitive. Maybe a built 930 wouldn’t?
I just sold a 1988 G body 911 and still own a 993. I previously owned a 1986 930 as well. I can tell you from experience the 930 will be the least fun to drive around town. Not only because of the heavier controls but because they really need to be at high rpm on boost to have any power. The naturally aspirated cars will perform much better in that scenario. That being said, out on the open road or highway a 930 is loads of fun. Just depends on what type of driving you'll be doing.
Noah, considering you have both, do you feel like the 930 contrasts well with the 964 or does it feel a little redundant?
I may have an opportunity to pick up a pretty stock ‘78 930 to go with my 964, and I’m debating if it would be worth it. I used to have a turbo-clone ‘79 SC and I enjoyed the feeling of the shifter and cable clutch and manual steering, and I think the 930 would be similar enjoyment, plus more power. However, when I owned both the SC and 964 at the same time, it felt a little repetitive. Maybe a built 930 wouldn’t?
Yes, there's redundancy in that they're both air-cooled 911s. To Mrs. Noah, they might as well be the same car. At the same time, my 930 is a coupe and my 964 is a targa, so they give me different experiences when I'm driving them. And to Porsche nerds like us, the differences in driving experience are significant. Plus, the 930 has that turbo boost which kicks in once the tach spins past a certain rpm. You don't get that in a NA car. A built 930 could be an absolute beast, depending on how many dollars you're willing/able to spend. I suppose the benefit of the '78 930 you're interested in is that there isn't any depreciation with these cars. If you buy it and don't like it, you can likely sell it without financial loss.
My 930 and 964 are both stock. I wouldn't say the 930 is un-fun to drive around town. I have a smile on my face every time. But the turbo lag and heavy controls (steering, brakes, clutch) don't make it an ideal city car.
I have a 930 as well as a 964. And I have some seat time in a 993TT.
The 930 is the most rudimentary of the three, obviously. You can fix just about anything on the car with a basic set of Craftsman hand tools, duct tape, and some bits of jumper wire. It feels the most basic and least refined. I think that comes through in the quality of the ride, the heft of the controls (steering/shifter/pedals), the feel of the steering, etc. The AC/heating sucks. The fuel injection is via 70s-era CIS. The first time you sit in the car the windshield feels bolt upright and about 4 inches in front of your face. The ergonomics and dash button layout make no sense. Everything is simpler in the 930. And I love it. Because it's so different than a modern daily driver, yet at the same time an intrepid car guy could daily drive a 930 if that was the goal. Stock turbo lag sucks. Minivans beat you across intersections. The 4-speed has long throws. The clutch is leg-press heavy (moreso if you're stuck in rush hour traffic). The steering and brakes are not power-assisted. But the steering wheel also feels directly connected to the two front wheels. The turbo rush is, well, intoxicating. The turbo burble on decel (especially when you've got a highway K-rail to your left) is childishly fun. And the 930 may be the best-looking 911 from Stuttgart of all-time.
The 964 is much more refined. There's power everything: steering, brakes, clutch--everything's lighter. The 3.6 has much better torque than the 930, but less of a top-end HP rush. I think a 964 feels like it's almost as fast as a 930, despite having 35 fewer HP. In stock form, the 964 suspension is too light, floaty, and soft. Better for a commuter, but less raw and special. Fuel injection is more modern. But there are also 20 more idiot lights on the dash to go wrong. While the 964 is pretty, it's not voluptuously sexy like a 930.
The 993 is even more creature comfortable than the 964. It's Camry-smooth. That's both good and bad, you know? The 993TT I've had the fortune to sample--with its 400 HP, twin turbos, and AWD--makes me feel like Superman. You're never in a wrong gear. You can always rocket out of whatever corner you're in. It's a hero-car. I'm guessing somewhere between the 964 and 993TT lies the driving experience of a normally-aspirated 993.
In the end, 911s may be pretty, but they're drivers' cars. They're not for sitting as garage queens, or for drag racing in a straight line (though there are certainly lots of owners who do so). I think they're most at home thrashing around corners, in canyons and on racetracks. Or you can hop in one and go for a 1000-mile roadtrip. It's the driving experience that makes a 911 special and unlike most other cars IMO.
You also asked about RoW vs US cars. I don't think that makes much of a difference anymore. I think it did in the past, and I think it was a combination of snobbery as well as the wide range of workmanship that went into federalizing Euro cars for the US market. Then there may have been issues with insurance coverage of Euro cars. But I think time has muted a lot of those prejudices. If I were looking to buy a 930, condition of the particular car would trump its country of origin. Some people prefer the Euro cars, even. An '82 would have to be a RoW car, as none were imported into America by Porsche between '80 and '85. I don't think that affects resale value, but then again I didn't buy my car with that ever as a consideration. I bought it because it was the car I wanted when I was a kid.
Thank you very much Noah, it did answer many questions I had. I will probably still go with a 930 turbo considering it's more raw and classic. But after all everything comes down to price and the kind of deal I run into.
I just sold a 1988 G body 911 and still own a 993. I previously owned a 1986 930 as well. I can tell you from experience the 930 will be the least fun to drive around town. Not only because of the heavier controls but because they really need to be at high rpm on boost to have any power. The naturally aspirated cars will perform much better in that scenario. That being said, out on the open road or highway a 930 is loads of fun. Just depends on what type of driving you'll be doing.
That is something to consider. I will probably be doing most driving in town but I do have another car that I can use for that and use the 930 for canyons or open roads.
I bought my 930 last year. Traded a GT350 for it and glad I did. I thoroughly enjoy my 930 street and highway. Have done some mods and currently sorting out a lean fuel issue but otherwise has been great.
I bought my 930 last year. Traded a GT350 for it and glad I did. I thoroughly enjoy my 930 street and highway. Have done some mods and currently sorting out a lean fuel issue but otherwise has been great.
I have an 89 with the 5 speed and supercup muffler from fabspeed. Love the muffler sounds, close to a zork, but a little quiter. I had an 86 930 back in the 90s. I find the g50 way better for city driving.
I have an 89 with the 5 speed and supercup muffler from fabspeed. Love the muffler sounds, close to a zork, but a little quiter. I had an 86 930 back in the 90s. I find the g50 way better for city driving.
I haven't driven the g50 so don't have a point of reference. I don't find the 4 speed bothersome though. Car definitely needs a muffler mod, I went with Rarlyl8 (not the loud option or zork, name escapes me) and it's got a nice sound now even at idle.
Bought my ‘82 930 a year ago, Swiss model, never federalized, engine and trans completely gone thru, 67,000 miles, for $75k. Purchased from a private owner...I also own a 964, SC, and a 997.1 turbo. Sounds like $68k could be a pretty good price...
I own an 88 and an 89. 5 speed definitely makes the car more user friendly but that's everything this car is not supposed to be so I end up driving the 4 speed a lot more often.
12-10-2020, 12:23 AM
looking for some advice on getting a 930 turbo
