Hi All,

I posted this question in the 911 section before I found this forum.

How do the maintenance costs of a non turbo late 80s 911
compare to those of the 930 version? I imagine the 930 is more
costly to maintain, but I have no info to back that up.

Everett

 

Many of the components are shared between the turbo and the naturally aspirated version. Where the Turbo has specific parts, they tend to be more expensive than the n/a equivalents (clutch and brake rotors, for example). Servicing the turbo engine can sometimes be more time consuming than an n/a car due to the additional components which may need to be removed for access.

Proper tuning (fuel mixture and ignition timing) is absolutely critical in a turbo. If these items are out of spec, you can easily cause serious damage (broken piston rings for example). Of course poor tuning is bad for an n/a car too, but add forced induction and this can cost big $ very quickly.

All that said, turbos can be reliable cars if properly cared for. Once you've sampled the performance of a turbo, an n/a car feels pretty tame. Then there is the constant desire to upgrade and modify...ends up costing more than maintenance.

I've been reading your posts regarding your search. No matter whether you choose n/a or turbo, I recommend that you go in with a decent size reserve for repairs and maintenance. Any of these cars are getting old and will need some attention no matter how well they pass a ppi.

 

The early turbo's with thermal reactor Heat exchangers were really hard on the heads due to the high heat, most of these have been fixed by now. All the turbo stuff tends to leak oil and this can be expensive to repair. If your main concern is repair costs I would stick with NA Porsche but these ain't cheap to repair either.
Phil

 

Thanks jwasbury....good information! I'm almost certian to buy a non-turbo car as the speed
and perfomrance aren't as important ot me as the handling of these cars and any added
cost factor in a turbo would probably be a wasted expense for me. Thanks very much for the insights,
having a cash reserve, regardless of which car I get, sounds like a very smart plan!

 

As mentioned, turbo vs non-turbo come down to extra time needed when repairing due to more components (IC, turbo,.....). Many parts are shared but what I find runs the cost up of a turbo vs. non-turbo are the turbo specific parts. Things like the floating brake rotors of the early models are $350+ each

Remember, only 23,000+ 930's were made. With such low volumes, these specific parts will be expensive.

With all of that said, there is nothing like owning and driving a turbo 911 compared to a non-turbo.

Buy it, with so few made they are all a part of the supercar history, it will be worth it.

 

Let's condense it all down...the 930 is nothing but a 911 with really low compression and a bunch of add-ons to get boosted air via a turbo (and some moderate suspension uprgrades). Pretty simple. The paybacks are phenominal. If you don't want one, then take my advice and never drive one. Make that mistake, and you'll be hooked.

 

First, I would never consider buying a torsion bar non turbo car (3.2 Carrera) and would buy a 964 or 993 because they are far superior cars in every respect. I would also rather have a 964 Turbo than a 930 for the same reasons. All turbos are more expensive to maintain and there is no getting around that fact, however, perhaps the largest issue in owning a turbo is that no one can leave them stock, so they get modded and blown up, or modded and driven hard, both of which increase the cost of ownership. I have experience with over 100 930/964 Turbo/993 Turbo cars.

 

WOW!

 

I dont know how there could be less maintenance on ANY car. My father has a 79' 930 that he has owned for about 10 years. My brother put a larger turbo,intercooler and complete B&B ehaust (by choice not necessity)It had the valves adjusted, clutch replaced and shocks when my brother bought it originally. Since then it has covered about 20kmi miles with just oil changes, spark plugs,wires, cap and rotor. It has ALWAYS started right up and ran 100%!!! I dont think you could ask for anything more!

 

About six times per year, this topic comes up. First of all, there's no firm multiplier by which 930 maintenance is more expensive than 911 maintenance. It just is. But even at that, it's difficult to get a handle on how much more expensive. As brutus pointed out, regular maintenance is no more expensive than in a normally-aspirated car.

However, the higher horsepower of the turbo cars and the higher heats generated in the engine compartment tend to make component life shorter. So while you hear of 911s that go 200-300K miles without the engine ever being opened up, it's pretty rare to hear the same of a 930. Most 930s don't seem to go 100K miles without some sort of engine rebuild. Whether that's due to true wearing out of engine components, or if it's just a matter of wanting more horsepower, isn't as clear IMO. But when you open up a 930 engine, open up your wallet as well. A 911 rebuild might cost $6-8K. A 930 rebuild could easily cost twice that. And then there's the "while you're in there" mentality that'll inflate that price by several thousands, even more.

 

yep mine very modded i drive the crap out of it and when a hose split on the ebc it broke all the rings, none of that was cheap. The 3.2 that my ex wife has and never drives. all it ever needed was the oil changed and the valves adjusted. was a blast to drive.....Until i drove the turbo....no turning back