worf928

So is he!

dcdude

Let me clarify- I know he should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when it comes to values, but I was just echoing Bruce Anderson's sentiment that '78 and '79 should be avoided due to electrical problems, vacuum door locks and A/C issues. When a neophyte hears "1980 and newer," doesn't it make sense to weigh in that info when shopping?

And I'm the last guy to say "old = bad, new = good." I have friends that do that for me. I'm more like old = simple which can be good. I've seen plenty of early models of everything that are flawless and late models that are beaten up by careless non-enthusiasts or leasees. In the later 911 world, old can even be better. Some people really favor the '87, '88, '89 and '95 and are much less interested in others in before, after and in between.

Finally, if my 993 were indeed a turd, why would I want to make the same mistake twice? You be the judge.

PS- thanks for coming over the our board. I think this is a healthy learning experience. We should do it more often, you're welcome any time.

Ispeed

Dave lives near me, just where he should. And I know how to get to Earl's too... My 928 is a product of Dave C.

JPTL

Chuck,
Nice looking car and color combo (I figured a 993 compliment is in order, given my post count).
Thanks for sharing.

hacker-pschorr

As the owner of a 79 and 81 - I disagree


Bruce Anderson as in the 911 guru??? Maybe you should be talking to Mark Anderson instead.

SharkSkin

It makes sense to weigh GOOD info when shopping, but IMHO the above is BAD info. Bruce Anderson seems like a less than ideal person to talk to about this -- whoever he is. My '78 feels a lot zippier than the stock 86.5 & S4 cars(AT) that I've driven, though I know I have nothing on them at the top end. I rarely fall behind such cars on fun drives. The early cars are a bit lighter and tend to have a lower final drive ratio -- also better cams than any of the later US 16V cars. Finding one that hasn't had the synchros abused might be a challenge but they're out there. The synchros on the later 5 speeds withstand abuse better, but if you're not going to abuse it it makes little difference. The 4-speed auto cars(84+ IIRC) are preferred over the 3-speed AT IMHO.

I would argue that the later cars, especially 84+, tend to have more electrical problems, and the electric door locks can do all manner of mysterious things, including locking your keys in the car on you. It's impossible to lock your keys in a 78/79 unless you do it via the hatch or possibly the sunroof. If you're very tall or want to be able to wear a helmet, you may prefer not to have a sunroof and a far higher percentage of early cars have no sunroof. The later electrical panels have the one advantage of using blade-type fuses, but they have a huge disadvantage in that the relay sockets are more fragile and can push through the panel upon reinsertion of a relay if they have become brittle over time(most have).

Also the later cars, especially S4+ have much more complex electrical systems. Easily twice as many switches, connections, sensors, etc. plus the later wiring diagrams are much harder to read -- sometimes you need Indiana Jones to decipher the hieroglyphics!

The AC on the later cars, especially those with rear air conditioning, can be more complex to service. The only downside to the AC on the early cars is that the expansion valve is a bit harder to R&R than the later design. The pressure hose on a car without rear AC can be removed for rubber replacement in a couple hours. With rear AC, this can only be done with the car on a lift, and only if you are willing to (a) cut the hard line and splice it back together later or (b) remove the engine.

16V engines are generally non-interference, though there is some debate as to whether the high-compression euros can become interference engines with carbon build-up. With proper timing belt system maintenance this should be a non-issue, but if the TB system fails on a 32V car it will cost you as much as the purchase price of a 78-79 car in nice shape to set it right(assuming you do your own wrenching). The same failure on a 16V car results in a tow home and just a few hundred $$ to set right.

The CIS injection of the 78-79 US and 78-84 ROW cars, once sorted out, is about as reliable as it gets IMHO. Approaching 5 years of ownership, I have never had to fiddle with it at all short of replacing vacuum hoses.

The 16V cars, especially the lower compression engines, can be had for $5K, another $5-6K gets you S4 horsepower by tacking on a supercharger. Add S4 brakes and you have a more reliable(IMHO) car with similar performance for the same $. If you blow up the engine you can find a replacement for $1K or less.

Now, if you really want to go crazy, obviously the S4+ cars have more potential. I believe it was Ken who saw nearly 70 additional CHP from tuning with a custom chip and minor exhaust mods. 500+ CHP is easily within reach with a supercharger or turbo.

dcdude

Dave^^

Bruce Anderson is a "senior"? editor at Excellence. He supposedly based is story from a poll he conducted amongst y'all right here. You may want to send that info to him and set him straight!

Thanks, JP. How long have you been in Potomac? I was Churchill '86 ("dcdude"). Grew up in the "rough part" between Postoak and Gainesborogh on Enid. The 'Skins are k-i-l-l-i-n-g me.

SharkSkin

Well, I guess I missed that poll. I have never heard of vacuum door locks cycling endlessly like the electric locks, and there is nothing inherently more problematic with AC or electrical design on the earlier cars -- except the ceramic fuses, but that's a non-issue if you replace them with glass fuses. I'll see if I can find Bruce's contact info in one of my Excellence issues... What issue did he make those statements in?

dcdude

^^It's the current issue. The story, something like "928 Market Report," should be mentioned on the cover. It's what started this whole issue rolling...

hacker-pschorr

There are more then a few threads in this forum about Bruce's comments and opinions on the 928

Mongo

Hmm I'm surprised the Children of the Corn aren't in there yet.. (951 guys)

dprantl

I usually advise people to go for '85 or newer 928's simply because of the substantial power increase and transmission synchros that are light years ahead of the older models. A US '85 5-speed is IMO the best value 928.

Dan
'91 928GT S/C 475hp/460lb.ft

SharkSkin

OK, got it... Dec '08 issue.

Let's see... paragraph 2... "928S's fabulous four valve DOHC V8"... The first "S" was a 16V in 1980, 32V became available in 85...

He also makes it sound like the switch to weak cams in '80 and the throttle-response-killing L-jet injection was a good thing. BTW my car has been running cleaner with every smog check -- CO about the same, HC dropping...

He doesn't seem to know that the early twin-disc clutch wasn't a problem in and of itself -- the problem was with Porsche (and other) mechanics who didn't know how to set it up right. Many people have actually put the twin-disc clutches in later cars, a point he seems to have missed.

AFAIK hydraulic damping was not a design feature of any 928 TB tensioner prior to the Porkensioner, an aftermarket product that became generally available in the last year or two.

He seems to think the GTs started in 1990, though the table in the sidebar correctly shows it available in 89.

Someone more familiar with the later cars might want to look over his statements about them. For example, he mentions that oil squirters that sprayed oil on the back sides of the pistons were standard in '87, but IIRC they were only included for a short time -- no mention of that. I thought the PSD was GTS only, but I could be wrong about that.

I'll have to try and dig up the thread where he did his research later on this evening when I have some time. He does make some good points along the way, but there are quite a few errors in the article.

Tampa 928s

Does this look like a Bug?

hacker-pschorr

Yes?