johnsopa

I'm looking to get back into a 964. Would prefer a C2 but am considering well maintained C4s. Purpose would be for occasional drives to work, weekends, etc. when weather is nice. Probably about 5k miles per year. NOT looking for a garage queen (that's our Boxster Spyder) nor a track car (that's my GT4) but instead a well maintained and good example that I can just drive on a regular basis.

Example 1: A '90 with under 50k miles. Completely original. A/C has been upgraded and clutch and flywheel have been replaced. Drops about a quarter-size amount of oil on the floor after a week of sitting. Engine has NOT been resealed. Drives well. All regular maintenance has been performed and records are present.

Example 2: A '90 but with over 150k miles. Engine has been completely rebuilt and, of course, resealed in the process. Clutch and flywheel have also been replaced. A/C also has been undated. Regular maintenance also done and records accounted for.

My thought process is that assuming price is right, both of these would be good cars and on par with a 92 or later car, all other things being equal. Here's why:

Example 1, drives well, decently low miles, and if I budget $5k or so for a reseal when the oil drops get too annoying (it's mainly a cosmetic issue, right?), then it'll be on par with a 92 or later car once that reseal is done.

Example 2, drives well, high miles, but the engine was completely rebuilt and resealed recently, and is therefore already on par with a 92 or later car.

Again, assuming that price is adjusted according for future reseal (example 1) or high miles (example 2), would you agree with my thinking that I shouldn't be hung up on looking only for a late 91 - 94 example? Some people I talk to are dead set against 1990 examples but the sense I get here is that the concerns are somewhat overblown and can be completely mitigated with a reseal and proper upgrades (FW and AC).

Thanks,

John

rkwfxd

I have a 90. Im not sorry.

Marine Blue

I initially had my concerns about buying a 90 but they were completely unfounded. Granted the previous owner had the engine resealed and lots of other items fixed and replaced. I'm about 6 weeks into ownership with no leaks and no issues.

I would buget about $12k for a reseal since it will require the engine to come out and it would make sense to address any other WYAIT items. Previous owner of my car spent about $13k on the reseal and that didn't include the top end, only cams. But it did include a host of other parts.

Something else to consider is a compression/leak down test, that will tell you if the engine needs more work.

Outside of that I tend to go for lower mileage cars since the cosmetics are usually significantly better than a high mileage car.

johnsopa

Thanks both of you.

Afshin, the other WYAIT items would be considered upgrades but not necessities, right? I'm quoting from Steve Weiner here -- "With RS cams, RS intake valves, a high-quality valve job, and a decent heat exchanger/muffler system, that 3.6 will make over 300 HP."

Also, just to make sure I understand this... When (not if) the leaking gets bad, it's a cosmetic/annoyance thing and not something that's going to lead to kaboom, right? I have zero problem with sticking an oil pan underneath for awhile. If the engine still feels good to me, I think I'd wait awhile to open it up.

Agree with this?

Marine Blue

The parts that were replaced on mine weren't upgrades, they were stock parts. Basically anything soft like oil tubes, vacuum lines, gaskets, rubber parts were all replaced along with having the cam shafts redone and a bunch of smaller parts. The fuel and air management was also replaced/rebuilt due to rough idle. You may not need the fuel management which would take off about $2k from the price but I would expect at least $9 - $10k to reseal since you really don't want to pay for that labor twice to change the small parts.

From what the previous owner told me on my car the leak was so bad that the car wasn't drivable. My guess is that the oil was burning on the exhaust and causing lots of smoke/fumes so when that happens you likely won't want to drive it.

Once the reseal is done the engines are as good as any other year. I would also say that a later 964 won't guarantee that it won't leak but it likely won't be as significant from what I have been reading.

dlpalumbo

I had to have my 90 C4 resealed for just the issue mentioned above, smoke and smell from oil dripping on exhaust. Also, depending on where oil is dripping, it can cover rear of car with oily film.

A low mileage car can be a problem depending on when the miles were put on. I would prefer car that had a few thousand miles per year put on it.

Many folks want later year 964s because of the fixes applied in 91. That being said, a well sorted early 964, 89-90, can be very reliable. I've owned mine 10 years and it has been solid.

I see quite a few folks here on the forum saying they want to get back in a 964. Makes me think twice about selling mine.

Good luck, Dan