markjmills

This is my first post on Rennlist. I'd been browsing here for years before finally becoming a member a few months ago; membership coincided with kicking up a notch my search for the right car for me. My ex and I previously owned an '84 Carrera 3.2, and I'd first intended buying something similar for myself now that I'm 'single' again...but soon the "why not upgrade" bug bit -- I think a few people here might understand that! -- and I began looking at Carreras of later and later vintage, then 964s, and now, the RS America, which I've decided is IT for me. I'm looking for a car that can function as a street driver, with occasional forays in DE events, and possibly some rallying and auto-xing -- a basic 50/50 car, upped from stock but not ready to race.

I recently drove two RSAs in which I'm interested, a black '94 in NJ and a white '93 in PA, each a very strong candidate in its own way. Both have had moderate suspension work done, secondary muffler removed, and uprated brakes (the '94, Big Reds; the '93, black turbo 965 fronts, and the standard RSA fronts moved to the rear). The '94, with 46K miles, is a bit better cosmetically, nice paint, few visible scars, and a good interior, while the '93, with c. 54K miles, is a little rougher inside and out, especially around the front bumper from stones, but not unduly so. Neither is a concours-winner, just nice drivable cars -- and I don't have a wife to say she doesn't like the ride.

So far they seem pretty evenly matched, right? The main difference is in their engines. The '93 is essentially stock, save for the removal of the rear blower motor (something I need to find out more about), but it has a couple of minor oil leaks (rear pulley and cam boxes) that will factor into any price discussion. The '94, on the other hand, has some significant engine mods: Carrillo connecting rods, a camshaft from an SC(!) that makes the idle somewhat lumpy and mean-sounding, an aftermarket chip, and a raised compression ratio are the major things I was told. It might seem to be a 'better' engine, but the test drive I took on suburban roads wasn't enough to highlight any great performance differential, though it probably would be apparent on the track. However, it's those very engine mods that have me wary of the '94 -- my concern is that the motor might grenade much more readily than a stock engine, and I'm far enough past my Boy Racer days that stoplight Grands Prix have no appeal, so I don't think I'd miss the extra ponies.

Price is something of a factor -- although I haven't talked specific prices on the '93, somewhere in the middle $30s seems a realistic price with the oil leaks and a few other area addressed; the '94 would be in the lower-mid $40s, and the seller said he would warrant necessary repairs for a few months after purchase (but the exact length and parameters of any warranty were not discussed). The multi-thousand $ difference, however, would pay for a lot of minor fix-ups to the '93, and I don't expect any engine problems with it (the engine felt really sweet, and had a recent leakdown in which 5 cylinders were between 2% - 4%, and the worst cylinder was at 6%; compression numbers were also very good). The '93 would also come with an extra set of wheels (I'd have 2 pair of 7s and a pair each of 8s and 9s), 5-point harness, front strut tower brace, and other goodies. I would have a full major service done before driving either car, and anything that needed fixing would be done at the inception, as I haven't the time, tools, or space to undertake any projects myself, so I'd want to know that everything necessary has been fully addressed.

Another difference between the cars is their past usage. The '93 has had few miles put on in the last few years, but when driven has been used primarily as a DE car, not a daily driver. The '94, surprisingly given the motor mods, has not seen such hard use according to the seller, so its miles probably have been less stressful to the components (though the point of modding the engine and not using it escapes me).

So am I crazy not to jump on the newer '94 car with fewer miles in better cosmetic condition and with a racier motor, but for much more money? The advantages of the '94 -- primarily in cosmetics and engine -- are not the mosr important personal factors for me, as cosmetics don't give me any extra thrill ('good enough' is fine by me) and I don't really need or want the modded engine. The advantages of the '93 -- a price that would seem to be more in line with the market value, and the fact that I really liked driving it, it had a good feel -- make me lean toward it, though it violates Bruce Anderson's Rule of buying the newest, best condition car you can find. Moreover, I like and trust both sellers...they're both true Porsche-o-holics, and I have no concern about them being scam artists concealing serious problems.

What would you do? And if there are open questions I haven't asked, what questions should I be asking?

Thanks to all, Mark

74carreraturbo

It sounds like you just need to decide what you think is the best fit for you.. Personally, I'd take the 94 because i'm 30, not married and I love modified porsches The main factor in my decision however would be service history. Take a good read through all the receipts for both cars to see what work(if any) was done... As a rule of thumb, a well maintained car(even modified) should give you alot of worry-free fun. Also, if you notice, alot of the 964s on this site have been modified in one way or another so if you think you're past your boy racer stage, i'd rethink that until you have the car for a few months

Sounds like either way you can't go wrong, just get the PPI's done and figure out what color your ex would hate to see you in most

Chris M.

Assuming it checks out in a PPI, I'd choose the 93. I wouldn't buy a car like the 94 with all those engine mods, especially for what seems like an unnecessary premium. There's no telling what was really done and what it will do to the longevity. As you've already noted, people don't modify motors in a search for more power and then not drive them hard.
Just curious, why an RSA over a standard C2? Good luck in your search.

ltc

93.
Also make sure that a distributor vent kit has been installed; otherwise consider replacing distributor belt as part of 'things to do list'.

Gary R.

I'd go with the 93 and put the money into safety improvements like seats, harnesses and a roll bar. They way I look at mods is I will pay a small percentage of a mod cost ONLY if it's something I would have done, otherwise nothing (maybe even a negative effect on final price).

roketman

buy the one with the best motor.the oil leeks on the less expensive one could cost you serious bucks later.I feel that your best bet is to buy the nicest one you can afford.

Gary R.

I'm with you, you can find a really good C2 for $25K (or less) and put the $10+K differential into (safety and suspension) improvements that will make it blow away the RSA.. It's funny, but I recently read that the RSA was the "cheapo" American version of the C2 at the time created to increase lagging sales. IMO it has no advantages on a stock C2 to warrent a $10K premium if you are going to actually USE it. I've even heard of some guys that have added power steering to their track cars to make them more "friendly" to drive. Put $20K into that $20K C2 and you have a pretty damn developed track car..

dave morris

I wouldn't go with the '94 unless you know and have the highest regard for the shop that did the motor work. It could be a great motor ... or an enormous can of big worms. But even if it checks out, I wouldn't pay a premium for an "improved" motor.

I'd be leaning toward the '93.

Good luck.

Heirsh

c2 at 20-25k + full engine rebuild done right = same price as rsa.

no brainer to me.

/shrug

If you are stuck on an rsa (nothing against them myself, just not willing to pay the premium for the few advantages) then i'd probably look at the 93. SC's make me nervous, especially when you mention you didnt feel a difference driving it.

Manny Alban

Is using SC cams a hot setup for the 964's? I remember reading that the SC guys put 964 cams in their 3.0 motors.

I'd go with the 93. With the stock motor, you can add headers (even ones that have heat), a chip and some other bolt on stuff for a mild, but noticeable improvement. Even better, go with a LWF and different 3-4-5 gears

TR6

If it were me, I'd go with the 93. The 94's motor would scare me away. I think you used the right word when you said 'grenade'. That motor is a huge and potentially expensive unknown. The difference in price can go a long way to respray a front bumper cover and fix oil leaks, for example.

Regarding the C2 vs RSA thing that always comes up in these posts, those are very valid arguments about the c2 being about $10K less, but it comes down to the fact that some people have made up their mind that they want an RSA because of its rarity, unique serial number, OEM fixed tail, manual steering, phase of the moon, whatever! That's an individual decision. I will say that as an owner of an RSA, it was very much worth it to me because I like unique cars with low production numbers and I plan to keep it for a lonnngggg time. As the years go by, the value gap between an RSA and a garden variety C2 will likely widen, if you care about such things. Your mileage may vary. Either choice is right for different people for different reasons. If you've made up your mind that, as you said, an RSA is IT for you, then that discussion is moot for this thread anyway.

northfire

I would lean towards the 93. Anyone can work on a 964 engine, but not everyone can do professional work on a 964 engine.

pcarcraig

It sounds like your gut has already told you to buy the '93. Unless you can get comfortable with the motor by knowing what is in it and who built it, then it doesn't sound like the car for you. Also, the engine mods don't seem to do much for you, either aurally, or seat of the pants, so why buy it. Finally, fewer miles, stone chips, and a later production date don't necessarily add up to a car in better condition, so the '93 may well be the one Bruce Anderson's advice is pointing toward.

K964

I'd go with the '93 as well. The nice thing about the RSA is that it will hold its value better than most P-cars. I may not agree with the high prices some of these cars but it is what it is.
Mike

Nader Fotouhi

IMO, the 93 is the way to go. another thing to consider is whether you might have a hard time finding someone who is willing to work on that Franken engine.

Although I agree that RSA is going to keep its value compared to a C2/C4, unless you have a burning desire to own a special series car, a C2 would be just as nice and leave you money to take care of the car.

A RSA without sunroof and A/c would be a nice base for a race car, though.

Good luck