Brentflyfish

I have a couple questions and would love your opinions on the car in the link. I am looking for a nice 911 / 964 in the Nashville area if possible (south east is reasonable).

1. If price were not a concern (since they seem roughly the same) would you rather have a 3.2 911 or 3.6 964?

2. What year did the G50 start being used? Would it have been standard in a 1984?

3. I am interested in the car in the link below - currious to hear your thoughts. I received many more pics and the only visibl thing I can see is that the carpet needs replacing - it is rather faded. I assume that is a relatively easy and inexpensive item.

http://nashville.craigslist.org/cto/1075594928.html

DanielT

G50 for the 3.2 Carreras started in '87.
an '84 has the 915 gear box.
I had an '84 and an '87 before I got my current C2.
the '87 was far and away a better car than the '84, partially due to the G50, and some improvements with ventilation and dash.

As far as an '84 vs a 964. The 964 wins everytime in my book if both are similar condition cars.

Streetfighter

Drive a 3.2 and a 964 and see which one you like. Having driven both I like the 964 because it is a little bit more modern and has more power. The 3.2 is a great car earlier models had a 915 gearbox which was cable driven and takes some practice to get used to. The G50 is an easier gearbox to use and as mentioned above comes with the late model 3.2's. Drive as many as you can and make a decision.

cobalt

915 was not cable driven. cable driven tranny's didn't start until the 996.

I never owned a 3.2 but owned a couple of SC's. There isn't much difference between them. The 3.2 has electronic vs mechanical injection and a little more power but otherwise similar cars. The lighter weight and manual rack is a nice feel and great feedback compared to the 964 although the torsion bar suspension is less than desirable compared to the coil springs of the 964.

Both cars have their pros and cons. Both are a blast to drive and both are very capable when pushed. You decide what you like best. Any of us here will be in favor of the 964 because it is the car we chose.

If you want a more modern 911 the 964 has it all.

Brentflyfish

This, and the comments on the 911 forum is good feedback. I actually prefer the looks of the 964 and I am looking for a car that has classic appeal while is still modern enough to drive daily. I do NOT want a huge status symbol or a 911 that looks like a modern one. Not the message I am trying to send. That is why I have limited myself to the 911 / 964. The 964 looking a bit more modern but still classic car style. I am interested in cabs and coupes. My delimma is that to purchase, I have to sell off my beloved restored 1973 Land Rover Series III 109.

Kahdmus

Poor Rover..!

I was looking for almost exactly what you have stated above when I bought my first 964. These cars are classic, hand-built 911's in every way yet feel very modern in terms of handling and comfort. I love the older cars and hopefully will own a few in the future but as a daily driver they cannot compete with my 964. I believe it truly is the best of all worlds.

Brentflyfish

Good perspective - the part that concerns me is the running cost difference between the two. I have heard, granted mostly through horror stories, that 964 models tend to be a bit more effort and expense to keep running correctly.

Andy Roe

I wouldn't think too much about the difference in running costs as I don't think there is much difference apart from the annual service being a bit dearer.

Buy the car you like the best - as said test drive them both and see how they make you feel! Personally, I'd never sell my 964 for a 3.2, but would consider having a 3.2 and a 964 one day....

BlueHeeler

I was in the same situation deciding on a 911. I had planned to buy a 1987-89 3.2 targa.

The more I looked, the better the 964 started looking. They are like the 3.2, just a more refined in every way. Working AC is nice too.

Streetfighter

"That said, the 915 benefits enormously from regular clutch-cable adjustment. Clutch actuation in the G50 is hydraulic rather than by cable, and for that reason inherently self adjusting." Carrera 3.2 Owners Guide. 911 & Porsche World June 2008.
I think you just misunderstood what I meant by cable driven I was meaning the clutch with the early 3.2's. That clutch and gearbox takes practice to really master.

Turbohead

+1
Elliot

benzyne

I've got an SC and a 964 Turbo. I love both for different reasons. I've had the SC for a few years now and have it set up perfect. The 964 was recently bought and is in the process of being sharpened.

cobalt

Fair enough although I responded to what you wrote I agree the clutch does require adjustments but that is easily enough done every 15k miles when you should be addressing valve adjustment on these cars.

I agree the 915 is a tranny that requires finesse to drive properly. Assuming there are no linkage issues and the tranny is in top shape it still requires care and a slow hand to get right. I always used to tell people it is like making love vs the G50 is more like having sex.

DanielT

If you think a 915 is vague, try a tail shifting 901 in a 914. Makes the 915 feel like silk.

cobalt

I didn't find my 901 side shifter in my 74 914 2.0 liter to be much worse than my 915 in my SC's. A lot of the vague feel comes from elongated bushings. Nice thing about the 901 is it is the easiest tranny to work on. Incredibly simple design for a tranny. I used to be able to drop the 901 out of the 914 in under an hour repair it and have it back in the car the same day.